Has anyone looked yet to see what Global Dominion Impact Ministries does? I did a Google search but couldn't find them anywhere. From the name, they sound like part of the theocratic "Christian Dominionism" movement, and I know Harris has recently tried to curry favor with right-wing Christians, but without specifics I can only speculate.

Reading Cary's response and the editor's pick letters I can't help but think "so this is why so many people ignore their economic interests to vote Republican."

Let's be serious here. The BF may be something of a jerk, but his concerns are not "nuts." You just can't disconnect sex and morality, although any two people may disagree over where to draw the line. As an example, let's reverse the scenario. Suppose during a conversation, her BF told her that he went through a big orgy phase, which he had enjoyed. Throw in the he relished stranger sex, or bondage, etc. I can guarantee you that this admission would freak most women out. Reasonably so, because it would reveal something about the BF's sexual values and his inability to exercise anything resembling sexual restraint, a quality necessary if there is to be trust and fidelity in a relationship (especially once marriage and kids enter the picture). The fact that this might have been in "the past" is irrelevant, since past behavior is often our only clue toward future behavior.

The threesome example is very similar if milder. This may be a pretty common experience these days in ceratin parts of the country. And there may be many potential BFs who would take this as an isolated incident and move on. But lots of reasonable people would find this a disturbing behavior that suggested an overly casual attitude toward sex, one that showed little respect for monogamous norms.

You sports guys apparently think the sun rises and sets based on your need for an absolutely certain 100%, grade-A, no doubt cham-peeen.

Well, as it happens, college football is part of what we like to call "college." It's not the athletes' "job," and they can't just keep playing games all year long because, at some point, they've got to at least pretend to study and go to classes. Since you can only play one football game per week, this makes any real tourney a logistical non-starter. You say you want an 8-team run. So sorry, Boise State, ranked #9 prior to last night, very well might have been left out anyway. And then there are the Wake Forests of the world, who might or might not make a 16-team field. That leaves us with the current messy system. Unfair? Just about as unfair as life itself.

BTW, this failure to recognize that college football is merely a part of college (not some alternate pro league) is also why so many sports guys whine about players not getting paid. Jeez, college football players are a big enough social and discipline problem on campus as it is. Can you imagine how bad things would be if they got PAID? How often would the star QB go to class then, and how much more of an SOB would he be on campus? The last thing we need is a privileged band of highly paid, emotionally immature beheamoths with chips on their shoulder running around causing mayhem. Players get a free education, which as you may have noticed is not cheap. To get something out of the exchange, they have incentives to study and finish the degree. Pretty good deal all around.

I hate to defend Brooks, but I'm not really persuaded by GG's critique. The quotes here sure look ominous until you recognize that Brooks is merely coopting the principles of modern liberalism as a way of saving conservatism's ass. For example, the shift from "negative" to "positive" liberty is one that takes place within liberalism itself (see T.H. Green or John Dewey, for example), and it justifies the now common sense liberal argument that sometimes bigger government can augment liberty by offering individuals empowerment through the socialization of risk (e.g., social security, health care, etc.). Bushism obviously can't be defended with the old conservative lingo, so might as well take from the liberal lexicon. (Many neo-cons used to be liberals after all.)

GG is correct to see the Bushies as basically authoritarian, but I don't think this has much to do with either Brooks or neo-con theory. And I don't think it's that new. We've already had Nixon and Reagan, both of whom moved toward unaccountable executive power no matter how much they might have talked about small gov. What's changed is that the hypocrisy of word and deed is now too stark to maintain, thus the change in Brooks's langauge of apologia. In some ways this is progress.

This also means that the political spectrum hasn't really changed. What makes a liberal a liberal is the belief in equal liberty; what makes a conservative a conservative is the belief in unequal liberty. Views on equality have been defining right vs. left since the French Revolution, and they still do. Size of government is merely instrumental. What's most worrisome about the Bushies is that they often act in such a way as to indicate they no longer believe in "liberty" at all, leaving them with order and inequality, a position that has always existed to the right of "conservatism" proper.

Wasn't it ABC who peddled a right-wing fantasy film based on falsehoods and speculation, and promoted by Limbaugh, etc., as if it were a documentary re-enactment of 9/11? And wasn't ABC News directly involved in this little charade--including sending study packs with the film to schools? I think Glenn is too charitable to ABC when he criticizes only the MSM in general and forgets ABC's own specific faults.