Perhaps there's a conflict of interest at play here. Regardless, if one party says that 2+2=4 and the other that 2+2=5, the solution is not to demand that they compromise on 4.5.

YAY! Thank You! I've been screaming from the roof-tops. It's not supposed to be a balance between truth and lies, or a balance between the two parties (who might both be LYING!) or a balance between arbitrary points of view. Journalism 101, people. Give them equal time but not equal respect! Distill the facts! Provide the commentary, the analysis!

America is not a "Christian nation".

I'll repeat that: America is not a Christan nation.

The United States of America is a democratic federal republic. Christianity, or any other religious affiliation for that matter, is optional.

YAY!!!! Double YAY! Thank you, thank you, thank you, DF.

I've been screaming on that one, too. Speaking as an atheist and cultural Hindu and philosophical scientist and lover of reason and friend to Buddhist tranquillity and peace, I applaud every time I see someone stand up and remind America the truth.

Sometimes I feel like that character in Harlan Ellison's brilliant but terrifying story "I have no mouth and I must scream."

Thank you for hearing my silent screams across the Internet, DF...

Glorious outburst, DF!

Shaking my head in admiration!

Addressing your first query, John McCain has displayed extememly poor judgement. The people he chose to run his campaign have been a disorganized nightmare. Now we know why he never moved up the chain of command, he can't lead or control his own people. He takes bad advice, as noted by the Palin pick, and is too stubborn to recognize his mistakes, let alone attempt to remedy them. "As they campaign, so will they govern" I believe is the quote.

Oh no, "built in advantage", please don't start. I've gotten so tired hearing that noise about Hillary and now you're going to cross label someone else too? Oh yeah, McCain was inevitable - a sunk economy, an unpopular war, a party that voted him "least worst of all the others" and made it clear for months they wouldn't vote for him until they finally reneged (helping that he picked a talking points doofus?). Oh yeah, did I mention he got his flyboy start as a lad helping out the Wright Brothers? Yeah, American just love voting in curmudgeonly old cantankerous coots. (Well, they did vote in Cheney, but that was in 2nd place).

Atheism! My dad was a Protestant preacher, a kind and tolerant man. My mother was always active in the church and is a Christian. When I was 13, they put me into a confirmation class at the church they were attending (my dad was no longer preaching.) After two classes, I begged to be let out. Even at that young age, the thought of some supernatural being directing traffic and promising eternal rewards or damnation never made sense to me. I can't grasp logically the notion of some invisible mythic being. Makes no sense to me, other than studies that indicate that the human brain may be wired for this paranormal belief. I am constantly amazed at how believers can twist a situation to confirm their beliefs, such as extolling how god has a plan for the single baby who survived the plane crash while remaining silent on god's apparent indifference to the 299 other passengers who perished.

I saw the Dole and Hagen ads. I am part of godless America, and I felt I needed to shower or explain myself. I don't think I could be elected to local office as an atheist. Obama could announce that he's gay before Tuesday and stand a better chance of winning than if he announced that he's an atheist.

One party doesn't even seem to think there's a problem.

I'm not sure if that's entirely fair. The Republicans do think there's a problem—the lawyers. If lawyers didn't sue doctors so much, doctors wouldn't have to pay so much for malpractice insurance, and they wouldn't have to charge so much (and or leave the business, as in OB-GYNs). There is a kernel of truth there, but there's also a lot they're missing, of course.

I suppose it's fair to say that they don't think there's a problem with medical insurance, however.

Everything else, as always, was spot on.

1. "Truth and accuracy" ought to be the mantra for the news media. Yet "fairness and balance" reigns supreme, even before Fox adopted that slogan. Giving fair access has devolved into the balancing act we see too often, as silly and uninforming as a clown on a high wire.

2. AARP constantly bombards me with insurance offers to supplement Medicare. I have never been a member. Their slogan, "AARP is a name you can trust" is only true because they say it is. There is no other evidence.

3. McCain has always been conservative, not moderate, except on a few issues. He has moved on campaign ethics mostly because of his association with Keating. He opposed some Republican initiatives in 2001-2002 out of pique, I think, for the way he was treated in the 2000 primaries. His actual votes on things like the environment belie his public statements. He is as backwards as they come on women's issues.

4. The deepest closet these days is reserved for atheists. How many of our representatives are atheists living a lie? How many belong to some nominal church for the same reason that gay members occasionally go out with members of the opposite sex? Maybe there aren't many real atheists denying the existence of God in government, but there surely must be a boatload who think that religion and God are irrelevant to their lives.

5. Obama is not non-white. Instead he's not all-white. I think a large part of his calmness comes from not being demeaned as a non-all-white every single day, in both trivial ways and important ways, during his youth and adolescence. The little, the slight insults, maybe even unintentional, that non-all-whites receive every day must take a toll on one's psyche, one's willingness to see all sides, one's desire to be inclusive.

Much of the "balanced" stuff comes from FNC's pervasive influence in the culture now. (See the movie OUTFOXED for a discussion of this.)

We presently live in a culture of naiveties -- recall the objections to the DNA evidence at OJ trial: it wasn't 100% positive, so it was rejected by some jurists. (Never mind it was 99.9...% positive... on top of all the other evidence.)

Most people in this country can't critically think any more -- this includes both sides of the aisle.

Most people in the country don't realize that you can find scientists who don't believe in Newton's laws of motion...

Many people don't recognize that Googling someone's blog doesn't constitute a legitimate reference to an argument you are trying to make.

Most people don't know how to use Occam's Razor.

The left, in my view, retains a special burden to bear on this topic. Many of the left's best intentions have distorted and diluted language to absurdity ("date rape" and "sexual harassment" come to mind) -- that, in the end either minimize or thwart worthy goals.

The notion that "everyone is special" falls into this bin and has been part of the problem. Because everything is "equal", we now have definitions of reasonableness that are of the "show both sides of the issue" kind.

Indeed, "everyone is special" is closely connected to "anyone can run for president", or "formal education isn't that important". Some of this starts, not surprisingly, with Ronald Reagan. (Lyndon Johnson, who lacked a name-brand higher order learning was always a bit insecure about that topic... things changed a mere decade or so later.)

These issues are also linked to the idea that you have sporting events now for kids where everyone gets a trophy -- or scores aren't kept.

As usual, the GOP and their think tanks of the 1970s and 1980s were able to take these ideas (throw in "family values" as well) and run with them for their own purposes. Hence, the playing field is supposedly level for comparing Palin to Biden. Somehow her educational background (a joke) is considered legitimate -- because to poo-poo it would mean the left would also have to poo-poo people of lesser ambition but still deserve an "equal break".

The left is misusing "fair" as well now. Many of the foreclosure ideas aren't "fair" to those people who (a) didn't live outside their means; (b) practiced the truism that "there is no free lunch", and (c) couldn't afford housing because bozos got mortgages who shouldn't have and hence were able to drive the market higher. Now those same people who were more fiscally conservative should have to continue to pay for those who lived like idiots? Is this "fair"?

The "everyone is equal" meme out of control has now been taken to a new level with the Internet. Hits are all that counts to a large extent. So we end up with Drudge being taken as a journalistic force. Even at TPM, Josh Marshell went off the limb by writing a whole blog on the metaphor of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, when anyone with an average college bio background knows that theory was chucked decades ago. Is this mistake significant? Not in and of itself. But it shows the danger when anyone can take up a slice of the Internet and run without the normal checks and balances you'd find at a real newspaper.

We need to bring back the concept of absolute excellence and excellence doesn't come from instant gratification. A masters degree at CalState Northridge in business is *not* the same as an MBA from Stanford. At present, even scientific research proposals are decided more on pizzazz and presentation rather than grounding of ideas.

We need to bring back the notion of careful, critical thinking.