• McCain is playing his "maverick" card for every ounce it is worth, but McCain voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008, and 95% in 2007. That's not change we can believe in, it's change you spot on the sidewalk, and don't bother picking up, because yech, it's dirty.
• Palin has to attack the media, because they are uncovering a torrent of horrible things McCain failed to. Personally, the deal-breaker for me is Sarah Palin is a book burner

  Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

• Palin supports abstinence only sex eduation. I have a daughter, and I understand the desire to keep kids away from sex. But when you run across a livejournal community where 16-yr-old girls are asking if having their arm exposed to semen can make them pregnant, you realize that maybe abstinence-only sex education is sort of like Africans who think you can cure HIV by raping a virgin.
• From her questionnaire:

  11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

  Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

  So ignorant, it is almost physically painful. Shouldn't people a 72-yr old heartbeat from the Presidency have a bit more historical perspective? The Pledge of Allegience was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers were all dead. The words "under God" weren't added until 1954.
  

Finally, I read her last answer:

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?

1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of "marriage" as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm all for protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. We can debate the definition of "well regulated militia", but ultimately, Americans have the right to bear arms. But while I think the NRA and Republicans in general actually hit on one of the main reasons we have the right to bear arms - because it's a lot harder to enforce a totalitarian tyranny against an armed populace - I think they are turning a blind eye to a lot of other Amendments. In particular, the Fourth Amendment has been, at best, on life support since the PATRIOT Act. No sooner is it raised, than the specter of terrorism is summoned to justify abuse. This is crystal clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's pretty simple: you have to have probable cause before you go searching, supported by Oath or Affirmation. You can't troll in general - by, say, requisitioning all the records of a library, or all purchases from Amazon. And you need legitimate evidence... that would be probably cause a crime has been committed, and that doesn't include raiding the homes of would-be protestors. "Conspiracy to commit a riot." Yarg. These leads us back to the first Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People have a lot of grievances, and the RNC convention is a pretty reasonable place to express them. Peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment.

This isn't to say McCain-Palin is all bad. McCain has taken almost no earmarks. Bravo, Senator McCain. Earmarks are part and parcel of the disgusting "scratch my back" politics that plague Washington and ruin government, making it wasteful. And I admire McCain for not playing the game. Others, like Obama, have played the game but also, tried to change the rules.

I'd have preferred to see Obama avoid earmarks altogether, although this is clearly a systemic problem, as the voters "back home" elect these national politicians, who partially get graded on bringing home the bacon. In other words, earmarks are bad - for all the other states. (So in that sense, I applaud the citizens of Arizona for putting up with McCain's "failure" in that regard.)

There are a lot of myths floating around right now, though. For example, the idea that liberals are the big spenders. But government spending grew under Reagan, fell under Clinton, and rebounded up under George W Bush. I'm in favor of smaller government; but I'm very skeptical of McCain's fiscal conservative bona fides when he is so in tune with GWB.

Ultimately, though, I also feel like the parties have to be held responsible for their performance. McCain on Katrina:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain took stock of still-hurricane-damaged areas of New Orleans on Thursday and declared that if the disaster had happened on his watch, he would have immediately landed at the nearest Air Force base, drawing a sharp contrast to President Bush's handling of the tragedy.

McCain called the response to Hurricane Katrina "a perfect storm" of mismanagement by federal, state and local governments.

Except that McCain was cutting his birthday cake with President Bush while New Orleans sank. The levees breached and New Orleans sank while McCain was enjoying his birthday cake with a President who should have been doing his job. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns... And the Katrina fiasco was part and parcel of the cronyism of the Bush administration. There were far too many people either grossly incompetent or teeming with partisan agendas in the Bush administration. I don't expect White House staff to roll over and play dead for the other party, but going after the jobs of people who oppose you politically even when they're competent is just... gross malfeasance.

Anyhow, all this leads up to what got me thinking tonight, which was this Gallup poll, which I find sort of surprising. Sure it has been reported here and there in the media, but the nonpartisan tax policy analysis is simple: the after tax income of at least the bottom 80% of income earners would be higher under Obama's tax proposal. You're not even in that top quintile unless you make at least $88,000 a year. However, this is averages; a lot of the policy giving larger refunds from McCain's proposal comes from Obama's policy absolutely brutalizing the top 1%, where they would actually see their after-tax income decline.

So, you're worried about higher taxes from Obama? You should be, if you're making over $250,000 a year. Or maybe you shouldn't be. After all, you're making $250,000 a year.

I'm not real fond of even chasing this, because unlike many "liberals", I know that many things have become more of a meritocracy over time. Consequently, I'd expect the rich to get richer, simply because the economy is growing more efficient at allocating wealth for performance. That said, I also think people in general - especially anyone at the median or above - needs to look at their lifestyle and ask why Americans stopped saving money? 7-10% very consistently, until 1992ish, and it has been downhill from there. (And I'm sorry - there's just no way you can blame Clinton for poor savings, when we say the biggest gains in real income in ages; unless the explanation is irrational exuberance over personal finances. Maybe we can ask Tyler Cowen.

Anyhow, how is it so many people think Obama will raise their taxes and McCain won't? It's just backwards. It's marketing. And I'm not fond of marketing. We can debate the merits of policy, and I hold economists like Cowen in great esteem, and it seems like they are rarely in the corner of policy markers like Obama. But let's at least get the policies straight. You have less money under Bush unless you're rich; you saw a tiny tax cut if you were middle class, which was promptly destroyed by his deficit spending putting the value of the dollar through a meat grinder. Because it turns out that oil you thought was so expensive hasn't gone up as much as you thought. It went up, yes, but it's an international commodity, and the dollar has gone down. If your wealth (or paycheck) was in constant ounces of gold, then oil is only up about +100% instead of +400%.

Long post. I hope the next 8 years and more finds us all better off than we are; working hard, and leaving a better world. I'd like to write another post soon about the way energy policy is the pre-eminent issue of our day. Our energy policy is the key issue for us over the next 10 years. It will be the lynchpin for our economy, our foreign policy, and our environment. A good decision on this could lead to a new era of prosperity, or the end of America as we know it and the rise of the Middle East, Russia, and others. (It has already begun, of course; just witness the stuff Dubai is building. With your oil dollars. Patriotism? When I see this, man, I am ready to volunteer to build windmills on the weekend. I am not kidding.)

This is what discovering music should be like. You indicate preferences, and something mixes your favorites in with potential new discoveries. Don't like one? It is skipped, on to the next one. Like one? Get a high bitrate copy of your own immediately, DRM free.

I picked up the Digitalism album off iTunes on the strength of the badass song Idealistic and the fact that it was itunes plus, so no DRM. Now I'm following from those songs, via Pandora, into the Chemical Brothers, and songs like Weak in the Knees by Bender (I couldn't even find a site). That latter song was like #eleventymillion in popularity on Amazon, but I *love* it.

The e-book, TV, movie industries have a lot to learn from how to get value from consumers.

This winning combo has me delightedly trying out new music, with a great "hit ratio" (unlike traditional mass-media radio), and makes it easy to buy a song I want. Bravo, Amazon and Pandora.

You can't legislate this sort of success - you can only earn it by serving the needs of consumers better.

The ad leads on to a dull warning that Barack Obama plans to "lift the cap on social security" and that this will be the "biggest tax increase in history", and that it isn't necessary because the Social Security "crisis" is fake.

So, of course, it's deceptive.

First, Obama hasn't stated exactly what his plan is, and has repeatedly talked about leaving a "hole" from 97,500 to 200,000, to avoid hitting people who make middle to upper-middle class incomes in high cost of living areas.

Second, while Social Security is not currently in "crisis", there is a problem with it. It will be insolvent eventually, and worse, we currently owe the Social Security Trust Fund on the order of $5 trillion. Yes, that's $5,000,000,000,000. When it comes time - and this won't be very long, as boomer get nice and retired - to pay out that money, where will we get it? We either have to collect it in taxes, cut spending and services, or borrow it from someone. Right now, the Social Security fund has purchased US Treasury notes (bonds) with the trillions of dollars in surplus it has - surplus that will be needed for Social Security to survive the boomers. Yes, SS is solid until something like 2047 or later with all that money - but do we really want to try to sell another $5 trillion in bonds to foreign governments when the dollar is colossally weak? No.

Third, and this is really the point of the post: Who is this ad supposed to sway?

It's basically deception by omission, because it simply fails to mention who will be affected by the mentioned tax increase. The current cap on Social Security is $102,000. The 2006 census indicates that 5.63% of people earned $100,000+ per year. Therefore such an increase will affect less than 5.63%. And many of them probably to a small degree. It may be the "biggest tax increase in [insert time period here, sparing no hyperbole]", but there's still a 94.27%+ chance that it won't affect you.

Now, the real number is probably considerably lower, because some amount of those 5.63% are earning some share of their money through dividends, capital gains, and other things which are not subject to FICA. Putting an ad on a political site to warn the 5.63% of high income earners about Obama is silly, of course. Those who even remotely care, know. No, the problem here is the uninformed among the other 94% who only take away this: "Obama will raise my taxes!", without knowing it is patently false.

Every generation has an epic challenge it must rise to. Whether it is a struggle for a free Europe and a free world, toeing the line against the spread of communism, rising from the ashes of the Great Depression, or going to the moon. There are moments where we have opportunities to leave an imprint of positive change on the world. These moments are not free. They are costly, in blood, treasure, or both. But the cost of ignoring these moments is greater.

The time has come for every American to ask how they can cut back and save, to direct resources toward the building of a mighty green infrastructure, that can power us, and perhaps the world. We need to demand on every level that people work together to support this. Push our science departments to dedicate research resources to green energy. Push politicians to collaborate on green funding. If you can possibly do it, try to be an early adopter of green tech - and I don't mean a Prius, I'm talking about a roof full of Solar Panels. It is time to blend our determination, our hope, our expertise, and our drive to build an infrastructure for the next few centuries.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Yes, this is just a coincidence, but it's a sad one.

I give you Florida state law:

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.

--A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

I've bolded the most relevant portion. Here's what we need to know:

(1) Police are only acting legally in the use of force if an exemption is permitted by this statute;
(2) The police had no reason to believe that a handcuffed student, on the ground, with 6 police and 1 student, represented any threat whatsoever to them or anyone.

Consequently, those police are not justified in the use of the taser.

If the police declared they intended to arrest him, then they were justified in physically restraining him to cuff him. Once he was cuffed, and outnumbering him 6:1, there is no possible justification for the use of force. So to my reading, the officer using the taser was committing battery, and each other officer holding him down was an accessory to the crime.

The State attorney should immediately file charges against them. The tape alone is sufficient evidence to merit a trial.

He was given time for a question in Q&A. He began with an introduction talking about how a bunch of reports had said Kerry won the 2004 election, leading to a question as to why Kerry did not contest the 2004 vote. I think that's a fair question. He grew slightly more agitated as people almost immediately tried to push him off the mic.

He finished his (three) questions, as he tacked two more on rapidly at the end, taking up about 90 seconds total.

The police began to escort him out. That's inappropriate, but neverminding that...

His minor attempt to resist police ended with him down on the ground, screaming that he was being arrested for nothing. I largely tend to agree. Is he fringe? Maybe. But I don't want to judge the question. He was passionate, he was polite - he was not vulgar, he did wrap up fairly fast when asked to do so.

In any event, he's on the ground, and clearly a cop had out a taser and he was begging to not be tasered. "Don't tase me, man, I haven't done anything," he pleads. Then you hear the 'tic tic tic' sound of the taser going off, and he screams.

Amnesty International reports there have been 245 taser-related deaths since 2001. The taser is a lethal weapon, and should be used when a danger exists to the police, in lieu of using a firearm.

This leads me to ask - at what point, when the police are being unjustifiably violent, does it become legal and moral to resist them? Because watching this video, my first instinct is to tackle the cop with the taser. What would they have done if that cop had pulled out a gun and shot the kid in the leg? Would it be justifiable to tackle the cop then?

In any event, we clearly need laws against the spurious use of tasers, and we also clearly need to ensure that police are prosecuted themselves under the law when they use excessive force. I am once again inclined to pursue a law degree so I can start suing people. It seems like passing the bar is probably the best way that someone can take action against the advance of a tyrannical state.

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape?

So true. First, this is a fundamental problem with religion, beyond anything incredibly vague. If we begin with a statement such as, "I believe an intelligent higher power is at large in or one with the universe.", we might get a lot of agreement. By the time we are into specifics of Jesus, Muhammad, Trinities, holy books, carbon dating, and so on, we have opened up a can of worms that simply will not settle. Many religions seem, to me, to be fundamentally incompatible.

The author discusses various activities of book burnings, disrespect, and the undertone of violence, and says:

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

Indeed, there can be no concession. Religion and principles it espouses cannot be forced upon people, but Islam is not the only offender. How many public policies are justified with invoking "God" in the United States? There are restrictions on liquor, a fight against abortion, crusades against pornography, statutes against sodomy, and even pickets protesting Harry Potter. But the Christians of the United States are far more numerous than the Shia, so they don't feel the need to resort to violence (with exceptions), but the pursuit of a theocratically-driven secular policy agenda isn't significantly better. Moreover, the social assumption that those not subscribing to a belief set should be ostracized furthers an agenda of homogenization in the country that is dangerous. Homogenization quells discourse and stifles creativity.

So I agree: there can be no concession, but we must all agree to live in a secular world, not just the Muslims. So when you claim a moral authority, be prepared to argue it from a universal principle. That murder is wrong is not contested (quacks aside), despite the Ten Commandments. But that doesn't mean we will or should approve of stoning adulteresses to death. Universal principles.

I've had the pleasure recently, in Utah, of meeting a LOT of very devoted religious people who also seem to have found a balance between living their faith, even promoting their faith (since almost every Mormon goes on a mission for two years, usually at around 19 years of age), and yet accepting a secular world around them. I can respect any belief set that can respect the right of others to believe otherwise. When a Muslim can say that as well, I welcome them into society with open arms. When they cannot - whether they deny that principle a cry for immediate Jihad, or a whisper that a true revolution must wait for the rise of a Caliph to lead them - then I reject that. And we all should.

It's definitely something to think about. Ultimately, it seems we fear things we should not, and do not fear things that we should.

The senior Democrat on the Subcommittee of IP and the Internet is Howard Berman. Berman is a longtime hollywood DRM pimp. He was behind the horrendous idea that we should let studios hack computers to stop P2P file transfers. Techdirt lists his wide array of anti-consumer initiatives:

Among Berman's proposed or supported laws were the ability for copyright holders to take vigilante action on those they believed were sharing their content allowing them to hack into your computer, a bill to strip away many fair use protections, a bill to let the entertainment industry use the FBI's seal when going after copyright infringers, a bill to give jail time to those caught file sharing (rather than just fines), a proposal to put people in jail for registering a domain with fake info and has been a big supporter of adding a broadcast flag requirement to consumer electronics.

In short, he's a shill for the content giants.

Actually, there's lots of good news.

(1) Ted Stevens, of "The Internet is not a truck, it's a series of tubes" fame, was stymied in his attempt to wreck net neutrality in the name of special interests. Huzzah.

(2) The Republicans may lose control of the House and Senate. It's still a long shot - but it's a shot. Their poll numbers are awful. (I know that's a shock; Bush only has a few more points to lose before he's less popular than Nero)

In September 2005, VA Information Security employees seized Berg’s office computer because they claimed “government equipment was used inappropriately…during government time for drafting an editorial letter.” No evidence was recovered to support that belief. [...]

Simonson added: “The reference to ‘sedition’ is shocking. Even if Laura had used the office computer it would change nothing. None of her actions -- her criticism of the government, or her appeal for a change in the heads of government -- approach an act of unlawful insurrection. Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of ‘sedition’?”

The Bush administration supports totalitarianism, and it's that simple. Want to remain free? Don't vote for them. Frankly, if you voted for Bush in 2004, you voted for the closest thing to Hitler we've ever had. Irrational war policy, Stalinesque press manipulation, abuse of military power against citizens (warrantless arrests), and of course, Gestapo-like spying on Americans without warrants or oversight.

It's not really safe at this point to vote for Republicans, period. Certainly not on a national level. They need a severe reminder that the place of the government is in service of the people. We the People.

They can Burn effigies of our leaders and president, effigies of Christians, burn our flag, chop off heads of innocent civilians, kidnap journalists...shall I go on? All of this is the name of Mohammed, but we have a cartoon and it sparks riots, boycotts and violence all over the world. The Danish Government is to be congratulated for not offering and condolences or apologies on behalf of freedom of the press.

In today's news, the BBC reports that an Iranian paper is seeking cartoon submissions about the Holocaust.

"Does the West's freedom of expression extend to... an event such as the Holocaust or is this freedom of expression only for the desecration of the sanctities of divine religions?" the best-selling paper said in its announcement.

It also asks for cartoons covering "America and Israel's crimes and plundering".

Iran's conservative rulers are supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who argue that the systematic slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II has been exaggerated for political ends.

I applaud them. This is an appropriate response. And I can say for my own part: the freedom of expression extends to all expression. I don't care if you're preaching your religion, promoting your political point of view, pandering to the ignorant by linking immigration to a poor economy to promote racist attitudes, or discussing your opinion of a great movie. Speech is speech. If you're not directly threatening someone, or inciting an immediate danger by yelling Fire in a crowded theater, then your speech is okay.

Not everyone agrees with me. For example, in the Age newspaper, they wrote:

THE newspapers that opted not to publish the cartoons offensive to Muslims that triggered riots in the Middle East should also have avoided publishing material that deeply offended Christians, says Treasurer Peter Costello.

And also:

"And Christians didn't have a riot, you know, they voiced their protest and just as the newspapers have the right of free speech to publish these things, so you have the right of free speech to condemn it." [Said Treasurer Peter Costello]

I disagree. Out of the blue, I'd largely agree. That is, I don't necessarily see the purpose of just spuriously offending a bunch of Christians. But this week, in the context of the Mohammad cartoon and the response and discussion, clearly offending Christians isn't a terrible idea, because it serves the interest of placing them in the shoes of the Muslims who were offended by the Mohammad cartoon.

Notice, however, the Christians did not have a riot, and this is key. I can't find the reference right now, although I suspect it may have been in the majority opinion in Cohen v California, but one of my favorite quotes can be paraphrased as: "The best cure for bad speech is more speech."

As I see it we have two choices: we can either get used to being offended, we can isolate ourselves from each other, so each society is perfect in its homogeneity, or we can homogenize the world. The last will be a bloody and futile endeavor, and the second simply isn't any more realistic than deciding we should all give up electricity. So our last choice is to simply learn to live with one another. Every time we grasp at the illusion of success with the other two choices, we will cause problems. In that sense, at least, I can only hope we are all offended once in a while, and we get used to it.

It's clear to me that many Muslims are ignorant - either intentionally or unintentionally - of how our press system operates. Since my impression is that a number of these religious states have state-run media arms, this isn't a surprise. To many of them, something in a UK newspaper is a declaration by the UK government. But we know better. Not to say the government doesn't have a shamefully large influence over our press at times, but certainly it is safe to say that our newspapers do not simply print what they are told to print, and avoid what they are told to avoid.

Clearly the direct message straight from the government of Iran that the holocaust is a fraud is no less offensive to jews than these cartoons are to Muslims. I expect jews to react with some sense of outrage to such claims, as I expect Muslims to react with some sense of outrage to these cartoons. But outrage in these cases must be channelled into peaceful protest, discourse, and more speech.

From this PBS interview:

STEPHAN RICHTER: That's a good point, but moderate Muslims also need to take the battle into their own societies, into the structures, into Saudi Arabia and so on. And that's what's missing because you have plenty of Middle Eastern Muslim papers that are full of viciously anti-Semitic cartoons every day, and this is the law of two standards, and that doesn't work because we really need to apply all standards that you advocated also into those societies, and then we can make it work.

AHMED YOUNIS: And I think the majority of Muslims would agree with that. And our track record is clear, whether it is the Taliban with Buddhist temples or attacks against Christian communities in Muslim countries, we're very consistent, religious freedom is for everyone, not just for ourselves.

This will likely become one of the great debates facing society in the future. From whence do we derive our morals? Of course, it is easy to say, "religious freedom is for everyone", but why are women not permitted to show their face in public in some predominantly Muslim countries? Is such modesty not religious in origin?

Until recently, I might have believed Ahmed Younis. Perhaps I still do. Certainly, electing Hamas to power in Palestine is a frightening indicator that the extremists may outnumber the moderate or secular Muslims. But on that note, I must look to my own country, because I am equally afraid the extreme religious right may outnumber moderate or secular Americans.

And so I think everyone should ask: from whence come moral standards? Because if your answer is religion, your morals are guaranteed to be incompatible with someone else's. I think there are self-evident and universal principles that can evolve with thought into a moral system. Secular philosophy can lead to morality. We do not need a book - whether it is the Bible or the Koran - to tell us how to be moral.

Scott Adams was relatively deft with this dilemna in God's Debris. We have little or no empirical evidence to help us select between religions. Choose your book - the Bible, the Koran, a bunch of Watchtower society pamphlets or the Book of Mormon, among others. Why one and not the other? Do Christians not think Muslims are a bit crazy for their fervor? Do you not think Muslims believe Christians to be misguided at best for theirs?

I think the BBC story on escalating tension is worth a read.

"We're seeing ourselves characterised as an intolerant people or as enemies of Islam as a religion. That picture is false. Extremists and radicals who seek a clash of cultures and religions are spreading it," Mr Rasmussen said.

There is no doubt in my mind that whatever the opinion of a majority of Muslims, there is certainly everything to gain and nothing to lose for extremists to incite violence and protest among their fellows. The greater the rancor, the easier it is to fost further violence, and that is what they thrive upon.

Did you know the cartoons were originally published September 30, 2005? Even the Norweigan reprint is almost a month old now. Clearly, there are forces at work here other than natural outrage, because natural outrage would have happened sooner.

We need to be keenly aware of the demogogues who operate by preying on religious fervor domestically, just as much. To look to the Bible a moment, we must be sure there is no plank in our own eye before removing the spec of sawdust from our neighbor's eye. I've written many times - and will continue to - about the influence of the religious right on our politics and the dangers of both liberal and conservative positions on issues. One thing remains obvious to me, however: Bush is the most dangerous President to be elected in my lifetime, and perhaps ever. He has little or no respect for the Constitution, little or no respect for civil rights, and is willing to trod all over both to promote either a pro-Christian-right agenda or a pro-totalitarian agenda. He's done little or nothing to actually protect us from terrorism, since it is clear that invading other countries and fomenting resentment is not going to protect us from terrorism half as much as would strengthening our border security, creating a truth-driven intelligence community, and hardening our infrastructure to make terrorist attacks on key targets more difficult. Instead, 9/11 has been used as a red herring to incessantly expand government size and power. And the religious right is a key voting bloc that Bush would be unelectable without. So we walk into the fire as a nation.

I hope everyone, Christian, Muslim, and everyone else keeps talking about this issue and other issues. I hope we try to evaluate things based on all the information we can find. I hope we stop spinning and start paying attention and thinking. The cartoons, in a sense, are admirable. They've sparked a response that has led to an important discussion about how we all get along in a world where our beliefs will sometimes offend one another. We either need to learn to get along - and that means sometimes knowing we will be offended - or we may as well start fighting now.