I have no idea what you mean.

What?

As we learned this week -- when the desire to express public disgust over Eliot Spitzer's sex life was exceeded only by the intense interest in learning every titillating detail about it

How are you comparing the two? Are you referring to the media or John Q Public? If you're referring to the media, isn't it the media's job, regardless of how they feel about the story, to report the story? Wasn't that part of the complaint you were making against US journalists, that they don't always report the story to the public? If you're referring to John Q Public, how is the 'interest in learning every titillating detail' measured, exactly?

Well, maybe it's not your standard position, but I wasn't aiming to offend you, I swear.

The article described both laws because they're both changes being made to the rules governing the park. The article didn't remotely suggest or imply the mentally deranged notion that the reason they wanted to keep dogs on leashes was because they were afraid the gays would have sex with the dogs. That's the relationship which Lisa Schiffren invented and one that you, too, apparently found in the article.

While obviously this is a joke, it might be funnier if you understood it. The standard position of gay sex being doggy-style, the joke here isn't the idea that the gays would be chasing and raping the dogs, but the other way around. A man (or woman for that matter) with his ass in the air is just too damn tempting for your average dog to ignore.

Now that's funny!

* Sometimes, people buy automatic weapons and go to the local school and play shoot 'em up until they kill lots of people. Therefore, we should outlaw all automatic weapons (rather than just outlaw murder).

If HRC has so much experience at winning elections while enduring smear campaigns, why is she losing to an inexperienced greenhorn who hasn't even attempted to smear her?

If HRC is ready to handle the biggest economy on the planet, why did she have to loan her own campaign five million dollars to keep it from going bankrupt?

Is there any conceivable way for HRC to become the nominee without the powers-that-be usurping the democratic process and denying the will of the voters?

Is the women's movement so shameless that they would rather have the nomination handed to them by a group of powerful white men instead of earning it on their own?

Huffpo is reporting Obama's 50 superdelegates are confirmed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/confirmed-obama-has-50-s_n_90159.html

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama's Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.

Said Clay: "She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over."

Someone tell the fat lady to start warming up.

I'll tell you what. If my neighborhood association tells me that there's an informal gathering on Thursday night to "vote" on issues but this vote won't count, because the official votes are always held on Friday morning, and I show up on Friday morning to vote but they tell me that they ratified the results of Thursday night's vote instead.... well, being lied to and left out of the process doesn't sit to well with some people.

And if, in typical fashion, the DNC makes the boneheaded move of seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan based on the results of a faulty process whereby many voters who were told the votes DO NOT COUNT would be disenfranchised by counting the unofficial votes as an official record of the will of the people when it clearly is not, I would not be surprised to turn on CNN and find that both Florida and Michigan have been set on fire by an unruly mob of pissed off protestors.

Lots of retired people in Florida, who would go to the primary to vote just for the fun of it or who would vote on principle, even if they knew it wouldn't count. They're retired, they have a lot of time on their hands, and they're more likely to view the voting process as its own reward, whether or not it means anything. This is HRC's block, and they turned out and voted.

On the other hand, Obama's block of younger working professionals are more likely to skip a meaningless exercise where the results don't matter. They're working class, more likely to have younger children which makes finding time to vote a hassle, and wouldn't typically view going through the motions of voting as a reward in and of itself.

There is a generational difference in mindset here, and I'd bet if Florida does re-vote, you'll see more overall votes, with the split being about the same numbers for HRC but more votes for Obama.

The magic number of 2,025 was calculated after taking out the delegates from MI and FL. Even if the DNC could be convinced to reinstate these delegates, the magic number would have to increase by 1/2 of those seated delegates, I believe the new magic number would be 2,208. Neither candidate would have that number through pledged delegates, and the superdelegates would end up deciding the nominee anyway.

So, what's the point?