Sarah Palin is a joke of monumental proportions. She was foisted on America by a senile old man and propped up by cynical campaign staffers. Lest we forget, her foreign policy positions can be summed up as "what is the Bush Doctrine" and "I can see Russia from my house." Therefore if Newsweek wants to take humorous liberties with her image, an image she approved and posed for, I have no problem. Just because she happens to be a woman, doesn't mean she is immune from a scathing critique. She is getting the same treatment that any man would get if he acted, posed, preened, and conversed the way Palin does.

And finally, if she wants to be taken seriously as a politician, then she needs to start acting like a serious politician. Until then, such photos just go along with the person she is creating for herself.

No. You are not a stalker. You are not creepy. Is it creepy to watch reality TV? Is it creepy to read a family's Christmas letter? No. No. No. You are reading a public blog on a public website. She is, by posting on a public blog on a public website, by default inviting you to read her musings. Honestly, I'm not sure about the antiquated pollyanna's on here who paint you with the creepy brush when you are doing something she has invited you to do. Furthermore you are doing something everybody does, whether via a blog, a TV show, or a Christmas letter.

I give the side eye to all on here who, in one form or another, say something like this: "Oh this is just silly. Parents shouldn't be getting so involved in the toys kids choose to play with. Just let kids beeeeee."

Ooooookkkkkaaaaay.

My only question to these parenting experts would be this: do their kids watch TV? Do they send their kids to school? Do their kids have play dates with other children? Do they take their kids to the movies? If so, all these people/things/megacorps are most definitely getting involved in the way their kids should/should not play. So why shouldn't the parents also play a role? If American consumerism is telling little girls that they should be fluffy, pink princesses, in glitter and tulle, then I see no problem, nay I see it as a parental duty, for parents to counteract this "hyper-girlism" that is currently permeating modern, mainstream American culture today.

But no. Parents should just butt-out of play time. Only Mattel gets a say. Got it.

Should I feel guilty that I will never get those 3 minutes back that I just wasted reading this drivel? The answer is no. Even if I should feel guilty, no one here cares. This is the same answer to your navel gazing, insensitive question.

Seriously, is there some 9/11 widow out there begrudging you your happiness? If not, what exactly is the point of this exercise? You are happy. Wonderful. Excellent. Comparing and contrasting your happiness to the suffering of others is nothing but gratuitous and cruel. For shame.

Once again, I question how this man got an advice column...

In any case, money is the number one reason why marriages end. Having conversations about money is both extremely important and a minefield of issues. If you are just casually dating someone with no intention to marry, sure, do as Cary says and "have fun." But if, as you say, you feel there is long term future here, it is important to share what your personal goals are with respect to money and hope she does the same. Maybe it's a giant buzz kill to have a convo about retirement, savings, debt, and etc., but it's also a buzz kill to be in a marriage where one believes in financial prudence and the other believes in lavishness. And really, this has nothing to do with your individual bank statements (although, congrats on your respective ancestor's wise decisions). All couples, regardless of means, have to come to a consensus on finances.

Okay now; kids know, or have an inkling of knowledge, that parents have sex too. That doesn't mean they need a discussion with the parents on parental nooky time.

That said, until and unless LW is ready to have a frank discussion about the deleterious effects of copious amounts of marijuana on humans, vis-a-vis the father, I think she may do more harm than good. If she can't have this discussion then it does feel as if she is using the son as an emotional crutch. The elephant in the room is not whether son knows or doesn't know, but why on earth did mom stay and subject son to a habitual wake and bake? Why on earth did dad think being a voracious toker made for a good fatherly role model? The precise mental state of the son as it relates to his dad's habits is chasing the white rabbit down the wrong hole.

If nothing else, LW should examine her true motivation for spilling the beans and then honestly contemplate how her son will process/utilize this information. Is there a net benefit to the son by sharing this info? If not, why do it?

And WTF was all that from Cary? Maybe he is a good writer, but his advice is almost always incomprehensible.