ABC should be ashamed. FOX is beyond shame.

It is not journalism to put this unrepentant, race baiting clown on a panel of a major Sunday morning program to debate Ed Gillespie and George Will. It is, instead a beltway-like attempt to paint alternative views as absurd and foolish. ABC News should be ashamed and apologize and George Stephanopoulos should hide his head in shame.

I might accept this view is there were two actual functioning political parties. If, for instance, we were in an era where a Democratic Party controlled Congress was considering the proposals of a president from the same party and, say Senators Javits, Percy and Case expressed difficulty in voting for it; if Governors Rockefeller, Scranton, Romney (the father) thought the bill was unwise as drafted and made suggestions about how to change it, even if Senator Dirksen expressed a concern or too, I would question whether it was such a good idea to force the bill to passage.

We are not in that era, though, even if we wish we were or long for those days where political divisions were sometimes more North and South than Democratic/Republican. Today, North and South IS Democratic/Republican for the most part and there is only one party interested in the whether proposed legislation is a good idea or not. The other party has decided that if the New Deal ushered in 50 years of almost blanket control of Congress, any new New Deal must be resisted at all costs.

Obviously, President Roosevelt worked with a Congress more heavily Democratic than this one, although many of those Democrats were southerners who did not favor social programs, much as they do not do so today, but as part of the Republican Party. When conservative Democrats opposed aspects of the New Deal, President Roosevelt supported others to run against them but, since most of those efforts were unsuccessful, the Official Wisdom of the Beltway Class (even before there actually was a "beltway") was that he ought not to have done that.

I would bet anything that if he could be brought back to life (I have stared hard at his headstone several times, but it has not worked) he would advise anyone who asked to do the same thing. The point is not necessarily to beat faux Democrats such as Ben Nelson (though if Chuck Hagel decided to go back to the Senate by running against him, it would be hard to support Nelson) but to scare them into some level of progressivism.

I do not agree with the idea that jury nullification does not take place, or will be detected when it takes place. I am certain that I have seen it take place, but, given our system of laws, what I think I have seen does not constitute sufficient evidence to have any juror held in contempt.

That people on a progressive web site---many who I respect for other things they have written---see it as "pleasant" or that one's unhappiness with something the police did justifies an acquittal of a murderer is truly disturbing.

When has jury nullification occurred? Well, the example of To Kill a Mockingbird is a good one in the sense that many white men were acquitted of murders or rape they committed with impunity full in the knowledge of what their community would think of what they did, despite the law.

In my state, most criminal juries have been instructed since the late 1980s that if they find the evidence proves defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they must vote to convict. I hope that is what they do because if that is not what they do we have taken yet another step backward.

I even see hope is the sort of FOX sideshow. The attempt to compare FOX to MSNBC is so silly, but so typical of the beltway people, that it is bound to fail and to open eyes up to what they are being fed.

If all FOX did was present two people who saw the news of the day from a conservative point of view, while devoting three hours to spoon fed propaganda from the other side of the political spectrum in the morning, the comparison might hold.

If the two prime time broadcasts invited opposing views onto their programs and allowed them to make their point, before presenting, perhaps, a rebuttal, then the comparison might hold as well.

If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were using their programs to promote specific events sponsored by the proponents of a single point of view, and that those events were reported reverentially, with hyped up significance during the rest of the broadcast day, then I might understand the comparison.

But they don't, they don't and they don't, so I don't. And, hence, this makes no sense to me and is nonsensical beltway equivalency propaganda in its own right

It is the view that one's opinion counts more than the law that allowed the Bush Administration to ignore any law which was in the way of the higher calling they believed could motivate their actions.

Both are grievously wrong. As a juror or as a president, one is bound to follow the law as it has been established by the process we have in place.

It is the moraliy of the calculus that is wrong, because what is at stake are millions of dollars in campaign contributions against the health and welfare of those of us on the sidelines.

I think that the past ten years have seen a backward slide, particularly in this country. There are people openly advocating against getting vaccinated to protect against the spread of the HV-NV flu---y'know.

Your last paragraph makes a great point: one that should be developed. Churchill's famous exhortation was not for Britons to show and go about their daily business (something they did not have to be told to do anyway) but for the "blood, sweat, toil and tears" that they would have to endure if the war would be seen as their "finest hour."

And, of course, the most inspirational president of my youth told Americans that they should "ask not what their country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." He did not suggest that whining about those damn politicians fell in the latter category.

WE have failed to take control of our government. We slept while the expenses of running a political campaign took over the process itself and perverted our politics. The result is the state we are in today, where a beltway mentality, ruled by the need to have the money to buy the tv ads that keep one in office, is so divorced from the rest of the country that it is becoming almost frightening.

The President made the right point yesterday:

" In fact, the insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking open their massive war chest – to marshal their forces for one last fight to save the status quo. They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people.

Of course, like clockwork, we’ve seen folks on cable television who know better, waving these industry-funded studies in the air. We’ve seen industry insiders – and their apologists – citing these studies as proof of claims that just aren’t true....

It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, "Take one of these, and call us in a decade."

But his point will doubtless be lost on the talk shows this morning with their on the one hand, on the other hand stuff, all sponsored by exactly who we would expect to sponsor these programs.

But there has to be a way back. Yes, here is a new post in a formative stage. Probably won't get to it until next weekend, but thanks for the encouragement.

The majority cannot have complete unfettered control, but the 60 vote requirement should not be used for every single piece of legislation. The only way to prevent that is, in my opinion, to illustrate its misuse.

I am not against filibusters per se and the rule works to keep the majority from stomping over a minority, which is as often us, as it is them. But this is different. There in no principle at stake; only greed.

BTW: I am so used to hearing Pete Seeger's version of this, that your link was a very nice surprise. I will try to return the favor, though this is a rough version from the Dropkick Murphy's of Boston, Massachusetts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDOzMvMqb7I