If the Democrats won't filibuster judical nominees for fear the Republicans will

go nuclear, then the Republicans have achived the goal of the nuclear option

with Democratic acquiescence, and so without paying the political price of the

nuclear option. What good is a theoretical right to filibuster if it can

only be exercised with Republican permission, available only in undiscoverable

circumstances. The Democrats have arranged to combine the worst of both worlds.

If this nomination isn't worth the fight, what will be?

The atrocities in "The Patriot" were not entirely imported into the

American Revolution by Gibson. The Revolution in the Carolinas was

pretty messy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banastre_Tarleton

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lynch.

Another pesky British Atheist, Philip Pullman, put it best. To paraphrase, the error is the idea that there is a doctrine that is, for some reason, unquestionable, and hence endows its leaders with unquestionable authority.

Religion has often been used in this way, but not all religion has to be like this. An obvious nonreligious example of the same error is Marxist-Leninism, which is officially atheist. People often say such people are "really" religious. Pullman's description nicely captures the common features.

Science is the opposite of this. Of course, some people (like Marxist-Leninism) try to use "science" as the basis of their unquestionable doctrine. This, of course, is a misunderstanding of what science is about. This is one of the many reasons that it is vital to teach people what scientific inquiry really is.

An "atheist" is just someone who is not a theist. That does not imply agreement on political philosophy or any other philosophical question.

The big point is how we're all going to live together even though

we're never going to agree on this stuff. For a discussion of this, a great place to start is John Rawls' "political liberalism".

While many of us disagree with Ferraro, it's stretching things

too far to call her a racist. Yes, I think she should apologize.

Apparently, she doesn't agree, as is her right.

If you decide you don't like her, that's your right.

Given the context and what else

she said, it doesn't make any sense to think this is some

plot to play "the race card" by the Clinton campaign. That being the case, this incident hardly warrants the attention it's gotten.

If we're ever going to return sanity to the political process,

we have to work hard to get the media away from feeding frenzies

about infinitely psychoanalyze somebody over a minor issues,

while ignoring all the big issues.

I never understood why progressives thought that Obama was their candidate. He was always the right-most of the Democratic

candidates. If you wanted a progressive you should have supported Edwards (I know, I know...) and then Hillary, who was

running well to the left of Obama. Obama ran a a uniter, which

necessary involves uniting a broad spectrum of opinion, even people we don't like.

At present, Obama's main goal seems to be to unite the

Democratic party as firmly as possible behind him. As preparation for necessary but drastic action, this is probably a good thing.

Lance Drager

It ought to be obvious that "the Heartland" is not the heartland

of American in any sense beyond mere geography. As Iowa shows, "the Heartland" is far from uniform in politics or matters of public opinion.

In sum, "the Heartland" is not a useful category for analysis, and

using it only confuses things.

The concept of "the Heartland" was invented by right-wing propagandists

to serve there own purposes. Continuing to use this flawed concept

only contributes to those purposes.

Drop it!