what is the evidence that KO anchoring would be the same as BO?

I mean, you can't form a news report about potential generalities (or maybe you can). What specifically did KO say that is so unfair to either Republicans or Giuliani in particular? I've tried hunting down KO's transcript from the post-debate coverage, but can't find it on the MSNBC website.

Without specifics, I'm not convinced.

And unlike Walsh, I do think the comparison (or speculating that a comparison could be made) is fair game. I would not describe KO as a news show, even though I watch it almost every day. Like another poster, when I first stumbled across it, I was thrilled at someone speaking out against the Bush administration, I floated along that high for quite sometime. Now, it isn't necessarily predictable, but the guests/commentators are and the softball questions KO throws don't help. Yes, the special comments are labeled as such, but KO also makes witty asides, especially during the main political story of the day, that aren't as mean as BO's but they are attacks on either Bush or Republicans. I don't notice them as attacks as much because I usually laugh at them or think they are smart insights, but they are attacks. And if KO want it to be news, then you don't use the clever one-liners. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but they do leave him open for concerns of bias.

I mean, just because the people on KO's show style are different from BO's (less foaming at the mouth and more fine suits) doesn't mean that the content is all that different. I think a previous poster's point about defining a set of criteria in which to compare KO to BO would be interesting.

home births with midwives? what about doulas (whether at home or not)? If so either way, what do people end up paying out of pocket for these services?

I'm just curious because it seems like what some have already said about the privilege of giving birth at home entails. And while I don't think you can quantify a woman's piece of mind while giving birth, I did just get the paperwork from my OB/GYN to tell me that I can anticipate my insurance being billed for $11K for a vaginal delivery (with no complications) (or, god forbid, $20K for a C section). I mean, I can't imagine a midwife not being covered, but then again it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm sure that people will balk at the McDonald's analogy of a previous poster, but you have to see it from the perspective that not everyone has the same beliefs about what sex means. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Some feminists who oppose prostitution do so because they believe that part of patriarchy is control over women's sexuality. They view prostitution as the ultimate exploitation of women's sexuality. They say it objectifies and demeans women. I disagree with their basic premise and thus don't agree with their larger argument about prostitution. For me, their basic premise is inherently flawed because I think it not only presumes what are acceptable forms of sexuality (sex for love is ok, but not sex for money), but it also makes for strange bedfellows with right-wing ideologies. As long as feminists think sex for money is inherently bad, then I'm not surprised to see them critiquing sex work.

The biggest challenge is to making prostitution legal everywhere (not just in certain places in Nevada) in the U.S. is the perception that sexual relations should not involve money exchanges, and, instead, should involve (two heterosexual*) adults in love (preferably, the married kind).

For me, this position on sex (sorry, couldn't help myself) is amazingly narrow and, dare I say, unfeminist. It also supposes an ideal that sex in marriage or romantic love is always right and good, but sex in prostitution is always dirty and bad. So if I give my husband a blow job tonight in exchange for a new pair of earrings, no problem. But if I walk 50 feet out to the sidewalk and make the same offer to a stranger, I've committed a crime. Please.

And of course there are race and class issues relevant to prostitution. But not any more so than other occupations. Demonizing prostitution is really a demonization of poverty, except you're punishing the effect instead of the cause. I think most people who participate in sex work do so because they have few traditional job skills and little hope of gaining said skills. If you want there to be less prostitution because you think it is a bad occupation, then give people other opportunities. Address the social issues and sex for money could be a lot better if its conditions were regulated and if it wasn't an overwhelming effect of poverty. And the hypocrisy with which we decide what is legal and what isn't is glaring.

For example: porn. People are paid to do porn, but that's not illegal. You can be paid to have sex on camera, and as long as the person having sex with you isn't paying you, that's fine. But if the person you're having sex does pay you, that's a crime. These people are prostitutes: they are having sex for money. You're still getting paid to have sex, you money is just coming from a third party. Or, to take another example, anyone can go buy a dildo, vibrator, sex doll, what have you, and get off. That is, you can exchange money for a product that will get you off. But if the product becomes human hands, mouths, or other exciting orifices, then that's the ballgame.

*This has some flexibility, but with some sodomy laws still on the books, is up for debate.