Every second-term presidency tends to get tired and falter a bit. But these days, when so many big things are going so very wrong, smaller errors seem like an echo of overall ineptitude. And since President Bush has convinced Americans that we live in a permanent state of threat from evildoers abroad, the bumbling takes on a more ominous note.
This page opposes the death penalty, so we're not going to be upset if federal prosecutors fail to execute Zacarias Moussaoui on conspiracy charges related to Sept. 11, and have to settle for sending him to jail for life. But it's unnerving that the setback for the prosecution was due to the incredible misbehavior of one of the government lawyers, a member of the Transportation Security Administration. The lawyer, Carla Martin, violated a court order and drew down the wrath of the presiding judge by attempting to coach via e-mail some witnesses expected to testify in a manner that a first-year law student should have known was a very, very bad idea. It may be irrelevant that Ms. Martin's main job is as an aviation security expert, but it doesn't make us feel any better. Minor flare-ups of bad news are also much more disturbing when they remind us of the administration's history of rewarding party loyalists and campaign workers with jobs that are far above their level of competence. Claude Allen, who recently resigned as the president's domestic policy adviser, was arrested in a bizarre case involving a scheme to collect refunds from stores for merchandise he had never purchased, from a home theater system to an item worth only $2.50. The allegations about Mr. Allen might have been classified as a sad tale of a White House official who fell victim to pressure or overwork, had it not been for the fact that the Bush administration had also nominated him for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals despite a r�sum�that's exceedingly thin on legal experience. The founding fathers understood that there would be times in American history when the country lost confidence in the judgment of the president. Congress and the courts are supposed to fill the gap. But the system of checks and balances is a safety net that doesn't feel particularly sturdy at present. The administration seems determined to cut off legitimate court scrutiny, and the Republicans who dominate the House and Senate generally intervene only to change the rules so Mr. Bush can do whatever he wants. (If the current Congress had been called on to intervene in the case of Mr. Allen, it would probably have tried to legalize shoplifting.) The Democratic Party is not exactly the last word in prescience, but even the Democrats have put their finger on the mood of the moment, focusing on the theme of administrative incompetence. They're striking the right note, but it's not a tune we can afford to listen to for the next three years."

Senator Feingold is introducing a Senate resolution today censuring the president.Firedoglake is asking folks to call their Senators to see where they stand on censure. I'm wondering what you all think of the relative merits of censure vs. impeachment vs. doing nothing at all.There's no question that Bush should no longer be president. He's not capable of doing the job, and that never acceptable especially during wartime.The question remains, how best to deal with him?While I think censure is more attainable than impeachment - well, a majority isn't going to vote for impeachment while the Republicans control the congress - censure at first feels like the wimpy option. A legislative slap on the wrist. But then it got me thinking. These are the kind of symbolic votes the Republicans and the religious right excel at. What better in an election year than to make the Republicans defend George Bush's failed presidency on live TV in front of millions of Americans?But that still begs the question of whether we force the Republicans to defend Bush against censure or against impeachment? Well, while I think Bush deserves impeachment, and should resign from office regardless, I think the legacy of the Clinton impeachment has left a lot of Americans not quite ready for another round of impeachment hearings. Regardless of the merits, I'm not sure the American people are there yet - but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't start educating them to get them 'there.'Now, in order for this to work, be it impeachment or censure, the Democrats would have to get their messaging straight, otherwise the Republicans would simply Murtha the Dems, painting them as un-American wimps attaching the commander in chief during wartime, blah blah blah. Do the Dems have what it takes to launch an effective censure or impeachment campaign? (And remember, 'effective' isn't measured by whether censure or impeachment passes, it's measured by the impact this debate has on the public, on Bush's presidency, and on the coming November elections.)Lots of questions. Your thoughts?"

"A philosopher and a theologian debate the correct approach to the study of religion
Daniel Dennet/ Richard Swinburne"
I haven't read this yet, but I have read some books by Richard Swinburne in a class I had freshmen year of college that was basically a discussion & debate of science/religion/philosophy. To this day, one of the best courses. It was just an environment to be open minded, curious about the big questions, and okay w/ not having all the answers. We were talking about intelligent design years before all the recent hoopla has politicized the topic. Anyway, check this link out.