There are a lot of judges in the comments. I was going to post about how incensed I was at the implication that it is a male phenomena to direct the vitriol towards the non-parents. Then I started reading the comments, and I am little more upset at the reactions people have, on both sides of the argument: One side claiming the other has no idea of what being a parent is because they don't have kids, vs. the otherside saying "DON'T YOU FREAKIN DARE TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY FREAKIN LIFE."

wow. Both sides of this coin would benefit from accepting that the other has the right to their opinion, and leave it at that.

If a person asks a doctor for their opinion, and then does not like the opinion of the doctor, how can that person become upset at the doctor for their opinion? Now if the same person goes to a doctor to ask the doctor to perform the operation, and the doctor declines to conduct the procedure, can you really get upset at the doctor for declining?

Setting aside the age and reason given by the doctor, do you really want a doctor that did not initially agree with the idea of surgery to conduct that same surgery? I wouldn't.

On the subject of the original article, I do not agree with the point made by quoting the Polly Vernon article. More specifically the where Mz. Vernon claims men "...often respond by becoming 'aggressive, sneering ... Perhaps the idea that there are women at large who are not actively pursuing their sperm is an out-and-out affront to a certain kind of man. The same men who have spent years believing that all women secretly want to trap them into commitment and fatherhood, probably.'"

Really? Men aren't allowed to not want children? Men are the ones pushing this concept of "evil, unnatural women that want to be non-parents"? Men are the sole instigators of this? This is what I object to, it is not just men, and the contention that it is detracts from the whole of the article.

It isn't enough to ask for an open and honest peace? It must contain every word that a hostile listener wants to hear uttered? Must every world leader then pay lip service to every petty complaint? Would those that so staunchly decry any aspirations of peace in the middle east have something else to offer aside from thorny malcontent or utter distrust?

Saggy, were you at the camp? Were you there to witness and draw "implications"? Somehow, I strongly believe you were not, and yet you so easily seek to attack the speaker. I hope your anger is assuaged soon.

How ugly and small a life must be to take the opportunity to comment on a memorium in such a way. Elephantman would be so proud.

Create a government entity in America and I swear, by the time the ink has dried there's a "businessperson" lined up to take advantage of it.

That aside, rationally, I cannot justify where Fanny and Freddie fit into this story on the SEC going after Angelo. At the very least it is possibly the most tangential thing written, not directly referenced in the writing, and simply used as an opportunity to bring up a tired, beaten right-wing talking point. However, I suspect, it is simply another smokescreen, obfuscation technique employed by would-be swiftboaters.

The proprer response to bringing up Fannie and Freddie, when discussing Angelo, is to remind everyone that George was in power, so let us blame him. (Let's bring up Angelo, in regards to the SEC, but since he sold his product to Fannie and Freddie, the big, bad, business tycoon CANNOT be prosecuted by those dirty, low-life muckrakers, because FANNY and FREDDIE, FANNY and FREDDIE.) Makes me want to scream ABU GHARIB anytime anyone mentions George is human.

I have a request for the right wing: I need someone from that side of politics to explain to me why GOP policy and spokepeople only begins to resemble reality when examined from a Victim's point of view. I have been trying to puzzle it out, but it did not make sense under George Bush's presidency and it still does not make sense. Does being in the GOP mean one must constantly view oneself as a victim? What a self-esteem problem the party must have if it needs to refer to itself as a victim, over and over again, to persuade people.

Victimization and Fear. These are the two words I use to describe Republican/Conservative policies. Whichever Democratic party marketer that decided to use "Hope" in president Obama's campaign deserves plaudits.

Is there where the AtlasShruggers come on board and tell us that the monetaryclass is rising up, and thence cometh the financial revolution?

They cannot be looking for sympathy for their "plight", so is this just petulant tantrum throwing, the hedge fund equivalent of I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home trading? The more articles like this, Andrew, that you call my attention to the more that sector of America looks like they want all the profit of the industry they're in with none of the risks.