[P]aging RNC: ad campaign: fade in with footage of McDermott on "This Week," overlay with ominous-voiced announcer saying "The majority of House Democrats voted against taking on Saddam Hussein," list of Hussein's horrors on screen, while announcer ends with "This fall, do you really want to give control of Congress back to the Democrats?" McDermott's face morphs into Saddam's. Fade to black.

In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.

We do not support President Bush?s idea to go to war against Saddam Hussein. If Saddam fights, we could think about nonviolent ways to fight back, but we definitely shouldn?t start the fight . Please don?t drop any more bombs! If we start the fight, they might be more likely to use a the bomb that would blow up the whole country or world! Violence plus violence just equals more violence! Please don?t go to war because: 1) innocent people die 2) it?s not what God wants us to do 3) fighting just leads to more fighting which could lead to WWIII!

My reaction: There?s a bright line between education and indoctrination; a line that separates teaching children how to think from exploiting them for political purposes. Having second graders write a letter like this crosses that line. What makes it unethical is that it represents a breach of trust on the part of the teacher, who used her position to propagandize children too young to be able to develop their own worldview.

But something new is emerging from the horror -- a debate has broken out in the black community over the issue of personal responsibility versus finger-pointing; and it includes some remarkably blunt truth-telling.

African-American leaders like Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. are rejecting arguments that economics ? or discrimination, or the lack of social programs -- account for the pathology of illegitimacy and brutality in the black community. Other social groups, he notes, have risen out of poverty by taking responsibility for educating and raising their children.

His message is also being echoed in some of the black press. Last week?s Community Journal included an impassioned column by managing editor Thomas Mitchell, Jr., who denounced the ?politicians, touchy-feely sociologists, psychologists, culturalists, apologists for ?wayward? youth, those who are against welfare reform, stricter law enforcement? and those who blame everything and everybody but the real culprits for what?s wrong with the Black community?.They?ll just keep making excuses for themselves and others of their kind until they wake up and realize it is not the system, the cops or White folks who are the enemy. The enemy is themselves.?

More than just certain tactics, I object to the whole attitude that evangelism is a "calling."

The nature Sean is defending is the urge to force others to live the same kind of lifestyle they would choose for themselves.

Just putting it in self-interest terms, how would I have had the enthusiasm and the fight if I had actually cast a vote I didn't believe in? I couldn't do that.

The cameraman was jostled throughout the speech as activists held signs in front his camera and bumped into him.

At one point, after moving to a new location, the cameraman was pushed into an apparent union worker who responded with kidney-punches into the cameraman?s side.

Volunteers rushed to the scuffle and escorted away the cameraman, who held his hands in the air.

At the top of my list is the moral imperative in some religions - Christianity included - to convert non-believers. Can faith that is forced on a person be true faith, or is it mere compliance? Here in the West believers can no longer torture and burn non-believers so they instead spend huge amounts of money to pursue and annoy anyone who does not share their beliefs, and as missionaries they prey on the most vulnerable people, providing food and other humanitarian aid as a lure. We all like to share our beliefs and given the opportunity will try to convince other people that we are right. I expect religious people to do the same, but not to the point where it becomes a crusade. The attitude that everyone must be converted is simply wrong and leads to acts of evil and violations of individual rights.

The second problem with religion is closely tied to the first - government based on religion or the attempt to use religion to influence legislation. Too many religious people think that separation of church and state should only work one way - that the government must keep out of religion but that the church has no similar obligation to stay out of government. Some of these people will surely speak up and explain how the Constitution supports their point of view. First of all, it doesn't, but I'm not talking about the Constitution at all. I'm talking about a wise principle that is an important part of the foundation of all free nations. To pass laws based on religious beliefs, even if such passage does happen to be Constitutional, chips away at our freedom.

I'm not unhappy with the CIA because it's a big bad bunch of spies who topple foreign governments againstthewilloftheirpeople. I'm unhappy with the CIA because it seems to be displaying the kind of flexibility and innovation usually associated with the United States Postal Service.

In Afghanistan, the Agency's paramilitary arm did excellent work by all accounts. But there's no sign that the rest of the Agency has gotten its act together, and no sign that the dropped balls of Summer, 2001 are being addressed.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both, and the United States military is capable of confronting both.

After 11 years during which we've tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.

A couple years ago, I thought the wires might be more careful now that the whole world has access. Maybe newspapers would make sure these stories from the future stopped appearing on their Web sites. Nah. Why start caring now? During the 2000 GOP convention, when everybody was making a big deal about Internet journalists (remember them?) covering the stupid non-story, Reuters reported on Laura Bush's speech and how the delegates reacted. This was an hour before she spoke. AP did the same thing with Colin Powell's speech, with detailed quotes from members of the audience. Filed at 9:10 p.m., almost 90 minutes before he took the stage.

Journalism is a total scam. Even in an era of 24-hour news channels and raw wires on the Internet, there's still no shame at daily newspapers. Whole sections are prepared days or even weeks before they arrive in your "news" paper, and you'd be surprised how much of the "A" section for today's paper was done while you were having breakfast yesterday. Or earlier.

Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, Locke and Descartes: their wanderings, wars, and struggles make Kant's look like nothing. Yet his story is every bit as gripping as theirs...[more]

The lovely, decayed city of Havana stands as a dreadful warning against monomaniacs certain of a theory that explains everything, including the future of humanity...[more]

Creativity. Beethoven was a very, very creative person. And so is Elton John. And so are you. Best of all, in Britain art is helping to build a better society... [more]. Not, says that boring old fart, Simon Rattle.

I say fine. We will abide by the UN resolutions everywhere Saddam does. Anyplace he unilaterally chooses NOT to allow inspections, we should be able to unilaterally choose to bomb into rubble, and be applauded by the UN for our "sort of compliance" with the all powerful UN resolution. The UN is happy that their previous "inspections" got rid of ~80-90% of Saddam's weapons. Therefore, they should be equally happy if we leave 80-90% of Iraq unbombed into rubble.

Instead, not only must he change the regime in Iraq; the question is: What further precautions must he take to make the U.S. reasonably safe? In the second half of the 20th century, the American government was obliged to answer this question by doing two very expensive and risky things. First, it had to build up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and continually update its delivery systems to maintain a balance of terror and/or first- and second-strike capabilities. Second, it had to construct a worldwide spread of alliances and bases to ensure its conventional superiority.

These measures are still necessary but they have receded into the background. The foreground is occupied by the need to eliminate regimes which, in one way or another, make international terrorism on a large scale possible and threaten to produce mass-destructive terrorism. Such states include not only all "the usual suspects" --Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as Iraq)--but Saudi Arabia too, whose authoritarian monarchy pays protection money to terrorists and spreads the religious fundamentalism which lies at the root of the problem.

All these regimes need to be changed. By whose right, and with what authority, can the U.S. undertake such a wide-ranging program? It is this which takes us to the heart of the new, 21st-century form of geopolitics. The risk of great-power conflict is now small. The risk of nation-to-nation wars is diminishing. But the risk of colossal attacks on centers of civilization has increased, is increasing, and must be diminished.

We need a Leviathan figure now much more than in the 17th century, when the range of a cannon was a maximum of two miles and its throw-weight was measured in pounds. America is the only constitutional Leviathan we have, which is precisely why the terrorists are striving to do him mortal injury, and the opponents of order throughout the world--in the media, on the campus, and among the flat-earthers--are so noisily opposed to Leviathan's protecting himself.