
I remember when nearly every red-blooded male had "The Poster." Just when she was aging well -- if not a little weirdly -- Farrah went to some quack plastic surgeon. Why, Farrah, Why?
Politics, social issues, religion and all the other topics people love to discuss around the dinner table.



Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals has criticized Pat Robertson's comments, although saying they were overblown. Below is a part of a post from CT.
I am confused as to how Haggard can offer a pseudo-justification for Robertson's remarks by saying he wasn't speaking in the portion of the show that was focused on "Christian exhortation" but in "another section where he's a political pundit." Hasn't it been people such as Haggard and Robertson who have been saying you can't compartmentalize your faith, including in politics?
Haggard was scheduled to travel to Venezuela to offer an apology on behalf of evangelicals. By the way, is anyone surprised that Jesse Jackson is going to travel to Venezuela to meet with the dictator? I'm so glad we have him to heal our land - and the land of others. Perhaps Jackson and Haggard will have an opportunity to chat.
I think you have to understand the context of it. You know his program has one section of it that's a Christian exhortation, and then another section where he's a political pundit. And I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator. …
The First Amendment is wonderful. People have free speech privileges. He wasn't writing a memo to the White House recommending a public policy decision. He was not recommending something to the State Department. He was not exposing himself sexually on the platform the way Janet Jackson did. Instead, he was having a political discussion, where they were randomly working with some ideas. For Jesse Jackson [who called for the FCC to investigate the remarks] to exaggerate it this way is just as appalling as what Pat Robertson said, I think. … We're addressing it, we're not taking it lightly. Nobody is taking it seriously as a policy issue. So the system is working. Everything is fine. Nobody's going to assassinate this man. But we do realize he is a major problem. … Pat Robertson was wrong in recommending this. He was wrong in saying it. But he was not wrong in being able to just openly discuss it the way political pundits do all the time. Now, if you take his words as from a religious Christian leader, as a recommendation, then we have a problem. But I don't think that's what he did.

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
Anyone who is interested in investigating claims by public figures or groups should regularly check this web site or subscribe to its email list.