But for very different reasons. I completely disagree with you about her competence.

"She's incompetent. All of her training and background are in foreign policy with respect to Europe and Russia. She has no background at all in the Middle East. And in the five years since she became Bush's National Security Advisor, America's foreign policy has been a complete and total failure. It's a joke. As Secretary of State, she's been a mess as well."

I would love to know how she's any more incompetent for those reasons than Powell or Rumsfeld. They don't have much Middle East experience either. Neither does Bush or Cheney. But you don't call them incompetent because of that, do you? She's the most-educated person out of all of them, in fact. I think it's your own sexism that's leading you to explain her presence and actions as "incompetent" rather than "ruthless."

I think she's an incredbly smart person, much like Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove are also very smart people.

But i think she gets cut a lot of slack in people's opinions of her and in the press because few people think that a WOMAN could be as cynical, calculating, ruthless, amoral, greedy, deceitful and just plain "evil neo-con" as Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld are suspected and known to be. She benefits from everyone's sexism and perception that women are "more ethical" and "inherently more gentle and conciliatory and loving." Few people want to accept that women can be just as ____ as Cheney. It's too scary.

If she was a man, Bush would wake up tomorrow morning and fire her. There would be Congressional hearings. But there never will be.

No, she's in there because she's no different from the aforementioned Cabal. And she and Bush both know the advantage that everyone's sexism gives her -- because she's a woman, she's beyond suspicion by the press. And she uses it to her benefit.

They don't have much Middle East experience either. Neither does Bush or Cheney. But you don't call them incompetent because of that, do you? YES, I DO. ESPECIALLY RUMSFELD.

If she was a man, Bush would wake up tomorrow morning and fire her. There would be Congressional hearings. But there never will be.

So if she were a man, she would be Rumsfeld, right? But Bush hasn't fired Rumsfeld. So there must be another reason he's not firing her. And i think it's because she's smart, and she's just like Rumsfeld (conniving, arrogant, ruthless, cynical), AND she's above the suspicion in most people's eyes because she's a woman.

See everyone's arguments in the letters section.

So, in the finest of recent republican traditions, the nominee for Secretary of Defense Gates is the president of the National Eagle Scouts Association (according to wiki).

And you know what that means...

;-)

So someone says that flashing isn't "normal sexual behavior." Do i even have to elaborate on this, Foucault and all? Think outside of your time-society box, people.

Yes, i was one of the snobs saying "how can anything worthwhile come from the SciFi channel? and with a name like Battlestar Galactica?" But as Ray Bradbury said, the best science fiction is the kind that places normal humans into completely new situations to confront completely new problems, not just some nose makeup and a new "species name."

Except of course the situations in Battlestar are not new, they are the same ones we confront today. Religion, abortion, occupation, suidice bombings, the curse of power, it's all there, and it's all done really really well.

It's really good.

1) It's a public school, and a public university, so they can hardly ban any kind of speech this side of "i know it when I see it." I went to a private university, which can have all the speech codes it wants, and there were some moments of shameful censorship.

2) Thank god for the ALCU.

I agree wtih Karen. The first half of Cary's response struck me as quite misogynistic. That's disappointing. Try again next time, Cary.

It's in the constitution, even! and it doesn't go away or disappear when there is some sort of social issue or a "resurgence in gender-based crimes," right? Maybe what he did was tacky, or even immornal, but it's not illegal and he shouldn't be punished for it by any authority.

If you to live in a place where women are looked after and protected, evidently in Dubai, the police will arrest anyone for just LOOKING at you funny. :) (see Broadsheet article).

44 million, eh?

Well, let'see

1) A large percentage of pregnancies ends in miscarriage.

2) A few end in late-term abortion.

3) A few children die after birth before they turn 16 and can start working.

4) Backalley abortions and traveling abroad for abortions would still exist and abort a significant number of babies.

5) Most importantly, though, studies show that having an aboriton does not so drastically decrease the number of children a woman will have in her life. If she has an abortion at 19, she may have a kid when she's ready for the kid at 25. If you force her to have the kid at 19, she won't have the other kid at 25. That's what abortion foes always ignore.

So the read number of people that don't exist today becuase of abortion in the US is must smaller than they want to admit, because they are so sloppy. And you also have to remember that lots of people who exist today wouldn't exist without abortion.