What do they have in common? Hypocrisy. Now that Geidner has become a shill for Obama's Bush-like policies towards gays, perhaps Geidner could get hired by Ensign to explain how Ensign is still qualified to moralize - after all, he's still a Promise Keeper, right? I know the economy's bad Geidner and we're all trying to keep our heads above water financially, but jeez, have you no scruples?

Hey, Geidner, I have a great explanation for why gay federal employees don't need health insurance - it's because we're so healthy! We take such good care of ourselves! Or, another explanation could be that we're so optimistic about health care reform that we won't need no stinkin' health insurance from the govmint.

Since he most likely inherited many of attributes from his mother, it should be a close match, and she's local.

Seriously though, my own rule of thumb while I was still dating, was to not make any major decisions until (a) the first six months of the relationship and/or (b) the first major argument. I think that how we argue is a good indicator of how we are in relationship.

Good luck to you both!

Great column, Mr. Keillor! As a previous poster mentioned, it's not just men who need solitude. One of the awkward situations with house guests is that they keeping asking "is everything OK?" because I'm sitting on the porch by myself staring at the June bugs.

Whilst I'm not a fan of Mark Sanford (Republican Guv of SC), I wonder if his disappearance for the past 5 days was a desperate attempt to get some solitude, but being governor doesn't really lend itself to slinking off to hike the Appalachian trail.

When Ensign confessed his infidelity, he was given applause by his Republican colleagues and they called him a "stand up" guy. His wife also said that the infidelity made their marriage stronger. I say that this is a new Republican strategy to get more male votes. Encourage independents and fence sitters to commit adultery and applaud them for it. Heck, maybe even give them some kind of Medal of Freedom and voila, you've got your votes.

I'm wondering where Michael Steele is ... it would be great to hear him say "we don't roll that way".

Legally, Martina will, with the help of her lawyers wiggle out of any kind of sharing of her wealth (do you think she has her lawyers on retainer each time she gets into a relationship?) However, I believe that her legal obligations are different from her ethical obligations and perhaps the real deal is that Martina's history is more about who she is in the world - lonely, ungiving and at some level, realizes that the only way someone will be with her, is if she offers financial incentives while they're together. How sad to live like this. I hope that for her sake, she learns to value herself and consequently others, with or without her money.

Obama's words are empty without *significant* concrete action -signing an order giving *limited* benefits to gay employees is effectively temporary since when he leaves office, the order is of no effect and these "benefits" don't include health care. He's Nero while Rome burns. Servicemen and women are being discharged as he eats his hors d'oeuvres. His actions are insulting. At least we know where we stand with the Repugs and their ilk who consider us sub-human.

Also, I think that the potatoes need to be cooked more rather than less. Let the crunch come from the celery and sweet relish. And please, for the love of God, use *real* mayo, not the low-fat, no-fat, canola crap.

OK, so I don't have kids and that's a huge factor when one has to make a decision whether to stay or leave. But, when your husband has described another woman as his soulmate and has been willing to risk family, career, he's just not that into you. Move on down the road without him - you have your kids, your have financial resources and get out now with some of your integrity. If he has to "learn to fall in love" with you, how weird is that.

Ah good ol' George. Got to hand it to the guy, trying to stay in the public eye. Did he go to verbal rehab? Will there be a cliff notes version so I don't have to hold my breath and read all the way through the book?

As we continue to turn Virginia blue, I owe it to Allen who started the ball rolling.

Dr. Parikh was as concerned about the over 100,000 deaths each year from the practice of conventional medicine (medical mistakes, drugs incorrectly prescribed), as he is about debunking alternative treatments.

What's interesting is that systems of medcine such as acupuncture and Ayurvedic medcine, which have been practiced for thousands of years, when practiced correctly, have made a psoitive difference in peoples' lives (inluding my own) and yet Dr. Parikh seems unable to see the value in those systems and focuses instead on the more sensational ones.

Allopathic medicine seems to use more natural medicine when it suits them (willow bark for aspirin, the Yew tree for Taxol; homeopathic principles for vaccinations).

Dr. Parikh, the train has left the station and you're still on the platform, espousing tired old prejudices. Many of us realized the limitations of allopathic medicine and have gone on to better health through other systems, despite the attempts of the AMA to outlaw these systems.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I believe that you and I agree that it's about medicine (allopathic or alternative) beng practised correctly. However, I do take issue with your use of the word "real medicine" to describe allopathic medicine. My definition of "real medicine" is a system that treats the cause and not the symptom; "real medicine" for me, means using the body's innate intelligence.