If you just say up is down people don't know what to make of it.

McCain: Obama an extremist and possibly a socialist. Check out this video at about 2:30 from the end of the clip.
Also note the portion about McCain's changed position on the Bush tax cuts in which he just lied through his teeth about his own record. He never gets called on this sort of stuff.

More silly stuff below.

So, what are the McCains hiding? Cindy McCain was asked about releasing her tax returns, on the Today show, and reiterated that she would never release them -- ever -- even if she becomes First Lady:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vZi6...

We're All Hacks Atrios is right

It's important to remember that none of us are above the fray, that we all have hackish tendencies to suppress information which doesn't fit our worldview and privilege information that does. We're more likely to excuse behavior from people we like and exaggerate the ills of people we don't like. I try to fight hackish tendencies especially during this intra-Dem battle, but I don't claim to have superhuman Nonhack powers.

For the record, I make no effort to be above the fray nor any pretense of being fair or balanced.  I'm not only a member of the Hack Club for Men, I'm the president.  It's good to know your own filters....

More hackery below.

A radical capitalist ethics leads in most cases to
an ethics of prostitution. The radical capitalist often
has notions he can only marry and honor a woman
if he is in possession of real estate. Then later after
starving for sex in his youth he comes to the point
where more work and more real estate means to
him a more gorgeous woman. The Christian and Jewish
religions which claim that the believe in one God
demands to stay true to only one woman stand in sharp
contrast to the mammon and sexual objectivist religion.

There are many terrible, terrible things about the war our country started in Iraq.  It has gone a long way to make the world less safe – all for a cause that has never been clearly articulated (though there have been several atempts to explain it that have been abandoned alongside the road).  And it has been so badly handled.  Why, for example, we have just learned that 190,000 weapons intended for Iraqi security forces have gone missing.

But I want to call attention to a few things that have not got much press.  Each will have long term effects – some permanently life altering (and not in a good way).  You may find yourself reaching for your phone to call your Congressperson after reading about these things.  I hope so, anyway.

This isn't easy for me.  This is a touchy subject at best, and one that inflames the passions without achieving anything at worst.  So I'm sitting here in my DuPont Circle hotel room with a glass of Jameson's Irish whiskey, and I'm pondering something that's been bothering me for a while.  

This post a while back started me thinking about this problem, but here it is:

What, if anything, is the difference between "consent" and "choice?"  Hence the title, but indulge me.

So here's the deal.  Obviously, at Law there is no difference between the two concepts - if you consent to something, you've chosen it, and vice versa.

But seriously, if (for one rather unpleasant example) a woman submits to sex so that her husband will stop hitting their children, certainly she's "consented," but can she be said to have made a free choice of her own volition?  Courts are starting to pick apart this question in this particular context, demanding a higher standard of proof for the defense of consent in rape cases, but what about other contexts?

For example, let's suppose that a person holds a franchise in a particular election.  Let's also suppose that one of the sides in that election has proceeded to bombard this voter with so much information that is at best misleading and at worst false about the other side that our voter is utterly confused.  Can their franchise be said to have any meaning?

If a campaign is entirely about Issue X, has the voter chosen to be governed with regard to Issue Y?  Of course, we sort of fiat the idea that yes, they have, but is that RIGHT?

Should Presidential candidates be required to offer substantive information on how they will govern in plain language on every issue?

This problem has some very wide implications.  In addition to the question of electoral legitimacy and the question of sex (did you ever think you'd see the phrases "electoral legitimacy" and "sex" conjoined?), there are, to my mind, issues of corporate governance - and not just in business, but also (and especially) in the non-profit and religious world.  If a congregation or a member body vests governance power in a particular individual for a particular reason, how can the membership protect themselves from action contrary to their interests - especially if the individual in question was vested with a vast authority when the organization was small and now that it's grown, their authority should be circumscribed?

I'm not entirely sure how to crack open this question such that the distinction I'm making has any meaning.  I'm especially unsure whether or not that question has an answer that's meaningful outside of a fact-intensive context.  I'm not sure that there are any general principles that can be articulated here.  But it's a conversation that needs to be had.