I can't wait for a McCain - Obama debate. Or even a McCain - Clinton debate. Imagine: a solid, well-informed, well-spoken politician against a doddering old fool. Oh man! Of course, you (plural) would likely refer me to Bush, George W. vs. Kerry / Gore, but I'd be willing to wager that even Clinton on a bad day is better than Kerry at this debating thing. As for Obama, I think he's going to wipe the floor with St. John the Senile.

Of course, this will have to be supplemented with a lot of ads about how incompetent McCain could be as a President, and you know, Obama here would win hands down if only because he's going to have mountains of cash to spend on such ads. Not only that, Obama can radiate that Kennedy-esque disdain for an awkward opponent, which (like it or not) we, the people, can appreciate in a candidate.

Call me naive, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this, no matter who gets nominated on the Democratic side.

Oh right, scientists are elitist because they DARE tell people what works and does not. And I imagine that priests and ministers, who preach from the pulpit to millions and tell them what Jesus would like and not like them to do are salt of the earth populists.

Unfortuately, the GOP has devolved into a party of Orwellian hypocrites who would use words for their emotional impact, not their actual meaning. If you want people to dislike something, call it "elitist". If you want people to like something, call it "democratic". This has nothing to do with the actual elitism or democracy, of course, same as Operation Iraqi Freedom had little to do with Iraqi freedom, the Patriot Act with patriotism, or the No Child Left Behind Act with children.

Sure, parents are ultimately responsible for their children (which means that if their children get pregnant because the parents thought that abstinence - or at the very least the rhythm method - is the way to go, it's their own damn fault.) But I think responsible parents should be informed. Is that elitist? If so, then I'm elitist and damn proud.

Then again... I'm a Berkeley-based scientist. That's like damned by default.

Mark my words, by May 2009 we will have a biography of George W., perhaps even an autobiography, that talks glowlingly about his "legacy" as President.

Future historians will have their hands full trying to explain how such a shameful thing could've happened. I'm pretty sure most of them will conclude that we, the people, got the government we deserved. And I think they'll be right.

I think at this point it's a bit too much to expect that the future administration will throw these assholes in jail. But a man may dream.

Well, dissent is a healthy byproduct of a democratic society. Now, perhaps it's a sign of a democratization of the Church if instead of banging their fist on the table and saying that ye shalt do as I say, the Church of England is willing to compromise. You know, find a diplomatic solution.

After all, we the liberals are all about holding our collective nose and talking to people we don't like in order to resolve our conflicts peacefully, right? So, if we can envisage talking to the likes of Ahmadinejad and (gasp!) accepting his point of view as, you know, a point of view, we can find it within ourselves to agree with the Church of England in this. Perhaps (okay, most likely) they're motivated by a selfish desire to keep their congregation intact. But perhaps they're also aware that forcing progressive ideas down a conservative's throat is counterproductive at best and disastrous at worst. The English are stuck in Basra right now, and it looks like they're learning their lesson well.

I think they're doing the right thing: giving people choices. So, with time the congregation will shift more and more towards inclusiveness (especially as the crotchety old conservatives die off). The alternative would've been to force things and generates decades of resentment (and with it bigotry) that would simmer under the mask of compliance and not easily die off.