Wow, for people who constantly brag about being "smart" some of y'all are sure clueless. You've falling right into a Conservative-induced trap of using your own egos against you.

What Glenn is exactly saying is that Republicans have ridiculous stardards of judging people and situations that are used inconsistantly. Gleen is proposing to call Republicans on their bluff and SHOW (which I know is a surprise for some people here who think you just have to TELL "the rable" things in patrionizing tones) them how dumb THEIR OWN STADARDS by applying them equally (the main difference between what The R's do by applying the standards to certain people.) We babble about "hypocrisy" a lot, but this is WHY the right-wingers are accused of it; because they ASSume their own standards will be applied to everyone EXCEPT them. Glenn is showcasing what happens when those set of values are applied to the R's as well, to demostrate that the talking points are myths that no one can really live up to. By using their own standards against them, Democrats can then undermine the credibility of the republican talking points in general.

It's not "sinking to their level" (one of cliches used by people who seem to think that they are in fact "better" then the "commoners" and don't want to get their hands dirty) it's bring THEM back down to earth, from the lofty perch of unearned devinity where they think they are "above" their own standards. Or to point it in lay terms, Glenn proposes showing that, yes their shit does stink too (a lesson, I suspect that maybe some of the libtards needs to learn too.)

I disagree with those who say we shouldn't push the issue if it's true.

1) You guys are aware that many people can walk AND chew gum at the same time, right? If us liberals are smart we'd issue a multi-pronged attack on the Mccain/Palin bullshit machine on all levels. Not everything has to an "either/or" deal.

2) Attacking Palin on "personality" is important because that's what's she's running on! THAT'S the main reason Republicans think she'd make a great vice-president. Because she's a "hockey mom" with a cute disabled baby. That's what she's all about, and even THAT'S coming off as utter crap. By showcasing this to the American public (constantly! Not just once!) this will undermine her "credibility"(which is what you need to lie with impunity like she did) This will then show that she's actually about NOTHING, which will then...

3)Force THEM to "focus on the issues." If idiots like Palin and Mccain are just SO offended by this line of discussion, then they are perfectly free to move the conversation back to "the issues." The Conservatards talk about "personality politics" because they think they succeed at it. Mostly because weak-kneed Dems "taking the high road" (don't want to get our hands dirty) usually fail to point out that a Republicans personal life is typically shitty and filled with more skeltons than a graveyard so they don't have a leg to stand on there.

People, the Republicans are already working like crazy to put a meme out about Sarah Palin as an "all-American superstar" based on utter nonsense. If we don't put the "pitbull with lipstick" to sleep, she's going to leave a big steaming pile all over the country while her Republi-nut cronies pat her on the head and say, "good dog." (Yeah, sorry for beating that metaphor to death.)

The really odd thing about Prop 8 is that when you think about it, it's not REALLY about gay marriage at all. Instead the question is "Do you support legally sanctioned discrimination and inequality." I suspect too many "Yes on Prop 8" people think this is merely about their personal opinions on homosexuality. I would argue that REGARDLESS of what you think about two gay people having a relationship (and don't get me wrong, as a gay person I of course support it) It's just plain wrong to sytematically deny the rights of an arbitrary group of people regardless of how you feel about them. (After all, if civil rights were depended on white people liking or approving of us Black folk, then things like desegregation would never have happened!) I suspect many people in this country feel that way too, which is why the REAL question ("Do you support legally sanctioned suppresion of rights?") is obscured for the hand-wringing of "How do you feel about gay people marrying", which allows a person's personal feelings to cloud the fact that it isn't a justification for discriminating against people. Sometimes it's just a matter of clarifying the issue.

I understand this article is certainly well-intentioned and the overall point of consuming less is a worthy one. However, this comes across like one of those type of screeds where a pushy parents group complains about video game violence still using the original Mortal Kombat as a base of reference. It ignores current context. For instance, ARE people really going to Vegas in the same numbers today that they did before? Isn't tourism down in the city? (And as an aside, Mr Sirota, you ARE aware that foreigners visit "Sin City" too right? I mean I know some people here have fantasies that folks from Europe or wherever spend all their free time walking around the commune to their vegan poetry readings and wouldn't DARE visit such a tacky "American" city, but puh-leaze!) Likewise, who still drives Hummers? Wasn't that one of the reasons the "big 3" automakers had to beg congress for a bailout? Because people AREN'T buying their big bulky boxy tanks anymore? Here mass transit use has actually gone up. Retail trends show "us" consuming less not more.

Sorry but this article reads like the author dusted off a 6 year old article and tried to use it as a thesis for today without even taking the time to at least update the "They're all buying plasma TVs to watch American Idol...even though ratings are down" generalizations. Keep UP, people!