Gee, Garrison, I thought you liked us. I've seen you in Alaska a couple of times and you always spoke of us fondly. You'd let us be run by Halliburton?

Here's a better idea--we secede from the U.S., nationalize the pipeline, and start a bidding war between China, Japan and the U.S. for our natural resources.

Or, even better, we'll join Canada and in about ten years, start selling water to California. Then we'll buy Halliburton....

"If we'd had today's Congress during Guadalcanal, the number of people who had said, 'Beating the Japanese is too hard, let's find a negotiated peace,' would have been amazing."

This is utter bullshit. World War Two and today's conflict are totally different and Gingrich knows it. His use of such jingoistic talking points only reinforces the fact that he's not that different from the rest of the Republican candidates and that his place as "the most intellectually intriguing figure on the Republican right" is firmly established primarily in his own mind.

After all the crap Berkley Breathed has taken for Opus, it's about time that someone shovels some of the same onto these two rodents. At least Opus is silent--the voices of these two are more annoying than Roseanne's version of the National Anthem.

It's emblematic of their imperial delusions, yes...

This is precisely why it's important to stay on this issue. It's easy to grasp for those without a legal education and as such, is a perfect wedge into the armor of lies and misdirection that the Bush administration has used to protect itself from the will of the American people for the past six years.

This is not a partisan issue. These criminals are deliberately ignoring and trampling on the Constitution of the United States of America for their own gain and it's time for every true American, Republican, Democrat and independents alike, to stand up and shout, "ENOUGH!"

...it's against us. Iraq was the tipping point, the perfect storm neocons needed to remove civil liberties, selectively ignore the Constitution, and lay the groundwork for the most massive change in American political structure since the New Deal. As debate lay gasping (thanks for that image, Amity), they encouraged us to circle its crib with shiny pacifiers, warm milk, and fuzzy blankets, and try to quiet it even further, when what we should have been doing was grabbing it up, slapping its back and getting it breathing again. They scared us stupid and we've stayed that way.

The awakening we seem to be undergoing now has been triggered more by the ineptitude of the leading cabal, rather than by our own realization that things are damn near FUBAR. Are we at last finally sick of hearing about the "Homeland;" fed up with the scorn and abuse our "leaders" heap on us daily--for what else can you call the bullshit that passes for the daily press briefing in the White House--and willing to do something about it? We've already allowed too many of our rights to be taken from us. Stand up and start demanding that we get them back.

I propose that the boring and unengaging opening to John from Cincinnati be stricken from the list and replaced by the incredibly hot Jonny Quest.

And Dead Like Me with its hilarious use of the reapers (in a laundromat--OMG) deserves honorable mention at least.

Last time I checked my biology texts, brown bears were listed as omnivorous, not coprophagous.

Oh, good, another pajama patrol troll-do those things come with the little feet or do you get your mommy to sew them on for you?

You're focusing on the medium, rather than the message. Just because someone you don't agree with finances a study does not invalidate its conclusions.

Try this site for a different view of the Lancet study--and where was it definitively discredited again?

http://www.stats.org/stories/how_media_lancet_iraq_oct13_06.htm

Yes, Santos, I agree that people should read the judge's opinion (rather than a newspaper's version of his decision). Then go to www.realclimate.org for an interesting discussion by climate scientists and informed readers about the so-called nine errors. Just like the science of climate change, the British decision is much more nuanced and complicated than your points suggest.

For example, the lawyer for the guy who brought the suit "was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus." The judge agreed with an expert's statement that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Someone asked: How do we know who to believe in such complicated matters? Gee, I like to do some of my own reading of sources, consider the peer-reviewed science, weigh the motives and credibility of whoever is commenting, and meditate upon what would be worse--if the climate scientists are right or the deniers are right. (Such horror at the thought that we might need to consider the effects of unchecked consumption!)

And sorry, but people who make sweeping pronouncements based on their "gut instincts" or "common sense" or political bent or the amount of snow in their yards this winter are not skeptics. Skeptics are open-minded, seek out valid information (not opinions), and are willing to change their minds based on evidence.

So thanks for this useful article, Salon. For an eye-opening look at what the social, political, and geographical effects of climate change might be, look for a report called "The Age of Consequences" written by scientific, political, and security experts.

Oh, yes, the judge's ruling is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html