Just a slight correction to the Slate article you quote, which states that Alito broadened the power of the police to include the right to strip search a 10 year old girl during a drug search of her father's apartment. Alito would have broadened the right, as he described in his very weak dissent, but he lost that case. Fortunately, wiser judges prevailed. The majority ruled that the search was improper and that the police who conducted it were not protected from suit by qualified immunity. Interestingly, Alito neglected to describe in his dissent the type of search conducted on this 10 year old girl, who was forced to drop her pants and turn around for inspection. Alito instead refers to it delicately as "the search."

Excuse me, but did you say it takes "courage" to be heterosexaul? I'm sorry, I hadn't heard that one before. Let me take a moment to consider. Why would that be? If being heterosexual is the only natural and normal way to be, then why is it such a trial? Poor you, angry straight christian lady. I can only imagine the strength it must take for you to resist your homosexual tendencies. I know I can't.

What is controversial about the parents' decision to support their child? It seems to me that they are encouraging their child to live according to her own nature in terms of how she presents to the world, as opposed to giving her a sex change operation at 5 years old (which may raise some thorny ethical issues but ultimately may be necessary to avoid intense psychic pain). What'sthe harm of allowing the child to express her (obviously deeply ingrained) sense of gender identity? Even if she grows up and decides to be a gay man, what is the harm of allowing her to express herself as female now? Gender identity for lots of people is an evolving process, and there would be nothing to stop her from choosing a gay male identity later in life. On the other hand, she doesn't exactly sound ambivalent, does she? Given her apparent hostility to her penis, it seems that the risk of her doing harm to herself is real, and denying her the psychological comfort of living as a girl (albeit in a male body, at least for now) may put her at higher risk of self-inflicted genital mutilation. I think the parents' decision reflects deep compassion, wisdom, and love, as well as great courage. I applaud them.

In case there was any doubt that Harris would have done anything to get GWB into office... God told her to do it! She is a loony.

But let's not forget that before 9/11, Bush was living in a "pre-9/11 world." And I suppose that is supposed to explain why he didn't bother dealing with the memos warning of possible airliner hijacking attacks. Jeez, imagine if he had -- there might have been a different outcome.

And another thing, Bush is the "sole organ" to protect us? Does that mean he is the decider because he is the one with the Big Dick?

How about this tactic: Next time the ex-GF starts her little humiliation tirade, LW interrupts excitedly and says: "Oh, wait! I think I know this part! This is where you mock me and say my tastes are shallow and yours are so high brow, blah, blah, blah." [Note: The script includes the actual words "blah, blah, blah," meant to convey boredom and dismissal.] You might even pause and add: "Well, at least I got the man!"

Just for the record, there were serious questions about the fairness of LaGeur's trial. One of the jurors in the trial admitted to racial bias and prejudging the case, referring to the defendant as a "Spic." Naturally, learning of this juror's bias caused great concern among folks who care about the constitutional rights of people accused of crimes, and particularly those convicted of crimes as a result of an unfair process. To suggest that a civil rights attorney is misguided to support a person convicted of a heinous crime after such a trial trivializes the constitutional right each of us enjoys to prevent the government from taking away our liberty without due process of law, without proving our guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As you pointed out, Patrick provided financial support to obtain a DNA test of the defendant -- so what? The idea was to see if the test exonerated the defendant. When that DNA test actually supported LaGeur's conviction, Patrick withdrew his support. You label this "backpedaling." Isn't it possible to understand this as an appropriate response to learning that the defendant, who was convicted after a seemingly unfair trial, was actually guilty of the crime? Isn't it possible to consider Patrick's actions in the context of his being a civil rights lawyer seeking to uphold the constitution, rather than as a future candidate for governor seeking to maintain an unblemished image?

What is the point of identifying one of the troops interviewed as a "female soldier"? Given that her sex was completely irrelevant to the context, and given that no men interviewed were identified as "male soldiers," the reference is unnecessary and somewhat appalling. Are we supposed to view her words differently based on her femaleness? This sort of subtle, antiquated sexism only serves to perpetuate the myth that women who serve in the military must be viewed strictly as "female soldiers" -- rather than as soldiers, period. And FYI, Genius -- calling her out as a female soldier wasn't necessary, given that you then used the feminine pronoun several times in reference to her. Did you think we wouldn't get it? Or did you worry that we might think, "Hmm, I wonder why he is using the feminine pronoun to describe this guy? I mean, it must be a guy he is talking about, since he didn't say it was a female soldier."