Moreover, there is no question that the Islamic Republic ... has sought to undermine the Middle East peace process through every means at its disposal, including terrorism.

Of course they have. The so-called "peace process" is metaphorically as if the Palestinians, having had their car stolen from them, during subsequent "peace" negotiations are offered back a hub-cap in compensation, and are made to look intransigent when they refuse and demand the return of what is after all theirs, according to UN resolution 242.

Which brings up yet another hypocrisy: One of the excuses used to invade Iraq was that we were the self-appointed enforcers of UN resolutions that Saddam was flouting. And yet, we have allowed and even enabled Israel to flout this most basic of resolutions for years. We may not see this as a problem, but the rest of the world can smell this hypocrisy miles away; and with such a baggage of hypocrisy the US will find it impossible to rally world support to its cause.

When I was in basic training the Army spent some time teaching us the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order. It was our duty to obey all lawful orders, and to disregard all unlawful orders. Therefore, this principle of Law rather than Leaders is (or was) firmly established at least in our military.

Now, unlike the telecomms, we privates didn't have a platoon of lawyers to tell us whether any given order was unlawful, and you can imagine the courage it must take to disobey an order because you believe it to be unlawful. But the telecomms have no such excuse. They have legal departments and the backing of civil law. They well know their duties under the law. And regardless of what the Weekly Standard may say, the principle of Law applies. The precedents set at the Nuremberg Tribunals make it quite clear that "just following orders" is no defense for breaking the law. The telecomms should be held accountable to their customers and to the law. And people like Michael Goldfarb should be reminded that they are espousing views that are classic fascism, pure and simple.

But peer-to-peer programs also eat up space on a network, because every user is downloading and uploading data for long periods of time. And for providers, a clogged network costs money and hurts their reputation.

This may be and it certainly contributes to the desire of ISPs to "manage" their networks. But I believe there is a deeper, more fundamental problem: Major content providers want to control what you see, when you see it, and how you see it. Remember those "set-top boxes" that were going to bring the Internet to your TV? That's still their model. They produce, and we are supposed to good little consumers and passively consume their product. To achieve their ideal model they will have to crush net neutrality and the concept of peer-to-peer networking. They will try very hard to do this.

It is, of course, the very democratic nature of the Internet that network neutrality and peer-to-peer networking enable that makes this battle worth fighting.

"if you oppose us, you will lose"

These Democratic "strategists" and liberal pundits must all be as dumb as Howie Kurtz. Would the opposition really be looking out for you? Wouldn't the Republicans, if they really did want the Democrats to lose, keep quiet if the Democrats did something that would help the Republican cause? But instead, like Colonel Klink, the Democrats allow the Republican Col. Hogans to plant ideas in their little minds about what they ought to do.

Here's an idea for these "strategists": There is a reason the Republicans are warning you away from certain strategies. They fear them.

Please! Enough with the authoritarian wet dreams. This President twice took the following oath of office, mandated by Article II, Section I of the Constitution of our Nation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

His oath is to the Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution gives the President extra-Constitutional powers. When people like you grant our leaders the right to violate the law whenever the whim strikes them, then you can kiss our Beloved Country goodbye, for it will be no better than any number of Banana Republics that do just as you advocate. Freedoms are almost always lost, one at a time, to governments. For our own protection, of course.

...among adults between 18 and 28, women were responsible for instigating 71 percent of the violence in relationships with non-reciprocal-partner violence. (The guy doesn't hit back.)

The key here is the "with non-reciprocal-partner violence." All this says is that women may fight back more than men when assaulted, not that women assault men more than the other way around. Consider an example where three quarters of all assaults were instigated by men, and one quarter by women. Now assume for the sake of the example that all women fight back, and none of the men do. Then it could be said that "Women were responsible for instigating 100 percent of the violence in relationships with non-reciprocal-partner violence."