The worst part of Republican anti-governmentism is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Government is the problem, not the solution -- elect us and we'll prove it."

I question the ethics of my decisions every single day. What human doesn't?

"Every day"? I suspect most people don't. Most people are busy. Life can be terribly distracting, you know.

The vast majority of people who generally care about whether they're doing the right thing don't have lives that require daily pondering of their ethics. And when they do need to think about that sort of thing, much of their thinking probably follows fairly well-worn paths that lead them to not-very-challenging conclusions. Most people have a rudimentary sense of right and wrong that more-or-less serves for the day-to-day stuff; anything more than that is asking a lot of people in this society.

And you know, it's generally much easier to criticize the ethics of others ... even for people who one might think would know better.

... where Hollingsworth slips the cop a fiver.

I can't think of another newspaper columnist that annoys me more than Richard Cohen. Its not just his smug demeanor that oozes from every column. Washington would be empty if you got rid of the egomaniacs. Its not just that he's consistently wrong about everythng. Again, we'd have to flush 90% of the Village.

And this would be a bad thing ... why? I've met some nice people from DC; they'd probably appreciate the change.

I love it when the blatherers keep trotting out the "majority of Americans aren't buying" line when in fact the majority is buying it, by any poll that hasn't been carefully worded by wingers.

(The unstated supposition is, I guess, that "Real" Americans don't buy it, but may have it forced on them by the dirty socialistic masses, or something like that.)

So, perhaps the final answer to the question posed by innumerable bloggers is that feminists don't yet know enough about Letterman's affairs to be outraged.

That's probably why some conservative bloggers are puzzled. Damn few of them let lack of information -- or even contrary information -- get in their way when they see a chance to attack.

Obama supposedly wants to get rid of DADT, most of Congress supposedly wants to get rid of DADT, and even lots of people in the military -- including higher-ups in the DoD and Pentagon -- want to get rid of it. A solid majority of Americans want to get rid of it, and the small minority of people who strongly oppose it already strongly oppose anything on Obama's wish list. This ain't the 90's anymore, and it was a stupid idea even then, politically and otherwise.

The Dems have an overwhelming majority in both houses and a bill to repeal DADT would take one page of paper.

Meanwhile, the military continues to discriminate and thus lose skilled and dedicated people.

What's the fucking hold up?

... that the HRC has had a less-than-stellar history of political leadership. They're the Blue Dogs of LGBT politics.

... he was treated like a hero because, despite the policy failings on the LGBT front, people at the event felt he was a true ally.

Yeah, he was a "true ally" ... as long as he didn't have to actually do anything positive, and the backstabbing was done with freshly cleaned and sharpened knives.

It's not entirely clear what you're trying to say, but to whatever extent I can puzzle it out, you seem to have gotten it backward. It is, in fact, the State that is insisting on treating people according to specific and limited labels. Someone can be a talented, loyal, dedicated, hard-working, brave, highly-trained, etc etc member of the armed forces, but the moment it becomes evident that the word "gay" also applies ... end of story.

Civil rights movements are efforts to not be wholly defined by society according to one word -- "woman", "black", "gay", etc.

What is it with you people? Do you want another 9/11?

Better another 9/11 than another police state. Though of course that's a false choice, because one can't trade freedom for security, only for the illusion of security.

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

"Eeeek! Protect me, Mommy!" -- BobTheCarpenter, et al

... fixing the liberal distortions that have crept into Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. See the recent Salon very post-humus interview of Adam Smith by Michael Lind -- obviously the real Adam Smith wouldn't have written those things!

The difference between Europe and the US is not that Europe doesn't have any wackos, but that wackos in Europe are somewhat more likely to be treated as such. Even so, some of yours do end up in powerful positions. (I mean, please ... Maggie Thatcher?)

Anyway, there are lots of reasons why wackos aren't as readily dismissed in the US, but one of the major reasons is that they serve an important function in public discourse on behalf of the corporatists. If the corporate-owned media gives enough airplay to the wackos, it's an effective distraction from the oligarchy and makes the behavior of their hirelings look reasonable in comparison.

So in 2008, you were deliberately throwing away your vote on principle. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just so long as its clear.

If enough people "threw away their votes on principle", then those votes wouldn't be thrown away. But instead, lots of people take "practicality" into account.

And look how marvelously well that has worked out.

In a market like smartphones, three-year projections of market share are worthless for anything other than page-hit generation, which I assume is the point of the exercise.