I watched carefully the reporting of the Dow breaking 10,000 the other day and not anywhere did I see a major news organization include a paragraph of the “On the other hand, so fucking what?” sort...

Bingo. You'd think all we had to do was hit 10K on the floor of the exchange and all our problems would be over. Foreclosures? No more. Layoffs? Done. Consumer spending? Up, up, up.

Except it's not happening.

Obviously, the Dow rising is not a bad thing, but it's hardly the only thing. And it's not much consolation to those who took a beating in their portfolio when it used to be at 14K+. Bottom line is "recovery" does not just mean recovery for Wall Street.

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

Amazing, yet as ridiculous as it sounds I'm not sure what other options they think they have.

Without oil their economy is all but nonexistent. The rest of the world needs the oil and, for better or worse, is in a much better place when the Saudi's are more cooperative than less. That's one heck of a bargaining chip.

Of course, it's easy to say we'll just tell them to piss off, and either go with more expensive energy sources or higher prices on theirs. But this ignores the fact that peoples' hatred of "big oil" clashes with their love of "cheap gas" (especially in the US). People talk tough until their wallet gets involved.

The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity.

Great article in the New York Times about the myth of the power allegedly held by the Limbaughs and Becks in the media. They pander to a lot of listeners, but it doesn't translate to votes or action. As soon as the GOP realizes this they can make themselves a better party.

Sadly, the article doesn't mention the same is true of the loud-mouthed media personalities on the left, such as Olbermann.

If both partys would ignore the blowhards at their far ends, they could focus more on reasoned debate and a centrist approach, which is ultimately where all compromise must take place.

At this country's formation, the Founding Fathers had far greater disagreement than we have today. Yet these men hammered out the Constitution; where is that sense of compromise today?

Their screeds are a facsimile of reasoned, sensical arguments. They don't know the words, but hum a few bars and they'll fake it.

A great piece (link above) about the right-wing fringe element in this country.

I too am concerned about the especially disgusting rhetoric coming from the extreme right these days. (I don't like the rhetoric from the extreme left, either, but even at the height of their Bush-hate they never suggested a coup.)

At some point the Glen Beck's of the world stopped any pretense of reasoned debate, and simply started pandering. Pandering to an easily manipulated type seeking either validation of their religious or racist views, or just something to get angry about. Honest debate requires critical thinking, and this type has no time for that. For all the propaganda from Beck and Co. trying to equate Obama with Nazi Germany, it is they who are the modern-day Joseph Goebbels.

It only takes one of their drones, armed with a gun or other weapon, to set off this powder keg. That scenario should frighten anybody.

The statement... defended [the Vatican's] record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

[Also,] ...most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

So there you go. The Vatican says its handling of its paedophilia crisis is not really an issue because:

1. it "only" involves 1.5-5% of the clergy
2. Other religions do it just as bad.

Are you kidding me? I'm not letting other religions off the hook (or atheist pedophiles for that matter), but that's a disgusting excuse from the Vatican. It would have been smarter to say nothing rather than use this "defense".

An optimist might hope that my doctor, or someone higher up in the health care hierarchy, made a rational cost-benefit calculation on society’s behalf. To figure out whether my treatment makes sense, one would have to weigh the cost of the drug against the benefit of an extended life. And to do that, one would have to put a dollar value on my life — the kind of calculation that makes everyone but economists squirm.

Great article. I believe health care reform is needed, but am not so naïve to think we'll make it equal across the economic spectrum.

The article asks the kind of questions that should be considered in reasoned debate if we're going to make changes that'll last in the long run. But with both sides entrenched in extreme positions, reasoned debate is becoming less of a possibility.

In one recent poll, a certain number of Americans said that now that they've heard the Interstate is a socialist nightmare, they want no part of it.

Funny stuff. It'd be nice if it caused a few people to think more critically about the rhetoric being slung around these days. Sadly, the people who need it most probably won't see themselves in the article.

There are reasonable concerns about healthcare reform; the garbage talk about socialism is not one of them.