It's near midnight for those of us in the Eastern Standard Tribe, and this discussion is uncomfortably like pushing a rope, so I'll make one last contribution and wish you all sogni d'oro.

Don't you think that we should be thinking about what sorts of plans terrorists could be plotting against the US... and what the best way to confront those threats is?

Of course we do. It seems like Iokannan gave you a pretty good list, and you said you agreed with it, but feared it wouldn't be "enough," and I asked you "enough for what?"

Full disclosure: I'm not all that worried about a big terrorist attack. I think that al-Qa'ida got what it wanted out of 9/11: to provoke us into an overreaching response. Their focus is much more in bringing down governments in the Muslim world they see as too pro-Western. Killing Americans is a means to that end, and they'll be happy to kill more. I don't see a Clancy scenario as being a big item on their to-do list.

I'm not an expert, so I could be about a million miles wide of the mark. But terrorism just doesn't worry me so much. What does worry me is an economic crisis that pushes tens of millions of Americans into abject poverty. I worry about crumbling infrastructure now that we've depleted our budget through wars and giveaways to the financial industry. And I worry about fearmongerers like those who have so obviously gotten to you, slancio.

We had kind of a half of a decent country when I was a kid.

I fear there won't be much left of that when I'm worm food.

Does that make me a cynic, Kitt, or an engaged skeptic.

GoodCelery!, some verse, I prithee.

Night night.

So... should there be a review about EVERYTHING... including torture... and what IS torture... and what would be permissible?

How about giving your opinion?

Since you guys seem bound and determined to butt heads, maybe you could take it elsewhere? Omar's blog? a back-alley somewhere?

Seriously, it stopped being even morbidly interesting about ten exchanges ago.

Other than the Haymarket bombing, did Ayers actually do any of that? Including the quote in the New York Times?

Did he really?

When you have to lie about what somebody did, even somebody you hate - especially somebody you hate - it's got to feel pretty nasty. What's that like for you?

empty, but perceived to be profound, statement?

I don't know if you can call it "empty" - though I'd agree that it's not profound - to note that revolutions often end up as merely a new set of faces in power without any substantive change. Especially given that it was written by a 26-year-old in 1971, it's at least a reasonably sophisticated observation.

Though I tend to agree with the sentiment, I'm also getting a little sick of the repeated use of the "new boss/old boss" quote getting hauled out in re: Obama.

But it's "Townshend." With an "H." And the organ/synth lead-in was innovative. So watch what you say about the Who, buddy.

...was my personal role model as a kid, in that he showed that you could be cool even if you were a big-nosed dork, so long as you rocked hard enough.

But yeah, he looks like a dufus with the hopping around. Though nowhere near as annoying as Daltrey, IMHO.

Bother you? Too bad

I'd suggest you reflect on what might come back to you as a result of that kind of attitude.

But it's your karms.

I came to terms years ago

Really? Cause you seem to be spending an awful lot of energy on attack, aggressiveness, ego and holding grudges for someone who is so settled.

Osho talked about joy, zestfulness, a childlike nature. remarkable that you seem to have missed that.

And no... it doesn't "bother" me.

...how boring you guys' feud is?

I would rather have the slow progress that comes when elected representatives think for themselves and think of their constituencies instead of hewing closely to the planks of their parties' platforms.

Did you actually read Glenn Greenwald's post?

I am continually struck by how often people's takeaway is exactly 180° the opposite of what was written.

The need to deny the importance of the election and to pretend it doesn't mean anything is leading certain people to downright inhuman contortions.

Sorry, but I don't get the relevance of this comment. Are you saying that Glenn is going through such contortions... or that Emanuel is?

Or did you just not like Kurtz's article? I mean, that's fine, but I'm wondering why you posted this, here, now.

The ideology of the party's base is not necessarily aligned with that of a representative's constituency.

The post was about a Congressman who was not aligned with his constituency... and how he was praised for it by a leader of his party.

It seems you either didn't read the post (or my comment) or somehow managed to read it as saying the exact opposite of what it actually did say.

should we give Walz the benefit of the doubt that it is not an argument his constituents are ready to hear?

I'm curious why you're asserting that this was Walz's motivation. I don't know what his motivation was. Do you have some inside information you can share?

In any regard, I don't know how to square this with your earlier assertion that representatives should do what their constituents want, rather than what their party leadership tells them to.

Small steppers are talkers. Big steppers are doers.

Holy crap. Did you just self-righteously attack your own all-talk, no-action ass? Or did you log off for a few minutes and actually go out into your community and do something?

Either way, that was kind of impressive.