... because the right has defined both "liberal" and "bias" so they can claim there is one. "Liberal" has been defined as "everyone or thing that doesn't jibe with far right wing ideology" and "bias" has been defined as "anything critical of the right wing or that doesn't give equal time and creedence to right wingers, no matter how false and crackpot their ideas."

Really, how Dana Perino, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and everyone at Fox News can claim there's a liberal media bias when they are a high-profile segment of the media is mindboggling. Even more, it's a symptom of the endless victimology of the poor, persecuted right. The ability of powerful, privileged people to complain vociferously about how unfair everyone is to them is staggering. Unless they have 100 percent of everything, they are clearly deprived.

These sex-toy parties have been around for a while, and are particularly popular in places where there aren't a lot of sex toy shops, i.e., middle America. This article ran in the New York Times more than four years ago: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502e2dc1438f937a35754c0a9629c8b63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

But of course, young(ish) coastal urbanites like Salon.com editors insist on being amazed and somewhat patronizing (oh, this will get all those middle Americans to open their minds -- like ours) about the activities of people in "flyover" states.

I'm still trying to figure out how this woman's decisions -- bizarre as I personally find them to be -- are any of our business. She's not on welfare and as far as I can tell she's not the one publicizing the story. The media practically broke down her door to get the story, and having done that, are holding her up for public ridicule and amateur psychoanalysis.

Really, Broadsheet -- isn't the right to choose ultimately about a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her childbearing? People are talking about the doctor's actions being unethical, but isn't it also unethical to deny someone a medical procedure simply because the doctor doesn't approve of a woman's choices? Broadsheet has been (rightly) critical of doctors who refuse fertility treatments to lesbians. When is it okay for a doctor to use anything beyond purely medical criteria to decide if a woman should have a child?

People who aren't into pets should be grateful for dog and cat social networking sites: they give people who are crazy about their pets a place to share their obsession with like-minded people, thus sparing the people who don't want to hear about every thing Fluffy does.

Don't blame me, I voted against Proposition 13, which was on the ballot the first year I was old enough to vote. Don't blame the majority of Californians who either weren't born in 1978 or who didn't live in California at the time, and who for the most part aren't reaping the benefits of "Prop 13ed" property taxes.

In fact, only four million people voted for Proposition 13 only a little more than 10 percent of the current population of California. Why are you blaming the victims of declining schools, declining infrastructure, etc.?

My real problem with Prop 13 and other measures like that is that fifty percent of the electorate shouldn't be allowed to pass a measure that requires a two-thirds majority to repeal. That's patently unreasonable.

"Lingerie, high heels, pole dancing, whatever, may get men to look at us, and apparently women's desire is all about that, but at the end of the day I would like men to make as much of an effort with their looks and attempts at seduction..."

My thought as well! It reminds me of the old Enjoli commercial "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let him forget he's a man."

It's bad enough that women are responsible for a disproportionate amount of child rearing and household tasks, but it's also their responsibility to be sex objects for their husbands. When guys get together, do they worry about ways to be more attractive to their wives? And if they do, do they come up with anything that requires more effort than buying a box of chocolates or a bunch of flowers?

Maybe being responsible both your own desire and your husband's is just too damn much work!

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The GOP as a party basically has a choice between a sure-lose position and a might-win position. If the Obama plan is successful, then the GOP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning elections in the near future: even if they went along with it, they won't get much credit, and they'll be betraying their base and looking even more like hypocrits than they already do after running up the debt the last eight years.

The only potentially winning strategy is to oppose the Democrats' plans and hope they tank, so they can run on the "we told you so" platform. It's not very admirable, but it's not surprising, since it's the only strategy for them if their goal as a party is to take back power, not do what's best for the country and their constituents.

"...otherwise flawless and euphonic prose."

It should be "high jinks."