I was a stay at home dad in 1970-74 and again in 1981-1985. The myth that either gender is specifically more suited to caring for young children is just that: a myth. And breast feeding? Ever hear of a breast pump? They even had those forty years ago.

While I had outside interests in the evening (I'm a musician, and thus perennially low income), I thoroughly enjoyed being home with my infant and toddler daughters during the day. The experience carried over to my girls' teenage years and on into adulthood.

All in all, being a dad was something I found to be both the most fulfilling and challenging task I took on in my life. It's not for everybody, but I'm glad that it is becoming more and more acceptable and commonplace. It certainly wasn't so thirty plus years ago.

Not to quibble with your point - which I agree with - but let us leave the "fuzzy math" to the boy genius.

That's weird... when I read appalacian I hear a banjo bein' played at the end of a dirt road somewhere. Where's John Voight?

If the projections of the article come to pass maybe they should call it the Kali.

"A noun, a verb and 9/11"

You made this old cynic cry real tears.

Full disclosure: I'm a long time chief steward of a 400 member AFSCME local.

It's my belief and life's work to provide the nuts and bolts member services that I believe are the core raison d’ entre for having a union. I've never felt pressure to back candidates from my state council; in particular not national candidates. Sure, AFSCME national is backing Clinton this time, and honestly, I'll vote for ANY Democratic candidate gladly. But no one has ever tried to shout me down or actually argue with me about such things. And I've diaagreed publically with McEntee himself, and while he offered a good debate, he never made me feel like I shouldn't voice my opinion.

I would never try to intimidate any brother or sister into voting a particular way. If you have to resort to intimidating you're breaking the bond of union solidarity. Intimidation is for our adversaries across the table and should then only be in the form of out organizing and out debating them.

That's my two cents from the front lines of union activism.

The mere continuing existence of George W. (spit) Bush is nearly enough to make me wish I believed in the existence of hell.

Does it occur to anyone else that this has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it? I listened to Rush yesterday as this was unfolding and he could barely contain his glee. It would be absolutely no surprise to me to see McCain being forced out of the race to make room for the "suspended" (interesting choice of words) Romney campaign, or, even worse, a "savior" campaign on the part of Newt Gingrich or, puke, Jeb Bush.

I guess we'll see what develops in the next month or so.

If the Dems were behind this they would have waited until September. This was designed to get McCain out of the "true conservatives" way in time for one of their annointed to run. They've never cared much for electoral politics anyway

When all else fails, music endures.

My fourth grandchild was born yesterday. As I walked out of the "birthing center", past the nursery, I noticed that there were no babies - not a one - in there. They were all with their families in individual, comfortable "birthing rooms." When my first child was born 40 years ago, fathers were not even allowed in the delivery room. That is but one small piece of evidence of the changes brought about directly by the social consciousness of people in the "counter culture" that came of age in the 60s.

Medical marijuana, same sex marriage, organic food, to a lesser degree the civil rights movement and the politics of inclusion and tolerance... these and many other societal changes that many people - including these historians apparently - now take for granted, had their genesis in the alternative culture movements that sprang up in the 60s.

To reduce the evidence of the changes wrought by the hundreds of thousands of committed 60s activists to mere pot smoking and wild sex is to call into question one's observational skills. Or perhaps it's just misplaced, long buried jealousy on the part of these historians. Maybe they just didn't have access to the good stuff.

Your flag pin won't get you into heaven any more,

It's already overcrowded from your dirty little war.

Jesus don't like killin',

no matter what the killin's for.

So your flag pin won't get you into heaven any more.

Same as it ever was.....

He should be in the docket at Nuremberg being tried for war crimes along with all his little friends.

As an male Obama supporter who would have gladly supported her had she won the nomination, I would like to see Hillary gracefully concede, but there's no hurry. I believe she will eventually do so and do it well. She's learned from this campaign and has the right to be in until the end. Her argument - given at the end of this piece - is also compelling. She's come far further than any woman before her and I think she's moved the argument beyond "CAN any woman be elected president" to "WHICH woman WILL be elected president". That's a LONG journey from where we were not so long ago. To keep good faith with that progress and the people who have supported her to this point she DOES need to go the distance - not for HER sake but for the next woman.

Instead of attempting to be cute, perhaps it would be constructive to explain what the basis for the charge of "betrayal" would be, if not gender based. As is abundantly clear, Obama isn't exactly a right to lifer.