The locus classicus on this range of issues is Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilich. It is heartbreaking.

The effort to shield a loved one from knowledge of his or her illness entails many costs, both for the patient and for those around him or her. As Tolstoy reminds us, it is foolish to believe that the patient does not have internal thoughts and struggles about what is happening to him or her. A primary casualty of keeping secrets (at least in most Western cultures) is loss of trust.

These issues take a peculiar form in Alzheimer's (and perhaps some parallel conditions). What is told, with truth and compassion, on one day, may not survive until the next. So the decision of whether, and what, to tell is not a one time thing. At a certain point in the progression of the illness, the issue may come to have more to do with the ability of family and friends to be comfortable within themselves, and no longer with the understanding (to the extent that concept remains meaningful) of the patient.

I've though about this as a bioethics scholar, and experienced it as a child. There are no happy answers.

I am a strong "friend of Israel" who also strongly supports Obama for the Presidency.

The long-term safety and flourishing of Israel is, for me, a significant issue, but one among others. Most American Jews have long favored a progressive domestic agenda, including civil liberties and civil rights, religious freedom and separation of church and state, a strong social safety net--policies compatible with Jewish tradition (and, perhaps not incidentally, compatible with the success Jews have achieved in American life), and strongly reflected in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Senator Obama is excellent on these issues, and offers the best prospect of advancing them in American life after years of political division.

Anyone knowledgable about Israeli life understands the vigorous, lively debate about politics and policy that is a constant feature of Israeli discourse. There is an Israeli right wing, to be sure, but its views capture the support of only a minority of Israelis (or of Israeli Jews). The tendency of some American supporters of Israel (often self-appointed, or appointed by virtue of their financial status rrather than any representational legitimacy) to insist on American support of Likud/right-wing (or American neoconservative) opinions misrepresents the center of gravity in both Israel and the American Jewish community. Many of us believe in the necessity of a strong American role in encouraging steps toward a peaceful two state solution, not least to cut through the clog of domestic Israeli (and Palestinian) political cultures.

In precisely that sense, a President Obama is likely to prove a far better, and more far-sighted "friend of Israel" than has been President Bush, or would likely be a President McCain.

Jews with knowledge, or personal memories, of the world's willingness to tolerate Hitler's "final solution" are rightly apprehensive of potential threats, such as that now posed by Iran, to the security of Israel and of Jews everywhere. It does not follow that an unremittingly bellicose and aggressive response from an American leader is necessarily the wisest policy. Once again, a President Obama may prove more adroit in meeting this challenge to both American and Israeli interests, and in recreating international respect for America's good offices on the international scene.

We would all be better off with less stereotyping and a broader, as well as better informed, discussion of these issues.

Why "truly stunning"?

Leave it alone.

Voters can make their own judgments on Gov. Palin's readiness to assume the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.

Personally-directed snarkiness, misogyny, and condescension are more likely to prove counterproductive than to enhance the quality or seriousness of the campaign. And they add nothing of value to our political discourse.

Alan J. Weisbard (blogging as "TheWiseBard")

Here's a thought. Maybe McCain could, with "pretty please" permission from the Pakistani government (if anyone can locate it), fly into the border tribal regions to do battle, mano a mano, with Osama (or does he think it's Obama?) bin Laden. If he can't wring bin Laden's neck, maybe he could at least disconnect him from his dialysis machine until he pees to death. Maybe McCain could even crash another jet on the way there (or back), about the only way he could salvage his reputation at this point.

Somewhat more seriously, I do fear a game changer from al-Qaida in the closing weeks. So far as I can determine, Bush and Cheney have played almost perfectly into Osama's hands over the past seven years, and there is every reason to believe McCain would do the same. (So far as I can tell, all three are doing their best to re-fight the Vietnam War, which Bush and Cheney, unlike McCain, found inopportune the first time around.) The US continues to bleed lives and treasure, all the while alienating our former allies and stimulating legions of volunteers for terrorist organizations. The risk that Obama might reconsider our losing strategies, and restore America to a position of respect and leadership in the world, must surely terrify our terrorist adversaries, and encourage a pre-election move by them to prolong the Bush-McCain follies that have done such damage to our standing in the world-- not to speak of our capacity to respond to world-wide threats.

The question is whether the American electorate might be stupid enough to fall for it (yet again).