I get what you're saying about “creating new syndromes.” Too often they seem designed to confirm the status quo—“pay no attention to that normal but unhealthy behavior. That's just a syndrome.”

Or it creates something at which pharmaceutical companies can throw drugs. Eg., diagnose a kid with ADHD and drug him. That way we don't have to deal with the fact that maybe we shouldn't be forcing small children to sit at a desk all day doing rote memorization in an overcrowded classroom.

However, naming things gives real sufferers a chance to come out of the closet and get help. Whether most depressed moms are experiencing “normal people depression” or “normal life change depression,” or “normal hormonal change depression,” they're people who need help. Let’s find out some more about them and see what we can do. For some, the primary answer might be medication. But for many, I suspect the answer will be wholesale social change.

You're absolutely right about Ron Paul on abortion. Progressives who admire Paul for his stance on Iraq, his "read the Constitution" answer during the "economy debate," etc. should remember that about Ron Paul.

Progressives, Ron Paul is still a kook on some issue and differs greatly from you on certain important positions. I admire the man. I think he's got integrity, which is sorely lacking in the political arena. And I think he adds a lot to the debates. I hope he makes a good showing. But I don't want him as my president.

Aside to bernbart: that women were maimed or killed under pre-Roe back-alley abortions is irrelevant to many pro-lifers. In their eyes, these women had bad things happen to them while they were murdering innocent babies. Just desserts. And I agree with you that the idea that women get "abortion on demand," is grossly inaccurate.

I'm sorry you feel angry and sad regarding your first-hand experience with abortion. Please find a trained counselor to talk to about this. I'm afraid you'll find no solace and peace in an online thread about Ron Paul.

Please seek help for these unresolved feelings of rage.

Look, Republicans either know Giuliani has been a liberal, RINO Republican and won't vote for him because of it, or they know and they don't care because they think of him as their 9/11 Protector-Hero.

What I find funny in the Charlie Rose interview is that Rudy says he "ran a fusion candidacy." I wonder if Romney will adopt that terminology, too. What sort of fusion is that, Rudy? One of fact and fiction? One of flip and flop? One of "I'll say anything to get elected" and "I'll say anything to get elected?"

Or is it like "Fusion Cuisine?" Gawd, I hate that. Pretentious food in tiny servings on massive plates.

I agree with you that "no one can agree on when life starts." And I don't think science will be answering that anytime soon if ever.

And since people won't agree when life begins in the womb, I (like bignose) believe we should defer to the one we know is alive--the woman.

When life begins is not a matter for the courts or the states. It's between a woman and her family, a woman and her god and/or a woman and her heart.

Also, I'm not going to argue the "few hours before, few hours after birth" point. It's an extreme of the issue that statistically does not happen.

Some people believe a fetus is a life equivalent to a sentient, breathing person. I respectfully disagree. But I won't dictate what should happen in some other woman's womb and hope pro-lifers will accept the same.

Enacting, enforcing and educating people about such legislative will be a tough battle. And we'll likely end up with a lot less than the candidates are proposing.

But it's a start.

National, centrists leaders are finally starting to talk seriously about reconciling work-family issues. Which is good news for both liberals and social conservatives. If you're serious about family values and the breakdown of the family, let's start doing something besides name-calling.

Agreed. It's funny because it hints at the truth.

Ah, just another memorable Bush quote to add to the history books. Most schools are pretty bad at covering modern history (there's a huge end-of-the-year scramble), so it's probably a couple of generations away.

But 60 or 90 years from now, some kids are gonna go "wow."

Wow.

When it's framed as a "why do parents get to take time off to take care of children?" it doesn't work. Caregiving is hard work. I bet many of those caregivers wish they could escape to the office sometimes.

But the fact that other co-workers have to pick up the slack is a valid one. Some solutions:

• I think cross-training is important. It makes it easier for co-workers to efficiently share the absent worker's duties.
• Companies should consider hiring temps (one eg.: college kids with flexible schedules) to pick up the slack. Especially if the absent worker is on leave without pay. That way, added costs would be minimal.
• See if the absent worker can work part time or work from home.
• Extend leave options to single or childless workers to care for sick siblings, grandparents, etc.

And overall, companies should be cognizant of the fact that people have lives outside of work. Use job-sharing, staggered work hours and telecommuting where possible.

Of course, many of these suggestions mainly apply to office workers. Many hourly workers would benefit greatly from subsidized day-care and reliable transportation. Those two things alone can cut back on a lot of absenteeism.