Obama is "one of the most hardcore leftists in the country"? He has stopped neither foreign war, escalated drone programs, rolled back few of the Bush-era tax reforms, suspended habeas corpus for security purposes, etc. Do you know what a REAL leftist looks like? People who, for example, want to topple capitalism?

So, you believe Obama speaks well?

The columnist is the one who made the original allegation about "hoping". So, you think he's silly?

"All people would be welcome to practice their religious faith with no official state-run religion... So, yes, you could have a manger in front of the town hall at Christmas and the Ten Commandments on a court house wall, and teachers in public school could teach from the Bible in class when it was appropriate." Whuh? How can everyone be free "to to practice their religious faith with no official state-run religion" when "teachers in public school could teach from the Bible in class when it was appropriate." Are teachers free to teach from, say, the Koran or Torah "when it was appropriate"? Or are only Christians allowed to include religious material in PUBLIC schools? Why not just leave religion to be taught at home?

Well, Canada and most of Northern Europe -- including economic powerhouse Germany -- are very much like this, and none of these bogeyman things have happened. There's a middle ground, no? Is it just possible that Wal-Mart can allow unionization and still be competitive, like all other unionized businesses are? Is it just possible that, like every other first-world country on the planet, we can find a way to allow nearly all of our citizens access to some degree of health care, just like we afford them basic education, police and fire protection, use of roads, etc.? Or are all those "liberal", too? Why does everything need to be so black and white?

[Proofed, this time...] The reason many people -- not just liberals -- were hoping the terrorists weren't Muslim is that 99.99% of American Muslims are law-abiding, hard-working, family-oriented citizens, and they are going to be greatly affected by what crazy people they have no relation to have done. The Detroit area (Dearborn) is home to the largest Muslim / Arab population outside the Middle East; and how many terrorist acts have there been? ZERO. What a lot of us are afraid of is that not everyone is as clear-thinking and sophisticated as Bozell, but may be more like those idiots who attacked a Sikh temple, thinking they were Muslims or Arabs or whatever. There may be an eventual tipping point, where Muslims in America are vilified.

The reason many people -- not just liberals -- was hoping the terrorist weren't Muslim is that 99.99% of American Muslims are law-abiding, hard-working, family-oriented citizens, and they are going to be greatly affected by what crazy people they have no relation to have done. The Detroit area (Deaborn) is home to the largest Muslim / Arab population outside the Middle East, and how many terrorist acts have there been? ZERO. What a lot of us are afraid of is that not everyone is as clear-thinking and sophisticated as Bozell, but may be more like those idiots who attacked a Sikh temple, thinking they were Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

Excellent point. I used to work at Duke, actually, and there were a LOT of private hearings. Pretty much everything was private there, and a bit more sunlight might have made the place operate more ethically... but that is an issue for another day. Your point about UNC being public is spot on.

I don't know the political affiliation of a single person I work with. It seems pointless to divide everyone into Dems and Repubs, as if they are OWNED by a particular party. Liberals and Democrats are usually enamored of legislation and rules, generally speaking. Libertarians typically want fewer regulations. Incidentally, there's a world of difference between being ignorant of what Mike stands for and ignorant in general... I can't imagine confusing these, unless one is... ignorant :)

Mike hits the nail on the head with this one. If a procedure has legal overtones and enforced outcomes, all parties should be allowed legal representation. As faculty myself, I've participated in such "hearings" and, while they are supposed to be fact-finding missions above all, they often veer over into punitive territory. What I don't understand, though, is Mike's assertion that "With the help of the Republican legislature, I'm trying to fix these problems that have been ignored for so long by Democrats." Doesn't he usually get down on Democrats / Liberals for insisting on TOO MUCH legal intervention? And surely this is a bipartisan issue... to the extent he sees anything as bipartisan.