Why is it always about Joan Walsh? Joan, the guy's dead and he got a big sendoff befitting one of the greatest superstars and weirdest people on the planet. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, JOAN. And neither is the rest of the world we live in.

Ratzinger would abolish San Francisco in its entirety if he could. You guys at Salon, you seem to have no common sense at all sometimes. This is not a guy who likes you and there's no reason for you to like him.

When you realize that the two concepts are essentially the same -- applications hosted on remete servers and available to users via their client-side computing equipment -- this "out of reach" social commentary is revealed as silly. So some people can't afford remote applications and have to rely on their hand me down local apps? Good grief. Slow day for news?

This was in the blogs a couple of years ago. Pelosi, Reid, and other Dem leaders are up to their eyeballs in the illegal spying just as they are implicated in the illegal torture. Joan Walsh is the last person in the country to know this, apparently.

A mediocrity chosen for her race, unqualified for the job.

There's simply so much processing power on the desktop (or PDA) that developers will always be creating the most interesting applications for use on the client side.

Only legacy or commoditized apps makes sense on the server. Web servers makes sense on the server. Video editing? I don't think so.

The "cloud" is a concept with much hype and little reality. Look and the processing power at your fingertips. Does anyone REALLY believe that the future is a stripped-down linux OS whose sole purpose is to run a web browser, as Chrome OS appears to be?

I don't believe it. I think the service bureaus went out of business in the 80's because sufficient computing power became available to individuals and businesses; and that trend toward moving processing power to the client side has not stopped and shows no signs of stopping.

(no msg)

Even Obama today was backing off the Pelosi plan to bankrupt the country while making health care worse.

(no text)

The night Bob Dole showed on tv a flowchart of the Byzantine complexities of the HillaryCare, the plan was dead.

Joe wasn't watching that night or he'd remember. That plan was so complex and convoluted that anyone with a lick of common sense was against it.

"she won't need the law or religion to punish her; she has constructed her own hell from which she'll never escape."

Well don't men who kill feel bad afterwards too? Let's just all move on. Judgment and punishment are so old school.

"After all the mean-spirited and sexist slurs directed at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the 2008 elections, women and gentlemen are no longer going to silently allow pot shots at women to go unchallenged."

Indeed. Why I seem to remember one online site actually published a picture of Sarah Palin as a dominatrix. What sleazy site would DO such a thing? Oh right, it was Salon.

In order to insure the millions of uninsured, including -- so we're told -- tens of millions of undocumented immigrant, there must be huge cost savings somewhere. Those cost savings can't possibly come from "streamlining" the bureaucracy. On the contrary, there would need to be a huge new government bureaucracy to administer the plan. When has government ever done anything cheaply and efficiently?

Since 50% of medical expenses occur in the last year of life, it follows that there must be increased rationing of health care for terminally ill patients. Moreover, the current House plan cuts Medicare to pay for insurance for the currently uninsured. In other words, 60-something who need hip replacements won't get them, in order to fund insurance for the currently uninsured.

I'm a registered Dem who voted for Obama. But of course according to Pelosi and Walsh, I'm a racist, I'm ignorant, and I'm un-American. Simply because I'd like to see more facts on the table.

How can you fund insurance for the uninsured without making cuts somewhere else? And where will those cuts come from?

I ask a fact-based question: Where will the cost savings come from to pay for the uninsured? And what do you do? Do you respond with facts and information? No, you call me names. Is namecalling the limit of your ability to argue a position? It seems to be the Dem strategy. Questioning is "un-American" according to Pelosi. This is the exact same tactic that the Bush admin used to smear anyone who questioned the invasion of Iraq. Oh right, Obama's in power now so the wars are good. I forgot.

Come Sundays in autumn I'll be watching the man play football. And Joan Walsh will still be obessing about Sarah Palin.

I never heard the USSR accused of common decency.

That's the moment the Dems lost the initiative, lost the center, lost the independents, and lost pretty much every sane and rational person in the country.

Why are the Dems incapable of articulating their position? When it comes to demonizing anyone who dares to question them, the Dems took their cues from the Bush administration. "Dissent is treason" is all we've heard from the government across TWO successive administrations.

And you wonder why Obama lost the center?

Interesting development. Chaos doesn't work all that well, as it turns out.

Do you not get that the Dems lost the middle the day Pelosi called dissenters un-American? Do you not realize that the mainstream sees another 20,000 troops going to Afghanistan and wonders what the hell is going on? Are Dems so arrogant as to think that nobody's noticing Obama's lack of leadership and lack of direction?