Self-important?!!! We Boomers didn't know we had selves!!!! Important?!!! We were women, people of colour, poor - we knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that we were just cannon-fodder!!!

Gen X'ers are our little brothers and sisters. We paved your way. We Boomers were raised by people born in the 1920's: children shall be seen and not heard. We wanted liberty so badly that we, who would really rather not have "joined" anything, overcame elitism, sexual stereotyping,age prejudice against teens, racism and every sort of obstacle to get it. We didn't want to be "joiners" either; but we wanted our freedom more.

And, frankly, we wanted you, our little brothers and sisters, to totally rely on, to take for granted, the liberty we fought for. We delight in the kind of silly-self-important prattle contained in Heather's title, because it means that we won the battle and you're so free you have no idea what the word means.

When you grow up, you'll see that and stop talking about yourselves as somehow, above joining.

Join us in some humility. It's time for a change.

Well Klytus, the peace movement required that we examine our selves and our motivations and that we listen to The Other (women, people of colour, etc.) with humility (rather than with assumed superiority and arrogance) and that we arrive at new consensus together as equal partneres. That is what I meant by humility.

Of course, not having inherited equality and the language of equality and the communicative devices of equality, we had to stumble along - and many of us, undisciplined in peace-keeping communication, lost our way in immature braggadacio. Further, weak egos (after all we created our selves anew) blew up when we got our first taste of autonomy. It's a process.

It seemed perfectly obvious to me the moment that McCain appointed Sarah Palin that she was his Perfect No-Lose Appointment.

If he won, he would have been a maverick and it would have been a great slap in the face for Democrats who failed to nominate Hilary.

If he lost, he would have the perfect excuse - a woman lost it for him. And we all know that women can't cut it, right?

This was just one more shameful moment for the Republicans in their long shame-filled campaign.

The efforts to take back the $150,000 in campaign clothing, are just the working out of a hypocritcal appointment in the first place.

I'm waiting to see whether, when the Senator from Alaska steps down (as he must), the Republicans put Sarah in her place. I would hazard a guess that this was what was offered to her before she accepted the appointment. She gets to take the place of the corrupt Senator she fought so hard to remove.

And when they do offer the position to her, I hope that she won't let them take her on a shopping spree.

I love the idea of a fundamentalist doing yoga - yoga is a practice of Eastern religion and, for fundamentalists, a sin.

So, if you can dupe her into it, that would be great because it will give you serious leverage in the future!!!!!!!

I would advise you to take her to Pilates but, well, you can see what a fundamentalist might make of that!!!!

I would suggest taking her out for dinner because that would keep her mouth full and keep her eating, BUT then she'd just humiliate you by saying grace in the restaurant!!! If you do decide to do that though, at least have some fun with it - take her to a jewish deli or out for some kind of ethnic food eaten in islamic countries, and duck when the bagels and flatbread start flying!!!!!

I'm an Anglican and having WAY TOO MUCH FUN with this!!!! I'll put your name on our prayer list!!!

My bet is that the Surgeon Hahn is going to return and gun Izzy down for stealing her patient's heart. A Lesbian murderess should go a long way to gender equality amongst TV characters It also makes sense of why Dennythe ghost keeps saying "I am here for you Izzy" - maybe he means, I'm here to come and get you and take you away -

This is my prediction for the season's ending of Gray's Anatomy and I am putting it in print.

It fits perfectly with what the writer and directors probably want to do with Heigl.

She's a Roman Catholic and she's written on human rights and privacy. She lives her life in the middle of institutional contradictions. It's a good idea to get her to state where she stands: if her answer is complicated (above the grade 8 thinking level of espousing the views of our parents as our own), the American people can think through that. Right? Note: There may be irony in this comment.

They were married for six years?

He can provide additional health care support/insurance for her.

He can divorce her ethically having made sufficient provision for her.

Then he can marry you and have a family.

You don't want his money, right? So if it's really expensive, you'd support him in his ethical wish to do right, right?

And you don't want your kids to benefit by the sad sickening death of an impoverished suffering woman, right?

And, when he divorces you, after you have raised the kids and stuck with him through this recession, and you find that you have a breast tumour, you won't ask him for help and you'll let him go with fond wishes for his future, right?

of course you will.

There is such a thing as legal divorce. There is rarely such a thing as a clean break.

it's not your choice. It's his.

Carpool.

carpool