I wish that you could empathize with the women in the middle east who can't leave their homes without men because they fear being raped and then murdered because they become "impure" due to that rape. I wish that you could experience the feelings of the little girls in Afghanistan who live under fear of being murdered if they go to school. I wish you could experience the pain and hunger of the people of Darfur. I wish you could experience the pain of a family who knows that their child is going to die because they can't raise money for the treatment they need to save him. Or even the relatively mild fear of a person who is sole support for their family, who can't find a job, and whose unemployment is running out.

No, actually I don't. There is a lot of pain in the world, and I would not be sadistic enough to wish it upon anybody. Or ignore it. It would be nice to fix everything. But we can't. So... why are you choosing to ignore the ongoing suffering of millions in the interests of promoting a popular anti-Bush agenda that is based on activites that are no longer ongoing? I repeat: "As war crimes go, these were relatively mild". Not mild... "relatively mild", in the context of war crimes. Cutting off arms of children, mass slaughter, genocide, systematic rape... the forms of torture we used were nothing compared to what has happened in the past and is ongoing in other nations. Don't attack me for having perspective and recognizing that our local problems are dwarfed by the pain we and others have caused throughout the world.

Torture is sucking the oxygen out of the room. Nobody is discussing the economy, housing problems, health care, the environment, or other important issues that face us right now. We are at a critical time in terms of national crises, and progressives seem to be so obsessed with (as John Stewart put it) "the pretty butterflies" that they can't take the time to press Obama on issues that will effect their lives and the lives of millions of people throughout the world.

As war crimes go, these torture incidents were fairly mild. Even the comparisons are insulting - the extradition of thousands of Jews to be gassed and worked to death in labor campas vs. isolated incidents of torture. I'm not saying that torture is okay - nobody with reason thinks that. But comparing this to the actions of Nazi Germany is obscene. Stop obsessing over vague ideals and focus on realities - the lives of Americans and Iraqis and Afgahnistan's citizens. For the sake of those ideals you are letting millions suffer. And lest you think that I have no ideals.... not letting girls me murdered for trying to go to school or forcing women to live under Sharia are idealistic goals. Of course, they aren't as close to home as the Constitution, so I suppose they don't matter as much. Or at least it seems that way.

"That being said, I do hope that you can find the happiness you are looking for one way or another, if you haven't found it yet."

I'm quite content to be childless by choice. I was just commenting on a comment, which I quoted in my comment (and I did point out that it was off topic). It is clear that at least some women think of having babies as a "typical" part of being a woman. It really isn't. There have always been women who, for one reason or another, didn't have children. "Aunties", by tradition or biology. I'm simply remarking that the author seems to be casually assuming that nurturing a baby is required to be a woman and that society is denying women their "womanhood" by denying women that opportunity.

Back to the mommy wars, which I find fascinating. So much concern over the latest developments in something that has been done successfully for millions of years.

"...surrender the parts and processes that makes us female", when referring to the experience of having and nurturing a baby is quite offensive to those of us who are female and childless. I know this is another discussion, but I browse through the "baby wars" threads for a view of "the other side", not for casual insults. It would be an interesting discussion, though... does nursing a baby make a woman more of a woman? Does having a baby make us more feminine? Why is there a perception that a womans life cannot be complete without her having a child?

I know I'm going to take heat from Clinton haters for saying this, but having Clinton as Secretary of State gives him a huge advantage in foreign policy. She knows her stuff and is a major policy wonk. Obama made a good decision when he chose her.

"My guess is that in the current environment, lending to the little guy and gal is very important - lending for small business, housing, big ticket consumption, debt consolidation, etc."

This is a good point. It would not be difficult to report how many loans were made in various amounts by each bank and whetehr those loans were to corporations or individuals. Are loans going to small businesses? To homeowners? To large businesses? Or is the stimulus money going to stockholders and fat cat bureaucrats, and many seem to believe?