Dr. Zaius

I don't know what's weirder. The fact that she thinks Falwell's comments about the Teletubbies was rational, or that she apparently can't grasp a concept like the definition of the word "cartoon."

I object to your use of the word "new." Fun article about Romney from Time: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/rom...partner?cnn=yes

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/88339.html

He was mayor of Cleveland the year she was born, and was elected to Congress the year she graduated from high school. I'm sorry, but that's just creepy.

Either they actually think they're right, or they think they can win the voters back by November 08 if they make the Democrats sound like they don't SUPPORT THE TROOPS™. (This is how this is being framed after all, not as a debate about the war, but whether or not Congress will SUPPORT THE TROOPS™.)

Hasbeen's argument that racial segregation is no different than forming groups to help oppressed minorities, or that the help these groups are offering is what is holding them down (rather than the other social problems facing that community) can be pretty easily disproven without resorting to "I know more black people than you."

I don't agree with the Chechen war, but Yeltsin moved a country from a failed command economy to a prosperous free-market economy. The Russian economy is doing well these days, and Yeltsin's ideas are to thank for it.

Poor education? Poverty? Racial stereotyping? 400 years of oppression? No, the real thing that holds black people down is giving them extra help.

Victims of racism forming organziation banding together to help each other is at least a little different than pure social exclusion.

Maybe "control" wasn't the best choice of words, friend.

Those look like tombstones. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/turner.prom/index.html Now, if they could just take care of that "Colored only" restroom, they'd be all set.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/23...n.ap/index.html

I was going to make a facetious comment about how either of those 2 could basically politicize anything, even the most trivial inconvenience, but every example I thought of was followed by a theory of how it could actually be done.

In retrospect, given what happened this week, don't we all feel stupid for paying any attention at all to something this trivial? Its pretty sad that it took something as horrible as a campus massacre to remind us that Don Imus and Anna Nicole Smith really don't mean shit in the big scheme of things.

New York Times Shit. Jesus Christ. Son of a bitch.

You mean it isn't????

Phelps needs to protest Ted Haggard's church. That'd be awesome.

Huckabee's finally getting some press coverage. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c...poll/index.html

They should have a battle to the death and the winner kills himself. Either way, we win.

I'm pretty irrated with all of the coverage its been getting. MSNBC is treating this story like Watergate or something, by giving it the big banner at the top of their their website and devoting huge portions of their evening programming to covering his suspension. "OH MY GOD A MIDDLE-AGED WHITE MAN SAID SOMETHING RACIST!!!!!"

Just for the sake of comparison. Somewhere in the back of my head, I kind of assumed this song was always meant to be self-parody of how shallow hip hop can be, but the message was lost on 99% of music consumers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/gin...nish/index.html Yeah, he's back-tracking big time.

There's a very practical reason why sex is supressed. My assumption is that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but that assumption is based on the idea that adults are responsible for their own actions and would have to face the consequences if they behaved in a dangerous way. Parents are legally responsible for children's well-being, and because of their emotional development, are usually too immature to deal responsibly with sex until they are adults.

We usually don't treat criminal like they treated their victims. It'd be hypocritical for us to say it was okay to do to them what they did to others. Even in death penalty cases, we still have a trial to prove their guilt and then multiple chances for appeals. The law treats people how they should be treated, not how they actually treated others. I cannot answer as to whether or not murderers can be rehabilitated, but I disagree with the idea that criminals should be treated a certain way because that's how their victims were treated.