This article pretty much expresses my feelings about it. I did not come out in the 90s but in the late 70s and was never impressed with drag shows. It seemed the point was to say "Look at me, I'm dressed up like an (outrageous)woman" My feeling is that if the whole show is about the costume, it wears off in a few minutes. Some drag queens actually sing, some do good comedy, those I enjoy. But, indeed, there is the part of me that has been told that as a gay man I was "not a real man" or a "girly boy" that looks at drag as a "ghetto culture" and resents the implication.

The question is not are men optional, the question is why there are so many women out there who voluntarily forego sex and marriage because they just "complicate" their lives. That's some screwy priorities if you ask me.

So what exactly is their definition of "evangelical"? The original meaning of this term would refer to all Protestants (except maybe Anglicans). After that, the definition varies from person to person. These statistics are hard to believe since almost all black Christians would call themselves "evangelical" and they certainly voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers.

This is not significant news. A Democrat has to run in 2012, and Liebermann is not a Democrat anymore. Blumenthal considers himself the leading Democrat in Connecticut, so it is a no brainer that he would be interested. As far as just how popular Blumenthal is, consider he decided against a run for governor last year.

What you must realize about Connecticut Democrats is that despite the presence of an Ivy League intellegentsia, most are just working class people who are not particularly liberal and not incensed about Lieberman's antics regarding the middle east. On the other hand, Blumenthal could appeal to those voters.

But how you can write about Pizza without talking about New Haven is beyond me. We've been making pizza for almost 90 years now, and there's a pizza place on nearly every corner.

"Western world's first encounter with terrorism, at least as we use that word today"

So how do we define it today? Individuals and groups have committed voilent act against civilian targets for political (and religious) reasons for centuries, since the Roman empire at least. Anarchism might more correctly be called the last time the West was so preocuppied with terrorism.

What is being proposed here is so obvious. There is no way to be against legalizing marijuana unless you cite erroneous facts or get all moralistic about it. It's about time to say the emperor has no clothes.

Why was it that LGBT people overwhelmingly voted for Obama? Wasn't he supposed to make our lives better, or at least not prepetuate anti-gay policies of the federal government?

But more importantly, if anyone can tell me, what can we do about this?

I think the whole statutory rape issue is a product of our dysfuctional thinking. I'd say it is Victorian, except in Victorian England and in many societies today it is perfectly normal for anyone past puberty to enter into marriage, or even a sexual relationship with a person of their choosing. My grandmother, for example was married at 15 to my 30 year old grandfather and they were happy together for the rest of their lives.

Despite the fact that it is the "adult" who is prosecuted, this is about taking away rights from teenagers. Making a legal case out of it can damage the teenager psychologically much more than consensual sex with an adult.

Anyone above puberty understands what sexual desire is, and what the other person wants. Of course they don't understand all the ramifications of sex, and can be manipulated, but honestly the same is true of many adults.

If you're going to play the class card, you should be aware that there are not only two social classes. Many of us shower in the morning, don't do manual labor and would call ourselves white collar workers, but are definitely not upper management types who are getting these types of bonuses. Service, clerical and low level management workers are getting just as screwed as the auto workers, and many of us have no union contract to protect us.

I'm all for reuse and recycling. When my mother died I felt terrible about how much perfectly good stuff I had to throw out because I couldn't find anyone to give it to. The resources for finding a people who want your toss-offs are not very good, and my city doesn't make much effort at all.

On the other hand, dumpster diving is just plain wrong. First of all, there's the privacy issue. I don't want people rifling through my trash and learning things about me. Second, there is the health issue, who knows what bugs or bacteria are hiding inside someone's garbage. Not to mention the fact that some objects have been discarded because of some defect that makes them dangerous.

And another thing, before we say people are "addicted" to new stuff, most dumpster divers I know are just as much addicted to accumulating things and their homes are usually overcrowded with useless things they just couldn't pass up.

You're real problem is that you have too many commitments in life. Obviously you'd rather be surfing the net than taking care of work and family, so I say pare down your commitments, life is too short to be filled with "have tos" instead of "want tos."

My first car was an Oldsmobile Cutlass convertible, about 35 years ago. Now I have Olds 98. Two of the best cars I've ever had. So sorry my next car can't be an Olds. :(

In all fairness I have to point out that even if the queen found this inappropriate, she and her press office would never say such a thing. As Miss Manners says "Pointing out someone else's bad manners is bad manners" and the queen, if nothing else, is one classy broad.