gsmom

Unc: I did not mean any of my comments as a personal attack. I have tried very hard to avoid making any comments personal. I apologize if it came out that way. As has been pointed out by others before, it is sometimes difficult to communicate when the other person can't hear your tone of voice. I agree that some efforts to promote religious tolerance are ridiculous. This story about the high schooler turned away in a Santa suit is certainly ridiculous. In my opinion, the best way to promote respect for all religions is to allow INDIVIDUAL expression, and prohibit GOVERNMENTAL expression. That way, the kid gets to wear his Santa suit, and the religious displays are kept out of the courtroom. I believe public schools can teach about religion without turning the teaching into expression. This could include holiday displays of Christmas, Divali, Hannukah, etc. if done in such a way that no child has to feel uncomfortable or left out. My daughter's religious education in her multicultural British school has included lessons about Divali (Hindu), Eid (Muslim), Hannukah and Christmas. I think this is a good thing. Collective worship in a state funded school I'm less happy about. Peace to all. gsmom

The constitution prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion." I think even without court interpretation, you could interpret these words to mean more than "the government will not establish a state religion." (By the way, England still has a state religion, the Church of England. Although parents are allowed to opt out, Religious Education and collective worship are taught in state schools.) Our courts have interpreted it this way. In the US, the point is precisely that members of a minority religions should NOT have to view government sponsored religious displays of the majority religion and "deal with it." Schools and courthouses serve ALL Americans, not just the members of the religious majority. Therefore ALL citizens must feel equally welcome.

Here is the response of the ACLU director in Richmond from OGE's link. It seems to be just what uncleguinea had in mind: "Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU, said he doesn't begrudge the Scouts for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech or using the ACLU name to generate sales. "That's par for the course these days," said Willis, who said a group of youths identified as the United Conservatives of Virginia delivered a tin of Boy Scout popcorn and a Christmas greeting to his office yesterday. "We raise funds with our membership by pointing out what the organizations that oppose us are doing, and they raise money with their membership by pointing out what we are doing." The ACLU, Willis added, isn't opposed to the Boy Scouts or their right to exist. "The ACLU's concern here is with the government funding of the Boy Scouts so long as there is a religious test to be a member of the Boy Scouts." The ACLU and BSA are approximately the same age, so I'm not sure I would define the ACLU as an "up and comer." Reasonable people can disagree on whether the ACLU is furthering its mission in supporting or not supporting gays and atheists in suing to prevent an organization whose membership policy excludes them from using public funds. I think the torture of detainees by our government (and I do believe that some officials at very high levels have permitted this; I do not believe it is a few bad apples) is an extremely important issue because these actions are a violation of our most fundamental American, human and religious values, and the ACLU performs an extremely important service in helping to bring this to light.

Hello Eamonn, These are all good questions. One can join the ACLU by going to their website and contributing $20. They are a non-profit and "non-partisan" organization according to their website. I'm not sure who funds their activities besides contributors. I think the idea that Americans have "easy acess" to the court system is somewhat of a myth. Litigation is expensive. Most people cannot afford to sue (outside of small claims court where you don't need a lawyer) and go through a trial unless they can recover a large amount in damages or they are independently wealthy. That is why criminal defendants are provided with lawyers funded by the state if they cannot afford one. Suing to enforce civil rights (which is the mission of the ACLU) is outside the price range of most people. In addition to what many might consider minor matters (banning the use of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for example), the ACLU is doing some very important things. The ACLU recently forced the government, through the Freedom of Information Act, to release documents showing that abuse and torture of war detainees is more widespread and systemic than believed. Americans need to know about this. America's moral standing and leadership in the world has been profoundly diminished by this. It is impossible to overstate this. Now Bush wants to appoint Alberto Gonzales, author of memos justifying the use of torture and abandonment of the Geneva Conventions. How do you think this looks to the rest of the world? Do you think it affects our ability to accomplish our foreign policy goals? (These are rhetorical questions ) The ACLU is doing an invaluable service here. Eamonn, congratulations on your little sister's career! Becoming a barrister is very difficult (the English system has two kinds of lawyers; barristers and solicitors. Barristers can appear in court.) I'm not involved in the BSA, so I won't comment on the ongoing battle with the ACLU. I do think the BSA will survive and evolve over the years no matter what happens. gsmom

this seems to be a balanced account of Kerry's meeting in Paris with delegations to the peace talks there. http://www.newsaic.com/04kerryantiwarparis.html He made no secret of it at the time, and I'm sure if it was treason, Nixon would have found a way to prosecute him since he was under surveillance by the FBI. I don't think it was "treason" any more than it was "desertion" when Bush had a gap in his guard duty (I'm trying to use neutral phrasing here). While there were many veterans who opposed Kerry, there were also many veterans who supported him, both for his antiwar activities and his Vietnam heroism. I opposed the war in Vietnam back in the 70's, and I oppose the war in Iraq today for many of the same reasons. I do not oppose all war; I supported the first Gulf war, and the war in Afghanistan. Both the Iraq war and the Vietnam war were based on ideology. In Vietnam it was the domino theory (if Vietnam falls to Communism, the rest of the region will also), and in Iraq it is a reverse domino theory (if democracy is established in Iraq, the surrounding area will follow). Both of these wars were/are supposed to keep us safe. I don't think that goal is being accomplished today. Meanwhile, American and Iraqi lives are being lost.

Kerry's service in Vietnam (and Bush's guard service) was relevant to the issue of ability to be commander in chief in wartime. The war in Vietnam: how we got there, the ideology behind it, how it was waged, is relevent to the issue of our involvement in Iraq. "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it." (Paraphrase) If Thurlow thought the facts supporting his award are inaccurate, why hasn't he given his award back? I judge the truth of allegations based on eyewitness accounts and other direct evidence, not numbers of people supporting one side or the other. The Swift Boat veterans, the ones who appeared in the ads, lied. I will add that I think criticism of Kerry for his anti-war activities is legitimate, although I don't agree with it, because this is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I have always been troubled by the credence given the Swift Boat veterans. One poster asked for some proof that the ads were lies. Here is an article, also by FactCheck.org that provides direct proof in the form of Navy documentation that Thurlow's statement that there was no enemy fire is a lie. Thurlow recieved an award IN THE SAME INCIDENT. The documentation for Thurlow's award noted that he was under enemy fire. http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports243.html I say again: these people smeared a good and valiant man.

In answer to your question about body armor, please take a look at this article on a website Cheney attempted to direct people to during his Vice Presidential debate: http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html

Thanks for this post, carol. I think there are two ways we could agree to disagree. One: talk about issues, not people. Once it gets personal, then it can get nasty. Two: try not to take criticism of your point of view as a personal criticism. This is hard to do, especially when you feel strongly about something. gsmom

I guess I'm not willing to fault the Kerry campaign for losing the election as much as others have. The Bush campaign was the lowest and most unscrupulous I have seen in a long time. They took a good and decent man, a real war hero, and smeared him ruthlessly. I'm talking about the Swift Vets ads. Even John McCain called them "dishonorable" and said in an interview that he thought Kerry would make a good president. Bush refused to denounce them, thus lending them credibility. The Navy has affirmed that his medals were properly awarded. Kerry's positions on any number of issues were deliberately misrepresented by the Bush campaign and by Bush himself. Since I don't believe, like some do, that Bush is stupid, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. It seems that the only way to counter this kind of campaign is to run one like it yourself. It is to Kerry's credit that he didn't.

I think toleration and respect for one anothers point of view is definitely called for and long overdue. However, I am not willing to cede any grounds on the issues confronting our country and what the Bush administration plans to do. A bare majority of 51 percent is not a mandate. I believe now just as I did before the election that Bush is seriously leading our country in the wrong direction in foreign policy as well as in a number of domestic issues, in particular Social Security and the budget deficit. With respect to foreign policy, he has just nominated the author of memos advocating rejection of the Geneva Convention and allowing torture of certain prisoners to be Attorney General of the United States. I think Alberto Gonzales should be rejected for this position on these grounds. I'm sure many of you will disagree. I think we can respect each other's points of view without giving up our positions or our values.

"The British are solidly behind the War on Terror. They too allow dissent occur in their country, as we do. Where does the rest of the world get their view of America? They get it from these lunatic TV shows, MTV, VH1, the Simpsons, etc. and the news networks. They see Dan Rather using forged documents. They see the bilge that Michael Moore made a zillion bucks peddling. They see lefty columnists calling nice people who happen to go to church the American Taliban and garbage like that. Is it no wonder they have a twisted view of us after being barraged by the networks hidden agenda? " Having lived in England for the last two years, I can speak to what the British are watching. There is the BBC, ITV and Sky news, and a raft of independent newspapers from the liberal (Guardian) to the "conservative" (the Sun). Dan Rather is on at 5 in the morning in a CBS news rebroadcast. First, the British do support a "war on terror" since they have had to deal with terrorism many more years than we have with the IRA. They do not (as many of us Democrats and liberals do not)equate the war on terror with the war in Iraq. Most British strongly oppose the war in Iraq. There is a lot of anger right now over the death of British soldiers sent to Baghdad at the request of the US military. The current view of the US is shaped by our policies, including our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (before Supreme Court intervention they were held indefinitely without recourse to the courts), our rejection of treaties including the Geneva Convention as applied to certain prisoners, and our policy of preemptive war. Whether or not you agree with these policies, this is how they are viewed by a substantial number of British. Abu Graib and what is perceived as our government's inadequate response is also a factor. Although it would be comforting to think that media excesses have distorted our policies, unfortunately that is not true here.

While the Republicans now have control of two branches of government, they did not get a "mandate" in the sense that a landslide victory, like Reagan got over Mondale, would have given them. One of the most disappointing aspects of Bush's presidency is his abandonment of the "uniter not a divider" philosophy. He is supposed to be president of ALL the people, not just the ones that agree with him. True leadership is building consensus even with those that disagree with your policies. The results of Bush's "leadership" can be seen in the "we won so go stuff it" attitudes of many "red state" voters.

I think Kerry's "excuse" was meant to be a JOKE! I do not think that Bush is unintelligent. I do believe that he has not used his intelligence, and that his judgment is seriously flawed. Regarding, "can't we all just get along": Conservatives have been equally divisive and insulting by accusing liberals and democrats who had legitimate criticisms of Bush's policies of being unpatriotic and aiding the terrorists. As I have said before, living out here in England, it is my opinion that Bush's policies have made us less safe. This is a legitimate criticism of his policies, and does not make me unpatriotic. It is a fact, not my opinion, that his policies, especially with regard to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, have created the situation where our moral credibility in much of the world is now at about zero. It seems to me that this undermines one of his foremost policy goals: spreading democracy and freedom around the world. It is hard to spread democracy and freedom when you are not trusted.

Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable woman, and has worked hard for New York. I agree, however, that she would not appeal to the "red state" voters. Don't be so sure about Rudy Giuliani, however. I lived in New York when he was mayor. He was majestic on 9/11. I strongly disagreed with his policies, though, and he was a polarizing figure in many ways, particularly with race relations. Anyone who lived there knows this. Please note that the conservatives have demonized liberals in the same way that conservatives accuse liberals of demonizing them. This campaign was one of the nastiest in decades. We are all Americans. I am a liberal, and I have values too. Some of my values differ from conservatives' values. Some are the same. We also differ on what policies should be made law to promote these values. I don't have much expectation that George W Bush will now become the "uniter, not a divider" that he promised in the first campaign. Do you?