"Enviros and fiscal conservatives in both major parties have been calling for mining reform for years, but Pombo's proposal isn't quite what they had in mind."

Perhaps it's a con game, as both parties may benefit. One of the 2 great French thinkers who studied early 19th century America, Frederic Bastiat, said that government cannot take the people's property from them, as that was plunder. From where I'm sitting, it seems that both parties plunder with impunity, as things are today.

I see the American system, and perhaps the two-party system, as two mighty redwoods, literally thousands of years old, as our system of government was specifically modeled on the Roman Republic...

(as opposed to the Empire).

The problem, with the two mighty redwoods, reaching far, far up into the sky, is that the two parties that presently are the caretakers of the two redwoods, the redwoods of liberalism and conservatism, have built a treehouse in the sky, a treehouse so far on high the ordinary people can't see without craning their necks and squinting mightily,

and it's awfully difficultt to see...

And it's just one treehouse!

So how do we shake the trees, so that they pay attention to the ordinary people below, without harming the two trees?

A rich man once told me he didn't believe in private property. He was either a liar, a jokester, or a fool.

If we still had honest conservatism and honest liberalism, the liberals would say

"we need to do this!"

and the conservatives would reply,

"hold on a moment- let's see if we can afford it,let's not go so fast!"

And neither would plunder.

We need a private sector, always.

We also need a public sector, always.

They are there to keep each other honest.

"Rabbi... Eckstein...predicts that Foxman's call for a united Jewish front is doomed to fail, since other Jewish leaders won't want to take on the religious right."

The other Salon article you reference, about Sharon and the end times eschatology(or looniness, if you prefer), points to the underlying reason that Eckstein is correct: American Jewry recognize the rabid anti-semitism just underneath the surface of certain Christian right-wingers who say they support Israel, even if that recognition is somewhat inchoate. The loony Christian right have to hate somebody, and as soon as they get bored hating Arabs they'll turn back to the Jews.

Jews allied with the nutso neocons are a little like battered wives sticking up for their husbands. They ask themselves, "what else are we going to do?"

when does a mother back off with respect to showing affection to Junior?

I would think when Junior indicates his discomfort. You don't have to be a fancy Powell's bookstore or Salon.Com reading type to grasp that.

I am a firm believer in protecting our civil liberties-- nevertheless I fail to see how being allowed to bring any and all sharp objects aboard a common carrier like an airplane is a civil liberty; a nail clipper is one thing, a boxcutter or a metal screwdriver quite another.

You say, "if the September 11th terrorists had been unable to bring boxcutters aboard, they would have fashioned weapons from something else."

Ok, like what?

Would Mohammed Atta have gotten into the cockpit with a necktie and a spork?

There is no question Doc Trimberger is right that society places way too much emphasis on finding a soul-mate, whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Having said that, a lot of people are alone because they have unrealistic expectations, even if those expectations are fostered by a society that teaches us to commodify everything, even each other.

On the other hand, If she wanted to write a book to give herself a sense of justification, well, why shouldn't she? If you have a PhD, people are more likely to publish your book, and then you can make some money channeling and rationalizing your angst.

But maybe the Doc never found a man because of her white, white-collar millieu. How would I know, right? Yes, I'm speculating, and stereotyping. Nevertheless: a less attractive person is far more likely to find someone if she doesn't exclusively hang out with the latte-sipping set, who are more sternly evaluative of you than other American castes.

regarding M. Dupre's letter-- unfortunately I've always found it easier to search Salon using an external search engine. Try "term(s) searched for" a space, then "site:salon.com" make sure you don't leave a space after the colon.

I think the next Jane Austen novel to be filmed should have Bruce Willis in it. And lots of explosions. And Jane Austen should be in it, bugging him about how he should do this or do that, and it should really get on his nerves.

Jane: Cut the blue wire.

Bruce: Lady, will you leave me alone!

And at the very end he'll notice that only he could see her, and wonder what it means.

There is little question in my mind that the president should not be allowed to be above the law, and George Bush,jr pretty clearly feels that he is. The problem, as I see it, is that the last impeachment has effectively rendered it a joke, an empty gesture that no longer has moral weight.

Clinton was impeached. He was caught in a lie, he apologized, and went on about his business, governing for 2 more years. In the unlikely event Bush,jr is impeached, I imagine he will also go on about his business and stay in office. Only instead of apologizing, he'll be indignant.

What's needed is the political will to impeach him and either remove him from office and imprison him, or remove him from office and offer him a deal to rat out puppetmasters Cheney and Rumsfeld, so that they may be put in prison. He is a coward and he would do it.

Is it ghoulish to suggest that this won't happen unless we get to 10,000-15,000 American servicemen deaths in Iraq?