Actually, the article does indicate that he had custodial rights. That's one of the three criteria for "Rambo" to work for you. The case was odd because Costa Rica granted the biological father custodial rights - in conflict with who the American government recognized.

I shouldn't have read the letters.

Thanks for such an in depth comment! I really appreciate learning about the evolution of it.

So, I understand that inciting violence isn't a protected form of speech, but hate speech is protected. I'm a little unclear, however, on where the line is drawn. To fall under nonprotected speech, do you have to be saying, "Hey, let's go take some hostages right now?" I know this is a bit off topic.

I'm asking about speech specifically. Obviously, you shouldn't ban someone from the country because of things they've said in the past.

Also, others have mentioned that denying the Holocaust is illegal in many countries. I understand that in the years following WWII, this actually could be seen as inciting violence (especially because there were so many former Nazi's among the population). You can't really equate the issue with Savage, because Austria allowed David Duke into the country (and then arrested him when he denied the Holocaust). Obviously, I don't expect Austria to follow the dictates of the First Amendment, but I wonder how this particular instance fits in with the theory of freedom of speech in all instances except those that aren't protected here. GG, how do the Holocaust denial laws strike you? Were they always wrong? Are they outdated? Or do you agree with them?

What? No, and I'm not just being rude; seriously, what?

Why are we suddenly talking about "the white man who had earned the promotion was denied it"? I (and others) have engaged in this discussion on your terms. You presuppose that a woman of color could not have possibly arrived at her station in life due to her own merits. And your argument hinges on the fact that Michelle Obama has not released her SAT scores. (Nevermind that Nixon, Reagan, George HW Bush, Cheney and McCain also "refused" to release their scores) We've taken on your argument that this is the only possible method of determining whether these two women have any worth. We must have proven that point, because you chose to move on to your real problem.

"The white man who had earned the promotion was denied it." So, when you lose an argument, do you always shift the question? We were not discussing whether or not a white man has ever missed out on a promotion due to affirmative action. We were discussing why you feel the need to assume a woman of color is inferior simply because she's a woman of color. Your racism has been showing this entire time. The fact that you assume white-man is getting beaten down just because some uppity woman did better than you? That's your ignorance showing.

Sorry. There have been numerous studies that have shown that SAT scores ARE racially biased. And culturally biased. And classist. That hasn't stopped many many many people of color scoring high on them. It hasn't stopped many many many notable white people scoring average/slightly-above-average on them. That's why the test was recentered in the 90's, and why Oxford (obviously) doesn't put much store by them.

An example of a classist question:

A runner is to marathon as: correct answer: an oarsman is to a regatta.

53% of white students got it correct, but only 22% of black students did. The white students who answered correctly came from higher income families than those who incorrectly answered.

From: Don't Believe the Hype, Chideya, 1995; The Bell Curve

Affirmative Action was started in universities due, in large part, to clear and rationally-evident disparities the system uses to judge potential students through culturally unfair methods. To cite those exact same established and culturally unfair methods as evidence against those who have risen above you - to blame some sort of reverse racism for the fact that an hispanic/black woman did better in life than you - to assume her test scores must be lower than yours simply because she's an hispanic/black woman and therefore must be a recipient of affirmative action? Circular reasoning at its most obvious. Also? Kinda sad.

Why aren't you worried about Dick Cheney's scores on the SAT?

Oh, right. Damn, foiled again.

Yeah, I find it mighty convenient that the only - the ONLY I say - important criterion in discussing whether someone is an unworthy recipient of affirmative action happens to be the SAT score. Especially since there have been numerous studies demonstrating that SAT (and ACT) tests favor those of higher socio-economic classes. Before it was recentered in the 90's, there was a question about yachting terms that I (caucasion middle class) totally would have gotten wrong had I encountered it.

This is circular reasoning at its most obvious.

George W. Bush: 1206

Al Gore: 1355

We don't know either Cheney's or McCain's because they refused to release them.

Bill Clinton - 1032

Of course, he was a Rhodes Scholar, which goes to show how much store those idiots at Oxford put towards SAT scores as being the ultimate measure of intelligence.