For starters, the possibility of faithless electors should alone stimulate reform. Like any problem that might happen, albeit with a low probability, this is a problem that will eventually happen. Eventually we'll have somebody who wins enough states on Election Day to, in theory, have enough electors to win the vote in the Electoral College, and then some candidate will "find a way" to get a few faithless electors to turn coats.

As for the rest of the debate, we need to clarify the terms we are using here. The problem is not the divide between "small states" and "large states", but rather between urban and rural states. It seems a bit ridiculous to call Alaska a "small state", but Alaska's disproportionate influence in the Federal government is exactly the problem here.

As for Calvin Coolidge (this is in response to the another letter), it is true that he was born in Vermont, but he rose to fame as the Governor of Massachusetts. If birthplace were considered, after all, our current President would be considered not a Texan, but a Connecticutter!

Seeing as there is absolutely no defensible reason to pass a law whose purpose is to immunize people who violated previous laws, support of telecom immunity makes for a good litmus test to judge legislators of either party, as well as pundits in the media. Anybody who comes out forcefully in defense of the telecoms is on the take. There is no defense plausible. What does a congressperson say to the voters: it was important for me to allow these companies to violate the law and listen to your private conversations?

This is the kind of issue that would kill in polling, if any polling institute had the interest in asking such a question. (The relative obtuseness of pollsters will have to wait for a later discussion.)

I think we should call Shooter "Square Pegs" because whatever you say to him, he has to change the shape of the argument before it goes into his head, and then when it comes out, it looks remarkably different from what you thought you said.

I bet he thinks he's really clever, uncovering "contradictions" in what other people say. But the contradictions only exist because he doesn't really understand the other person's arguments.

But I have to admit, it does get tiresome explaining to a person that, no, your philosophy is not inconsistent. The constant waves of false interpretations of what one says would get tiresome.

That is, if I ever thought debate with Shooter were worthwhile.

The gap between what the public thinks the government is doing and what the government is actually doing has never been larger. We will continue to have shows like today's hearing, where the nominee of the Attorney General of the United States cannot seem to figure out if the President has the legal authority to imprison American citizens on US soil even absent due process, as long as and until people start losing elections for being too authoritarian.

The last bit is up to the candidates and representatives, but it's also up to the people of the US. If the people of the US choose to avoid reality and hide behind daddy figures, the constitutional system will crumble into nothingness. It really will all come down to individual choices.

I find it curious that John Anderson has faith in physics. I know professional physicists who do not have faith in physics. They do not say "this is true and we believe it". They instead always qualify every explanation they give with the theory and evidence which supports it.

Until I understood that absolutely every proposition is falsifiable, I did not understand science at all.

Faith takes the opposite tack: it enumerates truth claims and categorically rejects any and all attempts to subject said truth claims to rigorous review.

This dichotomy is one of the reasons atheists become so annoyed with religious people who insist that atheism is itself a religion. Do not the people who make this argument realize that they are belittling their own intellectual foundation, by making it an inevtiable default?

Just how offensive this law is to a significant portion of the rank and file of the Democratic party. They really seem to be blithely unaware that literally millions of Americans have serious ethical issues with the practices of the Bush administration that have entailed flagrant lawbreaking. Why on Earth are leaders of the Democratic party complicit in these shenanigans?

The answer is simple: money.

The question is whether the leadership thinks that the party can work in this atmosphere. Personally, I'm all for a leadership purge. The complete rejection of the concept of "rule of law" by everybody in power is utterly nauseating.

King, you say Manny Ramirez had no thought of throwing home on the Lofton play. You may be making this statement based on his post-game interview with Chris Myers. It was clear to me that Manny and Chris were talking about two different plays. Myers asked him what he was thinking on the Lofton play and Manny replied that he knew that he should have called off Lugo and taken the ball himself. Manny was not talking about the hit with Lofton on second, but rather the pop-up by Lofton that Lugo had misplayed by going way too deep into the outfield. After Manny said this, Myers sailed past the fact that what Manny said made no sense in response to his question (probably thinking "Hey, it's Manny Ramirez, it doesn't have to make sense") and asked the follow-up question of where he was going to throw the ball. At that point, Manny had a confused look in his eye. He is thinking "why would I throw home when Lofton is going to second?" So of course he would throw it to second, which is what he said.

It's kind of funny to watch people talk past each other, but I'm surprised more people didn't catch this point of confusion.