I did not know that. I hope he's having fun riding his pony, or whatever pleasure awaited him there. (and taking his meds)

Where is bucky1?

William Timberman?

Never try to make love in fancy Supreme Court, polka dot, foul odor, jockey shorts?

Never assume a sensual tryst should be tried while wearing boxing gloves or rubber lobster gloves.

Hey dudes, a little respect. Though enduring bits and bytes, here, in the concrete, we are but human. Bucky's brother wrote a very moving farewell, on his behalf. I would hate to think that he is peeking in from time to time, and sees that this is how his brother's memory is preserved.

Someone -- rascal, his handle was -- looged on a while back using bucky's account and wrote that bucky had been his brother, and had asked him to say goodbye once he passed, which had happened a day or two previously.

A number of commenters offered him a very gentle and respectful farewell, which I thought spoke well of them, and of UT commenters in general. It was a nice thing to see, even for someone who wasn't well-disposed toward the guy when he was alive.

I spend a lot of time between the US and UK, and have a good bit of insight into UK politics. I'm here to tell you, Glenn, I think your faith in their integrity is a bit misplaced.

Sure, in the UK, everything is further to the left. Hell, the conservative platform champions free university tuition and all sorts of social programs that would be considered completely socialist in this country.

However, the real division between Labour and Conservative is that one is in power and one is out of power. The Tories are out of power because Thatcher abused that power to such a degree that they're loathe to vote the conservatives in again. Having been voted in to power, Labour is busily abusing that power, as any party in power is wont to do. Conservatives make hay pointing out the expansion of spying on UK citizens, because it's a way to oppose Labour with a cause that people care about. However, it should not be assumed that if the Tories were in power, that they wouldn't do the exact same thing, perhaps even more so. The Tories main gripe with things like the Iraq war is that they weren't the ones who got to order in the air strikes.

I mean, how ironic is it that John Major is griping about the Iraq War, when he personally has become so rich as a result of it as European Chairman of the Carlyle Group?

The UK has all the makings of a classic Orwellian totalitarian state. There is no 4th amendment, and the cops can spy on you and search you on a whim. The one thing that stands against that trend is the utter savagery of the UK populace. Large segments of the UK are so poorly behaved, that much of the domestic spying is geared to curb that behavior. Cameras on street corners are there to spot some yob smashing a bottle over the head of a passerby. Considering how much of that goes on, the system generally doesn't have much bandwidth for false positives (not counting that poor Brazilian electrician who was blown away by the cops on the tube).

In summary, while the Tory rhetoric can be pointed to as an example of what real conservatism is about, that rhetoric should not be confused with how they really feel about the whole thing or what they would do if in power.

Don't you think it's odd that Scalia, an advocate of Constitutional originalism, would state "we are at war with Islamic radicalists" when in fact there has been no Constitutional declaration of war against that noun/group? Isn't "war" strictly defined in the Constitution? Wouldn't a strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution in this regard clearly show that there was only an authorization of military force or defined war resolution powers for specific ends? "The war against Islamic radicalists" or the "Islamo-fascists" is actually a political talking point propagated by the executive branch; in fact, there is no declaration of war in the Constitutional sense for that phrase in his legal opinion. That seems like a big gaffe for a supposed strict Constitutionalist to make, am I mistaken?

The British conservatives are true conservatives but the American right has just become plain fascist. Recent stories about the Army radio putting out derogatory comments on Obama, denying benefits because of membership in VoteVets suggest that all the elements of fascist power are falling into place- corporatism, militarism and political power.

What matters is whether we can hold him accountable in a way previous presidents have not been, and McCain never would be, and make sure he does what needs to be done. -- Baldie McEagle

What does "hold accountable" even mean these days? Calling politicians names and complaining about them incessantly?

They way I see it someone had better impeach the current criminal executive or there will never be an accounting. Who is going to hold a President Obama accountable exactly? All signs point to significant Dem majorities after the election. Democrats won't even attempt to hold an executive of the opposing party accountable for obvious and blatant lawlessness. They are gonna hold their own guy accountable?

If they don't impeach Bush... if you (we) don't make them impeach Bush what is going to change? You said you weren't in favor of hoping Baldie. Well I hate to point it out, but that is what you are reverting to. Hoping that Obama is going to willing give up the power. And hoping that he will do so in the face of ZERO opposition. Why would he ever even consider it? You think the Kossacks or the FireDogLake folks or even Greenwald's "incrementalist" followers are going to "hold Obama accountable?" He's their guy for crying out loud!

Even if I am wrong and these "more and better democrats" folks finally wake up, what would lead you to believe they are going to push for serious accountability wrt Obama when, as is the case this very moment, they can't be bothered to really get behind the impeachment of the original gangster?

I have been watching a little bit and perhaps you have seen me mention Kucinich and his articles of impeachment more than a few times in the past few days. Maybe I haven't given them enough time but, so far, none of these "progressive" bloggers will touch impeachment. Some mention it in passing and move on and some, like Kos and Greenwald, won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

So you tell me. Who is going to hold Obama accountable if he happens not to be the second coming of George Washington?