Bush and Cheney did (allegedly) break the law ...

Given that they both admitted to -- and in Cheney's case bragged about -- actions that are against the law, I think it would be reasonable to omit the "(allegedly)".

I mean, if someone admitted to "extra-legally" taking someone else's property, I wouldn't say that they "(allegedly) stole something".

Perhaps Glenn's implication is that -- given Rosen's heavy reliance on anonymous sources -- there's no way to know that Rosen didn't simply make some of it up.

Maybe Rosen has gone beyond the view that an unreliable story is better than no story; perhaps he thinks that a made-up story is better than no story.

As far as the Democrats. Let's not forget they had no power, as the republicans were in total control before 2006. Anyone who spoke out was labeled "Unamerican" by the republicans. Not much different from the Soviets and Nazis.

Oh, bullshit. Yes, Dems were "out of power" in the political sense, and would no doubt have been called very mean things by Repubs if they'd spoken out. Cry me a frakkin' river.

Being representatives of the people at that level can be a tough job, true, especially in that context. But it is their job. If they can't do their jobs when it counts the most, we need to replace them.

... that many of the things Obama does that certain subsets of people get all so shocked and appalled at are things that he campaigned on.

"Oh my god! He's throwing water! On the fire!"

"Well, yeah. I mean, I realize that you've got a lot of matches and kerosene invested in the outcome, but I hired him to put out the fire. That's our damn house, you putz."

Funny that the Vatican his already praised Obama more than they ever did his predecessor, despite the fact that his predecessor was -- at least supposedly -- "pro-life".

Suppose an inventor spends a year developing a digital device--one that could be endlessly copied.

As a result, the inventor gets nothing for her effort. But why would an inventor spend a year of her life for no gain?

This seems to pre-suppose that financial gain is the only kind of gain that exists. That's incorrect, and there are countless examples of people making extended efforts -- sometimes a lifetime's worth -- for gains that are not financial.

Even worse, this economic system teaches the recipients the false idea that there are free lunches.

I see you didn't read the paper.

There may not -- yet -- be such a thing as a free lunch, but there are all kinds of lunches to be had that don't involve agribusiness.

Money is simply a symbolic framework of exchange. However important that symbolic framework currently is, there are other such frameworks, and not all of them are purely theoretical.

"Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?"

Judging from past behavior, sure, it's possible.

Just vanishingly unlikely.

Really, Cheney is simply goading the Dems. (1) Unfortunately, it seems pretty unlikely that they'll call his bluff, given that the Dem leadership may have helped enable the Bush Admin's worst behavior. (2) Even if they do call his bluff, this goading will make it easier to portray any investigations as "criminalizing politics".

Which is dripping with irony, of course, given the fact that the Repub leadership has politicized their crimes.

"Wealth of Nations" is worth reading for similar reasons that the Bible is worth reading, including the sweet pleasure of using it to argue against those who loudly claim to follow it. If Adam Smith or Jesus Christ were alive today, they'd be dismissed by the Right as socialists.

Wingers rail against perfectly reasonable things as being "hard left", "socialistic", etc, in order to smear the notions. I wonder to what extent the reverse is happening, e.g. "Hmm, those lefties seem pretty damn reasonable -- at least in comparison -- and maybe even socialists are worth listening to."

Photographer Galen Rowell called it 'the most influential environmental photograph ever taken.' (See link to Wiki article.)

Has anyone actually met a "smug" Prius owner? Because I know a few, and none of them are smug. (Or self-righteous" or "greener-than-thou" or etc etc>) Pleased, perhaps, like anyone who whatever that they like, but not smug. It seems like another of those things that's based on a common lazy journalistic meme but has little or no connection to reality.

On the other hand, I have actually met a few smug -- and/or hair-trigger defensive -- SUV owners, and a couple of Hummer owners who were so far beyond smug that I'm not sure there's a word for it. (Obligatory head-pat to SUV owners -- yes, I know some SUVs are driven by people who actually have a good use for such a vehicle, and yes, that's absolutely an individual's decision to make.)

Anything less than a plan that included a real public option isn't reform at all, it's just rearranging the beds in the Titanic's clinic.

One could just as truthfully state that many experts oppose single payer (including experts who are not at all affiliated with the insurance industry).

Yeah, no kidding. Funny thing, though -- those experts have seats at the table, unlike the experts who support single payer. But I'm sure that's just an innocent oversight.