I thought this had a good possibility of being yet another one of those "I don't get it cause I'm just a big lovable lunkhead guy who needs his wife to reprimand him like she's his mother, and I'm completely heterosexual" takes on something involving the domestic realm. Glad to see the style and the brand were considered on more legitimate and less cutesy and trite grounds.

Would you be this angst-ridden if you were thinking about contacting and thanking another GUY who helped you through some difficult crap a long time ago? Just askin.

If you were under 30 when you produced either kid, then leaving would be understandable. Staying makes you "admirable" (and "heroic" in reference to your kids).

If you were over 30 when you produced either kid, leaving makes you "ridiculous" (and a "scumbag" in reference to your kids) and staying makes you nothing special.

Usually articles by fathers who stay home with kids end up being tiresome boasts about how idiotic, incompetent and lazy they are at it and how those are somehow a virtues instead of proof of idiocy and incompetence and laziness.

I'm guessing these shortfalls are common to any male or female parent, but instead of admiring himself for his oh-so-adorable limitations, Traister identified them as idiocy, incompetence, and laziness.

Nice to see that in an era in which we're bombarded with movie and beer commercial stereotypes of men as idiotic, incompetent and lazy.

That's what we call it in the 'hood

It's boring as HELL.

You're obviously co-dependent because you recognize what bullshit you're putting up with. That means you are to blame. Your choices are to dump the idiot and be rid of the problem and your sick attachment to it, or stay and obey his wishes while writing letters to advice columnists. If you stay, it's not your jerk boyfriend's fault if you continue to be abused, it's yours.

That was almost a courageous article you wrote there, Amanda, but you chickened out, didn't you?

There is such thing as a "sex" of male or female that most of us qualify as, even if you want to use semantics to claim there isn't. Please.

One's level of interest and grief is directly related to how much appreciation he has for Jackson as an entertainer.

If you came of age with the Jackson Five or Thriller you'll probably be sad and think Jackson got a bad rap. If you aren't a pop music fan or his music had no relevance in your life, you'll be turned off by the coverage and more likely to believe Jackson was a pedophile (doubtful from the evidence which consists of a couple of hangers on accusing a rich guy who never evidenced any sexual tendencies of any kind whatsoever).

In general. Why argue the point?

Obama fans voted for Barack because they were "in love" with Barack. There was zero pressure on the campaign to adopt or display any liberal tendencies or policies then and there is zero now that he's in office. All he has to do is impress conservatives now. Nobody should be surprised by this. The shock would have been if he turned out to be different from Bush.

We have to confront a painful question about our President. Many of us were convinced that he would be very different from his predecessor in matters of civil liberties.

And many of us were not. It's better to elect people who think they have something to prove to the base instead of people who know they can take the base for granted. Obama knew and continues to know he can take the base for granted. You'll continue to get nothing you expected from this administration. Live and learn.

This makes me wonder where are all the "Let's just give him a chance. He has a lot on his plate, so let's give him some time." people are.

Well they're probably not COMPLETE idiots and they probably do have some shame.

Mi>Obama has reversed the system of abuse, in case you hadn't noticed, by making it illegal. All Obama is arguing is that there is a no-win scenario that Bush has left him that may require specific exemptions to legal due process due to the thuggish nature of the Bush crimes.

This is a viable argument because it is specific, it refers only to a single period of lawlessness prior to Obama's election, and only applies to a specific group tarnished by the Bush crimes.

Holy shit am I glad I didn't vote for the clown and end up forced to say stuff like that.

Obama has reversed the system of abuse, in case you hadn't noticed, by making it illegal. All Obama is arguing is that there is a no-win scenario that Bush has left him that may require specific exemptions to legal due process due to the thuggish nature of the Bush crimes.

This is a viable argument because it is specific, it refers only to a single period of lawlessness prior to Obama's election, and only applies to a specific group tarnished by the Bush crimes.

Holy shit am I glad I didn't vote for the clown and end up forced to say stuff like that.

Clinton would be moderately better on this issue, substantially better on the economy, infinitely better on health care and gay rights. We'd get about what we expected, maybe some pleasant surprises. Those of us who didn't predict a difference between Obama and Bush are getting what we expected from an Obama administration. His supporters however are getting a rude awakening.

Edwards wasn't much more qualified than Palin

This is no different than a blackface movie would be in 1965 but it's OK because gay men don't make up enough of the population to matter. It's a safe minority to mock and ridicule and even if a debate is raging right this moment about whether gays are criminally perverted or not, or deserve equal rights, it's irresistible fun to laugh at them right?