Today, my sister Hillary, who is now 30, met me at a Metro station in downtown Washington, D.C., so we could go walk to the Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear, hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. It was our personal moment of zen – the first rally we’ve been to together since Hands Across America, 24 years ago. The rally was billed as a nonpolitical event. Who can argue with the need for sane and rational political discourse, one of Jon Stewart’s nightly rallying cries?

It wasn’t, as one reporter predicted, “a fiesta of self-congratulation.” The people we came across seemed determined to be polite, asking nicely before they photographed anyone’s costumed dog, and apologizing if they were forced to hold your sleeve to follow your path through the throng. Hillary and I found a perch where we could sit and observe the crowd, and discussed our favorite signs. Mine were “What’s with the airplane food?,” “Capital letters mean I’m serious,” and “Refudiate Insanity.” Hers were “I still like Bret Favre,” “I support this sign,” and “Get a brain, Morans.” (This last one was especially funny because my husband’s name is Moran.)

Since we could hear very little coming from the stage, we were puzzled when people on the steps around us started to stand up. Then we detected, very faintly, the notes of the "Star Spangled Banner." It was too far away to make out any of the words, but we recognized the bass vibrating through the air, and both rose. Eventually, we called a friend in Chinatown, just a few blocks away. She was watching the rally on television and told us what was happening on stage. So we walked to her apartment and sat down to enjoy the coverage on C-Span. It seemed like the sane, reasonable thing to do.

Tags: John Stewart, Rally to Restore Sanity

Hanna, I have to say that I believe the Gawker story about Christine O'Donnell getting drunk and making out with a dude. The pictures do seem pretty touchy-feely, and the way he describes her self-confidence dovetails with the O'Donnell we see on the campaign trail.  Most importantly, if you're going to make up a story about a hook-up, you'd say you went all the way.  I do believe that's in the Douchebag Handbook, in chapter 5: "Chicks, Bro".

My question is why on earth did Gawker run this pointless story?  Scratch that.  I know why—for the hits.  But do they actually think this discredits her in any way?  The person who looks bad is the guy sexist enough to slam a woman for being "aggressive", blames her pubic hair to cover up what many of us might otherwise describe as a hydraulics failure, and use the word "cougar" without a whiff of irony.

And if we're supposed to be scandalized because O'Donnell is wearing a short skirt with her ladybug costume, well, I have to point out that what she's wearing is practically a nun's habit compared with some ladybug costumes that are being pushed as appropriate fall weather clothing for Halloween.

I agree with you, Rachael. If O'Donnell owns this and smacks down the anonymous writer for this, it will probably work out well for her. (As Hanna points out, she's already got NOW backing her.) And I think she's well within her rights to out the author by name, since he told the world what she looks like naked.

Photograph by Chip Somodevilla for Getty Images.

Tags: Christine O'Donnell and one night stand, Gawker

In the '30s, Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in a personal letter: "I can't kiss you ... so I kiss your picture good night and good morning!" This letter was not addressed to her husband Franklin. This missive was written to Lorena "Hick" Hickok, a lesbian journalist and, according to Hazel Rowley—the author of the new biography of the Roosevelt marriage, Franklin & Eleanor—Eleanor's beloved. Not only did Franklin know about Eleanor and Hick's entanglement, he also supported it. According to Rowley's vibrant, accessible book, during FDR's first term:

The first lady planned a three-week motor trip with Lorena Hickok, just the two of them, through Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec and the rugged Gaspé Peninsula in French Canada. The Secret Service insisted that this was quite impossible. FDR, seeing Eleanor's face, agreed to let them go alone.

FDR, of course, had his own romantic entanglements, most notably with Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd. But as the above anecdote shows, FDR and Eleanor were extremely devoted to each others' happiness, even as they went after relationships outside their marriage. The revelation of Eleanor's bisexuality is not new, but this biography does an excellent job of contextualizing these relationships within the Roosevelts' union as a whole.

What's more, Franklin was unusually supportive of Eleanor's intellectual pursuits, especially for a man of his day: Eleanor remains the only first lady to write an autobiography while still in the White House. Their bond, while certainly imperfect, was indeed, "extraordinary," as Rowley calls it.  Any lover of popular history and unorthodox relationships (juicy bits included) will adore this engaging biography.

Tags: eleanor roosevelt, franklin & eleanor, franklin roosevelt, hazel rowley

Every Halloween, my kids bring UNICEF collection boxes home from school. Yours probably do, too; Trick or Treat for UNICEF is a huge program nationwide, raising $18 million in 2005 to, as the UNICEF Web site says, help UNICEF provide nutrition, medicine, education, and the things kids need to thrive. But the one thing UNICEF generally does not support providing for kids in other countries who need help to thrive is an international adoptive family. UNICEF's stated position on international adoption is one of conditional support; effectively, international adoption as a last resort. In theory, this sounds good: Who wouldn't want a child to be brought up by family or a family member, or in a home within his or her community? Susan Bissell, the director of Child Protection at UNICEF, says, “We are not against international adoption. We are against exploitation, against the sale of babies, and against forced relinquishment.” She added, “We need to step up programs in these countries, so that families can bring up their own children, which everyone agrees is the best option.”

In practice, the results of this policy (as with so much in international adoption) are less clear, and less appealing. Few would argue with the fight against exploitation or the sale of babies, but some adoption advocates see the policies UNICEF promotes as impediments that effectively end the process in countries like Guatemala. Some children and families who might otherwise have been exploited are protected; other children in real need now go without a family at all.  When UNICEF says "We need to step up programs in these countries," it's advocating changes that can take decades. In a decade, children relinquished or abandoned by their birth parents become adults. When UNICEF says it is against "forced relinquishment," in practice, that includes relinquishing children due to circumstances within a poor country: lack of food, lack of clean water, the lack of a job to pay for an education. UNICEF wants to change those things, and adoption advocates do too.

The largest difference between UNICEF and the best adoption advocacy groups is one of immediacy: Most adoption groups want to act immediately to provide the best outcome for the actual, tangible children they see growing up before their eyes, while UNICEF prefers to act more gradually in an attempt to reduce the numbers of those children in the future. In Haiti, after the earthquake, a number of orphanages offered to take in children that were at least temporarily without family; they say UNICEF blocked their offer of aide out of an unfounded fear that the children would be placed for adoption when homes might be found for them within Haiti. Adoption proponents and UNICEF don't disagree on goals, but on method. Does that mean adoptive parents, like me, should shun those adorable goblins shaking the tiny cardboard collection boxes this Sunday night?

Some parents do; there is even a hand-out you can give to the wee ones instead of filling their boxes with change, presumably so that their parents don't mentally accuse you of being a cheapskate when you're standing on principle. But I'll put money in the boxes, although I'm not putting one in the hands of my daughter or her adoptive siblings. It's true that I'd prefer my dollars to go to organizations that I know help on both ends; working to find homes for children in immediate need of families and working to prevent the circumstances that lead to birth families relinquishing their children or, in a situation like Haiti, working to find both the best immediate and the best long term help for a child. But I'm happy to lend my pennies to what I see as a different cause, that of getting kids even a little involved in the lives of kids who won't be getting a bucket of candy to take home.

Photography by Slaven Vlasic for Getty Images.

Tags: adoption, Haiti, international adoption, Unicef

Once again this campaign has produced epically strange moments in feminist history. Christine O’Donnell, who believes women in the military “cripple our readiness” is nonetheless happy to cry sexism on Gawker for publishing an anonymous account of her one night stand. And the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed her opponent, now jumped to her defense against the “sexist, misogynist attacks against women.” A great harmonic convergence.

The account in Gawker was juvenile, petty, obnoxious but I’m not sure I would call it sexist. If it’s true, it seems to me, in O’Donnell’s case, totally relevant. This is a woman who talks about “sexual purity” and “lust in your heart,” and ways to prevent it. She has, throughout her career, felt free to call out other people’s sexual practices as immoral. So it seems to me important to learn that she herself is no paragon of virtue. To me, it’s not all that different from Larry Craig and his bathroom stall. If you don’t want to be so judged, then keep a lid on it. True if you’re a man or a woman. In this case it was a “she” who threw the first stone but same rules apply.

These moments are never a plus for female candidates; in fact, studies show that sex-based insults do women more harm than men. But if we forget about O’Donnell and think of all womankind, then I’m with Rachael on this one. Take the Krystal Ball road. Get people used to the idea that women running for office have sexual histories, and those will show up on Facebook. We got used to candidates smoking pot; eventually we’ll be able to handle this scandalous behavior, too.

Photograph by Chip Somodevilla for Getty Images.

Tags: christine o'donnell, Christine O'Donnell and one night stand.

— In California, two women who went from being CEOs to candidates are now struggling to hold on. [New York Times]

— With a hug and a Facebook status update, Sarah Palin has renewed her support of Joe Miller. [New York Times]

— The National Organization for Women has made a statement in support of Christine O'Donnell that tells the media to stop the "sexist, misogynist attacks". [Daily Intel]

— Yesterday, a group hacked the Facebook profiles of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Justin Bieber. Here's how they did it, and how you can, too. [Daily Beast]

— In Jacksonville, Fla., a mother shook her baby to death for interrupting a game of FarmVille. She has pleaded guilty to murder. [The Florida Times-Union]

— A judge in New York has ruled that a 4-year-old girl can be sued for negligence. [New York Times]

Photograph of Joe Miller and Sarah Palin by John Moore for Getty Images.

Tags: christine o'donnell, Farmville, Gawker, joe miller, Sarah Palin

To no one's surprise, and with a quickness, the porn star Charlie Sheen allegedly terrified (at the very least) in his hotel room after apparently binge drinking has lawyered up. Capri Anderson's move to try having his parole violated on a December domestic violence charge is purely a legal tactic, though I'm sure her heart bleeds for his poor, assaulted wife. This obvious deck-stacking can only be meant to grease the wheels of the civil suit we'll no doubt soon be following on TMZ and Entertainment Tonight. Followed, bien sur, by a tell-all memoir of Anderson's (aka Christina Walsh) sex worker hijinks. But that's cool. It's long past time sex workers were afforded all the same legal protections as any other human.

Think what you will of sex workers (as long as you think similarly of their customers), but think even harder about turning a blind eye to the heart-stopping dangers they face each and every day on the job. Our reaction to Sheen's behavior ought to be no different than if Anderson was room service dropping off his dinner. Unless what allegedly happened in that room was a role-play fantasy thingie of the type I scratch my chin over at "Savage Love" (sooo NSFW), Anderson was the victim of a crime.

I feel for Sheen. Every time I bump into the story, I'm reminded why cliches become cliches: Money so cannot buy happiness. But neither should it buy you the freedom to assault, terrify, and possibly imprison another person. At least we heard about Sheen. Sadly, most sex workers face these dangers from average Joes with nothing but the promise of a few dollars and no one giving a damn if they're violated.

Photograph by Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images.

Tags: assault, charlie sheen, domestic violence, Two And a Half Men

Having read the Gawker account of one man’s one-night non-stand with Christine O’Donnell, I have some advice for the GOP’s Senate candidate for Delaware: Go full-on Krystal Ball in your response (well, maybe not all the umbrage-taking). Stand up and say, “Yeah, I had a few drinks and tried to pick up a man. So what?”

Real Clear Politics has you trailing Chris Coons by 18 points.  There’s probably nothing that’s going to help you overcome that deficit. So use your last moments in the spotlight to stand up for yourself.

Because what Gawker did was pretty low. They printed an anonymous account from a man who made needless attacks on your intimate behavior (and, well, grooming) but in the end, he admits nothing happened. Like my colleague Hanna Rosin, I don’t really get the whole “born-again virgin” concept, but hey, that’s your story and, as this guy’s story shows, you’re sticking to it. He didn’t accuse you of having sex with him while touting the evils of sex before marriage. There’s no hypocrisy, you didn’t do anything illegal, and you didn’t hurt anyone.

But don’t rail against Gawker for being part of the “lamestream media” hellbent on destroying conservatives—they might have stooped to new depths, but it’s five days before an election and they know this is going to get some clicks.  Instead, make Gawker look silly for running such a non-story.

Tags: 2010 midterms, christine o'donnell, Delaware Senate race, Gawker

A man tells Gawker that when he was 25, he had a one night stand with Christine O’Donnell, who was then in her late 30s. Rife with obnoxious details (sloppy drunk, doesn’t wax, “decent” kisser) the incident nonetheless confirms all my worst stereotypes about those “born-again” virgins. She shows up, all innocent, in a ladybug costume. But she’s in a naughty mood because it’s Halloween, the night of the devil. She makes the first move—he describes her as an “aggressive” cougar—and gets him all the way to bed. And then she chooses that moment to tell him she is a virgin. Actually, what she says is that she's a “born-again” virgin, which, unlike plain old “virgin,” doesn’t have that same tantalizing mystique. In fact, it may be the most cold-shower term ever invented.

Do we believe him? What won’t we believe about Christine O’Donnell in these last desperate days of the campaign? At least she wasn’t dressed as a witch. The person we feel most sorry for, however, is his roommate, who apparently then dated the born-again virgin for a whole year.

Photograph of Christine O'Donnell by Getty Images.

Tags: christine o'donnell, Christine O'Donnell and one night stand

A new study at New York University found that girls not only benefit from talking to dad about sex, but they actually want to talk about it. The idea, though, is not to have one awkward conversation and never speak of sex again, but to have open, ongoing communication.

After talking to 250 young women, between 19 and 21, the study found they want to learn how to communicate and negotiate intimacy issues with men, and they believe their fathers could teach them. What good does it do? Girls who talk to their dads about sex not only lose their virginity at later ages and have fewer sex partners, both of which are associated with good mental health, but are also more comfortable talking to partners about sex later in life, which isalways good for a relationship's health.

Do you wish your father had been more open about sex? Or was he?

This post originally appeared on TresSugar.

Tags: fathers, tressugar