Great Stephanie. Now, please make a list of the 10 worst movies in 2005 and please, please, please include "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That would be the first line of the first amendment to the Constition of the United States. So, there's the concept you say doesn't exist in the Constitution.

We can read all the points and counter-points, and counter-counter-counter points and the yes-buts between Manjoo, RFK, and Salon from now until the cow comes home. As other letter writers point out, this literary bickering doesn't (and won't) change the fact that we are now stuck with the village idiot in the white house.

Why isn't the public at large squawking about the archaic system known as "the electorial college?"

Why don't we use a preferential popular voting system or a straight popular vote? What on earth do we gain by keeping things the way they are? Except the same politicians, and look where that's got us.

And why, oh why, is there not more outrage about the amount of money invovled in every election? The way the system now stands, only those with great personal wealth or those well-funded (ie, those that have connections to the wealthy) can make a serious attempt at running for office. This, I think, disenfranchizes more Americans than all the voting issues combined. By definition, only a small percentage of people can make a serious attempt to run for national office. Once they're in, they have to grease palms. And if they're getting bought off by lobbyists for big corporations (and we know they are) then are they really speaking for the people out on the floor? Or are they considering how the hell they're going to finance their next election?

It's called election reform, folks. And this is where we need to channel our energy.

Introverts process information and stimuli internally...they think to talk. Introverts need alone time for psychic energy. Extroverts process information and stimuli externally--they talk to think (quite literally.) They need other people for psychic energy.

This doesn't mean that extroverts are incapable of having "serious" conversations, and it doesn't mean introverts are incapable of small talk or functioning at events with lots of people. My father's an introvert and one of the best public speakers and teachers I know. And he's great at a party.

It's simply a matter of different hard-wiring and one is not better than the other. Although, obviously, those of one persuation are regularly befuddled by those of the opposite persuation because we just don't get it.

BTW, America is about a 60/40 extrovert to introvert split. So yes, introverts are in the minority, but not by much.

No WAY would the Democratic Party be stupid enough to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as their candidate for the presidential election in 08. All that would do is rally the undecideds, the independents, and the repugs who don't vote to go to the polls and vote against her, thereby putting another elephant in the White House. She's just too devisive of a figure. I'm not sure the country is ready to see a female at the helm, and when we are, she sure as hell won't be a Democrat.

Historically front runners are never first to finish the presidential campaign marathon, so I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss Richardson out of hand just because he hasn't been groomed for the national stage.

I just can't get excited about Hillary. In the end, I think she's WAY too divisive a figure for the DNC to actually put her out there as The One. Obama's got charisma but so did (does) Howard Dean, and he was dead-in-the-water after actually having the nerve to show some emotion last election cycle. Obama may be too slick for such an amateurish blunder, but I can't help but think somehow he's going to be derailed. He's not that experienced and the American public is fickle, as we know all too well. As for Edwards? Well he's got that small issue with his wife's health, which I suspect will be the ultimate death nail for them.

Pragmatism is a double-edged sword...

But you're just flat wrong on this one. There is a distinction between betting and investing, and that distinction is time.

Buying a stock you know nothing about based on a tip from a friend? Betting. Day trading? Betting. Junk bonds? Betting. Hedge funds? Betting? Putting your money in the market? Investing.

Historically, the stock market (which has been in place for well over a century now) has paid investors an average of about 10% a year. That is, if you put your money there and LEAVE it there. Long term, the fluxuations of the market don't matter because over time it's all corrected. Any financial planner worth a damn will advise that if you don't need your money for at least five years (ten is better) to put it in the market where your money will work for you. This is AFTER you have a chunk of money set aside for emergencies sitting in something boring and safe, like a money market account.

Index funds are your best bet, no pun intended. Low expense ratios, minimal movement of your money, and safe:

http://www.fool.com/mutualfunds/indexfunds/indexfunds01.htm?source=LN

Boy, isn't that the truth?