I just was on http://www.vote-smart.org/ reading the Meet the Press transcript (from Oct. 1) between Mike Dewine and Sherrod Brown, the two people running for US Senator for Ohio. Then I flipped over here and saw the link on Dewine losing his RNC backing. Wonder if it has any thing to with his comments about Rumsfeld and how he handled Iraq? "I’ve already said, Tim, I don’t have confidence in Rumsfeld. He’s made major mistakes in this war. There’s absolutely no doubt about it. The decision to put Rumsfeld in was made by the president,..."

loving the Steve Rose column. Why? I'm from Johnson County, and he's absolutely right. For example, I was at my mom's house one during the summer of '04 and this insufferable twat running for the legislature was going door to door. Her line was, I'm so-and-so and I'm in support of marriage. My response was, oh, that's great, because there are so many people going around saying who can get married and who can't. This of course threw her off because she was being a biggot, and had to backpedal. I tried to press her to state a position on other issues, but didn't have any! That's all she was doing was walking around saying, "don't let the fags get married."

I'm pretty sure she got elected by the way.

I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

No on Porp89, what a horrible idea.

Oh, the Center for Inquiry's Point of Inquiry is like sweet sweet candy, I always want more afterward.

And DJ Grothe asks just great questions, take that Colbert!

I love that people who profess to be about small government and keeping government out of our personal lives would cheer the government forcing a private institution to accept people they do not want to accept.

Freedom ... except when you disagree with me. The new mantra.

Your link to 'See the World as your pets do' http://parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_10-15-2006/Pets is censoring comments. I noticed it when cocker spaniel was written as **er spaniel. I submitted a comment with the question of who was censoring cocker when my posted comment also had cock asterisked out. duh!!!

I don't suppose that anybody here other than myself thinks that the Boy Scouts have been vindicated a tiny bit by the whole Mark Foley scandal. Anyone?

In what sense Mike?

The Boys Scout's un-official position can be boiled down to: it's just asking for trouble to send young men into the forest to sleep and bathe with men who might be sexually attracted to them. I sure wouldn't send a 17 year old daughter to the woods led by an 18 year old male assistant scoutmaster and his 21 year old scoutmaster. I'd be a fool if I said "Only a pedophile would be attracted to my legally underage yet reproductively mature daughter, so she'll be safe out there with those two technically adult men." Hopefully she'd be fine if I did send her, but like I said, it's just asking for trouble.

I realize that one anecdote does not an argument win; that's why I qualified the Scouts' vidication with the phrase "tiny bit." The boys Mark Foley was after were physically mature. It would be inappropriate for Foley to be a scoutmaster because he digs young men. Because SOME men like to watch women undress, ALL men are excluded from women's locker rooms, and everybody's OK with that. How many men is "some men?" I don't know, but it's clearly enough for society to segregate bathrooms. Similarly, because some gay men are attracted to young men, it seems reasonable to me to exclude them all for the same reasons.

So Mike do we exclude adult lesbians from locker rooms or outings, and is it okay to let adult gay men but not straight men to take young women on outings?