Assorted items from the past week, wherein the writers attempt to strike a balanced note on current affairs or challenge us to review and refine our own sense of balance, of what’s right and wrong, fair and unfair, rational and not.

‘Twas the day after Christmas and all through the ’sphere, no one really cared who was balanced or not … except me, of course.

Steve Clemons asks two so-called Christians to show some Christ-like love, peace, and mercy to their gay son and brother.

Steve Benen ponders whether or not Hillary’s last eight years in the White House actually count for something. His conclusion:

If you’re sympathetic to Clinton, her eight years in the White House offer her the kind of experience and insights that few presidential candidates can even hope to match. If you’re unsympathetic, Clinton shouldn’t count her eight years in a ceremonial position in which she made practically no substantive decisions relating to foreign policy or national security, did not receive intelligence briefings, and did not, as some former officials put it, “feel or process the weight of responsibility.”

It’s the same background, but it’s up to you which version to prefer.

If you believe, as Fed Chair Ben Bernanke apparently does, that inflation is the mother lode of all evil, then you’ll appreciate Michael Bowen’s graphically assembled inflation data — which shows we have had it pretty damn good for the last 15-plus years, and we’re certainly in much better shape today than we were during the dog-days of 1974 to 1981.

Ed Morrissey wonders why a certain Iraqi “unity march” was roundly ignored by the MSM. Elsewhere, Michael Totten publishes the guest voice of Jordan W, who concludes: ” … Iraq, circa 2003, is an easy case: avoid optional wars and save capacity for unavoidable ones.”

A left-leaning blogger touts the prisoners-set-free plan of a right-leaning Governor.

[H/t Nick Gillespie.] In the (Columbia, Tenn.) Daily Herald, Ron Hart (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) touts Ron Paul’s campaign as “a thoughtful attempt to claim the broad center in the middle of the red/blue political bickering that passes for political discourse today.” Hart’s last paragraph is pure gold:

Ron Paul is not your typical politician. He strikes me as the only one running who is more likely to be listening to a constituent in a bar rather than getting a $400 haircut or running his opinions by a focus group. He is a smart, conscientious and an accomplished private sector doctor who went into politics for the right reasons. He is a man who stands firmly by his beliefs and does not pander to the worst in human instinct. As such, and if history is any guide, rest assured that he has no chance in hell of winning.

Dennis Sanders praises the virtues of “boring” in his presidential candidate.

Jon Henke joins Megan McArdle in evaluating CEO salaries.

John Tomlin interviews presidential candidates on the perceived apathy of young voters.

Assorted items from the past week, wherein the writers attempt to strike a balanced note on current affairs or challenge us to review and refine our own sense of balance, of what’s right and wrong, fair and unfair, rational and not.

Ed Morrissey praises a recent change to the Freedom of Information Act. As someone who has been, more than once, on the receiving end of FOIA-request delays, I have to agree with the good captain’s take on this matter.

Marc at Black Shards sees benefits in the close (and enduring) competition between GOP presidential candidates.

Chet Scoville has an all-too-logical reaction to the illogic hypocrisy of a certain overtly religious public figure.

Jim Wallis outlines his “prayer for 2008.” While some of Wallis’ comments are debatable (e.g., “Ever since 1968, the door has been closed to real social change in the U.S.”), the essay still offers a compelling look at the potentially expanded opportunity for social change starting next year.

Ben Smith offers anecdotal evidence to support a conclusion some of us reached years ago, namely: Bill Clinton is a much better balancer of the letter of the law and the spirit of politics than his spouse. Granted, he’s not running for office, but I have to believe he’d respond the same way, even if he were.

Dick Polman articulates, as only he can, what many casual political observers already suspect: “most endorsements don’t mean squat.”

McQ takes exception to the latest evidence of that evergreen threat: the nanny state.

Steve Benen posts on the increasing riches of the rich. “Good for them; that trendline is disturbing” was my predictably convoluted reaction as an independent Republican voter with equal doses of libertarian and progressive tendencies.

Bridget Magnus offers a “modest proposal” on waterboarding, while the editors of Armed Forces Journal offer their perspective on whether or not this “technique” is torture. (H/t Andrew Sullivan.)

Jim Manzi revisits his argument against a carbon tax. [H/t Andrew Sullivan.]

Rick Moran tackles an enduring question: Does hate speech induce hateful (even murderous) actions?

Sean Aqui rebuts the “easy” argument against global climate-change conferences.

Several noteworthy comments this past week on gays, culture, politics and more: Andrew Sullivan posted on Huckabee and gays and criminalizing anti-gay speech; Dennis Sanders posted on gays and spirituality, in two installments, here and here.

Shay responds to Michael Bowen (a.k.a. Cobb) on the Supreme Court decision re: sentencing guidelines and its implications for the war on drugs.

Antonio Crombie attempts to articulate a “dispassionate point of view” on “faith and public discourse.”

Justin Gardner spotlights Desmond Tutu on detention without trial.

Non-Political Balance-Search of the Week: Dyre42 on hunting.

Duane Lester on farm subsidies as “corporate welfare.”

Amba opines on depressed progressives.

Will Hinton believes that, sometimes, libertarians (large and small “L,” including that libertarian in Republican garments, Ron Paul) “are their own worst enemy.”

This one is largely for fun, but with a serious thread: Michael D. encourages readers to remember the human race’s humble (and extremely vulnerable) place in the larger universe.

Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegel believe the Democrats have lost their historic focus on the concerns of middle-class Americans, an error-in-judgement about which Sen. Schumer already warned his party. (H/t McQ.)

Speaking of the middle class, Michael Bowen asks for reactions to a presumably hypothetical health-coverage conundrum.

In case you (naively) hoped there might be a sense of balance maintained in the upcoming primaries, Ben Smith warns of the onset of the “vaguely-named 527s.”

Two perspectives on McCain, and between them (perhaps) an accurate portrait of what makes him the presidential candidate who can never quite reach the finish line. The first is by Jonathan Martin on the campaign trail with the Senator. The second is by Brad Porter, from a letter he wrote Andrew Sullivan.

Speaking of Sullivan, two readers take issue with some of his thoughts on Huckabee.

John Cole and Steve Benen challenge the spin of the Administration (and certain of its apologists) re: recent developments in stem-cell research.

Justin Gardner discovers another ray of hope for the GOP, although it’s once again outside the Beltway.

Diana Butler Bass chimes in on religious tests for public office. From her conclusion:

We should not be electing a theologian-in-chief. We need to elect a good president.

As a Christian, I also know that getting the answers right on a doctrinal test are no guarantee of a person’s moral disposition or fitness for leadership. Indeed, one’s orthodoxy can bear little relationship to one’s practice of faith. Experience, vision, compassion, good leadership, and an ability to govern well are the only tests upon which Christians—or other religious folks—should vote.

Of course, voters have the right to ask about candidates’ religious views, and politicians have the right to talk about those views. But when such rights verge on becoming a faith test, then we begin to sacrifice the wisdom of our political system in favor of a testimony that more rightly belongs in church. And a big part of that wisdom is that our president does not make theological affirmations that exclude millions of Americans on Inauguration Day.

Expat Teacher gets us started today by thinking ahead to the time when any one of the leading (read: debate-participating) Democratic contendors for the White House might actually be in the White House, and then asking himself: “What type of Presidency could I expect from this person?” Granted his answers are only one man’s views, and I agreed with some of them while disagreeing with others, but he definitely succeeded in prompting me to go back and challenge some of my assumptions. And that (I think) remains one of the very first and most critical steps in our individual searches for balance.

A reader takes on Andrew Sullivan for his persistent Hillary bashing.

Richard Eskow defends Obama’s position and challenges Ezra Klein’s argument on health coverage mandates.

Although he’s no fan of the GOP, Steve Benen decides it’s time to defend Mike Huckabee against the “You’re not Reagan” attacks of Mitt Romney. Very entertaining. At least I thought so.

Continuing his quest for the title of “Conservative-Not-Neocon of the Year,” Rick Moran cautions against “overselling” recent successes in Iraq.

Editor’s Note: There were a dozen more posts I had hoped to include in today’s round up. Unfortunately, other demands interfered. Stay tuned for a longer list, hopefully, next week.

Before we drift off into Turkey-induced slumbers tomorrow, Randy Woodley encourages us to both celebrate the holiday’s meaning and challenge our “dominant myths” about it.

Ed Morrissey shares a story about how pesky campaign promises can come back to bite you if you don’t live up to them.

Bridget Magnus doesn’t really care who’s the “most likable” candidate.

Jesse Walker sheds light on a group of young Muslim bloggers who have much in common with their non-Muslim counterparts.

Jim Wallis responds to “a Muslim call for common ground.”

Dr. Arthur Caplan considers the most recent (and widely reported) breakthrough in stem-cell research, wondering if it will eventually lead us to “one of the key bioethical debates of the 21st century: Is it right to repair ourselves if it means that we live much longer than any human being has ever lived?” [H/t Ronald Bailey.]

McQ channels Walter Williams on confiscatory taxation.

A young Iraq veteran ponders faith and war. [H/t Andrew Sullivan.]

At Think Progress, Matt challenges Bill O’Reilly to explain why he would allow his cable show to earn revenue from a film O’Reilly claims is “hurting our troops and helping the terrorists.”

In line with our One Good Thing meme, President Bush has given a nod to his likely successor.

CoA extends special congrats to Shaun Mullen for two years of “Hits, Misses & Close But No Cigars” at Kiko’s House.

I can’t excuse missing this column earlier, but for whatever reason, I did: Ruth Marcus tries to put some balance back into the Social Security policy debate, pitting Paul Krugman against … Paul Krugman. (If you’re curious, yes , Krugman responded … only to be challenged yet again, this time by Clive Crook.)

A weekly round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Writing at Balloon Juice, Michael D. offers an immigration proposal. While that proposal won’t delight everyone, please remember the first half of our screening criterion for CoA, namely: to feature voices that “attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues.” The operative word is, of course, “attempt.” There’s no promise of success or perfection, only effort, which Michael D. clearly makes in this case.

Dyre42 channels Joe Carter on the question, “Who would Jesus waterboard?”

At Think Progress, Matt challenges the recent counterattack made by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI) against Catholics United.

In the conclusion to a post from his extended Hillary-Might-be-The-Devil portrait, Andrew Sullivan wonders if the Republicans who aided the expansion of executive authority under Bush will be pleased with the potential backlash when HRC (a.k.a, Her Inevitableness) is installed.

Steve Benen encourages liberals-in-love-with-Ron (Paul, that is) to look twice before they buy.

Ed Morrissey steps away from the neo-cons, favoring the cautionary note sounded by Admiral William Fallon re: Iran. Morrisey’s conclusion:

“We have to leave the military option on the table to have diplomacy taken seriously by our enemies, and make no mistake, the Iranian mullahcracy is an enemy of the US. That being said, we can’t simply expect to have even the most surgical of strikes go unanswered, and a shooting war with Iran will have grave implications for Iraq, especially in the Shi’ite south. We need to solidify our gains in Iraq before looking for another adventure — and we need to act in the best interests of our nation while ensuring that we don’t make the Middle East exponentially more explosive than it already is. Admiral Fallon offers some excellent advice in this instance.”

Shay tackles the age-old question, “What is Centrism?”

At A Second Hand Conjecture, Lance summarizes intriguing data relevant to the larger health care reform debate.

I’m no neo-con, but the Republican in me still favors a strong military, and I perhaps too-often give military spending the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, when I first read the title of and intro paragraphs to Shaun Mullen’s post on the Air Force, published last week, I balked. Then I read this article from The Economist, and the corresponding “Leaders” editorial. Now, while I’m still not ready to agree entirely with my respected co-blogger, his argument clearly has more merit than I originally thought. In fact, while Shaun will probably wince at this suggestion, he might just find an unlikely ally in Gen. Petraeus. From the aforementioned “Leaders” editorial:

A new manual on counter-insurgency co-authored by the man now in charge of the war in Iraq, General David Petraeus, overturns the notion that America doesn’t “do nation-building”. Counter-insurgency, it says, is “armed social work”. It requires more brain than brawn, more patience than aggression. The model soldier should be less science-fiction Terminator and more intellectual for “the graduate level of war”, preferably a linguist, with a sense of history and anthropology.

Among other things, Jim Wallis is a “social-justice Christian,” i.e., a Christian who believes that ending poverty and expanding civil rights are of far greater importance than debating issues like abortion and homosexuality. Hence, I was surprised to learn of his opposition to certain farm subsidies.

Daniel DiRito offers a fascinating look at “prosperity theology” and “prosperity politics,” and whether or not their marriage of convenience will last.

Random Item of the Week … This post by Michael Bowen probably doesn’t belong in this column, but I enjoyed it (and related to it) and thought you might, too.

A weekly round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

This post from Steve Clemons caught my eye largely because Steve does not dispute the need for Presidents to occasionally cozy-up to despots; instead, he challenges our current President for setting a standard that’s simply not achievable in the real world, where our “friends” may be as flawed as our enemies and ourselves.

Elsewhere at Clemons’ left-leaning blog, Scott Paul drops a “one good thing” on us, highlighting the wisdom of Senator John Warner.

The Gun Toting Liberal takes it to Hillary and other D’s for paying more attention to the loudest of the Left rather than a super-majority of Democratic voters.

Dick Polman semi-defends the victimization ploy of Hillary’s campaign. Money quote: “… Hillary is acting just like lots of guy politicians who find themselves in a fix. Acting aggrieved, and playing for sympathy, is standard stuff; the gender card is merely the latest incarnation. It might not be particularly noble or justified, but, as Donald Rumsfeld might say to Democratic primary voters, you go to battle with the candidate you have, not with the candidate you might want or wish to have.”

Andrew Sullivan scores a hat trick with posts on (1) agents of change, (2) cable news and partisanship, and (3) compromising the ideal for the practical.

Becky Garrison considers mean atheists vs. mean Christians. Her conclusion: ” … it seems to me there’s too much at stake for us not to start exploring the common areas of our humanity, so we can start to build bridges instead of bombs. How can we all move past our prejudices and our distrust of others so we can allow for a safe space to dialogue?”

Dennis Sanders ponders conservatives who care.

MSM Balance Award of the Week: N. Gregory Mankiw and the NYT for “Beyond Those Health Care Numbers.”

Non-Political Balance Award of the Week: Amba spotlights Code Name Nora on the merits of aging gracefully.

After additional evaluation of TMV’s regular “Center of Attention” feature, I’ve decided to compile and publish it once a week rather than multiple times per week.

Part of this decision is driven by new limits on my available time; part of it is driven by the sense that a once-per-week compilation will perhaps: (a) allow for greater focus on posts that truly seek, prompt, or promote balance; and (b) provide a more substantive menu of worthwhile material for interested readers.

Accordingly, from here out, please look for the CoA feature each Wednesday (starting tomorrow), recognizing that it may occasionally, in subsequent weeks, slip back or forward one day.

A round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

John Cole defends Hillary’s response re: Gov. Spitzer and licenses for illegals. (Speaking of licenses for illegals, did you know this?)

Patrick Joubert Conlon spotlights a terribly un-balanced definition of racism.

Prompted by developments in his city and state of residence, Dave Schuler offers 12 thoughts on taxation.

Jesse Walker spotlights an advocate with an intriguing rationale for greater government transparency.

Michael vdG offers a platform to a compelling voice on the punishment meted out yesterday to the Madrid bombers.

Is waterboarding torture? Capt. Fogg channels the perspective of Malcolm Nance, “a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego.”

Via Steve Clemons, we learn of yet another instance where Sen. Hagel is pushing a more balanced approach to foreign policy.

Jim Wallis opines on Mike Gerson’s “heroic conservatism” - a replacement label, it seems, for the punch-line Gerson’s former boss made of “compassionate conservatism.” (Call it heroic or compassionate, Billy Hollis sees the matter of government altruism through an entirely different lens.)

Ed Morrissey looks at the justice of allowing haters their free-speech … and then bankrupting them.

A round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Steven Benen re-visits the subject of the GOP’s continued implosion. He also discovers that he’s “less optimistic” than the legendary Studs Terkel re: Americans’ level of tolerance for government over-reach.

Andrew Sullivan offers what strike me as several of the most reasonable paragraphs written, to date, on the strange case of Scott Beauchamp.

Cobb shares a strange hypothetical scenario to illustrate one approach to shrugging off “the demons of race.”

Tom Bevan counters “Krugman’s fear.”

Ed Morrissey is not buying any suggestion that earmarks are justifiable. Money quote: “If we could keep more of our money in our own communities, then we could decide locally what really matters to us, rather than what matters to politicians in DC and their lobbyist and contributor cronies.”

Faiz looks at McCain’s obfuscation on the subject of AG-to-be Mukasey and waterboarding.

A round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Andrew Sullivan is wary of the hate-speech police. (Earlier in the week, he considered a reader’s caveat-ed defense of “The Decider.”)

Joe Tobacco revisits and offers a “final word” on the Scott Beauchamp affair. Money quote:

“Beauchamp has wiped his slate clean with his actions since the Army’s investigation of the “Shock Troopers” diaries. Let’s give him a chance to fill it with something good, and clean, and honorable during whatever time he has left in Iraq, and in the Army. God knows the kid wouldn’t be the first soldier to have royally screwed the pooch, only to turn out right as rain in the end.”

Jon Henke — whom I would consider a generally right-leaning moderate — reiterates the case against using declining fatality stats as an indicator of progress in Iraq.

In the U.S. House, it appears both sides of the aisle would benefit from a healthy dose of balance (read: “compromise”) when it comes to the latest iteration of the S-CHIP bill. On a semi-related note, and worth considering in the larger context of health-care reform, Dave Schuler (a self-described “Sam Nunn Democrat”) offers a round up of comparative data on “the administrative costs of various national healthcare systems.”

Editor’s Note: Starting next week, CoA will be returning to a Tuesday-Thursday (rather than Monday-Wednesday-Friday) schedule.

A round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

To kick things off today … two posts that represent two notes in the same chord, sizing up today’s generation through the eyes of Boomers. (Warning: You may detect a trace of creeping, age-induced crankiness in these posts, yet another reminder that everyone over 40 will sooner or later be caught saying things that sound disturbingly-similar to things their parents once said, the very things we swore we’d never say.)

The first of these two posts comes from Megan McArdle. Money quote: ” … people now in their early twenties don’t really remember anything before the late Clinton administration; no wonder everything seems like it’s going to hell in a handbasket. Their baseline is an unsustainable economic bubble in an unprecedented peacetime lull following the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

The second comes from Libby Spencer, writing at Newshoggers. Her money quote: “I know and admire many young people who sacrifice their peace of mind and material interests to pursue their activism. And I don’t blame anybody for being scared. I’m scared too, when I see everything I fought for in the 60s being incrementally destroyed by this administration. But I think it’s a cop-out to say there’s nothing you can do, so you complain to your friends for a while and then start dancing. You can’t win if you don’t fight, simply because you think you can’t make a difference.”

Meanwhile, in his own version of the search for balance, The Angry Independent stirs up the pot at Kos, questioning the unquestionable (a.k.a., Hillary).

Jon Henke is surprised to find a point of agreement with Ezra Klein.

Steve Benen is somewhat mystified by Mike Huckabee’s charm, and thus tries to tip the perhaps-skewed scales of this growing love-fest back to reality. (Steve’s post clearly fits in the category of those that are not in and of themselves balanced but that hopefully “improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.”)

Ed Morrissey questions his fellow conservatives at Redstate on their decision to ban pro-Ron-Paul discussion.

Shamelessly promoting his book, The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan excerpts one of that tome’s defining riffs on conservatism as “a politics of doubt.”

A round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

The ed board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, my hometown daily and one of the leftest of left-leaning papers in the country, questions AG-to-be Mukasey’s stance on civil liberties, then goes on to recommend he be confirmed anyway. (I’m not sure I agree. Like others, I was wowed with Mukasey on day one of his testimony last week, but less-than-thrilled with his parsing on day two.)

Dick Polman reminds us that no candidate is immune to attack, not even the squeaky-clean, value-voters’ favorite, former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Kevin Sullivan comments on Fareed Zakaria’s recent assessment of Iran and its president.

Given a Republican’s win for Governor of Louisiana, Dave Schuler wonders if the electorate is truly anti-Republican/Bush, or perhaps just anti-incumbent?

Andrew Sullivan finds “conservative sanity” in Ron Paul’s take on questions about gay marriage.

Michael Totten is headed back to Iraq in a few weeks, this time to Fallujah. He explains why:

Fallujah all but demands more time and attention. On the surface it resembles Ramadi. But Fallujah is meaner and murkier. This is the notorious city from which the Sunni insurgency was launched in full force. Open kinetic warfare raged there longer than it did anywhere else in Iraq. If any city could be described as the heartland of the insurgency, this is it.

The relatively straightforward story of Al Qaeda and the Americans battling it out for the hearts and minds of Iraqis in Ramadi doesn’t really apply in Fallujah. The insurgents there were always more popular, and they fought under many flags. Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden were hardly the only figures inspiring insurgents to violence. When Saddam Hussein was captured, Baghdad cheered. Fallujah rioted.

Totten also invites readers to submit questions they’d like answered about “this as-ever notorious city.”

A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Steve Benen thinks Republicans have perfected “the art of the hissy fit.” Over the course of time, I suspect both parties would be found equally guilty — but just looking at the last several months … Benen’s probably right.

Dick Polman chimes in on the Democrats’ Armenian-genocide exercise. His conclusion: “Talk about ineptitude…The Democrats have managed to make even Bush sound wise and sensible.”

Ed Morrissey thinks certain managers at a Texas TV station are just as culpable (if not more so) than the reporter they suspsended over a troubling incident.

John Cole offers a list of questions for GOP candidates. My sense of humor may be terribly twisted, but I thought this post was quite funny … and enlightening, as satire often is.

A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

If, like me, you were thinking hoping the Religious Right and its skewed, divisive tactics were on their way to the garbage bin of political history, think again.

With the dust settling on the Air America/Randi Rhodes uproar, Shaun Mullen and Daniel DiRito turn an old meme on its head, namely: “They’re not out to get you (at least not as much as you think), and yes, you are paranoid.”

(Relevant to nothing but my own curiousity, a question for heavy metal buffs: Wasn’t Randi or Randy Rhodes the name of the original drummer or bassist for Black Sabbath?)

Courtesy of Sen. McCain, Andrew Sullivan shares an example of how to question, with dignity and appropriate caveats, the argument of someone with whom we disagree. (If only McCain had been as delicate in his answer about Christians in the White House.)

Ed Morrissey shares a chilling look into the mind of a suicide bomber, reminding us that “balance” is, unfortunately, either not present or not understood in everyone’s vocabulary.

A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Michael Linn Jones wants “a voter’s refund.”

Reaching back to the middle of last week, the Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts Jr. finally chimed in on the subject of those who question the honor of soldiers in order to score political points. Of all the many voices who have commented on this debate, Pitts does what is perhaps the best job of splitting the difference with unwavering moral clarity. (Then again, I’m biased: Pitts has long been one of this right-leaning moderate’s favorite left-leaning columnists.)

Steve Benen suggests that being an anti-Republican Republican might be a good thing.

Jonathan Martin (and co-blogger Ben Smith) examine “the whisper campaign that won’t die.” (For Politico, Martin covers the GOP contenders for the presidency; Smith the Democratic contenders.)

Justin Gardner finds a compelling argument against torture from William Quinn in the Detroit Free Press.

Andrew Sullivan acknowledges the reports of reduced violence in Iraq but worries about the long-term implications of the enduring lack of political progress.

Shay spotlights Cosby and Poussaint on “Meet the Press.”

If I had a time machine and could wind back the clock to the point when I was compiling today’s CoA installment, I’d add just one more post to the list, for our readers’ collective consideration, namely, this one by Jim Wallis, “Dinner with the Antichrist.” An obviously great title (if your goal is to hook readers) … plus an extremely encouraging prediction:

This dramatic shift in the public agenda of the evangelical community is affecting American politics in very significant ways and promises to change them, especially if the political labels of left and right slowly slip away and are replaced by a common commitment to focus on the key moral issues of our time.

I hope he’s on to something.

A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Libby Spencer revisits the potential value of tossing everyone out of Washington and starting over. Money quote from her concluding paragraph:

“We can fix it but not until we realize that the battle isn’t between Democrats and Republicans but is rather between all of us, the people, against the politicians who have become far too comfortable in their self-designed perpetual incumbency.”

(Can I get an “Amen”?)

Dennis Sanders longs for something in between Ron Paul’s “all is well” and George Bush’s “all is hell” views on foreign policy.

Was Graeme Frost “smeared”? Rick Moran thinks not.

Brian McLaren channels Bruce Springsteen on the subject of … torture? Yep, and chillingly so.

Patrick Joubert Conlon spotlights the loophole in Reagan’s 11th commandment.

Amba ponders the import of Craig Venter’s latest effort to “[throw] a monkey wrench into evolution.”

A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.

Starting off, two two-fers for your consideration.

First, two from Dave Schuler: one in which he rues an encountered lack of “vocabulary or context for discussing moral action” on the subject of torture; and another in which he revisits and “10-points” the subject of health care reform.

Next, two from Andrew Sullivan: one in which he exercises a remarkable amount of self-restraint as he repeats his case against a third term of the Clinton co-presidency; and another in which he examines one of the rare cases where science and faith peacefully co-exist and (perhaps) complement each other.

Elsewhere, McQ offers his take on the SCHIP/Frost-Family conflagration. In isolation, I probably wouldn’t label this post “balanced,” but the generally calm tone and thoughtful construction seemed far more reasonable than other right-leaning bloggers whom I’ve read on the topic.

Kevin Sullivan continues his assault on what he sees as a “broken market for political discourse.”

Finally, today, I won’t even attempt to summarize the point of this long, rambling but eloquent (and rather moving) post from Cobb. It stands on its own and is well worth your time.