Specter has been more aligned, at least theoretically, with the Blue Dog Democrats than with his fellow GOP senators for several years, so in some respects, this is not a shock.

For those who look to find the dark cloud behind the silver lining, I can just offer that perhaps Specter will feel less inclined to ideology without the damaclesian sword of a GOP primary challenger hanging over his head. And that a vote which is less than one-hundred-percent reliable is still better than a certain vote in opposition.

Waterboarding, specifically, is torture, and is a crime under US law. We have prosecuted people for it in the past, and earned convictions. It is not open to argument.

Now, whether other practices are torture and therefore crimes under US law, MIGHT be subject to debate. But the waterboarding issue is not. It is settled law.

I suspect that if the polling set out that the US has a long history of prosecuting those who engage in waterboarding, the stats would skew even more heavily toward agreeing that waterboarding does constitute the crime of torture.

While I am not without some sympathy for Catholics who cannot divorce, but only seek a demeaning and -- at its core -- hypocritical annulment, I'm not sure they have much room to complain.

All Catholics intending to marry in the Church are well aware of the rules when they walk down the aisle. They are required to participate in "pre-Cana" classes with their future spouse, Church leaders and other candidates for the sacrament. If, after some years of marriage, they decide that the no longer wish to have the benefits of that sacrament, they can't just discard it without leaving behind the others as well.

In case you're wondering, I'm not an orthodox Catholic by any means. In fact, I'm a fallen Catholic who finds much fault with the Church. But if you ask for the sacrament of marriage, you know the rules going in, and asking for a change of the rules later is just bad form, regardless of how silly those rules may look from the outside.

"They were three poor foolish young men who wanted to make their families rich. They were loved and they were young and they were wrong. But they weren't evil murderers. They were simultaneously shot in the head by what Phillips calls "heroes" and I call executioners."

When your child is being held hostage by three armed gunmen, I'll be sure to remind the FBI or the local SWAT team that they should just trust the "poor foolish" fellows not to blow your kid's brains out. In fact, perhaps the cops should just go home and let you talk out the issues with the lads.

I'm as much a bleeding heart liberal as anyone, but when you try to hijack a freighter with automatic weapons, then hold a gun to someone's head when the hijacking goes badly, you lose the right to be called a victim when the cops take you down.

Mr. Feffer finds it convenient to criticize the actions in one incident in order to bolster one of his many main points, that it will take more than a military solution to the Somali pirate situation.

While that observation is certainly true -- the establisment of a stable government and economy in Somalia will drastically curtail piracy -- singling out the actions of the Navy in rescuing Capt Phillips is simply idiotic. And this gross error ruins the credibility of some of the valid arguments he does make.

By all accounts, there was little choice left in the Maersk Alabama hijacking. And while Somali pirates may see it as a declaration of war against them, it was nothing more than a hostage situation which had deteriorated to the point of no return. The captors were getting desperate, negotiations were bogging down (no surprise, with a teen-age ringleader) and the snipers saw what appeared to be an immediate threat to the hostage. The perceptions of other Somalis cannot be much controlled in this circumstance; they will see it however they choose to see it.

It seems as if Mr. Feffer just couldn't resist a gratuitous cheap-shot at the military.

Look, the GOP has a death-wish. They want to be known now and forever as the party of "no." That's the only reason there could possibly be for this.

The rules for lo these many years has been clear. Unless the nominee is unqualified, from a LEGAL standpoint, the nominee should be confirmed. You can ask tough questions, you can make your political statements, but at the end of the day, you give the president the cabinet he wants. You can even vote against the nominee, but you don't block the vote itself.

What the GOP is doing is bullshit obstructionism and nothing else.