Coleman said at the Capitol last week, “I think Minnesotans deserve to know each and every vote was counted fairly — that there’s a uniform standard. If that can be done at a trial level, that’s great. If it takes an appellate level to do that, then, you know, we have to look at that.”

In February, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty insisted to CSPAN that  “it has put Minnesota at a disadvantage when there’s only 100 senators total and you are missing one.”  Now, however, his office is remaining noncommittal regarding certification in the wake of the upcoming Minnesota Supreme Court decision; “if one of the parties appeals to a federal court, a question will arise whether the federal court might stay the issuance of a certificate. ”

Both sides recognize such an appeal could take “years”, depriving Minnesota of one of its constitutionally-appointed representatives while the matter makes its way through the federal court.

“Whatever the state Supreme Court decides, as I understand it, the law requires it to be certified,” says Senator Chuck Schumer, head of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.  Democrats are expected to push for Franken to be seated once the state Supreme Court case is presumably decided in his favor.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has promised “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Franken before Coleman has exhausted every last option available to him.

Cornyn’s statement is remiscient of the “nuclear option,” Bill Frist’s and Trent Lott’s 2005 threat to utterly steamroll the minority in the Senate by effectively ending the filibuster – a political tool intended to prevent tyranny of the majority, severely abused by the Republicans during their years in the minority under Clinton, and once again elevated to sacramental status among the Republicans who now find themselves back in the minority and facing a popular Democratic president with a bold agenda.  Further, the Republican ability to filibuster will be further weakened with the seating of Al Franken as junior senator from Minnesota.

But nevermind the hypocrisy of threatening to eliminate the filibuster in one session of Congress, while fighting tooth and nail for it in another… nevermind the insanity of the party who fought so vehemently against recounts in Florida in 2000 now seeking every last possible loophole or avenue of obstruction… nevermind that Minnesota is being deprived one of its two senators – that the entire United States is being deprived 1 of its 100 senators…

This brings up a subject I’ve been putting off discussing for several weeks now.

• Democrats want to filibuster the nomination of Bush’s extremely conservative judicial appointments?  The Nuclear Option.

• Democrats want to seat the senatorial candidate with the most votes?  World War Three.

• Obama signs the stimulus bill?  The chimp cartoon.

• Democrats want cap-and-trade laws?  Michelle Bachmann chimes in, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”

• Alan Keyes on Obama, “He is going to destroy this country, and we’re either going to stop him, or the Unites States of America is going to cease to exist.”
  

• Rush Limbaugh agrees the Democrats “must be stopped,” as one would stop a murderer or a rapist.
  

• “I see this as the Alamo. If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we’d be fine.” – Roger Ailes, president of Fox News.

• Sean Hannity allowed a discussion on his own website to go on for days, unchecked, complete with voting on what type of overthrow of the U.S. government his fans would prefer.  Eventually the post was prudently removed, with no condemnation of its participants coming from Mr. Hannity.

• The list goes on…

I’m a fierce advocate of Free Speech, but I’m afraid this begs the question; at what point does political theater become “shouting fire in a crowded theater?”

A conservative friend of mine has quipped that these are the same sorts of statements made by liberals about George W. Bush, and there may be some validity to that… and yet, after 8 full years of the Bush presidency and all its foibles, Google returns less than 1,700 results for “Bush must be stopped.”

And after only 70 days in office as one of the most popular new presidents in American history, there are nearly 10,000 results for “Obama must be stopped”.  Most of the rhetoric on these blogs and the anonymous comments far surpasses the veiled bellicosity of the talking heads on airwaves and the elected representatives who merely foment rebellion with carefully chosen code words.

It has been reported that Obama has received more death threats than any other president in his short time in office, and yet the violent rhetoric continues unabated, potentially bordering on treason.

I recognize this sort of thing is nearly impossible, and arguably very dangerous, to attempt to control or legislate.  But perhaps it is time the Democratic party collectively grows a pair, and gives the Republicans something to cry about.

If the Democrats were to do half of what the Republicans are accusing them of – or a quarter of what the Republicans did when they had power – we wouldn’t be having these ridiculous arguments about Minnesota Senate seats, stimulus earmarks, budget numbers or health care… we’d simply be getting the policies, and the senators, for which we voted.

The AP is reporting that some doctors are now asking their patients to sign what is essentially a gag order, agreeing not to post negative reviews or comments about their performance on consumer rating websites.

The North Carolina neurosurgeon, Jeffrey Segal, who is pushing these agreements also provides the service of monitoring online reviews.  If a negative review is found, and the author can be proven to have been a patient who signed the waiver, doctors can use the documents as leverage to get the reviews removed.

While Segal denies knowledge of any “longtime patients” having been denied care or treatment for not signing the agreement, his wording leaves open the possibility that new patients may be rejected, and it seems unlikely that a doctor who has been convinced this is a good idea would accept a patient who outright refuses to sign.

What’s more, given the flurry of paperwork snapped onto clipboards and thrust in front of our faces in the doctor’s office, this raises a question of informed consent.  Much like the multi-page End-User License Agreements common in consumer software, we tend to simply agree, sign our names, and push through the red tape to get the service we need.