I can think of no other period in the history of mankind when parents have been so bombarded with opinion masquerading as "expertise", designed solely to undermine the parents' belief that they're capable of raising healthy children.

There is no "trend" in "helicopter parenting", notwithstanding what the "experts" at the New York Times would have you believe. There isn't a "trend" in anything unless you can show that the behavior in question has increased in frequency. But, we have no measure of "involvement" against which to compare current parents. These articles only highlight one or two stories about individual pet peeves, and use that to support the argument that there is something "new" happening, that wasn't here last year or the year before. It reminds me of the time I read a tabloid article in London, about the "trend" of road rage, which apparently originated in America and then "spread" to Britain. I couldn't imagine it being a "trend" -- remember "Mister Walker and Mister Driver"? But who cares? Of course, there's the added element of this "trend" having originated in America, like all nasty things, and "spread" across the Atlantic Ocean to infect Britain. It made me curious to know whether barroom brawling might also be a brand new trend -- one that originated in Britain and spread to America.

But I digress.

I've never seen a single article explaining how America's current crop of parents are "overinvolved" in contrast, for example, with parents in India, where parents get together and bargain over the terms of their children's marriage; or with parents in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for whom a daughter's virginity appears to be a piece of property belonging to pretty much everybody in the family except the daughter. I haven't seen anyone offer any hard and fast data on how parents of years gone by are somehow less controlling of their offspring, and when I read Warner's article I'm struck by the lack of reference, for example, to the fact that Felix Mendelssohn was locked in an attic for hours and forced to practice violin; that Mozart was unable to marry, even as an adult, against his father's wishes and only finally did so upon the urging of the Emperor; that parents who saw Shirley Temple onscreen rushed their children off to Hollywood in the hopes that one child could serve as the family's ticket out of poverty; and that Chris Everett's youthful career resulted in mobs of parents dragging their children off to the nearest tennis pro for their own ticket to stardom.

I think the "experts" see what they expect to see. For example, when I first read about the Meier case, I was struck by how deeply caring Mrs. Meier was, how she did nothing wrong, how she monitored her daughter's online activities for all the "right" things. Somehow, though, when we're looking for a "trend" in parenting, why aren't we looking to her excellent example? Why did Warner only spot a "trend" in Lori Drew's behavior?

I really have to wonder why some entirely benign trend like this one has to set off alarms about, as Carol Lloyd theorizes, "hyperinvolved parents discovering themselves through their kids illnesses".

Try as I might, I can't imagine anything in this survey that suggests it's yet another symptom of the same tired out insulting stereotype: the silly little paranoia of today's mothers -- oops, I almost forgot, we're all supposed to pretend we're talking about fathers, too. Thankfully, nobody's going to suggest we do anything as daring as examining whether this stereotype has any basis in fact.

Why on earth is it so legitimate to bash women who have kids, for no earthly reason? If men get symptoms of pregnancy in sympathy with their wives, as they've done for generations, don't we think it's adorable?

Can we stop with the stereotyping of women by other women? Please? As far as I can tell, this is an interesting observation: conditions which have only recently been diagnosable in children are being diagnosed. And, when these conditions are known to have a genetic component, parents -- which really means WOMEN -- are beginning to recall having the same symptoms themselves.

But since there's no discernable difference between normal female parenting and mental illness, the clear explanation is that these women are overidentifying and trying to hog the attention, not to mention the meds, for themselves.

Great job, Broadsheet. Which side are you on?

Is there any film footage of Jesse Jackson crying over the Katrina victims?

Thought not.

I thought Obama made a great showing in Iowa and earned a hard-fought victory, but this Obamination is costing him my support. Same goes for Edwards "Hey, that's why girls aren't allowed in the clubhouse" remark.

The day they withstand the level of vitriol from establishment commentators and pundits that she has, let them comment on the "right" and "wrong" reasons for a voice to waiver. Not one of them has gone through the hazing she's been through.

Senator Clinton's voice waivered when someone said a kind word to her. I've done the exact same thing: I can take any amount of abuse at work, but heaven help me if, in the midst of the shitstorm, someone says one gracious word of encouragement. She wasn't responding to stress, she was responding to kindness.

The poll was obviously taken in the Minneapolis Airport men's room.

Here's a great left-handed compliment:

No candidate has proved to be a complete dud.

I am at a loss for words.