The best part was my aunt calling from Valencia shouting with joy "¡Somos Campeones!"

What a tournament! Probably the best I have watched in a while. Few dull games, many more exciting ones, comebacks, great stories like the Russians and the Turks. And the best team won, wouldn't you know, playing an attractive fan-friendly attacking style. It says something that Spain had the most goals and allowed the fewest, as opening up the offense usually makes one vulnerable to the counter. And that UEFA selected 9 of their starters for their ideal 23 man team. And that Torres was the man of the match, Xavi the man of the tournament, and Villa the high scorer. Very impressive.

But the guy who must be enjoying this the most is their manager Luis Aragonés, who was on the receiving end of much criticism during his tenure, particularly from the Madrid based sports press for stubbornly refusing to select Real Madrid's Raul. Take that, guys!

Look folks, the majority of the country is not going to embrace a philosophy of tax increases, passivism, and taking away the 2nd amendment.

As opposed to what, exactly? Massive debt, juvenile aggressiveness and taking away the 4th amendment?

If Obama loses in November the FISA debacle will have been the turning point. To think that all Democrats had to do to safeguard the only and also most significant victory they had achieved so far is...nothing! They really really had to go out of the way to lose here.

I am so angry at the vile, unprincipled approach the Democrats are taking, exemplified by this sorry FISA capitulation, that I am very seriously questioning whether it makes any sense to vote for Obama (I'm not voting for McSame!), since at this point I believe the Democrats to be worse than useless. Since Bush came to office they have:

• Voted for the Patriot Act (while in control of Senate)
• Voted for the Authorization of force in Iraq (ditto)
• Voted for Patriot Act II
• Helped enact the Military Commissions Act
• Did nothing meaningful to oppose the confirmation of Alito and Roberts
• Took impeachment "off the table"
• Have failed in their oversight duties, and have failed to issue and/or enforce subpoenas (When asked about this, a Rockefeller aide told a group of us visiting his office that the Senator wished to keep relations with the Republicans "collegial")
• Are now about to expand the President's surveillance powers and retroactively immunize lawbreaking telecoms, according to the desires of this industry's lobbyists.

All this with the guy from the other party in the Oval office! What will they do when that guy is one of their own?

Given this sad record, if the Democrats really wished to "Move to the Center" then they should immediately start moving Left. There's still time before November...

...and they have nothing to do with guns and gun control; rather they have to do with how this decision was reached (btw, I own guns).

First, some of the justices who voted in the affirmative for this decision label themselves "strict constructionists" and Scalia has been know to rant on about "judicial activism." Yet they have just carved out a new right that I don't see in the Second Amendment: that the right to gun ownership is individual rather than collective. The phrase "well regulated militia" would seem to argue for a collective right, with restrictions. This same Scalia voted against allowing detainees the rights to habeas corpus despite our Constitution being quite clear on the matter. It seems that he is picking and choosing based on his political ideology rather than on strict interpretation of the Constitution (and his dissent in the detainee case was based on ideological considerations). But nothing new here, right?

Second, I'd like the Right to consider the other amendments in the Bill of Rights just as sacred--their word, not mine--as the Second Amendment. They should have equal standing. Imagine if all the Demorcatic Representatives in the House voted as a block to restrict the Second Amendment. How they would howl! But just recently all Republican Representatives voted as a block to restrict Fourth Amendment rights, in giving Bush all the unrestricted spying powers he wanted--and also immunizing telcos for past massive lawbreaking. (And as for the rights of assembly McCain spoke of, what about those "Free Speech" zones?) Where is the consistency here? Especially since one of the argument used by gun advocates is that we need them to counter an overbearing government; and yet these same people are the overbearing government. I'm not excusing the Democrats and Obama in any way for their vile behaviour with regards to the FISA bill. But it really is disappointing that only 1 Republican Representative voted against what is clearly a violation of our civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights. I ask again: Where is the consistency? Is the right to bear arms the only one Republicans care about? If so, they will soon lose it.

Yo Kirk, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Did I say "my beloved" Iran was driving up the prices?

Think just a little before spewing forth.