I beg to differ with the criticism of my earlier post. In this Ohio county, we are individually handed an encoded access card to insert into the Diebold voting machine as we prepare to vote. It is entirely similar to the process of conducting banking via an ATM.

Both machines process "transactions", and both record those transactions electronically and as hard copies on paper (in my county, with the ability to compare on-screen voting intentions with the preliminary paper record, before confirming that your choices were correctly transcribed).

Certainly, there has been a lot of preliminary preparation to affirm I'm who I say I am, prior to using an ATM -- but we are also required to provide a photo ID or some other identification in Ohio before voting. Again, not too different from ATM banking.

I certainly affirm the necessity for hard copies, and again say: If ATM-like technology, transferred to voting machines, lacks adequate security or reliability, then ATMs are likewise insecure. How hard can it be to follow the same practices for voting machines as we do for ATMs?

Banks would NEVER accept insecure, unreliable ATMs -- it just wouldn't happen.

The mind boggles at the inability to address this simple observation.

I, for one, am completely disgusted with any expectation that being a member of Congress is a five-day-a-week commitment. I mean, come ON! What kind of employer would expect its employees to keep regular hours, actually being on the job five days each week?

The next thing you know, somebody will suggest that they punch a time clock!

The NERVE of some people! It's just appalling to think that representatives or senators should have to tear themselves away from quality time with their families in order to actually DO THEIR JOBS -- like oversight of the executive branch, etc. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Who can begin to remember all the different things he's said about what his job as President is?

Dubya's been the "decider", our national "comforter", a "uniter, not a divider", a "war-time President", on and on and on. Now it's his job to "absorb recommendations", and then react in a timely way, whatever THAT means.

A truly depressing thought just occurred -- I know EXACTLY what job George W. Bush has had for the last six years. He's been our national "catalyst". Everyone remember from chemistry class what a catalyst is? It's something that causes or speeds up chemical reactions, but IS ITSELF UNCHANGED IN THE PROCESS. After a few fleeting highs and far too many shattering lows for our country since taking office, it's hard to point out any significant changes in the Current Occupant -- our Catalyst in Chief.

Say what you will about Dubya, he is almost completely inert and unchanging -- resolute, dogmatic and stubborn. He thinks these are signs of commitment and character; the vast majority of Americans see them as signs of ignorance, foolishness, stupidity and generally mule-like behavior.

Once again for those of us who apparently are a little slow -- WHY does the news media engage in this infuriating business of reporting what unnamed "sources" or "spokesmen" say about major issues?

I subscribe to the idea that anonymous letters generally should be relegated to the old "circular file" -- i.e., the TRASH CAN. How, exactly, did this tradition begin, allowing high officials, who after all are public employees, to speak authoritatively, yet still OFF THE RECORD? Why doesn't the fact that such officials won't back up their words by going on the record lead to the trash bin for their comments?

Yes, yes -- I know the obvious response will be that "anonymous" isn't necessarily the same as "false"; sometimes it's actually closer to the real truth. So then, shouldn't we want to know that truth, by whatever means? It's a hard argument to refute, but I still hold to real candor and accountability as the ideal. (Insert your favorite joke about "Snow jobs" or GOP spin control here.)

Still, CBS News obviously knows who this White House "spokesman" is -- how come we can't know too? Why won't our media just say NO, and refuse to engage in this dance with anonymous sources?

Everyone should be sure to read both articles on the main Salon site today dealing with the ISG -- Walter Shapiro and Sidney Blumenthal address many of the points made by Mr. Hinman.

Bottom line from which we need to proceed:

1. The war of choice in Iraq was a huge mistake. (Commonly held opinion)

2. Conduct of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan has been, again, a colossal mistake, and has certainly made things worse. (Also commonly held opinion)

3. Now that we've broken and now "own" both Iraq & Afghanistan, what is the best (or least awful) course to follow in future? What level of "success" CAN we achieve, and how do we do it? Obviously, this is the crux of the policy debate, and simple solutions or bumper sticker philosophy won't be sufficient.

Let's hope that the apparent brush-off Dubya and his cronies are delivering to ISG won't stick.

Final point -- can we, once and for all, abandon the empty and meaningless phrase "war on terror"? Terror is not an enemy; it is a tactic. You can militarily battle physical enemies, but cannot do likewise with ideas or tactics. Even if you accept the concept that we are opposing Islamofascists, you aren't "fighting terror" -- you are fighting individuals or armies.

...we'll have Tony Snow doing an Olympics-worthy routine right in the White House pressroom -- a backroll to a handstand, followed by a backhand spring twist, then nailing his final dismount. A perfect 10!

All of this, of course, will be in his successful effort to prove that Pres. Bush is not, in fact, disagreeing with his own assessment of Oct. 25 that his military strategy was going to work when he announced new tactics and strategies will be coming soon.

Olga Korbut and Nadia Comaneci in their prime had NOTHING on Tony Snow, even though he's 51 years old.