Another concept yet to be testing is whether a President could pardon someone prospectively, i.e., for crimes not even yet committed, much less charged.

Absurd?

Maybe so, but recall that the presidential pardon is a political act, not a "legal" one.

...maybe the concept of a "get out of jail free" card for any future crimes your friends commit is a worthy part of a president's legacy!

But more seriously, there are several people commenting in the last few days who are more disruptive than the usual concern trolls. If you think Glenn is engaging in childish personal attacks, please read again and think about what he has written. Sure, he might be, but probably not. Disagreeing with Glenn makes a good discussion when facts and ideas are are out front.

isn't a non-vote for Obama just a kind of half-vote for McCain. Switching your vote changes the difference in number of votes by two, a non-vote changes it by one.

You really think you and Jebbie are close on the usefulness of hand guns for defense? It does not look that way to me. He said that a properly stored gun is not readily available for defense, and therefore it is not useful to have one for that purpose. I think you are encouraging household hand guns for household defense. Sorry if I have misunderstood.

I also think you are wrong on the potential of knives vs. guns mass murder. With enough guns and ammo a person with little training and proficiency can make a huge tragedy. This is not so easy to do with a knife. You are supporting your argument with a couple of examples, but you would need complete statistics and careful interpretation to really understand the difference. So I cannot really say you are wrong, but it does look like you are making a poor case for something you would like to be true.

Stop lying. You know full well that the CIA overthrows governments. Iran is one case in 1953, and there are plenty of cases in South America.

(Sorry if the name is wrong, I am on a slow line today; so I won't go back and look.) wrote:

When asked by my government to provide information vital to the countries security I would do so unhesitatingly. To be subject to lawsuits based on fulfilling these requests, I would be stunned and saddened.

You might know about or remember the government surveillance of the 60s and 70s, and even earlier. Congress passed laws to explicitly make this illegal except under certain conditions. (Yes, it was already illegal anyway.) What happened since 9/11, and probably somewhat before, was not some minor violation of a little known law under "24-like" extreme conditions. It was rather the transfer of huge amounts of private information to NSA.

This is not acceptable under the fourth amendment. And it has nothing to do with Shooter's idiotic assertions that it is OK because any law is subject to violation. NSA does not get this information unless they are given it by its protector, the telecom, just as the government did not get telegrams unless they were provided with copies by the telegraph company.

Frankly, I am amazed that anyone, even the baddest RWA, would consider doing this without full public justification that it is necessary and effective. I doubt the necessity and the effectiveness. Shooter claims otherwise, of course, but he cannot provide any real evidence. Warrants are not hard to get, and can be skipped temporarily when necessary under certain conditions.

Obama's turnabout on this is disgusting. I have said before here many times that he is an unusually good speaker and writer, and is far more intelligent than the average pol. But that is apparently all the better for concealing what his intentions are. I do not think anyone has a clue as to what he will do when he gets elected.

Yes, I remember that column. Krugman is almost never wrong when he makes statements like that, and even his predictions are remarkably accurate.

wrote:

Also, as was pointed out in Glenn's article, political flip-flopping (for any reason other than a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind) makes a candidate vulnerable to doubts about their integrity and character-

And here is a case where a reasoned, principled, and well-explained change of mind back to his initial position would be justified.

wrote:Somewhere between the two extremes probably exists a reasonable approach to the problem.

Why would an extreme based on ignorance help define the solution?

Maybe. I'd offer an alternative explanation: as the conservative movement falls apart, and the country is ready to move away from the Bush/Republican status quo, Fox News' schtick has grown pretty tiresome

But I think that CNN has changed to be more like Fox, making it the not quite so extreme alternative.

wrote:The human race's maximum output of energy into the environment is a mere 1% of what the sun puts out that hits the Earth.

But that has essentially nothing to do with the problem. It is the retention of more energy (yes, almost all from the sun) that is the problem. It enters the atmosphere at visual wavelengths and is absorbed. This warms the earth, causing longer wavelength radiation (infrared). How much of this escapes depends on the concentration of green house gases. Anthropogenic global warming has very little to do with how much energy man dissipates on earth, but rather results from upsetting the thermal balance by preventing energy from escaping.