is like trying to describe blue to a blind man. You can forget it, folks.

The bigger issue is how to convince a society that doesn't believe in taking any risks or, at worst, dying for their principles and freedoms (this on Memorial Day: how sad is that). This is where I think the battle is lost. Not with folks like Mr. Gonne, who are obtuse and abrasive in their unprincipled stance, but with calm, sober folk who simply would rather see a fair number of people mistreated or locked away without trial than have ANY chance that they might one day hurt them. The idea of sacrificing security for liberty and humanity are now alien to most citizens (including our Chief Magistrate).

Obama has given Americans a soft option--obeying the Constitution and the Rule of law are hard and dangerous, so trust me, I'm a nice guy and a Democrat and a black guy (and thereby associated with civil right and won't do bad things to people unless they deserve it. And, as I've stressed here before, he never says he won't send those people to be tortured by some other country's secret police, but at least you, my fellow Americans, can be sure that the blood will not be on American hands, and the screams for merecy will not likely be in English.

If the Constitutional order breaks down, then you can forget all that nice stuff you talk about. And don't be fooled that continuity guarantees continuance. Our Republic works only so long as the powerful fear that the law may one day be used as an immutable tool to right wrongs. The growing lawlessness of banks, corporations, and government are a clear sign that the power of the Constitution as a rulebook that applies to all is fading. If that goes, you can forget about any Progressive change, for the rich and the powerful will be able to act as they choose and above the law.

These are not tangential issues to the policy options you ascribe to. Defending the Constitution and the Rule of Law is an absolute prerequisite to any positive change here in American. That is why the Republlicans have been so gung-ho in gutting the Constitution and why we should NEVER let the Dems continue that process in any way.

Forget about how much you hate Sirota. You should know that your feelings are irrelevant when considering the value or lack thereof of any statement he makes. That said, I think one way in which I agree with Sirota, although he doesn't say it well (as you point out), is that your public/private dichotomy is way off base. If the actions of Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, Obama, and Geithner are of a piece, and they are all designed to bail out thier buddies in the investor class (which I think they are) and not help Joe Taxpayer who is paying the freight, then your conception that we have on one side Government and on the other The Private Sector is faulty. In fact, we have a small number of rich and powerful people working for the benefit of that same small group; their using private or public means to do so is irrelevant to them and should be to us. We are in no way protecting the private sector by these bailouts, because their is no such thing as "government" divorced from the oligarchy that controls both the corporate and government sphere. Now, this analysis, articulated in its modern form by C. Wright Mills, may be wrong. But I think that the case that it is true is strong, and Sirota or no Sirota is worthy of contemplation.

we'd be on Code Purple or some-such nonsense and these Bible-thumpers would be thundering from their pulpits about how such evil terrorists must be thrown out of the country in the name of our "homeland security."

When you convince yourself that a fetus is the same thing as a sentient living person, I guess you can go for this "eye for an eye" crap, although Jesus did say something about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies (and not judging lest ye be judged). In the end, the entire anti-abortion argument is based on two very shaky foundations: 1) that a fetus has a soul, and is therefore just like you and me reading this article, and 2) that somehow these fetuses are "innocent" and therefore they cannot be aborted. The first point fails on the fact that no evidence of a "soul" exists and it is a conjecture, not a tangible defensible proposition on which to base law. The second fails on Christian doctrine, which maintains "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", i.e. we are all born with Original Sin and are therefore NOT innocent, but must be both baptized and then live a proper Christian life if we are to enter the Kingdom of God.

Abortion is a serious decision that should be made by the woman involved and anyone whom she feels she should consult. That is how things stand now, and that is the way it should remain.