Some discussion of how funds are traced here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/kathleen_l/2009/11/18/dear_senator_feinstein

I agree with Smartacus.

Once you sign on to the Hyde Amendment at all, you have made a compromise that requires continuous compromise: conservatives have rejected the segregation of federal vs. private funds in the past, and I'm not sure they're going to go for it now.

Conservatives have always insisted on tracing federal funds as far into the stream of commerce as possible, and have insisted that the presence of any federal money within an organization essentially subjects ALL money within that organization to the ban on abortion services.

I'm no fan of Larry King, but as far as I can see, he was just trying to clarify an issue. And, I'm no fan of Carrie Prejean but as far as I can see, there was no "tantrum" although her actions were pretty childish. Larry had already moved on to a different subject, taken the call, exactly as he'd said he would. She should have participated in the interview.

She has long ago demonstrated an extremely limited intellect and lack of appreciation for nuance (and the thought of a conversation between her and Sarah Palin makes my head explode) -- so I'm quite sure there is nothing in her settlement that bars her from responding to questions about her personal motivation in seeking a settlement.

"I settled because I strongly felt it was time to move on."

Sorry for the double post. I double-clicked, and for whatever reason my letter was posted twice. I liked the old "comments" format better, FWIW.

Thanks for this article. The insidious thing about a racial or religious stereotype is that, in the eye of the beholder, the "picture" becomes adapted to the story line of the stereotype. Did this person kill 13 people "because" he was a Muslim? No, he did it because he was mentally ill.

Did his superiors and co-workers, trained as they were in the art of diagnosis, miss the warning signs of mental illness in one of their own? Yes, because he was a Muslim, and he fit the description of what they believed an extremely religious Muslim would be.

The moral of this tragedy is not that stereotypes are true, or useful. The moral of the story is, stereotypes are dangerous.

Thanks for this article. The insidious thing about a racial or religious stereotype is that, in the eye of the beholder, the "picture" becomes adapted to the story line of the stereotype. Did this person kill 13 people "because" he was a Muslim? No, he did it because he was mentally ill.

Did his superiors and co-workers, trained as they were in the art of diagnosis, miss the warning signs of mental illness in one of their own? Yes, because he was a Muslim, and he fit the description of what they believed an extremely religious Muslim would be.

The moral of this tragedy is not that stereotypes are true, or useful. The moral of the story is, stereotypes are dangerous.

This is not a defense of anything that our side has done. But I'm continually struck by the apparent hypocrisy of people who seem to meekly accept anything the tyrannical butchers on their own side commit, and only protest what the Americans have done. I remeber when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, seeing people strung up on light poles along the streets like some kind of macabre holiday decoration. Where were the muslims protesting that?

I don't see any paradox here; your final question is the significant one. It answers, in fact, ALL of the posted letters that accuse America's critics of reflexively blaming America first, blah blah blah. You just have to understand that final question, that's all.

You are looking to see whether Muslims protest atrocities committed by other Muslims. Fair enough, and it's a good point to make. There are many who go so far as to rationalize and/or justify violence against innocent civilian Muslims on the grounds the "innocent" are actually guilty of not sufficiently protesting violence committed by other Muslims in their name .

Personally, I strongly support America when America is in the right, and I strongly protesst America's misdeeds when America is in the wrong, for exactly this reason. America's misdeeds are imputed to me, personally, in the same way that you have imputed guilt for Muslim misdeeds to all Muslims. America is a democracy, and the downside of that is, when America has blood on its hands, that means blood on my hands.