Why are conservatives getting their knickers in a twist? The companies that produce these video games are not groups of leftists but rather good old capitalist corporations, working hard to improve their bottom line. They are owned by still larger companies who are--if free market theory has it right--trying to maximize the return on investment of their shareholders. If you're a conservative, what can be wrong about that?

The last time I looked, the Right had the lock on populism in this country. Certainly a majority of Americans identify themselves as conservative now. So why is there any conservative anxiety about a Con-Con? A constitutional convention could give conservatives the chance to tinker with the institutional structure to prevent liberalism from ever having a seat at the table again. It could make sure that there were no constitutional provisions that could be used by liberal judges to expand the scope of government. If conservatives truly believe that the US should remain a conservative nation, a Con-Con would give them a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get their way. Why oppose it?

Prof Adams should be the first, as a conservative, to acknowledge that Cisco has the right to decide which, if any, political positions it will favor and support, or encourage its employees to believe in. If someone doesn't like it, let him or her find another job. Isn't that what a capitalist system is all about?

My goodness gracious--those horrible Hollywood liberals! Just imagine! There they go, working to provide a good return on investment to the shareholders of the companies that own the companies that own, etc. the studios. I can't think of a better example of business American style than the entertainment industry. Do those liberal moviemakers force anybody--anybody at all--to watch their movies? I don't know of any examples of this, although Mr. Shapiro might.

Prince Charles is a pathetic figure--he reminds me of Emperor Hirohito, who spent his declining years talking to sea life.

Jacoby is no conservative! I'm always pleased to see a conservative defect and move from Right to Left, and Jacoby is far along that path. It's the Left that gets all weepy at the thought of torture, and conservatives should be the first to recognize both the moral rightness and uses of torture. Are we Americans really too good, too pure, too righteous not to get it? Among the choices we make when we wage war is the choice to inflict harm on our enemies. If a prisoner is likely to have information we need, then the sheer fact that we're the good guys--as we always keep reminding ourselves--is sufficient justification for what we do. How old is this Jacoby guy anyway? He's certainly not a grownup, or he'd understand why torture belongs...

Come on now. Is Goldberg kidding? If Bush had been president when bin Laden was killed, he would have gotten into full battle rattle and pranced around like he did in that flight suit!

Tell me about that 'homosexual' past--What do you guys on the Right know about that? Sounds like a good issue to raise as the birther issue begins to fade.

Mr. Goldberg doesn't get down to basics here. The real question is 'why are there public libraries in the first place?' Why should my tax dollars go to support other people's reading habits, regardless of what they prefer to read? The very concept of a public library violates free market principles. I say: abolish the libraries and this porn problem will go away.

This writer makes a mistake made by many, perhaps most, Americans, when he writes: "You and I have more in common, and are in more sympathy, with the average Muslim than those who would rule by Sharia. " The error is to imagine that the 'average Muslim' is in most respects having to do with his values just like an American. A very large number of these 'average Muslims" want to be ruled by Sharia and believe that the rest of the world should be so ruled as well.