I disagree about the relative quality of American cars. I believe I speak from a certain amount of personal experience. At nearly 60 years old now, I've owned over 70 different cars in my driving lifetime, about half of them being American made. I've also done a lot of shade tree mechanic work on these cars over the years. I know this is blasphemy, but I don't understand how people can claim that a Honda is a better made car than a Ford (just for instance). My experience is that the Japanese in general, and Honda designers in particular, like to cram a lot of features into a vehicle with no thought of how that affects serviceability. The Hondas I've owned (2 Civics) were fine for about 100k, but then quickly fell apart. OTOH, the 02 Windstar that I currently have is like new at 130k, with very little maintenance problems. Sure... I had to replace the automatic transmission, but it was on warranty, and I've heard plenty of stories of Hondas and Toyotas having the same problems with their automatics. But, overall, I think that Ford, at least, is putting out a reasonably good product.

That being said, I'd still rather drive my 25 year old Volvo 245 with 450k on its original motor and tranny. But that's not so much a comment on the relative quality as it is simply a personal preference.

We need to stop thinking that we Americans can't collectively build good products. Most of the failures of the manufacturing base in this country can be laid directly at the feet of poor, grossly overcompensated management, not labor. And for those of you who think it smart to bash organized labor, I would only ask where you think things like the 40 hour week, and the whole host benefits you take for granted came from? Shouldn't we be working to extend a fair deal to EVERYONE, rather than siding with the people who are tirelessly attempting to drag us down to the level of 19th century peonage?

Hard for Bush to get elected a second time when he didn't get elected the first time.

It's my belief that Obama is slowly letting the air out of his own tires. It took an awful lot of very committed activism and enthusiasm on the part of a lot of very secular leftists to get him elected. Sure, the Fascist Party is down and out now, but it isn't because of anything the presumptive (and largely illusory) party of the left has done; it's what those who actually did the heavy lifting EXPECT them to do. If they don't deliver, and instead, continue to drift ever rightward, the best they can hope for is indifference - the worst, active resistance.

Believe me, the conscience-free party of the right wing will NOT be troubled by any such soul searching. Sans the active, enthusiastic grunt work of the left, Obama will NOT have a successful four years, and will be low hanging fruit come 2012.

If Obama continues to flip off his real supporters this is a situation RIPE for a REAL progressive populist to come along and smash the existing two party shell game.

When I see actual, concrete respect and tolerance of different views by the right wing, thug theocracy of this country, I will be willing to extend respect to the purveyors of intolerance, bigotry and religion based exclusion, of which Rick Warren is as good an example as any.

When the pressure to teach religious beliefs, disguised as phony "science" in our pubic schools ends, I will be willing to to respect those who hold these beliefs.

When supposed religious leaders stop using the excuse of their narrow, self serving interpretations of carefully selected passages from the supposed word of their "one true god" as non negotiable starting points of any discussion, I shall begin to consider respecting these "leaders".

When the evangelical, proselytizing Christians of this nation stop their incessant insistence that this country be a "Christian Nation", I will stop working to try to keep these people as far away from public policy as possible.

Until then, I will continue to view these people as the enemies of a modern, pluralistic, secular Democracy that values individual human rights over narrow interpretations of highly selective dogma.

Until into the twentieth century the "institution of marriage" was a not much more than a formalization of the property rights of men over and towards women. The "5,000 year old institution" that Warren and others of his kind refer to takes us back to an era when the only limit to the number of wives one had was the heft of one's wallet.

The state has NO business simultaneously being the issuer of the legal contract - the marriage license - and an enforcer of a religion based, narrow definition of who can obtain this state issued license. One of these functions has to end. Either the state issues marriage licenses to any two people wishing to have one - regardless of their respective genders - or they get out of the business entirely. There is NO compelling reason - BEYOND supposedly "religious" based rationalizations - for the state to limit this license to heterosexuals only.

All the near hysterical screeching from complete fool hypocrites about the "sanctity of marriage" is just that. With a 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals it can hardly be argued that there's any real "sanctity" left to defend. Or perhaps all the divorced "religious leaders" (not to mention the rampant pedophilia, spousal abuse, and closeted outright gays), should be required to surrender their licenses.

This is a first amendment issue, not just an "equal protection under the law" violation. And it's an issue that the state has NO interest in whatsoever.