I agree, Mendel. Casey's not just a libertarian; he's honest. I feel the same way about firefighters. I do have one question, though, for Casey. Do you think it would be OK if there were women-only units in combat?

While I respect the tradition of marriage, I do not think that, in the civic realm at least, it lives up to its reputation, and it's the civic realm I'm concerned with (trying to riff on Augustine and Luther, both of whom discussed the separate realms). In the Old World, the Church was a de facto state, and this I think is why the religious tradition lingers of forcing morality on others for their own good. For better and worse, America is not the Old World. The state covers everyone, good and not-so-good (so-called). On the Hinderacker–Ward experience podcast, the gay fellow said he thinks marriage makes men better. I don't. I think good men are drawn to good things, like marriage. Otherwise, what do the stats indicate? The culture? I came from a marriage, and I can tell you it was not the growing up experience that Mona and Peter seem to think materializes through the use of the word. In my philosophy, which I recognize most folks here don't adhere to (which I honor as their absolute right), it's always the person, never the tool.

sound ... no fury ... signifying nothing.

For what it's worth, ~Paules, I agree completely.

~Paules

I'm all for that. This amendment did not simply set the record straight (as it were) on which partners can use the word marry to describe their relationship under the law. I would have had no trouble with the amendment if it had simply said only men and women can marry each other (except that I find such a thing to be unseemly in a constitution). But, it also rejects the possibility of the state recognizing any other form of union (in other words so that you don't have to contract yourself to death in order to get protections that some taxpayers get simply by using that word). ... What are the stats? One in two marriages now end in divorce? And this amendment is doing god's will? ... Both sides play this culture war against those of us who are willing to compromise.

I don't think there's any fear of me not living long enough to die broke.

The only possible way of ensuring that people get the medical treatments they need is to get government out of the charity business. Doesn't work for two reasons: one, professionalization has led to too much money going to bureaucracy (paperwork to satisfy need requirements) and administration (salaries for multi-levels of people overseeing the system, which results in much less aid actually reaching those for whom the system reportedly was designed); and, two, government programs cannot treat people as individuals or have any expectation of them—except for negative ones. This is why centralized, one-size-must-fit-all approaches never solve social problems but make them bigger and bigger and thus more difficult as time goes by, despite everyone having had the best of intentions. ... Also, typical Robert Wright argument concerning China. Same guy who on BhTV with Mickey indicated, apparently channeling Orszag, that the system cannot afford extremely expensive cancer treatments (never mind that such costs decline with use over time) and, anyway, think of how many African children could be helped with that money. Absolutely breathtaking exemplar of everything Jonah Goldberg writes.

What I find so telling about the Julia slide show (in addition to its inherent absurdity) is how it belies the Obama administration's view of things: static, one-dimensional, bare. A truly stick-figured view of life. I agree wholeheartedly with Nicole: everything will turn out fine in spite of these sophomoric plans writ large.

Rob's comments about Vince Vaughn make me very hopeful. I think he's terrific and an exemplar of the rule that funny men make the best dramatic actors. His performance in Return to Paradise was just incredible. Couldn't believe he didn't win an Oscar for it (wasn't even nominated, I don't think). Terrific podcast!

Lovitz is soooo right. So wish more like him could see.

Yes! To himself.

Grenell can take Capehart to task because Dems claim to be pro-gay. Republicans acknowledge variance of opinion on the subject. He's calling Capehart out, not claiming to join in.

Hey, Doc! I sure wish I knew these guys!

I don't know about the courtroom, but what if he just said, any president would have killed Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Not to deny the great interest of the president—and the vice president and the secretaries of defense and of state—in seeing the assassination carried out, but though the operation itself was extremely gutsy, the decision to authorize it was not. And then say something like, though one cannot prove a negative, the American people should have no doubt that Mitt Romney is ready to take on the full complement of duties required of a careful and competent commander in chief—whether the call comes it at 3 a.m. or 7 p.m. or midnight.

By the way, Tommy, did you see where Arianna Huffington called the ad despicable politics. LOVE it!

Sickening. Just sickening.

It's why I couldn't watch more than the first ten minutes of Titanic. I almost expected Kate Winslet to start rapping.