Too often true. But I am really straight, and -- second only to my ardent advocacy of drug policy reform -- equality for gays has been my issue for my entire adult life. But so many asshats cannot get their heads wrapped around the fact that a person can be heterosexual and still find appalling the fact that gays are denied the state-conferred benefits of marriage to those who are not, as a matter of principle.

I'm sure you've run into the equivalent assumption when arguing for drug policy reform -- that you must be a stoner or something. Never mind that mind that current policy is based on myths and sloppy reasoning ... and makes things worse rather than better!

I've noticed that of all the oh-so-reasonable subset of straight folks who are oh-so-generously offering up oh-so-equal civil unions to same-sex couples, I've yet to see any of them offer to trade their own marriage license in for a civil union certificate.

Funny that.

Through the campaign, it seemed to me that there were significantly more people playing the "playing the race card" card -- and more oh-so-knowing nods in response to those plays -- than there were people actually playing the race card. (Despite the always-so-innocent and ever-so-unintentional provocations.)

As the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs, General Shinseki will be dealing with some of the aftermath of the Bush Administration's mistakes. Meanwhile, Bush Admin officials will be strolling off to their book contracts, speaking engagements, Fox News gigs, etc.

That's "revenge"?

Apple is very conscious of price-points. A "jumbo MacBook" couldn't meaningfully replace the iMac in their line-up unless it could be offered at a comparable price ... and it can't.

The balance of computing power, good price, and portability is different for laptops than it is for desktops. That difference may shrink as the art continues to advance, but it's still there.

It is interesting though, that Mr Sirota, assumes "the American center" is "progressive"....Exactly where did that little factoid come from?

It came from a land that is probably strange to you; a place called "reality". It's quite unlike the alternate-reality setting where the U.S. is somehow a "center-right" nation, which seems to be a sequel to one of those novels about the Confederacy winning the Civil War.

(The Republican version of bipartisanship, that is, in the sense of getting Democrats to go along with what Republicans want. Anything less than that is vicious radical left-wing partisanship.)

re: green-eyeshades--usually refers to bankers I think. but in this setting, it seems to refer to anyone who cares about how the government raises and spends money.

Not exactly. It seems to be a quite acceptable demonstration of toughness to care about what a burden the government places on the wealthy and/or how much it spends on people in need.

JAY ROSEN: "And in their view, it isn't savvy to say you're going to mobilize the anger and frustration of the American people and bring that power to Washington to change it."

On the contrary, in their view it can be very savvy to say that ... just not savvy to actually try to do it. (Not that I'm convinced yet that Obama is doing that on a meaningful level.) As Brooks' notes, politicians are not actually supposed to do the things they promise to do.

"... late Tuesday night came word that the Treasury Department would require AIG to at least repay the $165 million doled out in bonuses to 418 AIG execs before it provides the next $30 billion in bailout funds ..."

As icemilkcoffee pointed out, this is stupid. The plan wouldn't recover the bonuses, it would just shuffle numbers around.

It's hard to speak for all Catholics, who are a diverse bunch. However, speaking for the Catholic leadership, they would most certainly support such a man, and in fact did for the past 8 years.

Most of the non-US leadership of the Catholic Church -- up to and including the Pope -- strongly condemned the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That got very little airplay in the US, of course, and seemed to be simply ignored by most of the US Catholic leadership.

What I want from a President are some things that make me think that just maybe I won't be at least as angry a year from now.

People are certainly entitled to their anger, but -- beyond enough a certain controlled amount for motivation -- it's not exactly conducive to good problem-solving.

But that puts the press in an odd position, knowing we're essentially being used by the White House -- which wants to have the president deliver his message, essentially unfiltered, to as many viewers as possible -- but at the same time unable to do much about it.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The suggestion that feminism is "dead" -- including the caveat that it's not really dead, but different than it used to be, and is now entering a phase where it's no longer monolithic etc etc -- seems to have popped up every few years since ... oh, since the 70's or so. And each time, the person suggesting it seems to think it's a new suggestion, and they actually get some attention for suggesting it.

(And in response, of course, very similar remarks are trotted out by a similar cast of characters who seem to take pride in loudly misunderstanding feminism. Losers in bars in the 70's or trolls on the net in the 00's, it's hard to tell them apart.)

Reagan, Gingrich and their successors have spent 30 years convincing both Democrats and members of the media that deficits are always bad.

That's impressive message control, considering the huge amounts of debt that were run up during Saint Ronnie's and King George's reigns.

Fail.

... it's Ms. Page-Hit Generator.

I thought he was dead.