Thank you for your reply about Oregon still mattering. Obviously, I do think that it matters, but I was hoping to point out some of the hurtful rhetoric implied by people supporting the "Big States" argument. You obviously picked up on that, and I thank you.

Still, the truth is, Oregon, a state which encompasses one of the most politically weird landscapes you can imagine, is in fact for the most part disenfranchised by the current primary system, and it will be until there is a true "Super Tuesday" For instance, drive through my city and what you will see are many cars with Edwards and Kucinich bumperstickers. Unable, to cast votes for our first choice, we must now indicate a preference for two candidates who are far more middle of the road than we would like to see as the face of the democratic party. It is a bit galling to vote for Hillary or Barack out of limited options, only to have that lukewarm vote read as being some kind of mandate of our true feelings.

Personally, what I'd like to see is a national "Super Tuesday." Only then can ALL voices and viewpoints get a true expression. Then, at the convention, Edwards and Kucinich might not have enough delegates to win, but let's say that they pulled 30% nationally. It would be so nice to have that 30% addressed and considered when it came time to build the party platform. I dream of a truly progressive populist democratic party.

This is why I find it a little tiring from some in the Hillary camp, (and some of the letter writers here can be especially caustic) when they complain that Michigan and Florida voters are being disenfranchised by the democracy hating "Obamatrons," and isn't it just so unfair and anti-democratic? Yeah, tell me about it. The way things are, I rarely have been able to cast a vote for the candidate of my choice.

Hey, thanks again for the civil response! I'm really not liking all the sniping going on in these pages.

Now they claim the surge is working. But until he announced the big swelling manly surge, the official line from the Bush White House was that the previous policy was working too. The surge is working. The surge has always been working. The surge will forever be in a state of working. But note, they still haven't defined the terms by which we can say that the surge has worked. But that last is the key to any rational discussion, I think.

The rhetoric pre-surge is almost verbatim what Petraeus delivered yesterday: Slow but steady progress, we can't quit now, just when we're at yet another defining moment. The price of defeat is too great, and blah blah blah. The language never changes! Four years later, McCain is delivering George Bush's same tired stump speech.

I propose we start taking back the rhetoric. It's not a war, it's an occupation. It's not a surge, it's a stall. The stall is working! It's helping, as intended, to keep making sure that Bush's failed policies to be the engine that drives the country. It's stupid and wrong.

The language is exactly the same! Nothing has changed. Oh, wait a minute, there is one thing that has changed. At least another thousand US soldiers have given their lives in service to George Bush's stall. That's 1,000; or as Dick Cheney might call it, just a number. But many Americans needn't worry about that. They put a bumper sticker on their car, so they've done their part.

The ABC story kept emphasizing the word "legal" to the point where I wasn't sure if they were trying to subtly to turn it into what is sure to be the next Republican talking point: "No laws were broken, folks! Nothing to see here!"

But clearly when John Yoo and others were sent off on a hunt for legal excuses to torture it was not a profound respect for the rule of law that prompted their action, but a profound desire to cover their ass. They knew their plan was wrong, and illegal, but they were determined to do it anyway, and they didn't want to be punished for it the way that the law is supposed to bring criminals to justice. In this, they stand revealed as cowards and traitors.

The question that ABC did not ask anyone after its constant use of the word "legal" is this: If all procedures approved at the meetings are legal, then why are several soldiers now serving time in prison for implementing approved policy?

The whole "who gets to choose" test is problematic, but I think this might work. The "careful screening" process is really almost entirely meaningless. It has nothing to do with superior genes or anything like that. It's really just a strange and frustrating series of hoops and hurdles designed solely to test the commitment level of prospective parents. If they can't make it through the process, -- which, again, has more to do with dogged perseverance than seeing how clever, smart, wealthy or athletic applicants are -- then they probably shouldn't be allowed to become parents anyway.

Of course, it's no guaranty that things won't go wrong later, but I think it will prove more reliable than the present idea that the biological act of getting knocked up qualifies a person to raise a child.