Trust me, one's TV viewing habits don't always reflect the kind of person one is. I'll grant you, in many cases, that's true, but please don't malign the character of those who watch this show knowing full well that it has a neo-con point of view. We contradict ourselves. We are large, we contain multitudes.

I didn't realize that there was only ONE definition of "harsh treatment". Thanks for straightening that out. My conscience is so much clearer now.

But you still defend them and shame Bush??

It is possible to shame Bush and revile the actions of those who behead Americans. Is that so hard to understand?

...to drop another elephant-sized pile in the room.

It only takes a moment to google the NYT article by David Iglesias, titled "Why I Was Fired". Here is a little quote:

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

Now, of course a president has a right to appoint US attorneys who share the administration's goals as far as what type of cases to prioritize and prosecute. But, it is highly questionable when an attorney is fired for declining to prosecute someone from the opposing party when there is no evidence to support such a prosecution. This goes beyond demanding "political loyalty" and crosses over into partisan witch-hunt territory.

And when you make it eight attorneys, fired in the middle of a term, right after a convenient new law is passed that allows the administration to appoint indefinite interim replacements with no congressional oversight, you've got yourself a scandal.

As someone who was never able to have one successful pregnancy, I have to say that I'm having a hard time being moved by these stories.

And I hate that I'm admitting that, but it's true.

But, emotional suffering is emotional suffering. I guess it's a difficult thing to go through.

However, I'll say it again: count your blessings and embrace the next chapter of your life.

...was seeing footage of David Gregory, on the Today Show, strolling into the white-tie, state dinner at the White House.

I don't want a guy schmoozing with those people at night and then sitting in the press room the next day. This is completely incompatible with what journalism is supposed to be about.

How can we expect someone like that report objectively and critically?

Actually, George is describing some shirts as "grotty" (among other "pimply hyperboles"), but, yes, that scene is brilliant and every bit as relevant today to the subject at hand.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIkf_KRWug

Hardhitting investigative reporting is not their job.

Then why do we need them? Couldn't we just have a stenographer to take down everything Tony Snow says and report that as news?

So now the AG is blaming the investigation itself for his inability to know anything that goes on at the Justice Department! Is this a great country or what?

I'm wondering if anyone has read this article that appeared in Salon. Read it and tell me that this woman is a murderer.

http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/06/29/abortion/index.html

...are best addressed by women, their partners, and their doctors.

Not by the Catholic church or by the courts.

No, one could not just as easily say that.

I hear a lot of people complaining about being dogmatic and uncompromising in supporting the right to a late-term abortion. However, it is equally dogmatic to ban the procedure outright, with no exceptions. But, unsurprisingly, I'm not hearing this so much.

We certainly have many accounts from women who wanted to be pregnant, and then found out very late in their pregnancies that they were not carrying viable fetuses. (A fetus without a brain, or one where the brain has developed outside of its skull are not viable.) These women made the best decision they could under these horrific circumstances.

Now, I want to hear from the women who waltzed into their doctor's offices and demanded to have an abortion at 35 weeks. Who are these women? Where are they?

I'm not in favor of the above, BTW. However, I am in favor of allowing a woman to choose this option if, after consultation with her doctor, it is determined to be the best option out of several tragic options.

...because it doesn't allow for any exceptions. Is that better?

Of course our lives are controlled by laws and regulations and precedents. I'm having a hard time thinking of any other medical procedures that have been banned outright, though.

I'm not sure I understand the "Czech" controversy here. Zacharek refers to the young woman as "Czech". Is it incorrect to say that? If you refer to someone as a Czech, do you have to then say, "Of course, I understand that Czechoslovkia is now two countries, and the Czechs and the Slovaks are two distinctly different groups?" Someone, please enlighten me.

Anyway, this sounds like a lovely film. It'll probably take awhile to get here, but I'll be on the lookout for it.