"Culture War", indeed. Here is what the Culture War actually is:

Liberal Abominations: We want abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers at all stages of pregnancy. We want homosexual marriage, encouraged and respected by the government. We want the euthanasia of the old, the sick, and the unwanted to be legalized.

Sane Americans: Hold on, now, that's crazy! We shouldn't do that.

Liberal Abominations: INTOLERANT!!! THEOCRACY!!! ANTI-CHANGE!!! ANTI-HOPE!!! ANTI-CHOICE!!! Why are you fighting a CULTURE WAR against AMERICANS?!?!? Why do you HATE AMERICA and the CONSTITUTION?!?!

Sane Americans: What the???

Ah the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

How many hoops? How many denials? All for the right to roll in the hay!

Our forefathers never saw this one coming...war, religious freedom, power, corruption....yes.

The right to fool around...no. Who'd have thunk it would all come down to this?

God speaks to His people, the people who broke their vow of faithfulness to Him:

[C]ome here, you sons of a sorceress,
you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!
Whom are you mocking?
At whom do you sneer
and stick out your tongue?
Are you not a brood of rebels,
the offspring of liars?
You burn with lust among the oaks
and under every spreading tree;
you sacrifice your children in the ravines
and under the overhanging crags. (Is. 57:3-5)

LOL, nice to know that even the cartoonists at ClownHall.com can see that McPalin are resorting to lame culture-war distractions instead of discussing the issues.

I blame the internet. People with extreme views only have to go as far as their computers to find entire communities who are just as or more depraved than they are, and no matter their behavior, there is a huge chorus of voices to shout, "Yes, WE are surely the ones who are in the right!" or "Not only do I find what you say acceptable, but I think we should be even more extrme than that!" when they would've been corrected in normal mixed company, because many if not most of these people are approval-seeking and weak-willed, and will alter and adjust their philosophies when needed to get that approval. Add in trolls who regularly show up to harass those of conflicting views, thereby removing any and all respect one side might've had for the other, and you have a recipe for extremists on both sides.

can someone help me? my 4 year old informed me today that she wants to be sarah palin for halloween!(i think she's been watching too much news with me)does anyone have any creative suggestions for me? she has long hair so i think i can get the hair down!

becky-

I would not be surprised at all if costumes are in production for Sarah Palin already, lol.

in fact, a google search turned up this! lol

thanks dan!

i'll have her carry her babydoll, that would be cute!

if anyone wants to know who she is when you or whoever takes her around, maybe make a sign that says "Future V.P."

mk: have you read any of Demi's books for children (NOT Demi moore either)?

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

All I have to say is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

My bad, it seems that story has been recanted by the GOP in MI, however it seems they still intend to participate in voter caging.

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4231/republicans-recant-plans-to-foreclose-voters-but-admit-other-strategies

Thank God there's a bill in the works to ban caging.

I hope all the liberal proaborts yuk it up real good now, because Sarah will have the last laugh.

McCain/Palin have so thoroughly embraced a capaign of lies and distraction that even Karl Rove has questioned their "all lies, all the time" approach.

The NY Times and the Washington Post have examined not only Palin's lies, but the cronyism and personal vendettas that characterize her tenure as mayor and governor. The Palin bubble is starting to deflate.

If by "all lies all the time" you mean "all leftist smears all the time" you might be right.

Thus far we have debunked every "lie" you bring out.

That's dumb, MI GOP. If you really want to win, you just need to make sure no dead people vote, and make sure nobody votes twice. Those are your more common Dem strategies.

Though I have to admit, it's laugh out loud funny that Dan is thanking GOD there's a bill to stop questionable election practices... while he cheers on the continued slaughter of the unborn. There's just something so unbelievably hilarious about that.

It would be like someone saying, "Darn it, we need to make sure nobody is disenfranchised when voting! What a human rights disaster that would be!" while other human beings aren't even having their right to life protected. Actually, no, it's EXACTLY like that.

Yeah, LTL, the Palin bubble is popping, that's for sure. That's why two new signs just 'popped' up on people's lawns in my neighborhood - one a "McCain" sign and the other a "McCain Palin" sign. That's also why Rasmussen's latest poll has McCain getting 50% of the popular vote - for the first time ever. Keep attacking Palin, libs! Mindless hate is working!

Don't you liberals ever get tired of lying about lies? That's all you've done for the last 10+ years. You lie and accuse the other side of lying. I mean, try something new, will you? Liberals lying about lies... that's not change. That's more of the same.

Also, this is unfortunate. McCain has lost the drugged-up, psychotic, hedonistic, godless, young Hollywood lesbian vote:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=29730276

Oh no, what ever shall we do??

John, my favorite part of that was "stop posing for tabloids, you're running for office!" as if to imply that CelebObama hasn't posed for about a million of those same photo ops.

But...logic is not the strong point of, as you say, drugged-up, psychotic, hedonistic, godless, young Hollywood lesbians.

:)

The extremely obvious angst among Palin-haters is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Her boost to the popularity of the McCain ticket seems to be like thousands of little knives in their cold, hard hearts.

That's what seems to be giving them so much pain, just the simple fact that a lot of people really, genuinely like her as a person. It's like their avowed schoolyard enemy was just elected class president. How very sad for them.

This wins the internet:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/14/sunday-funnies-lying-king-exposes-medias-palin-attacks

Also, this is unfortunate. McCain has lost the drugged-up, psychotic, hedonistic, godless, young Hollywood lesbian vote:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=29730276

Oh no, what ever shall we do??
Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 14, 2008 4:21 PM
**********************************************

Haha, now THAT was some intellectual reading. :D

Oh ABSOLUTELY John, spot on!

Way to go Hollywood!! keep the attacks coming...

you're only helping us.

John, I'm spreading that link all over the internet, and it's a sensation!! :D

John, LOL that was great. I love it.

John,

You forgot UNtalented. But I guess that goes without saying.

What about Saturday Night funnies? Anyone see this?

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/

I thought most of the Palin shots were easy and expected, but they went both ways, and overall it made me laugh. I love Tina Fey. She looks so much better in her glasses than I do in mine.

Sarah Palin has singlehandedly exposed the Liberals for who they are just by speaking the truth and without firing a shot.

It's so Reganesque I get a tingle down my leg.

Ronny wasn't afraid to call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and demand that Gorbachev "take down this wall".

There's something in common between Ronny and Sarah. It's called recognizable greatness and can annyone spell "l-a-n-d-s-l-i-d-e"?

That was great Alex!

You know, its only the conservatives who are actually fighting the "culture war". The rest of us are living our lives. Those who fight in the culture war are akin to the people at a class reunion who are still stuck in high school.

Sure, Lo Ta Yango. You're not fighting the Culture War. That's why you're here, arguing in favor of abortion.

One fights the culture war mainly by living out one's culture. Living out one's culture is also known as living out one's religion. You La Tango calls it "living our lives." Everybody fights the culture war.

Alex: "... I thought most of the Palin shots were easy and expected, but they went both ways, and overall it made me laugh. "

SG: I am curious ... would you consider SNL to be put on by Liberals or CONservatives ...?

Snerd

Lewandowski: "... Also, this is unfortunate. McCain has lost the drugged-up, psychotic, hedonistic, godless, young Hollywood lesbian vote:"

SG: Yah but he still has the stereotyping overly simplistic angry vote ....

Snerd

Lewandowski: "... Don't you liberals ever get tired of lying about lies? That's all you've done for the last 10+ years. You lie and accuse the other side of lying. I mean, try something new, will you? Liberals lying about lies... that's not change. That's more of the same."

SG: You sound very angry .... Hey, you're not 71 years old, guy who earned the nicknamed "McNasty", travel a lot and had to get a rich woman to support you and another to rescue your campaign ...?

Snerd

Patricia,

No I haven't. But I'll google them and see. I loved the look of the other ones you put up. Avi?

"You know, its only the conservatives who are actually fighting the "culture war". The rest of us are living our lives." YoLaTango Sept 14 11:15 PM

But who ends up dealing with the consequences of "liberals" living their lives? "Living our lives" appears to mean living the way you want to without some kind of moral compass. Unfortunately there are consequences to living without moral boundaries. Who usually ends up coming to the assistance of those who end up suffering because of their misguided choices? Conservatives. And hopefully they will continue to do so, in the meantime we will continue to battle the "Culture War" so that more people don't suffer unnecessarily.

Hi Eileen #2. I have a question for you. It has just recently come to my attention that there are two Eileens on this board. I think it's Eileen #1 that I have talked to before, but I was wondering if you remember us ever engaging in any conversation? I like to try and keep track of who's who, and I don't want to confuse you and Eileen #1. So do you remember any time that you and I have ever interacted? Thanks.

To John Lewandowski : This is what conservatives want for America : Abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, the government to abandon poor, unwanted children, deny them decent food, shelter, clothing, education and health care and tell them to eat cake.
To make contraceptives illegal, to teach students abstinence only, to have the government pry into our bedrooms, deny homosexuals rights and even arrest and persecute them, arbitrarily censor and ban any book, magazine, newspaper, film or television show etc in the name of "decency" , even though not every one agrees on what is decent or not, force schools to teach religious superstition such as creation in schools as scientific fact, force students to pray in schools even if they are atheists or agnostics, make non-christians second-class citizens, thwart vital medical and scientific research because of obscurantist religious superstition, deny students financial aid for college, law, medical or graduate school etc.
And conservatives think that this will make us "free" and prosperous? Unbelievable.
With freedom like this, who needs tyranny?

Hi Bobby! Yes, we have "talked" before. I thought that I had better differentiate so that the other Eileen and I are not confused by anyone. She seems very nice and I don't want her to have to take any flack that might be directed at my responses! :)
God love you! :)

To John Lwandowski : Here are some of the conservative abominations : To make abortion illegal , even in the case of rape or incest, possibly even to save a woman's life. Force women to back-alley abortionists or to try to abort themselves with coat hangers, while well- to-do women eaily fly of to Europe for safe and legal ones. Deny help to those poor, unwanted children who ARE born, so that they will never get decent food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. Deny help to poor people in general, and to those who have lost their jobs or in difficult financial staraights.
Tell all of these to eat cake.
Have the government pry into our bedrooms, take away rights from homosexuals and even persecute them. Have the government arbitrarily and capriciously censor and ban any book, magazine, newspaper, film or television program those in charge happen to find "indecent" or "obscene", even though not every one agrees on what is decent or not.
Force schools to teach abstinence only, teach religious superstition such as creationism as scientific fact. Force students to pray in school even if they are atheists or agnostics. Make non-christians second class citizens.
Thwart vital medical and scientific research because of obscurantist religious beliefs.
Deny financial help to college students, or prospective law,medical or graduate students.
Have the government sit on its collective posterior while millions cannot find work, support their families, lose their homes etc.
And conservatives claim to be restoring "freedom". But with freedom like this, who needs tyranny?

Robert, Methinks you are greatly twisting the conservative viewpoint. Kindly back up your assertions with some facts.

Oh are you the Eileen I've emailed the one time about Evagelium Vitae?

Robert Berger says (quite humerously) and I respond in bold...

"To John Lwandowski : Here are some of the conservative abominations : To make abortion illegal yep even in the case of rape or incestyep, the baby's just as innocent. possibly even to save a woman's life Nope, nobody believes this. If a woman's life is in danger, we try to do what we can to save them both. However, if the woman will die, I don't know of a single person on earth who would be against abortion. Nice scare tactic though! Force women to back-alley abortionists like the mdoctors who used to perform abortions? You know, the ones who actually had a lower fatality rate in the year prior to Roe V. Wade than after it? or to try to abort themselves with coat hangers Ah, the old "coat hanger" myth. You realize, don't you, that there is not a single documented case of this ever happeninging, right?while well- to-do women eaily fly of to Europe for safe and legal ones I love how this suddenly becomes a class warefare issue. It's hillarious. Just like, "well we should make drugs legal, I mean the rich people can just fly over to Amsterdam and get them so obviously we should make them legal here! Um... there seems to be a massive flaw of reasioning to state that because some people will have the means to break the law, we should just not have it. I'm sure there are plenty people with the means to hire a hitman to kill their wives, but we still say it's illegal...even if it means the impoverished will miss out on this "opportunity." Now, as for the underlying message of your scare tactic, let's look at Ireland. They don't have legal abortion, yet haven't had a documented "back alley" abortion since like 1950. Obviously, they somehow! survive without it. Killing your child isn't a basic human right without which no woman can succeed. Deny help to those poor, unwanted children who ARE born, so that they will never get decent food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. Yeah, that's why conservatives run crisis pregnancy centers and donate at a higher rate than liberals...we're just hate children...you're right! Deny help to poor people in general, and to those who have lost their jobs or in difficult financial staraights. No, see conservatives want to create more jobs. Liberals want to give "tax cuts" to the unemployeed and tax the employeers at such a rate that they can't afford to hire new employees. Please explain how this "helps the poor."
Tell all of these to eat cake.
Have the government pry into our bedrooms, take away rights from homosexuals and even persecute them. You mean those homosexuals who have more rights in todays society than any other time in history? Have the government arbitrarily and capriciously censor and ban any book, magazine, newspaper, film or television program those in charge happen to find "indecent" or "obscene", even though not every one agrees on what is decent or not. I assuem you're speaking of Gov. Palin's supposed book banning. In case you missed the memo, she didn't ban a single book, she just sent a clarification letter to the libary enquireing what the procedure would be if a parent wanted a book banned. As for the rest, yes, you're right a public library should totally stock hustler, down with censorship!
Force schools to teach abstinence only, Well we've seen how well comprehensive sex ed has worked. Actually, we've seen they work about the same. 50% of women who become pregnant unintentionally were using some form of "protection" taught about in comprehensive sex ed. That doesen't say much for it, now does it? Of course, you probably agree with the curiculum that Obama wants taught to 5 year olds. Here's a newsflash: It isn't just about telling them to watch out for bad guys. It talks about unintended pregnancy and homosexuality. I don't know about you, but I think that's a bit above a 5 year olds "pay grade." teach religious superstition such as creationism as scientific fact. Yeah, it's so much better to stifle all conversation about creationsism and put our hands over our ears and say LLALALLALALLAL EVOLUTION IS REAL LALLALALALAL if a student raised the debate. Again, Gov Palin supports evolution being taught in schools, not creationism, but she also supports students being allowed to debate its merits. Unless you think that it is untouchable, in which case I question your academic integrity. Force students to pray in school even if they are atheists or agnostics. I don't know of any politician who makes this stand. Individuals may want prayer back in school, and especially for students to not be persecuted for prayer, but it's not on the McCain/Palin game plan. Make non-christians second class citizens. It's fun to make statements without any qualifications or supporting evidence! How about this one "Obama wants to force everyone to wear burkas!" What? That's not the truth? Well shucks, I thought we could just make things up!
Thwart vital medical and scientific research because of obscurantist religious beliefs. Sadly, the current republican candidate supports ESCR, however for those who don't, you're right...we should kill people in the name of science. I believe there was this guy...whose name started with a M who liked to do this to people in Germany...
Deny financial help to college students, or prospective law,medical or graduate students. I know, I was totally shocked when Palin said that she was going to cut funding for vetrans who wanted to go to school after their service...Oh wait! My bad, she actually said the exact opposite!
Have the government sit on its collective posterior while millions cannot find work, support their families, lose their homes etc. Yeah, damn those conservatives for not doing anything...I mean, it's almost as though they don't have a majority in congress!
And conservatives claim to be restoring "freedom". But with freedom like this, who needs tyranny?" Oh,Robert Berger, you are so right. I've been so wrong about this whole "freedom" thing. We are so oppressed! I mean, I know that even European countries have more oppressive laws and less freedom than we do, but we're about 2 steps away from communistic dictatorship! You've made me see the light.

Robert Berger, here is one relevant and real abomination: to kill children for the sins of one or both parents.

Lauren,
You, my dear, are awesome!
Whenever I hear "back alley abortions" and "aborting themselves with coat hangers" I realize that 35 years of deception and lies have taken their toll. The masses have believed the lies. Now it is up to us to keep spreading The Truth!!

Lauren, where did you hear that the Wasilla Public Library ever subscribed to Hustler? Is this what Palin was objecting to, or are you just making that up?

LibraLynn. I was making that part up. In loudoun county, VA there was a controversy regarding internet filltering out porn. The ACLU won, and now anyone who wants can go to XXX sites at the public library.

The argument was that even though children could also be exposed to these images illegally (hince the filter) it unjustly infringed upon the rights of adults to view porn.

So now it's become my standard halmark of library censorship nonsense.

In Palin's case, there was no specific books that were objectionable. She just asked "what if" a parent wanted a book banned.

Thank's Carla... I was just proud of my ability to use basic HTML since I know zip about commputers and I've tried to other times without success at this site. :)

Dear Robert Hamburger,

Yes, everything you've said about conservatives is right. We want to kill women, starve children, execute non-Christians, and destroy education. Oh, and eat puppies, too.

Haha...

"Yes, everything you've said about conservatives is right. We want to kill women, starve children, execute non-Christians, and destroy education. Oh, and eat puppies, too. Haha..."
Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 15, 2008 10:33 AM

-That's so funny, John, because according to some conservatives, pro-choice (oops, pro-abort) people like me are God-less, liberal elite hussies who want to kill (and possibly eat!) toddlers, destroy the church, covert your kindergartners to the homosexual agenda and marry our puppies!

Well, Danielle, most of what you just said about pro-abortion people is true. Almost all of them are liberal by definition. Many of them are either godless or belong to a "religion" which holds belief in God to be "optional". And many liberals are elitists who think that anyone who isn't liberal is an idiot. See the criticisms of Palin; they're all over the media. She and her supporters are all being called stupid by the elite godless liberals in the media. Many of these people also want the destroy the truth which is taught by the church, thus harming the church, and also want to teach kindergartners about homosexuality.

I'd also say that 99% of the members of NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood are accurately described as "hussies".

No, you don't want to eat toddlers or marry your puppies. But everything else you've said is correct.

"No, you don't want to eat toddlers or marry your puppies. But everything else you've said is correct."
Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 15, 2008 10:53 AM

Sigh. I guess that's what I get for attempting to use satire to point out how the hysterical rhetoric about both of our camps is so ridiculous. Instead, I get a humorless response that not only incorrectly underlines the points the points I was making above, but unfortunately affirms some of the beliefs about the pro-life side I was hoping wasn't true.

You know, you and I probably disagree on the right approach to EVERYTHING. But at the end of the day, deep down I know that your mission isn't really to "kill women and starve children." That you would somehow not be able to see that I (we) don't honestly desire to destroy religion, convert children to homosexuality and the like, well...that's kinda sad.

Oh, and apparently I AM a hussy. Right?

Danielle, you should try reading what I said before replying to it.

Mr. Hamburger's views about pro-lifers (and those of most pro-abortion people) are way over the top. They attribute all kinds of craziness to us. They say that we want women to die, which we NEVER advocate. They say that we want children to starve, which we NEVER advocate. They say that we want to destroy education, which we NEVER say.

All I have done is repeat what your pro-abortion friends have already said. Yes, many pro-abortion people are godless. Yes, most of them are liberal, by definition. Yes, liberals throughout the media have been calling Palin an anti-education idiot. Why? Simply because she is conservative. And yes, many liberals think that the teachings of Christian Churches are "intolerant" and that they must be done away with.

And if you belong to NOW, NARAL, or Planned Parenthood, there's a 99% chance that you're a hussy.

According to the 1964 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (I'm a conservative Canadian), a hussy is a "woman of light or worthless character" or a "pert girl."

The pertinent definition of character is "moral strength, backbone; reputation, good reputation; description of person's qualities; testimonial; status."

Are you pro-abortion, Danielle?

Lauren,
Do you support the banning of books in public libraries? Are you familiar with the selection process of public librarians, and how they go about picking out materials? I am talking about books, NOT the internet, as was Sarah Palin.

Or, rather, the pertinent definition of character here is "moral nature."

"Danielle, you should try reading what I said before replying to it."
Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Yep, read it thoroughly before replying in. And I'm quite clear on your position. Thanks, so much, for dragging the conversation into personal attacks on character.

"According to the 1964 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (I'm a conservative Canadian), a hussy is a "woman of light or worthless character" or a "pert girl." Are you pro-abortion, Danielle?"
Posted by: Jon at September 15, 2008 11:26 AM

-Let's see:
1) Woman of light or worthless character...nope.
2) Pro-abortion...if you want one, then yes.
3) Pro-woman having the right to have an abortion for her own private reasons without the intervention of others who oppose her...definitely.
5) Pert girl...hope so.
4) Hussy...apparently.

Oops - the number 4 comes before the number 5, I know that.

add 6) Types coffee-less on a Monday to my attributes!

You hope you are pert? That may explain some things!

"You hope you are pert? That may explain some things!"
Posted by: Oliver at September 15, 2008 12:09 PM

Dictionary results for: pert
–adjective, -er, -est.
1. boldly forward in speech or behavior; impertinent; saucy.
2. jaunty and stylish; chic; natty.
3. lively; sprightly; in good health.
4. Obsolete. clever.

Why, yes! I am a pert girl!

Well, I kind of like pert girls, and I certainly like girls who are kind of perty.

But that she would support a desperate mother's choice to kill her child, that she would trespass on God's property, that she would allow abortionists to continue unhindered--perhaps hussy is too kind a label.

Hm, I understood Pert to mean arrogant.

Merriam-Webster

1 a: saucily free and forward : flippantly cocky and assured b: being trim and chic : jaunty c: piquantly stimulating

I guess it means both.

"But that she would support a desperate mother's choice to kill her child, that she would trespass on God's property, that she would allow abortionists to continue unhindered--perhaps hussy is too kind a label."
Posted by: Jon at September 15, 2008 12:22 PM

-So our cheeky retorting has run its course, I see...

Imagine me as a hussy (or worse) if you need in order to rationalize my opinion so that it can make sense. I can have an honest, objective discussion on abortion without resorting to name calling, but that's fine.

I'll only disagree with one point on your post, since the rest is subjective based on your viewpoint: I don't believe all women who have abortions are 'desperate'. That signifies that the choice she's making is a wild, irrational one. This is not always the case. Many women (even couples) make the decision soberly, objectively and believe that this is the right choice in her life at that time.

LibraLynn says "Lauren,
Do you support the banning of books in public libraries? Are you familiar with the selection process of public librarians, and how they go about picking out materials? I am talking about books, NOT the internet, as was Sarah Palin.

I don't support "banning" of books from general circulation, but I do support the idea that just because a book is in circulation, it does not mean that it needs to be in the public library, purchased with public money. If a community deems that they do not want to support a certain book being purchased with their money, I think they have the right to ask that it be removed.

"Many women (even couples) make the decision soberly, objectively and believe that this is the right choice in her life at that time."

Because it's totally better to calmly and rationally plot to execution of your child...

Yes, Bobby, I am the one to whom you mailed "Evangelium Vitae".

lauren wrote:
I don't support "banning" of books from general circulation, but I do support the idea that just because a book is in circulation, it does not mean that it needs to be in the public library, purchased with public money. If a community deems that they do not want to support a certain book being purchased with their money, I think they have the right to ask that it be removed.

Thank you for making a point that should be obvious, yet many liberals seem to miss. Not every exercise of free speech needs to be supported by the taxpayer and stacked on our libraries' shelves.

Pornographic literature is a great example of this basic principle. I am glad that I live in a country with freedom of speech, even if that freedom can produce dirty books. The same freedom that protects Huckleberry Finn (for example) also protects The Story of O. Both of these books are widely available in this country, and I am grateful for that fact. However, only one of these books is suitable for a public library....

To use an analogy that liberals might appreciate:
Supporting freedom of gun ownership does not mean that I have to support taxpayer-funded "firearm libraries" from which poor people could borrow guns that they can't otherwise afford. Even if I did support such "firearm libraries," I would certainly allow the possibility that some guns might have to be excluded for being too dangerous, expensive, or whatever....

Obama and McCain are both CFR/socialist/Rockefeller hacks.

The CFR has dominated both parties for decades, and the "election" is just another smoke and mirrors game.

Give America a real chance to live free:

VOTE CHUCK BALDWIN 2008.

Lauren,

How do you suggest a community go about deciding that everyone unanimously agrees that a book should be removed from their library's shelves? Or do you think that a select few should be allowed to force their morals on an entire community?

Naaman,

Were you aware that Huckleberry Finn is one of the most challenged books in the country? That every year people try to have that very title removed from their public library's shelves?

You anti-choicers are obviously in denial,
and that ain't the river in Egypt.
Women have never tried to abort themselves
with coat hangers ? Of course they have.
Haven't you seen the grisly photo of
a dead,naked woman who tried to abort herself?
This is a very famous picture and a grim reminder of what will happen again if those
who oppose abortion get their way.
And if conservative charities do so much
to help the poor, why are there still so
many of them, and why are there still abortions? Come on.
Pro-choice liberals are not necessarily godless atheists and depraved , debauched
people. They don't necessarily think that it's
okay to have sex whenever you want with whomever with no regard for the consequences. They aren't necessarily socialists,marxists or communists, not do they want to interfere with our religious freedoms. Many have families and go to church or synagogue etc. They are pretty normal, ordinary people.

Robert says:

"Haven't you seen the grisly photo of
a dead,naked woman who tried to abort herself?"

Christina's the expert on abortion deaths, but if I remember correctly, that woman was actually aborted by her lover who tried to "do it himself" by reading a textbook to cover their adultery. If I also remember correctly, said lover was actually a doctor.

Are you seriously questioning why we haven't been able to completely elimnate something that people claim is a "right" and treat nearly as a right of passage? Women are told that there is a "script" that they must follow for a socially acceptable life. Should an untimely pregnancy interupt the script, they are told to have an abortion. While we try to stand in the gap for these women and their children, we can't change eeverything within this framework.

I love how you tell us that pro-choice liberals aren't necessarally evil, while you yourself began this "war" when you made ridiculous blanket statements against conservative.

libralyn,

I suggest that the community elect for themselves review boards that regulate the initial selection of books. If something comes up, the community should also be allowed to vote on if they believe the particular books is appropriate for their community.

Now, of course this system could possibly be abused with people objecting to hundreds of books, but I think in general, the community should have a say as to what is in their tax-funded library.

From the article someone (Oliver?) linked to last week, it sounded like the librarian felt as though Palin's question went above normal book challenges. Many (if not most) public libraries already have book challenge procedures, which specify that community members can ask that a book be reviewed and its availability assessed by a panel of people.

Personally I'd love if kids had to be carded to check out Lolita or Portnoy's Complaint. Give cigarettes a run for their money. Actually I think you should need to pass a reading comprehension test to check out Lolita, given how many people seem to ironically miss the entire point of it. ;)

Just kidding. Knowledge is power, libraries are the pre- (pre- pre-) internet embodiment of the radical notion that knowledge should belong to those who seek it, etc etc etc.

Alexandra, what I would like to see is the actual letter. I mean, all we have to go on is that the librarian says that it went above general book selection info.

I actually don't understand why we have ratings for other media, but not books. I mean, I don't know about you, but I've started into a book before and gotten about half way in when I started realizing 'Holy crap, this has got some really graphic images' it would be nice if they gave you fair warning going in.

I know that some people are even against movie ratings, so I guess this is fairly controversial, but I think it would seem like a good common sense approach.

Lauren,

By the time a review board went through the motions of reviewing every. single. book. that goes into the library (hundreds every month, ask your librarian) by the time they made it to the shelves they'd be out of date. People like to read best-sellers as soon as they hit the shelves.

All libraries have procedures in place for when challenges against materials arise. What communities need to do is elect library board members they trust to make sure the library is run to the standards of the community. This is what's done in communities across the nation, as any politician worth their salt should be aware. If a library allows any member of the community to come in and demand books they find offensive to be removed you're going to have pretty sparse shelves.

But if you want to go ahead and change the way libraries have functioned for years, go ahead Lauren. Perhaps you should run for your local library board. I, personally, would love to see a library that let every community member vote on weather they should keep a certain book on the shelf. We certainly don't have anything else better to spend tax money on.

Oh, I agree Lauren, I wasn't saying that either the librarian or Palin was right or wrong. Just that it's maybe not technically correct to say that libraries should have a system for vetting books, because from what she was quoted as saying, it sounds like that one did.

I generally don't like the idea of ratings on books for a variety of reasons, but I do understand some of the reasons people are for them. A book I was reading a few weeks ago had such an unexpected, heart-wrenching scene in it -- not even really involving any main characters -- and I had to just end the night early and go to bed because I was too depressed to do anything else. On the one hand it would have been nice to know that was coming, but on the other, it would have been a very different book if I had known it was coming all along. (Oddly, I found the main plot of the story mostly predictable.)

Libralyn, I'm not calling on some ridiculous change in function. I'm just saying that the community has an interest in what books are in the libraries, and has a right to have a say over the way its money is spent.

You're really making mountains out of molehills here. I'm not calling for book bannings or burnings or anything at all extreme. I freely admit that a balance needs to be found between giving the community a voice and overwelming the city with protests.

We have absolutely no idea what Palin's letter asked, except for that it did not call for any bannings and went beyond standard procedure in the librarians opinion. Wild, hysterical speculation does no one any good.

I think that common sense should dictate these types of situation, not wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Jon - My culture is bigger than a religion. And I am a pascifist so I reject the idea of war. People engaged in the so-called "culture war" actually are out to change other people's opinions. Me, I merely laugh at the conservatives for my own amusement, believing that whatever folly they perpetuate will be visited upon themselves like pissing in the wind.
The "culture war" issues are small distractions to keep people distracted while the larger issues go unnoticed. Even those issues I approach with some distance. People who take life too seriously are ultimatly some of the most amusing people. In the long walk of life, I try not to miss the forrest for the sake of the trees.

Jon - My culture is bigger than a religion. And I am a pascifist so I reject the idea of war. People engaged in the so-called "culture war" actually are out to change other people's opinions. Me, I merely laugh at the conservatives for my own amusement, believing that whatever folly they perpetuate will be visited upon themselves like pissing in the wind.
The "culture war" issues are small distractions to keep people distracted while the larger issues go unnoticed. Even those issues I approach with some distance. People who take life too seriously are ultimatly some of the most amusing people. In the long walk of life, I try not to miss the forrest for the sake of the trees.

Yo La Tango, you sound like Mr. Obama! I'm sure you'll take that as a compliment. He also seems very god-like and detached. But someone--C.S. Lewis?--noted that the opposite of love is not necessarily hatred; it's apathy, not caring.

If the culture war is so trivial, then why don't the liberals just give the conservatives what they want? There's more than one way to end a war. Liberals are notorious for conceding defeat in physical wars.

In the culture war, only the liberals do the killing. They kill children. (They can hold their ground against children.) As you are a pacifist, I'm sure you'll come around to the conservative side, at least on the topic of induced abortion.

I wonder whether you would have gotten along well with some of the Roman emperors. Emperor Nero burnt part of Rome for his own entertainment and then blamed it on the Christians. Another emperor put forward his horse as a new senator. They didn't take life too seriously. That is, they didn't take anyone else's life too seriously.

You say that your culture is bigger than a religion. What's your definition of religion? Here's mine: man's response to God as He has revealed Himself to man in creation (nature) and in His redemptive Word (the Bible). Culture is just a group's expression of religion.

just because I'm a pacifist doesn't mean I can't have rational conversations; make my point and then go about my business. The whole culture war thing is a bit obsessive and people who engage in it end up having no life outside politics.
I read blogs maybe 1/2 hour a day on days when I do read them. I think some people here come here very angry - at pro-choicers, at "democrats", "the left" and get pleasure from using others as their punching bags. jill would have a lot more cred if she had mods who didn't engage in this type of conduct. Since she doesn't stop it, I take this place for what it is, a great place for laughs. I make my point, walk away and check back in a couple of days. The whole point is not to get so riled up. That is why the hard right and the hard left are never taken seriously in america...they're both so insane that they can't subsume their anger into rational statements and logical actions. Thus, reading this site is akin to encountering a rabid street preacher... it leaves me the only rational choice of action - laughter.

About my religion: I'm a Hicksite Quaker. To quote a song by a fellow Hicksite Friend "I'm not a Christian, but I'm a Quaker; I've got Christ's Inner Light but he's not my savior." I have great respect for honest followers of all faiths. Hicksites don't believe in the bible as a literal document, but rather as a set of stories, morals and legends set down over the years. I honor your Creation Story and what it means for you even as I don't subscribe to it myself.

I do think it is funny that you don't even know me but you're comparing me to some ancient dead guy. How could I be a king if my cat won't even listen to me?

The point of comparison, Yo La Tango, is the same obtuse refusal to be serious on a very serious subject. Emperor Nero arbitrarily committed Christians to death, and you apparently arbitrarily commit pre-born children to death. But, you say, " The whole point is not to get so riled up." If you don't believe that murder is a serious subject--if you don't find murder offensive and it doesn't rile you--then there's something terribly wrong with you. And if you were truly a pacifist, then you would see something wrong with killing people.

Your only choice of action is laughter? You are the insane one. "How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night" (Ps. 1:1-2).

You don't trust the Bible, but you do trust your "inner light"? You are aware that Satan also acts as an angel of light, aren't you? Are you sure that you aren't demon-possessed? You can call yourself a Quaker, but as you yourself said, you aren't a Christian. "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. 6:22-23).

As a man, I cannot have an abortion. Furthermore by definition the "pre-born" are not alive (not yet being born) so therefore even in my support for abortion all I am supporting is safe healthcare. A soldier at war has committed more atrocities than I as a mere voter will ever commit.

Jon - In your quest to set yourself as the hero and myself as the villan you negelct history. Appealing to the bible in a conversation with a hicksite quaker is akin to lapsing into hindi when you're trying to make a key point. It's just not culturally relevant for us. I respect that you believing the witings of the bible to be Gods word, but that just isn't true for hicksites. So your appeal to truth rings hollow for me. I don't own a bible, and I haven't read a bible in a long time. If I started spouting from a 17th century quaker preacher I bet you'd have the same reaction.

Jon - In your quest to set yourself as the hero and myself as the villan you negelct history. Appealing to the bible in a conversation with a hicksite quaker is akin to lapsing into hindi when you're trying to make a key point. It's just not culturally relevant for us. I respect that you believing the witings of the bible to be Gods word, but that just isn't true for hicksites. So your appeal to truth rings hollow for me. I don't own a bible, and I haven't read a bible in a long time. If I started spouting from a 17th century quaker preacher I bet you'd have the same reaction. Also, appeals to hell and the devil tend to have the same effect on us.

Yo La Tango said that by definition the "pre-born" are not alive (not yet being born)... A soldier at war has committed more atrocities than I as a mere voter will ever commit.

I don't know where you got your definition; it certainly isn't mine, and it certainly isn't a scientist's or theologian's definition. But what's your definition of atrocity? And you never did give me your definition of religion.

Yo La Tango said, "[J]ust because I'm a pacifist doesn't mean I can't have rational conversations; make my point and then go about my business."

We can't have a rational conversation if we don't agree on definitions. We don't talk the same language.

Yo La Tango said (by quoting), "I'm not a Christian, but I'm a Quaker; I've got Christ's Inner Light but he's not my savior."

Are Quakers rational? Who is your Christ? In my language, your Christ is an anti-Christ. I don't respect you for appealing to him.