As long as Specter acts in ways that enable and support this Administration, he provides cover for other people to do the same.

In some cases, this effect doesn't matter. But if Specter says he's willing to pass on big issues like whether or not Gonzales lied to Congress and should be impeached for it, Specter's response makes the AGs actions look less serious to other people looking at the process, you know, average voters who don't know better because they're too busy working a job to read the papers regularly.

Not to mention Republican partisans who then use Specter to say all over the media, look, it was a witch hunt. Specter's behavior makes it much easier to throw the Constitution and the balance of powers under the bus.

The book on Bonds is pretty clear and has been for quite some time. In many ways, he is not a nice guy. He appears more than likely to have used steroids although that has not been proven in court or similar legal manner. He's alleged to have beaten his wife and so on.

However, nowhere is it written only nice people can break records. We're all adults. Knowing the history of Bonds as a player and a person lets everyone decide whether or not they value what Bonds has achieved as a player. Same for Aaron. Same for Rose. Same for a thousand other ballplayers. There is no definitive answer, only personal opinion based on our individual values.

I also thought that I saw in a reputable place online a comparison of home runs pre-steroid era and steroid era and there was little difference. To me, that's the real test and it should be easy to prove or disprove the notion that Bonds has cheated to get his record. If there is no difference, as I think this source suggests, then Bonds use of steriods is a self-inflicted tragedy. He is a cautionary tale.

But even if he cheated, as long as the details are transparent, players like Bonds will always be judged by the fans. Guys like Bonds may get records, they may do great things, but the fans decide who is worthy of adulation. Now and in the future. Put Bonds name in the record books but let the fans decide the value of the record.

P.S. Out of deference for your stated preference that people not comment anonymously, I'm coming out of the comment closet.

Farhad, you're showing your youth and inexperience again. As someone pointed out, this is simply a bad marketing mistake on the part of Apple. It makes their early adopters, some of the most passionate and vocal advocates for Apple, think twice when a new product comes out. Don't be surprised if initial sales for new Apple products like the iPhone are anemic until a few months out as people wait for a price drop 2 months after product launch.

As for your high and mighty attitude about early adopters, I bought the iPhone two weeks ago because it has the largest screen with a modern browser. I use it to run my online business so I don't have to carry a computer. That freedom is priceless to me. But I wouldn't expect you or other haters to see some people value that sort of flexibility. Yes it's a sexy phone, hugely hyped. But in the end it's a tool.

Even better, having left a phone message last night with the local Apple store, they called me back this morning before store hours to give me a credit. I know who I'm buying computers from next year when my business computer goes off it's support contract: Apple.

I wonder how comments by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others who founded this country would be viewed in this sort of equivalence prism? Probably we never would have had a revolution. Intended or not, it's a control mechanism used by one group to hold power at the expense of other groups.

What's required to offset the Drudge mentality is a hook that people can hang on to and work with. Obama provided that in his speech, and earlier speeches, by appealing to everyone's better angels. As others have noted, not everyone has to be changed. It's enough that a politician like Obama offers a clear alternative, something people can actively engage, to make a difference over time.

I for one would love to see Obama take the same approach in talking about health care (e.g. what's the proper balance between making health care a business and the individual right to live without fear of dying or suffering needlessly because they don't have money?) and economics (e.g. what's the proper balance between the needs of corporations and the rights of individuals to their privacy, among other rights?). We've not had a politician in my lifetime, going back to Nixon, who has been able to raise these issues in ways that foster real meaningful debate.

Obama's speech on race is an excellent start for a discussion about race. Let's hope he tackles other issues in a similar way and helps most of us move forward.

For myself, my loyalties were with Dodd, someone with long experience. But this country really deserves someone like Obama if he can attract real talent in his administration. Sorry to say, for me, Clinton looks like an old pol in comparison. That's a neat trick Obama has pulled off.