That we think torture isn't so bad if done for "really good reasons."

Like if a wife murders her abusive husband. That her husband was abusive might be a mitigating factor, but she still committed murder. She should be found guilty of murder but the mitigating factors might affect how she is punished.

We should expect at least the same standard for "torture with the best of intentions." It's still torture, it's still wrong, and it's still illegal but we might punish it differently within some proscribed range of penalties.

Geez, when did Republicans become the party of floofy moral relativism?

The thing that is most depressing about this article is that John Woo is on a long list of criminals who will never be prosecuted.

John Woo's films may be formulaic, but they're hardly criminal.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Geez, this is poorly written.

It's dense and complicated yet manages to say very little.

It's also poorly researched. NOW isn't responsive to LGBT issues? NOW expanded its mission to cover lesbian rights back in 1971, a trailblazing move that actually caused a rift in the organization. And NOW's been working for diversity since Dr. Pauli Murray (and African-American woman) wrote NOW's statement of purpose in 1966. Today, NOW continues to push for civil rights and post-Katrina investigations and reform. What other major mainstream, "white feminist" organizations are "overlooking" diversity?

Furthermore, policies that help white, heterosexual women also help black, homosexual women. When you raise the pay of women, you lift up black families (which are disproportionately headed by single, black women). Family and Medical Leave doesn't help you if you're an hourly worker, which is why feminists also work to increase the minimum wage and offer some leave to hourly workers, too.

The extremes of any spectrum necessarily have different experiences. A rich, white woman will have different experiences than a poor, black woman. But in the middle are women of all colors and sexuality struggling to provide for their families, and struggling for physical, economic, health and job security.

And Jessica Hoffman seems to deliberately overlook this to foster vast divisions where mostly small differences exist.

Most every quickly-posted comment here is more nuanced and better written than Hoffman's labored essay.

cdevlin: I agree with your assessment of the Peeping Tom issue.

hate the troops? Why do they hate America?

Surrender monkeys.

I'm becoming less and less convinced that McCain is ignorant about the economy.

He might just be taking a page from Dubya's book--feign ignorance about matters so you can lie with impunity.

McCain is likely fully aware of the budget clusterf--k that was Reagan but this way he gets to talk the traditional, Republican budgetary line of tax cuts and balanced budgets with the added bonus of surrounding himself in the Halo of Reagan (TM)*.

*The Halo of Reagan (TM) is a registered trademark of Republicans everywhere wherein everything Reagan ever did was saintly, perfect and oh-so-lovely and in perfect agreement with whatever idea one's peddling now.

No friggin' kidding.

I just read the speech and it offers nothing new. Bush repeats the same lofty political, economic and diplomatic goals for Iraq that haven't really changed since we went into Iraq 5 years ago.

How exactly, then, have we made significant progress?

Although, I've gotta say, my favorite line is this: "Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran."

Note that neither Al Qaeda in Iraq nor Iranian influence in Iraq even existed before we went in.

It looks like Al Qaeda and Iran are the ones making "significant progress."

Team Bush wasn't insulating Dubya from the facts. They were insulating him from responsibility. It's called "plausible deniability."

Dubya knew exactly what was going on and fully sanctioned and directed it.

"Finally, someone who refused to drink the Kool-Aid"

Is that an unfortunate use of what is now a saying or was that an intentional Jim Jones reference?

"Has anyone on this site read "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf?"

Yes, and it scared the crap out of me.

It's a short book, but it took me longer than necessary to read it because I'd read a chapter and then put it down because I was really depressed by the detailed analysis of how far we've fallen.

insofar as they make his V.P. pick more important. Voters should ask themselves, "do I want his V.P. to be president?"

However, that question doesn't rank very high on my concerns about McCain.

His continuation of Bush's Iraq War and economic policies, his proclaimed ignorance on domestic issues and his dismal record on women's rights are much more disturbing.

Or present him with a birthday cake with all 72 candles and watch as it triggers the sprinkler system.

I used to have tremendous respect for McCain (even while disagreeing with him politically) but much of that respect is gone now. In 2000, Independents and Moderate Democrats supported McCain as a man of integrity while Republicans trashed him. Now McCain panders to crazy right-wingers and trashes the same people who supported him in 2000.

The gloves are off.

When I read, "Are women less willing to speak their minds?" I immediately thought, "Are women less willing to appear on camera?"

It's not just fears of "not looking pretty enough." There are also legitimate fears about personal safety and how your image might be used in appropriate sexual images online.

The women I know have a lot to say and are eager to say it. Less willing to speak their minds? Hardly.

When I wrote, "how your image might be used in appropriate sexual images online," I was, of course, missing an "in".

That should be "how your image might be used in inappropriate sexual images online."

Look It Up, glad you shook your cyber-stalker.