The biggest flaw in this article is the money quote that begins "We have all caught ourselves...." Really? ALL of us? Sorry, I AM a mother, and I am NOT nodding.

The second biggest flaw is the mistaken notion that this particular form of psychotic parenting was a natural extension of "helicopter" parenting. I think it's inappropriate to use the MySpace Mom incident to make a point about widely accepted parenting practices. When I was growing up, there was a mother who tried to cleanse her baby daughter of demons by pouring water down her nose until she drowned. It might be tempting to blame Christian fundamentalism as a movement for what happened, but for the most part, regardless of how you feel about Christian fundamentalism, its practice is qualitatively separate from the kind of insanity that would cause someone to apply it in a way that led to murdering her own child. I think the comparison between helicopter parenting and that insane mother is similar. I do think people are rather overly involved in their kids' social lives beyond the age when it's appropriate these days, but acting as though this crazy mom and dad's application of this philosophy is somehow a natural extension of that is NUTS. Helicopter parenting is a separate issue, and one we've been grappling with for at least a hundred years. It used to be called "being tied to the apron strings," and it used to "cause" homosexuality.

Finally, I am guessing that a lot more people have died or been seriously injured as a result of the parenting style embodied in "spare the rod, spoil the child" than have died or been seriously injured as a result of apron-string strangulation.

And just by the way, living your child's life for him or her does NOT build esteem. You could blame parenting experts for focusing on children's self-esteem, but personally I think parents who don't know how to read are more blame.

No one said anything about a "ban." It was a very intelligent and polite request that the writers stop using "strident" to talk about female politicians. He or she is correct; you don't hear anyone calling W "strident," even though he has a reeeeeeally grating voice. It is an inherently sexist term. Sure, you can use it about HRC and other strong women if you like. But it makes you sounds like an ass.

You sound like Ann Coulter when Elizabeth Edwards asked her to stop defaming John Edwards. All Coulter could do was yell, "Censorship! Censorship!" No, not censorship. People can debate one another respectfully without anything being banned or censored. It's called civil discourse.

skmccanles1, you are so right.

I don't blame him for stopping the alimony payments, but he didn't have legal permission to do so when he made his decision. You can't change the rules by breaking them.

Personally, I don't understand why she's getting out of prison at all - but since the article was written by a Freeper and didn't seem to include a link to any original materials, it's hard to make a judgment about what happened.

What are you doing in your community, Parson Jim, to demand equal rights for fathers and mothers? Posting here does zero for your cause. You and leftychris really ought to get together and go bowling. Apparently you don't have anything better to do.

at WaPo when "rumors" about the Watergate break-in started circulating in back alleys....

It is a basic understanding of journalists and editors - and of humans in general - that anytime something is said, it must have SOME veracity. Otherwise, why would someone say it? This has been shown to be the case even when people are listening to known, proven liars. How much more veracity must "rumors" have when printed on the front page of a (formerly) respected newspaper?

And Juliebird, that is an excellent point. Even if Obama were Muslim, why would it matter? I guess for the same reason it matters to the idiot who asked Romney if he would appoint Muslims to his cabinet.

He shouldn't be in charge of checking up on the status of other people's employees.

However, he also shouldn't fabricate meetings and interview questions out of whole cloth, as he appears to be doing with both this incident and the Christian Science Monitor ordeal. Perhaps he has a bit of an honesty issue? I am shocked. Shocked!

You have spoken very eloquently about this issue of "going after the businesses who create the jobs." I agree with what you are saying. As the War on Drugs loses political favor, we get a War on Immigrants - handled similarly by criminalizing the activity at the bottom of the pile instead of trying to actually deal with the problem. But I still don't think it should be the consumer's job to enforce immigration laws. Just like it's not a consumer's job to police chemical spills; that's what our tax money is supposed to be paying experts to do.

"The nation that he believes in, which is different from the nation that he lives in."

Sadly, I've been living in that same nation without millions of dollars at my disposal for years. Being rich and powerful, I don't wonder that he's been able to keep his composure for so long.

It is a sad day if he loses Iowa because of his religion. There is no doubt about it. But he *chose* to be a Republican. If religious freedom is really more important to him than power for rich people, he should switch parties.