Words for languages, religions, nationalities, etc. (e.g., "americanos") are not capitalized in Spanish.

Thumbs up

More than 5 seconds is in weird territory for a kiss on the lips with your mom? Try more than 0.5 seconds, or I would say even more than 1/5 seconds. A quick, instantaneous peck, I can imagine, but anything more -- ANYTHING more -- is definitely super super weird. Even the peck... on the lips?... with your mom?... completely weirds me out. I come from a family where we don't kiss or even hug, so even those things I would feel awkward engaging in with family members, but I recognize that they are "normal". But on the lips - that's exclusively "lover" territory in my book.

It seems slightly disingenuous to say that the Dixie Chicks had the "last laugh" by "generating huge sales" on Taking The Long Way, when that album sold far less than their previous albums: Their first two albums both sold over 10 million copies. Their next one, the one they were promoting when they made their comment criticizing Bush, was doing well but immediately tanked after the comment was made, and ended up selling about 6 million. But Taking The Long Way has only sold about 2 million copies. Nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly a rousing success by Dixie Chicks standards. However, I must say that I don't know how much of that was political fallout from their Republican country-music-fan base and how much was just because the music itself wasn't as good. They moved into a sort of different style, and while I'm a fan of their earlier pop-country catchy feel-good stuff, the latest album of mediocre generic folk rock just didn't have that same spark for me, and I suspect I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

In the fifth paragraph, is that supposed to be "Arlington does now know" or "Arlington does not know"? I'm not usually big on pointing out the typos I see, but that one drastically alters the meaning!

According to a story I heard on NPR today, it's pretty much a big shrug for them. They fought to get the Supermax built there because it would create jobs etc; they are aware that there are dangerous criminals housed there and they are pretty much used to it; the idea of !Muslim Terrorists! being imprisoned there doesn't make them freak out; they say they are ready for it.

Now that I've glanced through the other letters, I have to second the opinion of the commenter who said "what's the point of this? We KNOW what conservatives think" -- and that's really the truth. Was anything this "wingnut" said original or new to us in any way? No, of course not.

And why?

Because these positions are spouted endlessly everyday in the so-called "liberal" mainstream media (!)

Here's the real question: do conservatives know how liberals think? Now that Rachel Maddow's on TV, the country is finally getting a taste of it. But when before that have we ever even HAD A CONVERSATION about issues important to liberals such as human rights, civil liberties, etc., that didn't just consist of one side extolling their own toughness and making fun of the other's wimpiness?

In other words, the reason this column was so uninteresting is precisely because it's what we're surrounded with all the time, disproving (again) this columnist's argument.

But I guess it's still an effective (though dishonest) strategy to accuse your opponent of exactly what you yourself are engaging in.

...but rehashing the widely discredited "liberal media" fallacy is not a good place to start. And the writer comes off as intellectually dishonest when he (or she?) starts his discussion by calling liberal media bias "undeniable". For every "what if it had been McCain" anecdote he pulls out, I'll raise him ten "what if it had been Clinton"s. (Either Clinton, really.)

Liberal media bias is always asserted based on the ideology or voting patterns of journalists, instead of the actual content of the news reported. And hello? You think media bias might have affected the 2006 or 2008 results? How about 2000 or 2004? In 2000, the media ridiculed Al Gore's every word, and declared Bush the winner before the votes had been counted. In 2004, baseless and frankly childish right-wing smear tactics dominated news coverage, while knowledge of administration wrongdoing was held captive, not to be released until after the election. Pretty much from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, the media hung on, and worshipped, Bush's every word. Believed the administration unquestioningly, and reported their assertions as facts, even belittling and mocking those who would question them.

I think it's great to open up dialogue between liberals and conservatives, but if this anonymous columnist wants to be taken seriously here - if he wants to have any credibility or chance of convincing anyone - he should at least base his arguments in fact and logic, instead of completely disproven talking points.

You state that this makes Iowa the fourth state to allow gay marriage; CNN says this makes Iowa the third state to allow gay marriage. Who is wrong? My guess is you counted California, forgetting about the passage of Prop 8.

Here's what Huckabee said:

"in fact his mother made a choice as an individual—the CHOICE to give birth to him as an unmarried college student. It would have been easy for her to have made a choice to end his life, but she chose life."

... "and," he could have continued, "our goal is to take that choice away."

I mean honestly, all this "choice" rhetoric has been popping up a lot lately in pro-life quarters. They do realize, don't they, that while they laud those who "choose life", their political agenda would make that impossible, would take that choice away from women and couples; that only the Democratic position allows anyone to actually CHOOSE life. The Republican position won't let any women "choose life", they would have that choice made for them.