O'Reilly makes New York sound so...safe! But when I moved to New York, the first two weeks I was sure that the crowd of homeless men always gathering near my apartment was waiting to knife me.

Five years later, and I realize that they're from the local shelter, and are just in line for 99-cent pizza.

But put a camera crew down there, and you could easily make New York City look like something Kurt Russell would want to escape. Homeless guys gathered under an overpass, loitering, eating pizza...it's like Papa Johns delivered to the apocalypse!

Seriously, though, anything can be demonized, if someone wants to make a partisan point. Big whoop. I look forward to visiting San Francisco -- I'm sure it's both nicer and less fun than it looked in that clip.

People have already made the most obvious point -- that it's hardly respectful of Christianity to sell junk in Jesus's name.

To answer, of course, is that the point isn't to celebrate Christmas -- it's to demand respect for Christians. The goal isn't to uplift Jesus's name -- it's to use His name to browbeat others.

Remember, it isn't just that retailers have to either celebrate Christmas or nothing...if this were about being respectful of Christ, then "nothing" would be an option. Surely Christ wouldn't care if a retailer chose not to celebrate his birth, right? But, no, celebrating nothing during the holiday season (or, worse, celebrating some other religion's holidays) is considered an offense.

Christmas MUST be celebrated...or else. But that's about brow-beating retailers into catering to Christians (to the exclusion of all others), not about Jesus's birth. It's about glorifying Christians, not Christ.

But you already knew that.

Totally agree -- if all these senators join the executive branch, Congress is going to have to meet in the White House.

However, maybe this says something about how screwed up the balance of power is after 8 years of Bush -- no one wants to be in the legislature anymore. But the legislature is supposed to be the stronger branch -- the more important branch -- in our system. When our best would rather be an assistant to the President than make law themselves, you know we've gone wrong as a country.

I think I see this as a stickier issue than I think Glenn does. On one hand you have to enforce the rule of law.

On the other hand, though, even a false investigation can be a very effective political weapon. (The Republicans didn't have to convict Clinton -- they just had to impeach him.) Given that, there's a fear that enforcing laws against your predecessor will lead not to justice, but rather to a general devaluation of the law into a tool of political gamesmanship -- that what is actually "just enforcement" will look like "just politics."

How do you prevent confusing "justice" with "just Washington"? Well, if you can say clearly and convincingly that what Bush did was so wrong that it required investigation by any objective standard, then you may be able to convince everyone that it is justice and not a political hitjob. The problem? Well, if Bush had been caught having an affair with an intern, our American populace would have a clear objection. But violating the constitution, destroying civil rights, and using federal offices in illegal ways...oh, sure, that's worse than boinking some intern, but try telling that to the people. (Compare Ted Stevens (corruption) with Larry Craig (a bit of illegal gay sex) -- Stevens did more harm to more people, and to the rule of law itself, but he's the one who almost got reelected AFTER being convicted...)

The solution to that? Well, how about some sort of national force independent of either political party, whose sole job is to determine whether laws have been broken and recommend action? Sort of a GAO for law?

Or the Dems could grow a pair. Either way.