We care for them as if they are children, but to them, you are just another dog. Dogs can happily move from one family to another and can give two shits about you, as long as the new alpha is providing food and shelter.

There is truth in what you say, but I think there is much about doggie psychology that we don't really understand.

Do our dogs love us? Yes.

Would our dogs miss us if they were shifted to another family? Yes.

While it's true that our dogs see us as other dogs....leaders of the pack....there's no question that they feel love and devotion toward us.

In many ways, canine love is superior to human love. For one thing, it's a lot less complicated. And it's unconditional.

...on Camille's latest column...

1. I agree completely about the Fairness Doctrine. Good Lord, liberals, if you can't put on a political talk show to compete with Rush Limbaugh, don't then try to muzzle the fat guy behind the EIB microphone. That flies in the face of every American value we hold dear.

2. Who cares about talk radio, anyway? Limbaugh's show is mindlessly partisan, and boring, besides. Anybody who listens to political talk radio has some serious credibility issues.

3. Speaking strictly for myself, Camille, I couldn't care less about your crush on Nigella or your preoccupation with Kate Winslett. And your observations on the cultural scene, e.g., several paragraphs devoted to Justin Timberlake, were tedious and trite.

After defending your column month after month, I think I'm going to join the legions of Salon readers who repeatedly ask, month after month.......

Isn't this column a waste of space?

As a long-time sports fan (and I mean loooooooooong time), who grew up with the likes of Ernie Banks, Jerry West and Y. A. Tittle, I just don't take men's professional sports seriously any more.

I [i]would[/i] like to see salary caps imposed on professional athletes. I mean, it's always been kind of obscene to hear about a shortstop making more money than the GDP of many small countries. How many houses in the Bahamas or Maseratis do you need, Bubba? It's particularly troubling these days, when more and more Americans find themselves out of work and unable to keep up with their mortgage payments, to hear about a guy getting paid millions of dollars to throw or catch a ball.

But that's the free market operating, they tell me, so who am I to argue?

I just don't care any more. Sure, I'll watch these guys on television, if I have nothing better to do. But pay $100 or more for a ticket to go and see them play?

I don't think so.

Want to know where it's at in sports these days?

Women's sports.

Check out women's college basketball, or the WNBA. Check out women's softball. The level of athleticism is very high. Those gals can really [i]play.[/i] And there's no steroids. Or $$$multi-million salaries.

Just people who play for the love of the game. And do it very well.

It's been so long since I've ventured onto the so-called "major networks" in prime time. When I'm looking for something to watch in the evening, the "big 3" networks don't even enter my consciousness.

I mostly rely on classic movies from TCM, or re-runs of "Law and Order" on TNT. Or I watch the Fox Soccer Channel. Or Jeopardy! The rest is mostly recycled crap and repetitious shows about narcissistic people (e.g., "The Real Housewives of Orange County").

One thing the drones who create TV sitcoms have never caught on to is how counter-productive the laugh track is. By inserting the same canned, repetitious laughter over and over into sitcom shows that are already mindlessly stupid and unfunny, they actually introduce an offensive element into them.

Do you need to be cued to laugh at the proper moments like a Pavlovian dog? The next time you're watching "Everybody Loves Raymond", notice how the laugh track dumbs down an already dumb show.

The Kennedys have always been about public service. They don't need to take bribes or kickbacks because they've got all that old money that Joe Kennedy made in his bootlegging days.

As for the experience thingy, forget it. We elect many of our senators and governors because they have name recognition. Hillary Clinton, Arnold Schwartzenegger and George W. Bush are three examples of people who became candidates because they had name recognition.

Give the kid a shot. What've we got to lose? It's only the Senate. You can't screw that up too badly and she may turn out to be a really good one.

There are millions of Americans who applauded the shoe-thrower. (I was one of them.)

He did what many of us would have liked to do.

You go, dude......

You're a pretty talented poet.

Can I tell you, as one guy to another....

Stop being such a dickhead.

The author is as far from being a "schoolyard bully" as you are from being a sensitive human being.

No one "deserves" to be lonely.

Kit: Join a church. Not necessarily for the religion, but if you're religiously inclined, so much the better.

Churches are very nice communities unto themselves and they provide a good support system of people to meet with, talk things over with, and do things with.

You may or may not meet eligible single men, but you will meet some nice people who'll provide many of the things a family provides, and they'll accept you for who you are.

If all that religiosity and Jesus stuff turns you off, the Unitarian Church is a good alternative. Those folks de-emphasize dogma and emphasize personal spirituality.

That's my advice. I wish you well and I appreciate you sharing your personal story.