The Santorum version of the Return of the King could include some great casting choices. The obvious ones are Dick Cheney as Sauron and George W. Bush as Golum but could also include Karl Rove as Grima Wormtongue.

Risse argues that "as long as a country underuses its resources and refuses to permit more immigration in response, illegal immigration cannot be morally condemned."

So if a country such as the United States over-exploits its resources it WOULD be morally justifiable to condemn illegal immigration?

People will take from this speech what they brought to it. If inclined to see Sarah Plain as wonderful you probably had that view re-inforced. If inclined to dismiss her there was plenty of reason to do so.

Her delivery was professional. She started well by introducing the family so people will have at least some idea who she is. Substance--not much there. Low taxes, drilling and nuclear power. Nothing else. Foreign affairs? Barely heard of the topic.

Lots of reasonably effective zingers for the crowd were well-delivered. The rest was vote for McCain, he suffered for our sins.

I don't know much more about Sarah Palin than I did before and that is probably how the campaign wants it. From what I've read about her I am not impressed. If my governor was able to eliminate sales and income taxes and send me a check for $3,200 each year I would love him too. Her staff at Wasilla was smaller than Obama's office staff.

Still the Democrats should not underestimate her appeal. They need to develop a good stratgey for dealing with her. Joe Biden has his work cut out for him on October 2.

I'm not sure about some of the numbers involved but assume that 2 million sub-prime borrowers received an average of $250,000 each and that ALL of these defaulted and have no value whatsoever. Then the total loss would be on the order of half a trillion dollars.

As I read the papers and web articles, in addition to the $750 billion TARP funds and the separate funding to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the funds advanced by the Federal Reserve the Federal government has already put in something on the order of $3 trillion--with more to come.

If the bad mortgages were the major share of the problem the Federal government could have paid off all sub-prime mortgages in full, forgiven the total debt, kept all defaulters in their homes, and still saved $2.5 trillion. In other words, the worst case default scenario for sub-prime mortgages represents only a small fraction of the funds needed to bail out the banking system.

So what generated all the other losses that brought the global banking system down? It certainly was far more than the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and goes to the heart of the gambling mentality that prevailed on Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries.

Many if not most of the sub-prime borrowers were reckless and have much to answer for--and they are answering for it. But if Mr. Santelli is looking for the principal villains in this drama he need look no farther than to his colleagues who were cheering him on. Looking in a mirror couldn't hurt either. The major difference is that these villains are not answering for their actions.

I agree with Senator Whitehouse. The alleged crimes of the Bush Administration must be investigated. This is not about vengeance. We cannot put the issues of the last eight years behind us until we have a full understanding about what was done in the name of the American people. Only then can we take steps necessary to help ensure that these things will not be repeated.

Do I think the Bush Administration committed numerous crimes, including war crimes? Absolutely! But while I hope the people responsible are prosecuted and convicted I do think it is even more important to expose these excesses.

If the American Century is destined to go away then good riddance! The American Century is not really different from the earlier White Man's Burden. Both justify their unique brands of imperialism and impose unsustainable costs on the "burdened" society. It is our concept of our international responsibilities that "oblige" us to spend half the world's military expenditures, maintain bases in over 100 countries and shed the blood of our troops for reasons that may not really be in our national interest. And we finance such costs by ignoring domestic problems thus weakening our internal society.

I don't believe that America can retreat to North America and hide behind the oceans. Maintaining a strong defense remains an imperative. But neither do I believe we have the right or obligation to project our power nearly everywhere in the world. If America is destined to merely be one of the top tier of nation states rather than being a modern Roman Empire in the years to come then I think we have an opportunity to benefit from what will emerge as a new world order of more equal states and maybe even more workable international institutions.

Those who are concerned that a judge would consider empathy as a factor in the decision making process seem to have the view that all law is a rigid and immutable object. They are the type of judges that support "originalism" as if the law was totally pure, unchanging and that nothing has changed in the last 200 years.

They remind me of the quote below by anatole France:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

I take exception to the notion that Michael Steele has "squeezed" into his niche at the RNC. In view of his actions over the last several months the correct verb should be "slither".

Any comment would be superfluous.