What was the old saw? That "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged"? What is the converse of that, that "an authoritarian who has a family member abused by authoritarians may develop a conscience?" The idea is that once it's personal, things tend to change.

It isn't necessary to impugn Guy Fleegman, one of the great focal characters of modern parody.

The problem always presented by Tiberius' choice of name here was the absence of nuance: James T. Kirk always had qualities of morality, intellect, doubt and empathy entwined with the bravado, and the guy writing here as Tiberius always seemed to have missed those episodes. But with today's GG column, something seems to have registered. That's maybe progress, for today it's progress. I can't help but to commend Tiberius' candor today, though I'm sure Tiberius understands there's an implicit "it's about damn time" in there, too. We won't let Palin ban your books, if you ever find a publisher. Well, maybe in Alaska, where she'll still be governor.

Based on these developments, I guess it's only Dick Cheney who truly has no soul.

Good work, Glenn.

and your screen name is from Captain Kirk's middle initial, isn't it? I like that about you, that and your posts here today. Won't commit beyond that, of course. Couldn't resist.

Oliver North is an imbedded Fox reporter.

But why not? John Yoo has been published by the Wall Street Journal within the past six months. As if he was a respected expert about constitutional law. The man advocates torture.

Oliver North admitted he is a liar and that he felt no remorse for flagrantly lying to Congress because he thought himself smarter and more "correct". George W. Bush disregards the Constitution because it's "inconvenient" for him to respect it, Congress lets him, and John McCain is running for President on the ground that "9/11 changed everything" such that respect for or adherence to the principles of the Constitution is not only inconvenient, it is a bad idea because "9/11 changed everything", even though 9/11 did not happen due to any sort of informational gap caused by constitutional principles, but rather by flagrant incompetence in assessing or responding to the information already gathered within the framework of the constitutional principles now under attack. Is the media concerned about that?

Oliver North is a "respected journalist at Fox News". What else do you need to know? Oh, except that (1) we are Americans and (2) the people killed over in Afghanistan are not. Nothing to see here, move along.

Alex, not every statement is a cause for despair and not every comment by which Biden compliments somebody constitutes an admission that the Republicans must win.

You are such a tool. And so consistently. They're right, whatever you're being paid, it's too much.

He said "Lipstick"! Burn him! I'm going back to bed.

Freud might have said "sometimes a pig is just a pig", but if this brouhaha is allowed to continue to be a brouhaha much longer in the media, could somebody please thank Woody Allen for "I'd call [them] sadistic necrophiliacs, but that would be beating a dead horse." (from What's Up Tiger Lilly?")

At least nobody is accusing anyone of putting lipstick on an "uppity" pig, that was so last week and was of no real interest to any of the concerned right wing blowhards from the hastily-formed Anti-Pig Defamation League [in organization] these days.

Might the media focus somehow manage to shift a little bit to look at New-Mayor-Palin's-First-Agenda-Item (banning books), or is the ABC News piece linked in the latest "update" here consciously part of Friday's "taking out the trash" so ABC can bury it under a pile of pig slop and say, in the future, they "investigated" the story but nobody was "interested"? This is released as a Friday morning piece? There's no interview of any "constitutional scholar" or even a Democratic Party official to get any reaction? Maybe there's some relationship between this person's first instinct upon obtaining -- what did she call it in her speech? -- "real responsibilities" as an elected official, and using those instincts in her official capacity to see about banning books, that might provide some insight into whether she is fit to be Vice President of the United States? Or is the possibility of some kind of relationship between being in power and how one perceives Constitutional principles too subtle and obtuse to be mentioned?

But truth has a well known liberal bias, doesn't it? That was Colbert, wasn't it? He's the last man standing.

Self interest is what motivates the media? Why didn't we figure this out before?

OK, here's what we do: let's take up a collection, pass the hat, and we can all offer Brian Ross a nice honorarium and a speaking engagement, and he can tell us what government officials told him in 2001 that there was bentonite in the anthrax that probably meant it came from Iraq.

It's pay for play. Now we understand.