1 I just want to say that I'm heartened that you, as a republican, believe that the universe is older than ten thousand years. It's nice that conservatives can still surprise me. Gives me hope. And then South "Coat Hanger" Dakota takes it all away.

2 P.S. I read the Wall Street article on demographics. (I had some time, as you must too.) You do realize that its basic premise is that America and the West would cease to be the "Western" if the majority of the populations in these countries were neither white nor Christian? So, what exactly do you call a premise like that? Racist? Xenophobic? Western culture, to me, isn't about race and religion. It's about NOT having to worry about race and religion. It's about seperating that stuff from your daily life and having the oppurtunity to believe in whatever you want and be whatever skin color you want. The article is completely backwards on what it means to be Western. And, not to mention, really offensive in a wide array of areas. About 8 paragraphs down: "The AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda." Excuse me? You can read that with a straight face? Yeah, those clever fags and their AIDS. Okay, let me breakdown the circular thought process on this: AIDs epidemic = gay Gay = tolerance of the "other" tolerance of the "other" = weakness weakness = AIDS epidemic That, right there, is the circular logic of a radical bigot. None of this argument is valid, and is only acceptable in the least if buried under ten thousand words of right-wing propaganda. Do you, Sarah, really believe that tolerance of gay people is destructive to Western society? I refuse to believe you do. I have some hope left. I have some hope that Western society is NOT the same as Taliban society. If not, what the Hell is the point of all this? You're breaking my heart Sarah. I want Western society to mean something. I want it to be a beacon of hope in a dark world. Should enemy fighters in Afghanistan be given comfort at a Canadian hospital? Hell no! But your article (which brings this up), is just a big, tangled web of obviously true statements (like this one) mixed with complete non-logical rhetoric. If you agree with A, then you must agree with B, because A=B. But A is valid (the war against the Taliban) and B is not (the need for intolerance in Western society.) Western is not the opposite of Islamic. Where they do differ, however, is in the way governments in the West are supposed to be seperable from religious belief, whereas Islamic governments are firmly entrenched in religious dogma. Liberals support the former principal, conservatives seem to support the latter, as long as the religious dogma is Christian. But get this: an American president could (*gasp*) happen to be Muslim. (Notice that I say 'could,' as in, it legally could happen, not that it would.) If, however, that prospect scares you, it's you who are the fundamentalist who doesn't understand American or Western principals. All men are created equal. Some are smarter, some are prettier, some are more athletic and some just try harder. But at the moment of creation, we all get a fair shake. Even the ones who aren't Christian. Get it? Relgious fundamentals will never understand how silly the world looks to an Athiest; how ridiculously silly you all seem, so similar to each other in thought and action, and so desperate to prove that you're different. Athiests (and even moderates) are forced to be meek in a world torn by religious war and the yelling of tyrants who claim to be angels. But liberal Western society is the hill in the flatlands, the light in a new dark age, where we can gather and learn, and fight for the world that was envisioned so long ago by our democratic forefathers.

3 Will -- Do you know anything about me? Judging from this last tirade, you clearly do not.

4 Will I agree with everything you said..I am an atheist and the world to me looks like a violent, sad sad circus..with no viewable end..it just seems to be getting worse by the day..no end in sight. What gets me is that it seems that there are so few atheists..especially in 2006..I just don't..maybe i never will. I feel that this world is hopeless to evolve further and live in peace as long as religion is the central force in people's lives

5 What has the WSJ editorial page been saying about Iraq---anyone know? I thought the interesting thing about the column was how it undercut the latest justification for the war. The argument now is that we went to war to bring democracy and individual rights to Iraq, on the assumption that everyone wants and can maintain those and that only the presence of dictators keep some societies from enjoying them. If Muslims living in Western countries can't wait to junk liberal democracy and impose sharia law, though, then what is the point of installing a liberal democracy in Iraq?

6 Sarah -- I enjoy your website. I thank you and your husband for your sacrifices and support of our country and its ideals. Take heart! We will find our way and when we make mistakes we will learn from them. When Bush addressed the UN in 2004, he quoted the great Burmese heroine, Aung San Suu Kyi: "We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value." I too have my fingers crossed about Iraq, but deep down I believe we are doing the right and the best thing in a difficult time.

7 That is a very good perspective on time, Sarah -- thanks for the link. HGWells - I like the quote, will tuck it away for my own use somewhere ;-)

8 Sarah, I just got back from some travelling and didn't feel like being online during that time, so I just got a chance to check out the pages I usually surf through (yours included) so sorry for this belated responce, but to answer you question, no, I don't know anything about you. I can only glean certain things from stuff like the articles you link to. Figuring out someone's world view and personality from their blog is sort of like playing 'twenty questions' when the person doing the answering hasn't really thought of anything specific for 'it' to be. Just so you know, I read your blog because, though I usually surf things like 'crooksandliars' and Atrios, I like getting other perspectives, and I usually find yours to be more balanced than other red staters. My 'tirade' stems from the fact that I've felt more and more hopeless about the direction that social conservatives are taking the country, from intelligent design to banning or withholding birth control, and I'd just hate to think that every fiscal/foreign policy conservative is like that. I didn't think you were, but that article had enough points in it to make me think you are, and that's sad because I'm hoping that when the crazy emotions we're all feeling due to the 'war on terror' start winding down in the years to come, the moderates will be able to form some common ground, some purple politics, and lead the country onward. But if the conservatives insists in bogging down social issues in this "let's try to recreate a 1950s that never really existed except on 'Leave it to Beaver'" I fear that the partisanship will never end. Because liberals can accept the economic and foreign policies of conservatives, but never the ones that take us backwards on a domestic, social level.