I don't agree all the details (I think Michael Lind is a tone deaf writer), but the overall point is a good one. I didn't back Obama with great progressive hopes, just for being not insane and respectful of government.

I think we forget how his overly cautious and annoyingly centrist approach is a strength as well as a weakness and part of why he was elected. His centrism was clear and he said from the start he might compromise in ways people don't like. Plus he inherited situations which can't be fixed, just made les worse.

Unfortnately, his administration is allowing the toxic right to dominate, demonize and derails even the most moderate policy. to issues. With Gitmo Obama was moving with a slow deference to paranoid interest I found galling, yet they still managed to halt the issue with openly cynical fear mongering.

Due to this, the center has been pushed rightward until the liberal response to a giant toxic symbol of American injustice is a deadline free hope that one day it might close.

I had low expecations, but this is too far.

Look guys the decision to impose an "enlarge" function makes no sense.

It frequently doesn't work and it's an annoying extra step which is neither more functional nor providing new ad revenue opportunity.

I wish some Salon/Editor programmer would explain why they refuse to have just one page with the cartoon in the correct size?

Are you obsessed with having the same narrow column layout for every article?

Is there some benefit which no reader can see?

I get where your coming from, but you might go to far if you imply cities should be child free zones.

Urban areas were built by families and originally neighborhoods were multigenerational.

The obnoxiousness of the wealthy did not begin with suburban and trendy types congreating in places like Park Slope either. Trendy singles, also of surburban origin, can be just as bad.

Both groups are capable of treating the poor like dirt.

But both groups can also become devoted assets to the urban community.

Good neighbors who breed are a valuable asset as they create multiple generations of peole who appreciate the city as place to live, rather than a trend or investment.

Yet even then a childless person is also valuable if they support all community members equally - strollers and stroller free.

Celeste, you need to learn more about urban and social history.

Cities have always been places where people were live from birth to death. They have never belonged to 20 somethings alone.

Urban decline did attract some more youth for whom cheap rent and cool locations were worth the risk, but they were never the exclusive or even dominant population.

Suburbs began with ruling class exodus from the pollution and working class which filled cities after the industrial revolution.

They wanted more distance from both. Children were just the excuse, code for not mixing with the wrong type of people and byproducts of their wealth.

This was followed by white flight, then middle class flight in general - because it's cheaper and easier to avoid undesirables in a suburb than the most exclusive urban location.

Those who stayed - rich and poor, young and old, families and singles - understood the advantages of city life and how they work.

The problem is not families are moving back. They never left, even if 20 somethings ignores multigenerational residents.

The problem is people - no matter where they're from originally - have acquired the suburban mindset.

This applies to both rude stroller pushers and aggravated singles. They both act like the city is theirs exclusively, resent having to accomodate anything which conflicts with their personal standards.

The appreciation of mess and chaos needed to navigate it with minimal conflict - let alone calmness or politeness - is hard to achieve with a bland chainstore sense of social space and order.

I think it's not just patriarchy, but how single issue equality doesn't work.

During the campaign, it was clear people who were strong on feminism or racism could be insenstive on the other.

Current events show how people enraged about economic injustice can be misled by panic over race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.

Some problems are more clear cut and direct than others - depending on your point of view.

Nobody is perfect on all issues and it's wrong to expect someone writing about one to fully address others.

But there is a point where ignorance on one issue negates wisdom on others.

People who think women should know their place may have genuine populist rage. They're unlikely to find justice, however, because the status quo on gender is the same power as what's keeping them down.

Feminist support of mothers can become hollow if it involves class entitlement and indifference. It ignores women in other groups and plays into patriarchal assumptions about mothers and money.

Here's a comment worth repeating, even if I disagree with the other things the commentor wrote: "you get to write for the NYT, have conversations with Amy Sohn and Uma Thurmann, live in an expensive brownstone Brooklyn neighborhood like Park Slope and STILL fucking manage to complain and whine about how mean everybody else is to poor Park Slope mommies."

Agreed. Had this an article not concentrated so much on high-status people, places and things, I think it would have provoked a few less beserk responses.

Also, I think Harris expects a level of positive feedback that no one actually gets, let alone New Yorkers, so what she sees as hate may just be normal human grouchy indifference. This idea one is entitled to more obvious displays of respect is a privileged point of view.

I do think some comments are using class resentment as a pretext for extreme anti-parent rants, and/or sexism. The author provides that pretext by acting as if mommy hate is the only issue which matters - even though she admits the others exist.