Although he may be more thoughtful than many ambitious husbands and fathers, it's still problematic that he looks at caring for their children as a burden on Michelle, which he can occasionally relieve by helping out.

Until we shift away from the default assumption that raising children is primarily a burden on the mother, and not a shared burden on both parents, women like Mrs. Obama will continue to sacrifice more -- no matter how thoughtful and introspective their husbands would like to believe themselves to be.

Neighbors make each other crazy. It was ever thus. That's why people are so quick to misread Robert Frost's famous poem on the subject. They assume the poem endorses the viewpoint of the thickheaded neighbor who repeats "Good fences make good neighbors," but the voice of the poem is much more closely aligned with the thoughtful neighbor who says "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out/And to whom I was like to give offense."

Angry parking guy is clearly trying to build a wall around something he cherishes -- "his" parking spot. LW is trying to build walls too, although in a less belligerent way, by wanting to avoid any interactions with the neighbors. My advice? You don't have to be friends with your neighbors (and you probably never will be with this one), but you shouldn't completely wall them out either. Get to know them at least a little bit, enough to understand the unwritten rules and mores of the place. That way you'll avoid unintentionally giving offense. Plus, it's handy to have someone in the building who will water your plants when you're away, and who you know well enough to turn to in an emergency.

Cary's description of the angry guy as a "creature" is amusing, and makes the point that people will act irrationally in defense of their habitat. One aspect of his approach seems to me entirely wrong, though: His immediate assumption of superiority over the neighbors. Thinking of them as Cary does guarantees you will never get to know or interact with them in a positive way, so I'd suggest you ignore this part of his answer:

"While you and I live in a complex, ribbon-shaped river of contingency, of memory and consequence, such creatures as you are now among live in an ever-present now."

Our civic discourse has become weirdly dominated by apologies, public acts of contrition, and demands for the same. I suppose this has something to do with our Puritan past; there's nothing like repentance and self-flagellation followed by forgiveness to warm the cockles of a fundamentalist heart. But this drawn-out aftermath has the unfortunate effect of magnifying the importance of the original act of rudeness and, worse, making it impossible to turn on the news without being forced to listen to the pseudo-contrite musings of the likes of Serena Williams, Kanye West, and, yes, Joe Wilson.

Dude was rude, he apologized once, let's move on. Why do I need to waste any more of my time thinking/reading/hearing about this bozo?

I'm sure all politicians say crass things about their rivals in unguarded moments. Just makes Latimer look like a bottom-feeder to try to cash in on reporting this stuff.

Have to agree with everyone else -- this new letters format sucks.

Obama's already proven he's willing to "stare down his own party," by abandoning or delaying promises important to his supporters (see FISA, DOMA, etc.). The question is whether he'll ever dare to stand up to his enemies, the Republicans and others seeking to kill or water down health care reform to the point of meaninglessness.

I get that there's a natural desire to rebut the outrageous and bigoted criticism of Judge Sotomayor, but I hate that the ridiculous trumped up fake controversy ("ooh, she's a racist") has obscured any actual examination of her record. As a liberal, I'm not sure that I should automatically be thrilled about this candidate, just because right-wing crazies hate her. Is it necessarily a good thing, for instance, that she rules against plaintiffs in discrimination cases 80% of the time? I fear that Democrats have become so beaten down by Republican attacks that in a weird self-hating way we act like it's a good thing if our nominee isn't actually liberal (or progressive, or whatever you want to call it). Conservatives are proud to proclaim that their candidates are proudly, well, conservative. Why is the left in this country falling all over itself to argue that Sotomayor is moderate, mainstream, middle-of-the road?

I thought that Judge Sotomayor was very compelling in her speech on the day that the President introduced her, but I'd like to know more about her. I'd be grateful if, instead of slavering over every ridiculous right-wing criticism, Salon could perform the actual journalistic service of investigating her record and opinions. In particular, I'd like to know more about her views on executive power. Given that President Obama is currently engaged in adopting and expanding Bush policies on secrecy, military tribunals, and indefinite detention without trial, this is likely to be a key issue before the Supreme Court in coming years. I'd like to see a Justice who would stand up against executive power grabs and erosion of civil liberties ... but I also fear that Obama must have made sure Sotomayor wouldn't oppose him on these issues before he nominated her. I'd like to learn more before leaping to conclusions, and I wish that Salon could be a news venue that helped readers to do so.

Good for the President! I was afraid he would be scared away by the initial negative (and racist) reaction when he floated her name. Glad he wasn't!