You do have to wonder about the criteria that is being used to pick these programs. I am very curious how many Salon readers are checking in here to see who is today's guest on Regis & Kelly.

He came in second when Giuliani, Thompson and McCain sat out. Is that really that much of an accomplishment? Let's face it, if everyone competed, he would have come in 5th at best.

If his sons do indeed help him get the Republican nomination, it will be a service to the country because the Dems will have a easy walk into office.

And Matthews - what took you so long? Seems like you could have brought this point up, oh, 5 years ago?

I nursed two kids for 10 months each and I nursed them EVERYWHERE - without a blanket or something covering them - and no one ever said a single word to me or even looked at me funny. I guess I lived in the right place.

And then there's the further problem that I thought we wanted women to have reproductive choices.

The poster is funny - what does that have to do with choices? She can choose to have as many babies as she wants, no matter how irresponsible it is, and we can choose to laugh at some very funny graphics. Everyone wins!

That poster is priceless. Thanks for the laugh.

I'm just shocked that all the kids' names begin with J yet they didn't get to "Jennifer" until number 17. That takes creativity.

these women are having more kids than they ever wanted, strictly because all the cool moms are doing it. Here's some quotes to ponder

Catnmus: I agree that the quotes from these moms are repulsive, but I have to point out that people have been having babies because of social pressure for a very long time. Is this really different from a poor Latina 16 year old who has a baby because her sister and her best friend did when they were 16? That these women are so shallow as to actually make those statements is just part of the problem.

Whether you judge these women or not, I think the article makes excellent points about women focusing on their children to fulfill their career ambitions. Those of us who were raised in the 70's and 80's were taught that we could do anything - we didn't have to choose just from teacher, nurse or mom. So we went to college and planned and started careers. Somewhere along the way, and for a myriad of reasons, some decided to stay home and take care of the kids. All that ambition and prompting to "be anything!" will make you feel a little guilty if you decide to stay home and raise kids and largely ignore them like our parents' generation did. So people had to become uber-moms. Quality time all the time! Flashcards! Super-duper classroom mother! Micromanage the kids's lives! Because otherwise, what are you? An overeducated babysitter? Unambitious? Certainly not fulfilling all that potential everyone told you you had. But if you're great at your job as a mom, then it's ok.

This is not a matter of money, although the women in this article have the financial means to take this to another level by having more kids. Many middle class women don't work and fall victim to making their children's lives their sole focus in life. I know I've seen it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Overparenting crosses socio-economic lines. I have no problem with women who decide to stay home with their kids, I just don't know why that means that so many have very little else in their lives. Having a hobby does not make you a bad parent.

This has to be up to the woman involved, not her doctor BUT, that said, I once knew a 23 year old woman who went and asked her doctor for a tubal. She had just broken up with someone and was in a very bitter place and not, in my view, entirely emotionally stable. The doctor refused and she was pissed (although she gave up after asking the one doctor). I don't know what went through the doctor's mind, but I think he/she acted responsibly. Doctors shouldn't refuse men or women sterilization based on their age, but if a doctor feels that elective, non-reversible surgery is being done without proper forethought or by an individual who is not able to make a long-term decision, it's certainly his or her right to refuse to do it.

I lost touch with that woman (not too sorry about that) and I just googled her to see if she now has kids. Couldn't find her (I guess she changed her name when she got married) but I bet you anything she does.

But when we're done batting these women around like mice who've become too exhausted and weak to hold our feline attention any longer, they will be left with nothing but bad chemical dependencies and a yawning, insatiable need to recapture our imagination, since we've taught them that it's our interest that gives them value.

I take no pleasure in LL addictions or arrests - she's too pathetic and I do feel sorry for her. I hope she recovers but frankly, I'm not losing sleep over any of it. And I'm not taking responsibility for the fact that she used the media and the public to advance her "celebrity". The fact that she was too young and too stupid to realize that it was all a fraud that was going to blow up in her face is not something I feel any guilt for. I didn't worship her before (but boy, wasn't she cute back in the Parent Trap days?): I didn't put her on that pedestal and I won't take the blame for knocking her off. She, and her addiction, did it all herself.