I was thinking more about the lack of perception of boundaries and privacy, and less about the expression of that lack through technology.

But as far as addressing it goes, that should start rather young, like 8 or 9, at a guess. I am no expert in that aspect of child psychology. I just try to get them to understand algebra.

The fact that some person takes offense to a neighbor child playing basketball, during daylight hours, in his own driveway? Enough offense that he feels justified to write a letter to an advice columnist?

The fact that the advice columnist thinks this letter is worthy of a published answer? And that he doesn't tell the whiner just to suck it up?

Or the fact that there are people who agree that there should be some limit to the child playing in his own driveway?

I don't know, it's all pretty creepy.

Not very sporting, either. This is not the kind of thing I come to War Room to see.

And unlike Arthur versus the Black Knight, there is still a sliver of a ghost of a tiny chance that Clinton will become the nominee.

Most primary candidates drop out long before they reach the point of improbability that Clinton's campaign has reached. But if she wants to stay in, what the hell, she gets to stay in.

Why do you continually make the decision to read Broadsheet?

You know it will be "wrong." You know it will "blame men." You know it will make you so angry that you will post hateful things and rant and rave.

When will you take responsibility for your own decisions?

Are you so ARROGANT that you think you will CHANGE the women who write it and read it?

Please, take responsibility for your own decisions.

First of all, he answers to the derogatory and pejorative "dimbulb." He feels so compelled to spew his venom that he willingly accepts this demeaning name because it is so important to him to react.

Second, he totally misses the point that his behavior is exactly the same as the the battered women he ridicules, at least from the standpoint that he is continuing to do the same thing over and over without any real possibility of changing the outcome. (That was the point of my post. Of course, he is too dim to realize that.)

And finally, he thinks that responding with anger and hate and disparaging words has any chance of eliciting change. There is zero history of success with this strategy. But he bulls ahead with it.

So you see, there is no reason to argue with this person. And no possibility of reasoning with him. The best plan is to ignore him. (I know, I am not ignoring him right now. But I am hoping to make a point to the rest of you.)

I doubt the existence of an actual fiancée. But if she is real, I pity her and fear for her safety.

Now McCain gets to say:

When confronted with an extremist religious leader, I did the the proper thing and rejected his support. Unlike Senator Obama, who can hardly reject the things that his pastor of twenty years stands for. Clearly, of the two of us, I am the only one who is making the correct response to the situation.

American politics sure is good at focusing on the important issues.

I am inept, lazy, and stupid.

I don't do research. I don't think ahead. I basically don't plan at all.

I am clumsy and unhandy. I never think before I buy.

But home ownership really messed up my life!

Were I to go to that website, I would have to engage the services of a hazardous waste disposal team to remove the taint from my computer. Much less what I would have to do to my brain.

You'd think that at some point, rumors about an adult having sex would cease to be interesting to anyone -- let alone reputation destroying -- but the hundreds of articles written about this today say you'd be wrong.

The naiveté of that statement is mind-boggling.

Have you been outside lately?

Watch me as I read my column at you.

Poorly.

Biden was always the one who truly understood the foreign policy stuff. He was the one who gave substantive answers at the debates.

I may be totally delusional about that, though. But if I am remembering correctly, maybe he could be the next Secretary of State.

But either way, the method he has been using lately is the right one for the coming election: Call them on their bullshit.

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Did that make him the president? No, it didn't, because the overall popular vote is not the metric used to determine the presidency.

Nor is the overall popular vote the method used to determine the nominee.

So, really, give it a rest.

[She] is not going to be president and it has nothing to do with her sex.

It kind of undermines your point when you call her "Thundercunt."

She has the face-made-up-so-much-it-doesn't-look-even-slightly-real thing happening, along with a Cheneyesque sneer. I don't think she could look less attractive if she had a wasting illness.

That's easy. All you have to do is read the latest instructions from Karl Rove.

The behavior of most countries has an obvious analog:

Three-year-old children.

I want it, I am going to try and take it from you, regardless of the consequences.

You did something that frustrates my desires, I am going to hit your.

I am going to take all of it, and keep it away from you whether you need it or not and whether I can use it all or not.

It is amazing. Not only do we accept behavior from countries that we would not tolerate from a three-year-old, we encourage it.