While some of us worry about how we look when we accidentally over-share our peers, and our upcoming younger peers, are busy getting on with life and mostly not caring about privacy.

I suspect that a world in which we just don't care who is sleeping with our friends, or who accidentally forwarded a scat video, will be a world where we get more done.

Social network privacy options are not very granular because mostly granular privacy options make the applications less social, less useful, and less entertaining.

With respect, while we are in an extreme economic downturn which will most likely lead to continued major restructuring, and while we certainly could fall into a major depression and complete social collapse, we are currently nowhere near 'economic Armageddon.'

The article says "Total assets on the books for all 19 together comes out to about 11 and a half trillion. The four biggest banks control a little over 7 trillion, or about 63 percent."

7 trillion is 63 percent, so the total is 7 trillion/.63 = 11.1 trillion.

Add in the other 15 and you get 11.5 trillion. So the top 4 banks have 63% of the total, and the 19 banks being stress tested have 103% of the total?

Am I missing something here?

I would like Rossmeier, and Salon in general, to treat the arguments of political opponents respect rather than snark.

Our current political debates build, by analogy and metaphor, on the past.

Huckabee believes that having life and death control in an abortion, as in slavery, makes the comparison valid. Rossmeier believes that the key distinction is the ability to buy and sell a slave.

Neither of those assertions a priori makes more sense than the other. The are both true. Both worthy of exploring for the ways in which they illuminate the subject.

How many of you are 9-11 'Truthers?' Or at least thought 'the terrorist attacks were a little too convenient' for Bush?

How many of you struggled with how to support our nation without supporting the actions of our then President?

Did you hope we would fail in Iraq? Were you horrified, but gratified, when Bush's military strategies failed?

We on the left tolerate a huge stream of deeply anti-American thinking and behavior when it is directed outward.

I think we need to stop giving any credence to the 9-11 truthers before we are in the moral position to criticize some wanker congressman for doing the same thing.

Why? Because 'a woman's right to choose' can be equally legitimately described as 'a woman's right to murder.'

This is not a simple matter of words, or of science.

There are pro-life people who are anti-sex and who simply want women to be 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,' but there are also a lot of people who like sex, who are not fundamentalists, and yet who are deeply troubled by the reality of healthy women with healthy pregnancies carrying healthy babies and then having an abortion.