Oh hey, Islamic Iraq.

[Chris Nagy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm

Bush states he will "grudgingly accept an Islamic Iraq." Well, good to know we had a bunch of soldiers go over there to fight for Islamic freedom. Sorry women, maybe next time.

[Sadsiren]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I'm sure even the women in that country would prefer an Islamic Iraq.

[Chris Nagy]

Oh no, I don't have a hard time believing that when education is withheld from them. I was also including the mothers of the 1800+ soldiers who died in a war that ultimately got rid of the guy that tried to kill W's daddy (as in "maybe next time we'll find a good reason to go to war.") Yeah, I'm sure they were all for Islamic freedom as the reason their kids died.

[Tony]

Um... Really old article.

[Chris Nagy]

My bad, grabbed the wrong article. Here you go: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html (that one too.)

Look, I'm against any religion in government. I dislike this primarily because you know some other war president a few terms from now will talk about how we need to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, and it will be round 2 (or 3? 4?)

[Snow]

..... so all this time we've been in Iraq simply in order to make it a Christian country??

#*$!@*#%*!!&*@# the Crusades should've been over a longgggg time ago.

[Chris Nagy]

Well, no. All this time we've supposedly be trying to install a democratic government. It's the only way the general public (who was never all that staunch on having a war, with only 48% at the time saying they supported war and about 33% saying we should go to war even if the UN says we shouldn't) would palate this conflict: that whole "I might not like what you are saying but I'll defend your right to say it to the death." The spread of democracy, freedom of choice, all that jazz.

It requires a non-religious government, because religion is antithetical to democracy. Democracy represents change and equal representation, religion is a set of rules handed down through the centuries that dictates how things will be done. Take what Pope Benedict is doing by trying to whittle the Catholic church down to its most orthodox members-- I can respect what he is doing, as the head of his religion, by trying to return to the roots of the religion, but it will be a return to the belief of men are greater than women are greater than children are greater than animals that the bible sets forth. Faith in a religion also means faith in the unchanging nature of that religion, which is why religion and democracy do not mix, be that religion Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.

[Sadsiren]

It requires a non-religious government, because religion is antithetical to democracy. Democracy represents change and equal representation, religion is a set of rules handed down through the centuries that dictates how things will be done. Take what Pope Benedict is doing by trying to whittle the Catholic church down to its most orthodox members-- I can respect what he is doing, as the head of his religion, by trying to return to the roots of the religion, but it will be a return to the belief of men are greater than women are greater than children are greater than animals that the bible sets forth. Faith in a religion also means faith in the unchanging nature of that religion, which is why religion and democracy do not mix, be that religion Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.

Well, that is a matter of opinion than fact. There will be those that feel democracy can be done while still bearing in mind the common religious principles those of the country share. The officials developing this constitution were voted for by Iraqis, male and female, in and out of the country. I'd like to think that those outside of Iraq were not held back from an education when they selected their representation. I've not seen them complaining. There are many outside of the Middle East that practice Islam...it would be wrong to assume that it is because they were 'uneducated'.

[ClymAngus]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I'm sure even the women in that country would prefer an Islamic Iraq.

That would depend on which flavour of Islam is adopted.

I do love these quiet little debates on the separation of church and state.

[Chris Nagy]

Well, that is a matter of opinion than fact. There will be those that feel democracy can be done while still bearing in mind the common religious principles those of the country share.
Ask a cleric, or a priest, or a major representative of any religion as to whether or not religious law should be circumvented in any instance. Religion is by its nature unchanging. Faith in a high power (a power supposedly infalliable) does not allow for man to say "you are all-knowing, God, but some of these laws you gave us really need to be revised." Therefore, if you are drawing laws based on a religion, that is fine. You'll end up with laws against murder, adultery, and the like. Standard fare. If your laws are from a religion, you'll end up with oppression that cannot be changed without resetting the entire system and removing the religious core.


The officials developing this constitution were voted for by Iraqis, male and female, in and out of the country. I'd like to think that those outside of Iraq were not held back from an education when they selected their representation. I've not seen them complaining.
The difference, Serena, lays in a constitution that allows the practice of Islam and a constitution that is Islamic. Freedom of religion, while it may not seem necessary for them now, is seriously curtailed by a constitution and a government that is itself religious. Do you think they'll treat non-muslims the same as they treat muslims when they have a governmentally instituted reason not to?


There are many outside of the Middle East that practice Islam...it would be wrong to assume that it is because they were 'uneducated'.
I'd appreciate not having words put in my mouth. You said the women voted for it too, I said that it doesn't surprise me considering how education hasn't really been allowed to women. If you don't know what you are missing out on, you're not exactly going to leap for the change. You said in that country, where do the Muslims from the rest of the world come into play?

[Sadsiren]

I'd appreciate not having words put in my mouth. You said the women voted for it too, I said that it doesn't surprise me considering how education hasn't really been allowed to women. If you don't know what you are missing out on, you're not exactly going to leap for the change. You said in that country, where do the Muslims from the rest of the world come into play?

By your statement that education hasn't really been allowed to women who believe in Islam. You made it seem that *all* who practice Islam do not allow their women to be educated. I am inclined to disagree, and was noting the fact that people outside of the Middle East and are female and believe in Islam *have* been allowed education. I do not think that those who lived in Iraq, even before the war, were 'sheltered' from ideas of democracy, religious or not. It was their choice to pick representatives who were of the faith and would make decisions with the faith in consideration. I find no fault in that, as for *them* it is what they want and what they feel will work for them.

[Chris Nagy]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I'm sure even the women in that country would prefer an Islamic Iraq.
Oh no, I don't have a hard time believing that when education is withheld from them.
I'd like to think that those outside of Iraq were not held back from an education when they selected their representation.
You brought the rest of the Muslim world into this. I am focusing on Iraq. We went there to create a democracy, not allow an elected theocracy. Heaven forbid any other religion, or even atheism, try to take root there generations from now, since the Islamic govenment will be there to protect Islamic religion, but none others.

You say it is fine if that is what they choose, I'd agree with you if we didn't just sacrifice our own men to let them choose it, tell our own people it was done to spread democracy (and democracy =/= theocracy,) and any number of other little lies that got us into this situation. The idea of wanting a religious government is oppression-- not of yourself, but of your neighbors, whom you do not want to see engaging in some behavior that conflicts with your beliefs. I feel this is not the way to do things, and that the conclusion was not worth the deaths of American soldiers, civilians, and many times that number in Iraqi civilians that died during the war.

[SexyLexy]

Actually, we really went there because W needed someone besides the Saudis to blame for 9-11 and to pick up some free oil while we were at it, but hey, who's counting? ;)

I love it that the minute no WMD's was front page news, they said retroactively that we went in there to 'spread freedom' and liberate the country from torturers. Okay! If that's the case, when can we invade the 25 or so other countries that condone torture and genocide? When can we bomb Sudan? Mugabe's headquarters? Ridayh? Cairo?

So now that we can't prevent them from restricting the rights of their own women not to be stoned to death for refusing a burqa, our reasoning for going in there was...what again?

I lost track.

Good articles, btw.

[Chris Nagy]

Oh, I know why we really went there, but now we don't even have the lies anymore. We failed at our retroactive reasons. The reasons we put into place because we failed at our primary reasons. How many times can the word failure be applied in one situation? A democratic Iraq, while not our original intent, would have been nice.

[Sadsiren]

You brought the rest of the Muslim world into this. I am focusing on Iraq. We went there to create a democracy, not allow an elected theocracy. Heaven forbid any other religion, or even atheism, try to take root there generations from now, since the Islamic govenment will be there to protect Islamic religion, but none others.

You say it is fine if that is what they choose, I'd agree with you if we didn't just sacrifice our own men to let them choose it, tell our own people it was done to spread democracy (and democracy =/= theocracy,) and any number of other little lies that got us into this situation. The idea of wanting a religious government is oppression-- not of yourself, but of your neighbors, whom you do not want to see engaging in some behavior that conflicts with your beliefs. I feel this is not the way to do things, and that the conclusion was not worth the deaths of American soldiers, civilians, and many times that number in Iraqi civilians that died during the war.

You do recall that Iraqi refugees from other countries were allowed to vote for those put into power in Iraq right? That's why I mention it. It wasn't only the Iraqis inside the country, it was Iraqis who had immigrated to other countries. Sheesh.

Would you say that they would have been best left to Saddam's regime? You may not like the idea of a faith influenced government, but I still think that this is an improvement to what their previous circumstances were.

[Chris Nagy]

You do recall that Iraqi refugees from other countries were allowed to vote for those put into power in Iraq right? That's why I mention it. It wasn't only the Iraqis inside the country, it was Iraqis who had immigrated to other countries. Sheesh.
Please be more specific then. You made it sound like I was calling every female who practices Islam, whether they adopted it or were brought up with it, uneducated. Granted, alot of them (that were brought up with it) are-- you can't get away from that aspect of the religion, gender oppression is a part of the faith.


Would you say that they would have been best left to Saddam's regime? You may not like the idea of a faith influenced government, but I still think that this is an improvement to what their previous circumstances were.
I think that we've made too many mistakes over there. We put Saddam in power, then we could have taken him out during the Gulf War, now we go back to put in a democratic government and fail. Our interests in Iraq won't simply go away: as bad as it sounds, when the religious government (not faith-influenced, the upcoming government is being compared to Iran, which is a theocracy) gets in our way, we'll work to undermine it too. The best interests of the Iraqi people were never in our minds, but even good things can come from bad intentions-- democracy would give people choices rather than giving one generation basic human life choices that it then imposes on future generations.

[ClymAngus]

*Munch munch munch* oh don't mind me. Anyone else want sweet? I really can't be dealing with salt.

"You may not like the idea of a faith influenced government, but I still think that this is an improvement to what their previous circumstances were."

So, substituting the fear of a tyrant, with the fear of a deity. A novel idea, not entirely unexpected.

[Tony]

Please, Clym, pass some. I take mine with salt and butter.

[Cefaclor]

Well, good to know we had a bunch of soldiers go over there to fight for Islamic freedom. Sorry women, maybe next time.

I said that it doesn't surprise me considering how education hasn't really been allowed to women. If you don't know what you are missing out on, you're not exactly going to leap for the change. You said in that country, where do the Muslims from the rest of the world come into play?

Very insulting comment there! Truth is, you dont know which women are opressed and which ones are doing this wilingly because they have faith in the teachings of the Quran. Who are you to say that they'd change if they knew what they were supposedly missing out on?! Dude, these people grew up in the middle east with different values than you and me! What you consider "missing out" is different from what they'd consider "missing out". Do not judge them based on your values and beliefs. Thats incredibly ignorant.

[Chris Nagy]

Simple human nature. Give a person a choice, and they might go either way. You might think it is ignorant, but lets turn it around.


you dont know which women are opressed and which ones are doing this wilingly because they have faith in the teachings of the Quran.
And you don't know which are being faithful and which are being oppressed. With a religious state, you will never find out because there is no choice of whether to follow the religion or do things to their own desires. I suppose it is okay that some are being oppressed, since we can't really tell which ones they are?

Here is the point. If the nation is 100% Islamic, they will still be Islamic even if their government is completely seperate of religion. They will abide by laws that they would not even be punished for by the government, because their faith would keep them in line with the teachings of the Quran.

But if there are those who would rather do things differently, they have no choice in the matter when the government is religious. In no way does a democratic government impede on religion, but a religious goverment impedes on all other religions.

Now then, give a group of people a choice, and they will likely not all choose the same. I'm willing to bet that some percentage, even if small, of women would like to be a bit more empowered if the idea were presented to them. People may grow up with different values, but nothing is set in stone. There are always dissenters, there are always people who want change. The idea is to allow them to express that freely and openly rather than enforce something upon them and turn their dissention into a violent response.

If the religious right became the majority and wanted this to become a Christian nation, would that go over easily? No? Why not? They'd be the majority? Why should we even protect the minority? If most people want something, the rest are out of luck? You say I am being insulting by suggesting that not all Muslims are 100% faithful, I say you are being ridiculous.

[Sadsiren]

Please be more specific then. You made it sound like I was calling every female who practices Islam, whether they adopted it or were brought up with it, uneducated. Granted, alot of them (that were brought up with it) are-- you can't get away from that aspect of the religion, gender oppression is a part of the faith.

Well see, it's that you think a lot of them are that I find fault with, which is why I commented that it sounds like you think all of them were in fact uneducated. There's gender oppression and there's being uneducated. One does not always force the other.


So, substituting the fear of a tyrant, with the fear of a deity. A novel idea, not entirely unexpected.

I do not see it as substitution. The former came to power and then was removed, the latter has always been there.

[Cefaclor]

You say I am being insulting by suggesting that not all Muslims are 100% faithful, I say you are being ridiculous.

Oooooooh Im being ridiculous eh? oh AM I?! AM I?! ALRIGHT maaaan, THIS...(breathes in) IS WAR!! GRRRRR... BLEG XD...

K, All weirdness aside. Now you're putting words into my mouth and you know it. Number 1, when exactly did I say that ALL muslims are 100% faithful?! Jeez, every religion's got its share of luke-warm "followers"/ whatever kind of followers. Dude, I made a statement about your sentence "Sorry women, maybe next time" and the other one, which leads me to believe that you accept the stereotypical view of the women in Islam, the one that is constantly supported by the media. That all women in Islam are opressed, that they need to be saved by the all powerful U.S. military to be free and start parading around like Westerners. Like I said before, middle Eastern muslim women have their own values and you, as a Westerner, cant define "Freedom" for them based on your values and beliefs. I repeat, thats ignorant of us.



Here is the point. If the nation is 100% Islamic, they will still be Islamic even if their government is completely seperate of religion. They will abide by laws that they would not even be punished for by the government, because their faith would keep them in line with the teachings of the Quran.

Alright, now you wanna talk about governments? Lets talk about governments
How bout the good ol' US of A eh? Oh this will be fun!!! The national anthem very clearly supports Christiany "God bless America!". No one seems to have a problem with that. I dont have a problem with that, do you have a problem with that? And interestingly enough, most of America is christian. We have christian holidays like Easter. Wow, IS THAT SO HORRIBLE? Wow! How biased are you? Its okay that nearly all of America is Christian but its not that all of Iraq is muslim? Hey, as long as the Government doesnt demand you be a christian or a muslim, thats fine wiht me! I dont think being forced into any religion is the way to go and Im sure that neither the Quran nor the bible wants forced/blind followers.

And to add some fuel to the fire, lets point out a U.S. flow to do with religion, just for fun (no real connection with my point above). Lets not forget the fact that gays cant get married in U.S. also very clearly supports Christiany. Wow, the bible's really keeping America in check eh? Hmm...Hey, so this means gay people are opressed! Well then doesnt this mean the almighy land of freedom, The U.S. of A also has its fair share of opression issues? Why isnt anyone blaming the bible? The Christian faith that is vaguely associated with the state. No ones bombing the U.S. supposedly freeing it of Christianity and freeing the spiffy gay peoples.

Oh the hypocricy is too much! Truth is, that any country associated with a religion will have its share of opression. U.S INCLUDED!

[ClymAngus]

I do not see it as substitution. The former came to power and then was removed, the latter has always been there.

Now there you have the problem, Islam much like Christianity, full of different groups. Groups who don't really like each other. It is all very well saying Iraq should be Islamic
but what type of Islamic? Kurdish? Well that's mainly in the north they kind of want to keep their homeland thank you very much and don't want to be ruled by the south. In the south you have your moderates and hardliners (and never the twain shall meet) hell, they can't even agree on what consitutes "modesty". Whom ever wins chances are the country is going to be Islamic but that's not really going to help or fix the problems that country faces.

That said I'm really enjoying seeing an Idealist and a Purist locking horns.

*munch munch munch*

[Sadsiren]

Now there you have the problem, Islam much like Christianity, full of different groups. Groups who don't really like each other. It is all very well saying Iraq should be Islamic
but what type of Islamic? Kurdish? Well that's mainly in the north they kind of want to keep their homeland thank you very much and don't want to be ruled by the south. In the south you have your moderates and hardliners (and never the twain shall meet) hell, they can't even agree on what consitutes "modesty". Whom ever wins chances are the country is going to be Islamic but that's not really going to help or fix the problems that country faces.

That said I'm really enjoying seeing an Idealist and a Purist locking horns.

*munch munch munch*

Oh, I won't deny that there is likely to be debate about the specifics of making their government based on Islamic faith. But it's something that will be discussed and voted among themselves, so hopefully that part can be figured out without it ending up in a breakdown.

But I'm glad that you're deriving pleasure from the argument. Better than a headache or some other negative symptom. ^^

[ClymAngus]

Oh, I won't deny that there is likely to be debate about the specifics of making their government based on Islamic faith. But it's something that will be discussed and voted among themselves, so hopefully that part can be figured out without it ending up in a breakdown.

But I'm glad that you're deriving pleasure from the argument. Better than a headache or some other negative symptom. ^^

Hmmm, I do have a nasty feeling that these things maybe Catholic : Protestant level of "debate". If it breaks down, it'll be a bloodbath. Question is will anyone step in then?

If these issues were as clean cut as everyone appears to assume then chances are they would have been sorted out by now. The fact they're not, is a testiment to their complexity.

Oh and derive pleasure from stimulating debate, believe me this small thing is no where near a proper argument. Yet.

[Chris Nagy]

Now you're putting words into my mouth and you know it. Number 1, when exactly did I say that ALL muslims are 100% faithful?!

Truth is, you dont know which women are opressed and which ones are doing this wilingly because they have faith in the teachings of the Quran. Who are you to say that they'd change if they knew what they were supposedly missing out on?! Dude, these people grew up in the middle east with different values than you and me!
Your choice then, because the two above quotes point either at "it's okay that some are oppressed because I don't know exactly which ones" or "who do you think you are to say that someone might choose something other than their religion if given a choice?" The first in incredibly irresponsible, and the second implies that that I am giving insult by suggesting that some might want to do things differently. Putting words in your mouth? Hardly. Following them along to their logical fallacies? Definitely.


Alright, now you wanna talk about governments? Lets talk about governments How bout the good ol' US of A eh? Oh this will be fun!!! The national anthem very clearly supports Christiany "God bless America!".
Maybe you'll notice that I never said our democracy was perfect? If you are trying to point it as a theocracy, though, I have to take a moment to chuckle. God is clearly a Christian concept, because no other religion believes in a God or a greater power. Nope, Christians are the only monotheists out there.


I dont have a problem with that, do you have a problem with that? And interestingly enough, most of America is christian. We have christian holidays like Easter. Wow, IS THAT SO HORRIBLE?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf
The 2001 census has the Christian population at 76% of the adult population of the United States. This includes 35 different sects or affiliations within the religion. Catholic is the largest at almost 25%, but ask alot of Presbyterians and they'll say that Catholic is a few steps removed from Christianity, as an example. Incidentally, Easter was a pagan fertility holiday adopted by Christianity when Rome was busy conquering everything under the sun. The point is that there is no single Christian sect that is "most of America," and they don't even agree amongst themselves-- hardly a unified "Christian" presence.


Wow! How biased are you? Its okay that nearly all of America is Christian but its not that all of Iraq is muslim?
Did I say that it wasn't okay for most of Iraq to be Islamic? This is the point that you are continually missing: while you can say that some sort of Christianity makes up a majority of the USA, you can't say that our government is religious. You can't say that we don't afford rights to the Jewish, the Agnostic, the Islamic, etc. The rights set out by the constitution, in theory, apply to everyone. A theocracy caters only to the religion that comprises it. Any rights given to those not of that religion is a generosity, those rights would exist only as long as the theocracy decided and could be removed at whim. Why? Because religion itself makes no provisions for the well-being of non-believers. Furthermore, would you like to be arrested for breaking a religious law even if it isn't a part of your own faith? We're not talking about murder, or theft, we're talking dogma. Adultery, perhaps.


Lets not forget the fact that gays cant get married in U.S. also very clearly supports Christiany. Wow, the bible's really keeping America in check eh? Hmm...Hey, so this means gay people are opressed! Well then doesnt this mean the almighy land of freedom, The U.S. of A also has its fair share of opression issues? Why isnt anyone blaming the bible? The Christian faith that is vaguely associated with the state. No ones bombing the U.S. supposedly freeing it of Christianity and freeing the spiffy gay peoples.
Because Christianity is the only religion that persecutes homosexuality. Maybe math will work: If A (Christianity) = B + C + D and E (US Government) = B + C + E + F + G + H + I... + Z, A =/= E. Again, did I say the US was perfect? No. Is it a theocracy? Hell no.


Like I said before, middle Eastern muslim women have their own values and you, as a Westerner, cant define "Freedom" for them based on your values and beliefs. I repeat, thats ignorant of us.
Yes, I can define freedom. The ideal of freedom is easily definable and it is no respector of tradition or religion. Freedom is the ability to choose. To choose to carry on traditions or to choose to create new ones. Freedom is the idea that you are allowed to live your life however you wish so long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of others, and the ability to make these choices without persecution. How can you tell me I can't define freedom? Freedom is not a Western concept, it's not steeped in American influences and European influences. Freedom simply is. What you do with freedom is up to you, if you choose to be part of a religion that curtails your rights, one cannot say that you didn't freely give up those rights by choice. If you are never given a choice, how can you claim that is any sort of freedom?

[Chris Nagy]

Sorry for the double post, but since I am now debating on two fronts, I thought this would be easier to read.


Well see, it's that you think a lot of them are that I find fault with, which is why I commented that it sounds like you think all of them were in fact uneducated. There's gender oppression and there's being uneducated. One does not always force the other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3130234.stm
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/southasia/Tazeen.html

I'll quote some of the important parts:

It is argued that female emancipation is not part of God's plan. Schools for girls have not remained unscathed. Women who dared to challenge existing social codes, alongside those who did not have been equally victims of violence and moral censure.

The literacy rate for women, 15 years and above, is 24.2 per cent compared to 45.5 per cent for men of the same cohort.

But this conceals the fact that in total numbers, far fewer Arab girls than boys are completing - or even going into - education. In countries like Sudan and Yemen, the situation is particularly bad. Indeed, Sudan is actually going backwards - 45% of children of school age are not attending school.

Girls also face an added hurdle in that Yemen, as a conservative society, would usually object to the girls being educated by male teachers and mixed sex education.

When we asked parents why they did not allow their girls to school, they would say "because it's wrong, it's irreligious, it's improper - they should stay at home to prepare for their real life, their married life".

Yes, Islamic women are educated to an extent, but the gender oppression is keeping alot of them uneducated. It is the lack of any other choice that has sparked this whole tangent to the actual issue.

[Sailor Erin]

Oh my ... are we talking about Iraq here or Muslim women? If you're talking about Muslim women ... then uhm, guess what? I'm Saudi. I'm Muslim. I live in Saudi. Do I look like an uneducated oppressed person? Keep in mind Saudi Arabia has a LOT of faults when it comes to citizen's rights ...

[Chris Nagy]

Hey Erin, long time no see. I started this whole thing with Iraq. The rest of the Muslim world was pulled in, that was not my idea. Serena decided to include Iraqi refugees into the mix, so that technically included some muslims outside of Iraq. At no point did I say all Muslim women are uneducated, though its been assumed that it is what I meant. Thus, I am not saying you are oppressed and uneducated, and I wouldn't do anything as stupid as claim that anything is 100% across the board. Looking at Muslims around the world, though, can you say that your education is the exception or the rule?

[Jenna]

Sadly, posts like this require people to actually read and contemplate what other people have written. Otherwise you just get all this 'he said she said stuff going on.

[Cefaclor]

CNagy:
Man, I said my piece. Accept it it or dont, its up to you. The rest.. blurb.


That said I'm really enjoying seeing an Idealist and a Purist locking horns. *munch munch munch*
Now Im tired, kamone now, pass the sweets here XD

[ClymAngus]

I've still got half a packet of Gummi bears with marshmallow pieces. Knock yourself out, Cefaclor.

http://www.nostalgiccandy.com/store/images/products/gummi_bears2.JPG

[Tony]

The gay marriage debate isn't about discrimination. I'm heterosexual, and I can't marry a man either.

*Tosses another bag in the microwave*

[ig.]

I hope to see Iraqi Parliament on C-SPAN sometime in the future.

[Tony]

I hope to see Iraqi Parliament on C-SPAN sometime in the future.

I hope they're more entertaining than the US House. However, for my money in legislative entertainment, nothing beats the British House of Commons.

[Chris Nagy]

"It's like Congress with a two drink minimum." -Robin Williams