Those who are insisting that the LW must be gay because he feels attraction to men are ignoring the fact that he says he feels attraction to women as well. Perhaps it is the case that he is in denial about this, but there's no reason to believe that at this point. Yes, it happens that sometimes men use "bisexual" a a sort of launching off point for "gay." But sometimes they are, in fact, bisexual. There is a tremendous bias about this,not just among straight people, but also among many gay groups as well. But unless you want to go with a heterocentric version of the one-drop rule (you're a male and you orgasm to a male fantasy? -- you're gay!), you have to take as seriously his attraction to women as you do his attraction to men.

Also, as a mental health professional, I would like to state unequivocally that we do indeed recognize male bisexuality. When someone cites "empirical literature," keep in mind that there are hundred of studies coming to widely different conclusions on many topics. Depending on the age and bias of the study (and every study has a bias) it will come out to say one thing or another. What you have to look at is a preponderance of evidence based on the most well designed studies available. No mental health professional who tells a man that he has to be gay if he thinks he is bisexual is being remotely responsible, nor are they reflecting the state of the art in psychological understandings of sexuality and identity formation.

Just a minor thing -- Obama's description of what he's looking for in a new church makes me sad. He's been put through the ringer about Trinity. But personally, I'd rather go to a church in which sometimes-outrageous things get said, where I feel challenged and stirred up and maybe even occasionally get a little angry, than to go to a tamer church where it's all about feeling happy all the time and nobody every says anything that might offend anyone. I guess it is the price of public office that you are required to avoid what challenges you.

My partner and I are fans of both SYTYCD and ABDC. And yes, these shows have inspired us to take some dance classes (me in my thirties), just to experience the joy of movement and have a tiny taste of the physical grace we see on the screen.

We like them partially for the talent that Heather mentions. The producers don't choose people to be the quirky guy or the explosion-waiting-to-happen person or the most-likely-to-sleep-with-multiple-contestants girl. They choose people who are really good at what they do. I don't believe for a second that they make their choices solely based on talent -- in fact, on SYTYCD they are pretty clear that they are looking for personality too. But they're talking about a personality that makes an audience connect with an artistic performance, which is a legitimate part of performance art, not the type of pathological personality that reality casting directors usually pick. The drama-milking is a much smaller percent of screen time on these shows.

Second, and to me more importantly, these shows are about cooperation as much as they are about competition. It makes sense that they don't feature the behind-the-scenes squabbling that most reality shows recycle endlessly. You don't start out a season of ABDC or SYTYCD wondering who will be the bad guy or gal of the year, because there aren't film clips about who hates who or who dissed who or whatnot. That makes sense, because ABDC is about the creativity and performance vitality that comes from being part of a group. SYTYCD is even further removed from the usual in-it-to-win-it reality show attitude, because to win you have to work very closely with other contestants, and you are unlikely to get very far if you make your fellow performers look bad. It also helps that there is more than just one grand prize on that show, because the top ten contestants get to go on a national tour. That's a fair consolation prize, I think, and maybe that makes it a little less of a zero-sum-game.

I agree that Step it up and Dance was a far inferior show (though there were a few good performances thrown into the mix here and there). There are tons of reasons for it's relative crappitude, starting with performances taped time after time in front of a theater empty of any observers other than the bored-looking judges. Step it up and Dress Rehearsal! And it is absolutely true that the casting was transparently about creating melodramatic fodder rather than a tough competition. Most important to me, the show featured endless clips of behind-the-scenes bad attitude. Actual dancing happened for maybe 5 minutes of a 45-minute show. To me, that means the show wasn't about dancing. It was about a select group of dancers whose talent was, for many of them, very often overshadowed by their narcissism, rudeness, and general creepiness.

millions of cell phones getting out of work by pretending to be sick.

Malingering cell phones. It's a national health crisis.