Were I a reporter I would be beating down Rep. Carson's door asking for the NAMES of those Congressmen who would support lynching. I would not let him protect these racists with his silence or prevarications: Who are these people? How did Rep. Carson discover this terrible truth? This could be a big story. Where are these hack journalists, ignoring news like this?

Sorry to disagree with this. Romney is far from perfect (though looks nearly perfect in comparison to the current POTUS) but he is a proven LEADER. Not so sure about some conservative candidates with whom I may agree on politics. If he continues to lead through the primary, we need to support him. Romney need not come out against Romneycare. He's not running for governor of Massachusetts. The voters there can decide if Romneycare should be repealed. Federalism and states' rights are good things. Romneycare was written by Democrats in a Blue State. What do you want? Massachusetts residents can vote or vote with their feet and move (not so easy with O-care). If Romney is the nominee against BHO only a fool wouldn't vote for him...

This points out a conundrum faced by all representative governments. What is the representative's (senator's) responsibility to represent the nation's interests over those of his constituents- or vice versa? Where must we draw the line? Clearly, Grassley was way over it as ethanol subsidies may have helped some of his constituents, not to mention other special interests elsewhere while hurting others in his own state and taxpayers across the country. Ignorance of basic economics may be his (and so many others in government's) greatest sin. If corn-derived ethanol is such a good thing, subsidies won't be needed. Still, voters deserve some blame in situations like this. We need to stop electing people who take the narrow...

A consistent flaw in the liberal agenda is a failure to account for long term effects or trade offs inherent in policy. The BPA discussion is a case in point. Focus on putative harm (by what mechanism? To whom?) and ignore predicatable downstream harm like job losses, increased costs for producing some products, shortages and perhaps even more dangerous chemicals to replace the one banned. Maybe even lives lost because things like bicycle helmets become too expensive for some children?
Never mind, a few politicians and journalists who have never read the scientific literature get to feel good about themselves.

While I agree with exploring the opposition perspective, most audience members are not effective advocates (of either side). A spirited debate by effective representatives is far preferable.

Astute as always. One of the greatest depredations of the planet occurred under the auspices of the Soviet Union, both in their own territories and thoroughout the Eastern bloc. Unfortunately there was no upside to the environmental abuses. Like the more modern examples cited, the populace gained nothing from the polluting, certainly not prosperity or freedom. At least under capitalist systems where private property exists and people are free to speak out against institutional and government practices, there is the hope for remediation.
As for the role of population in damage to the environment, it is amusing that the writer from Canada thinks that some sort of governmental coercion is necessary when birth rates in Canada, western...