The rending of garments and public agonizing over "what to do" about the proponents of torture continue to baffle me. How much simpler could this be? Torture is a war crime. Cheney (at least) has admitted that he approved of it. He is therefore and admitted war criminal and should be tried. How much more straightforward can it be?

This isn't about "criminalizing politics." This isn't about "finding the truth." This isn't about "helping heal the nation." This is about a pack of admitted criminals. We know what they did. They know (and admit!) what they did. If Cheney is so certain that what he did is legal, then he shouldn't worry about having to defend it.

Arrest them, accuse them, and try them. It's really that simple.

With regard to eBooks, I say to you: bushwah. I have been reading eBooks for years on the same platform, eReader, and have plowed through everything from Sherlock Holmes to The One Percent Doctrine to Neal Stephenson's latest 900+ page tome Anathem on the Tapwave Zodiac, the HTC Universal, and now the iPhone. My eyes have not exploded. My brain does not ache. I can carry a library around with me wherever I go, and I can read in bed at night with the lights out while my wife slumbers next to me. (While listening to "Kind of Blue" simultaneously.)

I would agree that for many people, the iPhone screen is simply not enough, and they need a larger "page". I personally think the Kindle is not a good device--I think backlighting and color are essential, and that the Kindle's keyboard at the bottom is, well, just plain silly. But eventually the market will converge on an electronic solution, and most folks will read eBooks. (I think a 4" screen is the right size, but no engineers have called up asking for my opinion, so what can one do?)

eBooks, like cell phones, are coming along slowly. One day, they will be ubiquitous. Doug Has Spoken. (For those who care.)

The question is, after maneuvers like this, along with her lack of oversight of the Bush Administration, her providing political cover for Chuck Schumer during the Mukasey confirmation process, and all the other political hack-work she's done, how is it that this lady manages to get elected?

She doesn't serve her party, her nation, or her constituency's best interests. Who exactly does Feinstein serve, other than her own ambition?

I think the press is in desperate need of other voices on Israeli-Palestinian issues, but I sure wish Salon would reach out to someone other than Juan Cole. Gary Kamiya--though he be not an "expert" in the Middle East and seems (to me, anyway) clearly to come down more on the Palestinian side of most issues--clearly tries (and often succeeds) to be even-handed.

Not so with Dr. Cole. Problems with Iran are Israel's fault. Problems in Iraq are Israel's fault. Problems in Egypt, Syria, Jordan are Israel's fault. And of course, and problems between the Palestinians and Israel is always Israel's fault. I honestly think that every Jewish Israeli could pull up stakes and move to East Bumfuck Brazil, corner of No and Where in the Amazon rain forest, and Dr. Cole would still blame the Israelis if the Palestinians were being badly treated by Egyptians and Jordanians back in the new, Jew-free Palestine.

There is no question Israel engages in Jerk Behavior. But lets not lose sight of the fact that the Palestinians do, too. Not to mention the Arab countries bordering Israel, who have a vested interest in keeping the Palestinians out of their own countries but continuing to be a problem for Israel. (The cynical manipulation of the Palestinians by leaders of the various Arab states is something that is far too lightly reported on.)

So yes, please, Salon: provide some of the balance that the MSM lacks. But I beg you: someone other than Juan Cole.

Mike Sulzer writes:

Who understood what the Iraq war would do, J. Cole or the neocons? In judging scholarship you look for knowledge combined with logical ability. The neocons have neither, and even if Juan Cole were a bad scholar he would be better than the neocons.

Mike, the people looking at the Iraq war cannot be divided up into people who agree with Juan Cole, and neocons. That's awfully reductionist. I can--and do--think that the neo-cons are a bunch of doctrinaire lunatics who have done incredible damage to this country, and I also think that Juan Cole is one of the most anti-Israeli (not anti-Semitic) Middle East scholars around. I don't trust the opinions of either one. Which is why I would prefer Salon to make a third choice.

This is very similar to how a lot of folks seem to prefer to look at the situation in Israel: do you support Israel, or the Palestinians? I support both, and also believe that Hamas (and Fatah!) and Israel have all exhibited penile encephaleptic behavior.

Middle East issues arouse passions, I know, but a little nuance would be helpful.

Let's hope Harry Reid was bloody well listening.

I'm so tired of Democrats not finding their collective spine until a Democrat is in the White House, I could just spit.

(Besides, since when do Republicans listen?)