So, if "black" doesn't in fact mean black, then shouldn't Dickerson and pals make up a more accurate term?

This argument is odd, like claiming that only the descendants of Germanic ancestors in the Great Lakes region are "white." When visually if you're white, you're white.

I'm fairly certain if you're visually black, you're black. As far as the electorate is concerned.

a) This article is the very definition of white noise. Full of sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

b) Paris Hilton is not famous for a sex tape. She was already famous -- she's been relatively famous since at least 2001. And all the Paris Hilton-hating diatribes seem to forget that while Paris Hilton doesn't do much, she's been aggressively doing it for half a decade now, and successfully staying in the tabloids. In other words, she's famous for being famous.

Just to clarify, here...the message isn't consistent because it comes from two separate audiences. Lactivists appear to believe that breast is best and breast is best anywhere they choose to breastfeed. Most of the remainder of society doesn't really care how they choose to feed their children, but would also prefer not to see nudity in public regardless of the cause.

Since she had no moral compass, she assumes the rest of us who have not yet found her solution must not have one, either. Well, I know both chaste people and religious people, and I know people who are neither. And I think Dawn Eden's book and philosophy do a disservice to all of them.

My experience has been pretty much like hers, and I don't particularly care if my friends want to come to the mosh pit. Friend gets pregnant, friend reorients herself, friend can't be bothered to respond to invitations or extend common pre-pregnancy courtesies. Friend gets invitations from me and effort from me for roughly a year, and then I forget friend until she decides she's interested or doesn't in being my friend again. Better friends communicate their limitations ("gee, I'm so tired right now I can't stay up past 9!" "that plan won't work for me -- by any wild chance would you like to do x instead?") and remain committed to me as a friend. No biggie -- we'll spend more time together when they have it. Worse friends simply use their babymaking as an excuse for being a poor friend.

And really, in any context blowing people off and taking minimal interest in people with whom you're supposed to be in a mutual relationship is a bad move. But for some mothers, it's apparently standard procedure.

Refusing to fund a particular type of speech is not equal to censoring it.

It seems that according to the essay liberals are made by a steadfast unwillingness to make moal judgments. But heck, if this situation doesn't call for a moral judgment, then what does?

I'm sorry, I don't get why asking someone not to expose her breast in public is wrong. Someone please clarify for me why that's such an egregious request.

Really. I don't see how anyone can read that passage and not take it as anything else.

She is 26. She has three kids. She has no high school diploma and more than one man owes her child support. She was in court for her second forgery charge. Kudos to her for having her tubes tied.

Her mother said: "Mandy has always taken care of her kids. It made it look like she was a welfare bum." Not a welfare bum, lady -- a thief. And there's really no excuse for it.

I am a bit troubled by the fact that a married woman would not violate parole. But I'm all for asking women to think responsibly and limit their procreation, particularly when it's evident that existing children are beyond their capabilities.

The author of this piece needs to examine her prejudices. Charlotte Perkins Gilman? Please. It's a scientific study which could potentially be useful to folks attempting to conceive, not a conspiracy to repress women.

Also, the author seems to be offended that the study could highlight anything that infertile women could be doing more optimally. Which is, of course, silly, because there are behaviors that are better or worse for fertility. Like smoking, for example.

In my situation, there is another child who has no contact with the parents because he was lied to about his parentage until recently and is understandably unhappy about that. So, guess what the parents are doing -- seeing his children behind his back! The other child's wife brings the grandkids to see dear old deadbeat dad and his third wife and they have the kids call them "grandma" and "grandpa" while they smother them in gifts. They don't deserve access to the products of the son they didn't care for. But they get it, and this results in confusion for the grandkids, while the parents delusionally pretend that everything is fabulous and we kids are irrational and difficult. We kids, I'd like to point out, don't have illegitimate children, we don't guilt trip our loved ones, and we don't want to participate in dramatic revisionist histories. Which, of course, makes us bad people.

My point is this: those who suggest "not denying" your parents the ability to see their grandkids are acting as though there is no negative to allowing irrational, delusional, entitled people access to impressionable young children who have no context by which to judge their actions. However, depending on your parents, this might not be the case. Above all else, protect yourself and your family.