It is widely known, and depressingly familiar, that an ex gay meeting is a great place to get a date. McClurkin must have set off (intentionally?) some gaydar, with predictable results. Good work, Pam. Although admittedly this subject is something of a departure from the customary content of this site, I don't share another commenter's desire to change the subject. It is obvious that many readers share my view, and clearly have a lot of perspective to offer and curiousity to satisfy on this important issue. I have been an infrequent visitor to the Blend, but have been drawn to your passion and knowledge, and plan to check in more often in the future.

This Boylan story is as riveting as it is convoluted, and like a metallic-covered trash novel of more than usual steaminess, impossible to set aside.

You are quite lucky, Glenn, to have something like this literally drop in your lap, and your tenacity is clearly paying off, richly, with the subsequent attention from E&P, along with the fine contributions of IT-educated commenters.

I'll be racing back to the computer for another doubtlessly farfetched development later.

Keep it up.... It's clearly having an impact.

What this assessment of Giuliani illustrates about Beltway "wisdom" is that right wing authoritarianism is the new normal, and really the only way to differentiate among the various would-be dictators is to shallowly parse their supposed "views" on abortion and gay rights.

But remember, even Dick Cheney has expressed "moderate" views on gay marriage, and thereby expressed the true authoritarian position, which is that all such repressive laws are for the little people, not those in charge. A bone to toss to the mouth breathers, while utterly disregarding such standards for one's own circle.

Likewise, Rudy may have wealthy and priveleged gay friends, but standing up for gay rights? Don't hold your breath.

The frightening aspect of this is that given a choice between a brutual and repressive government sponsoring torture and violence on one hand, and a somewhat more moderate, American one on the other, the Beltway and the Republican base agree, only the former is acceptable.

Anything else is just, well, "out there."

You hit the nail on the head, as you often do. I remember, and revel in, Rudy's famous and repulsive flameout prior to 9/11.

My fantasy is relentless commercials featuring his former wife, Donna Hanover, at her press conference after he dropped out of the senate race, and announcing that not only was his public announcement the first she'd heard that he was ditching herfor another woman, but it wasn't even his first public affair.

Remember Christyne?

That little piece of local scandal will go over about like a fart in church with the fascist Rudy-worshippers.

Disgusted New Yorkers finally showing America the real Rudy.

Shhhhh, for now.

And somebody call Donna.

Having been told to "simmer down" for 7 years in such unsubtle ways, while fresh outrages continue to fall like rain, is perhaps the source of our anger, rather than Bush himself. A scant quarter of the people still support this proven incompetent, and yet they think something is wrong with the other three quarters.

Despite the fawning enablers in the media, Bush has shown us who he is and the great majority find him distasteful.

Our "hatred," if that's what it is, is really for those either too stupid, or frankly, sociopathic to still defend the indefensible. We are ashamed of what America has become, and rightly see those who applaud these appalling outcomes as something less than American.

Bush is beside the point.

Americans who support him are the problem, and the fact that they are objects of contempt in society is possibly the only positive development of his disastrous tenure.

That last little rant was one of your more deranged posts, and that's saying something.

The fact is, that Bush hasn't done anything worthwhile, since birth, and the immense damage he has inflicted since sleazily usurping undeserved power has made him, quite simply, one of history's great malefactors.

From his expensive but utterly squandered education, to his sadistic childhood and adolescent "pranks," his reckless drunken escapades, his multiple business failures, gleeful executions, and his uninterrupted trashing of America's image, finances, military, etc., to call the guy a loser is far too charitable.

That's not derangement, that's getting adequate blood to the brain.

What is so sad, but no less infuriating about dreary and amoral poseurs like Dowd and Friedman is that they represent not the decline, but the virtual abandonment, of an art form, an industry, and the staggering responsibilty of the nationally syndicated columnist.

One must remember that all the hollowed out local newspapers across the country have to fill space on their op-eds are delusional nincompoops even worse than these two. Can anyone say Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, or Charles Krauthammer?

Growing up, I was first drawn from the comics page by Mike Royko and Art Buchwald, who were able to skewer politicians of both stripes in a way both hilarious and enlightening; I was awed and envious at their work, their personalities, and the way the truly loved their country. They were quirky and snarky without being bilious or snide; one truly wanted to know them.

If I ever were to be in the same room with Dowd, on the other hand, I would be backing toward the door as rapidly as I could without drawing her attention.

There were also thinkers, like Anthony Lewis and Mary McGrory, who also inspired me to know more and learn about the world around me. Tom Friedman makes anyone think they need never read another word, except perhaps the balloons in a comic book, and nonetheless write a better column.

As someone mentioned earlier, it is no wonder no new readers are being drawn to newspapers; a child of average intelligence can easily see that they are no better than freeze-dried TV, and considerably less interesting.

A government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government?

It really doesn't matter anymore, does it?