By definition, isn't membership in the "Hall of fame" based on being famous? If so,then Kurt Warner qualifies. If the qualification is longevity of fame, then he still qualifies, because he's been famous for a number of years.

In terms of playing football, Warner has won a "Superbowl," and played in two others, making him one-up on Brett Favre. Unlike Favre, he actually holds Super Bowl and NFL records. If records are famous, then he qualifies again.

There should be a hall of fame for people like Paris Hilton. The dumb cliche about her is that she is famous for being famous, but that's a tautology. You have to be famous in the first place in order to be famous for being famous. If I'm not mistaken, her fame began with a video. After that, it metastasized.

The whole argument is silly. You are who you are, no matter who you are. A hall of fame doesn't make anyone famous, or better, or smarter and wiser. Pete Rose was famous, then he became infamous, which I guess cancelled out his fame. Maybe there should be a Hall of Breaking Even.

It will be interesting to see if Obama learns anything from this episode. One thing he might learn is to keep Rahm Emmanuel from having any say at all in who is appointed to anything.

Another thing he might learn is that Rahm Emmanuel is toxic to his success. "Sharp elbows" aren't his problem. He's a power fanatic. The sooner he is gone, the better.

Obama is also leaving the door open to "extraordinary rendition" and torture. This is almost certainly because he doesn't have a footing in military and national security matters, and is being pushed around by his various advisers. He has no military experience, and because of this is easily manipulated.

Eventually, Obama will have what I call a "Bay of Pigs moment," when he realizes he has been played like a violin by the people around him, and will have to fire a number of them. The looming disaster in "Afghanistan"-"Pakistan" may well be that moment, but it is more dangerous than "Cuba" was in 1962. "Pakistan," a failing state, has nuclear weapons. Mess around in that region too much, and a real nuclear debacle may result.

It's worth mentioning that Michale Phelps also hasn't kidnapped anyone, hasn't tortured anyone, hasn't held anyone incommunicado, hasn't invaded anyone, hasn't looked the other way when warned of immanent attack, hasn't enabled the collapse of the economy, and hasn't turned the Justice Department into a club for political hacks.

I didn't get into the hype about Michael Phelps during the Olympics. I appreciated the performances, but the news media, especially NBC, interfered with the experience by making themselves and their hysteria the story. I was heartened by Phelps's story, though, especially that he had no help from his father. He also seemed like a really nice person, and a great teammate.

I think the mentality of Rupert Murdoch is the key here. I believe he is a true sociopath, and thrives on destroying anything or anyone that is pure of heart or does something for the betterment of mankind. This is a disease condition that we need to become more aware of, and learn to deal with it appropriately. If our fragile society is to survive and prosper in the future, then people like Murdoch should never rise to prominence.

Oh, I almost forgot. Marijuana, in general, is more a healing substance than a threat to our supposed social fiber. Like anything else, it can be abused, but it is the person who does the abusing. It can lead to meditation just as easily as to "harder" drugs. I think Michale Phelps will do just fine. He wouldn't have been able to win fourteen Olympic gold medals if he hadn't developed a superb capacity to focus. It's a natural high.

Great stuff! I was amazed at how Aykroyd made himself look like Boehner. I think the dialogue is finally starting to move towards the view of "the right," "conservatism," and "Republicanism" as cover for a criminal operation. They have proven time and time again over the past few decades that they don't care about the welfare or betterment of the country. They care only about the material and emotional betterment of themselves.

The chief impediment to seeing "conservatives" for what they really are is the addiction and shortsightedness of "progressives," "liberals," and "leftists" to view themselves as the lateral opposites along a supposed linear continuum. If the "right" is really a criminal element, then what is the "left?" The "law-abiding" element?

The only way out of this ideological pretend is to invent a vertical model of human interaction. Decency and reciprocity are not the other "side" of greed and avarice. They are superior virtues. International mutuality is not the opposite of empire. It is above empire.

Criminality in government, to the surprise of many, is not the exclusive domain of "Republicans." As Glenn Greenwald and others point out on a regular basis, one of the chief reasons our credit system is so criminal and will continue to be is that virtually all members of Congress are on the take from Wall Street financiers. That makes them criminals. They should all be out of office now. But wait, let's debate "left" versus "right!"