I did conflate some of the stuff from war room with greenwald's blog. They we're harder on craig and vitter over there. GG did go out of his way to point out the unequal responses to craig and vitter. OK fine. He also ranted a fair deal about hypocrisy on the right. Hell, he even has a book out about it.

That focus appears to be that they take moral stands and act immorally in private. How is spitzer different? Why was spitzer's hypocrisy admitted then downplayed while other people's is focused on?

Oh yeah - my stupid little brain can find and link to articles to. Like:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/index.html

Where in the article are craig and vitter defended to any level approaching that of spitzer.

re punishing spitzer like any other criminal, you say "Honestly, I don't know what else can be done to make the point any clearer."

You've stated exactly what punishments you believe are usually handed to those soliciting prostitution and that spitzer should be likewise punished.

If you want to be clear, submit what punishments should be handed to various right wing figures and whether or not they should resign or be impeached. You need to be fair. If spitzer's hypocrisy isn't factored in, then neither should anyone else's.

So, what should happen (or have happened) to craig, vitter, frank, b clinton (for lies, not BJs), bush, rove, libbey. Let's toss in randy duke cunningham for the fun of it.

It is most certainly the wife's fault if she married a whore chaser who then proceeds to chase whores. She did marry him. Probably not knowingly. Now she knows.

It really is as simple as that. Spitzer is a horndog who loves slipping it into whores. It really has nothing to do with his wife. Hell, she could even be a whore herself and he would look for other whores.

Some guys are like that.

As for Dr. Laura ... I've seen pictures of her naked when she was much younger than now. She never had what it takes to keep a wandering type man from screwing around. Not even close. On the other hand, Spitzer would do her. Doesn't make her hot, but he'd do her just to see what she's like.

All beware the trophy hunter - the bogey man of anti hunting groups. Note that anti-hunter does not equate with environmentalist. Hunters tend to be the staunchest environmentalists. Anti-hunters, on the other hand, rarely have a clue about animal behavior, hunting, or the environment because they don't spend enough time afield.

Nature is one of those things that you just can't book learn. You have to go sleep under trees, track and observe animals, and essentially join nature.

Most trophy hunters are nothing like what the article posits. I know quite a few of them and I hope to someday reach their level. I am still a meat hunter. I fill the freezer, but am not a good enough hunter to fill the freezer with a particular specimen. That is what trophy hunters do. They are so good in the field that they pass by most opportunities until they find the one they want.

As for bragging to your buddies, it is the story of the hunt that matters most. A long unsuccessful bow hunt out weighs a quick rifle hunt. A polar bear hunt is a special thing. Not because of the white rug, but because polar bears hunt people. Bears are also tasty if cooked right.

For example, I have one very good trophy kill. Someone told me they had hit a cow elk with their car. I tracked her for a day and a half before getting into bow range. The accident had left her crippled and bleeding. She wouldn't have lived through the winter. She ended up in my freezer. That is a great trophy.

Contrast that to the guy that thinks bears hunting means shooting a staked out animal. After all, following dogs with radio collars seems almost the same he assumes. He has no clue. Some people hunt with dogs, most don't. The guy has no idea about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes into each of those dogs. He also has no idea how unsuccessful those dogs often are.

The thing that is saddest about the anti-hunting propaganda is that it teaches the wrong lessons. People will hear the anti-hunter talking about how something is hunted and then, being interested in hunting, go out and hunt that way. They may never learn how to hunt right or how to eat everything they kill.

Yes, most of us do eat what we kill. The only exceptions tend to be when we are culling things. For example, feral pigs. They are incredibly destructive to the land and to the native species. They are kill on sight. If a feral pig is disease free, then it should be eaten, but the rule is to kill on sight.

Meanwhile, there are the folks who find it barbaric that I would kill and then eat an animal. Only the vegans have any clarity on the issue. I find it a little odd that so many people eat meat from an animal that they've never seen. How do you know what you're eating? Are you feating on downer cow? It is wiser, to me, to have vegetarian meals before eating factory meat.