Or at least, kids *should* know about the parts. They have them, whether they use them or not. They know they're there, and not talking about them doesn't make them go away. The parts themselves, how they operate and what they do, are *facts* -- it's only the choices you make as to how to use them that are subject to opinions and moral judgments.

If you can't talk to kids about human "parts" maybe you should start with animal parts and work up to it. Isn't that what zoos are for? I volunteer at a seal rookery, and I've learned to use a wide range of terminology and specificity of detail depending on the audience. I've found the fastest way to get some street cred and attention from a group of 10 to 14-year-olds is to introduce the word "penis" in a matter of fact way early on. When they start to giggle or snicker or do that "didja hear, she said 'penis' " nudging I just fix them with a cool eye and say "we're all grown up enough to talk about this, right?" and they shape right up. On the other hand, I still snicker myself about the nine-year-old girl who kept pestering me to tell her *exactly* how the seals "did it" until finally I said: "Seals are mammals, and like all mammals, the male has a penis and the female has a vagina. The male puts his penis in the female's vagina ..." at which point she shrieked "eeeewww" and ran away. Hey, she asked!

" ... And if one wants to take care of one’s family, there is absolutely nothing stupider than to start a war with the custodial parent of one’s child and his or her family."

I'm sure you could (and did) find many things to criticize Levi for, but wasn't it the Palins who started the war over the kid by restricting access to Tripp for Levi and his family? I think the Johnsons, especially Levi's hillbilly-heroin-dealing mom, were too trashy/redneck for the now upwardly mobile Palins. IIRC, it wasn't until the Palins turned on Levi and his family that the Johnstons returned the favor.

Another aspect of this that I find disturbing: if they searched five students, that means they didn't have probable cause to believe that *any* of them had actually stolen the money, or even that the money was stolen (and not lost) at all. They were on a fishing expedition, which puts it even farther beyond the bounds of what might be considered reasonable.

OMG! Women who are over 30 are hip to technology. It must be because they were introduced to it by their children. Except that social networks of various kinds have been around since the '80s, and certainly since the web revolution of the mid-90s. In 1995, women who are 35-50 now were 21-36, and right in the middle of the dot.com boom. How many years does the internet have to be around before people stop writing articles expressing their astonishment that anyone over 30 is familiar with it?

The "new" social networks are just fancier versions of social networks that have been around for decades. Usenet, anyone?

I'm with Silenced. Homelessness is about a lot more than not having a house. There are many, many people who are simply not capable of functioning in the ways needed to keep a roof over their heads. That's where the will and determination come in: giving "a house" to someone who is not going to be able to sustain a household in ways as simple as taking out the trash is simply a waste. These unfortunates need other kinds of housing support.

Eighteen -- the legal age of adulthood. That's where I draw the line. Okay, some 17-year-old boy has already done it, but they didn't ask me, and if they had, I would have said the same thing. Just because some different authority let a 17-year-old boy do something stupid is no reason why we should let someone else (male or female) do it in some misguided attempt at fairness or gender equity.

If she wants to take this journey, the ocean will still be there in two years, and it will still be an adventure. The only reason to do it now, instead of waiting, is to set a record. That's not a good enough reason, IMHO.

I don't know if it was "some legislator" but a fictional Democratic legislator/presidential candidate on "The West Wing" suggested it way back in 2005. (Season 7, episode 139, "The Debate" http://www.megavideo.com/?v=3I0UR2OH): Delete the words 'over 65' from the Medicare program and give everyone the option of choosing Medicare instead of their private insurance.

Presumably the West Wing writers didn't pull that idea out of thin area, so I have to assume it's been floating around for a very long time.

As for this article, the writer just sounds jealous that Keith Olbermann has a more visible platform than he does.