Why in the world are we talking about pardons?! Clearly these men should never have been prosecuted to begin with. They should not have been subjected to any sort of punishment requiring pardons. "Progressives" controlling our media, public education, and now, it seems, our military, refuse to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil. But have we advanced so far into moral relativism that Afghan insurgents and other terrorists are to be treated better than our soldiers acting in self-defense? Apparently we have. I believe that war is sometimes the most moral alternative in the cause of securing our nation. But this is true only if our soldiers are permitted - nay, empowered - to fight to win. Is this the Twilight Zone?

You missed my main point, so I will eludidate. The point is that feminism, for all its claims to give women more choices, actually robbed them of some of those choices by having them believe that traditional choices were not worthwhile. Far more important, it irreversibly changed the roles between men and women, taking the romance and respect out of dating and telling men they should be more like women. Sex became far more casual and far less special. I'm not saying feminism was all bad; but my own experience was one of pain, sorrow, and confusion that took many years to rectify. Since I generally blame myself for almost all unfavorable outcomes, this is a rare circumstance in which I place at least a portion of the blame on feminism.

By the way, I'm a mechanical engineer with a progressive leftist for a mother. If I had it to do all over again, I would tell Mom to experiment with feminism on herself, not her daughter. And I wouldn't have majored in engineering. It would have been violin or musical theater - yeah.

I'll answer for Miss Wright: I just want to go back far enough (say, 1965) to enjoy having a man admire me, open the door for me, and buy me dinner, without him wondering if doing so offends me, and without him expecting sex by the second or third date. I want the respect (and self-respect!) that the women's movement made so hard to come by.

What is Townhall thinking, printing Chapman's stuff? Oh, that's right, we're all supposed to be open-minded even, presumably, when the columnist appears to have been on a different planet for the past three years! Obama's "cautious temperament and aversion to liberal crusading"? Um, about which Obama are we talking? Certainly not the weak-kneed milquetoast who has bankrupted the country, thrown Israel under the bus, pulled the race card at every opportunity, and engaged in more class warfare than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton combined. What is Chapman smoking?

Andy: Glick is talking about the U.S., not Egypt, no longer being an ally of Israel's. Did you even read the article?

Humberto, you politically incorrect thing, you! I haven't laughed this hard in years! Thank you!

Gingrich doesn't strike me as overly egotistical, but let's say you're right - I'll stipulate to the "fact." The truth is, no amount of pomposity on the part of Gingrich could reach the stratospheric heights where Obama's ego resides. And who cares, anyway? We need someone who has the ability to lead and to beat the O-meister (I'm being kind). Who better than Gingrich? Hmm?

Kev, I'll own up. I am a government worker. And I support policies that favor those who aren't. It's the right thing to do. I oppose my own union (in which membership was voluntary at the time I was employed). And although I'm one of the lucky ones who is insulated, as you put it, from much of the nightmare, I can still get plenty angry about what's happening to our country, our liberties, and my niece and nephew's futures. Heck, the corruption alone of this administration is enough to send me into a rage almost daily. What kind of sedative is Michael taking?!

Michael, you make me want to whine. Listen, maybe you're partly right -- about conservatives disliking Romney because he's not as angry as they are. Romney's relaxed attitude is annoying, to be sure. Whereas Newt has better instincts, which allow him to match his response to the mood of his constituency. But what about conservatives' almost total confusion about where Romney stands on issues? He can't expect to successfully wage a presidential campaign by spouting so many policies that directly contradict his past actions, even if those actions were taken a few years ago. What the heck else do we have to go on? Give us a break! Romney may well support straight-down-the-line conservative policies if elected. But how do we know?! ...