It's the one where somebody says and does the most outrageous things they can think of in order to get attention. And nobody ever calls them on it.

Andy Kauffman did it, but he was funny.

Limbaugh does it, Schlessinger does it, Coulter does it, but people take them seriously. Why?

What would you expect the phony not-a-doctor-but-calls-herself-one Laura Schlessinger to say? That Spitzer made a dumb mistake? That he's a hypocrite? Such would get lost in the noise; everyone is saying that. Besides, if you mention hypocrisy, folks might start thinking about how Limbaugh/Schlessinger/Coulter have actually lived *their* lives.

No, the shtick is to blame the wife with absolutely NO evidence (and no way of countering the blame). That gets attention, and a fee. Ya think Schlessinger went on the air for free?

And watch for this: "Kristen" will have a pictorial spread in some magazine or other in the near future, and will be paid seven figures for it.

if you're making a movie. Implied, simulated or real, hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri- or whatever, all you have to do is be an "actor" or a "producer", or both (and not involve underage people or coercion).

IOW, A cannot legally pay B to have sex with A. In fact A cannot legally even ask B for a price. Except in Nevada.

But A can legally pay B to have sex with C (and D, E, F, etc.) while A watches and films/tapes the encounter(s).

There's a punch line in there someplace but I haven't figured it out yet.

Sure some men - and women - cheat because they're not getting what they want/need/are entitled to in a marriage.

Sure it is *possible* that's what was going on with the Spitzers.

But we don't know. Nobody who really knows has said anything about what was actually going on between the Spitzers.

That lack of facts doesn't stop not-a-doctor-but-insists-on-being-called-one Schlessinger from saying it *must* have been Silda's fault. Not "might have been" or "could have been".

That's the problem.

I'm sorry for your personal situation. But how would you feel if someone who knew nothing of what actually went on said it was all your fault?

A couple of things:

First off, Pennsylvania's primary is so late that for generations it's been a formality. Now all of a sudden it means something to one party, so a lot of folks are signing up.

Some are Republicans who want to help choose what they perceive to be the *weaker* opposition candidate. Who does John McCain have the best chance of beating in November?

Some are Republicans who want to help choose what they perceive to be the *better* opposition candidate. If John McCain loses in November, who is the lesser of two "evils" on the other side?

Some are Democrats who registered Republican because it lets them vote Republican in the local and state primaries, where what Pennsylvanians decide makes a difference every election, not just once every couple of dozen presidencies. Now they have a reason to change their registration.

My guess is that Hillary will win in Pennsylvania. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just a prediction.