Politics and other nightmares

Good Lord, is it possible? Anthony Weiner's sexting pal might be a Hoosier?

An interesting proposal we probably don't need to spend a whole lot of time talking about:

First, it was doing away with Saturday delivery. Now, door-to-door service could be coming to an end.

Not sure the state should really go there:

Indiana is one of the few states where an emergency manager can be put in charge of city finances. But unlike Detroit, bankruptcy isn't an option.

Richard Florida wants to have it both ways on Detroit. On the one hand, that city, like the rest of the Rust Belt, is doomed, doomed, doomed. Might as well give the few people left bus tickets out of town, tear the place down and start over:

This is about as stupid as it gets:

Well, there goes Anthony's Weiner's best excuse:

Sex addiction has often made headlines, with celebrities blaming their romantic foibles on the condition. However, a new study questions the notion that people can truly be "addicted" to sex.

The new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, suggests that self-professed "addicts" may simply have a high sex drive.

Whaaaat?

Yes, but this also risks sending the signal that, just six months into his second term, Obama is fresh out of ideas.

If he’s to break through the resistance, Obama will need some bold new proposals. That’s why his speech returning to the oldies would seem to confirm that the White House has given up on big achievements.

I'm not really a big fan of the USA TODAY editorial page; it's mostly a collection of bland gasbaggery, "well-on-the-other-hand" vagueness and indecisiveness. Gotta salute 'em for this one, though:

Today's entry for the "well, duh" file:

To figure out which countries dislike the U.S., one quick way is to simply look at which ones are getting the largest dollops of U.S. aid.

This wasn't the focus of a . But it did emerge when Pew spoke to people in 39 countries about the U.S. and China, asking respondents if they had a favorable view of these two countries.

When the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional discrimination to treat straight and gay married couples differently in states that recognized gay marriage, the obvious question was (and it was asked by a lot of people), well, what about same-sex couples in states that don't recognize gay marriage? Is it any less discriminatory to treat people differently in some states than it is in other states? Now, a federal judge in Ohio is pushing that very federalism button: