THAT is one of the most thoughtful articles I've ever seen in Salon, especially the part about how conservatives have managed to win so many cultural battles.

As a middle-aged, straight white male, who admittedly knows nothing about transexual issues (but strongly favors full rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals), I can tell you that there's always been something a bit unsettling to me about including the transgendered with those other orientations. It never really crystallized for me until I read this.

It seems, from my limited knowledge of transsexuals, that they really don't fit in with the other groups without some serious shoehorning.

And even if a conservative can suspend disbelief long enough to believe that gays and lesbians are actually people deserving of protection, I think there's something about transsexuals that just doesn't fit for them. I mean, you might be able to convince a married, straight conservative that a gay man can feel the same thing for another man that a straight feels for his wife. It's a much harder sell, though, to convince a straight person that some guys will only feel whole after their penis has been lopped off. That's inelegantly put, but that's the way a lot of conservative straights will think of it.

After 25 years in the news business, I've often thought that what's needed -- and Blumenthal touched on this -- is a new definition of "objectivity."

The problem is that there are people, mostly on the right, who have learned to use the lazy definition of "objectivity" to subvert journalism. When one side knows that the longer and louder a lie is told, the more it becomes accepted truth, it just doesn't work to simply give both sides.

In other words, reporters and editors need to find a way to scream "bullshit" when they see it, rather than just uncritically reporting it. Right now, the only person who does this with some courage is Keith Olberman on "Countdown." When he takes apart the latest dissembling on Fox News, it's the closest thing to real journalism you'll see anywhere.

Incidentally, we also need to remember that "objectivity" itself started as a business decision, after political parties stopped supporting newspapers. That meant that the papers had to avoid alienating potential advertisers and the best way to do that was not to advocate one side. For all the gassing about how "objective" reporters are, I wonder how much our consumers really even notice or care about our faux objectivity. Given the results, my guess is, not much.

Why is it economists and transportation experts always talk as though people just run out and buy a new car like they'd run out and buy a gallon of milk?

Gas prices being what they are, one has to take out a bank loan just to buy half a tank. Most people can't afford that, much less a new car, no matter how fuel-efficient.

Thanks, P.N. I hadn't had my daily communication from an alternate universe today.

And now, back to this planet ...

I'm not quite sure how I feel about McClellan coming clean at so late a date. I guess, in the end, what's important is that truth comes out somehow, even if it's too late to really make any difference. But then, I'm a great believer in futile gestures.

It's self-indulgence. All too often, sex writing becomes nothing more than navel-gazing (or, more accurately, masturbation) in print, written by people who think they're far more fascinating than they are.

It isn't true of just sex writing, either. As an old fart, and a writer for more than half my life, it appears to be a generational thing. Look at the writings of, say, Chuck Klosterman, whose main subject is always himself. He just ain't that interesting; Klosterman and others like him, including many sex writers, have a short shelf-life because their shtick is just that, and shtick only takes you so far.

As little illumination as "The Wingnut" usually provides -- I'm with those who find it less an explanation than a onstant rehashing of tired, discredited talking points -- every once in a while it contains a phrase that's unintentionally revealing.

Like this one: "...providing more parents — particularly those in the inner city and those who are economically disadvantaged — with some form of scholarships to make it easier for them to get their children out of failing public schools and into successful private schools where they can learn and they can achieve."

Note the assumption here: That public schools aren't even worth saving and that privatization is the only way to go.

We need to remember that one of the great promises of this country is that every child can receive a free education. Getting rid of public schools (which I think the right wants to do for purely ideological reasons) isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater; it's finding a new tub and holding the baby's head under water until the bubbles stop.

As much as the right wing claims to abhor big government, it LOVES big business. Personally, given the choice, I'll take government. At least we have a chance, however small, of influencing government policy. Businesses get to do whatever they want and never offer an explanation. Have we learned nothing from the current financial situation?

Are you really so naive as to believe that a heavily edited show about Octomom would give a true picture of her abilities as a mother? She may be as good as you say, but in order to make that call you'd have to look at all the raw footage. And it doesn't make sense, intuitively, that anybody with her rather obvious constellation of issues never yells at the kids.