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.

Beautiful. Just beautiful. I had no idea that your "Leonard" was the same Leonard! The apple doesn't fall far. Blessings to you and your family.

My 7 and 10 year old know almost as many curses as I do, and they only learned shit and goddammit from my occasional toe-stubbing slips. The rest they learned at school on the playground (or at least my 10 year old did; my 7 year old may very well have learned the rest from his sister!).

Like Carlin used to always say: these words have no power that we don't give them. I would add that we give away some of our power if we believe them to hold any of their own. Of course context and common-sense come into play, but fines and all this hoopla only serve to empower small-mindedness.

In this week after a momentous election, can we move on to substantive things? You too, Glenn?

I've never, ever posted anything like this, and it'll probably get flagged. So be it.

Fuck you

That's VERY funny! I laughed out loud, and it's way too late for me to be doing that.

You know what we mean, though ;-)

You said it yourself: we're not joiners. We don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to anything, right? So, why even try to be the voice of a generation? (see what I did there).

I found this essay to be very entertaining and thought provoking. Broad strokes like these rarely hold up to scrutiny, but they can point one in a direction not previously considered. For that, thank you.

The one line that jumped out at me was the one most of you seem to be poo-pooing regarding information technology.

I think Mr. Lind may be right about this. Certainly, IT has irrevocably changed the nature of society, science and communications. But, in the midst of a potentially catastrophic environmental crisis brought on primarily by our reliance on the tools of the petroleum-based industrial revolution it seems to me that actual manufacturing will be a--if not the--primary catalyst for change, growth and sustainability.

The infrastructure that's going to be required to take advantage of alternative fuel will need to be massive, pervasive and global. We will not be able to sit in front of screens and log onto networks to get this done. Factories will need to be built, or at least re-tooled, people will need to be trained, a distribution system must be put in place, etc.

This is serious business, and while IT is revolutionary it may not be so in the way that Lind suggests in necessary for his thesis.

Thanks all.