I almost feel like we live in a democracy. Bear with me as I try to work my way through this:

(commence internal monologue) So, it comes out that a president-elect wants to make a decision deeply offensive to the people that elected him, those people speak out against it, and the will of the people (one way or the other) is responded to? What is this strange sequence of events?

*head explodes*

ps - congrats to Glenn and the other rabble-rousers (I think that includes us in the comments section). you/we made a difference.

So with our newfound power, can we / should we push for getting Hegel in and Gates out as SecDef? I don't have extensive knowledge on the subject but it sure seems like Hegel would be better. He's a socially conservative republican, but that wouldn't really matter in the position, and why would Obama want ANYONE left over from the Bush administration?

I had a sarcastic opener, but I'll just get to the part where I agree with you. Most people don't want to take a stand against torture. This summer a professor asked a room full of law students I happened to be in to raise their hands if they would consider torturing under some circumstances. I was one of three who kept our hands down. We were a small minority.

The first Bible verse I learned, at the age of about four, was Jeremiah 17.9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? The theological doctrine is total depravity. People are not good. Some of us think we should at least try. You laughing at the idea of basic morality speaks volumes, of course.

"Perhaps I should congratulate you on having nothing in your life worth preserving at any cost."

An interesting statement. I have quite a few things in my life I would hate to lose, at least one person I have thought many times I could not possibly live without. Most people do. This, as best as I can tell, is the difference between me and you. I would do anything and everything in my power to protect the things and people I have so generously been given, and maybe I would cross a few lines that, under normal circumstances, I would not be willing to do. But, as our tour guide said at Villa Grimaldi, "torture destroys human beings."

There are all sorts of shades of grey in the world, but the issue of torture is not one. Ondolette substituting rape for torture is accurate because, although both presumably do not have to leave lasting physical scars, both destroy minds and leave lifelong mental and emotional scars. Both are an assault on humanity itself, dehumanizing the perpetrator and the victim. In the U.S., we forbid torture on criminals convicted of unimaginable crimes, people who have sacrificed any real connection with the rest of humanity. I think this prohibition is less about whether the criminal "deserves it" - in some cases they have destroyed and defecated over every social contract conceivable - and more about what we are, who we are, and the world we want.

If you truly believe you have no soul, and you will not be judged, whether by a personal God or karma or some unknown, unknowable cosmic justice, for giving up your humanity and taking part in the destruction of another's humanity, without even knowing for a fact that he did anything wrong, go on your merry way. I think it makes you subhuman, but like the Man said, "judge not." The thing I have that is worth preserving at any cost is my soul.

By your reasoning nobody is qualified for elected office who hasn't already been elected to office. Which means we would run out of politicians in the span of one generation. Which is why I approve of your reasoning 100%.

I may be the only one, but I thought Obama did quite well at the Saddleback campaign event, better than McCain, and I don't think he was ambushed. Obviously there were going to be questions about abortion and gay rights. It would be naive to think otherwise. I also remember hearing Obama got 10% more the of the evangelical vote. I don't think that is "marginally better," I think that's significantly better. Another thing you Godless dems need to realize (that's a joke) is that there is no "spiritual authority" Obama could have chosen who would not have offended someone. If he had chosen someone from a mainline or "liberal" church, it would have sent a clear signal to the "religious right" that they were going to be marginalized by his administration. In contrast, I don't think his picking Warren is a signal he intends to marginalize the GBLT constituency, at least I hope not. Remember, Warren does not have a cabinet position; this is a largely symbolic act, and possibly some good can come out of it. Maybe, maybe not, but hell, its symbolic.

To the poster who claimed the SEC was the toughest division --

Of course we don't know this because all the "powerhouse" conferences so rarely schedule real games against non-divisonal opponents. In fact, you could probably make a case that Ohio State shot itself in the foot this year by scheduling that game against USC, except that they lost that close one to Penn State. A lot of people probably think the PAC 10 is a powerhouse conference, but of course the Mountain West went 5-1 against the PAC 10 this past season, and Utah beat all comers in the Mountain West. Add to that the reality that Alabama would have been undefeated and in the national championship game if they didn't have to play a conference championship game, and can't we all agree (1) that the system needs reform, and (2) we would really like to see what would have happened if Utah went up against Oklahoma or Florida?