Well, if you want funny ...

No flip flops for Charlie Rangel?

Shoes? I understand the level of insult there, but some of these folks deserve something much harder and painful than shoes, like jail sentences!

Re: the inclusion of Rick Warren -
Isn't wanting to hurl footwear at someone expressing one of two basic opinions in a divisive cultural issue a little, um, narrow minded? (Next year's choice: People Who Are -horrors! - Pro-Life)

Once you begin to throw shoes, you'll find it therapeutic. You'll probably start with a politician but then you'll realize that it works for coworkers, angry drivers, crappy news outlets, postal employees, etc. The list grows and grows and grows ...

also a little peeved with inclusion of r warren. he has an opinion. he's not a thief, a whore, or a murderer. he's as fair as any evangelical gets, and demonizing him doesn't broaden the debate. come on, db. free your mind before you become a fashion-less, model-less vanity fair...

Too funny!

To jackblack--
It's not that your dear Mr. Warren deserves a shoe for simply expressing his opinion, my dear. It's that he is hell-bent (oops!) on enacting legislation that serves his viewpoint. In his world--women can't choose abortions; gay people cannot live their lives as they choose. Everyone must subscribe to a "Biblical" path--OR ELSE.
Therein lies the paradox of Evangelism--One is free (to embrace the Evangelist's view). And the Evangelist is free to insist that you do. No other freedoms are entertained. Evangelists insist that you believe that the Bible is the source of all that is true. Plus they insist that their beliefs be codified into law for the rest of us. Can you imagine what would happen if Agnostics or--horrors!!--Atheists insisted on such a thing. But they do not. All they're asking for is a little common courtesy; a little reciprocity.
And--horrors!--being Pro-Choice isn't being Anti-Life. Roe v. Wade doesn't stipulate that a woman must have an abortion;only that she be allowed the choice. But if the Pro-Life movement had its way--the legislation wouldn't allow me a choice. And to that I say--think about what you're asking...do you really think that you,personally,deserve to dictate that a woman keep a child she knows has congenital defects, or one conceived of rape, or incest?? Are you so cavalier in your view of life that your answer to these dilemma is to give the child up for adoption? Do you think you have the right to meddle in these very private affairs? You do not.
I am glad that my nieces, my granddaughter, and I do not have to have the rest of society involved in such a decision (as yet).
Anyone with a strong "pro-life" bent can have all the children she wants. Leave the rest of us alone. You simply cannot live our lives.

And if this guy sprouts one more chin it'll just make him an easier target for the shoes.

It is sad to see folks like Rick Warren and Elizabeth Hasselbeck equated with Madoff and OJ. Maybe it would be tolerable if the partisans who made the list included jerks like Olbermann or Rosie O'Donnell.

It speaks volumes about both the intolerance of liberals to views contrary to their own and the provincial nature of NYC bubble dwellers.

spinozareader -

Your comments peg you as the liberal counterpart of the fundamentalists that you clearly hate so passionately. Actually, your bigotry and intolerance puts theirs to shame.

@spinozareader -

It is the simple reality that everyone makes political decisions based on their moral compass. Mr. Warren's states that gay marriage is bad, someone else's states that it's okay. Are pro-choicers not "hell-bent on enacting legislation that serves his viewpoint"?

I keep hearing this "pro-choice is not anti-life" argument. Can I at least explain why that doesn't work for the typical evangelical?

The average evangelical believes that abortion is murder. That there is a living being that, though perhaps not fully developed, is being deprived of its right to life. So, if abortion is murder (a different discussion, but it's how the evangelical thinks, so roll with it so we can get to the point), then let's take the "pro-choice and pro-life" stance with ordinary murder. Should a man be allowed to murder another man, even if you disagree with his decision to do so? After all, legislation does not even make murder an option! Shouldn't a man or woman be allowed to choose what he or she does with his own body and his or her own weapons? And what if the murder victim was mentally retarded? Are we not doing the world and that person a favor by ending his life?

You can take this line of reasoning to any other crime, and quickly realize that it doesn't work. The only people who say they're pro-choice but not anti-life don't truly view a fetus as being a living creature with a right to be protected.

I don't want to engage the whole abortion argument; it's far too extensive for here. I'm just making the point that if one is truly pro-life, they would protect that life from murder just like they'd do with anyone on the other side of the womb.

Cheers,
Brendan
zamagazine.org

Brendino--
Truly, and with due respect--you posit that"The average Evangelical believes that abortion is murder." Do you not understand that there are many of us who do not believe this to be true;that many of us aren't Evangelical;and that therein lies the rub?? You go on to compare abortion to one man's choice to murder another...These are not equivalent states of being as far as I am concerned. NO. I do no feel the need to protect the fetus on "the other side of the womb" as you seem to. If the fetus I'm carrying is mentally retarded, I don't want to give birth to that being. If the fetus I'm carrying is one with multiple congenital anomalies, I do not want to bring it into this world. And I do not want to have to justify this to youl. It is not your business. You can feel free to call me callous,but I have cared for these people. When their parents are no longer living, who will take care of these poor creatures? Strangers?--people who don't have an emotional investment in these people? I would not want to exist in the state in which I see many of these people. Why do you insist on romanticizing such a state--of making it seem noble rather than pitiable?? I will never insist that you give birth to, and impose upon the rest of society, the care of a human who cannot speak, or laugh, or play, or win or lose at love, or dance, or any of the myriad other things the rest of us do and take for granted. But if you wish to do so, you have my blessing. Please believe me, I am a loving person. But there is nothing loving about bringing someone unwanted or mentally disabled into this life of ours. I am a pragmatist. And I have both lived a life knowing what it is to be unwanted, and observed the life of other poor wretched creatures who cannot participate fully in living as the rest of us can. There is nothing--absolutely nothing--precious or dear about being crippled or severely mentally retarded.
I suppose that, sadly, we will never be able to agree because you view someone like me as a murderer rather than someone capable of deep and abiding love.
I view you as cruel and short-sighted. You see me as a "baby killer." We will never agree.
There is absolutely nothing charming or precious about a human who must spend its existence crippled, mute, and in diapers. Would you choose such a fate for anyone?? I wouldn't. What a cruel sentence your "benevolence" imposes on some humans. If you want to worship a heartbeat--as I view your concept of living--fine. All I ask is that you not impose that awful definition of life upon me and others who believe that life is much more than a pulse. You must not ever have worked around people in a persistent vegetative state. I have. No feeling human could wish such a condition on another. Yet the pro-life people insist on fighting for the "rights" of people like Terry Schiavo. May I tell you--ahead of time--don't waste your time "fighting" your fight over me if I'm in such a state. Leave me, and my family, alone. Get your unholy mitts off of my life and live your own.

spinozareader -

For what it's worth, your reply hit me like a ton of bricks. When engaging in debate I sometimes forget that real people live behind the world of bytes and pixels, and it makes me remember that I always run the risk of coming off wrong if someone does not know who I am. I apologize if my motives were wrong by venting on abortion, and I apologize if I came across as unfeeling.

As someone who has wrestled with the issue of abortion and has rarely ever spoken out on it, I hope that you don't automatically brand me as Jerry Falwell, Jr. I constantly question the role that my Christian faith plays in the political field, and I have never been satisfied with the way others have handled it. I've never claimed to have all the answers, and please don't think that I just post stuff out of ignorance or hatred. The issue of mental retardation has always been one of the most difficult and unimaginable for me to face. I am an empathetic person, and I find it hard to speak on subjects that I have either failed in or have never had to live out.

I originally wanted to post a reply to point out that everyone brings their morality to the political field, and that Christians shouldn't be excluded from that. Everyone has a system of morality that guides them, and everyone makes decisions based on their values, every day, without fail. Some say that looking to a book that was written thousands of years ago is really dumb, some say that relativism and human-defined morality doesn't work, and others have opinions that run the gamut of options in between.

It's not just the paradox of Evangelicalism, it's the paradox of passionately believing in something. Atheist and Agnostics do not just ask for a little reciprocity and common courtesy; they ask us to leave our morals at the door while they freely enter with theirs.

That's all. I don't want to stray from my main point and engage the abortion debate any more because that's not where I want to drag out a discussion. I only want people to realize that what we do is no different than anyone else who engages a political issue.

Cheers,
Brendan
zamagazine.org

spinozareader -

For what it's worth, your reply hit me like a ton of bricks. When engaging in debate I sometimes forget that real people live behind the world of bytes and pixels, and it makes me remember that I always run the risk of coming off wrong if someone does not know who I am. I apologize if my motives were wrong by venting on abortion, and I apologize if I came across as unfeeling.

As someone who has wrestled with the issue of abortion and has rarely ever spoken out on it, I hope that you don't automatically brand me as Jerry Falwell, Jr. I constantly question the role that my Christian faith plays in the political field, and I have never been satisfied with the way others have handled it. I've never claimed to have all the answers, and please don't think that I just post stuff out of ignorance or hatred. The issue of mental retardation has always been one of the most difficult and unimaginable for me to face. I am an empathetic person, and I find it hard to speak on subjects that I have either failed in or have never had to live out.

I originally wanted to post a reply to point out that everyone brings their morality to the political field, and that Christians shouldn't be excluded from that. Everyone has a system of morality that guides them, and everyone makes decisions based on their values, every day, without fail. Some say that looking to a book that was written thousands of years ago is really dumb, some say that relativism and human-defined morality doesn't work, and others have opinions that run the gamut of options in between.

It's not just the paradox of Evangelicalism, it's the paradox of passionately believing in something. Atheist and Agnostics do not just ask for a little reciprocity and common courtesy; they ask us to leave our morals at the door while they freely enter with theirs.

That's all. I don't want to stray from my main point and engage the abortion debate any more because that's not where I want to drag out a discussion. I only want people to realize that what we do is no different than anyone else who engages a political issue.

Cheers,
Brendan

Here's the problem with saying "everyone brings their morality to the political field". It implies that all moral beliefs are equal (moral relativism!!), and skips over the fact that only certain people insist that their moral views be codified into law for all.
Particularly , it is extreme thinking that every instance of human pregnancy should be regarded as a sacred event. Take this to the limit. Let's say a psycopath is obsessed with a woman. He could rape and impregnate her, and could tell her, "You may reject me, and I may go to prison, but the ""pro-lifers"" will force you to bear my child!"
The truth is, any fertile man and woman can do the reproductive act at anytime, and there's nothing sacred about it. Pro-lifers are not about life, they are about controlling the sexual act of others, as religious people have always done to gain power.

@spinozareader,

My beloved son is classified as "severely mentally retarded." The information/support group for his dx uses the phrase "I may not speak, but I have much to say" to describe these individuals. It is curious that your narrow-minded concept of the mentally disabled is so wrong,considering how strongly you seem to hold it. It seems you would know a little more.

My son does wear diapers and has no speech. He needs constant care and supervision. I gave up a successful career to care for him. However, he laughs, loves, dances, paints, skis, rides a three-wheeler, helps out at home, goes to school, kisses, hugs, listens to music, plays on the computer and his presence has helped his older brother become one of the most compassionate and kind teenagers I know. I am always a little taken back when we are around so called "normal kids" and I realize how bratty and self-centered those kids are and how well behaved and happy mine are. Some people are surprised when they hear me talk to my son and realize that he understands nearly all and that we can communicate with my words and a few gestures on his part.

Please try not to be so dismissive of a life(s) of which you have obviously underestimated. No matter that they come from a total stranger and in the abstract, it is still hurtful and jarring to see comments that my son's life is not worth living and that he should have been prevented. I dare say that his life is happier and more complete than many of the self-indulgent, self-absorbed, unhappy "normals" on this site.

Brendan--
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Lighten up, people. This is just an editorial opinion, and somewhat silly at that!

I like your selection of targets & your selection of ammunition. Your opinions were, like me, short & simple.
ll

Spinoza Reader and Brendan both had excellent points. nobody likes abortion, and the oversimplification of this difficult issue in the world of politics can be hurtful and offensive. There was an excellent article in Vogue magazine in summer of 2008 that really emphasized the importance of keeping politics and morality separate. Sure, it is easy for the republicans to use abortion as a platform to make pro-choice people look immoral...while all the Left can really say is "this is a complicated issue." Although that doesn't sound like much of a counter argument to someone who is decidedly pro-life, it is simply the truth.
Abortion is a choice...a very difficult one.

AND CHOICES ARE GOOD!!

The only woman on your list is the beautiful Elizabeth Hasselbeck . What's with that? What about those other stupid bitches on the View? Whoppi Goldberg is not only one of the ugliest women on the planet but she is ugly on the inside too. Same for Joy Behar - this woman has no socially redeeming qualities. Sherri Shepherd has the IQ of a vegetable & Barbra Walters is out of the petrified forest. She no longer qualifies as a living thing. Need I remind you that the beautiful Elizabeth went toe to toe with that huge ugly lesbian Rosie O' Donnell & who is left standing? Did you see Rosie's "variety" Show? I didn't think so - throwing a shoe whouldn't even come close to what the critics threw at that monstrosity.

Nice debate, people. I think that discourse is the only solution to 'insoluable' problems. Yeah, it's just a stupid editorial, but it opned up a discussion, and in discusison, ideas can be born. Nice words from both sides! Thanks.

"Another Man's Shoes" for Warren. That's perfect! I think there's a long line of people who need to be hit upside the head with another man's shoes and then they should put them on.

To Brendino, I am an Atheist, I don't tell other people what to believe. I find it hilarious that Rick Warren doesn't think people like me, IQ 147, PHD, Atheist, should not be in public office. I find it troubling that people who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old, there was a snake talking to eve, their god condoned all sorts of violence on people who didn't believe and submit to him, etc, etc., are in public office making policy. As for abortion, since it hasn't and can't be solved scientificly unless we agree on where the line is between life and non-life. Does your egg constitute life, no I don't think anyone would say that, but the moment the egg is penetrated by a sperm you say that is life? You can submit to that, I personally find that to be an ignorant choice. Why is that life so much more deserving of protection than say another species that is fully formed, say a dolphin, chimpaneeze, or other species that have emotions, family bonds and the ability to communicate with each other. Is is because of the potential of this organism? The egg has potential also, so does each of the billion sperms ejaculated during masterbation. Maybe we should outlaw that for aborting potential lives. Maybe a better idea is to leave it to the person whose body it is a part of, and believe in humanity, that we as a race do not murder innocent people as a whole. Seeing that there has been millions of abortions, then our society has a large segment that doesn't believe it is murder, and they have the right to their belief, just as you do. You can not force your beliefs on them, just as they can not force theirs on you. So I submit you take care of your own house, and stay out of theirs.