Yesterday on NPR (ATC), in the story about the Senate passing the funding bill, they first report the bare-bones story, then have on *minority* leader Mitch McConell to drivel on about how horrible it was. This is the liberal media. The news story becomes "democrats are surrender monkeys" rather than "Democrats act to bring about end of war." The 64% want the congress to end the war, but not be surrender monkeys - who would want that!? So, despite the reality that mainstream American wants the war ended this year, they will be spun away from that desire by Republicans and the MSM.

Can't you add a big caption to the Giuliani photo saying "boogie, boogie, boogie"?

The Party of Accountability and Consequences (the GOP) has always been clear on this point: they mean for other people, not themselves. Never resign, never accept responsibility for mistakes, never investigate corruption (but fire those who do...).

The clear and typically overlooked point for me was that neocon foreign policy, despite everything they tell us, is BAD FOR ISRAEL. Most Israeis know this, though most US neocons ignore them. As Glenn says, when someone says something like "the war in Lebanon is wrong," they have been labeled an anti-semite. I'm beginning to think that the goal for neocons has always been permanent war in the middle east, under the fig leaf of being "Pro-Israel." Permanent war means continued sky-rocketing defense spending, support for Likkud, demonizing of Arabs, etc. Peace for Israel is not in the interests of the desired neocon world order.

As someone has pointed out, at this point these are simply indicators of name recognition. That being said, they seem to indicate strength for Obama. With his low name-recognition, he still beats Clinton on all the possible matchups. He would do much better if people knew who he was. Clinton is not doing well in the matchups, and has nowhere to go but down.

Good point. Many of those who attack atheisists insist that they (the atheists) have an incorrect understanding of what god is. However, they rarely (at least on this thread) make an effort to correct that 'misunderstanding.' God remains a shifting metaphor for whatever believers want. He is goodness. He is the embodiment of hope. He is that-which-cannot-be-understood. He is that-which-is-better-than-ourselves. He is X. So, no, his existence cannot be disproven, any more than you can disprove the assertion that love is a rose.

Thanks for adding an equation I missed: God = truth. This one works well because then you just have to prove that truth exists, and, presto-chango, there's your proof of God's existence.

I think Wolpert has more insight into the essential value of belief than Dawkins: it gives pleasure. To say that one should give up belief, and therefore the pleasure, because 'there is no point to it,' is a wee bit puritanical. You could make the same argument against non-procreative sex or eating a cherry tart after a filling meal. As long as people get pleasure from belief in the supernatural (god, thor, unicorns), it will happen. You can't wish it away through logic any more than you can get teens to stop having sex or me to stop eating cheese. You can try to practice safe sex, and eat more healthy foods, and believe in fantasies that don't hurt anyone (or force your fantasies on others). Evolution seems to have provided humans with particular desires that used to be important for survival, but just because those desires are no longer always working in our favor doesn't mean they should be denied all together.

It's great that hundreds of thousands of people have died for no reason that Tony can think of at the moment. Maybe it'll come to him later.

I'm with RealName, too. Taking joy in unraveling is only fun if you think at a given point things will ravel back up again. Why do so many think Bush will be replaced by someone better? Most polls I've seen still show most of the named republicans beating the named Democrats. That's why I hate those count-down clocks. Are we happly counting down to a Guiliani presidency? A McCain presidency? The dems need to get their house in order and figure out how to win presidential elections (hint: it's not with someone half of Americans already know well and hate) before they can take joy in the implosion of this court.

"Heroes does have plot problems, and I was the first one to groan when Mohinder left the defenseless Sylar alive in his apartment, but I thought the finale was reasonably logical."

So, after the big boom, lots of ambulances and police cars arrive and take care of everyone, clean up the crime scene, etc., and EVERYONE LEAVES SYLAR'S BODY JUST LYING THERE? So he can crawl/be dragged into a nearby hole later? Does Sylar have a power I missed where when he falls down no one can see him?

"Is there a Christian religious civil war? No. Is there a western religion invested in Genocide and re-occupying, previously occupied terrority? I don't think so."

Not at the moment, though Ireland is a very recent example and repeatedly over the last 500 years (Catholics vs. protestants in Europe for hundreds of years etc.). Those events were no more "Christian" than today's events in the Middle East are "Muslim." They are triggered by historical forces, not scripture. Such violence gets triggered during massive shifts/loss of power, or when an entire generation senses an injustice at the hands of 'the powerful.' Books don't control people; people control books.