It's a user-determined taxonomy, and any geek who specializes in information science should use it with the same lack of fear they use when speaking of wikis, skip lists, taxons, polytomies, or tagging. People not steeped in the field may wince, but isn't it normal for jargon to be off-putting to those outside the field?

There's a difference, I think, in the attitudes we may hold toward different terms. Origin and usage should be relevant. There are:

• Terms developed within a field to meet a specific need (folksonomy)
• Terms developed outside a field to make it accessible to those who may make use of its services, but who are not developing within it (netiquette)
• Terms originating and still used within the field as jokes, but which are used outside the field seriously (blogosphere).
• Terms with specific scientific meaning, but which are also associated with a more popular definition. Memes, for example, have a specific evolutional meaning, but are also used to refer to the frequently irritating but sometimes entertaining quizzes that are passed around between bloggers.

The first time I saw a shift like this in the media was back in 1994, when work on the Superconducting Supercollider was under debate, and Congress needed a budget scapegoat. Suddenly the media and Congress stopped referring to the "particle accelerator" or "SSC" or "supercollider" and began talking across the board about the "giant atom smasher." Very shortly thereafter it was gone.

I've seen this behavior a few other times since, and it's quite maddening to watch supposed "reporters" essentially do no more than read press releases.

My guess? We will shortly see another al-Qaida attack on US soil, allowing the administration to not only redouble their efforts to remove/keep removed our rights, but allowing them to use recent al-Qaida Iraq rhetoric to redouble their efforts there.

And to answer the question, Why do they do something so obvious? the obvious answer is, because they can, and they don't care. They seek the appearance of justification, and the fact that people are outraged doesn't matter as long as they have that appearance.

No one would be happier than I to be proven completely wrong.

Now I'm just scared they want to take away another right, or undo more hard-won precedents.

This court, this administration, and this Congress have me deeply questioning our system of government. Since the election was stolen in 2000, things have gone nowhere but downhill; and the few times hopes appear, they are raised only to be dashed further than I ever imagined possible.

As to the future, I, you know, rule nothing in and nothing out.

One question and seven sentences later:

I made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe is the right decision to make in this case. I stand by it.

Of course, if by "stand by" he means, "rules nothing out," then there's no inconsistency.

I truly think they don't understand their audience actually pays attention. Either that, or their brains are so filled with rationalizations and lies they can no longer manage simple logic.

Does anyone think a reason to commute Scooter so quickly might be to show others that, contempt of Congress aside, they will likewise be spared any consequences of not testifying?

That's an excellent insight - that the private insurance corporate overhead leaves the administrative overhead for government health assistance. So what the government is saying is:

• Instead of helping uninsured children, this will help currently insured children whose parents will drop their insurance (a questionable premise, to be sure).
• Assuming the premise is true, this country's citizens would do better to spend approximately 75% of $25 billion toward health care, directing over $6 billion toward administrative and marketing, rather than spend approximately 95% of 25 billion on health care.

In other words, it's better for US citizens to waste 20% of our private healthcare money on marketing and whatever else makes the private insurance companies spend so much more than Medicare does on administration, than for the government to apply our taxes much more efficiently.

There are legitimate reasons for occasionally wanting to post anonymously. For example, in a world where employers look online to find out about people, someone might be afraid their deeply religious employer would be offended by a pro-atheist remark on Salon. People who have families dependent on their work are risking not only themselves, but others, if they speak out under their name. These may be people who on issues that don't make them fear for their jobs, like to speak under their own name, or wish to preserve a body of work they've contributed on Salon.

So how about this: Registered people can submit as Anonymous on articles. But they can only do one or the other - on the same thread, a user can either be Anonymous or themselves.

Also, should they decide to post anonymously, they can't post more than twice. This allows for one mistake/clarification post, as well as the point they initially wanted to make.

This would make people use the "anonymous" option less often, but leave it available for people with valuable insights who for some reason or other can't share them openly.

Thanks for a great start to the week :-)