You've touched on an essential truth: that no one in Washington has the brass parts to even attempt to call this administration into account for the utter and painfully obvious shambles they've made over the past 6 years.

I firmly believe that we're in a time in this country, as we've no doubt faced in the past, when leadership does not reside in Washington but at the grassroots level. We can indeed get things rolling in the right (or should I say "left", politically) direction this fall when we enter the voting booth. Change needs to take place with the people we elect at the local level, whether to serve locally, statewide or nationally.

We're at rock bottom now. We can only go up...if we have the desire to do so. It's almost like we'll have to 12-step our way to recovery as a nation...to get rid of the dry-drunk in the White House.

for when the in-laws and sibs assume they're staying with you or in charge or what-have-you: "Well, I don't know what to tell you." In other words, you'll have to figure this one out for yourself.

Get some backbone...you'll need it for the long haul (as will your finance. Doesn't sound like he has much.).

I've never had more than one dog at a time, but I can vouch for the alpha cat approach. We've done that with an alpha male (the recently departed and sorely missed Bunter) and now with his protege, a female tortie-Siamese mix. When he was alive, we always had to pet him first when we got home.

Now we do the same with Maeve, even though we have 3 others who share the run of the house. Skye comes second, then the kittens. We believe it's allowed Maeve to accept the changes and transitions more easily and more happily. We don't hit--we use "NO!" treats, affection and water squirts for behavior modification.

I can't speak to Milan's comments...except to say we're both women and have different ways of interacting with our animal friends.

...throw her in a steel cage with Adam's Apple Annie and see who comes out alive? At least we'd be down one stupid, bigotted, crazy-a$$ b*tch.

heterocentric article from Salon. Does it even occur to you to provide more depth in an article by adding a gay/lesbian perspective? You could have easily cut several blathering socio-babble paragraphs and explored whether this is an issue in the gay/lesbian community and if so, how. Virgins are virgins, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. (And, no, I'm not one...just an old newsie who wants you folks to do better!)

...that includes Adam's Apple Annie and other attention sluts and addicts. They'll think of the most outrageous, contrary thing to say to get the cameras or tape recorders in their direction. Let's turn off the lights and hit the "stop" button on these clowns.

...oh, I see he's already in the Oval Office.

The much-over-used (going back to 2000 and why Cheney was chosen as the GOP veep candidate) term "gravitas" has been used lately as a yardstick by which to measure Ms. Couric and other TV news types (Anderson Cooper and Elizabeth Vargas also come to mind).

Well, Katie put an end to those questions with that one pitiful interview (or softball session)on her first day in the mightly-news anchor chair: no, she doesn't have it.

Can you imagine Daniel Schoor, Helen Thomas, Ted Koppel or even Dan Rather letting W. get away with those idiotic [non]responses? No, me neither. Which is, in part, why Katie got the W. interview and those real journalists won't.

I can't wait til she lands the Darth Cheney interview and asks about Lynne's cheerleader prowess...

Well, unlike Sidney's usual superb insights, this article offers little new and seems like a subchapter in a book. It's got some nifty (and weird) anecdotes (that dress!) but shows little of the thoughtfulness and cut-through-the-fog-edness of Sidney's usual work. (Everyone's entitled to a medicore day.)

Still, I don't think Sidney was being sexist, rather, perhaps he didn't take his argument far enough.

What does strike me (as it may have other LWs) is that unlike Cheney, Rove and the other male advisors, Bush may listen to his female advisors/syncophants but barely. He listens to them fawn over him, but apparently little else. Or perhaps nothing is offered. They are, as others have noted previously, almost substitute wives (calling Fay Weldon!). They seem not allowed to make policy at the same level. They don't ask the questions that need to be asked and answered. They don't use their face time with W. as purposefully as do the aforementioned men.

That said, Rice is no Albright. She is not even Jeanne Kirkpatrick. (Both of whom came from academia, as did she.) But then her boss is no Clinton, for better or worse.