As much as I would like to see that deserting draft dodger get his comeuppance, what I want more is for one or both houses to turn over all the stones that are hiding the shameful facts this administration wants to hide so desparately. Let the light in! I want the public to finally learn the truth about their awful shenanigans, and I want the truth to be so undeniable that the neocons are discredited for years to come. I want as many slavish followers to finally wake up and smell the truth and realize what dupes they have been.

I know the VP breaks ties in the senate, but how are committee chairs decided? Do they flip a coin, take turns, what?

I am glad the Dems don't have a super majority in either house and can't override Bush's coming vetoes. Instead they will be forced to focus on investigations, and I look forward with relish to Bush stonewalling on subpoenas and the resultant piecemeal revelations of all the lies and fraud they have fed to the public for six years. No doubt at first the true blue GOPpers will rant and rave about Democrat conspiracies, but as the pieces leak one by one, more and more people will have their eyes opened and be more and more offended, and maybe put the kibosh on neocons for a generation. Of course Bush and Cheney and Rove haven't learned a damn thing from Watergate or even Clinton's more recent troubles; the lesson that it is better to admit everything all at once to take the wind out of your opponents' sails will be especially too much crow to eat, and their stonewalling will last well into the 2008 election campaign.

To borrow another Bush phrase, Bring it on!

No slack. Like you say, they've had six years, and that should have been part of their job description from day one.

The GOP got turned out largely from being such slackers who gave Bush carte blanche. Let's get some investigations rolling, let's show the public what six years of see no evil has done. I want lessons so full of horror that the public doesn't forget this lack of oversight or a long long time. I want the public to always vote for congress and the executive being different parties.

I do not have any personal duplex experience, but friends who have tried similar arrangements, whether with parents or other relatives, have shown me that the idea of being able to lock your front door and having some privacy just won't work.

If the relative doesn't need support, either emotionally or physically, the duplex idea wouldn't even come up.

If the relative needs physical support, the duplex idea would not help; they need assisted living. not a visit once a day.

If the relative needs emotional support, a locked front door will either be something to knock on at all hours, or it will be yet another signal of loneliness.

At least consider those ideas. Maybe it will work for you. But of the half dozen friends who have tried something similar for other relatives, none had any success.

By definition, if not in fact, the current administration has sworn to uphold the constitution. Since anything that opposes the current administration is treasonous, you have just committed treason. Report to Gitmo and have a nice day for the rest of your life.

I use "areligious"; agnostic is someone who wonders whether there is a god, and atheist is someone who says there is no god. I think areligious is a bit better English than "I-don't-give-a-shittist" ...

V-i-e-t-n-a-m

Most of these complaints are simple quibbling, like the president has to be born in the US. This is not a test for entrance to the bar, it is a citizenship test, and it would be ludicrous to demand all the fine details.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms, you are dead wrong. If the right were a collective right, the second amendment would be the only amendment so worded, or you would have to apply it to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It has NOT been so confirmed by the Supreme Court. And if you look at the founding fathers' writings, the various versions in state constitutions, and alternative versions of the amendment itself, it is quite clear that the purpose of arms is for both self-defense (the Supreme Court HAS ruled that the government has no duty to protect citizens; the police are basically to bring bad guys to justice, not to keep them from doing bad) and to keep the government honest.

It is certainly arguable that keeping the government honest is a joke, especially since Wavo and Ruby Ridge showed how little interest citizens have in a show of private force. But the second amendment is still the law of the land, and the right applies to individuals, not groups.