Well, well, well.

Maybe the best thing that will come out of Powell's endorsement of Obama is that it will--once and for all--force all the closet and borderline racists out in the open. Several quasi-conservatives and false Republicans have already registered their true views. I say "false" Republicans because what can you say about members whose racial views have turned 180 degrees from those of Lincoln? I say "quasi" conservatives because the Limbaughs of this country and his acolytes always hated McCain and sort-of supported him when he was the only alternative to keeping a man of mixed race out of the White House.

Of course, they pretended to admire Powell too. But now we see the truth. They only tolerated him as long as he stayed silent about their truly anti-American sentiments. Of course, what has really happened is that as they have become more and more extreme, it is Powell who has stayed consistent.

The conservatives and Republicans who decry this endorsement and seek to discredit it on ad-hominum grounds are really neither. They are the frauds. And they are being outed. Take names and never forget. For once, they are revealing their true natures.

Fixing this would not be difficult to accomplish if the will were there to do it.

If there is one aspect of government that cries out for a non-partisan civil service approach, it has to be the administration of elections. There are literally scores of countries that do this better than we. The key is treat elections as a question of mechanics, rather than politics.

Registration, voting and the vetting of both must be uniform, simple, intuitive, accountable and transparent. The current systems--and the fact that it's system"s" rather than one system is a big part of the problem--are none of these.

Having election officials who are members of and advocates for the two major political parties is a major impediment to creating the kind of system essential to the health of our democratic system. It is also a major affront to those who have fought and died to preserve, protect and defend the ideals that should characterize our way of governing but--under the current structure--doesn't.

Having the foxes in charge of the hen house serves no one's interests but the foxes. It's long past time that we the people place this system under our control, rather than theirs.

I think religiosity in this country would be less prominent if the financial profits of big media were not so dependent on emphasizing conflict. Conflict stirs emotion and emotion generates attention (if not interest). Commercial media (more than the public service kind) requires--indeed demands-- attention. And even more than politics, religious views have the capacity to generate and perpetuate that conflict.

While I know some very religious people, none of them stick it in my face. What they do with their Sundays is their own business. I happen to sleep in. I don't detect any smugness in their attitudes; nor do I detect any interest in their part in converting me. I know more religious people that support Obama than support McCain. I suspect they track the general population--religiosity notwithstanding.

To the extent that politicians have joined with religiosity, it seems more exploitative of the religionists than an inspiration to policy. In other words, to the extent the religionists have an identifiable platform, it hasn't advanced one iota over the past quarter century.

In the end, most people here are like they are in Scandinavia. They prefer to keep their religious attitudes to themselves. To the extent there's a societal wound there, it's the media and the pols that keep picking at it. The only interests served are theirs.

I think most people sort of get that.

Well, it's either important or it isn't; and I say it's not.

The thing is: nearly everyone uses this language at one time or other. The ten year old referenced has surely heard it on his school bus repeatedly by now and has probably even overheard his parents say it when they thought he couldn't hear. The language simply is inappropriate in certain settings to be sure; but fining people and criticizing them for using it (even if a Scarbourough has advocated fines and employed such criticism himself) is way over the top. I'm not going to adopt his position on this just because his behavior (however unintentional) seems hypocritical.

What's really been even further over the top and should be subjected to a chorus of criticism is Scarborough's seeming campaign to vilify Rahm Emannuel. It could be observed that he's gotten himself so wound up on Rahm that this caused his "slip" this morning. Joe really does have a tendency to go off on a tangent.

Having said that, I like watching Morning Joe and generally like Scarborough and his team (though I don't share many of his positions and he sometimes sends me off to work shaking my head and sputtering off). The topics covered and much of the conversation is so much more informative than the usual morning shows on the major network and other cable news networks.

Given the stakes for the nation as a whole over the next four years (or longer), this is really small potatoes.

As a strategy move, this is brilliant. Leiberman is now beholden to the President and the Party and is effectively on notice, as it were. He has to understand that any departure from policy now will be met with punishment. If such an eventuality occurs, it would not be seen as retribution (as it would if it had taken place now) but justifiable replacement of an impediment to enunciated policy objectives.

It's the right move. There's a time and a place and we're not there (yet). My advice to my friends: Get over it. It may happen yet if Joe can't help himself.