We seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that lawsuits exist simply because they can. Something we're missing, however, is a view of the alternatives available to us. Namely, there are none. The various boards related to medical practice in the United States are fairly effective with regard to regulating general healthcare standards. However, they are appallingly ineffective when it comes to dealing with malpractice. It has been demonstrated in several separate studies that a very small number of physicians are responsible for the vast majority of malpractice cases -- yet virtually always they continue to practice.

My grandmother died of medical malpractice several years ago. I assure you I'd rather have her back or have her death result in better standards for other patients than have the settlement that accompanied her death. But unfortunately when the system reduces patients to dollar signs while simultaneously refusing to uphold medical standards, the only mechanism we have for reform is legal and monetary.

I disagree strongly with those who feel that people are guaranteed the right to know their genetic history. They are not, and no amount of knowledged is going to preclude certain medical considerations or give someone a family they feel they do not have. All this ruling does is create a disincentive for people to donate.

Re: Smith's letter, I'm totally pro-choice, and I would not suggest that we legislate private medical decisions under any circumstances.

However, I would hope that this experience would inform the insurance companies and healthcare providers of the world such that they do not encourage couples to pursue similar, expensive courses of action. And as someone who pays for health insurance, I sincerely do not wish to be complicit in such a birth, even as someone whose premiums might support such activity.

The airport itself isn't bad, but there are a lot of factors that have combined to make it a place I hate to fly out of. (Preferring Greenville-Spartanburg or Chattanooga, which is gorgeous, elegant, and unhurried.)

I've been griping on my blog about Hartsfield because of the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get into the airport. Yeah, so it's pretty good once you get in. But from out here it's a two-hour drive in, often there is no parking that is not offered by a private vendor (which, of course, there are no signs to), and unlike most other airports Hartsfield has pooled all of its security stations into one giant station. It can take up to an hour to go through the act of shuffling around a massive line, taking off your shoes, and all the other stuff.

It's definitely not in line with Dakar, Senegal, but it's wildly and irritatingly inconvenient.

Just have to chime in here. I was glad to see neither Newark nor LaGuardia on the "worst" list, but a lot of people like to bitch about them. I, on the other hand, love them. So they're not sexy. No matter -- I've gotten through both efficiently and with decent customer service on 50+ flights over the last few years. There's something to be said for utility.

I'm not going to armchair quarterback an incident I didn't see myself. But I disagree with and am angered that Broadsheet would publish a blurb of this sort, with the conclusion it eventually comes to.

1. Women are not necessarily parents, and I am tired of seeing issues related to parenting grouped in with women's news. We are already in a pink ghetto of sorts in Broadsheet -- it is not necessary or positive to compound this by communicating expectations of roles for women by including stories which are about roles women may play, rather than those that are expressly functions of gender.

2. The language of this piece is overly judgmental. But if you want to call me wierd for not wanting to see nudity or endure screaming at high decibels next to my head, then that is your problem. And I would argue rude and irrational.

3. The conclusion is similarly biased and unwarranted. I expect children to behave appropriately wherever they are. No person has any right to compel parents of anyone else to do things which are illegal, unwarranted, or otherwise against their parenting philosophy. But at the same time, we all have the right to demand and receive equal treatment the use of public spaces in a way that does not unduly inconvenience or harm us.

It's a papier-mache baby pinata . Which the woman ostensibly will be swinging at without being able to see where it is or what it is. Which is a pretty good metaphor for the issue at hand, really. The author and her husband are fumbling, blindfolded, toward notions of parenting, uncertain as to whether or not they shall attain it.

It's only disturbing if you're overly sensitive, and it's completely appropriate.

What? You have to pay the nanny? Cry me a frickin' river.

1. Any child old enough to be a camp counselor in training is also old enough to watch herself for a few hours or to act as bartered labor, probably at the same stable that already employs her. And Losee's insistence on entertaining her kids constantly is probably bad for them, as well as completely impossible for most families of modest means. Like here, locally, my poorer clients send their kids to stay with grandma, enroll them in low-cost camps or practically free programs at the library, or simply leave them home alone. Which, by the way, is perfectly o.k. for a reasonably competent middle-schooler with minimal oversight.

2. We have year-round school here -- it's a public school option that involves about an extra month of education and four multi-week vacations interspersed throughout the year as well as a few long weekends. Does Losee not have any equivalent available?