Stage one for the current GOP: "Burn the witch!"

State two: "Find us more witches to burn!"

Perhaps Rush sees himself as The Highlander: In the end, there can be only one.

That 60% of the people approve of techniques that they acknowledge are torture should not be surprising.

The only knowledge about torture that most respondents have is what they get from TV and movies, where torture always works on the bad guys (but of course, never on the good guys).

This is the same mentality, by the way, that is making criminal convictions more and more difficult -- referred to by prosecutors as the "CSI effect." Folks believe, because they see it done on "realistic" TV shows like CSI, etc., that the police criminolgists can easily "prove" that the killer walked through the crime scene with a slight left limp, wearing an overcoat and ball-cap, a hint of Calvin Klein cologne, was 6 feet tall, 205 pounds with blue eyes and a receding hair line. When actual prosecutors fail to deliver this kind of certainty, killers walk.

We are becoming a nation of know-nothing know-it-alls.

First, while the original series did reflect "the chronic tension between reason and emotion" it was not just the two characters that represented this tension. In fact, that tension was echoed in concentric circles outward from Spock himself, with his half-vulcan (logical) side always slightly ahead of his half-human (emotional) side. Stepping out to the next ring would be the interplay between Spock and Kirk and/or Spock and McCoy. And even further, the conflict between the Federation and the Klingons. So we see that conflict projected through the personal level, the interpersonal and straight through to the intergalactic.

Second, I don't think it's lazy to argue the connection between Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Trek created a huge base of fans ready to embrace the more visually sophisticated Star Wars. Without that base, would Star Wars have become such an incredible hit? And both Roddenberry and Lucas describe their influences in terms of the old westerns they grew up watching. So while the differences that O'Hehir describes are certainly accurate, the link exists nonetheless.

Actually, it will be the Democratic party that eventually splits into two.

As more and more moderates flee the GOP and begin to vote Democratic, the Democratic candidates will more and more look like Blue Dogs like my own Melissa Bean. And while I appreciate her hard work in the Illinois 8th and many of her accomplishments, she's far too conservative for me (a conversation we've had on more than one occasion -- but I understand that she couldn't be elected in the 8th if she were any more liberal). As this happens, the further left will feel like they have less and less voice -- it's happening already -- and will eventually feel the need to split.

The real question is, how will our political system adjust to a situation where there is one large centrist party and two opposite outlying parties? I don't think anyone has really posited yet how that will work.

"Gosh" he said later, "that Harvard Law degree is cool and all, and getting more votes than anyone in history for president is awesome, but what I really wanted was an honorary ASU degree to validate me."

I wonder how Huck squares the systematic torture of fellow children of god with his evangelical christiantiy?

More importantly, I'd like someone to explain to me how anything Pelosi knew, did or said after the fact makes the Bush administration's violation of the law against torture any less of a crime. Last time I checked, if you tell someone else that you committed a crime, no matter who, it's a confession, not an absolution.

The worst they can hang on the person you told is an obstruction charge. But that's only if that person wasn't prohibited by law from revealing your confession. Folks who fit into that category, in one way or another, would be your spouse, your minister and your lawyer. Oh, and those forbidden by the National Secrets Act from disclosing it, like Pelosi.

In re DeMint's statement, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that a man who eschews science also has no appreciation for math. I would have to ask, at least out of morbid curiosity: What good does your moral purity do if you cannot exert one whiff of influence on the nation's laws and policy?

While I have no use for much of what passes for the GOP's current platform, I do believe our nation requires at the very least a two-party system to ensure that the checks and balances designed into our government by the Framers remains an effective tool against oppression (or at least stupidity and hubris). DeMint's idiocy serves neither his party nor his nation.

"If you go to the basic beliefs of the Republican party -- keeping the government out of your life -- why can't that include marriage?"

Because, dear Meghan, the basic belief of the GOP is to keep the government out of THEIR lives. They're perfectly happy to have the government all over "someone else's" life. Gays, liberals, folks with whom they just generally disagree, you know -- the OTHER. The GOP basic tenet is not libertarianism, its xenophobia in its broadest sense.

Look, they have to say something bad about everything Obama does. It's in their charter somewhere, I imagine.

When they can't find anything objectionable, they're forced to resort to the type reasoning you hear from the average sixth grader when he's asked to turn in his social studies assignment. They have no compunction against just making shit up. And they often don't even bother to make it at least sound plausible. They know their acolytes will lick it up, and the rest of the world was already inclined to ignore them anyway.