While I'm not an anti-abortion advocate, I can't help but wonder how is this handbook any different from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? From the text:

That perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.

The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Joan Walsh should be very familiar with vicious and outrageous personal attacks on office-seekers. How many did Salon run about Sarah Palin? Sotomayor hasn't had anything like those.

So when the going gets tough, the tough get...hairpats?

" I tried to follow, thinking I could get a teaching job, but unfortunately I did not fit the image of American language trainers (i.e., blond, blue-eyed) that they were looking for."

What country has one language school? This seems like BS.

The LW tosses around some pretty lofty language, "lost the ability to dream", "I'd only go back once I was a success", and so on, but I think the problem is that talk exceeds the action. Writing a study guide isn't the same as writing a textbook.

I also wonder about someone who wants to be a writer, but relies on inspiration. I'm a freelancer, and my bank balance inspires me on a daily basis, and has for 15 years.

Maybe the LW needs a little rest, maybe she needs a real job, but I don't think she needs Cary's brand of navel-gazing.

Wurtzel might well bemoan the loss of her looks, because face it, without her looks, she's not much of a package. She's personality-free, unless self-absorption counts as a personality. I don't care if her books are bad--lots of entertaining people write bad books--but she's a void, and not an appealing one.

Can she ever write about something other than herself?

Took the NYT long enough to respond this mess. That Andrews' editor, Dean Baquet, signed off on the story speaks poorly of his judgment. That PBS let Andrews respond to Megan McArdle on their site makes me wonder how much the MSM has invested in Andrews' narrative and the wider implications that are supposed to be drawn from the story.

But that darn blogosphere refused to play along. Andrews looks more like Woody Allen, wanting whatever his heart wants at all costs, than a simple wordsmith snookered by those greedy Libertarian mortgage brokers. He got the girl, he got the house, he got the book deal. Why is this man squawking?

Oy, the reading skills of Salon's faithful.

Andrews lived in DC, worked for the NYT. He didn't live in NYC.

Patty hadn't worked since the 1980s, but she got a job in retail, selling on commission. She brought in $2400 a month. Then, she got a better job, earning $60,000 a year. That's the job she had until she was laid off a year later.

His ex-wife paid the mortgage on the old house. He paid her alimony and child support.

I don't understand why Andrews and Patty plunged into joint accounts so quickly. If they'd slowed down a little, they could have observed each other's spending habits.

"As creative people, we do exist in fundamental opposition to the dominant culture"

Oh balderdash. The dominant culture is made up of all sorts of people create things, even if they don't get paid to do so. Cary really needs to get out more. And so does the LW.

Maybe the LW needs to communicate more directly with his audience. Try a blog. Try teaching a class or two--online, podcast, local community college, Yahoo group, etc.

His experience and wisdom can inspire and lead people, and he can take some time off from the cares of sick wife, his own illness, etc.