[Bush is] pledging a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation ...

I, for one, hope that all Democrats, particularly the leadership, make an effort to clarify that they're talking about "bipartisanship, in the D/democratic sense" whenever they use the word "bipartisan." You know, when people with different goals and opinions get together and argue, discuss, and generally come up with a solution where everybody gets something, but rarely lets a single point of view have absolute control. I'd like to see Democrats explain what "bipartisanship" means now, now that they hold majorities in the Houe and Senate, every time the word comes up.

And also explain "bipartisanship, in the Republican sense", which Grover Norquist famously described as "date rape." Defeat and humiliation - it's all the Grand Olde Partie offers to the opposing party these days. My way or the highway. It's how Mr. Bush has ruled, from Day 1. Given his inflexibility and limited vocabulary, it's probably what he still means when he refers to "bipartisanship."

With their majorities in House and Senate, Democrats could probably "bipartisan" the Republicans - but I think Dems will be better than that. I'm hoping that bullying doesn't come naturally to us.

Pack your own lunch. That way, you guarantee that it's pure vegetarian, fresh, made the way you like it ... and you'll save a small fortune.

Honestly, eating out every day while you're working is crazy, both nutritionally and financially. If you currently don't know how to cook, head on down to the library and start checking out cook books that look interesting.

Save your fruitless (heh, heh) search for a five-star veggie food palace for special occasions, like weekends.

Having read the responses to this article, I'm frankly amazed. I expected the responses to be overwhelmingly the standard rabid, pro-Israel line. Instead, nearly all of the earliest responses were thoughtful. The balance of responses are likewise, er -- balanced.

There are relatively few of the froth-at-the-mouth Israel booster letters, which generally dominate responses to articles that address the Palestinian conflict.

Either Salon is screening postings, or the Angry Jews are focussing their attention on poor old Garrison Keillor, who dared to say that he likes Christmas in his latest essay.

Another good idea would be to require Viagra/Cialis/etc ads to talk about how romantic and responsible it is to wear a condom. ("Show her how much you care.")

Several condoms need to be included with each prescription, plus an insert written in a font large enough for the elderly to read (say 12-14pt) telling them how "some types of VD can't be cured...to protect yourself and the ones you love" yada yada yada. Put it in blunt, Hemingway-style English, not legalo-medical jargon. Make it brief.

Perhaps a pictorial guide on how to put the things on without tearing them, too. Warn that they can tear. Make it brief, though, so it'll be read. The whole insert should take up no more than one page, big font, diagrams, and all.

A lot of the "old guys" used to be familiar with the VD drill from WWII. But old guys are outnumbered 8 to 1 by old women, most of whom were not in Army. And the venereal diseases of days gone by were all curable - and transmitted largely by paid "sex workers," not the grandmother down the street.

As the article points out, when you've got selfish, irresponsible men and willfully ignorant, submissive women, an AIDS epidemic is pretty much inevitable - unless drug distributors, manufacturers, and prescribers go out of their way to make sure potential victims know the score.

A fair number of people have been arguing that the Democrats need to rush immediately into impeachment proceedings. Per the analysis presented in this article, I disagree.

Right now, a fair number of people want to impeach Bush. I believe, once Democratic hearings have uncovered the extent of Bush's incompetance and criminal behavior, and the corruption his administration has encouraged and depended upon, we may very well get MOST people demanding impeachment. And then would be the time to go for it. As an added advantage, the investigation and enumeration of crimes would already be done.

But now, there's just too much work to do, repairing the damage of Total Republican Rule. Speaker Pelosi's "First 100 Hours" agenda is brilliant in that respect: first, take care of the People's work, on the most pressing, no-brainer issues. No time for vengeance; work for justice.

Remember, Democrats can legislate and investigate at the same time. They're better at this "government thing" than the current crop of Republicans, and don't have the Republicans' ideological fixation against it. ( "Since gummint can't be used for good, I might as well enrich myself from it.")

Finally, I personally would like to see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in the Hague on trial for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, rather than mere impeachment. Something that carries the potential of a long prison sentence.

Robert Gates as our new Secretary of Defense. Okay, he admitted the US is not "winning" the war against Iraq. Okay, he sounds like the Un-Rumsfeld. Maybe he's changed since the days of Iran-Contra. He certainly comes across as more reality-based and mature than the current architects of US foreign policy.

However, if you go back to Iran-Contra and look at what Mr. Gates did then, you'll find that he said what people wanted to hear, on command from the President, and manufactured analyses and evidence to support policies he was told to support. He lied before Congress, on command. I'm sure he sounded mature and reasonable then, too.

Yes, maybe Mr. Gates has changed -- or maybe it's just same old, same old.