Let's be honest in our use of lanuage, people. Who is "trying to fend off attacks on women's reproductive rights"?? Since the Shakers died out, has anyone in the United States seriously opposed women's right to reproduce? Can anyone provide quotations or links to such advocacy?

Well, I suppose the Commonwealth of Virginia impeded the riht to reproduce back when it required certain feeble minded women (and men) to be sterilized, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (Oliver Wendell Holmes famously fulminated, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough.")

The State of Oklahoma once required persons thrice convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude, some of whom may have been women, to be rendered sterile. The Supreme Court invalidated that Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942).

What's that, now? Ms. Clark-Flory was talking, not about attacks on reproductive rights, but attacks on abortion rights? Then, for Orwell's sake, say so. Calling abortion rights, "reproductive rights" is every bit as fatuous as those on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war claiming to be "pro-life". Either makes as much sense as referring to capital punishment as the life penalty.

When George Orwell observed that "[w]hen ther is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink[,]" he was not offering praise.

Buck v. Bell and Skinner v. Oklahoma offer examples of governmental attacks or restrictions on reproductive rights. Cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (declarin unconstitutional a statute that criminalized use of contraceptive devices) and Roe v. Wade (recognizing a fundamental right to choose abortion prior to viability are in fact about the right to avoid (unwanted) reproduction. Let's be honest about our side's use of the English language.

John McCain has wrapped himself in the mantle of "honor". Cindy Hensley, nee McCain, was an apparently willing vehicle for John McCain to treat Carol McCain shamefully and dishonorably. In that McCain was then in active service in the Navy, his conduct also violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That speaks to the "honor" that John McCain has placed at issue.

Moreover, Senator McCain has accepted the nomination of a Talibanesque political party that crows longly and loudly about "family values". A significant faction, indeed, the dominant wing, of that party is comprised of members that fancy themselves to be Bible believing Christians. According to the words attributed to Jesus in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, John and Cindy McCain's marriage constitutes a present and ongoing state of adultery. The embrace of John McCain by the Taliban wing of the Republican Party raises a highly legitimate issue of hypocrisy, especially when McCain's family life is compared to the (apparently) exemplary home life led by Barack and Michelle Obama.

Finally, John McCain, who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and voted to remove him from office over what amounted to a series of blowjobs, is ill-situated to complain about scrutiny of his own marital conduct.

As to Cindy McCain, a first lady helps to set the moral tone for the nation. Thieving bespeaks a lack of character. (You as a litigator must understand that that is why impeachment by evidence of crimen falsi convictions is an effective tool of cross-examination.) The prospect of a drug thief occupying the East Wing of the White House, (even a diverted drug thief,) causes me concern, especially when Mrs. McCain's character compares so unfavorably to that of Mrs. Obama.

Mr. Spitzer will not be charged? Perhaps the prosecutors reasoned that Ms. Dupree had already charged him plenty.

In light of her garbled syntax, her anti-intellectualism, her pandering to the basest parts of human nature, (not to mention her droppin' of gs,) it is tempting to characterize Ms. Palin as George Wallace with a twat. That, however, is unfair--to Governor Wallace, who repented of his demagogy before he died.

Moreover, unlike Mr. Wallace, Ms. Palin is likely too dumb to have ever passed a bar exam.

There is another remedy available that would avoid the pardon power entirely. I harbor no illusions that the incoming Congress will have the testicular fortitude to act, but the mere expiration of their term of office does not mean that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer subject to impeachment proceedings.

Paragraph 7 of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

The expiration of the current president's term does not make impeachment moot; the House can still investigate and vote articles of impeachment, with the Senate to determine disqualification from holding federal office in the future.

This is not a mere academic question. After serving as president, John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives and William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the United States. After serving as vice-president, Richard Nixon and Geoge H. W. Bush served as president and Hubert Humphrey served as a U. S. Senator. Walter Mondale served as Ambassador to Japan and was nominated to run for the Senate from Minnesota when Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash.

Here's hoping that the next Congress will pursue articles of impeachment as to whether President Bush has taken care that the laws be faithfully executed as to torture, electronic surveillance, and such other topics as the Congress may deem appropriate.

Virginity is not an "essential quality" of a woman. Neither, or so it would appear, is truthfulness.