... is "nuclear material that still has lots of useful energy left in it." If it's radioactive enough to present a significant long-term disposal problem, then it's radioactive enough to be recycled for further power generation. We need not only reactors, but breeder reactors, i.e. reactors which produce more usable nuclear fuel as part of the initial reaction. There's no technical obstacle to such devices, only a lack of political will and an absurd fear that the plutonium they produce -- an excellent nuclear fuel -- will somehow find its way into the hands of terrorists currently living in caves, and that in those caves they will somehow put together a Manhattan Project (Medina Project?) to refine the fuel and turn it into nuclear weapons. Which is a bit like refusing to go outside on a sunny day for fear you might get struck by lightning.

No it's not. A fair tax policy which leaves money in the hands of working families means a healthier economy, and that ultimately is what drives Wall Street. Any bailout plan -- and I do hope one is passed, in some form -- must take into account this simple fact: stocks don't create wealth, they represent it. And the wealth of the nation, of which stock prices in saner times are a pretty decent measure, is driven by the middle and working class.

McCain doesn't get this, of course. Obama does. Do you?

When Kennedy took office, the top marginal tax rate was almost three times what it is today (~90% then, 35% now). JFK may very well have been right at the time that it was too high and needed to be cut. One tax cut from a much higher rate may have been the right answer at one time; this does not mean that all tax cuts are the right answer all the time.

The Democratic Party has always been a big tent ("Do you belong to any organized political party?" "Hell no, I'm a Democrat!") and I don't think there's any rule that says you have to follow the party line on all issues to belong, or even to be a liberal Democrat as opposed to a moderate or conservative Democrat. For example, I have no problem calling myself a liberal Democrat and I think most people who know my politics would agree with me, but I'm also strongly pro-gun. On just about every other issue I can think of, I fall pretty much in line with the left-hand side of the Democratic mainstream.

But if you consistently oppose abortion and gun control and gay marriage and withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care and workers' rights and repeal of the Bush tax cuts and a foreign policy favoring diplomacy over war, etc., you're not any kind of Democrat; the word for what you are is "Republican." If you hold all these views and claim to be a liberal Democrat, another word for what you are is "liar."

Oh wait, I'm being redundant, sorry.

It's perfectly true that there are a lot of sophisticated theologians whose intellectual approach to faith has nothing in common with that of the idiots Maher mocks. But the problem with bringing this up as a defense against Maher's sarcasm is that the idiots outnumber the theologians by a million to one. The religion that most influences the real world is not the gentle faith of the Talmudic scholar or the Vatican philosopher; it's the blind fanaticism of the suicide bomber and the closed-minded ignorance of the creationist.

To be sure, there have been times when a deeper, more thoughtful faith has influenced the world for good -- Gandhi and King are the (ahem) canonical examples. But no matter how much good this sort of faith may do, it is far outweighed by the combination of violence, tribalism, and plain old stupidity we see in the name of God every day.

... because anyone who hopes that the Democratic candidate for the White House in 2012 isn't the incumbent President Obama has absolutely nothing of value to contribute to the conversation.

... like the fact that you're married to someone who is a member of, and have yourself addressed in an official capacity, a party founded on the principle of hatred for the United States of America. Or in other words:

Governor Palin, given your recent comments about Obama and Ayers, would you be willing to address the fact that your husband is a traitor?

(1) Voter caging.

(2) Diebold.

Both of these are far more likely to result in a McCain victory (and "surprisingly good" Republican results in Congressional elections) than any sudden, legimate change in voter sentiment. Neither has received anything like the media attention they deserve. If the election is held fairly, the Republicans cannot win, and they know this. The Bush regime has made the Republican attitude toward legitimacy and the rule of law very clear. It is only reasonable to conclude that they will try to steal this election

And if they succeed, I rather suspect that the chattering class will natter on about "Dewey beats Truman" rather than face up to the uncomfortable reality that we may no longer be living in a nation that bears any relation to the United States of America we grew up in except for its name.

As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has pushed a conservative social policy that includes abstinence-only sex education and panders to right-wing fundamentalists who regard premarital sex as one of the prime evils facing our society. There is no reason to believe that as Vice President -- and quite possibly President -- of the US, she will do anything but continue pushing these policies, now on a national level. The situation which her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend are in shows the hypocrisy of Palin's position and the total ineffectiveness of the policies she supports. What's not clear about this?