Et tu, Brute?

Mr. Bush used Gen. Petraeus' name so often during this morning's press conference that it might do the general some good to watch his back.

Come September, given the President's penchant for not accepting responsibility for the wrongness of this battlefront in the "ideological struggle," if the "surge" isn't dramatically successful, somehow the responsibility for the failure will come to roost upon the general's shoulder boards..."It was his idea; he made me do it. I just listened to the general."

God bless the troops.

Sphere: Related Content

Fulness of Oneself

Words and memories and metaphors, Dear Reader, make up the universe of pleasure.

Not quite a week after the death of Jerry Falwell we have another interesting bit of a rememberance. Check out Larry Flynt's piece in the Los Angeles Times today.

My favorite quote, "He was definitely selling brimstone religion and would do anything to add another member to his mailing list. But in the end, I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling..."

"Selling" is the operative word in Mr. Falwell's life. He was very good at it. What he sold most was himself. He was handsomely rewarded for his efforts. Look at pictures of his early days in broadcasting. Look at pictures of his final days in life. He became a corporate fat cat--the "Rev. Ike" of the white Baptist-types.

Rev. Ike and Pastor Jer. Two American success stories.

What pleasure to be reminded of Rev. Ike at this moment in history.

Sphere: Related Content

Civilization? Well, I guess.

Here in central Palm Springs, we have reminders of the wonderful range of nature.

Yesterday I watched a mockingbird chase a crow across the sky. The mockingbird dive bombed the crow; the crow was reduced to looking over its shoulder (do crows have shoulders?), trying to get a bead on the location of the angry attacker in order to avoid a sharp peck.

We have hummingbirds and blackbirds in the condo area. A pair of mockingbirds have taken up residence in a bougainvilla 10 feet from my kitchen door. Ground squirrels bounce in an open space across the street. Rabbits hide out in a brushy area about a half block from here. Ducks have been chased out of the pool behind my apartment; geese regularly visit a water hazard in the golf course which abuts the association's property.

And 5 minutes ago, a relatively healthy looking coyote ambled past my office window.

How nice of all these animals to let us live in peace.

Sphere: Related Content

She Didn't Say That...Did She?

Over at the local newspaper, The Desert Sun, a new editorial page "Community Conversation Editor," Angela Cortez, is learning the ropes.

An editorial page commentary on Jerry Falwell today, Falwell's views opened door for many, has an interesting clue as to the direction Ms Cortez is likely to take.

After a rather benign recitation of objective facts, the editorial writer concludes with this: For better or for worse, Falwell was a religious and political force in this country, and his views - while at times despicable and inexcusable - opened the door for a lot of like-minded people to have their voice heard.

Read into that whatever you like. I, for one, like to read that those "like-minded people" are "despicable and inexcusable."

I repeat my contention: Falwell died too soon; he didn't have a "deathbed" conversion/apology as was granted to Lee Atwater, another political operative whose main function in life was to "spin" the truth to achieve questionable ends.

I wonder what Ms Cortez, and/or the editorial writer, meant.

Sphere: Related Content

"lol"?

Over at Ol' Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, a mini-insurrection is brewing.

It has to do with Andrew's penchant for loquacity, and then some.

In an effort to cut down on the verbosity in some of his postings, Andy (I don't know him well enough to call him that, but he'll never read this, so...WTF) has decided to post a couple of paragraphs, then send his readers on to the complete posting through 'a "Continue reading ..." link to the full version.'

The response has been less than overwhelmingly positive. It seems as though most of us are too lazy to "hit the link(s)!" The complaints resulted in this from Andrew, "Screw you, guys. Seriously, I'm going to keep it but use it sparingly - when a post is more than two paragraphs long." (No doubt in my mind, the screwing is meant as a jocular metaphor.)

I sent TDD the following email under the subject of "...continue reading..." : Maybe you could be less verbose.
gene
(screw you back)
To which I appended a cutesy smiley face.

Imagine my surprise when I received this from "Andrew": "lol"

The question, dear virtually non-existant reader, is What does lol mean? Lots of luck? Lots of laughs? Look out, Loser?

And surely Andrew is too busy (at least I hope so) writing to respond to all the cutesies he receives during the day. So, did a factotum respond? Is it really Lots of luck, meaning, "Andrew, shorten? Edit? Cull? lol!"

Or not?

Keep writing, Andrew. You're a credit to us all.

Sphere: Related Content

A Madding Mantra...(almost)

Mantra is probably too strong. The repetition of something like "how we got here is not important anymore" by the supporters of Mr. Bush's initial invasion of Iraq and the subsequent questionable management of the occupation is certainly approaching the repetitive, soporific qualities of a mantra; but it might not yet have arrived.

A question arises, though. Why not?

Why isn't it important to keep near in our consciousness the questionable rhetoric used by the administration to lead the American public first to accept the invasion, and then to put up with the questionable policies developed to police occupied Iraq?

Trust in the administration's capabilities led us to where we are. Doesn't the administration have the responsibility to defend, aloud and publicly, its strategies at this point? Does "give it a chance" suffice?

The Islamist fundamentalists are a real threat. What, exactly, is the administration's strategy in this "ideological struggle?"

Republican defense of this president's war policies needs more than "forget" about how we got here.

We would be foolish to forget. We must remember who. We must remember why.

Fool me once...

Sphere: Related Content

Sufficient Troops and Politicians

Waaay back, in 2002, the Chief of Staff for the Pentagon recommended 400,000 to 500,000 thousand U.S. troops be utilized to defeat Hussein and to sustain peace and order in an occupied Iraq.

That recommendation was shot down by a politician, the Secretary of Defense, and that negative was sustained by another politician, the Commander in Chief.

During the early occupation months, calls went out for more troops, but the Commander in Chief constantly told the American people that the generals on the ground did not ask for more troops, so none would be provided--politicians would not second guess the generals on the ground.

After the elections of 2006, after an electoral repudiation of the Commander in Chief's handling of the Iraqi occupation.

When politicians, responding to the electoral desires of the American public began to demand a re-deployment, a lessening of American troop levels in Iraq, all of a sudden the Commander in Chief, responding to a sudden "need" for more troops from the generals, discovered the solution to the problems in Iraqi occupation would be solved, in part, by more troops. This in the face of "politicians" trying to "micromanage" the occupation effort.

So, as long as the Commander in Chief had a compliant Congress, no increase in troops was needed; after a repudiation of the CiC's policies at the polls, there is a desperate need for troops.

Hubris.

America weeps.

All for a tax cut in 2000.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Entitled? Really? Says Who? And to What?

What with all the fiscal brouhaha surrounding the various "entitlements" today, I'm often struck by my own lack of a sense of entitlement, or at least lowered expectations of entitlement. My mother and a now unnamed Catholic priest disabused me of "entitlement" some sixty years ago.

Mother first: I desperately wanted a toy of some sort, and I carefully planned my statement of need to my mother. I can't remember the specifics of the actual approach, but I've never forgotten the immediate result, "No. I need new shoes, and I can't afford a toy right now."

What!?!

There was no appeal.

Around that time, a couple of seconds, perhaps, in terms of the longevity of the earth, I was sitting in church with my Mother (Where was my father during all of this?), listening to a sermon about family. I remember being very pleased with myself--this was a sermon about me, since I was part of a family. All of a sudden, the priest said something to the effect of (I'll use quotes, but, really, who can remember the exact quote of a sermon decades past?), "Remember, the relationship between the husband and wife is the most important part of a family. Not the children."

What!?!

No. No. No. I am the most important part of this family!

I remember looking at my mother, shocked, and she looked back at me with the (memory may fail the exactitude, but not the message) equivalent shrug of, "What? You're surprised? Get real."

Eventually, I did.

All of this is remembered today because of the lead opinion column in today's Los Angeles Times. Dan Neil, a writer for the Times has penned a personal essay about abortion. It is engrossing.*

The Neils, for medical reasons, and, after much consultation and deliberation, underwent a medical procedure which ended the pregnancies of two male fetuses, leaving two female fetuses intact.

The reason Neil gives for the decision was simple; without the abortion, "[Her] health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor. The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly. I wasn't going to allow that, though the fires of hell might beckon."

The Neils wanted children very badly; they had been in consultation with fertility specialists. The pregnancy, however, had not been easy. He was, rightly, concerned most about the health of his wife. The fetuses were secondary.

Neil goes on to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision to allow the federal statute banning certain late term abortions to stand. He particularly mentions the comments of Justice Kennedy which, patronizingly, states this law is good for women because it protects them from "the mental and moral trauma of the procedure."

We should thank the Neils for their courage. Making their story public can't have been an easy decision. Surely it wasn't as difficult, though, as the decision to undergo the procedure.

Neil also raises other issues, such as time limitations and the macabre law in South Carolina where a woman must look at a sonogram of her fetus.

There are alarm bells ringing out there. Is anyone listening? This is an "entitlement" women really don't want to lose.

No one is pro-abortion; everyone should be pro-choice.

*The print copy is titled "And then there were two," while the on-line copy if called "The abortion debate brought home." Why does the Times do that?

Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Just because the phone rings...(a modern dilemma)

A neighbor regularly walks two dogs, one a small poodle, the other a large long haired red retriever. This morning, as the retriever had just finished relieving himself (herself?) and the neighbor was 1) tugging the poodle back towards himself (and out of my way), and 2) trying to manipulate his fecal-retrieving tools and the retriever's leash, his cell phone rang.

Neighbor stood frozen for a moment--flummoxed! What to do? Call the poodle? Call the by now roaming retriever? Pick up the droppings? Answer the phone?

It sort of gives new meaning to Longfellow's line, "The world is too much with us..."

Maybe we don't need to carry phones with us 24/7.

Then again, maybe we do.

(I smiled, walked on and heard him say, loudly, "I'm with the dogs!")

Cell Phones
Culture

Sphere: Related Content

Coin in Iraq

NPR reports this morning that the Army has established a Counter Insurgency "COIN" class in Iraq. It studies the insurgency and formulates strategies to counter whatever the insurgents come up with.

Excellent. At last we begin to see a movement away from "bring 'em on" to a more subtle and, doubtless, more effective way to fight an "ideological struggle" than brute force.

We need more of that sort of thinking on many more "fronts" in this war.

We can start by encouraging our Islamic fellow U.S. citizens to begin to defuse those suras which contain verses no longer viable in the 21st centurty.

The "war" has begun to move into a more subtle and difficult phase.

The war hawks must cede their prominence in our thinking to a coalition of ideological, economic, and moral strengths all working with brute force to forge a strategy in which all humanity can thrive.

Counter Insurgency
Iraqi War
Ideological Struggle

Sphere: Related Content

Is "by any other name" OK?

If a group wishes to name itself, are others with whom the group might disagree obliged to call them by their chosen name? Probably so.

How about if the group chooses a phrase with which to describe itself? Are others to be content to adopt that phrase, although the phrase could easily be construed to seize a moral high ground to which the group is not clearly, totally entitled?

I think not. A "Megan," (Megan McArdle) who is one of a group substituting for Andrew Sullivan on his blog, The Daily Dish (see "States rights" April 20, 7:28am), disagrees. Here are email exchanges between Megan and myself.

Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice. Everyone is against some choices, like 45 year olds wearing miniskirts, or killing little old ladies to steal their grocery money. The delusion that the label applied to the other side is a grotesque semantic travesty is prevalent on both sides of the debate; I apply the labels the movements have chosen for themselves.
-----Original Message-----From: grtou@msn.comTo: andrew@theatlantic.comSent: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 9:27 AMSubject: For Megan
Please! Stop already with using "pro-life" as though it is the sole property of anti-abortion choice proponents. Everyone is "pro-life." There are no songs celebrating abortion. "Abortions that bloom in the spring, tra-la!" is not in anyone's songbook. Nor is the sentiment in anyone's writing.
Gene Touchet

OK. So. I question the validity of her opening sentence: Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice.

Is everyone pro-choice? Do the anti-abortion rights activists argue for a particular abortion procedure which is acceptable?

Do the anti-abortion rights activists consider "pro-choice" to be "a grotesque semantic travesty"? Certainly some of us on the pro-choice side consider "pro-life" as an apt description of the anti-choice side to be a semantic travesty, if not grotesque.

If the recognizing a semantic travesty when I see one is a "delusion," Ms McArdle and I do not agree on the definition of delusion.

Methinks Ms McArdle is too thin skinned.

What think you, Dear Reader?

Abortion Rights
Megan McArdle
Semantics

Sphere: Related Content

Nappy Headed Hos

"Nappy headed hos" is a reprehensible phrase.

That being said, the brouhaha with Don Imus has a silver lining. Finally, the language of the rapster has come into the mainstream media, and is the subject of a long-overdue discussion by our melting pot of a nation.

I don't care what is "done" with Mr. Imus. I do care, though, that I do not hear enough discussion about the relationship between rapsters' use of derogatory language to describe the women in their lives.

I catch a glimpse of Jesse Jackson carrying a rainbow placard in protest against Mr. Imus; I do not hear him coming up with a Cosby-like condemnation of the language which makes such dissing of women the currency of the rap culture.

I get a sound bite of Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley fame, don't for one moment forget) saying that Mr. Imus' suspension of two weeks is insufficient, but I see or hear no sound bites of Mr. Sharpton condemning the virtual wholesale slurring of women in general and black women in particular in rap music.

Once again it falls to the women to take up the burden; the Rutgers women come to their own defense, and in language which shames the bloviators, say simply, "that's not me; that's not who I am."

That's not who most of the women in rapsters' lives are. These women shame them; these women shame the men who ostensibly are defending them when these men merely go after a symptom rather than the disease.

If the nation begins a conversation about propriety and respect, something good will have come of this reprehensible speech on Mr. Imus' part.

Imus should not be fired; he should be given "community service" and required to spend some time on his popular radio show discussing the ramifications of desultory language.

Don Imus
Rutgers Basketball
Pundits

Sphere: Related Content

Yoo Hoo, Non-Gay Cross-Dressers!

Here's a question for you: Are you happy to be included in the category of "Queer?"

According to Corey Scholibo, a respondent for The Advocate's letters, you are (well, not happy, but included). Here's the situation:

The Advocate recently ran an on-line headline which lumped Sam, the cross-dressing son on "The Riches," in with "queer" kids on television--the nephew on "Ugly Betty" had already made the pages of the print magazine (--any why is it virtually no one has commented on the great job the writers and Rami Malek are doing on The War at Home with the character of Kenny?).

I protested with an email to The Advocate: "So far nothing the character of Sam on "The Riches" has done indicates a same-sex sexual orientation. Your headline is misleading--"Queer kid on the block."

It wasn't too long before Scholibo answered, quite nicely, I thought, with:

Gene, Thank you for your response. I agree with you completely that there is nothing in the show that implies that the character is gay, as the story clearly states. Queer is a very encompassing term that often includes cross dressing, as it was forged to imply everything out of the realm of “normal,” and has been taken back by our community as a positive word. Nonetheless it was meant to be an adjective and not a noun, nor imply any sort of social group per say.

Thank you, Corey ScholiboArts & Entertainment Editor

Here's my problem (if there is a problem): when I was growing up, "queer" was not in fashion. When it was used as an adjective for someone with a "sexual perversion" (one of the terms du jour), it only meant gay men. (Remember, I'm talking years away from Christine Jorgensen.) Even lesbians weren't usually included.

When did "our community" (not to get into whoever it is who speaks for the community) expand queer to include transgenders and cross-dressers?

And how do non-gay men and women who are cross-dressers feel about that?

Or have they even noticed?

Just asking.
Cross Dressing
The Advocate
The Riches
Ugly Betty
The War at Home

Sphere: Related Content

A bit of selective memory, Dave Boy?

My favorite right-wing pundit is at it again. David Brooks writes of the Republican Party's downward slide in public trust with "No U-Turns." (Times Select)

As usual, Brooks gets most of it correct: the Republican Party is still working, largely, as if Reagan-Goldwater ideas were still "operative." Too much has changed since 1989, the last year of Reagan's presidency. The world and the United States have changed, but not enough of right-wing thinking have undergone the same.

The problem with Brooks' presentation today lies in this: (Postwar planning in Iraq was so poor because many in the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.)

One begs to differ. In 1991, Bush I refused to continue the war effort in order to depose Hussein because of the strong possibility of sectarian violence and an inability to control an Iraqi leadership crisis--exactly the conditions which have come to pass and are obvious to all, including Mr. Brooks and other early neo-con supporters of the 2003. What would come to pass after April, 2003, was clearly anticipated by a Republican administration in the spring of 1991.

To torture the axiom, Bush II should've repeated the success of Bush I--and not moved to unseat Hussein.

Otherwise, Brooks has some interesting points.

David Brooks
Mr. Bush
Republican Party

Sphere: Related Content

A Mating Ritual Example?

On a walk a few minutes ago, I witnessed a mating ritual which I thought to be interesting.

On a concrete bike path along the edge of the neighboring golf course, I came upon a pair of roadrunners mating. He was holding a lizard in his beak and straddling her, but neither was moving.

After a few seconds, with much flurry of feathers, the mating process ensued. It only lasted for 10 or 15 seconds, then another flurry of feathers for smoothing purposes.

Before he stepped away, she became possessed of the lizard.

He merely stood for another 5 seconds or so then walked away into some nearby bushes.

She stayed in her position for about the same time, then rose, looked at me for a brief moment, and then sauntered away into a different bushy area, with that insouciance only available to roadrunners holding nice, juicy lizard in their beaks.

Who knew? All it takes is a lizard?

Wonder what DeBeers thinks of that.

Mating
Roadrunners
Lizards

Sphere: Related Content

NPR Watch 3/22/07

During today's letters segment, a listener asked why "Morning Edition" spent air time on the recent opening of a "Hooters" restaurant in Israel. Part of the letter asked if an opening of a Hooters would be covered in, say, Costa Rica.

Well, listener, no. The idea of Hooters restaurants stems from the testosterone infused fixation on the mammaries. If one sees a travel picture of Costa Rica, there's a good chance there will be a well endowed woman in a bikini; on the other hand, a similar picture of Israel is less likely to feature a "babe."

Wailing walls, mosques, suicide murders in Israel are far more likely to leap to mind than "hooters." So, an opening of a Hooters, unfortunately, is news--or at least an item of cultural interest.

Now, if you want to ask about the cultural impact of "hooters," much less "Hooters," you might get an interesting conversation going.

NPR
Culture

Sphere: Related Content

Talk About Hurt!

Pity the poor U.S. attorneys who were recently fired by the Justice Department.

The first "reason" for the firings was some variation on the theme of "poor job performance."

Imagine the sting! To have your job rated "poor" by this Administration. To be labeled a "loser" by Losers Incarnate, Inc.!

Oh the ignominy!

Where is the humanity?

Justice Department Firings
Bush Administration

Sphere: Related Content

A Media "Tsk"

The Desert Sun, published in Palm Springs, has an ad space in the middle of its comics page where Fox Trot used to be.

The Los Angeles Times, in today's edition (3/15/07--et tu, Tempora?), has squeezed its single panel cartoons and inserted a banner ad across the bottom of the page.

The Press-Enterprise out of Riverside, California, prints a smaller than usual "Doonesbury."

What have these guys got against the comics?

Is nothing sacred?

The Desert Sun
Los Angeles Times
Press-Enterprise

Sphere: Related Content

Let's Cut to Chase

This link will take you to a Salon.com website written by a former "adult" movie "star," Matt Sanchez. He made movies for one of the leading gay pornographers of the '90s.

Sanchez made the front page of Salon because he was recently honored by the Conservative Political Action Conference last week in D.C., and photographed with Ann Coulter.

Until he was "outed" by leftie blogs, Sanchez was feted by the right wing because he had written a piece for the Columbia University "campus newspaper that blasted the anti-military bias among my fellow students at Columbia University."

A couple of points: 1) the anti-military bias certainly shows itself on college campuses around the nation, and it is ill informed. If the people who are anti-military thought for just a few seconds, they would realize the absolute necessity of a well-armed defense force. That is not to say that on occasion the deployment of the armed forces should not be questioned. The military is led by human beings who are capable of misjudgment. As a concept, though, the military is amoral. It is a necessary entity for the survival of the ability of college students to protest its existence. (The irony is too delicious!)

2) Sanchez has every right to have performed in gay erotica and to have moved on to a more mature posture in his life.

The only question is his decision to dance with someone other than the "one whut brung ya." He doesn't give a citation for his Columbia essay, so one doesn't know what he said. It is curious, though, that he appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" and not, say, "Countdown." Keith Olberman might have been interested in a Columbia student's presentation of an argument against such student attitude. Of course, the right wing willy-nilly jumped on a piece criticizing anything having to do with protests against the Iraqi war; much the same as they did with Ben Shapiro from UCLA.

This story doesn't have "legs." As a matter of fact, the two friends who occasionally read this might not have heard of it at all.

It does show, though, that love and war do make strange bedfellows. I resist making obvious analogies between the Republican wet dream Coulter, and whatever Matt Sanchez has become for them.

Anyway. The Salon piece is an interesting read. Sanchez is unapologetic for his motion picture career, and he needn't be. Good for him on that.

Sanchez might be a bit more cautious of his current comrades (no pun intended). They might not be so forgiving after the story has lost its legs.


Matt Sanchez
Neo Cons
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Stalemate? Probably. Let's Move On.

Over at GayConservativeLiberal's blog, I've been engaging in a teensy teapot tempest, which I thought I'd share.

Here's the first entry (actually, in the middle of a rather interesting exchange, but I'm cherry picking) from a young man named James Henry Bailey: "Liberals can NEVER support their idiotic assertions with facts. I don't think they even try anymore. The more facts get in the way, the louder they yell "Bush lied, people died!!"

Here is my riposte to his entry: "Is it not a fact that the Bush administration did not plan adequately for post-invasion Iraq?

Is it not a fact that none of the 9/11 murderers were Iraqi?

Is it not a fact that all of the proffered meetings between Al Qaeda and Hussein were based on doubious intelligence to begin with but were touted as proof of collusion?

Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them? So, what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?

Out of interest, however, might one ask for a "fact" which will prove that liberals give "a pass to real theocracies and the fanatic Islamo-fascists who fight to instill it."

Painting people's attitudes with a broad brush is never wise. That is true. One is best advised to avoid it.

To which he riposted (?): "Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them?"

I for one have never suggested that Iraq was the right war to fight after 9/11. However, like it or not, it has become a very important battle that should not be under-estimated.

However, I can't believe the hypocrisy with which the left attacks this president and I am determined to expose it as much as possible. Don't forget that most of the anti-war rhetoric coming from the democrats is coming from people who VOTED FOR THIS WAR. They saw, or should have seen, the same intelligence that the president saw. (in fact, almost none of them bothered to read it).

I think you will find there are PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war.

what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?Indeed! why even bother with it, eh??

Guess what's next. Yes! My "final" riposte:

Not supporting the war does not speak to the "facts" of the Bush Administration's mis-steps.

If anyone is underestimating the importance of this current battlefield, they should stand corrected. Who, specifically, is doing this underestimating; and if we're going to assign culpability for underestimation, shouldn't we, again, go back to the post-invasion planning of the administration?

There are, indeed, PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war. Isn't it fair to say that most of that particular plenty have become anti-war after the administration's mis-steps? Is it possible to identify a major conservative voice opposed to the invasion pre-March 2003?

I cannot believe the senators and representatives who voted for the authority to use force against Iraq after certain conditions had been met saw the "same" intelligence as did the President. You may be correct, but such sharing flies in the face of the Executive authority of which this administration has been so jealous.

The facts have been offered. They have not been refuted. Why continue?

The meme (not simply here, but elsewhere also) has become a stalemate. Nothing new is being offered. The surge will play out; it will be successful or not.

I certainly hope it is successful.

Agape.

And then, in a spirit of hospitality, I added

(If any of you guys are coming to Palm Springs for the White Party, give me a call.)

Now, I'm wondering if I didn't accidentally hit on a bit of clarity. This Iraq battlefield meme has reached a stalemate. I haven't seen any movement on either side of the argument. Maybe we should just let the surge work itself out.

In the meantime we should also be planning for our next "theatre of operations" in this battle against religious extremism.

(If you go to GCL's blog, you can find links to Mr. Bailey's blog.)

Moderates of the religious world, Unite!
Gay Conservative Liberal
James Henry Bailey
War on Terror

Sphere: Related Content