Madeleine Bunting, frequent columinist of the Guardian newspaper of the UK, is know for her outrageous and controversial columns. A regular in "Comment is Free" on the Guardian site, she attracts a huge amount of ire (as well as support) from the public. But in this and in several similar editorials published in the past few days on Benedict's remarks, she has placed herself so far into the lunatic gallery of "blame the messenger" that I fear she will never recover.

The Pope made a speech that advanced the thought that conversion or religious discourse through the sword was unacceptable. That is the thesis that should be debated. Who cares about the Pope's past - and using it as a flail to discredit anything that the man can ever utter is unfair. The point is that the man said that faith must not be forced - and rational discourse should be the rule now.

No where does it say that both sides of this "debate" - Islam or Catholcism - have clean hands - Tours, the Siege of Vienna, the Crusades and the Inquisition are all dark spots on both sides. So please don't start the "he hit me first" school of debate to justify why the subject cannot be broached for debate.

I find the most troubling passage this one from the story:

An elderly Catholic nun has already been killed in Somalia, perhaps in retaliation for the pope's remarks;

and contrast it with similar remarks by Ms Bunting on the Guardian site on September 18 (which ignited a firestorm of debate):

An elderly Catholic nun has already been killed in Somalia and tragically other good people could lose their lives for the foolishness of this global leader. (september 18)

Which essential holds Benedict responsible for her murder. So to speak is now to kill.

This attitude was echoed on NPR (Diane Rehm - Sept 19) by a Islamic scholar of a major US university - that the Pope's statements "themselves are acts of violence".

So we now have a situation where mere words are violence and justify all actions taken against them. Sorry - Western liberal tradition says not. People like Ms Bunting are just the fellow travellers that try to gloss over the facts that rational discourse cannot sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, no matter who is the person doing the speaking. Dark Ages indeed: Muzzling speech by writers like this to vent their dislike of others will send us back into that period faster than they can imagine.

Purr, uh my name is uh, uh yeah...John Smith. I live down the street. I want to vote here.

The premise here is that producing an ID is an onerous burden to vote. So, may I ask what is the suggested alternative (I did not seem to find that suggested in the article). Show up to vote the day of the election, pencil in hand? Have a voter ID tattooed on your forehead at birth?

No one supports suppression of any voter's right to cast their ballots. But at the same time, we also have a responsibility to insure that the votes that are cast are legally valid - that means some form of regulation of the elections. That means that states require voters to register (free), and then regulate their casting ballots to a specific precinct on selected days. (absentee ballots of course expanding the geographic and time opportunities).

If producing an ID is a burden - how on earth can the items above not be construed as an equal burden. Registering must be done at specific offices; ID must be presented there. Voting at a precinct where you live may not be near your work location - so how do you handle that? The list goes on ... any system requires that some effort be made by the voter before he walks in the voting booth.

I frankly tire of the arguments on this subject, and how so many people can become concerned over fraud in voting machines while not being concerned over the other parts of the process - such as being a qualified voter (because there are many things that can remove you from eligibility - citizenship, felonious behavior or just apathy in not registering in the process)

We come back to the point - rights imply responsibilities. No one can support making the process so difficult that people cannot vote - but there is an equal responsibility to insure that voting is done with some rules. I don't want dead or nonexistent people voting - so what is the system to make sure that does not happen.

Or is the suggestion here just that you need to show up and...Purr?