Let's see. The economy grew by 1.3% while consumer spending went up by 1.8% Money owed on home equity lines of credit declined. So the money for all this increased spending is coming from what? savings? (we don't have much left; more unsecured debt? (most likely).

YES!

Misbehaving in what is essentially an online a game a CRIME? We have to even talk about this?

Don't like someone's behavior online? Click the little "x" in the upper tight hand corner.

The man cashed in $425 million in stock options? Let's see; that's over $35,400 for EACH of the 12,000 terminated employees. Could make a nice severance package, huh?

Long live unrestrained capitalism!

"Younger Democrats ought to have an easier time making the case that it's the Democrats who care about the troops, who want them to have . . ."

Really???? Then why are they still funding the Iraq Occupation? No, Dems (of all ages) don't care about the troops any more than do Republicans. In my opinion Dems are using the soldiers and the war as a political football, just like Republicans do. Only their tactical rhetoric is different. Their strategic goals are the same; get into office, stay in office, exploit the office for personal gain.

This doesn't of course, apply to EVERY Democrat but then, it doesn't apply to every Republican either. Just to most of them (on both sides of the aisle).

"World War II was not Vietnam or Iraq. It was a war forced on the United States, a struggle to the death against an aggressive and powerful enemy."

Was it forced on us? It depends where one draws the frame. If we draw as Ken Burns does, it in the mid- 1930's, yes, it was forced on us.

But many would argue that WW II was rooted in the West's actions following WW I, decimating the German economy, attempting to restrict Japan's ability to exploit resources in favor of Euro-American Empire in that part of the world, etc. Others would argue that WW II (like Viet Nam [aka Indo-China, Iraq and many other places) is rooted in the very idea of (economic and/or political)empire. This is an idea on which the very founding of our country is based and one which we have enthusiastically justified and exported overseas since the Spanish-American war.

Looked at from that perspective, it becomes difficult to argue that WW-II was forced on us. It may still be seen as inevitable outcome of human nature in those conditions, but we have become forced to acknowledge that basically, we "caused" that awful conflagration every bit as much as did the Axis powers. This is a much more frightening view that Ken Burns version of the war because, to the degree it is accurate we apparently learned little from it and are blithely headed for the next conflagration.

The fund manager said you will do "very well" investing with him but his web site show that his fund has lagged behind the S&P this year, over the last 3 years and the last 10. Only their 5-year average exceed S&P gains. One may want to invest "green" for other reasons (though most letters indicate that doing so has little positive environmental effect), but green is apparently not where the money is - at least not yet.

The article and the letters I read make many good points, few of which will come a news to most Salon readers. But losing our superpower status is not necessarily a bad thing. We could be breathing a sigh of relief, kind of like a parent when the last child is not longer a mi or and leaves home. After all, it's been tough feeling all that responsibility of more than a half century.

The big issue facing Salon readers should be how we all can talk to friends and neighbors about this - how we can help convince most Americans than not feeling responsible for running everyone and everything can be well worth driving less, turning down the heat, turning up the air conditioning and eating a less meat, etc.

Again, I suspect most Salon readers already agree with that this article speaks to. More than being educated to these facts, we need dialog about the nuts and bolts of moving the country in the only feasible direction that remains; from former superpower to "mere" citizen of the world.

I was disappointed to see Joan Walsh joining the fluff crowd by commenting on race tactics instead of sticking to issues and the essence of each candidate.

that if we do we make the highest levels of competition unavailable to talented athletes who unlike Sey, are NOT willing to risk their health in that way. (and maybe even the middle levels, like being a starter on a good HS football team)

This article is clearly positional/editorial in nature. Nothing wrong with that, but calling John McCain a Dunce and picturing him in a Dunce cap is really low. Garrison Keelor mad many of the same points last week, but he made them in a much better way, without resorting to insults and name-calling. Let's remember, once Obama becomes President, he will have to actually govern all of us - not just his friends. He will be in a much better position to do that effectively if we, his supporters stick to facts and issues during the campaign.

Not much I disagree with in Erin Aubry Kaplan's article. Michelle Obama seems to be a great woman. But is ANYONE's butt really worthy of being Salon's lead article, even on a slow news day?