of course.

Any one who serves, who does their job, who follows their training and their protocols, who acts justly in carrying out their duties, is a hero. Even if they come home without a paper cut to show for it.

I think Brightstar and Ben Dover have found their soul mate!

Most of us CT Democrats are pretty mystfied by Joe Lieberman (which is why we voted for Ned Lamont in the primaries. The Republicans voted Joe in.)

It's like watching a beloved uncle succumb to dementia.

Or a dear friend get seduced by a cult.

Twice? (Original and TNG)

Not the gay part, but the cloud of aphrodisiacs that turned the vrew into a bunch of horndogs?

LIfe does imitate art. Who knew?

While I agree the term "sister-wife" sounds a little creepy, I like the idea of job-sharing with other women. Lots of women carpool, swap babysitting duties, arrange respite playdates, and other creative job-sharing ideas. My two best friends from college and I have often mused how much we'd like to live together: one is an awesome cook, one is excellently patient with kids, and one loves to organize/maintain living spaces (plus we're good at lots of other, non-domestic things). We laugh about what we could do (take over the world?) if we were in one compound, focusing on our strengthts and having help in our weaker areas, plus always having someone there to lean on. Unfortunately, we are scattered across the country, with our own husbands and kids, jobs, houses and meals to plan.

As other posters have pointed out, there is nothing new about women sharing responsibilities for hearth and home (often while doing non-domestic jobs as well). While extended families was a mainstay of this arrangement, don't forget the servants women had, even those of relatively modest means, to help with household chores and child rearing. I'm not talking just about the Scarlet O'Hara's with the dozens of slaves on hand, (though the wealthy had vast labor resources at their command). Abigail Adams, wife of a farmer and lawyer, prosperous but not wealthy (like Martha Washington or Martha Jefferson), typically had 2 maid servants: neighborhood girl helping out in the farmhouse in Braintree, MA, while John Adams helped create a new country.

(It's the polygamy, of course, that can cause the pettiness: the moms in MN aren't competing for the sexual attention of the same man, therefore there is much less to bicker about. And while I'm no fan of polygamy, it had its purpose in history: when females significantly outnumbered males in a population, this arrangement allowed more females to have a sexual life. And in colonial Utah, Morman men often went on long gospel-spreading journeys. Leaving woman alone on the homestead would cripple her chances for survival.)

Fortunately for my friends and I (and for the women in MN cited in the article), man-sharing wouldn'r be part of the deal. Unless one of us ends up with Jon Stewart or George Cloone. Then all bets are off!

If I am remembering correctly, children (once out of infant swaddlings) dressed as miniature adults until the late 19th century. Little girls wore corsets and hoop skirts and/or stays and farthingales. Their non-chests were put on display like their moms.

I wonder why we used to do that?

I am guessing we had 2 reasons:

1) children mortality rates were very high for their first few years of life, then lveled off after age 6 or so. So young children were dressed as babies (who didn't have souls or the capacity to reason, according to conventional wisdom) until parents were reasonably certain they would live.

2) children, especially girls, were viewed as commodities: something to be bought or sold (in marriage). A good match required (besides wealth or political connections) a girl with beauty, and the ability to bear children. So girls wore clothes that played up these attributes.

The Victorians/Edwardians made children into children. So that's when children's clothing began to look distinct from adult fashions. And while the Victorians and later generations may have overplayed "Ah, the innocence of youth" aspect ofchildhood, they were wise in desexualizing girls' clothes.

So, my question is, what are we saying about our kids now, when we create prostitots? Are they commodities again? We're investing all that money and angst into getting our kids "the best" toys, educations, extracurricular activities, etc., so they can be "successful." Is this overt sexulization of prepubescent girls a throwback to our inner medieval Machiavel? Or are we so led by consumerism that we don't even know what we're doing?

obliquely endorse a Hilton/Lohan '08 ticket? Because Lohan knows how to hold a handbag and Hilton got paid to wear Guess jeans?

While Hillary Clinton is a bully for speaking loudly in a debate and Al Gore is a pampered prince out of touch with reality?!?

Send me a glass of what Ms Paglia's drinking!

Is it simply "be fruitful and multiply" and the more the merrier?

Or, do the same folks (who insist women view and read mountains of material on in utero babies befiore allowing them to terminate a pregnancy) ask women considering fertility treatments view and read material on complications high multiple births pose to babies and mom?

Are any pharmacists morally opposed to Clomid? (Assuming one even gets this from a pharmacist). Any hospitals refuse to treat women who insist on risky conception interventions without attempting other methods first? Is there any minimum threshold for women before they try these expensive, risky procedures?

(Note: I am not saying I am anti any of the above, though I think any fertility treatment should be approached with care and education, not to mention a good doc. I'm just asking if there's consistency on the Right to LIfe side of the debate with regards to women's abilities to make informed decisions about their reproductive health.)