"Right. Starvin' folks in Africa. That's terrible. Now...where is that exactly?"

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems remarkable to me that none of your experts suggested the possability that Fitzgerald might be willing to offer Libby immunity, at least to some of the charges, if he's willing to turn state's evidence. The number of charges would definately give the Fitzgerald the opportunity to offer immunity to, say, the obstruction and perjury charges and hit him with the presumably lesser false statement charges. Given the degree of professional secrecy that Fitzgerald has shown, anyone who claims to know what he's planning is probably wrong, but this seems a logical possability to me.

In the 18th century, many different denominations were actually pushing the government to outlaw Christmas all together. They held that the revelry, public drukeness and hooliganism was antithetical to a religious holiday. The further argued that there was not evidence of the nativity happening at that time of year anyway, and that the day was merely an occasion to engage in lews acts. It wasn't until the 19th century saw Christmas become a secular holiday encouraged by a newly industrialized mercantile class that Christmas was accepted by christian luminaries as an important and valid holiday. Ironically, if were were to really return to the "good old days," then we'd be more likely to see the poor agressively demanding food, spirits and other gifts from the incredibly weathly Bill O'Reily and others. Ah, to be back in the good old days.

Majority rule does not a democracy make. If we are to be a democracy, a government that was originally conceived as one that was free from tyranny, then we must preserve the ability for the minority voice to be heard. Without some mechanism for the minority to make their voice matter, and all the fillibuster does is voice dissent and dely action, then we are left with the tyranny of the majority. There is no justice there, there is no wisdom there, and there is no liberty there. There is only the whim of the mob, easily swayed by demogogues and propagandists towards their own selfish ends. Respect and protection for the voice and the rights of the minority are central values that have been held since the earliest days of this American experiment. Childish partisan bickering and short shighted political games shouldn't prevent us from moving towards a more democratic government. And a right that exists only so long as the powerful consent to grant it is no right at all. If our elected representatives acted out of a commitment to their duty to wisely govern us, and not to simply preserve their own careers, then they would act with the courage of their convictions, stand up and be counted for what they believed in. However, as the recent corruption scandals have shown, we shouldn't expect our "leaders" to act as though governed by their convictions, but rather, by their wallets.

My wife and I have three cats. We're actually pretty obsessive about doing what we can to improve their quality of life as well as their life expectancy. We know that cats who are let out tend to die younger, especially near a busy road like the one we live on. However, our three beasts are content to go for walks on a leash to get some time in the fresh air. We take them to a vet that specializes in cats. We don't declaw. I even put up with a ton of bird crap on our porch thanks to the feeder we put in to keep them stimulated (that's right, I feed birds to entertain cats). However, we don't do the raw food thing. We feed them high quality kibble, and they really like it. Our youngest feline will actually chase it across the room and pounce on it if you give a piece a toss. The oldest likes to steal bits of pastry, bread or crackers from us, given a chance. He even likes it better than deli meat or cooked chicken. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's what they like.

Mark Twain once said, "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." He might well have been speaking at the democratic conventions from 1992 through 2004. There is this bizzare fallacy that if there are two sides to any disagreement, to take the position in the middle is invariably both virtuous and wise. This is foolishness. If it is noon, and your opponent says that it is midnight, it is neither wise nor virtuous to take the moderate position that perhaps it is dusk. To do so will encourage all who hear your proclaimation to believe that you are a fool or a liar or a coward. None of these qualities are the qualities of leaders. Moderation is not a political virtue. It is the art of slowly giving way completely to your opposition, while convincing yourself as you go that it was your idea. Our public discourse is so confused as to what makes a moderate that we consider John McCain to be a moderate. He's not. He has a very conservative record. However, he is a man of conviction who will not yeild his position when he believes that he is correct. This makes him a leader. Hillary, however, is an ambitious viper, best regarded as some sort of anthropomorphic straw poll of political advisors. Thank God that someone with a national voice had the sense to point that out to the many who can't see it. It is the duty of our elected representatives that they act with the courage of their convictions. That's why they were elected. Those who fail to meet this standard should be replaced.