I obviously cannot speak for the GOP candidates but I suspect it may have to do with the cause of arms control having discredited itself during the Cold War. I have opposed arms-control in principle all my life -- it is a narcotic, serves as a limp substitute for force and coercion, fosters a belief in technocracy, nurtures a debilitating political ethos, cannot substitute for political will, is useless against tyrannies, and demoralizes (and de-moralizes) democracies. I can say all that without having any need to know the details of whatever they've cooked up.

To quote the noted philosopher Christopher Rock on the question of pre-nuptial agreements in the specific context of the OJ Simpson case:

"Everybody needs a pre-nuptial agreement. People think you gotta be rich to get a pre-nup ... oh no. If you got $20 million, and your wife wants $10 million -- big deal, you ain't starving. But if you make $30,000, and your wife wants 15 -- you might have to kill her. 'Oh, you think I'm moving back to my mama's cause you ain't in love? You gonna have to die'."

The relevance to Lautenberg's comment is, I hope, clear.

Oh there's no question that Ebert was rather good at reviewing movies. But his descent in the last couple of years into partisan hackery (some of it quite ugly, all of it oozing self-righteousness) is threatening his legacy as the most influential film critic of all time.

I have used Craigslist to facilitate activities analogous to, if probably not precisely the same as, Mollie's unwanted responses (no ... I'm not proud of it, but I can't and won't pretend to be a better man than I am).

Here's what struck me as ridiculous about CL shutting down its adult-services listings, at least from a "public space" POV. Right on the same site there are hookup listings, "men seeking men," "men seeking women," etc., which I can assure y'all (no, I won't link, the curious can do their own legwork) are quite as graphic (probably more so, at least M4M is) as the "escort"/"massage" ads.

The M4M listings also are sometimes used as coded prostitution solicits -- "seeking generous" is one such euphemism. And frankly, if one were a perv seeking a victim, a free-hookup premise works just as well as a prostitute solicit, maybe better. Once the clothes are off, what will happen will happen.

Has any country ruled by Sharia ever embraced democracy?

No, but at least one implemented Shariah as the result of a democratic revolution (Iran).

few [American blacks] have any ancestral connection to Africa more recent than 150 years ago. Is this something carried in the blood?

Well, that blood IS powerful ... one drop, etc. ...

I think you might be confusing accent with dialect.

In the US, for the most part, class and geography differences are more notable in accents than full-blown dialects, true. But sometimes an accent can become so thick or eccentric that it becomes unintelligible to outsiders.

it seems the "right" way to speak really does boil down to power.

Which makes it unjust because ...?

If we want them to improve their economic potential by acknowledging the need for a dialect of formality, then we must first convince them that there is a space for them at the table.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. To speak of only Britain and the US, social mobility has been rising in recent decades co-terminus with the insistence (the roots of which are ideological not practical) that there is no "right" way to speak and thus people should feel free to talk however they want. Plus, and again to speak only of Britain and the US, the dialects of the upper classes are just as distinct and oft-parodied as those of the lower classes or the poorer geographic areas.

Every person knows multiple dialects. Poor blacks should be taught, like everyone else, that learning standard English doesn't require unlearning one's original dialect.

Amusing (to me) fact. I speak two quite distinct dialects of English -- one peculiar to the area I was born and raised (and which other speakers of English often find difficult) and one that I might as well call generic-American-TV-anchorman, which is what I use professionally and in most social interaction. But every roommate I've ever had has found my family members hard to understand and noticed the pronounced difference in my speech when I was on the phone with them

But when I learned to write in school, we were taught the same Standard English as everyone else and were not allowed to use local slang. And even in oral communication, there was also an implicit understanding that "we talk THIS way amongst ourselves and THAT way with outsiders."

Those were the bad ol' days of the 1970s though, before egalitarianism had seeped into every nook and cranny of social life and made "code-switching" a dirty word, a sign of inauthenticity.

Put another way, those who oppose "more rubble, less trouble" don't necessarily embrace "violence never solved anything."

The person to whom I was responding did ... "I have never seen."

The rest of your note rebuts nothing I wrote or could be reasonable inferred from what I wrote. Indeed my very citing of Germany and Japan (with the Confederacy being a trickier case) would likely imply that I am aware that it doesn't imply "rubble alone."

The Qur'an has not been subject to extensive scholarship and criticism to trace its origins

I wonder why? Maybe it's because people don't like having their marriages legally dissolved over their scholarship (in one, relatively happily-ending, case).

I have never seen a situation where "more rubble, less trouble" provided lasting benefit.

Never? Really? How about Germany and Japan after WW2? Or the Confederacy?

I know it sounds nice and high-minded to say things like "violence never solved anything" or "producing rubble never provides lasting benefit." But they and their ilk are as demonstrably untrue as human statements get.

No, no, no, Duane ... there is no such thing as Muslim anti-Semitism.

The moderate Muslim assures us that his ancestors welcomed Sefardic Jews. And only the first few Muslim leaders count. And the West built the A-bomb.

I'm not interested in any muslim actions except those of the Prophet (sav), Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali.

Well ... when they show up and start running Muslim affairs in the here-and-now and in the current time, I'll be interested in a discussion with them and/or with you about them.

Dar al-Islam **now** is the only place in the world where civilians are deliberately attacked, with any-official and mainstream-mass approval. And the only places in the world where I might reasonable expect to be executed for (what I admit are) my sins in the bedroom.

Sorry, but I don't see Paul's comments as any frootier or loopier than anything else he's ever said about foreign policy. His suggested response to 9-11? Letters of marque and reprisal.

Maybe you should travel less and read more.

Took the words right out of my mouth, particularly since this ...

And there's plenty of terrorism in the name of religion on all sides, from Hindu extremist groups to Muslim fanatics to abortion clinic bombers to the Irgun.

came in response to this

There are, for all practical purposes, no terrorists in the world today who act in the name of Christianity, and this has been the case for quite some time. And all of the few who do/did earn(ed) universal condemnation from Christian authorities and none of the governments in Christendom support(ed) them.

which already answered every point made. What do you actually know about the words in front of your face.

Maybe, instead of lording over your supposedly superior passport stamps -- for the record, I won't answer your question on principle; it has nothing to do with anything -- you would do well to actually read what's in front of your face instead of knee-jerking to Anti-Christianist Talking Point 27(a)

(random bloodthirsty verse Googled from ReligiousTolerance.Org or somesuch)

As a Christian, I don't endorse that. Do you?

Here's the difference (in addition to the structural-intellectual ones that already have been pointed out to you) ... you can cite verses all you want, but the proof of the pudding in in the eating.

There are, for all practical purposes, no terrorists in the world today who act in the name of Christianity, and this has been the case for quite some time. And all of the few who do/did earn(ed) universal condemnation from Christian authorities and none of the governments in Christendom support(ed) them.

None of those things is true in Islam. Virtually every terrorist group in the world acts in the name of Islam, and reaction to them from Muslims and Muslim governments is mixed at best