The question keeps coming up how can more votes be cast than voters going to the polls. Actually, this is also the reason for the ballots "in the trunk of the car" story too.

It's pretty simple really. In Minnesota absentee ballots are driven to the precinct where they would have voted normally. Once there, they are machine counted.

I've heard that someone would like to have an independent group look at the ballots and like that. The board who did the challenged ballots was made up of four judges and the Secretary of State of Minnesota. Two of the judged were from the Minnesota Supreme Court and were appointed by the current Republican governor. Another of the judges was appointed by Jesse Ventura as I understand it the final judge was elected in a non-partisan election. Only the SOS is identified as a partisan, Democrat Farm labor.

I know that this information won't stop all the insanity surrounding this issue, but it's an honest try.

Starrs, I guess you didn't read my ppost about the ballots being driven to the polling places. Either that or you are unable top understand that the story of ballots from the trunk of a car is absolutely false. But then again what else would I expect...

If you took the time to look at Norm Coleman's filing to the Minnesota Supreme Court you would find that the numbers really didn't shift much. It was more about rejected ballots being counted.

"Minnesota allows early voting. You can vote twice. Absentee or early votes cannot be traced properly and do not reach the precinct in a timely fashion or secure manner. This was absolutely verified."

-- St. Clair

Do you work hard to be this uninformed? The absentee ballots are driven to the individual precincts where the absentee voter would vote. They are checked against the roll of those who have already voted. If you already voted, you're absentee ballot is rejected. If you don't believe this, ask yourself why that is one of the 4 reasons to reject an absentee ballot.

that the concept that torture is ok because it worked in some situation. If this is the case, let's get rid of that useless part of the Constitution that says the people have the rights.

While we're at it, let's think seriously about killing people if their usefulness to the government is lessened. We could use forced sterilization and outright kill people who don't meet "Our governments needs".

We should think about doing away with political parties and dissent of all kinds. After all the government will "always do what is right", there's no need for us to worry our little heads about things like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Government will decide these things for us.

For it is the leaders of our government to decide what we need to know and what we do not. It the duty of the government to decide which rights we need and which rights are just too much of a burden to be allowed to the unwashed masses of us.

Because the government is all knowing and all seeing, just like Orwell wrote.

will be the Wooly Mammoth. Because they are in danger of becoming extinct if they continue on their current path.

Some years ago the right wing was busy attacking the left over what they called "situational ethics", the idea that you decide what is moral and right based upon the desired outcome. Now the likes of Dick Cheney are saying that we should forego our long established code of behavior because it saved lives.

So Cheney's logic states that torture is OK to obtain needed or wanted information based only on some belief that you will obtain what you desire. My questions is these; How far can we take this? Can we torture citizens if we believe it will save a life? If not, how many lives do we need to save? Can other countries use this same logic? Can it be used by them against our citizens and troops? If we believe it's needed can we use torture against those people and citizens that don't have he same political beliefs as we do?

I guess I want to know what limits are we ever going to put on governments to protect the people.

Katherine and TR are the only thing that Grey's Anatomy has going for it. Ever since the "Fag" comment and the departure of a really big A$$h0l3, their rolls have been cut to nothing and my enjoyment of the show has become far less.

Mer and Der are less than the "stars" of this show. This show has a truly ensemble cast show. No one and I mean no one carrys that show. No one and I mean no one is the "Star".

I have to wonder why Shonda has decided to cut these two excellent actors out. Is her anger over the firing of a single actor such that she would sacrifice a good show to her own fit of pique.

I almost enjoyed your column this time, but you had to spoil my good feeling with a completely asinine comment about the actor from Grey's. Once again you've shown me that you have your head in a very dark place.

Izzie will have a great career after she leaves the show, and be a great success. O'malley will have a career that many of the actors on the show could only dream about. And do you want to know why? It's because they are TALENTED. To bad you are not so lucky.