Clearly, I was referring specifically to Prop 8. Isn't that the topic at hand? I can't speak to religious charities and the whys and wherefores of their closings (although I suspect if such a thing is happening it's a matter of their refusing to abide by state and federal guidelines in return for state and federal monies).

Excellent.

Those last three lines, especially?

Beautiful and priceless and that's no MasterCard talk.

you've just got to love teh Internets. From Glenn to sysprog's always relevant material (and all others who contribute in like fashion), the days of the Reston clan's iron grip are, I think, nearing an end, if they haven't ended already (and here I mean their lofty perch where little if anything goes unchallenged). When Reston was playing stenographer during those decades, how many citizens had any idea--gave any thought to--what he was doing? Blogs written by the insightful, however, have wrenched open to the light this dank, sorry little world and made so many a good deal more critical in their reading and brought them an awareness of how their government operates. That newly minted felon, Ted Stevens, was right: these "series of tubes [will be filled with] enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material." And lots of light to shine on it.

the matter of voter suppression versus voting machine manipulation, despite all that Mark Crispin Miller (I think that's his name) has written and spoken about, it seems to me that suppression or intimidation is the preferred method of the GOP. That's what Obama's team of lawyers believe, given their strategy. It's worth recalling, I think, that the 2000 election was "decided" by the Supreme Court. If the machines (hanging chads and all) had been that susceptible to manipulation, I'd think the legal wranglings would've been avoided from the outset. So there you have it: a comment cluttered with mere opinion and utterly no evidence.

And Sinnard, you know, you don't have to be combative all the time.

that was a fine post. It captured all that needed to be said. Perhaps both of us saw what we wanted but, heck, what of it?

"What must a faithful Catholic public school teacher in California think, after her union dues are extorted from her paycheck and then used to fund a (to her) morally offensive political initiative that has no relation to education?"

Why not ask why taxpayers are required to fund various wars and no-bid contracts to the likes of Halliburton? These have no relation to my idea of what it means to be human. I've cited just two examples and will go no further for fear of losing my breakfast.

Well, what I meant to say was the voting machines were less easily manipulated (unlike the electronic kind) back in 2000. The "hanging chad" issue that let everyone and his brother dispute the voter's intent was, of course, manipulable (if that's a word) and led us to the Supreme Court decision.

Bystander is right to mentally correct my comment from 'had' to 'hadn't.'

I agree that the machines put in place after HAVA are suspect simply because, as you've noted, Pedinska, "the companies responsible for them have resisted scrutiny of the machines and their programming so strenuously." And when you wrote, "I realize that no system of voting is beyond manipulation, but without a doubt, we have moved from lesser to greater opportunity for abuse in the push to use newer technologies without corresponding openness about security," that pretty much summed up my view of this issue.

That sounds like quasi-Republican talk, heru-ur. When have libertarians been "called all manner of names" here? Like adnato, you seem to seek revolution and violence to produce, what?, revolution and violence.

You guys are to laugh. Sinnard: "Who said anything about wanting violence?" No one, except for adnoto, though he's very careful to imply, rather than state, it (presumably, because he's afeard of them Homeland Security folks). I don't believe I mentioned you, did I, Sinnard?

Yet here's what I liked best: "But you ask when have libertarians been called all manner of names here. That was the funniest line I have read at UT in a month at least. Then you claim I am seeking 'revolution' by saying that a state like California should be allowed to leave the union whenever it wanted to do so.

What do you think would happen? Do you think California would invade and conquer the USA? No, you are afraid they would all be smoking that evil weed in the streets; ... and smiling. (can't have that now can we?)

-- heru"

Heru-ur: I don't care if you smoke weed, crack or anything else. But be honest about your political goals. Is that too much too ask?

Geez, no kidding.

Can I second this?

"bump into Pedinska. heh. sorry. (pleasant dreams)"

No offense, just playful thinking.

Can I say/write this? I guess I just did.

No offense. Just a happy, human thought.

"People like Pearlstein are entirely unaccustomed to hearing widespread criticisms of their work, especially from the lowly masses (also known as his 'readers' or, more distasteful still, from prize-less 'bloggers')."

Excellent. (Let me play the lowly consumer and paraphrase McDonald's by saying "I'm lovin' it.")

I think that, more than anything, is the crux of the matter. Does Pearlstein care whether $700 billion is spent "recapitalizing" banks or buying bad debt? I doubt it. What matters to him is what's stuck in his craw--what we once termed "non-traditional" media but is quickly becoming par-for-the-course daily must-read--namely, his captive readers (which is almost certainly how he thinks of them) are not so captive after all.