"Your father made a life-saving decision, and so have you by choosing to distance yourself. I have recently had to make this same decision regarding a manic friend: there is nothing I can do to change anything, nothing I can do to help. Distancing yourself doesn't hurt these people because they don't have the emotional capacity for visits or contact very often: 1 year or 20 can pass unnoticed by them, and very often as in your case, family members are regarded as the enemy plotters."

"The cruel selfish truth...Give up as lost the mother you want or remember; grieve her; and then you can get on with living with the mother you've actually got, in whatever way you choose to do that."

-- Della

"distancing yourself doesn't hurt these people because they don't have the emotional capacity..."

You know this? Really? How do you know this?

While I happen to agree that in situations like this children may have to build boundaries that didn't exist before just to stay sane and not allow the illness to consume them as well, it sounds like you advise abandoning mum altogether. Is this your meaning?

If you do this to your mom, as opposed to a friend, you will regret it. Maybe not right away-- maybe it won't hit you for 15 or 20 years, but it will.

1.One of the previous commenters("SR", I believe) noted that in the south there's a huge disconnect between rural and urban voters. I second this, although I note that the same disconnect exists in places like conservative rural Pennsylvania and New York, only perhaps less so.

But the south is changing-- slower in the rural areas, somewhat quicker in the urban ones. When I look at the fast-growing suburbs, I wonder how much self-selection of so-called "snow-birds" is going on. Do northeastern and midwestern careerists who are more likely to see stereotypical (white)southern cultural traits as agreeable with their existing worldviews choose to move down here in statistically disproportionate numbers?

I've heard the oppoisite argument, that the influx of educated careerists moving down here for their jobs may be making the south more liberal. But is their any reliable data about either of these propositions?

2.As far as Ford goes, I wonder if he lost in part because he came across as, well, a humorless phoney.

Speaking of research(and careerists), when Carville, et al laud vigorous party hacks like Ford, do they have any solid data about whether southern democrats who tack right lose votes because of their eagerness to appear inoffensive?

In the past I've always seen Sidney Blumenthal as an incisive, earnest, yet somewhat plodding writer. Then I see this:

The unintentional irony of Fox affiliates finally protesting the airing of something that is almost certainly true -- never having raised a peep about the endless stream of Fox falsehoods -- was lost in the din.

Who knew Blumenthal had a sense of humor? Bravo!

Secondly, like at least a couple of the other commenters, I agree that the book should not be supressed, although it should not be used to earn either O.J. or HarperCollins a profit.

Every time we hear news of an "inappropriate" book being destroyed, those Pavlovianly impressionable fox viewers Blumenthal writes about become a little more inclined to see supression of speech as normal. Why I Did it is an historical document, albeit a disagreeable one. Why not just give those 400,000 copies away for free? Is Murdochian capitalism so delicate it wouldn't survive such a gesture?

You people are funny.

I will admit I wouldn't want my wife to pose for nudie pics, but this would be less out of a concern about propriety than a concern about the future life of the images. But since I don't have a wife at present and the LW thinks her mother-in-law so fetching, by all means send me some copies, and I'll happily adjudicate.

All the people involved here are grownups, and there's no fooling around, so this is really absurd. I'm reminded of a tv show I saw not too long ago in which a museum curator was being interviewed and the 100 plus year old nude painting behind him was blurred out(?!).

Instead of fighting with the middle east we really need to declare war on Sweden and lose. As occupiers they'd raise our taxes and scold us for buying stupid s*** we don't need, but it would do wonders for our nutty culture.

Rumor has it that Condoleeza Rice is not a crazed neocon nutball, but simply someone who has to tread lightly with the rhetoric to avoid seeming discordant.

She might go for it, but I don't see George W, as much as he identifies with the Christian right, as likely to budge. Likewise, Pelosi is pretty gung-ho on AIPAC, and unlikely to be sympathetic.

Now, if Israeli voters dumped Olmert and the incoming congress dumped Pelosi for Murtha in January, the ground would be primed for change. I wish it could happen and readily agree it should happen, but I don't see it.