Let the rollbacks begin, vol. I

The Diebolds aren't even cold, and here we go--the next Bush administration attempt to roll back 30 years of environmental progress.

Get ready for six to seven times more toxic mercury from power plants in your environment than is allowed under current law. Why is this bad? Too much mercury in a mother's bloodstream means her children can be born with developmental problems and learning disabilities. And 1 in 6 American women already have blood mercury levels high enough to cause this type of problem in their kids.

The lion's share of this mercury comes from coal-burning power plants. The good news is that we already have the technology to reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 90%. The bad news is that today, the EPA announced that it was taking that strong proposal off the table completely in favor of a plan that is actually weaker than what current law requires. This, after 600,000 Americans wrote to the EPA asking for a strong standard. This, after EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt promised to consider all the options and take account of the science and public opinion on this matter.

Why would they do such a thing? You might want to ask Dick Cheney's energy task force.

"Sexier Posterior Evolves Almost Overnight"

Believe it or not, this is not a subject line from the latest spam assault on my Yahoo account. Rather, it is the title of an article in the science section of today's New York Times about the rapid evolution of longer tails in male barn swallows.

Memo to spammers

A) I don't want to enhance my bustline.
B) I don't even have a penis.
C) That Nigerian bank scam is sooo 1999.

I'm not writing off David Brooks

So, I have never quite forgiven NYT columnist David Brooks for the shoddy journalism that led him to misrepresent my college and my generation in this article ("The Organization Kid," Atlantic Monthly, April 2001). Long story, but he based much of the anecdotal evidence used in this piece on an extremely non-random sample of students. In fact, I may have to devote an entire post later on to something I should have done long ago--picking that article apart.

But I have to admit that Mr. Brooks is often insightful. I do not fully disagree with the points that he's made about the Boomers and the "Millennials"--which is what the serious generation-studies types call people my age and a little younger--in his book Bobos in Paradise and in the article referenced above. I just think that he takes solid premises a little too far sometimes to develop really whack conclusions.

Anyway, what got me thinking about David Brooks was this lead to his column today: "Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life. Inviting these two bozos onto 'Meet the Press' to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence." Heh heh. Totally true. And overall a good column on the bad thinking out there about faith and reason.

You know you're an eco-geek when--

My officemate just received a complimentary copy of Brownfields magazine. We speculated on whether it contained a personals section, and, if so, what the personals might say. I'd rather not even imagine--the odds are good that some of its readers are part of the DC twentysomething dating pool.

Scrooge of the year

This award goes to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who just fired her entire staff, right before the holidays. (Roll Call)

Just ask a college kid in a philosophy class

My brother, for instance.

MW: Is our current war in Iraq a just war?

EW: Well, Michael Walzer, for example, would say no. The desired final state is kind of ambiguous . . . and the administration's cause for war keeps changing after the fact.

Or you could ask President Bush:

GB: Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you've called a mistake.

OK, that was unfairly taken out of context. It's actually a line from the second Bush-Kerry debate, repeated nearly verbatim three, yes three times during the debate. Actual context is as follows.

GB: And what is he going to say to those people that show up at the summit? Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. . . Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we can succeed and with somebody who says that war where we are is a mistake.

But the President deserves to be taken out of context here, because regardless of the merit of his argument, it's just dumb to repeat your opponent's criticisms so many times that people might think they're your soundbite. If I did this I'd get quoted saying things like, "The administration's Clear Skies Initiative is a sound plan that will cut smog pollution by 70%!"

You have to spend money to make money

A new study finds that the vast majority of corporate PACs give more money to Republicans than Democrats (WP).

But let's not forget that when it comes to special interest money, no one's hands are truly clean. Follow these links to www.opensecrets.org to see how much corporate interests give to both major parties, by industry (this includes individual as well as PAC money):

Agribusiness; Oil & Gas; Pharmaceuticals; Tobacco; Defense; Finance/Insurance/Real Estate

Terror at 6 a.m.

When I first saw this photo on the front page of the Washington Post's website I feared there had been some sort of terrorist attack. But I was wrong; it's just crazed shoppers on Black Friday. It's great to be an American, isn't it? Wow, that was really cynical--sorry.



Holiday Shoppers Take to the Malls (The best non-story I've read all day. It's the holidays, so get ready for the boilerplate, folks!)

A U Street/Cardozo Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, all! While we wait to see how my very first attempt at a turkey turns out, let's consider what various public figures might be doing right now . . .

George W. Bush: "Working"--kind of the way I'm "working" right now.

Laura Bush: Knowing her way around the kitchen.

Jenna Bush: Flasking it.

Porter Goss: Watching Spike TV's Thanksgiving Bond-a-thon; trying to figure out which of his staff could hook him up with an underwater jet pack.

John Kerry: Drinking Dom Perignon on his yacht. Screw that whole hunting charade.

Does Adam Eidinger even watch baseball?

Even as a registered member of the D.C. Statehood Green Party (forgive me, fellow realists, but when your vote is worthless it's fun to play around with it) I must protest our shadow Rep candidate's off-putting hipster attire. Sure, his distressed jeans and Elvis Costello glasses are pretty deck, but not the right thing to wear when crashing the Expos' re-naming event:

"Charlie Brotman (left), a lobbyist who helped bring baseball back to Washington, tries to remove Adam Eidinger, who ran this year for D.C. Shadow representative through the D.C. Statehood Green Party, from the stage during Monday's announcement of the team's new name (the Nationals)." (Roll Call)

But in all seriousness, baseball is a bad choice for DC. Regardless of whether the new stadium receives public funding, it's a bad economic deal for people in the District. A Cato Institute-affiliated economist notes that "wages and employment in the food services, hospitality and recreational industries -- the alleged big winners from stadiums -- are either no larger or substantially smaller once a stadium is operating." This, he writes, is because spending inside the stadium is substituted for spending outside the stadium. I've eaten enough eight-dollar hot dogs at Fenway to believe that. My urban development planner roommate, meanwhile, makes unsubstantiated but confident claims that stadium jobs are lower-paying than similar jobs outside.

All this for a National League team, *sigh*

Separated at birth?

Alan Alda and Howard Kurtz. Think about it.

(This is what happens when you flip between M*A*S*H and CNN Sunday Morning.)

Memo to Wolf Blitzer

I am as concerned as the next American about our future State Department head's hospital admission for uterine fibroids. But did you really need to bring on a gynecologist to describe her condition in such detail? "Painful intercourse" and "Condoleeza Rice" are two things I don't want to think about in the same sentence.

Rice to have minor surgery (CNN)

Internet tool for conspiracy theorists

I was googling around this morning, trying to track down the ED of a foundation in Delaware, when I ran across this website: www.namebase.org. These guys catalog the connections between different people based on shared institutional affiliations and information culled from news articles and other public sources. The site has the ability to graphically represent these connections.

Try running a "proximity search" for possible Illuminati to see how they're connected to one another. For example, if you type in "Paul Wolfowitz" you get a clickable diagram that looks something like this (click here for the full page):



This is a cool idea, though I would have a lot more respect for this site if it did not have special sections on "UFOs" and "assassinations." You can read more about the serious use of social network analysis here.

Rumors of "The Death of Environmentalism" have not been greatly exaggerated

This report--really more of an essay--is currently making the enviro e-mail rounds: The Death of Environmentalism

Of course, few of us are going to have time to read this 37-page-long essay, so let me highlight some key points.

Thesis: ". . .the environmental community’s narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power."

Key point # 1: Environmentalists have gotten too wonky
". . . we are arguing that all proposals aimed at dealing with global warming. . .must be evaluated not only for whether they will get us the environmental protections we need but also whether they will define the debate, divide our opponents and build our political power over time. . . It is our contention that the strength of any given political proposal turns more on its vision for the future and the values it carries within it than on its technical policy specifications.[emphasis mine]"

Well, this social science major couldn't agree more. I think we need more global thinkers running the show. Of course, I also think that political philosophers should run the world (Rousseau in '08!), so you can take that any way you want.

Key point # 2: Environmentalists pigeonhole environmental concerns and reinforce the perception that they are a "special interest"
"The concepts of 'nature' and 'environment' have been thoroughly deconstructed. Yet they retain their mythic and debilitating power within the environmental movement and the public at large. If one understands the notion of the 'environment' to include humans, then the way the environmental community designates certain problems as environmental and others as not is completely arbitrary."

Exactly. Global warming is not "an environmental problem." It is a problem. However, I don't entirely agree that the environmental community does designate some problems as environmental and others as not, or even if it's a bad idea for us to do that.

Anyway, I'm sure we can look forward to more commentary on this article when it migrates from enviro listserves to the paramedia like Grist and Alternet.

Our first female African-American Secretary of State

NYT: Powell Resigns From Cabinet; Rice Is Said to Be His Successor

Think "legacy," Condi!

(Not "Chevron.")

Check out the cool bug I found in my office today

He was moving very quickly and, though briefly alarming, was actually a welcome distraction from grants research.


ORDER: Scutigeramorpha
FAMILY: Scutigeridae
GENUS and SPECIES: Scutigera coleopter
CREEPINESS FACTOR: low to moderate (no visible stingers)

Thanks to the University of Kentucky Department of Agriculture for the ID. And for this advice:

"If you are brave (and careful!) enough, you can try to keeping a centipede as a pet in a small container. Provide a few inches of potting soil, and some rocks or wood to hide under. The soil should be kept fairly moist. Feed centipedes living insects or worms that are about ¼" the size of the centipede. "

Have a blast, kids!

Is fundamentalism the problem?

Here’s how the debate goes.

A. Someone like Garry Wills argues in the New York Times that religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, is a threat to enlightened government/“liberalism” in the classical sense/etc. That the victory of George Bush, with the help of religious conservatives, is a triumph of "belief over reason."

B. Someone like the National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford counterargues that (watch this logic) people like Garry Wills are the problem because really, Islamic fundamentalists are the problem because they kill people. The implication here is either that a critique of our current leadership from Wills’ perspective weakens our ability to combat violent Islamic fundamentalism abroad, or that we should not be concerned about Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. because it does not inspire violence as Islamic fundamentalism has.

The Willses of the world may very well be overstating their case. In fact, as one who grew up among fundamentalist Christians, many of whom are quite socially liberal and even “enlightened,” I would argue that this is so. However, that does not change fact that Stuttaford’s logic is very flawed.

Stuttaford, synopsized: “Wills and co. say that fundamentalists in the U.S. are dangerous to Western civilization. Well, if you want to see fundamentalists that are dangerous to Western civilization, look no further than Amsterdam, where documentarian Theo van Gogh was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists.”

Problem: Diversionary. Does not respond to Wills’s argument that Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. could threaten classical liberal values. Just because Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to art/science/rationality does not mean that U.S. Christian fundamentalism is not also a threat to these things.

Some Islamic fundamentalist murdered Theo van Gogh because of the political ideas expressed in his most recent film. A less bloody, but just as significant, death of reason and art will occur if the Bush administration obeys its mandate from the religious right.

Intelligence is our middle name

WP: "The deputy director of the CIA resigned yesterday after a series of confrontations over the past week between senior operations officials and CIA Director Porter J. Goss's new chief of staff that have left the agency in turmoil, according to several current and former CIA officials."

Just what is Porter Goss doing over there? Clearly, I do not know the whole story here so it is a bit presumptive of me to pass judgement on Mr. Goss, whom I ran into (along with his security detail) at Starbucks the other day.

Consider this telling quote, however: "When senior managers have gone to Goss to complain about his staff actions, one CIA officer said, Goss has told them: 'Talk to my chief of staff. I don't do personnel.'"

Oh, really? But that's what management is.

The use of "impact" as a verb

As of today I think that this will join my list of "usage errors that really get my goat." Already on the list:

1. Improper use of the subjunctive mood. I.e., "if I was a rich man" rather than the correct "if I were a rich man."

2. Apostrophe used to pluralize a noun. ("Melon's for sale"). I think that this is really a Southern thing, as I have never seen it above the Rude-Stupid Line*. Similar to this is the inappropriate use of quotation marks, often to add emphasis. For example, a sign seen at my local grocery store in Tennessee once: "FRESH" fish.

Turning back to impact: The use of this word as a verb, as in "power plant pollution disproportionately impacts West Virginians," is a crucial component of advocacy-speak, and you will see it a lot in fact sheets and reports. However, something about this use jars my internal grammatical compass. Let's see what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say. . .

Rats. It is a verb in that type of context. What good is this internal compass anyway? But wait...usage problem, notes American Heritage.

"The use of impact as a verb meaning 'to have an effect' often has a big impact on readers." Hee hee, dictionary-writer humor.

"Eighty-four percent of the Usage Panel disapproves of the construction to impact on. . .; fully 95 percent disapproves of the use of impact as a transitive verb in the sentence Companies have used disposable techniques that have a potential for impacting our health. It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response. . .it may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts continues to make people suspicious."

As well they should be.

*Rude-Stupid Line: More commonly known as "Mason-Dixon Line." Everybody below it thinks everybody above it is rude, and everybody above it thinks everybody below it is stupid.

What's important about Alberto Gonzales

A few posts ago I took a brief, frightening moment to consider who might be nominated to replace Attorney General John Ashcroft. The answer has presented itself--so let's discuss.

The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin notes that the majority of major news outlets do not lead their articles on Gonzales with his connection to the so-called "torture memo." (In case you're interested, here's the smoking gun section of that memo in which the authors introduce the idea that the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture are not binding upon the executive branch of the U.S. I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty fucked up to me.)

World Net Daily: "Pro-life activists are criticizing President Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general, worrying the White House counsel will not aggressively uphold the administration's anti-abortion stance." Woo hoo! Though our friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL are withholding judgement for the time being, posting only straight news on Gonzales on their websites.

The folks at the Center for American Progress are much less, mmm, judicious, pointing up not only the torture memo issue but also failings in decisions on the death penalty and possible graft.

Highbrow hussies unite

Sen. Zell Miller (D?-GA) on NYT columnist Maureen Dowd:

'The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those columns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're idiots and telling them that they're stupid.'

Now, I am not the biggest Maureen Dowd fan either. I think her writing is usually crushed beneath the weight of its own wit. However, she gives as good as she gets, and I respect that:

"Dowd responds: 'I'm not a highbrow hussy from New York. I'm a highbrow hussy from Washington. Senator, pistols or swords?' "--NY Post, via WP's Howard Kurtz

The West Wing disappoints for the first time ever

Oh dear, I never thought I'd do this, but I have to pan this week's episode of The West Wing.

1. Jimmy Smits sounds like a New Yorker who thinks people in Texas talk like they are from Harlem. Who are their voice coaches? Given that W claims to be Texan but talks in that weird Connecticut/Texas whine/drawl I guess I can understand the confusion.

2. To date the election cycle in the West Wing universe has been exactly 2 years ahead of the election cycle in our universe. Suddenly, we leap a year ahead--the election cycle, based on the timing of President Bartlett's meeting with the DCCC, is only 3 years this time.

3. The blond chick interviewing for the deputy press secretary position has just appeared--but I can already tell that Toby's gonna take a chance on an unknown kid. It's too much.

Specter heads Santorum-ward

Depending on what happens here, Dan Savage may get an opportunity to apply another Pennsylvania senator's name to a bodily fluid, a la Spreading Santorum.

November 9, 2004
Contact: Lauren McCabe, 202-236-2405 or lauren.mccabe@nbc.com

SEN. SPECTER ASKS FOR PAT ROBERTSON'S SUPPORT; WILL VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S JUDICIAL NOMINEES

In an interview with "CNBC's Capital Report with Alan Murray and Gloria Borger", Dr. Pat Robertson, founder of The Christian Coalition, said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) called him this afternoon to discuss Specter's future as expected chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"He is going to vote for the president's nominees. There is no question about it. And I don't think he's got a litmus test. He made it clear to me over the phone, he has no litmus test."

Gloria Borger's interview with Dr. Pat Robertson will be seen tonight at 7pm ET on CNBC.

Feel the zeitgeist of the exploding whale. Again.

So, my buddy from high school e-mails me tonight about this thing he's just seen--video of a beached (dead) whale being blown up.

I am floored. How could he have missed the exploding whale footage when it initially made the e-mail forward rounds back in...I believe it was 1999? Anyway, for those who were living in a cave in the late 1990's, or for those who simply can't get enough bloody flying chunks of blubber, here's a link: http://perp.com/whale/video.html. Cheers.

The Heritage Foundation to the rescue!

Now that the Democrats have been completely emasculated--partly by GOP gains in the Senate and partly by their own poor party discipline and lack of vision--we must turn to some, as we say in the environmental movement, “non-traditional allies.”

How ‘bout…Grover Norquist? It is perhaps a little-known fact that Mr. Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform, publicly opposed the anti-environment, Bush-backed energy bill last spring on the basis of its phenomenal, $37 billion taxpayer giveaway to energy companies. That's just one example that immediately springs to mind of a place where progressives can work with fiscal conservatives to stop the backwards slide. Because if the administration wants to spend money on something, the odds are good it's something we'd oppose.

There is a lot of writing out there right now about the frustration of fiscal conservatives who felt forced to back Bush for reelection even though they are disappointed with his performance in office so far. Much of this sentiment seems to be rooted in the break between "the neocons" (always lumped together, of course) and traditional conservatives, particularly where our current quest in Iraq is concerned. See, for example, NYT Week in Review, "The Anti-War Right is Ready to Rumble."

At any rate, I am pretty well convinced at this point that the only way to stop the madness is to build an alliance in Congress of balky, fiscally conservative Republicans and the few Democrats who still have spines.

Ashcroft resigns

WP online story

My joy is moderated only by the prospect of who might be appointed in his place. And also by the fact that we no longer get to make those "John Ashcroft is listening to this conversation right now!" jokes on the phone.

Perspective from the U.K.

Promise, will stop obsessing about the election results soon . . . in order to start obsessing about the planned reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. In the meantime, here's a note from a British friend of mine.

Over here in the UK we are also depressed about the election. But it has been so inspiring to hear about all of your work, commitment and stories. From 2,000 miles away I can't help feeling that even if Kerry didn't get in, a much more important victory has been won: a new generation of young and minority voters has been politicised and mobilised. If that momentum can be kept up ... and I have no doubt that Bush and co will fuel the anger for it to be so, then you have begun a revolution.

The immediate consequence of Bush's reelection for us has been on foreign policy: the redeployment of British troops to Baghdad (much higher conflict levelsand coming home in bodybags already) so that the US troops have been freed up to begin their bloodyassault on Fallujah. The news programmes have all been very heavily focused on Iraq this last week and the anti-war movement that was so strong 18 months ago is starting to reawaken . . .

The only likely contender to beat Tony Blair in the next British election is the conservative (right wing party) leader Michael Howard (most famous for introducing the Criminal Justice Act which crackeddown on the right to protest here in the early1990s).... Howard has refused to officially congratulate Bush on his reelection and the irony of this right-winger playing to get the anti-Bush sentiment is too painful for me to contemplate.

Love to you all
amanda x

Dave Chappelle believes in universal salvation

Watchin' TV on a Monday night...

My housemate Rick's boyfriend Walter: That guy [Dave Chappelle] is so funny.
Me: Hey, did you know Dave Chappelle is a Unitarian?*
Rick: Really? I think there should be more Unitarians.
Me: I know---we don't believe in anything that specific, so it's really easy.
Rick: And you don't try to push your beliefs on anyone.
Me: Not that we have any.

*Source: my friend Anna, also a Unitarian Universalist. Independent confirmation at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dave%20Chappelle

Nelson drops Dem agenda: be Republicans

Roll Call (subscription): “If we simply oppose the Republican agenda without trying to compromise, we will be seen as obstructionists again,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) warned. “We need to try to work with the majority.”

Uh oh. Senator, some things should be obstructed. Senate Democrats, shockingly, do not seem to be embracing their position as the only thing standing between us and what might be the most significant rollback of progressive legislation and jurisprudence in U.S. history.

Where's Wellstone when you need him?

Hint: not in the place where there are spots reserved "for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."

My brother's girlfriend could kick your ass

"Aww, how sweet," I thought as I spoke with him on the phone the other day. "My baby brother has a little girlfriend in his class at West Point."

Never fly ATA again

More post-election debrief:

On the way back to DC from Wisconsin, my friend Deb and I shared a plane with the Bush-Cheney 72-Hour Team.* Not just a couple of them--the entire team.

We were connecting in Chicago, and as we boarded the flight I thought, gee--there are a disproportionate number of paunchy, balding, middle-aged white guys on this flight. And a lot of them are wearing Bush-Cheney gear (not too surprising in the paunchy middle-aged white guy set, but still).

As we taxied down the runway after landing at DC National, the pilot announced, "we'd like to give a special thanks tonight to the 72-Hour Team!" This confirmed my suspicion, which had already been partly confirmed by the Darth Vader theme music I heard in my head as these guys boarded the plane.

I commented to Deb, sotto voce, "what about a special thanks to the two hundred hour team?," which is about how long we had been awake working on our youth GOTV campaign in Wisconsin. That's when we learned that our side of the plane was chock-full of friendlies--ACT and DNC people. Bitterness is a dish best served family-style, I say.

So off the Bush-Cheney guys went to smoke cigars and sip fine champagne (joke, only a joke), and off we went to sleep the sleep of the just.

*72-Hour Team: Team of field operatives deployed by B-C campaign in the 72 hours preceding the 2000 and 2004 elections, to great effect. The idea is that the 72 hours before the election are crucial to turn out the Republican base. See also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1252129/posts.

Jack Daniels is my President

Long time no blog. Suffice it to say, I spent much of the last 6 months in Red America, land of my birth. The summer in Little Rock, Arkansas, and September and October mostly in West Virginia. And last week in Wisconsin, turning out the youth vote, but that's another story.

I'll leave my tales of barbecue, deer hunting, cheese curds, and the cute way Wisconsinites pronounce "vote" for another day. Right now I want to address the immediate question, "what do we do now?" And by "we" I mean, to quote the Club for Growth, "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" pinko liberals. God bless us and keep us.

EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OK. I have the answer to what we do next!

1. Drink heavily for at least three days. (Check.)

2. Recognize that up to 51 percent of America just doesn't agree with some of the policy positions we hold most dear. It's not that they agree with us on most things but are voting on security. It's not completely that they've been misinformed by the Bush administration and the corporate media (though they have). Take it from somebody from Tennessee's first congressional district: Mamaw and Papaw still think gays should not marry, women should not be able to choose what happens to their bodies, and we should have prayer in public schools. Phew, that hurt to write.

3. Develop a simple, coherent, moral vision and repeat it over and over and over. Right now we need to move into full-on "speak truth to power" mode. The Bush administration has been blatantly lying to the American people for far too long, often making demonstrably untrue assertions in the national media, with few consequences. It's time to call them out. We need a vision of our own to offer, though. We can talk about this more later, but I think we need to talk about our own morality. Many of us are secular people, but the things we care about can be described in moral terms. It is MORALLY WRONG, for example, to degrade the natural environment to the point that our kids and grandkids will not enjoy the same quality of life we do. It is MORALLY WRONG to cut funding for early childhood education while upping tax breaks for the Enrons of the world. You get the idea. This is what we feel. We need to articulate it better.

4. Get our guys elected to public office, at every level, all over the country. I want someone to start up an organization that will recruit and train progressive people to run for offices from city council to the U.S. House, and provide them with support in fundraising and campaigning. (Hmm, maybe that person should be me. But I and my colleagues are going to be a little busy keeping the Bush camp from destroying the entire earth.)

5. Strategery. We are in a pretty similar position to where we were for the last 2 years under Bush. The House sucked and still sucks. The Senate has changed a bit, but not a ton--we lost a few votes on the issues we care about, but we still have enough to hold a filibuster if we need to. Not like we never went through that crap before. Supreme Court appointments are a worry, though...ooh, more whisky...all better now.

So, I repeat, IT'S GOING TO BE OK. Or at least as OK as it has been for the last four years.