Though I'm no great fan of McCain, he's certainly an odd target for Paglia's utterly ad hominem personal attacks -- "stumpy, uptight McCain . . . a lemon . . . weaselly voice . . . weird old coot" -- which are wholly out of place in Salon (except of course for the comments areas).

Quite frankly, I've never much cared for Paglia, but mostly because I've disagreed with so much of what she has to say, and not because, for example, she's an egotistic shrew with bad hair and blotchy skin. And her writing in this particular column seems nothing more than a cobbled-together stream of conciousness rant lacking any semblance of reason, humor or grace. I trust she's only being allowed to fill space out of some sense of sympathy for the old girl, and that you're not spending any of my premium subscription money on her services.

I wish to expand upon swilldog's analysis, as he's mostly right, and his point should be understood.

Virtually every system of laws recognizes a defense of "necessity" when there is a clear violation of a particular statute. It is an affirmative defense, which means that you admit you committed the forbidden act, but then burden shifts to the accused to prove he acted out of necessity. (Similar to a claim of "self defense" or "defense of others.")

I cannot envision an American operative who would be unwilling to take the necessary steps if he/she truly believed lives were in immediate peril, and let the chips fall where they may afterwards. As an example: have police officers stopped using deadly force where they believe it's required? No. They take the action they deem necessary, and then face review. You hope that quality screening of department applicants and good training thereafter eliminate (or come as close as possible to eliminating) the unwarranted use of force.

It is only weasels like O'Reilly who would seek to abdicate the responsibility of defending their actions.

Jazz and Rock'n'Roll are both -- at their cores -- about breaking rules and then inventing new rules in order to break those, too. They share a desire to surprise, even shock. To blaze new trails and get people to think in new ways. In short, both (when done right) are about Rebellion.

Thus endeth the lesson.

The Queen of Hearts has spoken.

I've lived in the Land of Lincoln all my life. Let me tell you we have one righteously screwed-up state government. For years, Republicans ran state government while the Democrats ran Chicago. The statewide GOP was gutted a few years ago and many of those players have been convicted of various forms of public corruption (including former Gov George Ryan, who joins an illustrious list of former Govs from both parties in earning that "honor.")

The Democrats have now taken over state government, and things are no better. (And the current Gov Blagojevich is "Public Official A" in the upcoming Rezko trial (yes, that Rezko).)

My point is that accomplishing anything of value in the Illinois legislature is a MAJOR victory, and failing to get something passed usually means merely that the right people weren't bought off (or were bought off by the other side).

Just a little reference for those of you hailing from less dysfunctional states.

This is also why Obama cannot be lured into McCain's cheap stunt of opting for public campaign financing. He will need mountains of money to combat the shit-storm that's coming. (And frankly, given the "Swift Boat" affiliated lunatics and their hatred for McCain, he might want to re-think his position, too.)

In these days of free-lance hate mongers with deep pockets and no scruples, a candidate would be foolish to volunteer for a fight with one hand tied behind his or her back.

I'm not very familiar with Deval Patrick's history, but I've been watching Obama for many many years in Chicago. While he was a state senator, he appeared regularly on the local PBS station's nightly round-table program, "Chicago Tonight" (WTTW), discussing various issues. His speech pattern, as well as his core philosphy, has remained relatively consistent all these years.

Could it be that Obama has rubbed off on Patrick? Or, is it possible that it's exactly how Obama has explained it previously: the two are friends who talk often and share ideas. I would be surprised if there WEREN'T similarities in their word choices and manners of speaking.

I'm far from an "Obamabot" and in fact still have some concerns about him. Hillary, however, has done nothing to convince me she'd be a better choice. (But rest assured I will fight hard for her over McCain in the event she pulls a rabbit out of her hat and wrests back the nomination.)