That doesn't make any sense. Why now? Why, if the facility is so dangerous, has nothing been done until just now? Sounds too politicized to me.

That said, I'm not convinced that Iran is developing civil nuclear energy technologies, but I'm equally unconvinced that it's a nuclear weapons program. It's hard to figure out who's telling the truth... it's like watching a couple fight.

Also, why is it that people think that it wouldn't be possible for Iran to develop nuclear technology on their own, and this intelligence must be coming from somewhere else? Iran may very well be getting help from other countries to develop a nuclear program, and maybe not. But they're not a nation of illiterate, unscientific morons. The U.S. developed nuclear weapons on their own in the 1940's, why couldn't Iran do it, with plenty of examples and a more thorough understanding of the concepts, now, 50 years later?

I think legislative committees need to be done away with. Or at least, completely randomized. Right now, the Senate Finance Committee is in complete control of whatever health care legislation gets passed. The Senate Judiciary Committee is in complete control of the FISA legislation, The Senate Armed Forces Committee controls armed-forces related legislation, The Senate Finance Committee, well, you get the point.

In theory, the committees purport to be a group of Congressman or that are knowledgeable of that particular subject matter (again... "in theory"). That seems like a good thing. We all want people that know what they're talking about to draft legislation.

But what committees actually serve as are lobby beacons. "Are you a health care company that wants to protect your interests? Well, you need to lobby and contribute to these 10 Senators!" It's appalling. Since each branch and each party is able to set it's own arbitrary rules for joining a committee, it's also non-democratic, in the sense that there's no real voter control over these sorts of procedural issues.

I'm not surprised by the short memory of conservative pundits. Admonishing others for doing the same thing they did the week before is just part of their insane tool kit. Saner members of the MSM should point that out, but I don't have my hopes up.

I see it happening with some of my friends that worship Obama, and as weird as it is, they still don't seem quite as brainwashed as those that supported Bush as if he were a God. I think under Bush, it felt good to be on the team of hate.

I am a bit confused though. What does secularism have to do with people pledging to serve Obama? What is the argument there? Do they honestly think that secularists seek to fill some sort of worship gap in their lives by worshiping human beings instead of deities? I'm an atheist, and I don't find any compunction driving me to do that. Do others? Did they ask secularists if that was the case? Or did they just pull that out of their ass?

Any Obama tax cuts or credits did not take effect until April 1st of this year. That means some of us have seen 1, maybe 2 paychecks reflecting the new tax rates.

If you get pay checks on the 15th and last day of the month, like I do, you got your paycheck today. If you took the day off to be a tea-bag, and have the same pay schedule, you probably didn't see your paycheck yet.

If you're making under 250k/year, and your taxes went up, check your state and local contribution... states are hurting!. If that's the case, start bitching at the state you live in if you like.

It's also possible that your employer has not adjusted their withholding's to reflect the new tax rate yet. Most do adjustments quarterly, or every 6 months, or whenever.

But seriously people... stop being such idiots.

The author asks the question,"I was more interested in Ehrman's thoughts about whether one can reject supernatural beliefs and still be a Christian, and the larger relationship between reason and religion."

That's a (not-so) interesting question.

If you take away the supernatural aspects of The Bible, then you're left with a largely metaphorical book on moral philosophy, akin to "Atlas Shrugged" (see "infantile"). You might as well spend an hour a week going to a building and mumbling praise to Kant, Hume, or Mill.

...Not that there's anything wrong with that,I wish it were the case that people looked towards reason for their moral guidance, but Christianity is about the supernatural, otherwise, it's not a religion.

GG,

You said,

"The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence. They know that criticizing -- let alone opposing -- Obama will mean that all those new readers they won last year will leave;"

You frequently (and rightly) criticize the MSM for mentioning "liberal blogs think this or that.. " without actually naming those blogs, or citing an article/post on a widely read blog to support their case. Now you're doing the same.

I can't think of a single liberal blog that is 100% supportive of Obama.

Are you serious? The fact is, Obama can make all the concessions he wants to garner republican support, but the Republicans will *NOT* return the favor, not even once.

Their goal right now is to scream about how they're trying to be "post-partisan" (what a non-sense concept that is, btw) but big bad Obama won't cooperate, so they have no choice but to vote against them. This will work for them... they'll have their cake and eat it too, by winning concessions on every bill that passes, but still get to act like Obama's not cooperating.

So why wouldn't Obama and the Dems just not cooperate at all? They wouldn't lose anything.