The difference between female and male circumcision is that female circumcision is done to control the female's sexual desires and appetites and utterly eradicates her ability to experience any sexual pleasure of any kind. It is also typically performed without any anesthetic, without sterile medical equipment, and at an age (early adolescence) at which the girl is almost certain to remember the horrific experience for the rest of her life.

Men lose no scientifically demonstrable sexual feeling or functionality when they are circumcised, and they are almost always circumcised at an age at which they will never remember what happened, as well as in medically sound and sterile conditions. They are circumcised not to control their sexual appetite but to mark them as a full member of a community, distinct and (possibly) superior to others not in the community.

Sorry, but the maker of this documentary is correct. Any attempt to conflate male and female circumcision is absolutely absurd. Maybe if male circumcision involved the removal of the male's entire penis, the way that female circumcision involves basically scraping the girl's clitoris off. Those two kinds of circumcision would be comparable. As things are, they are absolutely not. Period.

that we should give a crap about whether or not you won some trivia game?

Is this the War Room or is it Alex Koppelman's livejournal?

There can be no question that Dawkins and Hitchens are pseudointellectuals with little or no knowledge in the field of Christian history or theology. My heart was warmed to hear names like Wittgenstein and Heidegger in this review. Where have the real intellectuals gone? They're been replaced by idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens who try to "disprove" what cannot be proved or disproved, simply to make a quick buck and to advance their own agenda.

For those of us who engage in lives of service inspired by faith and informed by science, the "Ditchkenses" and right-wing fundamentalists screaming on either side of us are just so much noise. Fulfilling our human obligations to one another, whether in the name of God or some kind of abstract justice, is far too important a job to listen to those who have no interest in actually contributing to the discussion.

I could be wrong, so anyone with more expertise can correct me, but I'm under the impression that flight attendants work in crews and that individuals cannot be reassigned randomly. It also seems as though there are "long haul" crews and "short haul" crews and that regardless of which crew you are in, you basically get randomly assigned destinations.

It's called seeing what's obvious. We saw that Bush was an idiot from day 1. Actually, from before day 1. That's why we didn't vote for him.

And Bush has more than proved his stupidity. I daresay the majority of the population considers him the worst president ever. Get that? Ever. Worse than Nixon. Try thinking about that for a while.

Just because we saw the truth first doesn't mean we are responsible for his failures or for your failure to recognize what was obvious to us along. The guy has always been completely incompetent.

I understand what this feature is allegedly for. I can understand the attraction of a column in which a conservative truly admits to conservative strategy or thought processes, because let's face it, what conservatives do is so convoluted that it must be interesting to hear them justify it to themselves. We want to hear them talking like us to figure out what they're doing.

The problem is, this is based on the false assumptions that conservatives have the same kind of thought processes as the rest of the world. But they don't. The column is evidence of that. Instead of thoughtful reflection, this "wingnut" provides all the same canned answers we've been hearing for the past 8 years, except in a way which is allegedly more personable for liberals.

The question: Why won't conservatives admit that Bush broke the country?

The answer: He didn't.

This just goes to the fundamental difference in the ways conservatives and non-conservatives think. To a conservative, plunging the country into 11 trillion dollars of debt and leaving the economy in such a way that we will get into trillions more to save ourselves is not Bush's fault. 9/11 was somehow Clinton's fault even though it occurred under Bush's watch. Torturing is not a crime or a moral offense. Starting wars with countries who never offended us is A-ok. And somehow they believe we are safer only after we have managed to turn the majority of the Muslim world against us, and made everyone else question their alliances with us. Becoming more and more violently isolationist is the way to ensuring our continued national safety, in their minds.

This column adds nothing to our discussion because it's just the rehashing of the same old lies we hear all the time. Conservatives are not intellectually deep people. There is no secret method to their madness. They wear their stupidity on their sleeves. Stop giving them a platform from which to sound "rational."

I'm a 22-year-old male and I've pretty much seen every episode of the Golden Girls.

Bea Arthur will be missed, just like Estelle Getty.

It's good to be king ;-)

Or at least, to have voted for him. (And what luck for us that all the king's men now include Hillary.)

Watch the video again.

Bassackwards stances like outlawing abortion INCREASE both abortion rates as well as the number of women who die in botched abortion procedures.

Advocating abstinence-only education and preventing young people from access to birth control and good information INCREASES the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore both abortions as well as bad family situations.

What part of "safe, legal, and rare" don't you fucking get? Are you intentionally stupid? You would have to be.

God will bless Hillary for acting to save lives (both living and unborn) while conservative fuckwards like you just talk about it.