Callista, you sure hit the nail on the head. When one's outrage reaches that tipping point, one doesn't need more outrage. In fact, for me, less outrage is actually more effective if I want to get things done. I had gotten to the point where actually engaging right wingers -- or, for that matter, anyone who did not see or wasn't fixated upon the horrific extent of the Bush administration's depravity -- become too difficult. And without the power to engage there is certainly no power to influence and change.

Since Christmas, I've stopped hanging out on partisan blogs, and my level of outrage is no longer paralyzing or toxic. I have found that I am much happier and actually able to engage others who don't share my view in discussions. I have shifted from information consumption to action, in the form of working with a community group to host discussions on climate change with local scientists. I feel positive and feel like I am making a difference.

This is not to detract one iota from those raking muck. They are vital to restoring order to the country that Bush broke. I will defend and support them til my dying breath, but it is not the way I can be most effective.

One thing I have learned in the plethora of Obama coverage is that he and I both graduated from high school in 1979 in Hawaii. This has made me more curious about him, and so I've read accounts in the Hawaii papers, and accounts of friends from Harvard and even his basketball coach at occidental college. They all describe a personable, contentious, confident young man.

He was all of this before he ran against Rush in Chicago. McClelland is flat wrong to suggest that Obama's persona was newly minted following his defeat. From all I can tell, he possessed many of his admirable qualities all along (though perhaps they didn't show during that difficult campaign).

Certainly, that is the case with his multi-culturalism. Hawaii is ground zero of multi-culturalism, and living there must have shaped him in profound ways. It's not just the "white mother/Kenyan father" narrative. Its white mother, Kenyan father, growing up in a minority white environment with pacific islanders, southest asians an asians in equal numbers. (I remember hearing the name "Barry Obama" from a mutual friend back in the day and thinking she was talking about a Japanese guy.) That experience would only have been amplified by his years in Indonesia.

Knowing where Obama comes from has made a big difference for me. And makes him far more apppealing as a candidate.

I was one of the many who commented on Broder's silly column yesterday. The responses, through about page ten, were vitually all negative.

Yet, miraculously, the online chat is almost a Bush love fest. Aside from the questioner asking Broder to respond to your column, and a few others critical at the margins, the questioners were a chorus of folks agreeing that Bush is savvy and rising from the ashes and that us haters simply can't bring ourselves to see it.

Now, granted, some of the people who commented on Broder's piece were a bit too caustic to be invited to a polite chat.

But you have to wonder. What proportion of questions did the post have to ditch to find all those fawning ones? I mean, there were page after page of negative comments before even one conservative made a feeble attempt at weighing in.

There are a couple alternatives: either the Post and Broder are "propping up" Bush by selecting non-representative questioners who tilt dramatically in his favor, or someone is screening out all those icky challenging voices so Broder can continue to live in fantasy.

I get crabby when I read false comparisons: driving to the grocery store versus buying local food. There is no doubt that the single best thing one can do to make their own behavior more sustainable is to get out of their car. So obviously, biking and walking is better than driving. And driving a short distance to get food is better than driving a long distance. And if you have to choose between driving less and buying more sustainable food, driving less clearly has a greater impact. But decisions about driving are generally separate from the issue of locally grown versus transported food. So saying you can save more by not doing X that you can by doing Y presents something as a choice, when it is more than possible for most of us to do both.

I buy local because it supports my local economy, supports diverse food products, reduces the use of pesticides and (I believe, cost of building greenhouses aside) reduces carbon emissions. I also try to bike or walk whenever I can. I don't think it's very complicated. I am afraid that throwing in these unnecessary complications and false choices can lead to cynacism and inaction.

the wheat probably won't reach the little boy. Because international food delivery has to rely on honest national leaders and safe transportation routes to get that boy his wheat. And honest leaders and safe trasportation are two things Sudan lacks.

Another advantage of local food production is that it does not have to rely on unstable infrastructure. It's too bad people in the Sudan and other developing countries lost the means to do that.

so comfort in the workplace is based on mutual attraction? In your dreams, Medved. I guess I always figured the workplace was a good place to suppress or rechannel sexual attraction, since it really doesn't have a place among co-workers. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think it really makes sense to suggest that food production and availablity led toward smaller families in China, where family planning was imposed by government fiat.

On the other hand I agree that poplulation is a really important part of the equation.