need to see this as an opportunity. It sucks for Franken, and Minnesota generally, but democrats need to show how much this is hurting Minnesota, and how the GOP there is entirely to blame. The Republicans are denying the citizens their constitutional right to representation for purely partisan reasons, and that fact should kill their chances of ever winning a state-wide election for a generation.

But I enjoy seeing Steele the First and Blowfish (and his many avatars) flame away at each other. It's like a colosseum fight between a rabid badger and a starved python, and you want both to win, and neither one.

We need to bring the purportrators to justice.

On the "thought crime" issue, I think our justice system actually does crimilaize 'thought' all the time. It matters a great deal what was going through one's mind when committing murder, for example. Have you been thinking about it for a while? Were you in an emotionally hightened state? Did you just want to hurt, not kill? These questions all depend on one's thoughts, but lead to vastly different charges and sentences. There are numerous other areas (manslaughter, fraud, just to start) where the exact same actions get treated differently depending on what was in one's mind while performing those actions. I don't know that our justice system should make such distinctions, but it does.

But I do know it's stupid to have taken it off the table. By doing so, the administration has committed the classic Clinton mistake of moving the center right-ward from the get-go. The current Obama proposal could have emerged over time as a compromise between single-payer and "leave things the way they are" (which is what it is). Now, Obama's proposal gets framed as the "leftist" plan, and negotiations with republicans will settle on a center-right compromise.

I think I hear what you're saying. I think there is a growing segment of the population that define themselves as both "pro-life" (because they think abortion is generally a sad, tragic affair for all involved) AND "pro-choice" because they think it's a sad, tragic affair that is nobody's business but the pregnant woman's. Surveys that try to push respondents into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" boxes are increasingly doomed to failure. Compare abortion with adultery: If you think adultery is generally poor form that destroys lives, but think it should not be criminalized, are you then "anti-marriage"? Does the label "pro-marriage" imply that one must also be in favor of the criminalization of adultery, and divorce? Obviously not (for most). If someone thinks abortion is unethical, but also believes women have a bed-rock right to control what goes on in their body, there is no easy label.

As a supposed 'stance' toward ending pregnancy, it's only been around for a few decades. Previously, opposition to abortion had nothing to do with 'protecting the fetus,' but was just part of opposing all birth control, opposing all non-procreative sex. When society shifted toward wide-spread acceptance of birth control, and non-procreative sex, the religious right had to come up with a new rationale for condemning abortion, and thus the 'prolife' movement was born. Neither then nor now, for the majority of anti-choice activists, is the motivation really to protect innocent babies. It has always been and will always be about the control of sexuality. Polls using the term 'prolife' will always be flawed because there isn't anyone who is 'antilife,' really. All that is clear is that there are people for choice, and against it. People who are against forced-birth, and those who are for it. When has anyone asked in a poll, "do you think women should be forced to give birth against their will?" I'd like to see the tiny fraction of Americans who'd say 'yes' to that.

...you feel compelled to repeat it a lot. I'm looking at you, ye-of-many-names.

and NOT for the advantage of "capitalism" in the abstract. The 17th-18th century thinkers who imagined capitalism as an improvement over feudalism wouldn't recognize, or admire, the economic system we have today. Walmart, big agribusiness, etc. are as destructive to local, small businesses and farmers as the local Duke ever was. Capitalism was supposed to allow people to be the primary beneficiaries of the fruits of their labor, but under corporatism, which is what we have instead of capitalism, most of us are as alienated as peasants.

explaining how fundamentalist Islam became the same thing as progressive liberalism? In the Islamic world, I think the two things are considered kinda different.

is how many neocons seem to want Ahmadinejad to win. They don't love their enemy, they just love HAVING an enemy.

American Fascist will go away. Unfortunately, his identity disorder will cause him to come back as "Patriotic Unicorn" or "Lost User Name" or "The Notorious OCD," or some such. You can Name That Tune in about two words of any of his insane posts, under any username.

But still, NotOrbitBoy, your post seems unusually stupid. Yes, with only a few 100,000 Iraqi lives, thousands of American lives and a trillion US dollars, Iraq is still only an incipient democracy. Huzzah. Meanwhile, the point is that around the world countries are able to move from tyranny toward greater democracy ALL BY THEMSELVES, and IT WORKS BETTER THAT WAY. Get it yet?

Thanks for reminding us that there are people such as yourself who basically feel that no matter what changes in Iran, we must still continue to see them as our enemy. Gotta have those enemies.

What is it about the difference between 'conservatives' and 'liberals' that the US GOP doesn't get? In the US, the right wing = the mullahs. The left in Iran are those people in the streets right now.

They're part of the effort to create a general background noise whispering, "Obama is not a real American. He is not one of us. Be afraid of him." It is no different from the Obama-is-a-Muslim campaign, or Obama-is-a-socialist.

You are kindly invited to work on your reading comprehension skills.