I heard a whole lot of grumbling about how 8,000 people in Iowa effectively handed the Democratic Party nomination to someone who was too inept to beat the Frat Boy. People swore that we'd HAVE to fix the caucus and primary schedule for the 2008 cycle. Uh huh, yeah.

Federalism, or maybe "states' rights", is really down deep at the heart of this mess. States are given the responsibility for carrying out elections, even when the office at stake is national. So there are no standards. Think about it - what if every state chose its own power line voltage and frequency (to pick a particularly ridiculous example). We have food and drug standards, highway standards, workplace standards, a ton of legal standards in civil rights and judicial conduct. But voting? Paper ballots, touch screens, mechanical voting machines, Internet voting, it's all over the place. Its amazing we all vote for President (and really the Electors, of course...don't get me started on that) on the same day, except we don't exactly, because a number of states have early voting. Conditions and restrictions on absentee voting are all over the map as well.

So when picking a primary election date, it's every state for itself. New Hampshire's Constitution requires it to be the first primary by a week, and being as small as it is, they can afford to wait until late in the pre-primary cycle to decide on a date. It would be interesting if a second small and nimble state changed its Constitution to require it to have the first primary. Imagine dueling leapfrogging!

Since most of the country is effectively cut out of the decision-making, potentially a 3/4 majority exists to establish a National Primary System as a Constitutional Amendment, except of course, what would that system be? I do not see any action short of an Amendment to be effective in keeping the states from playing chicken games.

I attended the Florida Democratic Convention last weekend. The officials were preening and strutting: the DNC would never piss off Florida because we're the biggest purple state, and the presumptive nominee going into the National Convention would of course reinstate Florida's delegates! A fair number of the attendees last weekend were wearing big 4-inch buttons that said "Howard Dean" with a big screw running through the name. I was frankly disgusted. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude looked pretty adolescent.

Yes, I'd like to have some choice for our nominee finally too. You know what - so would every voter in every state. We in Florida have take off our blinders and grow up a little, but also should Iowa and New Hampshire. Assuming a Democratic President is elected next year, then the 2012 primary season will likely be uncontested - a perfect opportunity to try out a new system without adverse consequences. That is of course assuming that the No Organized Political Party can come up with something to try.

Economists say that Fed rate changes usually take 9 months or so to make themselves felt in the economy generally. And what's happening mid to late next year?

Is it really my tinfoil hat making me say this? In late 1999 through 2000, the Fed slammed on the brakes with rate hikes galore. Was this to puncture the tech bubble? Or did such action conveniently coincide with the last year of a Democratic Administration. If I recall correctly, in late 2003 it was full speed ahead at the Fed, so as to not have economic woes for Frat Boy's re-... (oops I almost wrote re-election!)

Time to check the baked potatoes in my hat. Mmm, toasty!

at this late date should be dismissed, on the grounds of first-degree intellectual laziness.

First, as has already been testified to in these letters, and to which I could add my own personal experiences, there are numerous brave teachers in the most benighted corners of our country. They work hard and risk themselves every day, and they are owed our gratitude.

Second, it has always amazed me how so many people in this land cannot reconcile religion and science. Again, it's been said earlier - science is about observation, hypothesis, and rigorous critical quantitative testing, while religion is about belief. Here's where they can coexist, if you wish to think this way: science (say, critical thinking) is a gift of God to humanity. If you don't wish to think that way, that's ok too, but then science is what it is, a tool for understanding, and religion is what it is, spiritual, untestable faith.

Is it perhaps that because religion does not demand critical thinking, it is too easy to fall into the trap of perceiving science as a threat to one's beliefs? But religion can survive critical thinking about itself, and in fact trying to form a coherent and non-self-contradictory spiritual belief system I think allows a fuller and stronger religious experience.

which is the worst possible landfall location in terms of storm surge. The surge maximizes just east of the eye in the northern hemisphere.

Regarding the Atlantic Basin, this year we had several records broken: first, two landfalling Category 5's - never happened before; and second, the fast intensifications of Hurricane Lorenzo (Tropical Storm to Hurricane in 7 hours), Hurricane Humberto (Tropical Depression to Hurricane in 14 hours), and Hurricane Felix (first advisory to Category 5 in 51 hours). Also, Hurricane Dean had the third-lowest pressure recorded in an Atlantic Hurricane (905 mb).

today's Worst Person in the World from Countdown with Keith Olbermann, for that very reason.

The Twilight Zone -- Episode: The Obsolete Man

The Chancellor reads the charge: "Wordsworth, Romney - Obsolete"

Just delete the "Wordsworth"