How cute... I think it's adorable that someone would try to defend the reputation of local news. If it weren't for the professionals of our local news, how would we know about the closing of a toothpick factory? Or the local connection to a world news story? (ex. "The pilot of the crashed aircraft once went on a date with a woman who later moved to this area many years later. Here's an interview we had with the woman that hasn't seen or spoken with the pilot in 23 years.") Or how would we hear the important stories of how a local cat saved its diabetic owner by eating a chocolate bar that the owner though was carob? My god, having an ex-wrestler reporting the news is like letting some dry-drunk, service-dodging, mis-speaking, pretzel-choker run the country! Shameful! (To be clear, I don't think it's right, but it's one of the less shameful wrongs of the oh-so-many we deal with on any given day.)

First off, I admit I am not a parent. For the most part I've never had the desire, and the moments, few and far between, that I have that yearning are usually short in duration and over when I think of the many ways I am not really well-suited to child rearing. In addition, I have not even babysat since I was in my teens. The point being, I don't really know anything about the trials and joys and frustrations and ecstasies and everything to be found in between of children.

Mr. Rose, however, from his first family, knew all these things. He knew what he was getting into. And to hear somebody bitch about something he knowingly decided to undertake is just tiresome.

He may say he loves them, but I wonder... After reading articles recently stating that children are aware of gender roles at pre-school ages, how aware are they of their father's cues, spoken or unspoken, of his boredom and frustration? Are they going to think of the times he said "I love you"? Or the times he rolled his eyes or ignored his children when they were trying to point out something new and exciting, but it was old hat for him and he didn't care? I suppose he doesn't have to worry too much, as he may be dead or incapacitated or too old to care by the time the resentment starts rising in his children. The whole piece is just selfish, shallow, self-pitying and boring.

I have never read any of Katie Roiphe's work, so I can only judge it by the (admittedly biased) opinion of Rebecca Traister. The reason I would probably tend to dislike her work is, well... The example taken from her first book, that she states that date rape is not a big deal because she didn't have any friends who had claimed they were raped. I can believe that she had no friends that claimed that. But to say that just because that was her personal experience, therefore it applies to the world at large is just irresponsible.

Every one of us forms our beliefs through our personal experiences. If you can't bring yourself to realize that someone else's opinions are valid to them, that their personal experiences have brought them to that conclusion, why should you expect someone that disagrees with you to consider your opinion? The reason I have absolutely no respect for Ann Coulter isn't because she has the absolute opposite beliefs from me, but that she won't even consider the possibility that her experience of the world isn't the definitive one. If you can't keep your mind open to opinions different from your own, don't expect me to be open to your opinions.

All of us can be, and are, wrong from time to time. (Some more often than others.) I would never make a very good polemicist because I'm too certain that what I think next week may well be different than what I think today. I don't want to paint myself into a corner. And this is probably also why the Republican message was so effective for so long and why they are starting to look more and more ridiculous; because they're much more likely to see things black and white and take an unwavering stand, and if all the evidence is against them, all they can do is either ignore the evidence and soldier on, or do a 180 and claim that's what they've been saying all along. Nuance and open-mindedness don't naturally lend themselves to strong, unassailable stands on issues.

And all that leads to lots of other ideas, but I've probably digressed enough, if I was ever on-topic to begin with.