First of all, I like the way this morsel picks up where the last one on the topic, the daily breakfast of newsummary served up to the President, leaves off with a reference to Adam Nagourney's piece.

That message meme -- Republicans are corrupt and incompetent, but Democrats are in message-disarray, and that is worse when it comes to getting elected -- is undoubtedly out there, and does not cut in our favor. But a bit of jujitsu yields an important part, I think, of an honest response to what Mehlman and Nagourney (Nag Our Ney?) are implying in common:

Yes, the Republicans have a point: You can hardly claim your superior competence loudly if you can't competently, as measured ultimately by elections, create and manage successful political efforts -- if your campaigns of whatever sort don't ultimately produce. If you can't demonstrate that you can win a relatively free and fair election regularly, you look castrated.

And worse, it feels like there may be something to that argument, however much one may despise what politics has (generally speaking) become in this country.

But there is a way to turn it around -- perhaps a very obvious one, but forgive me. Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that Republicans excel at the noble art of politics. Let us try to be magnanimous, even, about that proposition; let us set aside for a moment its absurdity.

Let us then reframe the argument thus: The Republicans excel at politics, at playing the game, and the cunning and power it generates is what fundamentally excites their political urges and their ambition to work in the field. And Democrats are given to somewhat different motivations and skills: They aspire to actually be in government, to govern, to set wise policy aiming to give the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Republicans (remember, we've just generalizing here) despise government, and therefore despise the act of governing, deny it any beneficence.

Let's just admit it, stipulate to it for the sake of argument: OK, so you grabbed me and gave me a double-wham backslam in the Pro Politics Wrestling ring. Let's concede that, and just focus on moving the discussion to the only two subjects that ultimately matter: What specific, legisliciable problems and solutions would you vote for, and why? Try to move directly to that subject, and let the questions be asked for all to hear through the media amp.

My $0.02, anyway.

for your kind words. I think you're dead right about the endangered moderate Repubs compromising on many distasteful issues in order to have the benefit of the win-at-all-costs Repub machine on their side when they find an issue they want to win with.

And while I'm at it, I applaud you -- thanks to the magic of Salon's "read other letters by..." function -- for bringing my attention back to Sen. Byrd's incredibly prescient words (published in Salon) regarding the fatefully flawed Iraq Resolution in 2002. Everything he feared and foresaw came true, and then some. No one can say we weren't warned -- at least no one who bothered to read beyond the Administration's talking points.

What a disaster we've wrought. And the timid or opportunistic Dems in the Senate had no small part in it. Shame on them, and shame on us all. History will assuredly not look kindly at either party's actions in the early years of the 21st century. I just pray History recovers enough to allow us to look back on this as a dark time for our nation. We may not be so lucky, but for the sake of my children and this country I still love, I pray every day that History will be able to see this for what it was.

Keep fighting the good fight.

If there is any justice, both your letters will receive the coveted star in the morning.

EIther way, I applaud them. If time allowed I would attempt to take them further. As it is, being bound for bed, I simply thank you for your lucid distillation of the essence of Peter Singer and his arguments about food. It's not an easy position to attempt to live by, but nor are his arguments difficult to understand. We know them intuitively, even if we don't want to. It doesn't make every word that he writes right, but it does mean that he's tapping into a fundamental, simple truth about the basic set of moral rules we live by, one that competes with only a handful of similarly fundamental truths, and that he's an elegant spokesperson (on the whole) for his chosen perspective.

The point is not whether you eat a chicken tomorrow. A lot of chickens will be eaten tomorrow regardless of whether you do. The point is whether you (and by you I mean we, all of us) begin to wake up to the complex and quite painful ethical implications of nearly every little thing we do. It's quite a burden to bear. It's sometimes hard to justify, from certain ethical standpoints anyway, why it's worth it to attain such an understanding; what if the only effect of it is to increase the affliction of my own conscience? And like the early Neo in The Matrix, even when you're earnestly seeking after an explanation of the world you're living in, it's very tempting to hesitate -- even to refuse, at least for awhile -- before taking the red pill that strips away all the nearest, most ingrained illusions.

Slight snarkiness notwithstanding, I appreciated your labors in answering some of the issues raised by others, particularly with reference to the difficult question of professionalism and hockey.