"Wasn't it in the best interest of our country to give women the right to vote?" Furtado asked the senator.

"Not necessarily so," O'Connor said.

Although she does vote, O'Connor said in two subsequent interviews with The Kansas City Star that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the state legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties, she said.

Asked if she supports the 19th Amendment, the Republican lawmaker responded: "I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) we wouldn't have to vote.

"I'm sorry women have not been taken more care of," she said. "We have gotten the short end of the stick."

... Damn.

I'm not sure which is worse that she believes that sh*t or that she got elected spouting that sort of repressive nonsense. It looks from this side of the Atlantic like another example of Christian
fundamentalists and the United States of Bigotry. And you lot should unilaterally run the planet? Does she also think that you should get
back to the real spirit of the Jeffersonian constitution and only white male slave owners should have power.

Female Kansas Senator: Women shouldn't have to vote

] The clerics generally agree that the constitution must
] ensure that no laws passed by the state contradict a
] basic understanding of Shariah as laid out in the Koran.
] Women should not be treated as the equals of men in
] matters of marriage, divorce and family inheritance, they
] say. Nor should men be prevented from having multiple
] wives, they add.
]
] One tenet of Shariah mandates that in dividing family
] property, male children get twice as much as female
] children.
]
] "We don't want to see equality between men and women
] because according to Islamic law, men should have double
] of women," said Muhammad Kuraidy, a spokesman for
] Ayatollah Yacoubi. "This is written in the Koran and
] according to God."

Ahh yes, Democracy, so long as it doesn't violate Islamic law. You think Bush's "mandate from the people" has caused some aggressive policy proposals? This 3 page NYTs article discusses what the leading (and very conservative) Shiite Ayatollahs plan to do with their "mandate," and it has very little to do with freedom or equality. It haseverything to do with as Islamic of a state is possible. Try this on for size:

The leading Shiite clerics say they have no intention of taking executive office and following the Iranian model of wilayat al-faqih, or direct governance by religious scholars. But the clerics also say the Shiite politicians ultimately answer to them, and that the top religious leaders, collectively known as the marjaiya, will shape the constitution through the politicians.

Dance my puppets Dance!

Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq

] The information coming in from the Mars rovers is
] exciting for NASA, but it's ending some of the action for
] bookies in Britain.
]
] The bookmaking firm Ladbrokes announced it's stopped
] taking bets on the question of whether there was ever
] life on Mars.
]
] NASA scientists said yesterday that the rover Opportunity
] found strong evidence to suggest at least part of the Red
] Planet once had a wet enough environment to sustain life.
]
] A Ladbrokes spokesman says the latest odds in favor of
] past life on Mars were 16-1. Back in the '70s, when the
] first bets were placed, the odds were 1,000-1.
]
] He says he expects that scientists will find evidence of
] past life on Mars within the coming years.

Bookies Stop Taking Bets on Life on Mars

] - The world's demand for the last many years, including in
] early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to
] disarm.

I believe Israel is still holding land the UN told it to give up more than 25 years ago. I'm not saying Israel is wrong, I'm just saying this is a bullshit reason and you know it is.

] - Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.

Ditto

] - Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have
] the balls to do it.

Most countries respect the diplomatic process, and understand, unlike Mister Bush, that you can't have what you want right now

] - We did.

Violating 230 years of Policy, and severly, if not mortally hurting NATO in the process.

Taking power into your own hands, while effective, hurts you in the long run.

] - The war was justified.

Really? Because minus the immediate threat of WMD I see no reason for a preemptive invading of another country. I have discussed this in my memestream before. All reasons given are things we either do ourselves, or ignore when our allies do because it suits us best.

] - And the world is a better place without Saddam.

The fact that you, or even the entire human population feels "the world is a better place" because something occured is never proof that what occured was fair or just or right to do.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision