Despite an overwhelming electoral mandate, a majority in both houses, and a new filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Just freakin' amazing.

It is time for a new political party in the U.S., which I will support, provided only: a) they oppose the Democratic-Republican Party; and b) Ralph Nader is not involved.

By the way, dwg, that is an awesome list; what is your source?

1. Early on it was suggested (not by me) that instead of spending dozens of billions propping up collapsing US auto makers, it might make more sense to simply spend a handful of billions buying Americans new cars. Looks now like that was a pretty good idea. Too bad: a) Cash for Clunkers was started after so much money was wasted trying to keep auto execs in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed; and b) the same idea wasn't used to help distressed homeowners rather than worthless investment banks and their obscenely-compensated employees and their insurers.

Note: GM should change its name to Chevrolet as a symbol of its commitment (if any) to become smarter as well as smaller and keep what's working and get rid of what's not. That the name hasn't changed from GM is a very bad sign for the future.

2. Congressional Dems seriously had to struggle to extend the successful Cash for Clunkers over the opposition of America's Most Hated Political Party? Just pathetic. Bush & Cheney stole an election and from Day 1 steamrolled everyone who stood in their way. 200 days into Obama and We the People have got ... $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers? Go Obama go! Tom Tomorrow has it right-on today, for sure.

That was a respectful and well-deserved shout-out you received on Colbert. You've made it big time! Although for the people who matter most, We Your Readers, you made it long ago. [Note: I live in Korea and unfortunately don't get Colbert (or John Stewart or Letterman or anything else good). So perhaps this isn't your first mention on Colbert; I wouldn't know. (Unless you wrote about it; and I don't remember your having mentioned it, even in your typically oblique and modest way). But I happened to be down in the Philippines this week, and saw that particular Colbert show on the "Maxx" cable channel. Bravo, buddy.]

In the Bay Area in the early 80's, I worked with a much older woman from Germany, who told me her mother hid her under a pile of coal in Berlin in 1945 to keep her from the Russians. At the very same job was a Filipina woman whom I adore to this day who told me her mother hid her in a barrel of rice to keep her from the Japanese.

Germany is to be applauded for (once again) confronting its history in that era. But when will Japan confront its history?

In the excellent documentary The Fog of War an elderly McNamara stated quite clearly that JFK, shortly before his assassination, had indeed decided to pull the plug on the then-relatively small U.S. advisory presence in Vietnam. Moreover, the offhand way he said it, in the course of making some other point, gave his statement even further credibility. I cannot imagine what motive McNamara might have had, so late in life, to "rewrite history"; and the fact that Michael Lind either ignores or else is unaware of McNamara's statement in The Fog of War damages this piece in Salon in my opinion.

Is this where we get to the part of the Obama years about doing something for the majority of Americans who elected him? As opposed to, you know, first making sure the billions in bonuses paid to the Wall Street geniuses who crashed the economy continue unabated, then making sure there's another pointless and doomed war in South Asia. And expanding the Bush-Cheney torture and terror and secrecy state.

Yes? No? Maybe? I don't know; can you repeat the question?

This is great! Now the Dems can finally without obstruction enact President Obama's agenda of pursuing a different pointless and doomed war in South Asia; expanding the Bush-Cheney secrecy, surveillance and torture state; and not pursuing the kind of universal health care program that would bring the U.S. firmly into the second half of the 20th century.

What a great day. For all of us!

"Is that a serious question? If it is you must be new.

It's a serious question; and no, I'm not new. For the last two years I have lived in a way conservative country (Korea) where love in ANY form other than between a male Korean aged 26-34 and a female Korean three years his junior is considered at best odd and in most cases a threat to the social moral order which must be corrected. Yet there are spinning double barber poles, which I'm told indicate tiny brothels, more or less on every street in the country. I've read it's an acceptable way for middle-aged women without other means to support themselves; and though technically illegal, the law is seldom enforced (but for the occasional well-publicized crackdowns).

So ... what do we think of the male clients? Fer or agin' 'em?

I'm curious what some of the more mature (in attitude, if not in age) and particularly female folks here (Betzee, hello?) think about the customers of such women. Meaning this: picture a decent guy, kind and clean, gentle and loving. In a word, a nice guy. Is it a good thing for such a guy to help decent women like the ones discussed here by enabling them to make money and (incidentally) keeping them away from guys who are not so nice -- for one night at least? Or are all guys who patronize such women per se scum. Does it matter if we're talking about Bangkok (as so many of you did last week) instead of Bangor?

I'm really curious. What is the current, modern view?