You are only responding to PART of the line.

Less inspired is her lifelong fealty to Israel (brought about by a 1945 visit to a newly liberated Dachau), which caused her to refer to an Egyptian soldier in the Suez crisis as a "Wog" and leads to the following regrettable passage in a letter to Leonard Bernstein: "[The Arabs] are not endearing ... depressing and idiot, is my feeling, and inimical as well. I see perfectly why they hate Israel; it's too clean, and it makes some sense out of real life."

Apparently you missed that part. I don't think the author of the article, who seems to admire her, has a problem with her support of Israel per se. What he does seem to have a problem with is that as part of her support she was bigotted against Arabs in general.

Btw, where did you get the "we" from? Anyway, I never claimed to represent anybody but myself.

Okay, fair enough!

You're two for two. Quite the good job calling it as it is. Well done.

You causing trouble again? While you were somewhat over the top as usual, you nailed the underlying sentiment (vanity) behind a lot of this kvetching. Hence the subsequent screehing headed your way...

...it would have to be invented to justify statements such as these:

"There may be something in this "voluntary lonliness" idea, but I have to admit to a lot of skepticism when the examples are all from New York, an area that has (shall we say) a tendency to view itself as the center of the world. Like the whole "metrosexual" thing a couple of years ago--which never reached Austin or, as near as I could tell at the time, anyplace outside of the Northeast and London--this appears to be one of those "media whirlwind" phenomenons that is happening in the Northeastern media but nowhere else, so far as I can see."

Sorry Douglass, that speaks more to your social isolation than anything else. for example, the "metrosexual thing a couple of years ago" wasn't a thing. It was/is simply a label used to describe the growing tendency of certain young men to excessively primp. The idea that it "never reached" Austin! (lol) or anyplace else outside of the Northeast or London (LA?!!!) is incorrect, and more accurately, besides the point. Again, it is not a thing that needs to reach anywhere. It's a label, and nowadays, even the average teenage boy seems to be conscious of it to some degree. You think all those kids are wearing "just any" ole pair of jeans or just any ole pair of sneakers or just any ole t-shirt or have their hair styled just any ole way? A lot of time and effort goes into that look. Take a closer look around, you'll probably be surprised.

Predictable. Thanks for proving Tyler's point with your pitch perfect example of a modern parent's self-congratulatory whine. Be careful though, if you pat yourself on the back any harder for doing an ordinary thing (breastfeeding), you might hurt yourself. Well done.

Btw, the rabbi seems to be trying to be provocative, but instead, he's being silly.

Check your ego at the door. Who said anything about rules? I'll comment about any subject I see fit thank you very much. Anyway, I can't imagine the cries of sexism that would rise up from here if a guy told a woman she couldn't comment on something because it's a "man thing". So you're a mother, so you breastfeed. So what? Nothing new under the sun about that.

I've got to ask, what's with the childfree being so interested in parenting issues? I mean that in a polite way, not in a snide or snarky way. Before I had kids, I steered well clear of any parenting discussions. Not my area of interest, not my business, not my area of expertise, I figured. I once told somebody, long ago, that me advising a mother on how to do her job would be like some couch potato advising a runner on how to train for a marathon."

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. I really do mean that in a polite way though. I'm not advising any mother here on anything. I'm simply commenting on some of the letters and laughing at the obvious self flattery. If you want a private forum, take it to e-mail. Otherwise, that's just a weak dodge. So, what's the new standard now? Only women can comment on motherhood issues, only foreign policy experts can comment on foreign policy issues, only economists can comment on the economy and so on? After all, it's their area of "expertise", right? Uh huh.

Hahahaha...whew...thanks for the laugh.

It's interesting how it's okay to call other women "stick insects" but not okay to call others fat. Also, the notion that a lot of men, super macho or not, find say...Heidi Klum...or Naomi Campbell attractive because they are being programmed by gay male fashion designers and are therefore "erstwhile heterosexual" is nonsense. While the latter sentiment, is not directly homophobic, it is a stale device which uses gay men as a prop that supposedly undermines the sexuality of those erstwhile heterosexual super macho men.

That's an outrageous bastardization of the Central Park Jogger case. Absent their suspect and convoluted confessions, in which they spent more time pointing the finger at the others rather than implicating themselves, there was no other evidence against the guys on the rape charge.

For those interested in a more neutral and fact based account:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0247/schanberg.php

I would also direct folks to the Manhattan DA's statement. Also, are you really putting forth the argument that because some of the people released through IP were serial offenders and served time previously to their incarcarations, that somehow mitigates the fact that they served times for crimes they did not commit? I guess close counts only counts in criminal justice systems as well as horseshoes.