Check for an unfortunate typo in the first paragraph...

Feel free to delete my previous typo comment now and this one...

I think the Democrats did fail, tragically and it was avoidable, but I do have to give them credit for having a much bigger task than the Republicans.

With each new nominee that comes before the Senate, the task of the Republicans is simply to focus on the positive aspects of their personality and promote sound bytes about what a "decent" fellow they are. The perfect nominee for them would be extremely qualified, with no paper trail.

The Democrats on the other hand, have to educate a largely uninterested public in the future threat that past rulings may indicate to their rights. This is an enormous task.

The frame hanging over the entire process is that a "smart" and "decent" fellow would have to have some egregious ethical lapse or commit an enormous gaff during the hearings to not be automatically qualified to serve. Those who vote against a nominee must make their case, rather than those who vote for the nominee.

For Democrats to achieve the sort of political cover they desire to filibuster a nominee, they will need to frame the debate about what is an acceptable position for a judge to have on such issues as civil rights, abortion or the environment long before they are even nominated.

This article, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=401635, has a good quote:

"Blanchard estimated that Whittington had more than five but 'probably less than 150 to 200' pellets lodged in his body after the shooting..."

That's quite a range there...

Meat eaters aren't literally composed of all the little tortured souls of the animals they eat, but they are higher up in the food chain and probably carrying around a lot more antibiotics and mercury than the average vegan. It's pretty similar to the smoking thing on more than just the ick level. If you consider meat to be unhealthy as well as unethical, (which many vegans and vegetarians do), it follows that you would not be attracted to those you see as unhealthy.

I'm vegetarian myself, eating enough dairy products that I don't really want to think too much about what I'm made up of myself...

This Joe the Plumber thing initially looked like a blunder, (and still does to those of us who have heard the real facts about him).

However, I did just have a conversation with someone who believed Joe the plumber did make 250,000 a year, was actually named Joe, etc. etc. So the facts haven't reached that 25% of the population that only gets their news from the fair and balanced network.

When I think of the term liberal, this Phil Ochs song, adapted by Jello Biafra comes to mind. One verse and the chorus...

I go to pro-choice rallies

Recycle my cans and jars

I'll honk if you love the Dead

Hope those funny grunge bands become stars

But don't talk about revolution

That's going a little bit too far

So love me, love me, love me

I'm a liberal

I've always thought liberal was the watered down, centrist portion of the left. It's interesting to hear the term progressive as it was used by the likes of Clinton. I must say, that's the reverse of my perception. It's a label the right has built up quite a negative brand around and that the left finds too wussy itself...

Semantically, it may be more appropriate, but I do also see the point that being "liberal" is too easily associated with liberal use of drugs, liberal spending of taxpayer money, etc. As a democrat in my ealy 30s, the only reason I have ever identified with "liberal" is in reaction to conservative attacks on the label...

I think he is quite right to exert his influence to put a little healthy social pressure on folks to have less children. As a citizen of this planet I do the same any chance it comes up in conversation. It's a bit of a leap to equate his comments with the British government actually imposing some sort of legal limit on the number of children one could have.