Really? Did they do it on TV? If they did they should just fine them like everyone else has been. I am curious how explicit language is not ok for ABC, NBC, and CBS, but it is ok for cable and sat, where the majority of viewers are now watching. Anyone know?

No, he is far from stupid. Open dialogue is often more interesting than the form of "bigtime" polarized debate I've seen. When either side "doesnt like" what is said, it seems rather than examining nuance and perspectives, the tact is to cite questionable pundits and conspiracy theory. I like that HM asks questions that reveal the nuance and contradictions that are ignored in the black and white, simplistic I'm-right-youre-wrong-if-I-am loudest debate world. If you are really honest, facing complexity, thoughtfully, it can be irritating.

That said, I am fascinated by your perspective on national morality as well.

What do you think about a pardon for Scooter?

I would not support or approve of a pardon for Scooter, his current sentance is to short, but I fully expect him to get one from Bush on the way out the door.

I think by now, HM, you have some idea what sort of notions provoke a derisive snort out of me. All I can suggest is that you put forth ideas I can respect.

It's really quite like the sort of thing I heard from Mario Cuomo's long-gone radio show, and more recently from Edwards' interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC: these people had simply no clue why they were being rejected and why their ideas had no currency with the great bulk of Americans. Not only had they no clue, they had no prospect of getting a clue either -- certainly in Edwards' case, not from Matthews.

This is a longish way of saying that regardless of one's fundamental intellectual powers and gifts, garbage in means garbage out too. That bright -- and that consistently wrong.