Why would you wait for a "failure" before you attempted to do it right in the first place? Would you start steering your car to the right after you hit the pole on the left or would you steer right in time to avoid the pole?

Well, to because I don't have any proof that he's heading towards a pole. Also, because I don't have a bottomless well of outrage to apply to every word, phrase or funny look that may result in trouble later on.

I take your point, and I really don't mean to make light of a serious issue. Making demands of our elected officials in order to produce correct action is something that is all of our responsibility. But I am willing to give Obama the ebenfit of the doubt. Others may not, but that's where I fall.

Do you think you can return the republic/economy/global order/planet after you have bought and paid for it, and you find out it's broken?

I would make the argument that this process is what voting is designed to acomplish. Put someone in office, and if they fail to live up to the rationale that resulted in your vote, vote for someone else.

What you seem to be advocating is that once someone has been elected to office, they are subject to the electorate's whim on every matter that comes before them. I suscribe to the opinion that they are not errand boys. In this regard, I side with Burke who offered that "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

My goal, therefore, in chosing which candiates to vote for is predicated on my assesment of their errudition and judgment untill proven otherwise. It is why I voted for Obama. If this fits your definition of "consumerism", then so be it.

I would also suggest (without harmful intent or hostility) attempting to stage manage the voting patterns of elected official, save through elections, is a fool's errand.

, Can you explain why there is such a disconnect between average Americans, who strongly believe that in order to restore the rule of law in this country Obama must have the Justice Dept. investigate and prosecute Bush administration war crimes . . .

Does anyone have polling data to suggest that this position is a growing consensus in the U.S.? While I think Glenn's characterization about the media's obeisant position is accurate (and disturbing), I'm interested to know the scope of the disconnect.

, International law plays a huge role in this and it is quite possible that international courts are where the prosecutions will take place.

Given the mechanics of the ICC, since we were not a signatory to the Rome Statute at the time of the crimes, the chance of it being prosecuted there is nil.

On the former, it would depend on the Obama administration as to whether the Security Council would be able to go forward with such a request, if any country brings one.

I'm aware of the mechanism, and remain doubtful that the U.S. would ever allow such a motion to make it past the Security Council.

While the deplorable percentage of our political leaders who escape prosecution for serious crimes undermines our republic, I’m not sure that they managed to slip the noose because they’re office holders. Rather, I think that by virtue of being office holders, they’re in a socio-economic class that benefits disproportionately in the criminal justice system.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, indigent defendants were convicted 75% of the time in local proceedings, and have a 17% greater chance of being incarcerated then those represented by private counsel. This is not to impugn the excellent work that many public defenders do, but when presented with an increasingly heavy case load and merciless justice system, they can only do so much.

Unfortunately, those on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum wind up bearing the brunt while high officials can get their limitless bills paid at the white shoe firm of their choice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/id.htm#conviction

"Not voting is obviously better than voting for the corporate/MIC sponsored establishment! Voting third party certainly can't be any worse when thinking long term."

I don't think you mean what you advocating here. See also Bob Barr.

Now this is not a criticism of anyone’s conception of life, but the legal implications of this are staggering. As Gail Schoettler pointed out in an editorial in the Denver Post when Colorado had this on the ballot the first time, this effort would effectively make any medical treatments for pregnant women that may kill the fetus illegal, and would criminalize most (if not all) types of contraceptive pills and IUD’s (which prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall), and in vitro fertilization (as fertilized eggs are often discarded after a successful pregnancy). As if couples who are struggling to get pregnant don’t have enough to worry about.

Plus, what about property rights? If a fertilized egg is a “person,” does that toss the rule against perpetuities out the window? Can a frozen, fertilized egg in a lab freezer somewhere inherit your house?