Do the book authors consider factors such as that pet food is often (though admittedly not exclusively) made from leftover meats? Or the fact that pet owners often supplement pet food with their own table scraps?

Plus the SUV at 6000 miles seems a strange comparison. People drive their cars much more in a year on average. I think it's 12,000 or 15,000 a year. So a dog equals the carbon footprint of an SUV... that's not driven very far.

Also consider that because they aren't really sugeest we eat our pets the fact that a large portion of people have pets that are rescued or from the humane society. Can we hold those people just as culpable of contributing to the global warming problem by saving an already living animal to those who actively breed, sell, and buy non-fixed pets?

Kudos Patrick for taking on the tone and silly objections people have. I've always enjoyed your column because I feel that you make a strong effort to remain civil and fair and acknowledge opposing view points, but that hasn't stopped you from calling a spade a spade.

And even though I don't get most of your music references, I appreciate the broad scope of the column all the same.

I'm not a spelling crazy, but I am tired of the continuous mispelling of Michele Bachmann at Salon. This is at least the fourth time on Salon I've seen her first or last name spelled wrong. It's a bit sloppy.

In April 2004, I was in DC for the pro-choice March for Women's Lives. The organizers had hundreds of volunteers do a census (marking people with stickers) and estimated 1.15 million. It went well past the Washington Monument and beyond the breadth of the Mall.

The news media by-and-large ignored it. Yet 1.15 million people rallied against George W. Bush policies. That ought to have meant something?

But Bush got reelected.

100,000 wack jobs on the Mall doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I would think that the advertisers themselves would like to avoid that page. Do Lands End, Audi, Shutterfly and the others with ads on that page wish to be associated with that content?

Some people might cross in the primary to mess with the other candidate, but most won't. Most voters see this strategy for what it is, disingenuous.

It will help the Dems to have a mostly clear field for this race. The primary will be in early August. But the DNC and DCCC would be wise to tread carefully in thinning the field. Minnesota voters, particularly in this district, are independent minded and won't like being told who their party's candidate should be.

The best possible candidate is now in the race, Tarryl Clark. The fact that Tinklenberg saw the illogic in running against her in the primary bodes well that any other Democrat names of note will feel the same. Even with Maureen Reed it is a mostly cleared field and will remain so.

Clark won a special election over a holiday break in a district that wasn't supposed to elect a Democrat of any stripe. She is a talented and effective campaigner who knows this district extremely well. It will be difficult to challenge Bachmann because of the district's numbers, but it is doable.

I've had a few single women friends who have employed the fake wedding ring tactic. (Often when working as a waitress.) But I wonder how effective it is. I'm a married guy, so I'm not out looking for single women. But do men generally notice wedding rings? Do the real "douches" even care?

Kate,

Minneapolis is a lovely place to get married, especially the warm parts of the year. Regardless of how feminist the ceremony and celebration are, congratulations.

to the tune of Ode to Joy:

liar liar

liar liar

liar liar l-iar

liar liar

liar liar

liar liar l-iar

dick cheney is a liar

liar liar liar liar

liar liar

liar liar

liar liar l-iar

I'm about a third the way into this excerpted book. Goldberg is taking on an ambitious undertaking in this book. It's one of the most gripping nonfiction books I've read in years.

Seriously, I don't understand.

I generally like Matt Miller and enjoy listening to his weekly radio program. He has mentioned this idea for a couple years now and couldn't be further off base.

Thomas,

I generally like your insights on Salon's War Room, but I think your defense of your "non-Southern strategy" is paper-thin. At the end, the stats you cite only show that the Democrats power-base is not in the South. I don't think anyone would argue with that for the last few decades. The question is whether the South is a lost cause for the Democrats or whether than can build a reliable presence in the South.

It's still early to truly know, but Obama's win of Virginia and North Carolina suggests the South is worth while. And while the Democrats have a substantial majority right now in the U.S. Senate, there very may will be a time that the Democrat Senators from VA, NC, and FL (4 of the 6 Senators) makes enough difference for a Senate majority.

The Democratic nominee in 2008 could have easily been Mark Warner. Warner may have done even better in some southern states than Obama. Perhaps the theory will be put to further test with a Warner run in 2016.