Thus the ideal solution is for the Republicans to repeal the debt ceilling. We could reach an agreement here. TAC is ok.

I don’t agree with his analysis of the politics of the debt ceilling which instead of being tiresome and predictable, is creative but just plain wrong.

i.e. “The platinum coin option strengthens the Republican extremists’ hands in a negotiation over the budget, and does nothing to protect the economy from a budget crisis that would look very similar to the debt ceiling crisis. So what’s the point of it?”

… Go read the Levy Institute work(not that this will help you on negotiation leverage, but it might change your view of the “budget crisis”.)

I actually think #5 is the smartest bullet point there. Pure Brilliance actually. Albeit I don’t have a clear feel for why you are mixing Les Miz and presidential cabinet positions. One theory, you are going for a Montesquiesque spirit of the Laws type feel. Another theory is (and this regardless of sex) that those who are concerned with politics enough to care about appointments have already so bought in to the idea of revolutionary change via some particular head coach/leader, who will supposedly re-nudge or re-vamp the ‘constitutional” administrative law of the pentagon by persueing policy X,Y,Z that they are incapable of seeing the Christian Truth of Les Miz as anything more than mere copyright for the idle amusement of children. Yes the consumer is always right, (smile)here is a sucker!

That is the inclusion of #5 brings in and requires a certain level of technical knowledge that might not be compatible with appreciation or consumption of the material as copyright. Or it raises the question of the difference between the arm chair quaterback and the passive viewer of games and say Coach Saban. I already have a party admission from you that you can’t watch football with the accute attention to detail of Coach Saban! How do you know the Pentagon isn’t filled with tortured “Historians” who no longer enjoy the beauty of administrative law, or play for the love of the “game”?

I mean the first sentence in #5 is pretty good humor.Especially when juxtaposed with not crying at Les Miz.

Why does Gene Callahan assume your points are seperate? Is this sort of assumption itself grounds for a even more diversity? casual reader conservative diversity (the type that read for pleasure and cry at les Miz) vs. the type that read for dominion and cry born out of a sincere loss of material profit, and career advancement when Republican factions do not win and cannot shower them with bon-bons?

What about the conservatives who cry at Les Miz, and want to shrink the size of the government bureaucracy in order to save the souls trapped by jaundiced wonkish professionalism? (an admitedly theoretical group)

The Pentagon is bad, because the spirit of its law is not christian.

Hugo didn’t know how to calibrate the sympathetic qualities of his hero’s and the unsympathetic qualities of his villains making for a rather uncomplicated manichean view of the world. If you want a truly complicated reading of the christian world you can’t do better than Dostoyevsky. Just compare his Raskalonikov and Porfiry Petrovich to Hugo’s Valjean and Javert to see what I mean.

And as a card carrying member of the Neoconservative tribe. It’s all good. I’ll just bide my time until the next time planes hit buildings or there’s a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to tell my friends on the left and isolationist right (once again) “I told you so”.

As for Les Mis, I love the Broadway musical but I was lukewarm on the movie. For me, what works well on stage just didn’t work as well on the screen. The story can draw some tears from me, though I’ve never tried to weaponize them so hopefully I’ve preserved my masculinity!