This delightful exchange from the president's social security stomp in Nebraska has been captured on a number of blogs (I can't remember which ones, but I know I saw it several times last week), but if you missed it, indulge yourself:

THE PRESIDENT: Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?

MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.

MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.

THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?

MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young.

I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?

MS. MORNIN: That's right.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.

MS. MORNIN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

"Uniquely American"? Is that really something the president wants to boast about - the fact that a single mother needs three jobs to raise her family? Does he ever listen to himself? Apparently not... Here, he explains his social security program:

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

Got that?

A related item... I'm under no illusions that I'll be able to retire before I'm dead. But these folks were laboring under that illusion:

Since the mid-1990's, older people have become the fastest-growing portion of the work force. The Labor Department projects that workers over 55 will make up 19.1 percent of the labor force by 2012, up from 14.3 percent in 2002.

Until recently, most economists said that older people were being lured back into the labor force largely because of opportunities growing out of the vibrant economy of the 1990's. But these days, they say, many such Americans are being drawn to work out of necessity rather than choice.

Apparently at a loss for something to write about this week, Nicholas Kristof shows just how embarrassing a (very) little knowledge can be. He appears to be quite taken with a new book by Dean Hamer, called The God Gene, which - misleading title notwithstanding - proposes to have identified a gene for "transcendant experiences" or "spirituality" (not specifically for belief in God). OK, he's not completely taken with the book; he does acknowledge "There's still plenty of reason to be skeptical because Dr. Hamer's work hasn't been replicated, and much of his analysis is speculative." But he goes on to make such ridiculous sweeping statements (regularly using "faith," "spirituality," and "religion" interchangeably along the way) that one wonders if that particular sentence wasn't a cautious editor's afterthought. For example: "any genetic predisposition isn't for becoming an evangelical, but for an openness to spirituality at a much broader level. In Alabama, it may express itself in Pentecostalism; in California, in astrology or pyramids." Well, there, that accounts for environmental variability. (Because out here in California, you know, we're all into astrology and pyramids. Why, we keep a pyramid right up there on the altar at my Lutheran church. And we've swapped our lectionary for star charts.) He goes on, "Still, it's striking how faith is almost irrepressible. While I was living in China in the early 1990's, after religion had been suppressed for decades, drivers suddenly began dangling pictures of Chairman Mao from their rear-view mirrors. The word had spread that Mao's spirit could protect them from car crashes or even bring them sons and wealth. It was a miracle: ordinary Chinese had transformed the great atheist into a god." But I think my favorite throwaway paragraph is this one: "Genes that promote spirituality may do so in part by stimulating chemical messengers in the brain like dopamine, which can make people optimistic and sociable - and perhaps more likely to have children. (Dopamine is very complex, but it appears linked to both spirituality and promiscuity, possibly explaining some church scandals.)" Is that supposed to be funny? I hope he was trying to be funny, and not trying to be an evolutionary psychologist. In either case, he really should keep his day job (which clearly needs a more precise description). You're good at one thing, Nick, which is writing about genocide. Everytime you venture into domestic politics, culture, or religion, you sound like you're writing filler for a bad church newsletter or a diner placemat. Spare us, please.

Oh, you meant that early warning about al Qaida? (Via the Daily Kos diaries, I encountered "I Want Condi," a very clever remake of the Bow Wow Wow classic.)

William Rivers Pitt shows us exactly what programs are being cut or crippled by the new Bush budget. Do look at his list of terminations.

I missed news of this National Academy of Science report last month. Those partisan eggheads at the NAS think the president's Clear Skies plan will lower clean air standards! The Post writer sure had to work hard to come up with this careful formulation: "The Bush administration's bill to curb air pollution from power plants would reduce air pollution less than the current Clean Air Act rules, according to apreliminary report by the National Academy of Sciences released yesterday." I guess that's not exactly the same as saying "it will cause more pollution."

Are these attempts to debilitate the Endangered Species Act really necessary when the administration is already pressuring Fish and Wildlife scientists to "alter or withhold findings that would have led to greater protections for endangered species"?