First, let me say that I personally believe that Lieberman should be stripped of any committee role--sub or otherwise, and second, that it should be the exclusive role of the Senate to handle this; the executive branch has no business here. That leaves the issue of whether or not to allow Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Dems.

On this point I had a dramatic change of mind last night. I think the right thing for the Dems to do is to keep Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus. This accomplishes two things:

1) It is a symbolic action taken to show right-leaning moderates that the Democratic party truly is a "big tent". It is an overture to centrist Republicans letting them know that their past positions will not keep them from having a hand in governance if they're flexible and willing to be pragmatic.

2) It basically neuters the only dog that still hunts for Lieberman: the bogeyman. His only power at this stage is being a bogeyman (or a Democratic 'maverick'?). If the party strips him of all leadership positions and allows him to caucus with the majority it takes away his soapbox to a large degree and it takes away the battle that his current role so depends upon.

It's a very Taoist way to exert power: by seemingly not exerting power. It could be just the thing.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Malaria is every bit as much a part of God as anything else! That's exactly it. The "ceaseless creativity" of Kauffman's "God" is just that: ceaselessly creative. It never stops evolving and subsequently new things, unpredictable things, emerge. Sometimes the things are viruses, and sometimes the things are cuddly, stuffed animals, but "God" doesn't give a shit because "God" isn't some being with a will--as is the God you won't let go of--"God", in Kauffman's estimation (and mine), is ever-present, ever-emerging, ever-ultimately-unknowable nature; the totality of the source and substance of the universe!

My mind just reels! at the thought that someone fighting the materialist battle hasn't ever had an experience where they felt dissolved into the beauty and vastness and simple/complexity of the universe in a way that caused them to know that they were greater than themselves. I just don't believe it! Most people feel that in some way at some point in time. It reels! more! that someone having had that experience would be so violently afraid of a symbol that could point to that experience.

Like it or not, that experience, when experienced as a religious person OR as a non-religious person, is the same essential experience. My laugh is essentially the same as your laugh, when I take a shit I am essentially having the same experience as when you take a shit. When I hear a baby laugh, I experience essentially the same thing that you do when you hear a baby laugh. When we feel at peace with our natural surroundings we're having the same essential experience.

Religious people see this through a lens of mythology. That mythology is not "God". Atheists see this through a lens of anti-mythology. That anti-mythology is not not-"God".

If the symbol is pointing to something different and new--it carries new, or shall we say 'evolved' meaning. To continue to use an old-fashioned Abrahamic interpretation of the word 'God' is not even arguing with Kauffman (or any of these letter writers), it is simply missing the point.

All in all I think that Ratatouille is probably the best Pixar film, although I love The Incredibles.

That said, WALL-E was the only Pixar film--and the first of any film in many years--that caused me to say to myself the second the credits ended, "I HAVE to see that again!".

The fact is that the silent first half of the film is flat-out one of the most beautiful, moving things I've ever seen on screen. The gorgeous agony of WALL-E's tedious daily grind, the beauty he recognizes in discarded objects dutifully added to his beloved 'shrine o' stuff, the endless repeats of Hello Dolly... JesusChrist! I was completely obliterated by that film within the film.

But then the ending happens. Oh well. Still, the impact of the beginning has never left me, and I hold no grudges for the safe close. Pixar rules!

Oh, my 7 and 10 year old loved it just fine.

All in all I think that Ratatouille is probably the best Pixar film, although I love The Incredibles.

That said, WALL-E was the only Pixar film--and the first of any film in many years--that caused me to say to myself the second the credits ended, "I HAVE to see that again!".

The fact is that the silent first half of the film is flat-out one of the most beautiful, moving things I've ever seen on screen. The gorgeous agony of WALL-E's tedious daily grind, the beauty he recognizes in discarded objects dutifully added to his beloved 'shrine o' stuff, the endless repeats of Hello Dolly... JesusChrist! I was completely obliterated by that film within the film.

But then the ending happens. Oh well. Still, the impact of the beginning has never left me, and I hold no grudges for the safe close. Pixar rules!

Oh, my 7 and 10 year old loved it just fine.

King, I have been an avid follower and regular letter writer (and emailer before that) from your first day at Salon and I saw the headline and my heart sank! But, as I think about it my anticipation of a less frequent, but lengthier article increases steadily.

I'd begun thinking that the new blog format was less suited to your strengths, so I hope you'll be able to stretch out and really do what you do in your new capacity.

I'm wishing you success in your endeavors old and new!

All the best,

Brian H.

Earl Blumenauer for transportation secratary!