S: Did YOUR husband write a public essay about how much these new kids bore him? Therein lies the difference. Nobody's picking on YOUR husband; they're picking on this particular jerk. (I guess some were, in fact, picking on any old guy doing it over again--I grant you that--but most of us weren't)

D: Are you seriously calling what you did with other's kids "parenting"? By definition, one's own kids bring with them the intangible burden of--whatever--but whatever it is, it is NOTHING like taking care of someone else's. It's always going to look like hell and feel like hell when it's someone else's kids. You really don't know what parenting is until you've actually done it, with your very own. (And no, I'm not saying that adoptive parents aren't real; you know what I mean).

I agree with everybody who's saying that this guy just didn't control his tone. He was aiming for something funny like Erma Bombeck and it came out harsh and icy. Perfecting the tone is a writer's job, and I stand by my initial reaction, which is that this particular essay was poorly written and wouldn't pass anybody's writing standard except that he's already a famous writer. It was a piece of fluff that he threw together in a minute, and salon readership deserves better. He's probably an OK dad in general, but an asshole for using his kids like this for an inane piece that probably brought him a couple hundred bucks at most. Now his kids had to sit through all this crap and feel weird and bad, etc., and it's not the fault of readers who expect good writing from the supposedly prestigious salon but the fault of the writer for not taking the time to insert a little affection (assuming there is some in actuality).

You always make me feel ashamed. I'm quite serious. Thanks for the reminder. Some of us are farther behind on the path to enlightenment but still learning.

I don't disagree with you at all. When I really think about it, I am quite sure that if this piece were better written (imo), like really funny and witty, then I'd have no problem with the content. I like Anne Lamott's work, where she spends half her time being self-deprecating and horrified at her bad impulses and the other half picking on her son Sam. There's something about the WAY she does it that I find unoffensive.

But back to your second to last post, the truth is, it's just fluff, not terribly thought out writing, and I have kids of my own and would be devastated if they would have to feel like a thoughtless piece of nothing that i threw together meant that I didn't love them, so why i piled on, knowing that, I don't know. It's not like I didn't mean the things I said in my previous posts, not at all, it's just more like, why do I feel like I have to record every blessed criticism I have, even when I know that someone (his kids) might get hurt.

Anyways, thanks again.

bought into the notion that Bush is religious and that he believes in this good/evil theme that he espouses. Never. I have thought from the beginning that he is a fraud. There is no way that this immature, spoiled frat boy is seriously devout, and I say this without any great admiration for the devout (so I'm not particularly defending Christianity or religion here). The whole thing has always struck me as a charade (and didn't someone or other come out with a book to that effect? Someone within the administration who said the administration didn't actually support religious policies but used the religious masses for votes?)

I also don't think Bush is evil on the Machiavellian level. I happen to think he is first and foremost incompetent and second, relied on men who more closely resemble Machiavellian evil (Cheney, et al). "Relied on" is not quite right: "used by" is better.

I think the religious, good/evil thing is a costume that seemed to fit very nicely in terms of "audience" popularity, and so maybe has sort of become true in a way that it wasn't to begin with.

Anyway, Glenn, uncomfortable though I am playing the groupie, I think you're the greatest. All the best with your book.

PS To the person who brought up Jimmy Carter's religion: This supports my point exactly; do you or does ANYONE actually think the piety of these two men is the same? Whatever you think of Carter's politics or policies, do you doubt his religious sincerity? I think not. He is genuinely devout to the core (and perhaps deserving of the scrutiny that you demand, for that reason), but the smug GWBush is simply no comparison in terms of apparent religious devotion. He is a fraud, and his smirk is the giveaway.

But what else are we supposed to call a blog? Seriously, I don't know. Anyone?