Folks -- if there's anything that condemned the Rs, it was their profound lack of empathy toward the powerless. Both Levi and Bristol fall into that category, even if the abuser is their mother-in-law/mother.

We must find a path toward compassion. It's the only real hallmark of a civilized society that will leave anything resembling a lasting imprint.

Dial in some Robert Earl Keen, or James McMurtry. Those boys tell it like it is. But the way they tell it ain't pretty.

Start with 'Levelland' and go from there. It just doesn't get any better.

As far as Hank Jr., his dad was white trash, and he's white trash. I always maintained there were two schools of country music -- the Carter Family/Earl Scruggs school, and the Hank Williams Sr. school.

Which one you can relate to you tells a lot about who you are -- if you're actually from the country.

Georgia was one of the few 'coalition of the willing' because they knew that they would leverage themselves into a much better position vis-a-vis Russia than had they not done anything.

The problem is Georgia is no ally. I had considered doing work in that country, but decided against it once research indicated that the most popular Georgian hobby, endorsed by the government as well, was-- well, kidnapping of foreigners -- and that it had deep cultural roots, meaning that it wasn't going to go away soon.

Georgia is the classic 'Drug Friend' -- the kind of friend that only comes around when there is an endorphin rush to be had. And the worst kind of ally possible. Consider this -- how bad could you be if the S. Ossetians were actually begging RUSSIA to invade?

Sheesh.

I, for one, am really tired of insulting whores by comparing them to Sarah Palin.

I've known whores, I've served with whores, and let me tell you, Sarah Palin -- you are NO whore.

Let's all give the World's Oldest Profession a break, please. The insult that is Sarah Palin will pass soon enough!

Hi Tom,

C'mon -- give us the skinny.

What did the boob do at state dinners?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Ah, acorn-fed pigs... that stuff's not cheap in Spain, but they sell whole legs of it for around 150 Eu. Better off buying a plane ticket to Spain and spending a few days there, and eating a ton of it than paying mountebank prices for a single leg.

I read about as many of the letters as I could bear, but after 15 clicks, one gets to the point where the messages are repetitive.

What really is getting said is the sacralized pair bond, a social contract based primarily on prior economic necessity, is not working out very well as people don't have to worry about bringing in the harvest, and living to older ages than they could have predicted in their 20s when many experienced their first marriages.

I'm in my mid -40s, reasonably happily married in my current situation, with two almost-teens. But I can already see storm clouds ahead, as my partner, a wonderful person as she can be, tends to a more single-place-based lifestyle with more traditional alone activities than the partner collaboration that I enjoy. Though I can't say that it's dead, my sexual jealousy is on the wane, even though I still have a sex drive, though it absolutely is nothing like it was in my 20s and 30s. I also find that I enjoy feminine company immensely, and don't even care if I get to sleep with them. Maybe this makes me a freak, but I'm noticing it happening.

Can I see a future where as a man, I live between caring for in a loving fashion, two different women that meet the two sides of that personality? Maybe. As a Puritan nation, we've vilified the whole concept of mistress, always assuming that it meant a younger woman pursued only for sexual desirability. Maybe what is really needed is a more flexible understanding of sex, especially among the post-reproductive crowd, that is a little more tolerant toward things that break the 'mate for life' bond. It might just alleviate the loneliness out there that is ending too many people's lives in a dirge, instead of a rhapsody.

Virtually no one that follows any kind of contemporary, accepted social construct is going to argue that John Edwards was entitled to do what he did. The Sisterhood has spoken on that, and any understanding or compassion for him is simply too threatening.

But it's too bad -- because until we can discuss the 'why' and the obvious high frequency of marital infidelity can we make any progress in either strengthening the compact, nor modifying the rules so that they broaden the acceptable spectrum of what normal, ordinary people actually do.

Maybe John was lonely. Maybe he was just horny. Maybe he felt weak, under pressure, without enough support. Maybe he really is a jerk. We'll never know, because in even accepting the fact that we might have reasons why people have affairs, we threaten the power of ostracism that the Sisterhood holds over the women involved on the other side. But the thing to remember is this. If somewhere between 30-70% (depending on the study) of married men have affairs, that means they're having an affair with someone who is female.

But here's also the truth -- people have affairs for reasons -- and they're not always the base attribution that's doled out by the Sisterhood.