I recall a pandering Newsweek article on Jack Welch years ago that was really nothing more than a plug for his new book and new wife--former Havard Business Review editor Suzy Wetlaufer. (Many may recall that Wetlaufer was forced out at Harvard for the revelation of an affair with the then-married Welch.)

After prattling on for many paragraphs (it's the author's choice to craft a lengthy prattle, I know) about his triumphs and genius, Welch somewhat sheepishly admitted to having been a pretty poor husband and father. It seemed clear at the time that he was hanging his head a bit for abandoning the family because the broader culture demands it. Now he seems to be embracing the idea that work and family is really just a binary choice, not a balancing act. And I would add that he seems to be tacitly endorsing the choice of winning in the marketplace versus the home. Nice.

I find it easy to loathe Ann Coulter, but difficult to determine conclusively who won this ad hoc war between left and right. I'd love to know how you determined a winner. Did Behar say everything you would have said to Coulter?

Everything wrong with political dialogue in this country is plainly evident in the fact anyone thinks there was a clear winner to this pathetic 'debate.'

I voted for Obama, am thrilled that he won, felt all gooey and warm when he actually took the oath of office, and enjoyed a somewhat increased sense of security this morning when I saw photos of him instead of W at the desk in the oval office. I get it/share it.

And I know that Salon skews to the left (why I read it) and probably shouldn't be held to the same standard of objective journalism that the New York Times and Washington Post try to observe in their daily reporting.

Still, I can't figure out why a writer/reporter would offer up such obsequious drivel as this right out of the gate. I mean, Obama is a politician. He's going to appoint people who screw up (see Timothy Geithner). He will stumble and perhaps even fail, given the enormity of the challenges he faces. Joan, you've already lost the ability to write about the Obama administration with even a hint of perspective. Why lock yourself into that?

When I combine the Obama coverage now with the hysterical Palin stories of a few months ago, I start to think the National Review looks downright moderate. How did we get here?

As a fellow ex-Mormon, I share many of the LW's frustrations with the church of my youth. I, too, was troubled by the stand on black men and the priesthood, and the failure to give anywhere near equal standing to women. But a mission experience and bit more exposure to the world demonstrated that all religions have both elements of discrimination and wacky creation myths and practices. Every time someone starts in about how freakish the story of Joseph Smith seems, I think of the belief by ardent Catholics that the wafer actually changes to flesh upon ingestion. Nice.

The LW finally and officially left the Mormons because they exercised their rights of free speech, which she felt personally impinged on her existence. This was an understandable response and, I think, the correct one for her. But she is also using that political expression as an excuse to bash the entire religion and all its members, and to paint them with the weirdo brush when Mormonism is merely one among many religions the doctrines of which are impossible to swallow as literal truth.

Ultimately, if the LW is waiting for the Mormons and, I suspect, other societal institutions to meet her expectations before dispensing with her anger, she's going to spend much of life pissed off. This is precious energy wasted on other people's thoughts and actions, and I hope she can get past it to live a life of joy and fulfillment.