A longstanding peeve first, not at you, but which a phrase you used ironically happened to trigger. What is it the bumper sticker says, Practice acts of random kindness and senseless beauty."? Something like that. Have always hated that line. It cedes far too much to meanness and ugliness, by saying that kindness is random and beauty is senseless. What would be wrong with acts of deliberate kindness and meaningful beauty? Wouldn't that be better, really.

Okay, now for the story. True story.

Monsoon season in Santa Fe. Five o'clockish, the off-work rush just as a huge cloudburst hit, flooding the streets. Like an idiot, I'd chosen that very moment to run somewhere, I forget where in my car. The storm was so violent you couldn't see. We were all stuck in place. When it cleared a little, it developed that all the traffic lights in the area were out. I sighed a sigh at my foolishness. I was sure to be stuck in traffic a long time.

Pulled up at the intersection of St. Michael's and St. Francis, the one with the overpass. No traffic signals. Long lines of traffic from four intersecting directions.

Total chaos, right? No. What happened is the drivers from each direction took turns. About as many cars would go as would have gone on that light, and then the lane that would have gone next would go next. About as many cars from it would go as would have gone with the light, and so on, the right-of-way rotating through all the directions by comment consent.

All this with no communication other than perhaps waves or nods (though I didn't see any).

See why I'm telling this story in regard to traffic? Self-organizing behavior. Each individual driver understood the situation and understood what sort of behavior would be necessary to make the situation work. The behavior had a template, the dynamic structure provided by the lights, but it helped that the template was reasonable, obvious, that everyone could see its utility at a glance.

My point is that in making plans for traffic flow, it would be wise to learn how to encourage (and allow for) the emergence of such highly functional behavior.

The problematic unexamined usage here is "we." I love knowledge, but have been deeply disappointed ever since I found out as a six-year-old that school wasn't a place where you learned what you were excited to know, but a place where they warehoused you and made you follow routines regardless of their value. Some few were worthwhile--learning the multiplication tables, for instance, but most of my teachers were ignorant and taught by rote, not by understanding.

Now I use wikipedia happily. I am not worried about inaccuracies, because I have educated myself enough to know when what I am reading is off. Wikipedia is plenty accurate for basic information on subjects I haven't studied.

Note the "I": There is no society-wide determination for what constitutes knowledge. Knowledge is a hard-earned personal achievement, and requires plenty of skepticism.

Let's deal with the notion that Palin is hot, since that seems to be the main arguing point in her favor.

No, Palin is NOT hot. She's REPUBLICAN hot, which is a completely different thing, like the best-looking zombi in a crowd of incoherent stumblers who want to eat your head. She is a scary person, and can be thought of as attractive only by comparison with the rest of the party. She happens to be the best-looking female Republican they could find, and so gets credit for more than her due.

Not to be sexist, was there a single male candidate, speaker, consultant, or other significant person affiliated with the campaign who was not either old, fat, mean, ugly, or stupid, or a combination of these qualities.

Remember the concept: REPUBLICAN HOTNESS. It bears the same relationship to true attractiveness as REPUBLICAN FREEDOM bears to true freedom.

Should have put a question mark after the question about male candidates in my last post.

Not exactly on subject, but it pertains: I notice that the rightwingers are fuming at any criticism of Palin, shrieking that such criticism is sexist, no matter how fact-based.

I seem to remember a lot of unspeakably nasty assertions about Hillary, up to and including those who called her a bitch. Why is name-calling fair for rightwingers, but a simple effort to get the facts out is not for those who oppose Palin?

Either she's tough or she aint. If she can hack it, let her weather criticism like an adult. You can't have it both ways. Shut up, rightwingers.

It has been said that as people age they get the faces they deserve. Tina Fey will still be good-looking in thirty years. The Republicans might chortle over Palin's supposed "hotness" now, but watch out. Look at the cruel planes of her cheeks, the crazed glitter in her eyes, listen to the venom in her words.

In five years she is going to be one scary-looking human. She might pass for an aging cheerleader now, but in five years her true face will be showing: Skullac the Eviscerator.

Nice analysis, but--STANCH the bleeding. Staunch is nearly always used as an adjective, sometimes as a noun, never as a verb. Staunch means enduring and reliable and strong. Stanch means, well, to stop the bleeding.

Pardon/the/slashes/but/keyboard/messed/up.//bertrand/russell/a/great/man.//as/w/b/Yeats/put/the/same/thought,/the/best/lack/all/conviction/while/the/worst/are/full/of/a/passionate/intensity.