I'm a hunter and perfectly willing to support a switch to non-toxic shot. I hunt geese over land and use steel shot even when it is not required (as it is over water in many states).

I am disturbed by the bigoted attacks on hunters here, but not surprised. Many of my liberal (yet, meat-eating) colleagues are horrified that I get my meat myself as opposed to the civilized way in the supermarket. As for some of my vegetarian colleagues... they would clearly rather line hunters up against a wall and have them shot rather then allow hunting.

Just like many pro-choice advocates, the NRA is probably right to suspect that many of their opponents DO actually want to ban what they want to protect. Pro-choice militants see ANY limitation on abortion rights as a baby step towards complete abolition.

So, while I am not a an NRA member, I think the vitriol that is being cast here is a bit hypocritical. "slippery slopes" might the last refuge of the scoundrel, but they are inhabited by both ends of the political spectrum.

GQ is a fashion magazine; it is not the NY Times. If the latter decided not to run a story on HC because of a fluff piece on BC might be axed, I would be disappointed. Not surprised mind you, but disappointed.

BC has every right to grant or not grant interviews with magazines. Why WOULD he work with GQ if they were going to possibly damage HC campaign?

Would Brad Pitt cooperate in a cover shoot with GQ if they trashed Angelina? Would any husband? No. They wouldn't. Why should Bill?

I really can't stand HC and wish she would have just stayed in the Senate, but this is a non-story (in more ways than one).

"Ok then, then that means that if President Bush keeps someone from speaking out against him, that is not stopping free speech, correct?"

This shouldn't need to be pointed out, but for the sake of the trolls, it will be.

If GW Bush locked up someone to prevent him from speaking out: BAD.

IF GW Bush threatened to fire a government employee to keep a whistle-blower silent: BAD.

IF BARBARA BUSH was insulted by something being written for Good Housekeeping and former president George HW Bush told Good Housekeeping that if they published that article they were no longer invited to do a photoshoot of the interior of the family yacht as previously agreed: FREE SPEECH.

HW wouldn't be obligated to allow Good Housekeeping to be on his boat; likewise, Bill Clinton isn't obligated to bring GQ to Africa with him.

Spot the differences?

"benefactor was fellow conservative Roman Catholic convert L. Paul Bremer"

What does the Catholic part have to do with anything? This seems more than a little odd. Would you have noted if two of the people were Jews? Muslims? Episcopalians?

I posted an earlier message on this topic that doesn't seem to be up for some reason. I don't understand, but the basic gist of the message was that this "op-ed" piece seems to be nothing more than free advertising for a movie for which Mr. Blumenthal serves as executive producer.

We frequently and rightfully bemoan the ill effects of the corporatization of news in which supposed news shows run long pieces on shows which are also airing on their network. When the CBS morning show spends more interviewing the latest survivor to be kicked off the island than they do analyzing the economy or foreign relations or whatever, we complain that a profit motive has clearly trumped a journalistic one.

Blumenthal doesn't believe he will change Hughes's mind and he doesn't think for a second she will come to watch the movie. But he has successfully advertised his movie without paying for an advertisement. Is this what salon.com is nowadays?

Patriotic Americans tend to be "Pro-Agressive Interrogation" whereas Hegemon-Hating Leftists tend to be "Anti-Torture."

I suspect that we have different concepts of what it means to be "patriotic". For me, patriotism means standing up for the rights at the basis of our system of government: habeus corpus, due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. You know, the stuff that separates us and makes us infinitely better than totalitarians and absolutists. The Framers thought this was incredibly important and addressed multiple amendments to the issue (at the very least 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Criticism of the government seems to be the essence of patriotism. That's probably why they put right there in that first amendment. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.") My grievance is that the present administration is following counterproductive policies which go against treaties which we have legally ratified. This is a political matter but it is also a constitutional matter.

I guess these are just those fine 18th c. arguments against torturing you dismiss, but I thought conservatives were supposed to like the 18th c.? Isn't that point of a strict constructionism? The Framers set out to protect us fro tyrrany at home. They sought to protect us for untrammeled and unchecked executive power. That's as conservative as we get, but todays "conservatives" are radical authoritarians who are no more true conservatives than Bush et al are truly opposed to Big Government.