Allowing yourself (and your personal history, career, credentials, etc.) to be used by a group whose members have expressed such vociferous opposition to your sexual identity and your earlier livelihood is just asking for the hypocrisy-police to knock at your door.

When you allowed yourself to become a symbol for the neocon wing of the Publican party-- a party that is lately most well-known for its hypocrisy-- you should have expected that your own measure of hypocrisy would be inspected.

Most liberals probably don't care about your being gay and in the miltary, and some may not even care about your history in the porn film industry (tho' don't count feminists among them-- see that earlier comment about how feminism mostly does not like porn), but liberals will have an opinion-- which they are entitled to express-- about your keeping company (as a token?) with those whose political history is all about using your sexual identity as a wedge issue in national elections, while trying to deny you basic civil rights, and (ironically) blaming liberals (especially feminist women) and even soy milk, for your very existence. Remember-- they mostly hate liberals, the group they blame for your existence.

(Fwiw, I'm not talking about all Republicans here... just the rabid right-wing...)

So, you may find some sympathy for your possibly being a victim-- but not of liberals. It is the neocon-infested CPAC who has victimized you. Hasn't it even occurred to you that some among them knew exactly how this would play out, and yet, they still allowed you to become one of their symbols? Some friends...

...then who really thinks that George H W Bush would have been as publicly supportive of George W Bush as he has been?

Even while his own circle of more diplomatically minded aides were trying to rein W in...

I've never been a smoker, but I have struggled with having to quit eating things that my body could no longer tolerate, and it wasn't (hasn't been) easy. Food was what I used the way others use cigarettes.

Sounds like a major detoxification comes with withdrawal from nicotine, along with the weight changes, etc. Perhaps it would be better for anyone else contemplating quitting to start in the spring or summer, and get past the worst of the symptoms before winter sets in.

As for the immune system, in our house we go through lots of elderberry... lozenges, extract, whatever. (I haven't tried wine yet, but might.) Not just when we don't feel well, but even when we do, trying to keep symptoms at bay.

And, there's always acupuncture, which could help in general, and maybe with the after-effects of smoking.

What I'd like to read is what came before, what made the decision to quit a natural, and what it was like to make that change then or shortly after.

Some years ago, a couple of my female friends both quit smoking, independently of one another, and they each had a similar reaction. They were both aware of becoming more outspoken and less likely to hold back what they really thought. Makes me wonder what Rebecca Traister might do/say/write in the future... not that I think she holds back much now.

"Im not sure what she intended."

The grandmother intended that the LW receive a sum of money. If she had intended the inheritance to be for her grandson and his (current) partner to build a life together, she had only to leave it to her grandson, and mention the life-building. However, if she made a point of mentioning the LW, as well, then she may have considered that they might break up at some point. (Perhaps she also thought that her grandson did not treat the LW well enough.)

People don't necessarily leave money only to their actual family members; they might also leave money to someone who feels like family to them. Apparently, the LW felt like family to the grandmother, or, maybe s/he made the grandmother feel like family. Same thing.

(I posted this on another blog, but it bears repeating...)

The really ironic part of this, though, is that they...even USE the Clinton Defense at all. After all, this is the administration that took office with the intention of doing nothing the way Clinton did, with particular (in)attention to ongoing diplomatic efforts and tracking terrorists (e.g., al-Qaeda). And yet, everytime they are called to account on something, one of their primary defenses is "Well, Clinton did it first."

How juvenile!

...the quality investigation that goes into some of Salon's ongoing series, such as this one being reported by Mark Benjamin, are proof that a $35 subscription to Salon is the very best money I spend each year.

Where else in the media can a subscriber feel that their contribution really does make as significant a difference?

(I just renewed.)

Just consider for a moment the great pains that this adminstration has gone to... and the great pain they have caused all of us and the world, in general, in order to do nothing the way that Clinton's administration did:

ignoring the terrorist threat of bin Laden and al-Qaeda

undoing the diplomatic progress achieved in the middle east

turning back all of the environmental advances

ignoring the importance of sound fiscal policy

The list of their "un-Clinton" policies and their horrific outcomes could go on and on... and what have we been subjected to? More GWB/GOP/Rove talking points about how well everything is going...

But any time a reasonable criticism is voiced, what is the response from their minions?

"Clinton did it first!"

Sheesh!!!