One of the things that bothered me is that how the Clinton supporters were angry about the sexism (totally true), but seemed to be upset with Obama because he didn't acknowledge it or say anything about it. I don't get this sentiment. Why blame him for the media's failing?

It is totally unreasonable to blame him for the media; however, the folks on Shakespeare's Sister have been following the media ugliness and speaking out on behalf of both D front-runners. What they noted was:

(a) equally scurrilous and revolting rhetoric, sometimes right out front and sometimes under a thin veneer of politeness and code words, by the media, a scarily passionate single-minded minority of each candidate's supporters, and, much more rarely, actual campaign members or the candidates themselves; and

(b) DNC bigwigs going like gangbusters, righteously and rightfully, to call people on most of the racist shit (definitely failing to call Hillary herself out enough on her remarks about the hard-working (white) vote in the last few weeks, but generally being pretty forthright and awesome), but letting most of the sexist shit slide.

From my perspective, that's where the anger has been: that no party bigwig has stepped up to say, "Both of these are unacceptable." But my perspective is probably skewed, since I've mostly managed to avoid contact with the screaming outliers on both sides.

Okay, this is kind of cool: an author is writing a story that will only be "published," one word at a time, tattooed on volunteers (each volunteer is referred to as a "word"). Only the volunteers will receive a copy of the entire story, once they've been tattooed (and provided proof of same).

There's a map showing where all the words thus far are located, and now I want to find out who in my city has done it.

I don't think I'd do it; I don't want an indelible mark on my body that makes me part of someone else's story. If I were to do such a thing, it would be MY story.

Still, kinda cool.

I do think he could have done better on this front, frankly. But the sense that much of any of it was his doing or his responsibility is baffling to me.

Eh, I can understand. I got annoyed with that, but I also got annoyed with Clinton for not coming out and saying the whole Rev Wright blow up was lame media bullshit.

I think that this is what confuses me. Why are people expecting that the candidates will help their opponent? I mean, it is a contest after all.

But it isn't a contest for a prize. At least, it isn't supposed to be. And either way, one of them will have to continue on with the lame bullshit damage. Opposing parties is one thing, but it was in both their best interests that they played a clean fight and showed some sense of solidarity when it came to lame media bullshit.

It would have made them both look amazingly good if they defended each other against the lame bullshit. Would have made their party all the more appealling.

I think that this is what confuses me. Why are people expecting that the candidates will help their opponent? I mean, it is a contest after all.

Well, yeah, but it's a contest where the winner is going to go on to another, bigger contest the very next morning after winning, and is going to need the votes of the loser's supporters.

I did hear, at the beginning of the only debate I ever listened to, both Clinton and Obama in their opening speeches say, "I believe I'm the strongest candidate and the one who will make the best President, but my opponent is also great and if I don't make it to November I expect my supporters to throw all their strength behind him/her." That was spectacular, and made my heart flutter for both of them.

And about ten times more of that, and both of them more vocally having each other's backs even while competing with each other, would probably have gone a long way to dialing down the rhetoric from the fringes of their supporters and toward making the transition for the voters to one candidate, one party, let's all focus on November a little smoother than it's been so far.

I know the Kool-Aid phrase came from the Jonestown suicides, but as with most things, I do believe it's been softened over the intervening time. It now means something closer to having been swayed by an appealing idea or someone's personality, you'll follow their example. Time and the sarcastic use of the phrase has pulled its metaphorical teeth, I think. It doesn't provide the same frisson of horror as it did at the time.

Tommy, yikes! Glad you're all right.

Flowers don't make up for a killing schedule, Allyson, but at least they make you smile, meanwhile. And that's something.

Why are people expecting that the candidates will help their opponent? I mean, it is a contest after all.

In the end, though, aren't they both on the same side? The Democratic one?

Steph, without being able to click your clickity links, how long is the story going to be? That's cool and crazy.

Beavers said part of the overall increase in low-birthweight babies was due to a rise in multiple births as more older women use fertility treatments to conceive. But she said the birth-weight problem also has been worsening for single-baby deliveries.

Roughly half of the NICU babies were multiples. And multiple births are, of course, more likely with fertility treatment, but they are also more common in older women in general, even those who don't undergo fertility treatment.

One important factor, Beavers said, is the mother's overall health at the time of pregnancy and her access to good prenatal care.

@@ at this one. I know it must be true. But honestly, I had excellent prenatal care and I was in the best shape of my adulthood when I got pregnant.

sometimes it's all irritating.

And on a completely other topic: Teppy, that's not only amazingly cool, you've managed to make me seriously think--for a moment, anyway--about actually getting a tattoo. Still not doing it because of the needles and the phobia, but that is incredibly cool.

But what if you volunteer and find out that you're "is" or "of"?

But what if you volunteer and find out that you're "is" or "of"?

What if you're a comma, and you should have been a semicolon?