My reasoning was straightforward. In response to LibTex, I made a falsifiable statement about Broadsheet, that it covers issues of both genders from the limited perspective of one.

You haven't made a counterargument about Broadsheet. You haven't even proposed that a balanced or androcentric discussion of gender issues can be found in newspapers. You've merely proposed that other material of interest to men may be found in any newspaper. That's not a counterargument, though you borrowed my words; it's a flailing non sequitur.

And rather than acknowledge your error, you've labeled as trolls those who have graciously attempted to guide you through an evidence-based reasoning process, as it differs from a schoolyard taunt.

These "trolls" have offered reasoning and particulars, while you've labeled, dismissed and rhymed. It's called rationalism, and you're right to be impressed.

My statement concerned Broadsheet's coverage of topics related to gender, not about whether newspapers serve the varied interests, concerns and preferences of male readers.

"Topics related to gender" was essential to my point but missing from your reply. You've merely selected a few of my words and tossed them back, thereby illustrating the difference between snark verbalism and constructive argument.

No, Broadsheet encompasses all topics related to gender. However, only the interests, concerns and preferences of a single gender are represented. It's an employment mechanism for persons of snark.

When actor Herschel Bernardi passed away in 1986, I wrote a bit of doggerel about his character's odd predilection:

Charlie

Where but in TV Land

Would a tuna demand

To be slaughtered and canned

A particular brand?

Sorry Herschel! Your "commerschel"

Was always in very poor taste.

Charlie's role in the food chain is much like that of the Hamburger Clown or Hamburger King, to make a self-aware and empathetic species more comfortable with the mechanized slaughter of fellow creatures for its use.

Yes, I'm in the club, with eyes open.

An official Obama site is requesting users' email passwords for access to their private address books? That's a pernicious rumor and a smear in its own right if it isn't true. Will someone please point to a link or an image? All I see is a space to enter the email addresses of friends to mass-mail.

Will NBC be able to find someone with appropriate "gravitas" for this position? Ted Koppell? Joe Scarborough? Joan Walsh?

No, Walters is not at fault; Broadsheet is. The "it" in Walters' phrase is Hillary's figure, not her butt. That's made absolutely clear in the Traister story about Walters' memoir, to which this entry links. Walters has told the story before.

Sure, the backside is part of the figure, but the reference, in a fashion anecdote, is unexceptionable. Broadsheet is nursing a weak grievance beneath a sensational headline.

>At least 3 commentators on CNN including David Gergen have suggested that if Barak chooses Hillary as a running mate, he should get a food taster.

One preferably by the name of Chelsea Clinton, per Nicholas von Hoffman in The Nation.

Reminder: the primaries in 1968 were contested into June, but they began in New Hampshire on March 12. This year's primary season began in Iowa on January 3.

Thanks David.

Again, the proposal is: seat only the MI and FL superdelegates, and give them all the votes that would have been controlled by primary delegates. Let the supers have all the say for those states, and all the accountability for their choice. Do not count them *additionally* as superdelegates.

Supers are elected officials representing the states. In supporting unrecognized primaries, they simply grabbed the decision-making power for themselves. Future line-jumping states may choose to do the same and will be understood as doing so by their voters. States do have the right to set their own primary dates, and parties do have the right to delegitimize primaries. But national parties must recognize state delegations in some form. It is not for the DNC to apportion FL and MI delegates between Obama and Clinton. It has to be a decision that comes from those states.

This plan enables those states to have their votes tallied at the convention, as cast by legitimate, accountable representatives.

...blindingly obvious, and it's roughly the opposite of what the Rules Committee is said secretly to prefer.

Seat the Florida and Michigan superdelegates and give them all the convention votes the elected delegates would have controlled. Penalize them by not allowing them additional votes as superdelegates.

The supers are elected officials accountable to the voters. The electorate in future out-of-order primary states will understand that their states will not be denied their weighted voice by the party, but that their own elected officials will be accruing power to themselves if they choose to jump the DNC calendar.

By the way, it is the perfect right of state legislatures to set their primary dates whenever they want. The legislators represent the people; DNC committee members are mere party apparatchiks. Legislatures may be controlled by the other party, which has an equal right to have its primary order respected. They may set rules about crossover voting which do no justice to the preferences of true Dems. With so much potential for abuse and misdirection, Dems should abandon primaries and caucuses altogether and go to an audited mail-in system to select their future standard-bearers, counting the votes of registered party members as corporations count the votes of shareholders.

Walters' discussion about pantsuits seems frivolous only to the frivolous mind. It concerns the evolution of women's wardrobes into forms that better fit the business and professional world. Men had evolved their business uniforms decades earlier.

A parallel for men would be to invoke the wardrobes of sartorial deviants such as Arafat rather than Kissinger. Even then, the deviation would not signify broader societal change.

"The Splurge."

That modern kitchen indeed represents a new and oppressive demand on you and all women. Broadsheet reasoning at its finest.

And it's "balance a spreadsheet" (not "a spreadsheets").