Boy, you think you know somebody, and then they start throwing curve balls. Over the years, I'd come to think of Joan Walsh as a voice of stalwart reason, but lo and behold, here she's apologizing for not being shrill enough in attacking Keith Olbermann. Others have already posted many powerful arguments for the silliness of this idea, so I won't add mine.

It became clear months ago that Joan was going to stump for HRC, so I stopped reading most of her posts. I do believe though that Salon overall has remained fairly neutral, and believe me, like many others, I've been watching.

So I'll continue as a loyal subscriber, but I'm suddenly less interested in what Joan Walsh has to say about things. I guess in reality she serves the same sorts of masters as all the others do. I prefer this conclusion to the only other possibility--that in truth she's just another shrill, reactionary feminist, dreaming up dragons to fight. Also known as a Rush Limbaugh wet dream.

It astounds me after all these years how Progressives allow the other side to frame every debate. I have no doubt the bland and almost-pleasing "Telcom amnesty" label came from the telcoms themselves, or from Repubs, and yet every news article, Progressive blog post, and comment refers to it that way.

It should be called Telcom Decriminalization, because that's what it is. Decriminalizing a criminal act. "Amnesty" sounds so safe, so deserving.

We'd have gotten so much more traction if Progressives had refused the label given by Repubs and instead called it what it is.

Sheesh.

How did the phrase "Telcom amnesty" get into the public domain? No doubt from the other side. It sounds so safe and deserving.

Can we all stop using that term and instead call it what is? Namely, Telcom Decriminalization. Please?

Glenn--maybe someone has discussed this, but if so, I missed it. Isn't it true that the Democrats themselves combined the FISA extension with Telcom Immunity in this Bill? In other words, couldn't they just as easily have presented these issues as two separate Bills? But they didn't, so those weak-willed Dem Congressmen can say what my Democratic Congressman is saying: "I had no choice but to vote for it, or my opponents would call me weak on Terror." But didn't the Dems themselves craft the entire Bill?

It was designed to decriminalize the Telcoms by default, and provide a handy excuse for those Democratic Congressmen who caught flack.

Glenn Greenwald has it right. The Congressional Dems who have voted against the collective will of their constituents, as well as voted against the rule of law, need to know we will at least try to hold them accountable. Otherwise, the next four years will be the same as the last.

I live in a district where the current US Rep, a Dem, won a highly visible fight to unseat a long-term Repub. Yet he voted to expand FISA, decriminalize the telcoms, and put his name on the "Bomb Iran" Bill. His defense of these actions? "Oh, we have a mainly Conservative district here and I need to walk the fence." This makes no sense, of course, because if our District were that Conservative, he'd have never beaten the incumbent. So what's the real explanation? He was either bought off by those who stand to prosper from these things, or he was ordered to vote for them by the Dem Party itself. Either way, this "Dog" is of no use to me, and I'll do what I can to get rid of him.

I read a post elsewhere that this kid isn't even the father of the baby. There apparently are reasons to believe he was "picked" to be called the father, but the real father is another guy she dated. Some claim to know who he is and are trying to get him to come forward.

I learned long ago that it is pointless to try to argue a person into rationality. Whether they be mentally ill, anti-social, politically extreme, or just plain old religious, there's no way to force them to make sense. The majority of humans seem to be hard-wired toward tribalism, toward unshakeable beliefs which bind them together and impart, at the least, a sense of community.

Even here on Salon, many of the comments, even from Andrew O'Hehir, fly in the face of rationality. For one, I very much doubt Bill Maher would have any trouble dissecting the flawed logic of any theologian, but apparently Mr. O'Hehir needs to believe that he would. And all the comments here saying "Oh, Maher's not talking about me or my religion. My beliefs make sense." Uh, maybe to you, but not to most (or any) other people.

And that's the gist of what Maher is saying. Those of you who are attacking him are really just screaming: "Stop making sense!"

I voted for Barack, and hope he wins, but I think we should hold the euphoria for a couple of months, to see just how Progressive he's going to be. In 2006, my district elected a "Democrat" as our US Rep, unseating a six-year Repub incumbent. Our Dem has voted with the Repubs on nearly every issue, and now is even endorsed by the NRA! And he appears to have suffered no backlash for it.

In fact, the Democratic Congress, since 2006, has been a huge disappointment. Might as well all been Repubs, except for the few with principles.

So I'll be glad if Barack wins, but not ecstatic for quite a while longer.