Captain's Quarters -

We're not a fighting a war in I-R-A-K since Tommy Franks went home.

Besides, if you think we're fighting a war, there, why are we low on troops? Why aren't we using our ships and sea? And, our air force in ways that are more than just stuff "covering parade grounds?"

I think we've been snookered.

I also think Hillary would not be rowing away from I-R-A-K, if the whole House of Saud wasn't penalized for what it did to us on 9/11. Instead? Bush provided exit flights out on 9/11 and 9/12! For 140 special Sauds, some named Ben Laden. You're fooling yourselves, if you don't think the Saud's were looking for global domination. Especially since it's easier for them to recruit suicide-bombers, than it is for us to get Congress to fund, soldiers.

You want to live in the past. GO AHEAD.

But "something" in the DYNAMICS changed. The right rode high. It even had opportunities to pepper the Supreme's with right wing nut jobs; also known as ideologs. This, I think, has been brought to a stand still.

As to the debates. HELLO. Anyone running now, is only gonna run out of money and steam; if the "big providers" stop stepping up to the plate.

The old dynamics? Heck, Bob Jones university held "clout." And, got the shit manipulated out of them by the Bush family. That's old. And, unreported.

There's an old expression, where we have geniuses that "stand on the sholders of giants." When James Burke came along and changed it to, "they stand on the shoulders of midgets, as well."

But it's unique, to make a discovery. It's never done by committee. Or concensus.

And, here? What can ya do? It's a small niche. That once held primary clout. And, it looks like you've lost that war, too.

Why did Iraq go south on us? Because Paul Bremer, went in on our military win; and fired all the teachers. And all the other personnel that had to belong to Saddam's party, in order to work. That put a lot of Sunnis into the already BIG enemy camp.

Next? We didn't allow Iraq to shove the crap out of all the sunni populations. Because? Just like on 9/11. The Saud's OWN Bush's brain. (See? It's not Karl Rove.)

Man doesn't exactly think on his feet.

And, IF he keeps doing his "dreams of a terrorist state" ... on top of what's happening in Israel, France, and England ... where the voters are looking for "shifts" ... I don't know what to tell ya?

In Israel, at least, Olmert's a PRO. It's pretty obvious to those over there that his next hurdle is to deal with the infighting in Labor. A rag-tag REMNANT of the "first party" ... that hasn't seen power, again. LIKE THEY USED TA.

It seems some critters get meaner and meaner when they're further away from the hearts of most people. There must be a lesson in that.

Captain, are you also going to be talking to James Walker about why he thinks Mormonism is a non-Christian cult?

(If you click on his website, you'll see a variety of books on that subject).

Jim,

Yes, I saw that -- but that ties into the topic. If you take this legislation to its conclusion, would he be susceptible to prosecution for those statements?

I disagree with that idea that Mormonism is a cult, though. Maybe you should call in, Jim! He'll be on half-way through.

Thanks for the invite, Ed.

By its terms, the proposed federal Hate Crime bill only applies when someone "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person". So it takes more than just an expression of disagreement (or preaching against homsexuality, for instance) to trigger the law.

You can compare this, though, with the federal Canadian hate crime act. That law doesn't require a physical act.

The Canadian law says that (i) everyone who advocates or promotes genocide can be imprisoned for up to five years; (ii) everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace can be imprisoned up to two years; and (iii) everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group can be imprisoned up to two years.

"Genocide” means killing or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction and “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

It's a defense under (ii) and (iii) (but not (i)) if a person establishes that the statements communicated were true; or the person expressed or attempted to establish an argument in good faith an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; or if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or iif, in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
(

If those who are anti-Mormon are given a forum to attack Mitt Romney (directly or indirectly) on the basis of his religion, I'm dismayed that reputable bloggers would enjoin them.

Rather than stoop to the level of the WBC/Phelps crowd, a more enlightened forum would be to ask exactly how, when or IF Romney's religious affiliation was ever imposed on citizens of the state he governed, businesses he developed and the Olympics he organized.

To allow individuals to attack a person's religion -- directly or by inference -- reeks of bigotry of the first order.