I am a vegetarian and I'm not perfect on this because I eat baked goods that are made from factory farm eggs and milk and I don't like the factory farm methods either.

So, even though I'm a vegetarian, I'm still a hypocrite, like nearly everybody.

However, does that mean people can't criticize the factory farms?  I don't think so.

People specialize in their lives.  Most of us aren't farmers and we don't produce most of what we eat, so we have no choice but to buy food.

Not everybody can afford organic food and it isn't necessarily available everywhere.

So, if we eat the products produced from factory farms, we're not allowed to criticize them? That would only be a logical connection if we had other alternatives, and we don't.

On wolves, this debate comes up almost everywhere, including here in British Columbia and I agree with you on that.  It's easy to say how horrible it is to kill them when you don't live near them.

I'm a 4th year honors economics student and I've taken a course in money, banking and financial institutions (although I'm in Canada, but we learned about both the U.S and Canadian system- th e textbook we used was American, Stephen Cecchetti's book)

I think you've raised several issues.
1.In Canada, and I think in most in Europe as well, the regulation of the banking system is not under the control of the Federal Reserve.  I think this makes more sense.  Regulations are political decisions and should be under the control of politicians and regulators.  It makes little sense to have a President who wants more regulation of the banks, only to have a Fed Reserve Chair like Greenspan having the final say if the regulations will be imposed.

Also, I think having both the regulations and the setting of short term interest rates under the control of one person gives that person far too much say over the banking system.

2.I was not aware until I saw your wikipedia link that the majority of the directors of the Federal Reserve district banks were appointed by the private banking system.  That seems to me to be a conflict of interest and should probably be changed.

I personally prefer the concrete over the abstract, or in this case, the specific over the general.

When she said that it was a 'weak bill', I would have asked her what she didn't like about it, precisely what was missing that she would have liked to have seen in the bill.  I don't know what she would have said, but, I'd bet that the answer to her answer would have been "the Democrats tried to get that, but the Republicans insisted on removing that in return for their willingness to support the bill."  Then I would have added the topper: "and Chris Shays was right there along with the other Republicans insisting that it be removed."

I wouldn't count him out by any means.  He is a smart guy and used to be a shrewd operator.  In Alabama, Republican governor Bob Riley tried to pass a progressive tax reform referendum that went down in flames because it included some tax increases (it also included many tax cuts to many people especially those on low incomes, but that's another story) and his popularity fell to the high teens.

He was given up for dead and that religious nut judge challenged him for the Republican primary.  Riley made a big comeback, easily won the primary won the general in a near landslide and now has favorables in the mid 60s.

It's certainly not too late for Spitzer to make a comeback.

I would bet on Terry McAuliffe as Secretary of Commerce.  That position usually goes to the chief political insider as it is kind of the 'bagman' position (the post deals with business interests who donate $$$$).

I personally like senators and especially governors as they have shown a political as well as administrative understanding of issues to succeed, so if I were President I would stock my cabinet with a whole bunch of them.  I would especially place a governor as Attorney General, especially a governor who used to be Attorney General.  Janet Napolitano would be a good choice.  I had her for that position until I read that she was big on education issues (though pretty much all governors say that), so I decided North Carolina governor Mike Easley would be a good choice there.

VP: Evan Bayh
Not likely as a Republican would be chosen to succeed him.

Secretary of State: Richard Holbrooke
Agreed

Treasury: Gene Sperling
Good choice

Defense: Diane Feinstein
Probably too old

Atty General: Janet Napolitano
Already commented on

Interior: Tom Vilsack
Certain to get something.  Interior often goes to somebody from the South West though.

Agriculture: Ron Sparks
Others have mentioned him.

Labor: Richard Gephardt
Business would probably complain.  I'd put John Edwards there, though I'm sure business would complain even more about him.

Commerce: Charlene Barshefsky
Who?

Energy: Hilda Solis
Somebody from California might be too controversial for the major energy company interests.

Transportation: Ed Rendell
Already commented on. Definately possible after 2010.

Education: Bob Miller
who?

Veteran's Affairs: Johnnie Wilson
who? Most people mention say Max Cleland

Health and Human Services: Tammy Baldwin
Probably too left wing.

HUD: Ron Dellums
Probably too old.  Several people, including myself, have mentioned Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin who was ranked as one of the top 5 mayors by Time Magazine, for whatever that is worth.

Homeland Security: Bob Kerrey
I doubt it.  Despite his endorsement of her, I suspect the Clintons still hate him for his high profile role in the 1993 budget debates (although he did vote onside in the end).  He's also rather odd.  I wouldn't be surprised if this position went to a Republican to show bipartisanship.  Possibly Chuck Hagel or maybe even John McCain.

Chief of Staff: Terry McAuliffe

Trade Rep: George Munoz
Who? I'd like to see Joseph Stiglitz get this.

EPA: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Way too controversial among business interests.  Why pick a major fight there when you don't have to?  

Director of National Intelligence: Robert Menendez
I doubt it.  Isn't he still under investigation for something?

OMB: Joe Andrew
who?

Drug Czar: Tom Siebel
who?  I wish they'd get rid of this stupid position.  

National Security Advisor: Jane Harnan
Probably too much opposition from Democrats for her to get that.

Ambassador to the UN: Joe Wilson

My choices
President: Barack Obama
Vice President: James Webb

1.Treasury: Kathleen Sebelius
2.Commerce: Howard Dean
3.Labor: John Edwards
4.Interior: Ken Salazar
5.Agriculture: Tom Vilsack
6.Energy: Blanche Lincoln
7.Transportation: Stephanie Tubbs Jones
8.Housing and Urban Development: Shirley Franklin
9.Health and Human Services: John Kitzhaber
10.Education: Janet Napolitano
11.Veteran's Affairs: Max Cleland
12.Defense: Wesley Clark
13.State: Bill Richardson
14.Homeland Security: Chuck Hagel
15.Attorney General: Mike Easley

Arnold would probably not accept.  He was hoping to run for mayor of Los Angeles, but that was before the IOC voted to give some place other than L.A the Olympics.  My guess is he wanted to be the mayor of the city hosting the Olympics.

Dick Lugar would probably be too old, though he still seems to be in very good health.

Hagel is no surprise for a cabinet position.  I could see him getting Homeland Security.

If it were up to me, I would also consider Henry Paulson possibly for EPA.

I looked over the politics1.com site a week or so ago and there were definite Republican candidates in 72 districts and rumored candidates in another 13.

1."supposedly"

2.I'd be very happy if politicians actually followed the word of Jesus rather than just mouthing the Bible.  I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a politician wanting to follow Jesus.

Yes, but according to that poster, even then he only campaigned in the southern part of the delegate district.

According to a post on a blog on Raising Kane a couple weeks ago, Forgit lost the 2003 state delegate election because he ignored voters up in the northern portion of his district.  

He apparently gave a speech at the convention today in which he did the same thing!  The northern part of the state took his speech as "I'm going to win by working in the south, and I don't need to worry about you guys."

He sounds like a real jerk.

A moderate Republican with a degree in biology and a genuine interest and expertise in environmental protection versus a Democratic jerk.  If I lived in that district, I'd actually probably have a tough time deciding who to support.

I thought Ted Hontz had the better resume and I'm disapointed he didn't win the Democratic nomination.

Wittman was just reelected a state delegate a few days ago.  According to one news source, if he wins the special election, the people in charge of Virginia elections may just leave his district unfilled until the 2008 elections.  That is certainly campaign material for Forgit.

According to a post by a crank on another website ("Wittman is a God-damned bureaucrat!"), the shellfish population has had a rough time in Virginia during the time Wittman has been in charge.  According to him, many 'mom and pop' shellfish workers have been forced out of the industry.

I'd get the links but I'm a bit tired and they're easy to find if you just google news it.

I have no idea.  Maybe Tom Davis will reconsider now.  After all, maybe a moderate can win a Republican State Convention in Virginia.

I think Kleeb should run in the 3rd district again.

Yes, apparently the 2 major Republicans each tried to outrightwing each other.  There should be plenty of material to go after them with.

The only problem is that the Virginia Special election will be held the same day (or at least the same week), so this will dilute attention.  Still, the DCCC and other Democratic interest groups should have enough money for both elections.