> People are far more likely to have certain experiences

> that overwhelm them and don't seem like conclusions of

> rational arguments, but seem like a kind of momentary

> contact with something genuinely transcendent.

> Out of that experience comes a religious commitment.

Right. And instead of allowing people to say that they do not KNOW what these experiences of the transcendent are or allowing us to investigate further by looking into the operation of the brain or the interaction of humans in social groups, along comes religion with a book of myths to explain it all!

Oh, you had an experience you can't quite account for? Well, sit right down and let me tell you precisely what it was all about!

See, it was GOD, whose son's name is JESUS who came here to save you from SIN so you don't go to HELL when the RAPTURE comes and all the TRULY REPENTANT are whisked bodily into HEAVEN where they spend ETERNITY basking in the light of the TRINITY of which there are three PARTS but only one GODHEAD who wants you to cut off the tip of your PEE PEE.

Surely you can see THAT? Surely you can see that when you were walking through the woods and saw the sun coming through the misty trees and were overwhelmed by a sense of connection to nature and the future of the universe that, in reality, you were communing with my particular cultural myth! It's all right here in this book...

Feh. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that religion knows anything.

The speaker of the House has taken impeachment, and impeachment investigation "off the table."

Therefore, ipso-facto, the president has done nothing wrong and is doing nothing wrong.

Therefore, if Mr. Suskind's charge is determined to be true, it is henceforth perfectly legal to forge documents to lead the country into war.

I mean, it's not like he lied about an affair or anything big like that.

Nothing to see here, courtesy of the Democratic Party.

> It's simply too late to impeach Bush and Cheney,

No, it is not. Impeachment investigation isn't just about removing from office. It's about getting the facts on the record.

If Bush leaves office in the middle of the hearings, mooting them, the record will at least be present.

> and it would be electoral Russian Roulette for the Democrats to try.

So? Congress people swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, not to preserve protect and defend their party's popularity.

> Yes, I expect Bush to pardon everybody in sight -- himself included.

No he won't; pardoned people can't plead the fifth (no jeopardy) and an Obama Justice Department isn't going to listen to any crap about Bush administration executive privilege.

> But that will have no effect on an international prosecution, which is what we should be agitating for the day after the inauguration.

And you're worried about the effect impeachment might have on the Democrats? Can you IMAGINE the red state outrage if Obama turns a former president over to the UN?

Besides, no one on the international scene is going to take on a prosecution of the United States. Show me this stalwart band of brave litigators.

> There may be some fine points of constitutional law with respect to getting the culprits into the hands of international authorities,

Get real. We're not prosecuting the government of Darfur for mass genoicde. There's no WAY the "international authorities" are going to go after Bush.

> but in the worst case you simply stand aside and invite them to kidnap the defendants, as the Israelis kidnapped Eichmann.

Eichmann was a fugitive living under cover. Bush will have secret service protection for life. No one is going to kidnap him and, by the way, it skates very close to being illegal to suggest otherwise.

Sorry, the world is not going to clean our mess up for us. You want them held accountable? Arrest them here.

Oh, but that might hurt the Democrats. Forgot. Musn't do that.

>couldn't Bush just pardon everyone?

This bears repeating: Bush takes an AWFUL risk pardoning anyone. Once pardoned, a witness can no longer plead the fifth.

Silence is keeping this thing together. Pardons break silence. If he's smart, he won't pardon anyone.

Prosecutors may offer immunity, which also nullifies the fifth, but what tends to happen is the first guy you immunize just confesses to being solely responsible for everything.

Or do you believe that Monica Goodling single-handedly destroyed the Justice Department?

Judging Edwards' little adventure says nothing about him as a politician, just about how sanctimonious American society is.

It's not about sanctimony. It's none of our business what goes on in the Edwards marriage.

It's the fact that he LIED about it while running for president, thereby putting his campaign at serious risk.

If he had gotten the nomination and this had come out now, well, say hello to president McCain.

And that's what's unforgivable.

Anyone who's taken in by Rick Warren's act needs to get 'Marjoe' in their Netflix queue, stat.

Religion is a lie. Not because God doesn't exist...he may. But because there's simply inadequate evidence to support the level of certainty that religion demands.

Therefore, everything anyone says from a position of faith is tainted by that lie.

Faith is inherently dishonest and should not be used as a basis for public policy even if, and this is the tricky bit, even if articles of faith coincidentally happens to be true.

Dawkins example is apt: if you feel you've been vouchsafed a personal revelation that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, you're an idiot even though you're right.

Good one.

I'd add: never bring hope to a hatefest.

...there is only one American who had the courage and the integrity to ask Musharraf, right to his face, where bin Laden is hiding.

That man is Jon Stewart.

Stewart/Colbert '08.