Several things are getting conflated here:

1. Number of people in the Democratic caucus vs. number of votes on any given issue.

2. Lieberman being allowed to continue as chair of Homeland Security, vs. his continuing to caucus with the Democrats.

3. Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats vs. Lieberman's voting with the Democrats.

For my money, there is no advantage for the Democrats in keeping Lieberman in his position as chair of the Homeland Security committee, and several advantages to ousting him -- such as replacing him with a competent chair for this very powerful committee. This is why I have written my Senators and urged them to join in ousting him from his chairmanship. Whether he caucuses with the Democrats or votes with the Democrats on any given vote is up to him. But he must not be allowed to exercise so much power over the Democratic leadership.

ann0nymous, gay actors have been playing straight parts for centuries. You know, acting. If the same were true of racial blind casting -- if black actors routinely played white characters and had been doing so throughout the history of theater -- then my guess is that race wouldn't be an issue in casting, either.

San Francisco 1978 is described as ”what was then (believe it or not) a relatively conservative city dominated by white-ethnic clan politics and the Catholic church” which strikes me as odd, considering the history the city had already made as a counter-culure haven. But then later on the same city in the same year is described as “most liberal city in the most liberal region of the country.”

I'm not sure this is what Andrew meant, but I think at the time there was still a big disconnect between the community's politics and the established machine politics of the city. The election that put both White and Milk on the board was the first run on the district election system (instead of all supervisors having to compete on a city-wide level). This resulted in a much greater diversity on the board than ever before -- the first Chinese American supervisor and the first black woman were also elected that year -- as well as a much more liberal board than ever before. (Note that Oakland, birthplace of the Black Panthers, only elected its first black mayor in 1977.)

As for the emotional setting, I think it's really hard to explain what it was like in the Bay Area that November. Like Andrew, I was in high school in the east bay at the time, and it really did seem like the world was flying apart, with these murders coming on the heels of Jonestown. I can understand why the filmmakers might not want to dwell on that aspect of the story, since it's not directly connected to Milk's story, but for just about anybody living in the area at the time, the two events are inextricably linked.

And lots of white tenors sing Otello (that's how Verdi spelled it). In fact, contemporary opera is just about the most "blind" casting you'll see, not just for race, but age, size, and gender. Where but in opera will you routinely see a black performer playing a white character, a 300-pound ingenue, or a 40-year-old woman playing a teenage boy?

Exactly what makes you think that just because these women aren't having sex, they aren't having a sensual existence? Do you have to be sexually active to enjoy food? music? sitting in the garden on a warm day? the pleasure of making a physical effort? If you think so, you're the one who's limited.

@Shazzer4400: Exactly. Some people get enormous pleasure from music (I'm thinking of a friend I once saw weep at the mere memory of a beautiful piece of music). For others, it's at best a pleasant wallpaper. Different strokes.

I blame Freud for the idea that celibacy is sick or abnormal. In the western tradition (and many others), celibacy used to be a respected practice (though obviously there were a lot of purportedly celibate people who were...not). Now, it's considered so unhealthy as to be impossible to tolerate (unless there's something wrong with you). I would love to see you try to explain that to the Dalai Lama.

It could be worse. My three-year-old has recently become a devotee of Rachel Ray -- who has a lot in common with Dora, really: she's predictable, repeats herself a lot, uses broad gestures and facial expressions, uses catch phrases ("Yummo!" "Figure friendly!"), and has gimicky plots -- er, recipes. But my feeling is that both Dora and Rachel are mostly harmless. I don't have to like everything my daughter likes, and there's reason to believe that the very things that drive adults nuts are the things that make narratives comprehensible to kids.

Actually, "accidental" and "unplanned" are not quite the same thing. I would describe my own pregnancy as unplanned (because my husband and I weren't expecting it to happen) but not accidental (because we weren't using birth control). In our case, it was a happy surprise; we had been trying to conceive for a couple of years and had called it quits about a year earlier.

But this is a minor quibble about wording. What isn't minor is that many unplanned or accidental pregnancies happen to women who already have children and/or are married. Yet another stereotype to hack away at: just because you're married doesn't mean a pregnancy can't be unplanned, accidental, or unwanted.