... has done his readers a tremendous favor. And, he genuinely is peerless, isn't he.

Cruising around the mainstream print media (online) I notice his story isn't referred to anywhere else. Perhaps it's too early? Perhaps the story has no "legs?" Perhaps other outlets have a rule no to feature each other's work? Certainly, Charlie's efforts deserve widespread exposure. I hope his story (and, the Boston Globe's foresight) is widely distributed.

"Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

That sentiment nearly makes me gag. Maybe for you, Mitt, but you can count me out. Spare me a Terri Schiavo experience. Very, very early on, when Mitt's intentions were first being discussed, I asked my MA residing sister what she thought. Her response was, You can have him. Her point was Mitt would do, or say, anything to advance his political ambitions. I thought she was a bit harsh. Er, I've corrected my thinking - as in, a 180 degree turn. Mitt and Rudy flat scare the crap out of me.

Sy Hersh, Charlie Savage, Jay Rosen... And, Glenn Greenwald. Wherever would we be...? And, wherever might we wind up, anyway?

Ondelette answers, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have kept North Korea free from terrorism, political unrest, and drive-by shootings for 50 years now.

... a nation of scared overfed brainwashed feminized supine cargo cultists...

Er, would you mind over-much if we substituted infantilized, or something else in there?

It may not be part and parcel of your experience but women have been known capable of some really nasty guerrilla war fare. In addition, my hat automatically goes off to any woman who can survive giving birth. It ain't for wimps, eh?

You'd be okay with John Yoo, David Addington, Jack Goldsmith, Alberto Gonzales, .... ?

I'm not sure restricting the office to a particular type of education/degree holder will prevent the problem you fear.

RON PAUL ROUND 2: THE DEFINITIVE (I HOPE) TAKEDOWN.

Dear Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald,

I don't have a problem when people with whom I sometimes agree laud Ron Paul's original opposition to the Iraq War (a position he shares with Barack Obama, of course) or his long-running stance against American imperialism (Dennis Kucinich, too, has been there, done that). What does disturb me, though, is the rather uncritical idolatry of Paul that has flowered, even among self-described moderates and liberals. Andrew, your "endorsement" of Paul lends credibility to his entire agenda, not just those parts of it you highlighted in your post. And Glenn, I am not a pro-choice essentialist who believes no other issue, including the disastrous war in Iraq, should inform one's choice of a candidate. Rather, I situate Ron Paul's anti-choice extremism -- he believes a fetus has all the rights of an individual from the moment of conception -- within his illiberal, race-baiting, anti-gay, and corporatist history. I will document this characterization, but first, bear with me while I share a personal anecdote...

But, if you ever wondered what you might accomplish with 45,000 Christmas lights and 176 channels of computer control...

http://www.vimeo.com/440842

How do you describe a man who has abdicated his masculine role, responsibility, duty?

Then he has emasculated himself. He is a eunuch with only himself to thank.

A self-emasculated eunuch works for me.

Try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa4_MSdT3kc

So the question remains, what politician in either party is willing to embrace those freedoms, as well as the ones that RP DOES embrace? Where are the Democrats? Who will speak for me?

I am musing not expounding...

Is it possible that no Democrat has championed some of Ron Paul's positions because, given his position on abortion, they feel no need to differentiate themselves from him? Ron Paul has some positions (like he has on abortion and social security), and some followers (white supremacists) which cause traditional liberals to foam at the mouth. It would not be irrational for Democratic candidates to dismiss Paul (and his platform) out of hand because their base is inclined to do the same thing. No response to Ron Paul is necessary, because it costs them nothing if they don't.

I keep asking myself where I think Ron Paul could actually influence policy. Given some of Paul's more noxious positions, are they, in fact, areas where Ron Paul could exert influence? As Sanford Levinson hammers it, Paul would have the extraordinary power of the veto. Using progressive advances in health care policy as an example (a more inclusive version of S-Chip) we might expect him to use the veto the same way Bush has. Then the question becomes, who is in Congress? And, increasingly, I am less worried about a Ron Paul-type presidency, if I can imagine progressives getting Congress right.