I guess I just wonder if the discovery process is going to be as beneficial to our friends as we might like to think.... I worry.

I've been doing some reading:

"Maryland Rule 2-402 Scope of Discovery

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

[]Generally.- A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, if the matter sought is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party. It is not ground for objection that the information sought is already known to or otherwise obtainable by the party seeking discovery or that the information will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. An interrogatory or deposition question otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because the response involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact." http://www.millerandzois.com/Maryland-Scope-of-Di...

Additionally, it’s not easy to define what information 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d058.htm

I hope our representatives in Congress will not be able to make a spineless and easy choice – ignore the corruption/ fail to seek a full investigation of this shady organization – in the wake of a (I hope it does not happen, of course.) finding that Andrew, Hannah or James are indeed at fault.

Wow, amazing article, Hannah. The fact that you stick to your central point and manage to maintain such a matter-of-fact tone makes this more cutting. Painful as a shot into the muscle for Beckel to read, I'm sure.

This reminds me of the case that the Latina Judge, sotomayor (sp?) (now Supreme Court Justice) ruled on - the one where they thought it was unfair that people who had studied and taken special effort to pass the Fire Department's promotion test would actually...pass the test? I think the issue there was that not enough minorities were doing well on the promotion test as well.

The issue is best summed up by the question: Do we really want to "close achievement gaps by improving the performance of low-achieving students...[at the expense of] high-achieving students..."?

It isn't that there aren't some roadblocks for certain groups of people. I happen to think that (usually) there is not an issue of institutional racism, which would require more drastic measures; there are usually issues at home - indoctrination of values, especially the value of education. Taking time away from AP classes and students will not solve that problem.

One point: I was talking about the decision to stay or withdraw from Iraq; and as you say, the majority of our polled citizens (over time) did not agree with our leadership that we should stay in and, in fact, surge. I was not talking about the decision to invade. Most of Congress and most of America agreed with that decision, as you say. And I'm not talking about whether the surge was successful, ultimately. It was. I am not talking about whether propaganda persuaded people to feel one way or another about Iraq. I'm talking about who really makes decisions in group bound together by an idea. In the case of the corporation, that idea is the charter, I assume. In our country, the idea(s) spring from the constitution. That doesn't mean that people who work for a corp., or people who are citizens of a country play any significant role in decision-making. So, to my point, I disagree with you that my example is not illustrative of my point.

That's an interesting way to think about it, American Ivy. But it makes me think of a country and its government. We are the citizens. We are represented by our representatives in government. But, we don't really make any decisions, except who will represent us for a span of time. There aren't usually opportunities to make our voices heard in meaningful ways - to let our reps know when we're happy or not, like the special election in Massachusetts.

Just think, we could stay in Iraq even though most people (if you think the pulse of the people may be felt by studying the polls) disagreed with that decision.

Congress can try to ram through 'health care reform' even though, according to polls, most people don't want it either....

So, when people blame us for invading countries; when health care reform passes down more debt and taxes to the people of our nation, can it honestly be said that we as a bound "group of people" have decided anything?

I I happen to think that it makes certain that smart, talented folks who want to serve their country (rather than spending their time being re-elected and giving favors to the cronies that help fill their campaign coffers)...will never be more than the exception to the political rule.

Brings tears to my eyes. I feel like I saw and heard her: "After about fifteen minutes of discussion Brittany nodded, smiled brightly—her smile was always tinged with anxiety—and said:

'I got it.'"

Same goes for Showtime, HBO, network news and most of cable news.... But film, which can be used for such artistic, moving, discoursive good, is probably the hardest to let go.

All I know is: The only thing that will keep me from seeing this film is the possibility that the effects will make me nauseous. I am intrigued. And I like Sam Worthington (is that his name - ? - 'everyman' from Terminator Salvation). If it's boring or preachy, oh well.

What gets me is the comparison to Dances with Wolves: I'm certain that I'm not the only person who adored that movie. Whatever its partisan agenda (if that is, indeed, what some people take issue with/the reason for comparing it to Avatar), it was great film. If Avatar shares many attributes with Dances, then it's sure to be better than this article would lead me to believe.

I was going to say, after hearing what the story was about: No way do I want to see another "Precious" - a depressing, stark depiction of depravity (no, I have not seen it and don't plan to). But now, hearing that the rape is understood, rather than seen...and director, Peter Jackson's statement on the issue: "He sadly noted that there’s plenty of places to see such sick behavior on the Internet but noted that he personally wouldn’t be part of providing imagery for the twisted imaginations of predators." I might just have to see it for the performances and to support Jackson.

How did I know that something as shocking and dangerous as this kind of indoctrination, the replacement with a true, omnipotent and omniscent God with a fallible (and failing) human celebrity deity would be met with a completely unresponsive declaration that the revelation of the appalling behavior is "unauthorized"?