What percentage of Americans, if they knew they were going to pass on and had to pick what environment their children would grow up in, would say they were indifferent as to whether they were raised by a hetero couple or a gay couple (again, assuming all other factors as equal)? I'd bet it's not more than 5%, and about 4% of those would be lying.

I don't have any children and I've had a vasectomy, so it's a moot point, but I am one heterosexual who would have no problem with a gay couple raising any children I care about. And I can assure you that I'm not lying.

I happen to know a lesbian couple that is trying to have kids, and I hope they're successful, because I think they'd make great parents. Not because they're lesbians, but because they're great people.

It's telling that the issue of children and marriage only seems to arise when the issue of marriage equality comes up. "Oh, marriage is about raising children." But there's no requirement of even having a desire to raise children before one can get married.

I'm not aware of any traditional wedding vows that even mention children. If the primary reason for marriage is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, wouldn't wedding vows at least have some mention of it?

It's amazing that a politician from the South would mess up a football metaphore like that. You don't punt a ball "out to the backfield."

was a great matchup, but mostly was not Celtics vs. Lakers--that only happened in 1969, Wilt's first year with the Lakers. Russell retired after that series. One year doesn't make an era.

"Osama bin Laden said nice things about me, so he absolved of all wrongdoing in the September 11, 2001 attacks."

"Kim Jong-il said nice things about me, so the United States will now give our full support to the North Korean nuclear weapons program."

"President Putin said nice things about me, so we're handing over our entire nuclear arsenal to Russia."

I like a few of the new regulars (including RSU(, but it is disappointing that the breadth of Video Dog has gone to nil.

Welcome back, King, "second San Francisco period" and all.

The Tour de France is seen as having become entirely irrelevant because a number of cycling's top performers are accused of using performance enhancing drugs.

In baseball, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds are all suspected of using performance enhancing drugs, yet baseball's popularity hasn't taken nearly the same hit in popularity as cycling, at least in the U.S..

A big part of that is that baseball is much more established. Competitive cycling's popularity in the U.S. has really been about Lance Armstrong, and confined to the Tour de France. With Armstrong no longer competing, Americans no longer are interested. The Floyd Landis situation last year ensured that.

As I've written before, it's also about the nature of Team Sport fandom versus Individual Sport fandom. Team sport fans are loyal to their teams, so problems with individuals connected to their teams are much easier to shrug off.

With individual sports there is not team loyalty to override problems with individuals involved.

And even though cycling is very much a team sport, in the public perception, especially in the U.S., it's seen as an individual sport. If the teams actually had connections to a specific place, as most other teams do, that might be different.

Fish.

Gonzales' "evasion" makes about as much sense. Kennedy's question doesn't reference the place of the briefing, it asks who did the briefing (Rove) and who was briefed (leadership of the Justice Department).

King wrote Once you get past the dead-ball era, 300-game winners come along a little more than once a decade.

That's more-or-less the average, but it doesn't come with anything approaching the regularity implied.

Between 1924 and 1961 exactly one pitcher reached his 300th win. Then two made it to 300 in the early 60s, none again until the 80s, when five pitchers made it, then none again ustil the three that have made it after 2000.

Clemens, Glavine, and Maddux all pitched with five-pitcher rotations, and the pitchers who made it to 300 in the 1980s pitched signifant parts of their careers with five-pitcher rotations. There were few 300-game winners for a long stretch of four-man rotation baseball.

My guess is that in 15-20 years there will be another batch of 300-game winners coming along.

I have to admit, I'm conflicted about Barry Bonds.

Yes, it's likely he cheated. The same is true of Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton, and somehow their cheating is seen as charming. It's now been acknowledged that "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" was cheating-assisted, but there was little outcry about that.

Baseball has a long history of "acceptable cheating." I think it's likely that if Bonds' demeanor were different his drive to the record would be viewed differently.

I also found Ted Williams home and away statistics for 1941 (if there's a conspiracy to hide them they're not doing a very good job). By my math he hit .429 at home (106 hits with 247 at bats0 and .378 away from Fenway (79 hits with 209 at bats).

Yes, he hit significantly better at Fenway, but most athletes will have better stats at home than on the road, since most teams win more games at home than on the road.

I happened upon the Track and Field World Championships this morning, just in time to see the aftermath of Carolina Kluft's victory in the Heptathlon.

Other competitors were giving Kluft hugs, then it appeared as though the entire Heptathlon field (and perhaps some competitors from other events, because there were a lot of women) took a victory lap with Kluft.

When I started running, the stars of U.S. running were Steve Prefontaine, Kenny Moore, Frank Shorter, and they made no secret of the fact that they were fierce competitors on the track on close friends off the track.