Consider this scenario:

Four to five days before leaving office, Bush issues a pre-emptive pardon to Dick Cheney. He then resigns the office of the presidency. President Cheney, during the few days he has in the office, issues a pre-emptive pardon to private citizen Bush.

Ludicrioius, but I really think it will happen. I really think these characters are that brazen.

First Sergeants are in charge of companies, not platoons. Platoon sergeants are almost always E-7s, Sergeants First Class.

The 82nd Airborne *is* a division, and therefore it cannot have a "Headquarters Division," which is a meaningless term to anyone with a working knowledge of the U.S. Army.

Overall this was a good article, but every time I read mistakes like that it makes me cringe. It reinforces the idea that Salon writers and their ilk are out-of-touch eggheads who don't really know much about the soldiers they're writing about and the organization they're in. (Admittedly, the mainstream media and right-wing-biased news organizations are no better, if not worse, in this regard).

While it's hard for me to imagine the incredible moral courage it must take for a senior Senator to sit in an air-conditioned office and draft a piece of legislation, it's worth pointing out that VAWA was (partially) maligned by such right-wing institutions as the ACLU (for its creepy police-state-ish clauses such as mandating AIDS testing for accused but not convicted abusers) and was partially struck down by the (Clinton-era!) Supreme Court for its ludicrously broad interpretation of the commerce clause.

On a more general note, I'm not sure what exactly this "article" is supposed to be. Clearly, it's not journalism. It's not even punditry, as there is no critical analysis involved here. An article discussing Biden's moral fiber, which mentions as his only shortcoming a tendency towards long-windedness *and doesn't even hint at his repeated mendacity or acts of plagiarism* is not a serious analysis of Biden. When you publish a hagiographic "article" *written by the former public spokesperson of the article's subject*, Salon, you are serving as the vehicle for the propaganda of a political party. Even if it is the party I belong to, I don't like to see party propaganda masquerading as commentary in what purports to be an independent media organ.

I'm surprised to not yet have seen it pointed out in the media that Alaska elected an AIP governor, ex-Republican (and ex-Nixon cabinet member) Wally Hickel, in recent memory (1990-1994). He did not pursue secession in any way while Governor. Alaskans recognize that AIP is basically just a local instation of a Libertarian party, with one weird plank in their platform. Note that the plank does not call for secession, but merely a plebiscite offering various options, one of which is independence. Furthermore, this plank is taken with varying degress of seriousness by party members (although to be fair Hickel was expelled from the party for not doing anything whatsoever on the independence issue when governor).

None of this is to say that Palin would make a good vice-president or president, although I think she has been an OK governor, as these things go. To imply that AIP membership means America-hatin', however, is silly. Yes, Republicans would make a show of outrage if the shoe was on the other foot. "They would do it too!" is not an excuse to traffic in accusations of unpatrioticness.

While I find the trotting-out of this high school kid into the convention spotlights to be exploitative and deeply repulsive, something else I find deeply repulsive is the disdain and mockery being directed at him in this thread and elsewhere on Salon and the blogosphere. Redneck-bashing is a form of bigotry. Yes, I know he referred to himself that way. Lots of rural Americans so self-identify as a matter of pride in the lifestyle they lead. Lots of rural Americans play hockey, hunt, and ride snowmachines. Lots of *non*-rural Americans do those things, too. (Lots of American high schoolers, rural and non-rural, liberal and conservative, have poorly-written MySpace pages). Making recreational activities enjoyed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary Americans the subject of mockery is obnoxious. Moreover, "insult the voting populace" has never been a winning strategy. In a sane world, a guy like Levi Johnston (or at least, his family) should vote Democrat every time, as the Democratic party will best serve his interests, and the policies they implement are more likely to improve his life. Part of the reason he doesn't is because liberal Democrats like you all make fun of his lifestyle and the lifestyle of those just like him. This kind of mean-spirited, condescending, self-congratulatory (because the lettrists are just so much more enlightened, tolerant, and sophisticated than the stupid redneck bigots, see) obnoxiousness makes it easier for Republicans to paint Democrats as out-of-touch elitists. This *should* be a difficult case for them to make, as the Republicans are the party of big finance, big oil, and big industry in general. However, they have historically been successfuul in making the case, because of comments like the ones I've seen here. In other words, this kind nof derision helps out Republicans. Please stop it.

That is correct, the GOP attack machine will always traffic in various slanders and innuendos. The question is, how likely is the nonsense to stick? My point was that making fun of high-school kids from rural Alaska and treating a teenage pregnancy as a subject of hilarity and glee, makes it easier for the nonsense to stick. It's the Republican attack machine and the party leadership we should be going after relentless--NOT the voting base, who might someday vote for Democrats if they are persuaded to do so. Making fun of them won't persuade them to do so.

You are, indeed, entitled to mock anybody and everybody you want to, but that doesn't mean it's either the right or the wise thing to do.

"Wasilla" is the name of the Alaskan town. Is basic research really this difficult?