Isn't this like any 'showing' category - dogs, cats, horses, etc? The look of the winning contestants follows the requirements of the judges, which follows the current trend, which follows the requirements of the judges...

The way the kids end up looking in the photos (which are extraordinarily unsettling, to me) is really a product of a runaway selection mechanism (which can't be controlled in any effective way).

It seems a little over the top to accuse the parents of abuse when all they're doing is conforming to the norms of the group that they're part of. You may not like those norms, but that doesn't make the parents perverts or sadists or anything else particularly unsavory. They're enthusiasts for a particular form of competition, and there's no prima facie evidence to suggest it's particularly bad for the kids.

Or maybe when letter writers say 'abuse' and 'pornography', what they really mean is 'I don't like it, and you're not allowed to like it either'. They're not your kids: butt out.

Hey, a bunch of letters attacking the author for her relationship with her (ex-) husband, and stating that she must be bad in bed?

Come on, guys, that's just mean. Uncalled for. Ad hominem is terribly bad form, you know.

And, anyway, how the hell do you think you know enough to make those criticisms? (unless maybe all those letter authors are pseudonyms for her ex...)

Don't listen to them, Mary E.

Lovely article, MEW. Laugh-out-loud funny (which is saying something at 0740 on a Monday morning in November).

My guess: we have the BBC, which shows commercial-free TV, and which has a big share of the ratings. You get used to not having your programmes interrupted by advertisements, and it's annoying to watch other channels (ITV, Channel4, satellite channels) that do have ad breaks. So people quickly adopt the technology (first video recorders, now DVRs) which allows removal of advertisements.

Living in the USA, I'm continually amazed that some people don't have DVRs. How can anyone stand watching TV with 22 minutes of ad breaks per hour?

Sorry to hear about your mother, Patrick.

I see others have also asked for your take on the recent taxiway landing, which is clearly a much more dangerous event than the distracted/sleeping pilots in the Minneapolis event.

I think one of the problems with this issue is that most people don't understand the science/technology at all. (And, of course, don't feel any need to make the effort to do so). Probably the underlying allegation is not that the air output of the air packs is being reduced, but that one of the packs is being switched off to reduce fuel consumption (by reducing use of bleed air). It is re-expressed by travellers as 'less oxygen' and 'poor air quality', or 'higher cabin temperature' which may or may not be true (I mean: I've got no idea what the CO2 content/temp of air would be with only 1 pack running).

This is also the gist of SometingStinks' post, but without the paranoid delusions. This topic really gets the crazies excited, doesn't it? Amusing for the rest of us.

The sad introverted males can stop writing their complaints about this sort of letter at the same time the daffy females stop complaining about how their exciting outlaw boyfriends have cheated/dumped/stolen from them.

LW, grow up. If you want excitement, get exciting, not a different flavor of boyfriend. Needing a man to make your life exciting is hardly the last word in feminist self-realization, is it?

A year after 9/11, say, I can see the point of publishing articles about widows, widowers, bereaved kids, etc. 2 years, maybe, 3, 4 ...

Now it's 8 years. During that period, about 250,000 people have died in traffic accidents in the US. They are every bit as dead, and (mostly) quite as innocent as those who died on 9/11. I'm sure their relatives feel every bit as unhappy as the relatives of those who died on 9/11.

For how long does a specific group of dead people get preferential remembrance? What about firefighters or policemen who've died in the line of duty since 9/11, but who aren't fetishized in the same way? Are they somehow less special?

No disprespect intended to the dead or the living. But at some point, the status of the relatives of the 9/11 dead should merge with the status of all those who've been unlucky enough to be bereaved before or since then.

Lisa: I'm so fucked up and interesting and exciting.

World: No, you're fucked up and dull.