I suspect the Republic and MSNBC posted it so it could be discussed, too. I think it's okay to include dissenting voices, even if they're unpleasant. I don't want our newspapers to be simply a reflection of one point of view.

My comments are about asking why you discount the rights of the Palestinian people?

I'll donate my pearls so someone else can clutch them.

I can't speak for the Arizona Republic, but I suspect that when approached with a different viewpoint than the reverential one being expressed everywhere on the anniversary—-and by a survivor of the attack and widower of a victim—-they decided to give it some print space rather than squelch it just because it was…

It doesn't make you a bad feminist that you have a limited amount of time/resources or whatever to make a difference. But acting as though people are misguided for taking on misogyny because we should be focusing on another issue (the one YOU prefer to focus your attention on) isn't a good—-or feminist—-approach to…

So you're saying the paper should have not published the interview because this man had something hateful to say about Giffords and Kelly?

+1.

Where did she say she wished he was injured? She said that bad things happen to shitty people, which they do. What happened to him and his wife was horrible. But that doesn't change the fact that he's not a nice guy. Where does he get off calling Giffords and Kelly "worthless?" or implying that Kelly was a bad husband…

It is more important to me personally to end the human rights catastrophe in Palestine than to address the (real!) problem of the ultra-orthodox sects.

I don't however see that the one issue has precedence over the other, or even that they are entirely different issues.

Fuck those exes. SRSLY. Even if they think that's true, talking about it to the media is hurtful to the one person who obviously doesn't deserve it: Khloe Kardashian. She was very close to her father, he loved her, he's dead, so why drag up this bullshit now?

Another example of the usual derailing when it comes to misogyny: "Sure, it's awful what's happening to women...but far worse things happen to ____fill in the group___ so why aren't we focusing on them instead?"

His sons are unsettlingly hot, in a steaming white bread out of the oven kind of way.

So true. They're both painfully immature, but he's actively dickish whereas I think she's vapid and vain but not mean-spirited. And yes, this is what you get for focusing more on getting married than actually getting to know the person you're marrying.

Sashay away, Ron Paul.

Ru is made of 110% pure awesome. My love for her knows no bounds.

I agree that it's unusual for a Christian to have a Hindu wedding ceremony, but by doing so, it would appear that she's chosen not to live in the same conservative way as her family. Just because you're from a conservative background doesn't mean you automatically are a conservative Christian forever. (And really, if…

Seems to me if she felt it were a conflict of interest with her Christian beliefs, she wouldn't have done it. If YOU feel it's a conflict of interest for her to be Christian and have a Hindu wedding, that's merely your opinion.

If they got married in a Hindu ceremony why does that make HER the one of questionable religious practice? It was HIS Hindu wedding too...unless he somehow did not participate in his own wedding ceremony?

Very true.