Which came first... the public perception that defunding was tantamount to killing soldiers, or Democrats echoing that perception? It's an important distinction. If the public developed the perception first, then the Democrats are guilty of nothing more than not adequately making a case to contradict the right wing spin. If the Democrats made the case along with Republicans, it indicates that they are so frightened of being considered weak in the war on terror that they are willing to sacrifice their principles in order to appear more like the republicans.

If France had invaded the colonies in 1770 and established French rule in order to free us from the domination of the British Empire, would we have thanked them? If they had occupied our land, forced their political system on us, and tortured our citizens for information about British spies, would we have been grateful?

When did being overweight become everybody's business? We don't criticize people for participating in sporting events that damage their bodies (and in some cases, like football and boxing, their brains). We don't particularly care if people eat unhealthy diets rich in cholesterol - as long as they don't get fat. We don't condemn people for not getting screened for colo-rectal cancer. We condemn smoking to the point that a diagnosis of lung cancer brings an automatic response of "Did they smoke?", but when was the last time you heard of some woman with breast cancer being asked if she got regular mammograms?

I really, truly believe that the majority of concern people show about the health effects of obesity is simply a justification for their feeling repulsed by fat. It's like smoking. People didn't like smoking in restaurants or bars, but couldn't do anything about it until somebody did a study showing that people who were constantly exposed to cigarette smoke had elevated rates of smoking related diseases. Now, people in some places aren't allowed to smoke even in open spaces, not because of any real health risk from occasional exposure to smoke, but because people who don't like smoking have an excuse to stop them.

Now it's fat people who are harming others, by being bad role models and raising medical insurance costs. We can't force people to lose weight, and various studies have shown that it's very difficult to keep weight off even when it's lost, but we can isolate fat people the way we isolated smokers. WE can pressure them to lose weight by making them feel like pariahs. They (actually, we) have become social outcasts, and woe betide any fat person who dares to show off their ugly body in the public square.

Dear Anonymous - You're right. We should all be perfect in our abstinence. While we're are it, let's just all agree not to have sex until we are married, not participate in extreme sports, and not drive even a mile over the speed limit. When you really think about it, nobody HAS to dance, laugh, sing, or play loud rock music. Perhaps we should all give up the things that make live wonderful and live clean, healthy, lives.

On the other hand... nobody HAS to be judgemental assholes, either.

It's a baby. Cheney is an anti-gay bigot, but not enough so that he's willing to reject a family member who is gay, or a grandchild who is the child of this family member. A lot of parents of gay people are not so tolerant, and I think it is admirable of him to put his family before his biases. Do I wish he would be more open to the needs or GLBT people , using his experiences with his daughter to open his mind and heart to them in general? Yes. But he isn't, and frankly, this is nobody's business but their families. Like Clinton's marital indiscretions, it's none of our business. It's a baby, not a political statement.

Okay, I will grant that there is a slim possibility that the victim got so drunk that she agreed to be gang banged. But I have a really, really hard time imagining anybody who has the least amount of control over their actions continuing with sexual activity after somebody vomits in their mouth.

Although it's misleading to compare Bush to Reagan, it's not inaccurate. Both raised taxes and increased the size of government, both established policies that benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Both had foreign policies that ultimately resulted in major problems. Reagan had a wonderful opportunity to reach out to the former states of the USSR, but instead chose to let them work their own way through their newly found Democratic freedoms, and it was often disastrous. He also messed up in Beirut. Now, Bush's legacy is being lied about in the same way, even though the result will be different. It's about the story - what story is best for the party. It's not about the truth

You're driving along this seemingly remote highway bordered by green fields, but you're moments away from one of the most populous regions in the world. I always loved that drive. I think, however, that the area you describe is "the Peninsula", not the "South Bay". Maybe a technicality, but it matters to locals. I've attached a link that describes the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Peninsula

"Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?" Wow. Just... Wow. I wonder if she has any sense of irony at all.