You're a big fan of Reagan and Nixon, then?

Yeah, it's always safe to talk about past Republicans with a modicum of respect. "Oh, for the long-ago past, when Republicans were human beings. Of course, we all called them bottom-feeding scum-sucking Nazi weasels even then, but it's fun to pretend that they were OK back then, so we can use them as a stick to beat present Republicans with."

Liberal circa 1984: "Reagan is an evil, wicked, incompetent, mean-spirited boob."

Liberal circa 2004: "Bush is an evil, wicked, incompetent, mean-spirited boob. Not like that nice, reasonable Ronald Reagan. If only Republicans would get back to being what they once were."

I don't know if that should make a difference. A movie should stand or fall on its own merits. If a movie sucks, then it doesn't matter if the book's better. The movie will still suck.

It seems a bit clumsy - The legend ends when the Dark Knight rises? Shouldn't it be called, "The Dark Knight Falls?"

I suspect that when they settled on the title, they didn't yet have a script and didn't expect it was going to be the last of the franchise.

Whether one agrees or does not agree with the assertion of a link between abortion and breast cancer, the implication that the point of the article is to discourage breast cancer research is offensive and idiotic.

And yeah, I trust the nation's largest abortion provider to not use millions of dollars in Komen money for breast cancer research. Really I do.

What a ridiculous charge! No one is saying, "don't support breast cancer research." Rather, the question is, "why do so many people who supposedly care so much about women's health ignore and obfuscate information about what is likely a leading factor in becoming afflicted with breast cancer?" If the American Lung Association gave millions of dollars to tobacco companies, would that perhaps cause you some concern? Or would pointing that out be "blaming smokers for getting sick?"

Thank you! This is an excellent and perceptive response.

Give me a break with this class warfare idiocy. You can't appreciate"The King's Speech" because it's about the problems of a king? And Great Britian is now an "evil empire?" This is the kind of commentary I go to Daily Kos to use as an ipecac substitute.

I like your theory, Mr. Nolte. Next time I watch the movie I'll bear it in mind.

Strangely, I've never seen the movie as anti-American. It's probable that I was just tone-deaf to such things when I was young, but it always seemed to me that the movie was a general criticism of war and what the experience of warfare does to people. Col. Kurtz seems to have the most salient point in that regard, which is that if you wish to win a war, you must be willing to sacrifice your humanity to do it. It may not be entirely true, but it seemed true enough to me when I was younger.

Nothing you've cited here has the slightest relevence to the topic of the article, which is abortion. And even if it were true (as you previously alleged) that more people are killed "every day" from religious intolerance than from abortions, it would still be irrelevent, because the question of whether or not religion is the direct cause of the death of anyone under any circumstances has no relevence to the issue of whether abortion is morally right, wrong, or neutral.