I suppose we are at an impasse. I don't understand how you can say, on the one hand, that torture may be effective at preventing a greater tragedy (under very limited circumstances), yet not simply acknowledge that if it isn't an option even in those very limited and extreme cases, the greater tragedy might occur. That seems willfully obtuse. Of course none of that should imply that torture should be taken lightly or is somehow benign. It may simply be the best of a set of terrible options at any given moment. Or maybe it should be banned altogether. Either way, there is a cost.

In your repeated sojourns through history's hall of horrors (including, of course, the Nazis), you fail to demonstrate how controlled use of an extreme tactic like torture leads inexorably to the Holocaust or the Gulag. While I am no fan of capital punishment, one might as well say that its employment in cases of particularly gruesome and premeditated homicide leads inexorably to mass murder. Such "slippery slope" arguments are nonsense.

As for the remark about my handle, I would counter that FDR was the wiliest of chief executives in weighing competing moral claims. His machinations to involve the U.S. in WWII (including such acts as cutting off the Japanese oil supply) were anything but forthright, and certainly got a lot of Americans killed in the process, but he understood the greater need of defeating fascism. It's that messy world of competing values that most of us have to live in.

That's quite a promise in the sub-headline - massive public works without raising taxes.

Once you get down toward the end of the article, though, the flimsiness of the idea becomes apparent. First, it's contingent upon ending the "war" in Iraq. (Aside: isn't the current situation in Iraq best described as "occupation"? Why will no journalist use that word?) Yes, Obama has pledged to withdraw troops, but that will take a while, and how much in savings will we truly realize? How much in spending cuts will the military-industrial complex really allow? This is a major TBD item.

Second, the significant appeal of muni bonds is their tax-free interest. Will the same privilege be available to investors in these new federal bonds? I skimmed the link to the bill, but didn't see any mention of that.

I'm all for a massive increase in infrastructure spending, and the country badly needs it. But this article needs a large dose of skepticism. This is just a recipe for more indebtedness, which, though not necessarily a bad thing in today's economy, is hardly new.

Personally, I think Blagojevich is as corrupt as the day is long, but doesn't the guy have a right to a trial? Unless he's pled guilty, he isn't yet a criminal, factually speaking.

I really hate the tendency we have in this country to convict people by mass media and public opinion. Blagojevich should stay in office as long as he wants, or until he is convicted of something and/or impeached and thrown out. Obama should butt out. The fact that the whole episode may be embarrassing for the president-elect is just too bad.

Why are the problems of Blagojevich the business of the president-elect? If Obama is innocent of any involvement in the corruption (and I have no reason to believe that he isn't), why doesn't he just allow the normal proceedings to run their course? (And if he were involved, it would definitely be improper of him to interfere.)

Either Blagojevich is guilty or he isn't, and in any case that isn't for Obama to decide. That's the business of various relevant parties: the prosecutor, a jury, maybe the Illinois legislature, and the governor himself.

In all seriousness, why should anyone care what Obama thinks in this case? Piling on helps feed the presumption of guilt, regardless of how carefully some PR flack worded the statement.

Since at least the 1930s, the Republican Party has done everything it could to undermine unions and, more broadly speaking, the right of all people to earn a living wage. This anti-worker posture is much more constant in the party's history than its reliance on the religious right, which only came along with Reagan. Anyone who is surprised by their recent actions hasn't been paying attention.

My take on this is exactly opposite the Republican senators'. The UAW did its job well - to get the best possible deal it could for its members. Management, however, was derelict in its duty, which was to agree only to what it thought was sustainable for the long term. Why? Although I try never to underestimate incompetence, I think the bigshots always thought that they were "too big to fail," and that the government would come to their rescue when times got hard. So it was easier to placate even unreasonable union demands than to go through the unpleasantness of a strike. After all, they could always count on the taxpayers.

But of course, you won't hear Republicans demanding the resignation of the top tier of executives in return for government help. Those are God's people, after all, not the great unwashed on the assembly lines.