And you should feel bad, for your assumptions; I drive great little gas-miser Tercel. But my son and his wife have a Brady Bunch family of 4 kids, and for 3 years had an SUV. They didn't own it to show off the size of my boy's testicles.

I do not hold myself out as all-knowing about how to cure reliance on gasoline-fueled cars, but I've read enough to tentatively assume there is not now any such thing as a feasible replacement that significantly reduces pollution. That is not to say we ought to stop looking, just that, as far as I am aware, the alternative does not yet exist.

So....GG is gay. It therefore follows that he should wish to wage war on Iran, and if he does not wish to do so, he loves its President and fails to be in solidarity with his Iranian "brothers and sisters" -- all of whom would no doubt love to have U.S. bombs dropping on them.

And if someone comes and makes what I think are serious accusations -- and false accusations -- and refuses to substantiate them while insisting on repeating them, it shouldn't surprise anyone that my "tone" is going to be less than appreciative.

There just has to be something unreasonable about that position. Let me ponder on it and I'll get back to you.

Every once in a while some one or other gives you static for having no sense of humor, Mona. Guess they're wrong.

Actually, I have a really strong but peculiar sense of humor. There are things that strike me as hilarious which have me laughing until tears are rolling down my face, where most others think I'm nuts for it. Like that scene in the movie The Witches of Eastwick where the hex placed on the minister's wife causes her to endlessly vomit cherry pits? I played that part over and over, shrieking and crying in hysterics until I was limp.

The problem in comments sections is that when reading, I am too literal-minded, and am aware that I sometimes miss those whose intention is lampooning or humor.

And all the chicks on UT have pistol-whipped [Shooter] at least once.

Oh, WT, that is so hot (and true). ;)

I'm sure that everything Ahaminejad says is the absolute truth

and a reflection of his god like stature as a world leader on par with the Dalai Lama. And anyone who disagrees with that in the least is a dirty zionist neoncon [sic] white slaver pig bastard who eats babies.

Why, yes! Just today Glenn sent that memo to "those of us in the know." He feels Ahaminejad should actually be the next Dahli Lama, so as to make friendly with China. How on earth did you guess?

For me, this is not a "yes" answer. I take the concept of "law" seriously. It doesn't just mean some rules that people throw together because they seem good and fair and then impose on others. It has to have at least two aspects that the Nuremberg judgments lacked: (1) clear prior notice of what the "laws" are; and (2) consent of the governed beforehand.

In my view, the importance of Nuremberg was (as Pedinksa suggested) in the moral principles it espoused, not the legal principles. As a legal proceeding, I see it more as victor's justice than anything else.

Complete agreement here, except I would add a #3; that to constitute "law," there must be an enforcement mechanism. Current notions of international "law" depend on countries and their agents being wiling to submit to the Hague, and there is no way to compel them to show up or accept judgment. To my mind, that is not law. It is a set of mores or rules, but is not law as we mean the term here.

(Yes, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible injunctions are called "law," and there are such ways of employing the word even absent courts and such. That is another long book(s). For for political purposes of this discussion, I do not think international "law" is such.)

I think that the folks in the dock in 1945 got what they deserved, but at what cost to the law? It's a question which has always troubled me, now more than ever.

Which means of course, that you, Glenn and I think the Nazis weren't that bad; perhaps merely a bit misguided and confused. ;)

like the similar one from Rush Limbaugh, which may be the topic of a critically important Congressional vote on Monday -- must not go unanswered by the Congress.

I'm soooo ambivalent about this. The Senate ought not be passing resolutions condemning any group of Americans' political speech. (Ok, I know, maybe a Nazi Bund or something, but I mean in the ordinary course of the political discussion.)

The resolution against MoveOn smacks of McCarthyism, and while I think it is helpful to keep Rush's heinous comments in the spotlight, I'm not comfortable about seeing the Senate go wholesale into the business of condemning political pundits and activists. And there are just a few other issues to which they might be better off dedicating their time.

Are all those who disagree with Glenn’s call for a Congressional resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh really guilty of unilateral disarmament?

Glenn and others seemed to think I was entirely disagreeing with him; I was, as my opening sentence said, merely deeply ambivalent. But the fact remains that those who advocate congressional resolutions as a means of tit-for-tat political warfare (as well as the idjits who first employed this strategy re: the MoveOn ad), are, if successful, at high risk of institutionalizing a dangerous use of our federal legislature

I am deeply unsure the risk is worth it.