I see this more and more lately--opinions dismissed because they come from the blogosphere. Lamont is popular with bloggers, which apparently is less important than being popular with...whom? Reporters who own property on Nantucket?

I am not a blogger. I'm a person who gets news from the foreign press and blogs now because the newspapers have completely fallen down on the job covering Iraq and the Bush administration. I'm a person who is sick of Democrats apologizing for their ineffectiveness because they don't want to offend anyone. I'm a person tired of watching Democrats decide how they should position themselves on the issues, instead of just having beliefs they're willing to stick to.

I sent money to Ned Lamont because he has a truly progressive voice. I don't have a Senate race in my state this year, but I'm adopting Lamont because it would be refreshing for a change to have Democrats in Washington who speak like Democrats.

Bloggers and readers of blogs are not automatons with keyboards. They are voters, and to dismiss them as insignificant or pesky is as foolish as dismissing any block of the electorate.

I felt sick listening to that press conference on NPR. The White House press corps, chuckling at every lame attempt at humoring them that comes out of the president's mouth, seems to pride itself that they are finally asking "tough questions." But the only real tough questions came from Helen Thomas, and the answer she was given was a spew of bullshit. I am not an expert on these matters, but when Bush told his like about the weapons inspectors, I was screaming at my radio. Given that no reporter is allowed a follow-up question, why didn't someone back Thomas up and ask one? Why didn't someone ask the president if he'd ever heard of Hans Blix? Are they all so intent on asking their own pre-decided question that they can't see an opening and run with it?

Afterwards, the main story the media told about the conference was that Bush seemed to enjoy the "spirited debate," when actually he sounded petulant and pissy. Bush had also said, indirectly, that the troops would be in Iraq in 2008 and beyond, and this was seen as a newsflash to the dimwits with microphones.

The press is incompetent, which is frightening enough, but what is really terrifying is that it honestly seems to think it's doing a good job. It is like President Bush in that regard.

I love it when people--rich old windbags in Minnesota, for instance--decide that the problems of the world won't really affect them. Abortion rights? The right to privacy? The economy? The environment? People dying and maimed in Iraq? La-dee-dah. Ain't the flowers purty? Just sit on the ol' front porch, watch your crabapple tree, and chew your cud.

And while you're at it, sneer a little at all those apathetic young 'uns. That's hee-haw-larious!

Yeah, people fell in love during WWII. They fall in love in theocratic Iran. But maybe we should keep keep thinking about the weasels in charge before our problems reach that point? Even during spring? Even when we're sixty-three?

When I first moved to Portland, Oregon, in 1999, the Trailblazers were a pretty good team. (Who would fold spectacularly in the crunch.) Then the problems started. Rasheed Wallace had been having snits on the court for years, but then he got caught with pot. (Shoudn't pot mellow you out?) Ditto Damon Stoudemire. Other players started getting police attention for various fights (including animal abuse). Win or lose, they were the Jailblazers, and people just didn't give a damn.

The weird thing is, I now root for the Pistons. They're not my hometown, but they're fun to watch. 'Sheed!!!

I'm constantly amazed by these so-called traditional moms. I was raised by a stay-at-home mom in the sixties, and I would have died of mortification if she had stepped foot in my classroom. School was where we learned to be independent; hovering mommies were not considered a good thing. Stay-at-home moms that I recall did not live and die to be mommies. They pushed kids out the door after breakfast and expected that we would take care of ourselves till dinnertime. If they were lucky enough not to have to work, the moms managed the house and the kids, but they also had clubs and hobbies for themselves. Some, unfortnately, got dumped by their once loving traditional husbands.

I also had friends whose mothers worked (even back in the ol' traditional days!). These friends seemed to do fine. They didn't grow up to be ax murderers, or resentful magazine writers with crazy ideas about social roles.

The stay-at-home moms today aren't traditional so much as hyper-neurotic. What kid could be comfortable causing such self-sacrifice? It's a smothering idea of motherhood, and it's no wonder that Caitlin Flanagan and few others can actually live up to it, except in their own fevered brains.

What I should have written is that the stay-at-home "traditional" moms as imagined by Caitlin Flanagan are hyper-neurotic. Most stay-at-home moms I know are working very hard and don't have the back-up help that CF does, and they don't have magazine jobs. They certainly don't crow constantly about the 24-7 mother-love they're giving their children.

I didn't mean to dump on all women who decide to stay at home, just the few nuts like CF who use the media to fluff their mommy feathers. Her vision just doesn't seem to match reality. (And that owing-your-husband-sex thing makes my skin crawl.)