Power to the people. I am absolutely flabbergasted that I didn't hear about this sooner, and I had to learn about it through Facebook, of all places. Such a blatant denial of civil rights in this day in this country is absolutely unconscionable. And we thought Jim Crow was dead.



To learn more about the Jena 6 and to join the fight, click here.

Don't ask me why. How many puff pieces about Hillary Clinton's Wellesley career are going to be printed before the election? I swear I read this New York Times piece months ago in Newsweek or Time or some rival publication. Don't you people have anything else to say?

Is there a better critique of the American media that, when faced with the opportunity to provide analysis or critique, they offer a detailed retelling of her undergraduate career?

She was afraid to come out in the open. I know I got really mad about this earlier, but Mormon swimwear looks positively slutty next to our Arab friends' preferred beach attire. Those rubber gloves probably don't breath well.

Tonight everything is over. This was a really exciting week for us liberals, wasn't it? I mean, gay scandals and prominent Republican resignations are like Christmas to me. A gay couple even managed to get married in Iowa, of all places. How exciting!

Of course, this is horrifying to our Republican friends, especially to Mitt Romney, who is probably having flashbacks to his own failure at not being able to stop those pesky homosexuals from obtaining equal rights in Massachusetts. The narrow-minded Mormon had this to say about Iowa:

"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

Okay, Mitt, I don't think you understand what this whole judicial system thing is all about. In the United States, every judge, generally right down to the level of the magistrate, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, at least as applied in a particular case. In fact, there's this whole court system so that people can appeal judicial rulings. It's almost like we have a system of checks and balances where the three branches of government (remember those?) are imbued with special powers to limit and shape the others. Also, Mitt, how can you say that the judge wasn't approved by the people? If the judge was appointed and approved by the legislature, which is the same legislature that ratified Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act in the first place, and the same legislature elected and presumably representative of the people, then how come the legislature can ratify an unconstitutional law but cannot approve judicial appointments? I mean, if the same legislators representing the same "will of the people" do two different actions, then how come one is legitimate and the other is a gross insult? Clearly, if a judge is approved by the elected legislature, then he is representing the will of the people. Are you calling the Iowa legislature incompetent? I don't think they'll like that very much.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't feel comfortable supporting a presidential candidate with such a gross lack of understanding of the judicial system.