I think I have everything figured out. Giving money to the same people who took all the original money is ridiculous. One thing of which I am sure is that there is nothing I cannot understand - if someone else understands it, they are capable of explaining it. If they can't, it's because they don't understand it, or they are hiding something, intentionally misleading me, being as confounding as possible.

I am sure this real simple. There has been an explosive growth of the super rich. They hold more of the wealth than ever. The top earning hedge fund manager was making $700 million dollars a week! CEOs getting those bonuses. Shareholders making money while the the companies lose money. The money didn't cease to exist - it was taken! So what do you do? Give those same people more money. Brilliant!

If you had given all that money to the people whose homes were in foreclosure, they could have paid those companies, as originally agreed, the way lending institutions are supposed to make money. But noooo! They give it to the banks, who still foreclose.

So now, we have a horrible winter, with record numbers of homeless people, who only a few months ago were working, and paying their mortgages, then lost their jobs and their homes, and the banks who got billions of dollars not to foreclose did it any way.

This is repackaged Reaganomics. Money NEVER trickles down. The people who would have put the money back into the economy were shut out, and the hoarders have more to hoard.

It's criminal.

DD, you reminded me of a time I was shopping on South Street in Philly. I was in the store, and I noticed everything seemed to be for tall people. It wasn't until I got to the shoe section, and the smallest size was 10, did I realize that although it had women's clothes, it wasnt a store for women.

I must confess, we did a few shots to the occasion (thank god it wasn't a drinking game involving hearing "At Last"). I swear the mistakes in my last comment weren't there when I pressed, "Submit."

Sorry, couldn't hold it in any longer.

I say NAY. We need some pomp and circumstance occasionally. It's 12:14 as I'm writing this, and Barack is holding up, but Michelle is looking pretty bad. We've all had nights that went on too long, with much less reason. They'll get over it. These balls are a thank you to the people who made the day possible.

But there is a bigger issue looming. When is the tyranny that is womens shoes going to end? Why do we walk in little tiny, pinchy, little sticks? The worst thing you could on? Everyone else is bundlesd up, there's Michelle walking in the parade in hose and heels? It's absurd. ANd I love shoes - but I limit my time in them. I said to my son she should be wearing boots, and I was glad Dr. Biden had the good sense the wear boots. But I swear it's the shoes that is making the first lady look so drained.

You may recall it as the habeas corpus case. They held that the Gitmo prisoners had a right to seek relief in federal District Court.

www.cdi.org/news/law/rasul-decision.pdf

Like Biden and Obama, I am a lawyer. Lawyers think differently from other people. If I asked you, "Which of my cars would you like to buy?" I have not actually offered to sell you a car. You, like Jill Biden, are not a lawyer, and you both might misinterpret that as an offer.

But I am side-stepping the issue - your apparent sour grapes; willing to jump on the slightest hint of an idea of an issue. Get real. People are rarely precise.

Because your comment annoyed me so much, as there is no evidence you thought this through, I am compelled to inform you that it is Oprah, Bidens, and Palins. Take to more time to be thoughtful, in both grammar and content.

I feel your pain, and am so relieved your family is in tact. I could not breathe reading your post, afraid for how it might end.

Thank you.

I can't go 3 waking hours without nearly crying. Very moving photos. Thank you for sharing them.

As for the Skins, well, this last loss was taking one for the team. The "Redskins Effect" won out, so we have President elect-Obama!

I basically understand your question, because I had the same thought about Halle Berry when she shared her award with - and named - practically every AA actor who came before her.

In that context, it didn't feel particularly politically incorrect to say, "She is only marginally blacker than me," - and I'm a blue eyed blonde. If she had looked more like Dorothy Dandridge, maybe she wouldn't have gotten the Oscar. The point being, she wasn't really a role model, and didn't really open any doors for AAs. Her beauty conforms with American standards, which most certainly has advanced her career.

But when Americans elect an AA, even one raised by his white mother and grandparents, it is clearly a step ahead. In fact, and you probably know as much about this as I do, the KKK has particular contempt for those of mixed race, and particularly when the mother is white.

So no matter where he grew up, how incompletely black he may be, how well he speaks, how educated he is there are people who just see a black man.

I went out on one of those Move-on voter registration days. I did encounter a person who referred to him as "that n....."

It is monumental that we elected someone who not that long ago would have been ineligible to vote.