And while the "nobody walks in LA" statement is certainly cliche, it's no less true. Most people, like new transplant Keith, arrive in LA and are shocked at how true the cliche actually is.

But, Stephen makes a good point. In addition to on a treadmill and to and from their cars, there are other places where Angelinos tend to walk: at publicly designated "pedestrian areas" such as 3rd St in Santa Monica, Westwood, Old Town Pasadena, etc. So in those cases, they drive on the freeway through traffic for miles and miles so they can get out of their cars and shop. Not much different from the treadmill, really. Just a treadmill with Crate & Barrell.

Gary, everything you would have Hillary say is the absolute truth. However, she could save some breath, flash her bare ass from the podium, thumb her nose at the press and say "dare ya to vote for me now, oh and ask me about my kiddie porn collection", and it would achieve the exact same result in terms of her political career.

I will work to keep Hillary from the Dem ballot in 2008, as should all registered democrats who want true change and not just GOP Lite. But I don't see any point in engaging in flights of fancy regarding "what she should say."

So, presuming Bill Kristol is a man of his word and of honor, I am sure that he now realizes that what was good for the goose is good for the gander and he'll soon agree in print that we should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against VP Cheney.

Stop right there. Bill Kristol is not a man of his word, nor a man of honor, as he's demonstrated ad nauseum for most of his career.

Therefore, is the opposite true? When he predictably rallies against any consequences that might be suffered by the administration for Libby's crimes, can Kristol's hypocrisy be decried from the tallest mountains, and erase any perception that this man has any credibility at all?

Matt, you write a lot about the apparent hypocrisy of the left in condemning you for your porn past and digging into your private life, when you believe that most liberals should support your porn background and uphold your privacy. By writing that, you're missing the point badly.

When you stand next to perhaps America's leading homophobe (Ann Coulter), representing an institution that has specifically outlawed gays to enter its ranks (the military), then your view needs to be taken in perspective. What perspective? Well, that it turns out that you yourself are gay, and that your current "strange bedfellows" would condemn you in an instant were it not for the crucial fact that you have already vocally supported their cause. That's it. Were it not for that fact, you would be another despised faggot to them.

This provides the perspective to your opinion. In finding your political friends, you are happy to overlook opinions that are directly against you and your interests, in return for associations that will advance you in your career and short-lived public life. In this respect, you have not changed one whit since your porn days: you are still essentially a whore who will undergo any subjugation or humiliation to achieve your aims. Tomorrow, you could be head guard at a "gay re-education camp," and so long as your title gave you what you desired (prestige, respect, and whatever else was missing from your earlier life), you would gleefully lead your brothers-in-gayness straight into the showers.

In understanding the viewpoint you appear to espouse, this is a very important fact to know.

As I'm assuming you know, the Libby trial wasn't about the crime but the cover-up. You understand that, right? Libby wasn't indicted for outing Valerie Plame, but for lying about it under oath.

Now, by your reference to Clinton, I assume that you were incensed by Clinton lying on the stand about his extramarital affair. Right? (You see where I'm going with this? Of course not, you're a republican.)

So, if Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath, why is it exactly that Libby deserves to be pardoned? I look forward to your detailed response (or your cowardly silence, which tends to say much more).

The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

I would say this is the most concise description of organized religion as a curse on humanity. When you look at the results of Bush's "special relationship," it makes sense to demand that future presidents all be agnostic.