These are the pre-John-XXIII Catholics. The people who knocked the penises off Renaissance sculptures. Their leader was Savonarola.

I cut and paste from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture5a.html#savonarola

"The republic of Florence was to be a Christian commonwealth, of which God was the sole sovereign, and His Gospel the law: the most stringent enactments were made for the repression of vice and frivolity. Gambling was prohibited an the vanities of dress were restrained by sumptuary laws. Even the women flocked to the public square to fling down their costliest ornaments and Savonarola's followers made huge "bonfires of the vanities."

Hmm, sounds familiar. The Taliban would approve. In fact, Savonarola was part of the Church's reaction to the humanism of the preceding Medici rule.

Mr. Donohue, in rejecting the ironic icon of a chocolate Easter Christ, focuses on one thing: his nakedness. Mr. Donohue should therefore go through the Vatican with an ax and torch, because there's a lot of naked Christs in St. Peter's.

If it's any consolation for the sane, Savonarola, a Dominican friar, became increasingly unpopular. Again, from the History Guide.

"He was brought to trial for falsely claiming to have seen visions, and uttered prophecies, for religious error, and for sedition. Under torture he made avowals which he afterwards withdrew. He was declared guilty and the sentence was confirmed by Rome. On May 23, 1498, this extraordinary man and two Dominican disciples were hanged and burned..."

I'd start writing letters to Benedict, asking for the same poetic justice for Donohue.

Once again, I have faith in the wisdom of the Democratic leadership. First, they get a majority in favor of a spending bill with non-binding deadlines. Now, soon, there will be a majority in favor of making the deadlines real. Then Bush will have to face the real consequences of a veto.

But as for the India analogy, look: the British made a shitload of money by colonizing India. They're the ones who conquered all the raj, adding in Pakistan and India even though there were politically separate before the Brits got there. Then, when the British thankfully got the hell out, there was violence between the two countries. Very regrettable. But I don't think it's clear AT ALL that things would have been any better if the Brits had stayed. There was a civil war to come, which colonialism had been able to forestall.

Is anybody surprised by the Bush/chain of reburblican noise response? You can't be. Fred Hiatt at the Post ("the liberal Post", they say) continues to be a horses' ass. Not surprising. But what exactly is happening with CNN? Nothing but a FOX-like, unified derision. In the long term, I think that may be the most troubling sign.

You guys so sure -- especially the naive Mr. Manjoo -- that Rove doesn't have some other thing up his sleeve?

This baby boomer thought that the most stupid thing the Yippees ever said was, "Don't trust anybody over 30." There are smart and stupid, evil and good people in all age groups, and generational politics is just stupid. And part of the reason we got cursed with Richard Nixon. Let that be on your head.

"I for one am quite amused, although not overly surprised, about the hatred espoused toward Camille by the radical Leftists on Slate. "

You're in the wrong online magazine. Head straight right, over the porn sites, past the Russian warez site and the Suzanne Somers diet page, and park right over next to the soft, pasty face of Chris Hitchens. Try not to wake him, as he's likely having a hangover.

This is Salon. That's Slate.

The Fairness Doctrine did, in fact, throttle free expression. If somebody made a statement one way or another, the station owner sighed and said, okay, now somebody's going to get upset and get five ratings-killings minutes rebutting that. So they just told their hosts to shut up to save the hassle. As a result, radio shows were either harmless chatter, or they played records and had call-in. When Joe Pyne hit radio, he often got into trouble with the FCC, but his opinions were all over the block, and most often just a showbiz technique of pumping up ratings. Then the genius of linking that style of angry radio with the daily talking points of the RNC came along, and Limbaugh was born. They even repealed the Fairness Doctrine so they could get away with it. But I remember, in the early 90s, warning people of what was coming, and they dismissed talk radio!

What we need is a restatement, somehow, of the fairness doctrine, not on the level of "opinions", but maybe on the level of shows. Put Limbaugh on and you have to put on a liberal talker with a similar number of hours? No, they won't do that. How about this: if you put on Limbaugh, and you only own one station in a local market, then you won't be forced to put on Rachel Maddow after him. But if you own more than one station in a market, then you have to be sure that viewpoints are spread out on your properties. Limbaugh on KMOO? Stephanie Miller on KWOO. Equal access throughout the market.

This might make the ownership of several stations a little less advantageous, for some, and they might sell off some stations, and that would be a good thing. If there are "other than Limbaugh" people in every market, and there are, they'd find their ratings, overall, increasing.