Moi? Attributing motives that people don't have? I don't think I've done that, not in any specific sense, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm still waiting, insensitively, for my nits to get picked, Alex, and to get "called" on whatever you seem to think I've been called on.

You say I'm picking on things that are tangential. I disagree with you. I think they're essential. Usually.

And as far as go arrogance and sarcasm, I've just jumped into the swiftly flowing stream. Arrogance and sarcasm are just style elements here. You are a practitioner of both. metulj is too. metulj can take it, obviously, so you don't need to worry.

If I were to start a thread here, I'd start one about hatred. About why it is okay to hate some people and not okay to hate others. Does hatred play an essential role in the way we self-identify? Is contempt for the other necessary for some reason? If it is, why don't we just do it honestly instead of denying it? I mean, everyone does it. It pops up here all the time (and no, I'm not impugning your motives or anyone else's in particular), and it usually seems justified or condemned for pretty arbitrary reasons. The same kind of thing happens all over the place. I'm curious about it, and why it is. Rightwing hate isn't as interesting to me as leftwing hate because rightwing morality does not seem inherently compassionate, and seems to repudiate hatred only for self-serving reasons. Boring, boring, deadly dull. People on the left, however, are fascinating in this regard because genuine compassion seems at the heart of so much of what they advance. Yet they dehumanize people whose ideas they oppose, and they do this with just as much vituperation as anybody else, probably without really thinking about it. That's very interesting. I want to understand it.

But I suspect this is interesting only to me. So my hunch is that my thread on that topic would be ignored and that it would have wasted my time. What would be the benefit of that?

Cheney's behavior was the subject of Ifill's question. Palin was asked what she thought about Cheney's novel interpretation of the VP office, and her answer was basically that she would use his unconstitutional perversion of the office as a jumping off point for further power grabs.

Yup. Cheney now wants her to have his babies.

Palin was asked what she thought about Cheney's novel interpretation of the VP office,...

That's what Ifill said? Hmm. I didn't hear it exactly that way, but you're probably a much better listener than I am.

...and her answer was basically that she would use his unconstitutional perversion of the office as a jumping off point for further power grabs.

And this proves it. See, what I heard was incomprehensible, pretty much. You've managed to interpret in a manner that can only be termed "remarkable."

You showing up at this late stage and passing yourself off as a champion of separation of powers is a joke.

This is an amazingly asinine thing to say. What, I'm "the Republicans?" If I'd jumped in earlier, I could have saved the day? Grant that I might have a break.