According to the principles of federalism, states are not mere wards of the federal government; they are distinct entities unto themselves that, although junior to the federal government, have a right to do things as they please as long as they don't run afoul of federal laws. With those rights come responsibilities: run your state well or pay the consequences.

For many decades now, both for good reasons (civil rights in the South) and bad (power-hungry federal officials and big corporations), this concept has been under assault, to the point where I doubt most Americans can even grasp it.

For a refresher: it's not the responsibility of the federal government to come to the aid of a state, especially when the state's problems are mostly self-inflicted. If some sort of federal bailout does occur, forcing taxpayers in the rest of the country to subsidize California's profligacy, my own belief is that California's very legal identity as a state should be up for grabs. That means the federal government should have the power to treat it like Washington, D.C., and impose whatever taxes or rules it deems necessary to make the state function again.

So Californians, which would you prefer? Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. You don't get the right to force the rest of the country on the hook for your dysfunctional system in perpetuity.

California is not unique in paying more to the federal government than it receives back. There's a whole laundry list of so-called "donor states". How is it that all the others have been able to manage their budgets? Answer: they have made painful decisions about raising taxes and cutting services - the very decisions that California won't make.

Why should Californians be spared the same pain, at the expense of taxpayers in the other 49 states? Don't those states have needs of their own?

I hope your reading skills aren't an indicator of the public educational system in California, because you're trying to debate me on a point I never tried to make.

My question, specifically, was why other donor states could balance their budgets but not California. The question of donor v. recipient states for federal tax purposes is separate.

Again, California is not unique in this regard. Apparently it's only unique in its level of fiscal dysfunction, and in its willingness to insist that the other 49 states subsidize its profligacy.

The way I read it, and regardless of the truth of what happened in the Iranian election, all this attention in the U.S. media to Iranian politics is a net loser for the "Bomb Iran" contingent.

Even if it's proven that Mosavi lost fairly (doubtful, based on what I've read so far), all the turmoil and protest is an indication that there's a large demographic of Iranian society that wants reform and at least modest liberalization. Such complication plays poorly for U.S. right-wingers, who want to portray every last Iranian as a mouth-breathing, Jew-hating, fanatical threat to Israel - a dehumanization necessary before the neocons' long-sought bombing campaign can begin.

Either way, they lose. If a miracle occurs, and Mosavi triumphs, great. If Ahmadinajad/Khamenei remain in power, people in the West can and should argue that it's best to encourage the substantial minority of reformers, which is not accomplished through belligerent behavior.

Pretty much any column by Charles Krauthammer or Clifford May would qualify for demonizing Iran, but just for starters, here's this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700893.html

Krauthammer was running around with his hair on fire in 2006 shouting that Iran was probably just months away from having a nuclear bomb, and strongly implying that we have to do whatever's necessary to stop "apocalyptic madmen". It's a wonder he's still alive after such an attack of the vapors. Of course, if he'd had his way, many Iranians would no longer be.

Do you deny that there has been a steady drumbeat of neocon propaganda for years regarding the alleged dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran? Ever since it became clear that Iran was the primary beneficiary of our misbegotten and mindbogglingly foolish invasion and occupation of Iraq, there's been nothing but howling, screaming, and gnashing of teeth from the right.

And yes, I believe that, on the part of right-wingers in the U.S. and Israel, there's an element of racism to the debate. More specifically, from their perspective our dispute with Iran is largely a religious one - another potential opportunity to bomb Muslims. What are they good for, after all, except to give us their oil at the cheapest possible price? Amidst all our gassing about the sacredness of democracy, wasn't that why we overthrew Iran's democratic reformers in 1953?

And don't give me all the hyperventilating about nuclear proliferation. Am I really supposed to believe that the U.S. could negotiate with a nuclear-armed USSR for 40 years, but we're supposed to be terrified of a small country that might develop a handful of warheads?