They have Joe Lieberman listed ahead of both Paul Krugman and Ralph Nader. They have Colin Powell listed as a Liberal, just because he had talks with Obama. And Chris Matthews. Clearly they have a big, big tent. But here is a most surprising entry: Gen. John Abizaid. What makes Abizaid an influential Liberal?

Far from being a declared liberal or Democrat, Abizaid is included on this list because of his reported comments about Iraq – backing a troop withdrawal – and, most recently, Iran. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," he said last month. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China."

So, by the Telegraph's standards, if you're sane, you must be a liberal!

Yes, the poor folks at the Telegraph are very confused. They include Lieberman as a liberal, though he supports attacking Iran. They include Gen. Abizaid as a liberal, because he opposes attacking Iran. Go figure.

And then there is Colin Powell, included because he associated with a Liberal (Obama). You see, to them it's a disease! Consult with someone on the other side of the aisle, and you're infected.

Strange stuff, but very entertaining.

The Packers, at 6-1, are not a middling NFC team, so of course the middling AFC team thing won't work! In fact I saw some commentary on ESPN somewhere that asserted that the Packers will make the playoffs but won't go much beyond. Given that the NFC playoffs involve NFC teams (duh), who, at that juncture, would stop them? Maybe Dallas, but I don't see anyone else. In fact the only hope for a competitive Superbowl, I think, is for the Packers to go all the way. It would be Favre's last game, very emotional, etc. etc., which might offset the titanic advantage of the PatriColts.

An operating system for all computers everywhere, one that's open source and owned by no one and maintained by everyone

Since Linux already fits this description to a tee (as someone else has aptly pointed out), what value does Android add, other than the dubious one of imposing a B&D development environment like Java?

I believe Paul's Constitutional argument against government run health care and education (among other things) is flawed. The Constitution's Articles and Amendments enumerates the procedures, structures and safeguards of our government, not its aims; the Preamble gives us an idea of what the governments aims ought to be:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Paul would have to convince me that running a national health-care system somehow violates the procedures set forth in the Articles of the Constitution, because it certainly is consistent with the highlighted passage in the Preamble.

That said, I do find Paul's approach refreshing and desirable. We need more candidates to do this.

Yea, I know: 53-40. But that's not the real story. It's even worse than that. There are two real stories here, and both involve unanimity in confirming someone who ought to be scorned either for their moral cowardice or their radical view on torture.

First, the Republicans were unanimous in voting for Mukasey. Lost in the "Democrats are wimps" subplot is the fact that not one single Republican stood on principle against torture. Not Arlen Specter, who talks the talk but fails to walk the walk. Not even ex-POW John McCain, who knows firsthand a thing or two about torture. To me, this unanimity in placing party loyalty above fundamental American principles is shocking and shows just how rotted the Republican establishment is.

Second, cloture was by unanimous consent. This is very important, because the cloture vote is the real vote and because if just one senator had objected to unanimous consent, then a roll call would have been taken and some senators who got to safely vote 'nay' knowing full well Mukasey would be confirmed would have had to put their money where their mouth was and vote 'nay' on cloture or be exposed. Why did not one single Democrat, not even Russ Feingold, demand a cloture vote?

It is men like Senior Chief Petty Officer Nance that make me proud to have served. When you have great power and authority, and yet are able to retain your basic humanity and morality and your respect for the human dignity of others, you have served your country honorably. What a contrast this man is to the unworthy men who run this country.

Of course waterboarding is torture. It shouldn't even need discussion. But as long as the Mukaseys of the world aren't laughed out of committee rooms, and as long as those who advocate its use aren't socially ostracized, we will need voices like CPO Nance's. Thank you, Chief Nance!

Can anyone explain the Democratic caucus rules on committee membership? Is there anything the caucus can do to remove her from at least one of these influential committees? (I'm not asking if they will, just if they can. The Democratic leadership has not shown that they have any will to do anything to oppose Bush.)

BTW, I heard Feinstein on NPR a week or so ago. She said she supported Leslie Southwick's nomination because she expected her Republican colleagues to remember this and support her legislative agenda. Courageous? No. She's unprincipled. And deluded: unless her legislative agenda matches the GOP's she'll have a long wait.