There is a difference between believing and connecting the dots. I have explained my rationale, you are free to evaluate it. I have critiqued the mind set that these transparency issues and the consolidation of powers are part of an inevitable slide into totalitarianism. I have yet to hear a counterargument. The very fact that Glenn is free to write this column and we are all free to post our thoughts leads me to believe we are quite far from the apocalypse.

I have never said anywhere that people should keep concerns to themselves. I am merely willing to accept a little more paternalism when it come to the government releasing embarrassing information about itself than others.

Speaking of paternalism, I think you should let Bystander speak for themselves. And your comment about my response is, to use their words, full "of intellectual contortion."

My point was not that Bystander's thoughts were not their own, rather that it is ironic that a Glenn reader (me) could cause amazement by disagreeing. And this is an opinion that comes up far too often in these comments when anyone dares to disagree.

Frank first ... You may not equate "government run health care" with a "strong public option," but I do, so if you want to use your words, go ahead.

Timothy. Look at the context of my comment, it was in response to exactly the type of knee-jerk "I don't understand how you can read this blog and think like that" post I was decrying.

Further, the point of my original post was not that Glenn is wrong to be dismayed that congress rolled over, it was that he should also be heartened that they DID force a meaningful concession from the executive office.

As for the last point you made, it was a little unclear to me. Is it that the House is important? Because I agree with you, I just think it should be a much higher priority to minimize the influence of corporate interests rather than the executive office.

Yes, I can absolutely be bribed.

All you have to do is cut me that check. Oh, and cut my neighbors a check, and all my coworkers, and all the guys standing on a street corner Saturday morning looking for work, you do that and I'll absolutely let you sweep all the torture stuff that already happened under the rug.

Yes, the fact that the President's bill is already surrounded by piranhas is exactly why he shouldn't do everything in his power to try and keep congress happy. You say tomato I say tomato. You say this proves health care won't be meaningful, I say this proves Obama needs to save as much political capital for this fight as possible.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how twisting arms in congress and suppressing government documents, in this day and age, is going to lead to a police state.

I don't have to cut everyone a check, just those willing to trade government transparency for cash.

That's an awful lot of checks, and exaclty what i am talking about when I say there is a lack of perspective.

Lots to get to, I'll be brief.

@Bystander & @Avelena: Yes, not only do I equate tens of millions of US citizens living without adequate health coverage with torture, I think it is a bigger threat to our society. This is a fundamental difference of opinion, I respect your points of view, but disagree completely. However, this is not to condone torture AT ALL. Any new allegations should be investigated to its fullest, Gitmo should be closed, I don't need a commission to tell me Americans acted barbarously and in contravention of international law, I already think that. I also think, over time, the truth will come out.

@Frank - Again, yes, absolutely. Like I said, i thought I was stating it explicitly, you are arguing semantics.

@PDA - Glenn's "let's make the trains run on time" comment is a not too subtle allusion to totalitarianism, it was no straw man. And, if it were a straw man, where do you think this all leads? And is that place worth trading for a place where you can get adequate health care for your child if you have been laid off?

To your last point .. this is beginning to feel like semantics too, suffice it to say all I was trying to get at is that ideas should be evaluated here on their merits, not on who came up with them or who disagrees with them.