I've been married twice, still friends with the ex - had serious boyfriends before marriage, and frankly I don't think any of my friends or myself ever went on formal dates.

We run science fiction conventions, and medieval fairs for fun, lots of planning meetings, traveling, and then the events themselves, they usually last a weekend, and you are camping out or staying in a hotel. Lots of group events, meet tons of wonderful folks.

One of my friends who is not into the geek fest - joined a club here in Portland for single folks, they organize weekly sporting events - ski trips, wind surfering in the gorge, rock climbing , hiking. Every weekend you can go out with this group and do something physical, meet tons of people without dating and talk.

And that is what is in common in both appoarches, you don't go out on dates, you meet people in a non-threatening group setting, and talk, and talk for an entire weekend. If you like someone you hint about the next event you will be attending, and then you talk somemore - and if it goes somewhere from there great. In addition to a romatic interest -actually more importantly you are likely to make real friends of both genders who will be with you for a long time, and then meet their friends.

I can't imagine doing something so passive as on-line dating, events are a safer way to see these people in real life scenarios, and see how they really behave in the real world. Plus they can't lie about how they look.

Rep. Steny Hoyer

There are news articles that you criticized Stephen Colbert performance at the White House Press Corp Dinner. Perhaps you made the mistake of thinking the silence of the room meant he wasn’t funny. Let me clear it up for you, the people in the room represent an elite so out of touch with the American people it is scary, and most of them have never been truly criticized – like Bush with his hand picked audiences at his road show. They were silent, because they were uncomfortable with the truth. But then I assumed they were the 29% (but only the part with millions of dollars vs religious fever) that supported Bush. Once the video hit the internet, the other 71% of the population has been watching that video and calling Colbert a hero.

The only people saying negative things about Colbert is the press, who were rightfully taken down a notch or two, after all those were the people who had betrayed the 4th estate. What I want to know is how the Democratic Whip is part of the 29% of the population? How can you be so clueless, no wonder the Democratics can’t win.

If anything Clinton should have taught you, is the office of the president doesn’t come with automatic deference, or respect in a real democracy (and in fake ones it only comes at the end of a gun) – respect has to be earned, and the sitting president has lied to the American people and has not earned anyone’s respect.

Beside with Rove and Co – he doesn’t need anyone else defending him, but every time the president meets with deserved criticism there always seems to be a Democrat there to defend him – excuse me, this is why people think the Democrats are weak, and no one votes for the weak.

(name and address removed from online version)

(So sick of Democrats throwing away their chances, I am voting Green Party, after what difference does it make, if the Democrats don’t actually want to win?)

Mailed with DSCC fund raising sticker on envelope

The CDC was an organzation based on science, not on popular reglious mythology. So I have serious issues with the new Pre-pregnancy campaign. Devaluing women, and treating them as just vessels of a future infant will not decrease infant mortality rates. Access to health care, access to birth control would help, but the campaign to lecture women who already have health care an infant health has no science backing it up.

Not to mention it is real insult to women, telling them they are not valued for anthing other than their ability to carry a child to term. And that women who are not fertile , have no value at all. Keep your religion out of health policies, and use real science to come up with health policies.

If American women had access to health care as good as European women did, you'd have infant mortality rates as low as theirs - but if you are going to give barely hidden religious policy as medical policy, there will be a zero impact on infant mortality rates.

If - big if this drug works on humans, and passes all the FDA required testing, it won't be available for everyone.

If the problem is hormone levels (like menopause) it would probably be prescribed - but I am betting that if the problem is SSRI Anti-depressants, that it will be a big no-no - the hormone rollercoaster, and the cocktail mix of drugs, would probably lead to undesired behaviors like sucide, manic......

Now if lack of desire is due to recent childbirth, menopause, or underling dieases (which you may now be masking with this drug, making your health even worse) like cancer, it would probably help.

But is the problem is lack of sleep, stress, mild untreated depressions, or treated depression, - I'd give odds this drug will just mess you up more.

Folks don't go for the easy fix, look for the real problem, it could be a serious life threatening one.