"our new President is a "citizen of the world" and wants to bring European-style socialism to America."

 I hope so!!  Then maybe the wealthiest nation on Earth will no longer be ranked 20-something in life expectancy, education, child mortality, crime....  That being said I'm not looking for French-style economic stagnation.  But I think Obama is too smart to adopt something that left-wing. 

 More likely we'll see a Scandinavian-style system where the government respects risk and entrepreneurship but also understands that a rich country should not allow anyone to go without healthcare, education, or a very basic minimum standard of living. 

--Z

Anon, the notion that Obama is at a greater risk because he's an apostate was floated by one op-ed columnist in the NY Times and then thoroughly rebutted.  

 Of course, there will always be people who try to kill the president and that's why we have a secret service and a huge  security apparatus surrounding him at all times.  It's also why we have a vice-president.  If, God forbid, something should happen to a President Obama, I have little fear of a Biden administration.  The same cannot be said for a Palin administration.

--Z

When you started discussing the parent studies I was about to criticize you for failing to cite the actual research, but then in the next paragraph you made it clear why any such research is irrelevant: we don't forbid anyone else from marrying or procreating just because they are statistically likely to produce fucked up kids.

It seems to me the opponents of same-sex marriage are flailing for fake arguments against same-sex marriage because what they really believe--that homosexuals are sinners who need to be treated at best and, at worst, banished from society--is no longer acceptable to most Americans.   In that sense, Scalia was absolutely right-- when you remove the social stigma from homosexuality itself, you're left with no good reason to treat homosexual unions differently than heterosexual ones.  

--Z

David,

 Will you ever respond to what I actually say rather than launching into diatribes against the "left"?  I support SS and Medicare and am perfectly comfortable calling payroll taxes what they are: taxes.  I don't have a problem with low-wage earners paying into SS and Medicare.  I have a problem with Republicans basing their policy prescriptions on the fiction that 40% of Americans pay no taxes when, if you include payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, etc., the statistic is clearly misleading.  

 Your hyperbole about "every single conservative" and almost no liberals oppposing the bailout is ridiculous.  Just spend a few minutes on dailykos, search for entries around the time the bailout was being discussed, and you will see that the left wing was up in arms.  In fact, this was an case of conservatives and liberals uniting in opposition to "moderates".  

 Next, you make contradictory assertions, accusing Obama of slashing military spending (as if there isn't billions of pork barrel waste in the military that could easily be cut) while lauding McCain for containing run-away spending in some as yet unspecified manner.  The fact is that spending increased under Reagan, increased under Bush I, and absolutely ballooned under Bush II--even if you exclude homeland security/military, which I don't think you should.  Republicans have absolutely no credibility left when it comes to cutting spending.  

--Z

I agree with your grandma regarding Bush and will vote for Obama, but you really need to deal with your anger at your mother.  You're way too old to be obsessing over her the way you do.

--Z

You write:

"In each and every group there is a norm and there is its other, which I call the queer. And in each group the queer gets marginalized and placed into a similar space of enforced silence, secrecy and shame."

So is there no legitimate norm that a community can impose on its members?  Can no behavior or character flaw ever be "marginalized"?  I see the error in marginalizing homosexuals because I don't see any moral problem with homosexuality.  On the other hand, I would hate to belong to a community that rejected the norm against stealing, murder, child molestation, etc.  Thieves, murders and child molesters are marginalized (hopefully encarcerated) for good reason.

--Z

http://nymag.com/news/features/48532/

 It's about a woman who tried to flee the Satmar with her baby, only to become embroiled in a nasty custody fight with the baby's father.   The article is very sympathetic to the mother, although she's not entirely innocent.

But the Satmar come across as true nutcases.  I have no idea how much of it is true.

--Z

"As the people who have brought the idea of one God to the world, it is some irony that it is Jews who want to make sure God cannot be mentioned in the public square, don't you think?"

 Once again--try and have a little focus, David.  Argue against the positions I actually take, not against some phantom generic "liberal" who believes all these hateful things about religion.  I have no problem with mentioning God in the public square--that's free speech.  My problem is when the state itself is imposing religion on the public.  

--Z

With 5 billion people on the planet you can find a nut somewhere who will believe just about anything.  But that would really be something--letting the mother die of sepsis rather than get the dead fetus out of her. 

--Z

" I can’t understand why everyone is being to quick to jump on the company but not on the workers who committed crimes.  "

Because the workers' only crime was coming to American to try and earn a living, and most people know that they would have done the same thing had they been in the workers' position. 

--Z