I'd agree that she did nothing wrong. But I'm not sure the security people did either. We can't hire people with PhDs to deal with every security situation and if even if we could, the nature of their business is they don't have time to analyze every situation the way we do on the web after the fact.

I'm not sure what a solution is, or if there is a solution. There are some times when the government (or even the public) is asking for things that can be mutually exclusive - lots of security and also lots of liberty or low taxes and high government services or altruistic, intelligent people to serve in government who are also willing to put themselves through the absurd process of campaigning that we have today.

The reason is that the money you invest in the stock market doesn't go to the companies - it goes to the person who sold the stock. It has no effect on the company in question.

Ultimately the price of the stock does have some effect on the company's behavior, but not usually a tremendous amount. However, your choice of investments does not really affect the stock price at all.

Here's why. Suppose you think WalMart is so evil you won't invest in it. It won't matter a bit, because so many others don't care and will buy the stock. But suppose enough people did care, enough so that the stock started to dip just for that reason (the underlying business reasons for the stock were not affected). Somebody, somewhere would see this as a buying opportunity and purchase the stock, keeping it from going too low, and you'd have given that person a shot at making a good deal.

At the very least you'd expect the executives and board members of the company to buy the stock so the main effect you'd have on them by boycotting the stock is to make the officers and board members richer.

I'm not saying you won't get good returns on your money investing in a green fund (I haven't done enough research to have an opinion) but you won't affect the environment.

Better to do anything you can (legally) to get rich in the stock market, then give your money to help elect people to run the government in a way that will help the environment.

Next best might be to invest in environmental start-ups, where your investment does go right to the company - however that's like charity. It's almost a sure way not to get rich yourself. Don't ask me how I know this [grin].

OK Rush is an idiot (Franken said that a while ago - it's not news). And other idiots are fawning. And some of those idiots are elected officials of the GOP. So?

It's early in any election cycle. To put too much emphasis on the actions /reactions of idiots does two things that are dangerous. One it give idiots publicity and two it makes smart people complacent.

There's a lot of hard work to be done in governing our country out of this mess. It's going to take more than 2 years. If the press doesn't prepare people for making a smart choice in the next election cycle we could not make it. All this talk about Rush and the idiots who follow him doesn't help prepare the bulk of the electorate (who usually make their decisions on emotion not well reasoned analysis) for the tough choices they'll have to make. So get off the Rush already.

Small is not always beautiful. Basically the bill gives the treasury secretary unlimited power to decide who is "too big" or to ignore those who really are too big.