Please don't immediately surrender to pessimism. Yes, there are vast differences of opinion and even animosity between the various groups of people who identify with this or that issue. Obama is the kind of person who'll bring them together if it's at all possible. This is the time for deliberate, determined optimism, not its opposite.

The conventional wisdom that the "real" America is a white-hat kind of place still cannot be challenged. You are therefore un-serious. ;]

Until there is meaningful (ie contributions and third-party advertising is outlawed or severely curtailed) how can you expect any other outcome?

The legislators in Congress, especially the Senate, are almost supported in their campaigns largely by corporate donations of one kind or another.. who do you think they owe their loyalty to?

It's entirely ethical for them to act as they do: they're representing their true constituency, the people who "voted" them into office, with their dollars. We need to change the definition of "constituency" by making elections about representation of citizens, not of donors. Free speech should not be interpreted to mean "freedom to buy politicians." It should mean "freedom to open your mouth or write as you like", and that's it.

Your glee at Fox's distress is palpable. It's almost, but not quite, inappropriate.

They called it, first AFAIK.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-to-become-next-president.html

:]

I am unhappy, an awful lot of my friends are going to be devastated by prop 8's passage. It makes this morning a little bittersweet, though I'd rather have it this way than p8 passing and McPalin in control of the White House for 4 years.

We'll get em next time.

Please never stop writing.

Who cares where a talking head is in terms of physical location? These creatures are hardly worthy of notice, much less concern for their physical proximity to one another.

But it's also generally "she does the dishes" night. I hate those damn things.

Totally agree. I run into this attitude at work all the time: "Well, I don't have this problem, therefore it can't possibly matter to anyone!". It's the sort of comfortable myopia that reasonable people fall prey to very often.

Girls who are having sex have claimed some of their adulthood. Like it or not, they have done so. And thus, when they get themselves into a bad spot and decide they choose to terminate a pregnancy they can't support, I think they must ethically bear the burden of making the decision.. and have the right to make the call free of parental interference.

In those cases where the girl has a great family support structure and can seek solace with her parents, or even the boy involved, great. The law should concern itself with providing rights in the other cases, where the girl's safety and ability to make a personal choice are threatened.

I'm happy to read the morning Greenwald. But this is beneath you. You're a guy who tackles real issues. Leave " lipstick on a pig" moments to the bottom-feeders.

Have other governors really appointed themselves Senators? Which ones? Amazing.

not principals. Meh.

Companies that are "too big to fail" have the option of holding the government hostage.

If:

a) companies above a certain market cap, say $2bn or so, were simply not allowed to purchase or merge with other companies

b) companies with market caps above that were immediately slated for breakup into their components

..These kinds of disasters would be strictly limited in scope. Some truly essential firm might need a bailout to keep the web of companies going, but the damage would be limited. As a counterexample, take the unprecedented consolidation of the financial sector, followed immediately by gigantic "because they're too big to fail" bailouts.

Executive compensation could also be held in check if companies were required to be smaller, as well. Too bad our entire government is bought and paid for by the very businesses that would never let anything like what I propose above happen.

It really is. Reductionist-style scientific method doesn't explain everything right now?! Why then, we must invent something else!

This is a standard human tendency. We both want to believe in our specialness, and in a fundamental purpose. But there is no evidence of either. None. A *scientist* accepts that as the "truth", to be continually tested, of course. Until disproven, the best guess supported by the evidence is taken to be our approximation of reality, and operated upon. It's really just that simple.

Then again, thinking like that doesn't sell books or get page clicks ;].

Enjoy those dreams.. that's all they are. I grew up in Flint.. given the total lack of interest the GOP has shown in doing -anything- to help people losing jobs in the shop, I seriously doubt people will be voting for the R crowd two, four or even eight years hence.

is a great name. But you could declare "Environmentalist Thug Edition" every Sunday, or something. A tribute.

But the way I read it, you'd first have to vote -out- some language in the CA state constitution banning discrimination (Article 1 Sec. 31, and maybe other stuff too) to avoid internal inconsistency. Then, you could build in language specifying in very unambiguous terms what personal affliations (be they biological, religious, whatever) -can- be the subject of discriminatory legislation.

Take that with a pound of salt though, I'm no constitutional attorney.

I see more and more willingness on the part of officials and media across the spectrum to treat these criminals (by which I mean the Administration, not the poor bastards at Gitmo) as such. I can only hope the complicity of the Democratic leadership doesn't forestall the possibility of actually prosecuting the Bush team en masse. It's probably beyond hope that 43 himself would spend time in jail.. isn't it?

Thread over, everyone can go home.

Assuming Coleman manages to lose by some piteous number of votes, say 20... what happens then? Six years of legal work? You know they won't give up. Or -ever- shut up about it.