Maybe you could bribe them. After all, they take your money now and you don't get value for it. Maybe you could offer an extra $500 for the next couple months if they promise to vote for Obama. Or, easier on your wallet, you could threaten to reduce the amount you give them unless they vote for Obama. Maybe you guys could haggle until you find their price. "$2000, an extra phone call a week, and we don't have to get you a birthday present" in exchange for not voting their conscience.

Or maybe you can grow up and realize, like Cary said, one issue doesn't have anything to do with the other, so just deal with the money issue separately from the politics.

There's no pick for New Orleans v. San Fran. I think you meant to capitalize New Orleans? Or was it on purpose?

The problem with investigating and prosecuting the last administration is pragmatic, not principled. If the outgoing administration is going to be jailed after they cede power, they may refuse to leave office.

Look at the power the incumbent administration has, and imagine it in the hands of the other party, without a safe way to leave office and retire to private life. If orderly transfer of power becomes impossible, if by leaving office President Bush is going to prison or signing his death warrant, he will refuse. Anybody would, for self-preservation alone, and then we have civil war. If the stakes are too high to leave office peacefully, no one will. This has happened before, in miniature, when President Andrew Johnson tried to fire Secretary of War Stanton and was impeached for it by Stanton's supporters, only escaping by 1 vote.

It's like being the highest ranking military officer in a third world country. You might not want to be in charge, but if the party that's elected is coming for you, your soldiers, and your family, it's self-defense to take over in a military coup d'etat (See Pinochet).

An investigation and prosecution of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, unless done with the promise of amnesty for participation (even then I'm skeptical), is a very bad idea for the future of the republic.

King,

I am so afraid the quality of writing will diminish as the wardrobe gets fancier. Best of luck for the future of the column, it was always my favorite next to Andrew Leonard.

You're the best semi-serious sports commentator out there.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits service members from committing homosexual acts and is entirely written and controlled by Congress. All they have to do is change the code; I think it's the Armed services committee in both houses. Bush would've vetoed the change. What would Obama do?

The ball is entirely in Congress's court.

The idiot missed. If he had hit President Bush, that would have been something. Instead, it's nothing.

To green is a stupid way to say you are coloring something green. Greening = not a word.

In the immortal words of Calvin and Hobbes, "verbing weirds language."

Seriously, can't we stay focused on the important things people?

So the argument is that Israel is only guilty of war crimes because Hamas' attacks did not kill enough Israelis to be proportionate? If Hamas had been more successful, then Israel's same attacks would be justified?

Use your Vulcan logic; it may not be YOUR argument, but it is the main contention of the aricle.

"Was the scale of the Israeli attacks justified?”

“The principal charge against Israel is that it reacted to shelling by Hamas fighters with disproportionate firepower, killing hundreds of civilians in the process.”

“But even if Hamas fighters did fire rockets from the safety of mosques and schools, Israel's critics argue, bombing these buildings was excessive. The numbers speak more clearly than any accusation: 13 dead Israelis and 1,300 Palestinian casualties, including large numbers of civilians. Even if one takes the Israeli figure for Palestinian casualties -- about 700 dead -- the high death toll still raises a fundamental question: Can the laws of war even be applied to a conflict that has ended with such an overwhelmingly one-sided death toll?”

The last one is the key. By this argument, if Hamas had killed more Israelis, Israel would not be accused of war crimes.

of the ravages of marijuana on a person's health. Looking at Michael Phelps' wasted body and mental loss of motivation, I can only reflect on the immense health risks associated with marijuana use. Just think what physical feats this invalid would be capable of if he could escape the claws of this terrible addictive drug. Truly, Michael Phelps is a perfect example of the ill effects of short-term marijuana use.

1. Bar. 'nuff said

2. Smoking area beyond the checkpoint. I know state law prohibits, blah blah blah. I don't care. It sucks to have to go though the checkpoint every time when you are waiting for hours.

Question: "Define marriage?"

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in . . . in the mix."

If you guessed the POTUS Barack Obama, give yourself a gold star. Miss California answered exactly as Obama did. Think about that. Then think about Perez Hilton and how much media attention this got him. Then contemplate a bunch of liberals targeting and attacking a supposedly conservative beauty queen for holding the same view as the liberal president. Sound like misdirected anger? How about Two Minute Hate?