"Because in the same speech in which he quoted Lewis, Obama also said this...."

I can't remember a speech in which Obama did not compromise his own prescriptions in similar fashion, often within the space of mere paragraphs. If streamlining government is not sufficient to a problem, eliminating waste and inefficiency is the answer. Republicans are the only thing standing in the way of Presidential consensus building.

Alas, there is nothing so sacred that it cannot be shaped to Obama's imagined advantage, if, indeed, there is anything at all that won't be. In last week's SOTU homily, even non-partisan military heroes were retooled to fit the Community Organizer in Chief's sales pitch. Obama has built his career on attaching himself to other people's achievements like a leech.

The looming disintegration of Iraq may, in fact, obscure the biggest blunder of all. The semi-porous borders which have been such an affliction have also represented the only potential game changing opportunity vis a vis Iranian ambitions at our disposal. Influence, intelligence and incursions can flow two ways! The Obama Administration's complete lack of interest, if not resolute resistance to cultivating a pivotal ally at the very heart of the Middle East is a strategic failure of the first order. Where we could have reshaped regional dynamics incrementally on the ground, we are left, once again, with nothing but dubious sanctions and implausible sabre rattling in our increasingly remote toolkit. Where the surge in Iraq did, indeed, create the space for "winning hearts and minds" diplomatically, institutionally and economically, it is, once again. our lack of commitment which will be remembered when chaos fills the void we so fecklessly leave behind. We make an even more convenient Great Satan in absentia.

"But there’s one other element to this story that needs to be said."

No, I don't believe it did, especially in a story about a stirring moment of collective charity, in which people spontaneously came together, without a thought for the issues which so often estrange us. You don't imagine that the trackers were wondering about who amongst them might have aborted Robbie Wood, do you? Or seen their search as emblematic of the cognitive dissonance between obviously believing that Robbie's life had worth and being pro-choice?

It is ironic that in a tribute to the basic "decency and compassion" which united the people who offered their help, it is you who cannot resist sounding the only divisive note. You conjure up a disabled baby in the womb and simply assert that "there would have been tremendous pressure on his parents to abort him." That stunningly casual, alienating, conflation of choice and eugenics demeans the the very story of American strength you purport to tell.

You are such a thoughtful writer that I hope perhaps you will take a second look at how that juxtaposition struck at least one reader. There are things which must be said, but sometimes, I believe they are better said elsewhere.

I'm afraid I'm not quite getting your economics here either. In defending bonuses from leftist depredations, you seem to be turning the usual argument for investment incentives upside down:

"[C]ertain bonus income of money managers is taxed at a 15% rate (like dividends) instead of potentially 35% (like ordinary income). The tax laws allow for that lower rate if they hold onto the bonuses for a certain period of time."

Just how long a period are we talking about? I presume that "holding onto" money essentially means keeping it out of circulation -- i.e. not investing it. In contrast, you suggest that if that tax benefit were eliminated, those funds would be "creating numerous corporations or LLCs, granting ownership interests, and distributing the income as dividends instead of bonuses" -- i.e. bonuses would, in fact, be reinvested almost immediately.

You also state that dividends are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. I don't think this is the case. Capital gains are treated differently to encourage investment, while one of the main complaints about the treatment of dividends is that they are taxed as corporate profit and then taxed again as regular income.

Classifying the bulk of a "hedge fund manager's" remuneration as a bonus for a discounted rate, instead of the income it really does represent, seems like the very sort of incentive/disincentive that a flat tax without deductions is designed to eliminate. Unless you're arguing that ordinary income should be taxed at the same 15% rate which currently applies to bonuses, the fix you're proposing would, in fact, increase a hedge fund managers' tax liabilities, would it not? That would, ironically, seem to put you in the lefty camp which you disdain. Even if you are talking about a 15% levy across the board, you'd be effectively eliminating the arbitrary distinction between bonuses and income, yourself, just as they'd like to do.

What am I not getting here?

"Get out into the real world. Challenge your own preconceived notions.....

First they would have to recognize their preconceived notions, which is not as easy as it sounds. There's a much simpler prescription. Give us less journalism and more reporting. Quit passing every story through the lens of partisan politics.

One of the few advantages large media outfits still have over most internet entities is the ability to deploy boots on the ground -- combined with access to events and high powered personalities. Unfortunately, when struggling newspapers tighten their belts, the first folks to go are the reporters with special expertise and experience, in favor of J-School generalists.

We may enjoy the MSM comeuppance, but we still need them. A huge percentage of the news being passed around and discussed on the web is still being provided by the big boys. The net is great for analysis, fact checking, and instant access to individuals, often including dissidents, all over the world when stories heat up. The Michael Yons and Claudia Rossetts are still few and far between, however. Imagine the work they could produce with access, funding and support from the majors -- if left unfettered by stultifying editorial direction. Imagine the New York Times fully staffed with experienced hands like John Burns in disciplines across the board. I'd actually be willing to pay for that kind of reporting.

Who needs to pay for opinion? Especially when the NYTimes editorial board doesn't even seem to read its own putative news pages before promulgating their official positions. I can get better informed editorials (see: Wall St. Journal) and all the political confirmation bias I want elsewhere.

Absent their old corps of bona fide reporters, Jill Abramson et al would, indeed, be well advised to "monitor" the net (Breitbart!), not just for "bubbling controversies," but for bubbling stories. worth pursuing. It's been clear for years that FoxNews does just that. Ironically, Keller/Abramson and their ilk disdain organizations like Fox for conservative slant, when a key piece of the successful MSM model staring them in the face is coverage of the very stories that their paper ignores.

The collected Times are not being killed by competition from the internet and "opinion media." They are committing suicide, and their demise would, in fact, represent a serious loss. It is my hope that Big Journalism will not content itself with sticking forks in the MSM, which is just not that hard to do, but will ultimately "save" big media by arguing successfully for reform. That's something that Mr. Breitbart might be able to accomplish which the blogosphere has not, despite years of complaint.

So, who is fact checking the fact checkers?

Palin claims to be a frugal traveler on the government's dime:

She took her daughter along on an expensive trip to NYC. Once. She might as well have kept the governor's personal plane! Net cost to taxpayers? President Obama took his wife to NYC on a date, but they didn't stay overnight in a pricey hotel. Net cost to taxpayers?

Palin boasts about her small donors:

Nearly half of her campaign chest came in donations of less than $500, but multiple Republican committees kicked in $76,000! They don't give you that kind of money without expecting you to act like Republican governor.

Palin attacks taxpayer-financed bailouts:

It's against the PC rules to criticize Obama for bailing out big guys and pretending that Democratic pork is "stimulus," unless you rail against former President Bush too. But it gets worse! As McCain's nominee for VP, Palin supported her running mate's position instead of working against him.

Palin faults a Murkowski aide who parlayed his position as a gov't negotiator into a lucrative contract with an interested party:

Palin's negotiator gave up a lucrative contract with an interested party. This is obviously the same thing!

Palin welcomed the final disposition of Exxon Valdese damages after nearly a quarter of a century in litigation:

As governor, she complained that so many fishermen and families had to put their lives on hold for so long, and thought they deserved a larger award. Gotcha! Or something.

Palin claims to have a purpose driven life:

She looks like she might be setting up a biography campaign -- so she's obviously just an ambitious run of the mill politician.

Way to go, AP! I'll never look at Palin the same way again.