As for Juan Cole, he is somewhat less pro-Israeli, but the idea that he presents a countervailing perspective is ridiculous. Salon would never permit that.

How about Salon's coverage of Robert Fisk's work? Another "somewhat less pro-Isreali" author? If so, just who might qualify as not pro-Isreali yet remains comprehensible to the western ear?

It seems to me that there are two problem areas: the MIL and the DIL.

Hardly surprising, the MIL carries a lot of swing weight within her family and that swing weight is compounded by the inherent power of being a "helpless" little old lady. Confronting a LOL over anything is hazardous in our society; confronting a LOL MIL over off-handed sleights at a family gathering is pointless and foolish. As Cary pointed out, you're not going to fix MIL and you're never going to dissipate the power a LOL has gathered over a lifetime. It came as a shock to me to learn that a LOL MIL can seem sweet, caring and fragile while swinging an iron fist. The results can vary from personally painful to damaging and destructive to a marriage, all depending on how the target reacts. Personally, it helped me to recognize that frail and helpless LOLs are rarely either and that I can't (and shouldn't) change that. From that recognition and having given up any notion of fixing anything, I find myself more often amused than hurt or angered by her ability to manipulate the kids. And she really is a sweet LOL.

The other problem area is how the DIL deals with the abuse. As Cary well pointed out, this is the area under her control.

From the letter, it seems that DIL takes the MIL issues and makes them her own. If DIL, in turn, makes some of them her husband's, what should have gone out the door with the MIL's departure now becomes something broken within the marriage that burdens both husband and wife. Therein lies real danger. Speaking from first hand experience, the long term effects are corrosive. And, adding insult to injury, the son is probably less qualified to deal with MIL than the DIL; he is, after all, his mother's son and MIL (not being quite as "helpless" as she seems) can and will deflect his concerns without effort.

In the end, I think there are two things the DIL can master. One is to give up being sensitive over the things you can do nothing about (Dr. and Mrs., for example, isn't an issue worth any effort; smile (or smirk) about it and move on). The other, as stated by many letters, is to learn to say NO (no you may not continue to hold the baby, no I'm not going to fix dinner, no you may not join us for Mother's Day). More than that, I don't think you can do.

R

I really enjoyed West Wing during the Sorkin era. It lost some of it's snap and pull when he left and the plots trended toward the TV-mean. But it was still quite a good enough show to standout on network television. But the problem, for me, became the increasingly inescapable disparity between West Wing the show and West Wing the reality. Early West Wing gave a few minutes of refuge each week from what started out as a disappointing reality. Over the course of its run, my disappointment as evolved into horror, dispair and shame over revealed reality. As a result, West Wing the show lost its ability to offer that few minutes of escape each week and I, in turn, lost interest in it.

Rocky

to grow up too.

Top billing for Homo Confidential today and The Blogger Who Loathed Me just a few days ago. Why the homo-centric focus of late? These latest articles, in particular, are just so who cares. Some insecure guy who's girlfriend thinks an on-line antagonist has some homosexual motivation followed by "front page" coverage of 1950s Hollywood homosexuality. What IS the editorial point?

A little lifestyle stuff adds some nice fluff to Salon. But, please, let's see some judgement when it comes to what's front, center and in our face.

Thanks,