"... Moore’s Law, which dictates that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 24 months ..."

Granted, it's a bit nitpicky of me, but I'd like to point out that Moore's Law -- like any other 'Law' of this sort -- does not "dictate" anything. It describes a trend in a way that has some general predictive value.

... for being in favor of discrimination.

At least supposedly. But to me she just sounds like a whiny loser, desperately trying to explain why she didn't get what she oh-so-obviously deserved. In the process, she's showing that it was probably a good thing that she lost.

What are the odds that next she'll be lawyering up and suing the pageant officials?

... who the frack is Perez Hilton? (I mean, aside from an asshole.)

Cheney isn't talking to you. His talking to the people who think that torture works, and who don't know -- or care -- about his history of prevarication.

He's intentionally stirring shit up, presumably

(a) because he wants to make things as difficult as possible for the Obama Administration or

(b) to lay the groundwork for his own defense, in the unlikely event that an investigation gets anywhere near him or

(c) because he likes stirring shit up.

My guess is (d) all of the above.

(When was the last time a former Vice President was such a public partisan attack dog? Don't ex-VPs generally fade into obscurity if they don't end up as Prez?)

Bush wins twice -- for some value of "win", at least -- and some lefties think of leaving the country because of the damage he and his cronies do to the country. (And a few actually do.) This is either ignored or mocked by all Serious People.

Obama wins and starts trying to repair the damage caused by Bush et al, and many righties want to break up the country. This is either ignored by Serious People or, of course, taken as a sign that Obama isn't bipartisan enough.

You have something of a point, but there are a couple of things worth noting.

For one thing, the moneyed class wasn't as powerful then as the corporatocracy is now. For another thing, note that it took not just several decades of activism to get rid of institutionalized slavery but a civil war as well. Not just a "culture war" but an actual war, with over 600,000 dead.

I don't changing our drug policy will take a civil war, but it will be a hard battle. (And one of many that will involve going up against the corporatocracy.)

Cheney has no interest in trying to prove anything, and certainly not in the context of a formal investigation. All he's trying to do is muddy the waters by giving the remaining Bush apologists more material for their tortured "reasoning".

Torture is unethical, it's illegal, and it's ineffective. (Unless you want false information, which is what many of these techniques were originally designed to produce.)

Investigate the crimes and prosecute as appropriate, and yes, that goes for any Democratic enablers, too.

KURTZ: Chris Cillizza, journalists and Americans, I think, have such a visceral reaction hearing about, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times. And it can be kind of hard to remain objective.

I think that anyone who can remain "objective" about this issue -- at least in the sense that Kurtz seems to mean it -- is a sociopath.

It's illegal, unethical, illegal, and ineffective unless you're actually trying to get false information.

Oh, and did I mention that it's illegal? You know, like perjury ... except several magnitudes more serious than that.

If someone beat you up for walking next to a black man, it seems pretty clear that it would be a hate crime, and very likely prosecutable as such.

I sympathize -- and to some extent share -- the ambivalence of Glenn and others. But here's the way I see it. It's a crime to attack any person, as an individual. But a hate crime is also an attack on society; specifically, it's an attack on the type of society that believes that diversity is more than a buzzword. I think that sort of society deserves legal protections.

And yeah, specific cases can be tough to judge. That's pretty much true of any law.

By the way, since -- surprisingly -- no one else has said so ...

I fully expect what I write to be radically distorted on the sort of right-wing blogs that support people like Rep. Foxx, but don't expect that to happen on the floor of the House, though, at this point, that is probably an unreasonable distinction to draw.

Yes, it is. Very much so.

Very interesting. Where's that a quote from?

When I've pointed out to people that hate crime laws apply to everyone in that way, I get one of three general reactions:

1) The person gets a thoughtful look and say, "Hmmm. Okay, maybe that does make sense."

2) The person laughs incredulously at the idea that anyone might actually be prosecuted for a hate crime because they attacked a white person on the basis of their race, or because they attacked a Christian on the basis of their religion. Because white Christians are, as everyone knows full well, treated like second-class citizens in this country. (Especially if they're men.)

3) The person complains that such laws are obviously blatantly biased in favor of minorities, because of course they just happen to be attacked more often. So that means it's not equal protection under the law.

And yes, I've seen arguments that were essentially #2 and #3 from the same person. Who, if I remember correctly, gave up the discussion because he was tired of dealing with people who were irrational about the topic.