Well, you can live in Texas without air conditioning. I've done it. And not that long ago.

After I got married, my wife and I moved to my parents lake house "for a few weeks" while we were looking for a house. The lake house had a window unit, but it hadn't worked since I was a kid. Well, we couldn't find a house we liked and a few weeks turned into three years. But a nice breeze off the lake, a big window fan (not a swamp cooler, but an exhaust fan), and plenty of trees around the house and lots of open windows made it tolerable. And really more than tolerable -- quite nice actually.

Of course a few things should be noted. First, as some have mentioned, the advent of air conditioning probably accounts for the economic prosperity of the South in areas other than agriculture. Second, if you do not use or have air conditioning, architecture and building habits have to change. The lake house had plenty of windows and lots of cross ventilation, high ceilings, and a row of celestory windows at the highest point on the ceiling that could be opened on hottest days to let hot air escape. Plus, trees abounded near the house. And of course it was built on the side of the lake and situated to take advantage of the prevailing summer winds from the southeast. Finally, you have to dress for the weather. When you got home form work, you didn't sit around in the same clothes you went to the office in. You changed into shorts and a t-shirt.

But it was a pleasant three years and there were only three or four days a year that were really very hot. And then, you just sat on the porch and had a glass of iced tea, or went for a swim. So don't assume that living in Texas without air conditioning is impossible. Not only did millions do it in the first half of the last century, a few have done it more recently.

I've never heard of this Brooks asshole, but that's not surprising. I try to avoid the right wing echo chamber hacks. Not really good for my blood pressure. But I feel compelled to comment on one aspect of the article -- the reference to the pink tie.

I glanced at the picture in question and I'm really not offended by the pink tie. Looks pretty nice actually. Maybe even a Hermes, although it really looks like a Hermes imitation. But the pink shirt is really what is too much. I'd wear the tie, but wouldn't be caught dead in the shirt. You missed the sartorial lead, Tracy.

A great interview. I'm a big John Edwards supporter in any event, but reading this interview makes me wish he could choose his wife as his Vice Presidential candidate. What a smart and down to earth woman.

Does anyone have a link to the opinion? It almost sounds like the judge ruled that the Defendants had qualified immunity. If so, that might be an interesting point on appeal. Is it ultra vires to break the law and out a covert CIA operative, or is that part and parcel of the job of a political operative of an official in the Bush administration? I'm not sure that the will stand up on appeal, even to an appeals court full of Republicans.

I like Bill Richardson and I hope that he's part of the next Democratic administration. But can you imagine that mincemeat that the Republican smear machine and the great right wing corporate media echo chamber will make out of him with his off the cuff gaffes, his pitching ideas off the top of his head in debates, and the such? We need a candidate who has been through this meat grinder before, no someone who has only run a successful campaign in a small State. The bottom line is that he's not ready for prime time. The Republican smear machine and the media allies will tear him into a million pieces.

Well, they may have accomplished one thing. Despite Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority," the incompetence and maliciousness of these fools may have instead insured a permanent Democratic majority. At least if we can keep the more radical elements of the Democratic party in line.

I think you may have slightly misstated Sen. Edwards' position. From statements that I have heard him make, and the speech that you quote, it seems to me that he falls between the two extremes. He does not want to flee Iraq pell mell and abandon vital U.S. interests, as Richardson and Dodd would do. But he seems to anticipate lower force levels than either Sen. Clinton of Sen. Obama has spoken about.

And if there is any hope of the Iraqi political process working (and I doubt that there is), the Edwards' phased withdrawal (which as Sen. Biden correctly points out is about as fast as you can safely withdraw in any event) will surely focus the minds of the Iraqi government and give them a deadline to do whatever it is that they're ultimately going to do. No one in life, much less politics, does anything of consequence without a deadline.

The questions were fine, but the short answer format didn't allow for any real depth of answers -- just sound bites. One gets the idea that Biden, Edwards, Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama have a lot of policy detail and substance beneath the sound bites. But you never get to that level with an one or two minute answer. Conversely, I think that a deeper focus would expose Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson (perhaps) to be lighter on substance than they appear. Gravel, by definition can't be any more light weight than he appears, can he?