Thanks . . . would love to know more.

I asked a friend in Belfast this yesterday, and he wasn't quite sure of the answer.

As a political party that, ostensibly, must hire people and provide jobs, what law in the UK protects the BNP's 'right' to exclude non-white members?

I think if the god that Lemos refers to really is all-knowing and all-powerful, being called 'bizarre' by a political blogger during this brief moment in time, the early twenty-first century, probably isn't going to bother him all that much.

George Mitchell tried once. He said this to Ollie during the Iran-Contra hearings:

"please remember, that it is possible for an American to disagree with you on aid to the Contras and still love God, and still love this country, just as much as you do. Although He is regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics."

The whole speech is incredible (Michell talks about having sworn in new Americans as a federal judge), and worth a read.

(http://library.bowdoin.edu/arch/mitchell /speeches/ic2.htm)

Well said.

And similarly with his (and the right's) appropriation of Jefferson (see his inane pirate rant).

I know that 'ownership' of the country's symbols is a highly contested area, but it would be nice if they knew what they were talking about . . .

You may be right (about health care costs), but I'm not really sure what that has to do with the way Beck has been conflating him with terrorists.

Would you say that Obama's failure to pass health care reform in the manner of your choosing at your preferred speed makes him a terrorist?

Just watched a recent Glenn Beck clip that has an actor dressed up as Thomas Paine (yeah, right!), exhorting Americans to 'take their country back' on April 15.

At one point, Mr. Paine says something like:

"We thought they'd never bomb Pearl Harbor, but they did. We thought they'd never fly two planes into the WTC, but they did. We thought they'd never get passed the best defenses in the world and fly into the Pentagon, but they did. We thought they'd never pass the largest spending bill in history against the will of the majority, but they did."

I guess I don't have to explain what they're doing there . . . crazy.

Exactly . . . ending the embargo is going to seem an easier proposition to Americans and a lot of American politicians in a few years when they've gotten used to the upcoming (admittedly mild) loosening. I'd like to see it today, too, but today it would just be one more weapon in the battle to destroy Obama's credibility as a 'real' American. It's better to win the big fight in the long run than make a statement today . . . in this case, maybe.

Well put. It's not always easy to take the long view, especially in the face of heated anger, but it's helpful. I'm not saying it should take the place of the anger, but it shouldn't be excluded by it, either.

And on another note, I'm curious if anybody's noticed how this choice by Obama, coinciding with the reaction to prop 8's passing, has got people reacting, how many people are being vocal in the face of it (more so, nationally, I'd say, than during the lead up to the prop 8 vote). Notice that Warren is even out defending himself, something he likely would not have had to do so early in Obama's tenure if Obama hadn't made this choice.

I'm not going to take the step of saying Obama planned for this reaction or anything . . . but let's not forget, the guy's got some wisdom when it comes to seeing how things play out.

it was 'Endless Love'

. . . Ray and Stevie Wonder playing tennis.

Doh!

You're money, baby!

Which while it might have a mention of a militia does not limit ownership of arms to those who are members of said militia.

I'd prefer not to get into a knock-down drag-out, but as knowledgeable as you seem to be on the topic, I'm guessing you are aware that the wording of the Second Amendment is a lot more confusing and slippery than you let on here.

Like with other amendments, debating what the words actually mean and trying to come to an understanding of them, does not make one anti-Constitution.

Read 'Guns, Germs and Steel.' It's necessary reading for anybody who even thinks about wanting to have a talk about the 'races' and which did what. And it's damned fascinating.

Thanks. I think it's difficult to talk about this stuff with an open mind because the deep emotional connection makes a lot of us take things personally that aren't meant to be 'personal attacks' but serious observations and questions.

I don't 'agree' with the behavior, either. But it's there (and, try as I might not to engage in it, sometimes I couldn't/can't help myself).