I think a great number of christians think that the majority of the violence of the "end times" will be directed at the Jews, and they need to support the Jews to be on God's side, in effect. The book of Revelation is complicated and there really are hundreds of interpretations. On most issues there are fairly accepted "liberal" and "conservative" theological points of view (I generally come from the conservative tradition), but there is quite a bit of disagreement on what exactly that last book in the Bible (well, protestant Bible) is actually talking about.

In short, I think a lot of well-meaning evangelical and fundie types think that they have a duty to protect Israel physically, even if they cannot "save" its citizens spiritually. My personal view is that God grudgingly allows people and nations to suffer the natural consequences of their crimes (indeed, in the Old Testament, God says he is sending his judgment on Israel in the form of a brutal foreign occupying power, and that they will in turn be judged for their treatment of Israel). If Israel is committing crimes (and it certainly seems that it has), the best way to protect them from God's judgment would be to encourage them to stop.

ps -- with the caveat that justice is corrupted / impossible to achieve by the presence of sin in the world, and true justice will be meted out individually by God in the next life.

Reasonably stated, but even a lowly student such as I can point to our treaty obligations to prosecute torturers and their enablers, as GG has written about extensively. Remember Bush has admitted that he authorized the torture of KSM. There's your mens rea. And of course treaties are the supreme law of the land per Article VI, right up there with the Constitution itself and federal law. And in the case of the CAT, any question about whether it has domestic force is foreclosed by INA s. 241(b)(3) and 8 CFR s. 208.16 (incorporating our CAT obligations into domestic law).

The CAT also forbids removing someone to a country where he would face torture. This suggests that the people running the rendition program, up to and including Bush and Cheney (and perhaps Clinton, although the program changed quite a bit under Bush), must be investigated and prosecuted if we are interested in complying with our obligations under the CAT. And of course, the impeachment procedures described in the Constitution by no means foreclose further criminal prosecution after the offender leaves office. There would have been no reason to pardon Nixon if he was not at least potentially facing further prosecution.

Where do I sign up? I feel no compassion for any of these women whatsoever, and I hope it gets much much worse.

The New England state that recently decriminalized marijuana possession (under 1 oz.) is Massachusetts. I expect the sky to start falling any day now. And count me in as someone who thinks "moving a plant across an imaginary line" (to quote Johnny Depp) shouldn't be subject to massive jail sentences. We can have a good-faith argument about other "drugs," but marijuana use is medically safer than ibuprofen. 35,000 people died from (admittedly) misusing the drug Vioxx, and the FDA didn't even see fit to take it off the market (although I'm reading now that the company voluntarily took it off the market, probably because defendnig class action lawsuits cost more than they could make selling it). If those people were managing their pain with marijuana, they would have faced no significant side-effects. Every scientist not working for the government (and even some who do) agree on this.

Now, against my better judgment, a short response to Shooter: I don't see Glenn arguing that people shouldn't have to serve the sentences prescribed by law. He is arguing that the drug laws and sentencing guidelines are draconian and in need of reform. That is in no way contradictory to a belief in the rule of law. If you understood the concept of the "rule of law" you might get that. And, as I and others have previously noted, Glenn doesn't need to use the word "allegedly" when referring to Bush's crimes BECAUSE BUSH HAS ADMITTED TO THEM. He has admitted to noncompliance with FISA, he admitted the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law, he personally authorized the torture of KSM. The presumption of innocence no longer applies after the defendant pleads guilty.

I will readily admit that I don't know much about how money works. Here's the question, or rather questions: If this is all currently a house of cards and an errant breath or flash of light will tumble it all with disastrous consequences, at which point will it cease to be a house of cards and turn into real, solvent or what have you, money? How long are we supposed to remain in the dark? Will we ever know when the myth becomes reality? Assuming the money isn't there now, how long can we live pretending it exists? If its all based on confidence, how does this help?

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Benjamin Button doesn't deserve nearly 13 Oscar Nominations. I don't think it deserves any aside from the technical categories (visual effects, costume, whatever). I think you mistakenly substituted "Traffic," which was a tremendous picture but I don't believe won best picture, for the movie "Crash," which was not only not deserving to win best picture, but also had to rip the name off a fine Cronenberg film. In summary, the Academy sucks. But at least No Country for Old Men won last year.

There was what sounded like a pretty good discussion on closing Guantanamo on the NPR show "On Point" this morning (I happened to be listening in a cab, so I'm going to have to check it out online). One of the guests was Maj. Frakt, I believe the same one appointed to defend Jawad before the Commissions. He made some good points.