First of all, I am enjoying Broadsheet tremendously. Thank you for putting it together!

However... I do wish that Ms. Harris hadn't ended a paragraph quoting Senate procedural explanation with "Blah Blah Blah." Don't us broads need to know the way that dempcratic procedure works, and have a respect for its necessary checks and balances? I understand that these explanations do contain a certain amount of bull hockey a lot of the time, but that's how the houses of Congress work, right? Surely Sen. Murray must have a certain amount of saavy regarding this things if she is, indeed, "one of the toughest players in an old boys' club."

So, please don't treat this complicated language as something that's just too much information. Few things drive me as crazy as women who don't want to know about the details of things, then complain that things aren't going the way they want them to. Don't contribute to that syndrome.

I am so glad that you all brought this up. I have a 14-month-old daughter, and I am horrified looking at catalogs like PBK's. They have pink kitchens and vanity tables for the girls, and truck-themed things for boys. Not that I'm against "girly" stuff. I've still never gotten over my mother, the 70's feminist, not letting me have Barbies. But for these major chains to be so retro is appaling. My daughter happens to be obsessed with trucks at the moment. I would kill for a pink shirt with a glittery truck on it. Then she could wear a truck shirt, and I wouldn't be asked if she was a boy. Heaven. Pink truck sheets! Pink trucks! It's not that she needs more pink things, but couldn't there be even a smalll acknowledgement that girl toddlers like trucks too?

And that's my rant on that.

How shocking that there are so many UU's in the readership of Salon!

I was a UU high school group advisor for several years. I have found that most people who worked on a serious level with teenagers were extremely thoughtful and pro-boundary. The UUA in general has taken many steps in developing curriculums and guidelines for working with children of all ages. In fact, OWL was preceded by a much looser and more I'm-Okay-You're-Okay, let-it-all-hang-out curriculum called AYS and was developed as a more conservative approach.

In any church, or other institution, some of the people who are attracted to working with teens have major boundary issues, or are even pedophiles. There were teachers in my high school who slept with students, and it was often swept under the rug. And consider how the Catholic Church dealt with this very issue.

How lucky for LW that she is part of a church where there are already procedures and guidelines in place to deal with this issues in an above-board way.

I would like to piggyback on Cayetana's defense of "Big Love." The show's portrayal of polygamy is far more complicated than is reflected in this exchange. We've seen a lot of still unresolved issues come up in the primary marriage: Bill having to take Viagra to have sex every night, struggling to pay the bills for three homes; Barb (and Bill) feeling some regrets that they aren't a twosome anymore; Nikki with her manipulations and her spending; Margene missing friendships, questioning her choice to marry in. But beyond that, it's all playing against the backdrop of Roman and his crazy, fundamentalist sect. He's got the 14-year-old pseudo-wife, there was that creepy moment when Nikki was lounging in the bed with him. And remember, Bill was a "Lost Boy." He was booted out when he was a teenager and lived on the streets.

To say that Big Love paints a rosy picture of polygamy is like saying that the Sopranos paints a rosy picture of the mafia. Both shows attempt to paint complex portraits of societies with pre-modern structures that fuction within mainstream American culture. I think it's fascinating. (Feel free to send me a check, now, HBO).

Can we please stop saying that he did. He outspent nearly everyone there.