Since, in spite of a "healthy burst of paranoia," he didn't knuckle under.

And, DOJ backed off, like on the hard drive issue.

Because James Carse offers up a whopper:

And yet, you’ve just told me that you yourself don't believe in a divine reality. In some ways, your critique of belief systems seems to go along with what the new atheists are saying.

The difference, though, is that I wouldn't call myself an atheist. To be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe. That's a mode of being that has nothing to do with belief.

Send in the straw men, instead of the clowns, I guess.

This is one of the oldest stereotypes of atheists in the book – hard-headed rationalists who can’t appreciate the wonder of Yellowstone National Park, a Beethoven quartet, or whatever.

Absolute bollocks.

Veneman was HUGELY anti-regulatory and protective of Big Ag. Given that we’ve have just pushed through a totally unnecessary four-month odyssey to find the source of the Saintpaul salmonella outbreak – totally unnecessary if we had Canadian or EU-style agricultural product source and distribution regs – we’ve got a big irony alert and a jarring lack of political timing on this issue.

For instance, on the Muslim rumors, he claims he's caught on the horns of a dilemma -- either strongly deny them and make Islam look bad and himself a bigot, or let them ride, and gain traction.

WRONG.

Option 3 would be to confront the rumor-mongers as the bigots denigrating Islam, and do so forcefully.

Uhh, Glenn, 45 percent of House Dems voted FOR the FISA bill, including Pelosi herself. This is far more than a Blue Dogs issue.

An new variation on the canard that atheists can't really be emotional/poetic/"spiritual" about "X," because, well, because ....

THEY'RE ATHEISTS!

As a newspaper editor, I actually devoted a column to this once.

Boy, if THAT ain't a turkey of a pick. They won't pass either the Cowboys or the Gints.

In response to the last comment from "TJ's anti-rational blog," the reason two brothers don't marry, or a straight brother and sister don't, is that incest avoidance is a strong impulse in humans, and other species as well.

And, Francis Collins is "just saying," you know. He's not done one ounce of research on biological influences to homosexuality, whether genes, the womb environment (which we also can't control and neither, apparently, can your omnipotent "god"), etc.

And, that leads to another poster. Burton, in the article, CLEARLY STATED that researchers stated they cannot attribute the effect specifically to genes, instead of possibly to the womb environment. Try reading.

Beyond that, my main problem is NOT with "essentialism," which is often used as a club against legitimate scientific research, but two other problems.

One is the extremely small sample size, as here.

The other is the "loose" p-value of medical research vs. that in the natural sciences.

Had a physicist presented a study like this, it would have never sniffed a page of print.

To the degree that's still true, and true outside of AIDS cases, it's largely due to the repression and bigotry that still run through our society, courtesy of vicious, sterotyping haters like you driving many gays to suicidal-level depression, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

For someone who, I am guessing, allegedly believes in a religion of "love," you need to go back to Sunday School, confirmation class or whatever.

"There is no god, and I am his prophet."

Why is Sarah Palin rebelling against God over Troopergate?

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-rebels-against-god-over.html

If she has such character, why is Sarah Palin rebelling against God over Troopergate?

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-rebels-against-god-over.html

As is Obama's pandering for Jewish votes by misinterpreting, or worse, Ahmadinejad, per Juan Cole.

On the Senate side (and this is a Senate race, not a House race, Glenn), amongst the "Democratic leadership" that was part of the "FISA 45 percenters" was the titular leader of the party, one ...

Barack Obama.

I don't give a flying eff if he's running for Prez or not, he voted for the FISA bill. (I'm voting Green, anyway.)

Whether accidentally or deliberately, Glenn, you elided his name; please don't do it in the future.

Especially with the latest NSA allegations, Bamford's new book, etc.

Contrary to the image he weaves of Obama picking up the mantle of the more idealistic side of the Slickster and running with it:

• Recalcitrant Democratic senators helped kill Clinton's healthcare plan;

• He never presented Kyoto to the Senate or even considered it;

• Does “other profoundly important reforms” include Clinton’s part in the financial deregulation push?

• Democratic policies under Clinton may have slowed the rate of income inequality increase, but didn’t actually reverse that, and certainly not in any structural way.

In the end, I’m afraid that the Bill Clinton of the bullet points is exactly whose mantle Obama will pick up.

Contrary to the image he weaves of Obama picking up the mantle of the more idealistic side of the Slickster and running with it:

• Recalcitrant Democratic senators helped kill Clinton's healthcare plan;

• He never presented Kyoto to the Senate or even considered it;

• Does “other profoundly important reforms” include Clinton’s part in the financial deregulation push?

• Democratic policies under Clinton may have slowed the rate of income inequality increase, but didn’t actually reverse that, and certainly not in any structural way.

In the end, I’m afraid that the Bill Clinton of the bullet points is exactly whose mantle Obama will pick up.

That said, Obama helped add to the numbers, whether or not his particular coattails were that responsible.