Marriage is an incredibly complicated arrangement and people agree to all different types of rules governing their relationships. How did you and so many other people become privy what the Spitzers have decided for their relationship?

Thank you for saying that, Glenn. There's nothing wrong with monogamy, but not everyone practices it, despite the exasperatingly common assumption that everyone does (or at least "should"). As far as I'm concerned non-monogamy is a fine option as long as it's done honestly and responsibly.

Amongst many people I know, the reaction to news that their spouse had hired a prostitute would not be an outraged "How could you?!" but a puzzled "Why did you pay someone?"

Whether this applies to the Spitzers, I haven't a clue. (And any public implication by them of monogamy should be taken with a grain of salt. Admitting to an open relationship would be more politically damaging than what Spitzer was forced to admit.)

The spouse and I have been planning on buying a house for years. We've paid down our credit cards, saved up a little money, moved to a less expensive part of the state, and so on. We've been targetting this spring as The Time To Finally Stop Renting.

So we're looking at mortgage rates and thinking, "Hey, pretty good timing." And then, of course, we look at the economy and think, "Wow, pretty shitty timing."

Oy.

I'm guessing that Dennis Kucinich isn't expecting any phone calls from the Obama transition team.

It'll be interesting -- in some sense of the word -- to see what happens if, gods forbid, Obama follows the lead of the Bush Admin in any of their criminal policies. Will the Obama Administration be equally immune to criticism by the Serious People, or will those wise folks suddenly rediscover their commitment to human rights, the rule of law, etc?

By the 2008 election, with Democrats firmly ensconced in control of Congress (and heading for control of the White House), commercial banks had split their $34 million in campaign contributions almost evenly to both political parties.

Coming into the election, the Democrats had a big majority in the House, and it was guaranteed to get bigger.

They barely had a majority in the Senate, but it was guaranteed to get bigger.

The Presidential election looked like it might be close, but smart money favored Obama.

So the Dems were pretty much guaranteed to control Congress, and were likely to pick up the Presidency, giving them solid control of the government.

Despite all that, banks gave roughly the same to both parties.

Maybe my maths are off, but that seems to imply that -- per capita -- Repubs are worth more to them. I'm guessing that when Repubs controlled Congress and the Presidency, the numbers were heavily slanted to the party in power.

From the intro to the interview:

"... it's hard to remember those early days when the freshman senator from Illinois was the longest of long-shots ..."

Long shot, yes, absolutely. Longest of long shots, no.

Eddie Murphy managed to poke fun at Stevie Wonder's blindness in a way that paid tribute to Stevie's talent and conveyed genuine affection for him.

Bill Cosby has a great true story about Ray Charles that's funny because it makes Bill look dumb. And because it's a kind of dumbness that most people can identify with.

(Google on "Bill Cosby" "Ray Charles" "shaving in the dark".)

Gov. Patterson has certainly shown in the past that he has a sense of humor about his own condition, and certainly the two blind (*) friends of mine share that. But it takes an high level of understanding for a sighted person to be funny about that without being offensive. FWIW, I don't think SNL pulled it off.

((*) "Visually impaired" is the more accepted term in some quarters, but both of my friends prefer the blunt term.)

Still won't be enough..

..for the GOP whiners...

Of course not. As the Bush Administration has clearly shown, if you're innocent, you maneuver, stall, and stonewall. But the Obama transition staff is cooperating, which is a pretty clear sign of their guilt.

"The [Senate Armed Services] Committee’s investigation found, however, that senior officials in the U.S. government decided to use some of these harsh techniques against detainees based on deeply flawed interpretations of U.S. and international law.

The Committee concluded that the authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials was both a direct cause of detainee abuse and conveyed the message that it was okay to mistreat and degrade detainees in U.S. custody."

Some mean ol' nasty ay-rab threw a shoe at Dear Leader! Wasn't that rude?

(And goodness gracious, the irony. Under Saddam, that man would be dead, dead, dead. Good thing for him we killed Saddam, right? He should be thanking Bush on bended knee! He should be throwing flowers!)

And routinely calls Bush and all Americans "Dogs" and "Scum", stopping just this side of calling for death and murder.

Bush and his associates and apologists didn't stop just this side of calling for death and murder.

It's nice that they're going by train.

NPR talked to some Iraqis around Baghdad ... the shoe flinger is now a national hero.

International hero, I'm guessing.

Here's my question: What's up with the Secret Service?

How does this guy manage to throw both shoes at the President before he gets tackled?

Per CombJ1's speculation, maybe the Secret Service have been desensitized to shoes being thrown at Bush.

Besides which:

Taking a bullet for the President? Courageous.

Taking a shoe for the President? Fucking embarrassing.

A few years ago, I was approached outside of a liquor store by a young man who offered to pay me to buy a case of beer for him and his buddies. I politely declined to do so, and was subjected to several unoriginal insults, including Blagojevich's favorite.

Obviously, I'm implicated in a crime, and should -- at the very least -- answer tough and unceasing questions about my ethically questionable behavior.