Something occurred to me the other day, in the freedom/security debate: why is it that the risk inherent (and very concretely evident) in sending our citizens to war to "protect" democracy is acceptable but the risk inherent in our domestic freedoms isn't? Putting in slightly plainer english, I personally am willing to accept the risk of terrorist attacks if it means preserving essential liberties. Assuming that the neocons actions are really enhancing our domestic security (which I see little or no evidence of), why are they so willing to go to war in the name of security? Is a life lost in Iraq better than a life lost here?

In addition, as many notable authors have demonstrated, what is the opportunity cost of all of this war spending? For example, the CDC estimates that 36,000 people die every year from the flu and related complications, 10x more than died on 9/11/2001. That's just one risk that we face, and many kill more every year than terrorism has. Why aren't these risks part of the picture and why haven't we accounted for what a dollar buys us in terms of real security?

I'm risking a major tangent and possibly a rant, but I guess my point is that (1) there are many more risks than terrorism that we should be addressing, and (2) if freedom means taking on risk, personally, that's a risk I'm willing to accept. Democracy is messy and sometimes even we civilians have to bleed for it to remember what it's worth.

Dear God,

When you finally decide in your infinite wisdom that Pat Robertson's time has come, I would like to request that you clearly state your intentions, possibly in the form of a lightning bolt or a large handwritten note saying "I killed Pat Robertson. Love, God". Alternatively, maybe the prophet Elijah could descend from the heavens in a chariot of fire and run Pat over or you could turn him into a pillar of salt on national television.

Whatever form of demise you have intended for Pat in your infinite mercy, I only ask that you leave a note, calling card, or at least appear on Hannity & Colmes to take credit. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Dr. Peter J. Meyers

P.S. (to Salon readers) My father is actually a retired Methodist minister and I have great respect for sincere and well-meaning Christians, but I have little or no tolerance for the loudmouth self-righteous hypocrites that call themselves the religious right.

I have to second your epiphany, Heather. Thanks to my new friend, TiVo (I now understand all of the people at parties I formerly referred to as "cultists"), I also have been rediscovering the new Battlestar Galactica, and it's well worth the hype.

I was also dissuaded by the original. I never disliked it, and I was young enough not to associate Lorne Greene too much with the wild west or Alpo, but I realized as an adult that I subconsciously always grouped three shows: Chips, Emergency, and BG. Emergency was just Chips in the fire department, and BG was just Chips in space. Apollo and Starbuck were Ponch and John, they piloted starfighters instead of motorcycles, and rollover accidents and Winnebago explosions were replaced by Cylon attacks. Think about it, and you'll see what I mean.

Unfortunately, when I visit California, I still have to hum the Chips theme song whenever I see a CHP motorcycle. That's another story, though, that will ultimately probably end in my out-of-town arrest.

Anyway, it's nice to see a non-geek reviewer (or, at least, a TV geek and not a sci-fi geek) recognize the new BG's merits. I wholeheartedly second the motion.

In fairness to Google, the map data and satellite maps are provided by third-party vendors, and there a number of restrictions on what the satellite map providers can provide about government installations. While I'm far from a neocon, there is legitimate reason to restrict some satellite images from mass availability, and many of the images are probably restricted long before Google acquires them.

The real litmus test will be whether Google keeps up the fight to not turn over this data, and so far they seem to be sticking to their guns. While it's in their own best interest, they also deserve a little kudos and support for taking a stand.

I'm not sure what's worse, Republicans who claim that debate is somehow uncivilized and obstructionist or Democrats who don't want to get their clothes dirty in a fight. However you feel about Alito, and however you felt about Roberts, we're talking about not only one of the most powerful positions in our government, but a lifetime appointment. Both men could be on the bench for 30 years or more. This process cries out for thoughtfulness, due process, debate, and even a few fights.

Unfortunately, the saddest thing about the Roberts confirmation process was that, in all fairness, the only person who sounded remotely intelligent was John Roberts. Republicans must've needed a team of chiropracters for all of the bending over backwards they did, and Democrats sounded like they were reading from printouts of that morning's blogs. There was a total vacuum of reasoned, researched debate on both sides, and that was (and continues to be in the Alito nomination) a gross disservice to our democracy and the balance of power.