I am repeatedly shocked by the extent to which many pro-choice people don't get the debate. I myself am adamantly pro-choice, but if you don't understand your adversary's position in a debate you risk making a fool of yourself.

People who oppose abortion think it is murder. Full stop. Some have thought it out more than others, but every strong anti-abortion voice belongs to someone who believes abortion to be killing a human being.

To say that Palin and her daughter "exercised their choice" by not having abortions is like saying that I "exercised my choice" today when I decided not to kill my 9 year old for getting up late for school. I "decided" to do the obviously and abundantly right thing. If the law permitted me to kill my 9 year old, it would still be the obviously and abundantly right thing to choose not to do so and I would agitate just as strongly as the anti-abortionists do to take that "choice" away from others. (It appalls me a little just to write these words, in case you're wondering. No, I am not ever ever ever considering harming my children. But I do believe that most anti-abortionists consider it morally equivalent to an abortion)

In their eyes, I expect the Palins think they did the obviously and abundantly right thing and that if people don't understand that it is always the right thing to make the same "choice" they did and not (in their eyes) kill a child, then the law should prevent it. Just like, whatever the laws permit, I'm not going to kill my 9 year old daughter.

I disagree with their basic premise that a fertilized egg is a human. But if you don't understand that THEY believe it, you'll continue to make arguments that have no chance of convincing anyone and may sound smug or even foolish to them.

When I was a kid we were SUPPOSED to call developmentally disabled people "mentally retarded". We weren't supposed to yell "hey retard" on the playground or call people "MR" in class (how's that for a degenerated insult?), but it was perfectly polite to talk about the mentally retarded class.

Over time, you can expect to see new euphemisms arise, become words of mockery, and thus become socially unacceptable.

We can hope that over years racial and sexual orientation slurs will become less powerful. When I was a kid, racial tension with African Americans was the hot issue. I was told never to say the N word before I ever met anyone non-white. The polite term (for these invisible-to-me people) was "Negro". Then in rapid succession, Black, and African American, as the tensions boiled. Now I don't think anyone worries much about what to call African Americans and even the N word is losing its potency in many situations.

That's not going to happen for words that mean mentally or physically impaired. Why? Because at the level of school yard taunts, saying someone is impaired is just a fundamental we'll never overcome. Stupid, moron, retarded, idiot. Lame, cripple. "Ride the short bus". The words will change over time, but the meaning never will.

What we as adults, as parents, as role models, can do is to try to teach our children to treat people with respect regardless of their appearance and abilities. But "retard" or some variation will never go away, and I don't believe that getting upset about a word makes a shred of difference in how actual impaired people are treated.

almost 2 years ago when he came out pandering to the religious right. When he gave big wet smooches to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, the maverick independent story was all over. The funny thing about it was, it didn't even play to the base. Those of us who thought he might be a real moderate lost trust in him and the religious right didn't buy it. That was when his popularity really started to slide.

John McCain has decided to do whatever it takes, to say whatever needs to be said, kiss whatever needs to be kissed, and act as though he believes whatever needs to be believed to get elected. Yet he wants us to believe that if he gets to the White House he'll be that maverick, that staunch independent.

Anyone who believes that is a fool.

but is it just me or does Paulson look a little too much like Daddy Warbucks? It's really creeping me out.

the last time people associated with our government talked about "taking the gloves off" we ended up violating interntaional law by torturing war prisoners. BTW, boxers wear gloves to protect their hands, not to limit damage to their opponents. Taking the gloves off is stupid, you ruin your weapons that way.

Totally agree with Amerigo. Any moderate* should require ground rules before appearing on any Faux News show. If the rules are violated, one warning. After that, they get up and walk out.

The warning: "I agreed to appear on this show because you agreed to discuss the issues with me responsibly and respectfully. You are not doing that. If this continues, I will leave, as I said I would"

Then do it.

*There is no left in American politics today, the "extreme liberals" would be counted moderates in any other political environment and "conservatives" in some. I consider myself a moderate, shading towards conservative (deficit hawk) on any "normal" political spectrum.

We like to think we're immune from another depression, hateful mobs, risk of fascism.

We're not immune.

I'm getting scared.

On the other hand, if we can't defeat these homegrown bullies by holding to our principles of justice, freedom, and peace, what chance do we stand against the bullies in the wider world?

Hold fast

we really should elect Obama if he's prescient enough to start an investigation months before anyone knew Palin was going to be nominated.