Debates take away from important issues such as which side has more tiresome supporters or who has called somebody a monster and whether that side's campaign reacted swiftly enough in making apologies and whether the other side tried too much to make a big deal out of the name calling.

It seems quite misleading to state that the FDA "disregarded results on food from cloned animals." As has been pointed out in other letters, it appears that the FDA properly regarded the results (cloned food is safe) but disregarded the opinions of focus group participants.

In fact, the FDA may not have "disregarded" the participant's opinions either. All this talk of people's "right to know" ignores what the FDA may actually do under the law. Does the FDA have the power to require food producers/sellers to label food which is safe, but that many people find unsettling? Never having read the relevant statutory and case law, I don't know the answer -- but I doubt you do either, or you would have discussed the FDA's mandate under the law.

If, as is likely, the FDA does not have the power to require labeling of cloned food simply because many people don't like the idea of cloned food, the issue is existing law, not the FDA's enforcement of that law.

I know this is probably not what I'm supposed to come away with from the post, but I guess I don't even have plausable deniability regarding the flavored vodkas and various liqueurs I like. I am becoming a girl-drink drunk. Somebody get me a boilermaker, stat!

I think the problem with Code Pink is not that they demonstrate against the war, but that in doing so they tend to come off as a-holes. Let the Administration be the ones to look like a-holes. Still, GMan (or whowever) is right: at the time, people thought John Brown wasn't helping the abolition movement. Just because once he chopped up pro-slavery people with broadswords! So, I suppose, if a member of Code Pink can get herself executed for insurrection, that may generate sympathy for the antiwar movement. Anyone want to take one for the team?

GG, I probably agree with you about 75% of the time, but I guess this is part of the 25%. Do you believe that the US would have been wrong to declare war against Germany when it invaded Poland? Norway? The low countries? France? Russia? Was Lend-Lease wrong since the US gave material support to Britain knowing that it would be used against a country which had not attacked us? What about the Flying Tigers?

Does it make Bosnia wrong because we may have had more than one reason to stop Serbian aggression?

Why is it okay to engage in war simply because the UN has agreed to it? How does that change the calculus if the US has not been attacked or is under the threat of imminent attack?

In hindsight, the Iraq War was from America's perspective a colossal blunder and from Iraq's perspective, a great tragedy. At the time, war seemed unnecessary, risky and, to the extent the international law of war means anything, illegal. Nonetheless, to say that a county may never use force in its interest or for "humanitarian" reasons unless it has been attacked or is under imminent threat of attack is, I believe, wrong.

Yes, everybody knows that the Germany declared war on the US first. Did you just write to give trivia? I guess I'm not getting your point.

When I was in law school, I worked on a public interest project to help homeless people clear tickets and warrants for minor, non-violent, victimless traffic tickets, infractions, and various minor misdemeanors. We worked out of the city attorney's office and had access to computer programs that could check criminal records so that we could make sure that the applicant qualified for the program (example, no felony warrants) and to find records for all outstanding tickets and warrants to be cleared. We were told that if we checked any one else's criminal record (e.g., Gov. Davis) we would be fired. I was in law school, so I didn't want to screw up my moral character application, but I sure wanted to check up on politicians, profs, etc. I can imagine that someone who is not very bright and not sufficiently scared of punishment would actually do it -- without any crooked, Nixonian reasons for doing so.

Obama never would have done that! Those are just MSM lies! Why do you hate America?

Our government is more or less accountable to the people. It was also designed to change direction very slowly -- a reasonable goal when the last big experiment in democracy was Athens’ topsy-turvy failure. Unfortunately, America re-elected G.W. Bush over Kerry, so basically we eff'ed ourselves. A sobering thought for those who would rather see McCain in office than the Democrat they don't like as much as the Democrat they do like.

Tragically, we live in a representative democracy. If your rep isn't responsive to your district, then, theoretically, the district's voters could choose to elect someone else. It appears that they do not. Your district has the power to hold the rep accountable, but does not. Or, alternatively, your concerns are not representative of the voting citizenry. Who knows?

1) Obama's popularity;

2) Clinton's popularity;

3) the Democratic Party's popularity; and/or

4) Repulican deviousness.

Glad we got that settled.