So, there's a large anti-war protest scheduled to take place in New York on Feb. 15. The police are not giving the protestors permission to march. Whether the city is trying to obstruct the protest for political reasons, or whether they do have genuine reasons for not permitting the march, I can't say.

On the other hand, I could say plenty of things about this boneheaded editorial in the New York Sun. Or, I could say plenty of things, if i weren't gaping in amazement.

First, the author of this editorial decides to accuse the peace protesters of "treason." Because they are "aiding and comforting" Saddam Hussein. Ack! Never mind that "aid and comfort" has a legal meaning that is *not* "Saddam gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he turns on his TV and sees peace marches." I thought we'd gotten over the idea that someone who opposes the US foreign policy of the moment is unpatriotic or a traitor.

But then the real doozy is where the author explains that pro-civil liberties folks should oppose the protest, too. Because *if* the protest causes a delay in going to war, and *if* that delay allows an Iraqi-sponsored terrorist attack to happen on US soil, then the government will have to take away all our remaining free specch toys in the name of security.

I see. We should take away our own civil libeties, because if we don't, and a particular set of improbable hypotheticals happens, the government will have to take them away for us. I'm so glad to know that if the government does take away more of my civil liberties, the New York Sun we'll be there to say, "Why, look what you made them do! You with all that free speech of yours."

I'm just appalled that a newspaper editor, of all people, should be so unclear on the concept of free speech.

And you know what? I'm actually rather cautiously and reluctantly pro-war. I believe that Saddam Hussein has and is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction. I believe there are good odds that he will use them. I believe that he inflicts incredible amounts of suffering on his people. In short, an Iraq without Saddam Hussein will be a good thing.

But, you know, I don't believe that my position is the only sensible and rational one to take. I certainly don't want people with anti-war positions to shut up. It's mostly the rational debate that I've heard between intelligent pro- and anti-war folks that's brought me to my current opinion. George "Because I Said So" Bush sure hasn't done anything to convince me.

Ah, well. Enough politics from me today. Check out this story at Electrolite if you want more. I promise that my next entry will be about something frivolous, like scary movies.