Maybe I used too many explanation points but I have been reading nothing but hysteria about Warren over the past 2 days.

"Nothing but hysteria"? Seriously?

Sure, there have been hysterical reactions to Warren's role in the Presidential Inauguration. (And there have been some mighty hysterical reactions to the objections.) But there have been some pretty calm and measured reactions as well, I think.

I hope I'm correct in assuming that it's okay to voice an objection ... isn't it? I mean Rick Warren has actively worked against equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples, and now he's been invited to give the Invocation at the Presidential Inauguration for someone that many in the GLBT communities supported (even knowing that his support for them had limits). I hope it's okay to voice some objection.

Who decides what an appropriate reaction to this is? Where's the dividing line?

Um, I'm definitely not trying to pick a fight with you.

I'm trying to point out that the dividing line between an appropriate and an inappropriate reaction to this isn't easy to draw. I'd also suggest that folks not personally affected by the discrimination that Warren actively supports just might want to be a little more polite about trying to draw that line.

Civil unions, within a state, are either equal or approaching equality.

Except for the little fact that there are lots of states that don't even allow civil unions, and the other little fact that there are lots of marriage-related things at the federal level.

There is no "back of the bus" aura to them.

Then I'm sure you won't mind sitting back there. I look forward to hearing about you registering for your civil union.

Between this and the 24-hour-a-day flogging of the Warren story, Salon's really trying to crank up the page hits, aren't they?

The money isn't without strings attached. The companies will be required to cut their debt rapidly by giving creditors stock, and to negotiate a new contract with the United Auto Workers that cuts pay for workers to match the wages paid by foreign automakers who build cars here.

Does it require equivalent cuts in management compensation? I'm guessing probably not.

In other words, will we finally accept the public policy and lifestyle changes that the real world now requires? Or will "Viva Las Vegas" always be America's motto?

David, the latter is a purely hypothetical question. Beyond hypothetical, really -- it's a fantasy question, on the order of, "What color magic pony would you prefer?" Our current consumption patterns are simply unsustainable. Continuing on the same path is not an option.

It's not a question of changing or not changing. It's a question of choosing to change or letting change slam our faces into the mud.

... because many of those who decide what's off the table were complicit in the crimes.

I'm guessing that a fair number of the people who are now lamenting the thefts of baby Jesus figurines are the same people who stole thousands of Obama yard signs.

You're probably right, but you might not want to set yourself up for "Obamassiah" ridicule.

But, rebutting such uncertainty as naïve, Simon Gathercole, a scholar at Cambridge University, explained that people today are cynical because they don't realize the origins of Christianity are entrenched in real history. Gathercole admonished, "Jesus was born while Augustus was emperor of Rome just before Herod died. … [W]e're talking about events that are anchored in real history not in ancient Greek myths."

There are historical references to pasta that goes back to at least 1500 BCE, so Pastafarianism is equally anchored in real history. (All Praise His Noodly Appendages.)

I grew up surrounded by people with the "opposing viewpoint". I understand the "opposing viewpoint" just fine, thanks. It's wrong.

This isn't "you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to". This is "I support equal treatment under the law, and Rick Warren doesn't."

To the extent that marriage is a religious term, Warren's church certainly has the right to define it ... as far as their church is concerned. They don't get to dictate the legal meaning of it.

For all you folks who think LGB people should just settle for "civil unions", because they're almost kinda sorta equal, feel free to petition that governments get out of the marriage business entirely and only recognize civil unions, whatever the gender mix. Given that it's kinda sorta the same thing, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Oh, and it's interesting that the "it's just a word" folks direct that bit of supposed wisdom only at LGBs and their supporters, and not at Rick Warren. If it's "just a word", then why all the hyperventilation about "changing thousands of years of history"? (Especially since the meaning of the word has changed, many times, in significant ways.)

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has stated bluntly that Obama was not implicated.

Blagojevich himself is on record ... heh ... saying that the Obama team was "not willing to give me anything except appreciation".

Winger response? Hints and accusations about Obama's supposed corruption.

Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney essentially admits law-breaking, dares anyone to do anything about it. [sound of crickets]

The big question in 2012 will simply be "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

Sadly, the real question may be, "Are you less bad off now than you would have been?" Thanks to the Repubs (and those Dems who enabled them), Obama's big accomplishment may be to make sure things only get a some worse, rather than a lot worse.

Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News, said, "The Treasury has repeatedly ignored our requests for information on how the government is allocating money to these troubled institutions. In a critical time like this amidst mounting corruptions and an economic crisis -- and with the country about to inaugurate a Democratic President -- we as a news organization feel it’s more important than ever to hold the government accountable."

Fixed that for him.