Hope

We believe that you couldn't have picked a more apt piece of scripture to cite in an inaugural address at this moment in history than 1 Corinthians 13, proclaiming this is the time to set aside childish things.

With this in mind, here's the first Inauguration Day edition of This Week's Discussion Question:

Whad'ya say we all grow up?

Please keep the discussion civil and do not wander back into childish things. (Choosing hope over fear was a damn good start, America.)

Discuss.

Like grownups.

And on the other side, it didn't say nothin'...

I'm going to step out of the first-person plural briefly to say that I don't think I've ever been prouder to be an American than I was yesterday afternoon:



That said, this may get a run for its money tomorrow.

I got a timebomb in my mind, Mom...

During last week's confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, Sen. John Cornyn (R-watches too much "24") pressed Holder to answer a hypothetical question about what interrogation methods he'd approve to get the setter of a ticking time bomb to spill his or her guts in time to save "tens of thousands" of American lives. With a straight face, he asked this.

Holder did an admirable job of not telling him to turn the damn television off and take a long walk off a short pier. We're not so generous, ourselves, which brings us to This Week's Discussion Question:

How could anyone possibly think that Al Franken is going to make Minnesota a laughing stock while this clown is in the Senate?

Please keep the discussion civil and do not wander off into "Okay, forget that hypothetical. If Obama had to waterboard the Joker to save everybody on the..." or "Tuesday? Is it Tuesday yet?"

Discuss.

Good Old Boys

Last week, the Justice Department's Inspector General released a report on the partisan shenanigans in the Civil Rights division, with a lovely little tidbit in the middle:

In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. Tanner's response was, "Mary Frances Berry style - black and bitter." Berry is an African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response." Acosta said that when he was made aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so.

This leads us to the long overdue premiere of the 2009 season of This Week's Discussion Question:

And that was IT? An apology to the boss and they let these moral midgets continue to work on Voting Rights and Civil Rights? Tanner and Schlozman and the DAAG weren't called into the AG's office and asked if they thought defending our most treasured and essential rights is a good fit for any of them? That the apology didn't go to everyone on the original distribution list with a blatant warning that if anybody that ever pulled anything as stupid as this again, they should start emptying their desk after hitting "Send"?

Please keep the discussion civil and do not wander off into "Well, police departments have a Vice Squad that tries to stamp out vice, so maybe Schlozman thought the Civil Rights Division..." or "Tuesday, man. Come on, Tuesday."

Discuss.