If I believed even for a minute that the "blue dogs" were opposing reform because of fiscal reasons, my outrage wouldn't be so extreme. But I am utterly convinced that that is simply not the case, and that these people are just protecting the insurance industry. I feel, strongly, that "fiscal responsibility" is merely being used as an excuse for opposition; if they were serious about it, they would be offering alternatives rather than simply blocking the legislation.

Just my view, of course.

I meant to be replying to Natty-J, not Houngan.

See what extreme outrage does to a man?

With regard to the fiscal responsibility of the "blue dogs," I would urge you to read Nate Silver's analysis over at Five Thirty-Eight: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/baucus-bills-bad-math.html.

I'm with you 100%.

I will say, though, that there are some Democrats who appear to have the courage of their convictions. Barbara Boxer, for example, has asked for "health care horror stories" that can be read on floor. Sen. Feingold doesn't bow to the insurance industry, either. If only there were more.

Good Lord, will this man ever grow a spine? He's got over 70% of the American public with him--what does he want, egg in his beer?

Can we please get rid of Reid and put someone with some cajones in charge of the Senate majority? Please?

Alex, you write:

I can't endorse Stark's ambush tactics, or the way some of the results have been played. The fact that some of the members Stark approached hurried away from him has been treated as evidence that the party's being held captive by the Birthers, but I just don't think it can be honestly seen that way: If you surprise a politician with a camera and haven't arranged an interview with them, they're going to want to get away immediately, regardless of the topic.

You know, I simply disagree. These people appear to work very, very hard at not being held accountable for the things that they do and say, and the votes that they cast. Chasing them down and embarrassing them on camera absolutely does not seem untoward to me. They wanted to be in public life, but not let the public know where they stand on an issue? Being made to look absurd is a fine way to remind them that they are public servants. I don't think it's too much trouble to simply stop and say to someone like Stark: "I'm sorry; I don't want to make an official statement on that at this time." How hard can it be?

Posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/douglas_moran/2009/07/29/black_men_white_columnists_and_comfortable_biases.

Just a couple of things (sans invective):

1) Many of the people who post and/or write letters here are 'way beyond the college-student stage. Grouping outraged reactions into the same category as hot-headed college students is, well, condescending at best, and dismissive at worst, it seems to me.

2) You still haven't addressed what I believe is the main point: that police in this country regularly abuse their power. Many innocent people, particularly minorities, have been tased or shot for little or no reason; many innocent people are hassled by policemen for being outspoken (or even jerks); many innocent people are carted off to jail to give them a "time out," although a "time out" is not a legitimate reason to do so. Yes, there are many, many upstanding, fine, honorable policemen. There are also policemen who are jerks, or even upstanding policemen who act like jerks and abuse their power for different reasons (e.g., being embarrassed). You don't seem to want to acknowledge that basic fact.

Hell, Gene, HuffPo had a video up just yesterday about a policeman who, having just rear-ended a motorist, was caught on tape trying to fix the facts so that motorist would be at fault. Dibgy has been chronicling abuses of the Taser for months. And it's far worse on minorities. Which your opinion piece seems to ignore. And I think that's one of the main bones of contention, at least for me.

So in all seriousness, why is being in a Fundamentalist Mormon marriage considered horrifically immoral and illegal, while being in a polyamorous marriage/relationship is just "an unusual lifestyle choice," or some such euphemism?

Yes, there are Fundamentalist Mormon marriages where there is abuse, where there is child molestation and statutory rape, and other problems. I am aware of that, and think those transgressions should be investigated, tried, and (if necessary) punished. I'm just saying, if "poly" is okay, so too should Mormon plural marriages. Otherwise, it's whacking big hypocrisy.

Why anyone should give any credence whatsoever to the creator of one of the most thoroughly discredited economic theories in the history of the world is beyond me.

Mr. Laffer is aptly named.

It's clear that Richard Wolffe desires to be the Democratic equivalent of Bob Woodward, leveraging his access to create fawning books, leading to more access.

Really, it's embarrassing. Is it that much of an ego-boost to be near a Great Man's flapper? (Look it up in Wikipedia; I'm reasonably sure Glenn is familiar with the term.)

I wonder--and posted about it myself--if the fact that the fury directed at Obama is so wild, so bizarre, so clearly a pack of lies, that it will backfire and stiffen the spines of Congress. Certainly Lloyd Doggett, bless his bones, is not intimidated by these wahoos. And I have heard a number of other Reps respond to this intimidation and lying with defiance, rather than fear.

One can hope.