When asked by my government to provide information vital to the countries security I would do so unhesitatingly. To be subject to lawsuits based on fulfilling these requests, I would be stunned and saddened.

As a Patriot I would work my hardest to provide for my family. I would not expect the government to provide for my housing, health care or higher education. I will take care of those things because the government taxes my income to the least extent possible so I can provide for myself.

As a Patriot I will be proud if my children decide that they wish to join the armed forces to protect this country. If they are injured or killed I will grieve, but I will be strengthened that they gave themselves so others could enjoy the freedoms promised by our Constitution.

As a Patriot I will examine all issues on their merits and not just follow those who are charismatic. On scientific issues like global climate change I will seek out noted scientists on both sides and try to understand the issues causing differences in opinion.

As a Patriot I will try to be the best I can be.

Before we talk about science, I love the environmental radicals that labels all those who don't agree with their position as "deniers". This, of course, an attempt to classify this scientific debate in the same framework as "Holocaust deniers". That's reprehensible rhetoric.

1. The bedrock driver of anthropogenic climate change is that CO2 change and temperature change have coincided, thus CO2 must be responsible for temperature change. Careful look at the data shows temperature change occurs first, then CO2 change. See graph here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

2. Climate change models have been designed to agree with past temperature data. They have done a very bad job of predicting what will happen, however. They can't explain that temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

The science is too long to discuss here, but open minded individuals should read the following: http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf

Let's discuss the issues using facts, not ad hominem attacks.

Mean GIRL???

Sarah Palin is the nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States. She is the Governor of the largest state (area) in the United States.

You may disagree with her worldview or her politics, but she deserves respect.

The only way the public option can lower health care costs significantly is to have the new health politboro decide what procedures are cost effective. If an expensive surgical solution only gives a 20% better outcome than a medical solution, perhaps the surgical option won't be allowed.

Do you want statistical healthcare or do you want you and your doctor making decisions. That is the heart of the issue.

So let me understand Salon's position:

It's just fine to fire an Inspector General because his politics is to the right of the individual for whom he "serves at the pleasure of".

It's not fine to fire a columnist because his politics is to the left of the individual for whom "he serves at the pleasure of".

One case is justified, the other is somehow shady.

Any bias by Salon here? Just saying.