"Whether dealing with evolution or global warming, why same-sex marriages would ruin the united states or when is torture acceptable; both "sides" must be presented, even if one is completely wrong."

When dealing with a point of view that one deems to be "completely wrong," even when the facts bear you out, it's always constructive to analyze why the other side believes as they do; as misguided as they may seem, from inside their skin what they are saying makes sense, it "works for them." If you don't try to find out why they're sticking to a point of view that is not supported by the facts, you'll never pry them loose from their argument. I'm not talking about Coulter and Limbaugh, who do it for money but their audiences who desperately need to believe what they say is true. Or the reviewers who call Glenn "shrill" instead of "deadly accurate." What's motivating their selective blindness/deafness? I don't think some writers on the left, feeling they are totally supported by empirical fact, take the time to look at why they're not being heard. Not feeling heard, they scream louder, "Can't you see how right I am?? Look at the facts!!!" But it isn't always about facts, with people. We're not all Mr. Spock. When BushCo taps into people's fear, facts go out the window. When people perceive their economic well-being threatened by oh, say, reduced military spending, their brains go out the window. If you want to convince them that an economy that relies on instruments of death to maintain it is ultimately going to destroy the world, you have to take into account their fear of being poor, or all the screaming in the world isn't going to change their minds.

It makes for good debating to remember that the other person, inside his/her skin, subjectively, feels just as correct in what he/she is saying as you or I do. If you want to change his/her mind, you've got to get inside, not just point at facts.

The problem with reporting that such-and-such government agency has been abusing its powers to, for example, spy on Americans is that people hear it and think, "Well, nothing bad has happened to me or anyone I know because of this; maybe it's not such a great thing but stacked up against my mortgage and my kid's drug habit, it doesn't amount to much."

Hard to warn someone of a crisis at the same time you say it's been this way for a long time.

Have you ever met a billionaire arms manufacturer? Socially, they're very secure.

These rebates are like taking a bucket of water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring into the shallow end, thinking the level is going to rise.

We have to stop saving our kids from themselves.

Shame on you.

I so hoped, when Barack was tossed the Farrakhan question, that in the course of his answer he'd find a moment to point out that he is running for President of the United States of America, that as such he will defend the Constitution for all Americans, but that Israel is not our fifty-first state and that its support and protection cannot and will not be prioritized to the detriment, either in lives or treasure, of Americans who need health care, good schools, functioning infrastructure and a safe world in which to live and raise their families.

Of course, it was not to be.

It takes a long time to prepare an Oscar (R) show -- they didn't know if they'd have writers, so they planned for and produced a show that was largely writer-proof. Thus, the montages. Cut 'em a break, you're potshotting them from the safety of never having had a show to put on. Your tone is so splenetic it starts to sound personal.

Look at all the crooks and liars who are wearing lapel pins. If Cheney's wearing one, then I'll vote for the first guy who's NOT wearing one!

Too bad they're airing this 60 Minutes the night of the Oscars (where's that little "registered trademark" symbol...I left it around here someplace...). Last week, 60M did a very effective hit piece on Bayer pharma killing -- no, murdering -- heart patient, looked like Bayer would be sued into the stone age -- but no effect on their stock all week.

We're all numb.

As soon as I started reading this article I could just hear the cries for SZ's head on a platter, the nasty, personal attacks on her person and her craft. I was not disappointed.

What is it with you people who hate her reviews but continue to read them? A chance to blow your bile ballast in the morning before heading out into the horror of your day?

I think Camille Paglia is full of shit and guess what -- I don't read what she writes!

I'm not saying the only people here should be SZ's cheering section; as everywhere on Salon there should be a lively discussion complete with disagreement and shouting. But to those who start every post with, "I hate Stephanie Zacharek, her entire way of thinking and writing and breathing..." or words to that effect, I say -- get a life. Go away. You're more tedious than Stephanie Zacharek could ever hope to be.

Maybe CM sees what's coming for his favorite, sees this as the best way to give them a wake-up call.

We've already got a president who's committed to victory. How do you think we got those four disastrous years in the first place?? Geez!

The big question about any prezcan is "Who will he/she surround him/herself with?" If Ms. Power is exemplary of Obama's taste in advisors, then it's one more reason to vote for him.