I second Traveling521's questions. Where, precisely, are we to draw the line between a public official and her spouse? What are the rules governing these kinds of things? (I ask this literally, not merely rhetorically.)

It seems a frequent tactic of the partisan battle to shine a light on questionable activities on one side, while neglecting to mention how common such activities are. Is Todd Palin's evident involvement with his wife's political career prima facie evidence of something sinister?

Out of the innumerable mass of potential criticisms of Sarah Palin, surely something more substantial could be found. Why not a greater focus on Troopergate, for instance? Or her failure to turn over documents? I'd like to see more context--these seem the strongest points of the article, but the author fails to develop them beyond a passing sentence or two.

I'm guessing the present article goes to "management style", but this is just the sort of vague, manipulative language we should strive, as thoughtful citizens, to avoid. Our appraisals should be fair and factual. Likening Palin/Palin to Bush/Cheney may be effective rhetorically, but is it fair to let ourselves be influenced by the mere proximity of words? Can we be satisfied with suggestive similes?

How is it that HUAC, under McCarthy, could create such a climate of fear, while the present Congress seems hardly capable of getting people to show up much less answer reasonably simple questions? You can't abuse power if you don't have it--what's happened to Congress since then? What specific powers has it let slip?

It seems evident to most outside observers that Hamas represents something far, far less than an existential threat to Israel. These rocket attacks have rebounded upon the Gazans a hundred-fold.

I agree generally with Glenn's criticisms of Israel, for visiting such horrors upon the civilian population of Gaza. And it seems highly unlikely that their present course can bring them anywhere near their stated goal of stemming future attacks from Gaza.

Still, it doesn't seem appropriate that Israel should simply ignore , as some have suggested, the flights of deadly rockets into its lands. The government of Israel has a positive responsibility to provide security for its citizens, and these attacks represent a true danger, however slight in the statistical sense, to its people. Most of us seem to agree that their current approach is both morally wrong and strategically ineffectual.

But then what should Israel do?

To whom should they appeal for help? With whom should they negotiate for peace?

There's been much discussion about why what Israel has done is wrong, but little about what Israel actually should have done, instead.

1) So every time a man and woman get married, I'm being forced to "validate the lives they have made for themselves"? I'm being forced to accept, say, abusive relationships where husbands beat their wives and children? Or the Vegas trysts culminating in drunken nuptials before an Elvis altar? If so, perhaps we should abolish this whole marriage thing altogether!

2) What, precisely, is it about gay marriage that precludes "[provision] for the disposition of familial assets"? How is it property rights come into jeopardy? Wouldn't the same logic preclude adoption by heterosexual couples?

3) "...they take exception to the fact that a few unelected judges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts took it upon themselves to make this an issue that every American had to deal with." Well, I take exception to the fact that a few unelected financiers on Wall Street took it upon themselves to drive our economy into the toilet, but we're all dealing with it now! I mean, even were I to accept this quote at face value (which I don't), we're always having to "deal with" stuff that wasn't our fault. Just one of those pesky facts of life my parents kept telling me about.