I have been watching Scarborough's show much more often lately, and have even come to enjoy the contrast of seeing him right after Olbermann. I am a bit leary of his seeking to put his past support of the president in terms that are more benign than they really were, however:

When he says, "At the same time, I believed then, and I still believe now, that what we did in Iraq was worth trying," I hear: Well, our little forays into setting up governments is worth the lives of all those people, and has an honorable history stretching back to Manila where it cost about 100,000 Filipinos their lives.

When he says: "I suppose the biggest criticism, really, should be leveled at Donald Rumsfeld for trying to win the war on the cheap, like Tom Friedman and others have been saying," I hear: Yet I failed to denounce those who labeled such writers as traitors, and dismissed such criticism as being the usual crap from the liberal media.

When he says: "You want [Bush] asking tough questions of aides who actually disagree with him," I hear: We were tired of poll-driven presidencies and wanted someone who would act decisively, unilaterally if need by, to get the job done.

And when he says: "If you talk to people [in Washington], they'll all tell you basically the same thing, that the president is a man who's not only politically incurious, but is also a leader who does not like dissent, and I think that's very dangerous," I hear: Yes, the president is an idiot, in the way that any person is an idiot who does not heed the advice of experts, wastes others' money, bears responsibility for senseless loss of life, makes enemies of friends seemingly for sport, and insists that others toe his line simply because he has told them to do so.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and conservatives are saying publicly what conservatives have been saying privately, I guess it's finally alright to be critical of the president without having your patriotism and loyalty questioned. I bet that it won't be too long until conservatives begin adapting the old McCarthy era condemnation of being "premature anti-Fascist" into something equally accusatory.

You quoted me saying:

>> Mr. Epps makes a fine point when he notes that Lincoln's being an attorney made him above all else a man who respected the rule of law.<<

To which you responded:

No, being an attorney confers only an awareness of the law, not necessarily respect.

I think you missed the fine point of my writing "Lincoln's" in the sentence. See, without it, your rebuttal makes sense. (True, being an attorney does not, ipso facto, make you someone who respects the rule of law.) But by writing Lincoln's name I concurred with Mr. Epps in that it did indeed make President Lincoln an attorney who respected the rule of law. You rebutted a generalization, while I wrote of a specific instance.

I feel sorry for the LW who must contend with this age-old problem, but what is with the whole "we both went to top flight schools, we're successful, we're accomplished" baloney? Is this to distinguish the behavior from something we can see on "Jerry Springer"? I know there should be no expectation of self-awareness, except for the fact that some people wear their intelligence and self-awareness on their sleeves every hour of every day.

I heartily agree with Cary -- sometimes cats is cats, as they say, and an appropriately timed "Fuck you" is not only le mot juste, but is nothing more or less than the woman deserves. And let her find her own way to the reunion.

Good call, Cary, if necessarily harsh. I am exhausted by the christenings of babies of nonreligious people. What is the point? Almost within a week these sacred oaths (if you're a believer) are forgotten and the family is not in church. My sister calls such events "The 'The' Festival" -- you have to have "the" church, "the" robe, "the" hall, "the" caterer, ad nauseum, because rituals performed for the sake of ritual must follow cookie-cutter patterns. There is so little feeling, emotion, or honesty (shame on the Church for its participation in this sham) that you feel just a bit fraudulent participating.

I say the woman is lucky to get a sneak preview of the hell that may very well be awaiting her come time for a church wedding. Grab the kid and head to Las Vegas, lady, because if your in-laws are this whacked over the christening, imagine the wedding!

Really boring, with the pregnant sense of import that irks me most. Bummer.

I'm 48 now, and my only memories of homework in school are that I only did if for the courses in which I had an interest. I'm sure I handed in the math and chem stuff, but none of that has stuck. I do remember the evenings spent laboriously drawing maps of Africa and Asia, plotting the capitals, choosing colors for the different countries. Flash forward 30 years when I decide to get my Master's and guess what? There still wasn't enough time to get it all done -- the reading, the research, the writing. It's no surprise that I still had the habit of concentrating on the stuff I liked, and paying scant attention to that which bored me.

How about keeping schools open until 5:30? Whatever homework the kid can get done by then is all that he is called upon to do. The kids are supervised, parents don't have to scramble to get out of work early, and the study halls can be monitored by teachers for extra pay, or college or grad school students for experience. It's not a perfect plan, but it could be a start.