"The issue here is that while we share a certain level of corruption with the Romans, there was a time when they were mindful of civic virtues and republican"

This time of which you speak, do you really honestly belive that the corrupt men of the future empire did not walk these streets as well?

My point was not that America or Rome did not have idealism at its heart, but that there is no rise of corruption. As power rises the number of corrupt individuals at the trough no doubt rises as well, but the corruption was there from the start.

I would put American Idealism against the Idealism of any nation in history, but all nations have at their birth both greatmen and monsters. More often than not the two men are the same.

Think of the intelect and virture of Thomas Jefferson, and think of his personal corruption as well. Do you really belive the men of Rome even when mearly a minor city state did not lust as all men do for power and glory?

It is easy to idealize the past, certainly few write down their grandfathers misdeeds on their headstones, but the people who lived in Rome, 10,000 years ago and today are no differnt. They are driven by their apetites and seek to be called good.

They may write up proud ideals of civic mindedness, but at the end of the day, these are just words on parchment and reflect what we belive about ourselves, not what is.

I said before, Monday morning the interenet would be filled with people decrying how Chase screwed up the ending, no matter how he ended it.

I think however this was the best possible ending.

Tony in joyous domesticity would have seen cliched and wrong, and Tony in a heap would have been equally incorrect.

Tony just goes on, but turns off the camera, that's what happened.

The story goes on, but our access ends. It's sort of like the Brady Bunch, someday maybe we'll be watching the Sopranos Brides or a Christmas special 15 years out, but for now the story ends.

But as one story ends another begins...Did anyone else find John from Cincinnatti a rather weak follow up to either the Sopranos or Deadwood?

I mean is that ment as a joke? Corporate Surfing? Do people actually Surf anymore? Talk about your over estimation of your own importance in the world. Mitch Yost should get back in the game? Who the hell is Mitch Yost, and why should I care?

Still it's great to see Ed O'Neil working. Had they put Dragnet on HBO, that would have been sweet. Thank goodness we still have the Wire.

Here's your dark horse perfect storm.

Hillary or Obama get the Democratic Nomination, and Mitt Romney gets the Republican Nod.

Hillary or Obama get certain polarizing baggage stuck to them from their sex, race, and of course past, which although never spoken of in polite circles would allow people to look farther a field if an opening comes. The same is true for Mitt.

Honestly, in that show down, I doubt anyone is going to be a stand out on policy, or to be more specific that any of them will propose a policy that is so radically different from the adversaries as to make the choice between then particularly easy. By contrast the parties will focus on red team blue team politics, and differentiate through labeling. This race to the base will bother most Americans and when a Dark Horse rises devoid of political name people could easily embrace him.

Remember due to our winner take all system; in a three person race you only need 34% of the vote in the right states to ensure your ascension to the presidency. You can easily have an electoral landslide without a popular majority.

And on the 01/21/2009 we could easily get a nonpartisan president strong on business and strong on personal freedom and responsibility. As a Jew he has the same problems that Mitt, Hillary and Obama face, but again in a red blue race, the purple people hold the power, and you don't get much more purple than a billionaire Jew.

A lot of people seem to think that Dark Horses only draw from Democrats.

The fact is, Bill Clinton probably would not have won either election had Ross Perot not siphoned votes from the pro-business republicans who feared NAFTA.

The same is true for Theodore Rex unmaking his own man Taft.

Nader did hurt Gore in Florida, but so did Pat Buchanan, and so did the Workers World Party. In that game of inches a butterfly in Tokyo probably had something to do with the results.

If the Democrats run, Edwards, for example, Bloomberg will do more damage to the republicans (as pro-business libertarians leave the party of religious bedroom intrusion) than the Democrats. It is only in running a baggage candidate, or a far left candidate (I think Kucinich is the only real left candidate running) That Bloomberg will hurt the Dems.

So really, now if we get into regional races, and Giuliani somehow survives Iowa and takes the nomination, The Democrats will need to run a Non New Yorker to win. Edwards or Obama will work, if Hillary gets the nod, you'll see her donning her cubs cap, and drawling like an Arkansassian once again. When asked about her brief time in New York, it will be a youthful indiscretion. I think most people would hate an all New York race, since most people harbor a deep and abiding hatred of New Yorkers.