The Press that for so long hammered the opinion that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq failed to widely report when more than 500 weapons were found with sarin gas. A couple of media outlets reported it, but most said nothing, embarrassed at there former error combined with arrogant insistence. It was only natural that the government that had nine times (documented) used these weapons should still have them. Skepticism, yes; but what do you call it when the truth is denied? Blindness.

Gee, Joe, it all depends. I mean, are the terrorists who come to kill you socialist-liberals or ultra-right death squads?

I am sure that Osama would agree. But in the days when this was said, extremism was not so often so extreme; at least not in the West. Then came the Second World War, which, with the expansion of communications media, exacerbated the growth of violent tendencies engendered by the First, and now you know the rest of the story. I think that the word "extremists" now carries a violent connotation, which perhaps it did not for Flexner.

What a shame that too many only believe themselves to think according to this description, while they do not really think much at all.

Some people are obnoxious for its own sake, which neither contributes anything to the discusiion nor should be permitted. My comments have been edited out for far less venom than that used here by Joe. I would like to know why my comments are edited out, but those of others left, when their malicious intent and antisocial nature is plain to see.

What is going on with you people, Joe and Rip? What have I said to make anyone think I support socialism? And what have I said to warrant such a comment on this particualr page? I think you are unstable.

What has any of this to do with the quote, Joe? And on what do you base your assessment that I am a socialist? Are you mad?

It is possible to conform and not be dull. Conform to what? There is a wide variety of situations and environments, so that it is very possible to conform and be wild, depending upon where one happens to be spending his time. And conformity to reasonable standards does not mean to become a mindless robot. Of course, some are compelled not to conform out of a perverse need to rebel.

A perfect recipe for sociopathy.

When you are forced to comply, you have complied, you have done what you were compelled to do, but have not agreed or changed your mind. There is no additional meaning.

Unadulterated hyperbole from another halucinating Aryan.

Another inadequate, feel-good, off-the-mark attempt to define freedom.

Seems reasonable to say so, but sounds like nah nah nah nah nah nah, which is a bit annoying at 2 a.m.

For those who have no imagination or are unaware of other significant struggles, beside the type mentioned in this quote as being the only type with respect to the freedom of expression, there is a struggle going on between parents groups and school boards, having to do with the continued use in schools of certain textbooks that have been demonstrated to be very inaccurate, erroneous, misleading, and inadequate. Now, which is the power structure and which the individual in such cases? It does not conform to the quotes inadequate rule, does it?

Women's "reproductive rights" as they are called by many, or what Jack has called a "woman's right to her own body," is no right at all, when it is a euphemism for killing a viable fetus. No one has the right to kill an innocent person, Jack. I suppose you think that "partial-birth" abortion in the seventh or eighth month is also fine, where the viable fetus is pulled just far enough out to gain access to the head, and its brains are suctioned out while it watches in horror. Once the head of a live baby is out of the womb, it is not a fetus but a person, by any definition. Or perhaps we could stick an 80 -year-old man partially back in the womb and suck his brains out. Would you like that, Jack? Would you call that freedom or the right to get rid of an inconvenient pre-mortem specimen.

"Always" tends to disqualify the statement, as it does here. An oversimplification, not worthy of a justice of the Supreme Court. Often true, but not always.

Does anyone really have such a wish?

Marx was clearly a sociopath.

Hey, Ken, was that a concise autobiography?

Those who have not had an experience with the living God cannot grasp that such a thing routinely happens. Their doubt can be comprehended, but their cynicism is arrogant. How many things has each of us never experienced directly, but believes in or accepts as true or factual? Now just because I believe in God does not mean that you must, but given the very wide variety of experience that exists, and given that you have accepted things you have not seen yourself, and given the enormous implications of God's existence or lack thereof, why would you so easily dismiss God, just because you have not yet experienced him? Why don't you ask him for proof?

Nice sentiment, but erroneous thought We need limits. Freedom to do anything at all is no freedom. The power to corner the market on soybeans, for example, may not overly much infringe on others, but places exist where the inhabitants are not permitted to plant food crops, and otherwise have little access to food, because others, more powerful, own the land and use it for other purposes. In such cases, the powerful are not more free, just because they can prevent the poor from planting. And atheist judges are not more free when they punish Christians from expressing their beliefs, such as the Christians charged with hate crimes in Philadelphia for preaching against sodomy.

I suppose that Reston just meant to express misgivings based on the reality of human experience, which shows that too many tend to abuse freedom, rather than respecting it.

No reasonable person could contradict this, but the fact remains that reasonable limits exist.

Men are unjust. They offend because they do not measure their acts before committing them, and they fail to measure because they do not care about others. Of course, all takes place in greater or smaller degrees, but that is the way it is. And since men are unjust, in order to attempt something like order in society, laws must be written and enforced, in order to deter crime. If men were all taught to be considerate, crime would still exist, but not to the extent that we have today. Cease to impose morals and you cease to deter crime.

I merely meant to imply that not everyone has a healthy conscience. And when we were created, God established the inescapable rules about how the conscience functions, and how it ceases to function.