I'd like someone to explain this little nugget to me. Churches aren't being allowed to shelter the homeless in NYC unless their program is open at least 5 days a week. (i.e., they can't open up space for the homeless only when it gets brutally cold.)

I had four days of gum surgery last week to prevent future problems (like losing all my teeth.) When you're too sore to do anything else, the internet is your friend. Here's yet another person with way more free time than I have:

Hey Guys,

I realize that I am somewhat late to the game, but my nephew just convinced me to pick up Age of Empires III. If you haven't tried it, it's a blast. Moreover, it has multi-player online features. So what I was wondering is this: do you have the game and if so, might you be interested in coordinating a time to play together? Let me know.

P.S. If you are not familiar with it, it is a real time strategy game much like the old Dune 2 that we used to play in college.

Thought you guys might appreciate this article on CNN.com. It's about the Bush legacy and how it may improve with time and hindsight. Given the generally biased nature of CNN, I thought it was interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/bush.legacy/index.html

So I've been thinking about "Batman Begins" over the last few days and the discussion about symbols -- how symbols are important because they can speak in a way that reality cannot. And as I've been thinking about this, I find myself wondering how many people voted for Obama as a symbol as opposed to Obama as a man with policies. Take away his race, make him white. And forget about the higher turnout of black voters for a moment. Take all of that away. Are the youngsters still as excited? Are we still seeing the record turnout? My suspicision is no. And that's why I think we've elected a symbol. His policies, which are solidly in line with a long history of Democratic policies, are not new. There is no real substantive "change" that he is bringing about. Just a change in which party controls the nation. But that too will be fleeting.

So here's the interesting piece. If most economists are right and the slowdown begins to trend upward in a year or so, that will perfectly time with Obama's arrival in the White House. He and the Dems will have been around for just long enough to claim responsibility for the upturn and the symbol will become even more powerful.

I'm currently finding myself resenting the notion of 'a first black president' because of the seeming social hypocrisy behind it. All these years, people have told me to pretend that there's no difference in skin color. That skin color does not exist. At Wheaton, I remember feeling that I had to ignore the obvious and try and describe people in a skin-free manner; to the extent of going through great circumlocuitous contortions (and likely looking like a fool) in order to do so. Because there was shame in any label of skin color, regardless of the context.

Yet, now, this (which cannot be discussed) is being forced down my throat.

This is the '76 before the '80. Prepare for another misery index.

Because it's a sport--I'm wanting everyone's election prediction. Presidential winner/loser, and by how much (i.e., lawyer close; a little; a decent size; a landslide).