I'm sorry, but this has been bothering me since I read your snippet in Broadsheet, both the headline and the text: Catholic Charities of Boston didn't discontinue adoptions because they didn't want to be forced to place kids with gay families. They discontinued all adoptions rather than be forced by the Archdiocese and the Vatican to discontinue adoptions to gay families in violation of the state's anti-discrimination law. HUGE difference. The Charities held their ground on this one. True, kids are the losers here, but Charities placed only a small fraction of the kids up for adoption in the state.

This isn't the first time Charities and the Archdiocese have butted heads: last year, Archbishop O'Malley declined to go to the Charities annual dinner, because Mayor Menino, a supporter of gay rights and equal marriage laws, was being honored. Board members resigned from Charities rather than be put in the position of being forced by the Archdiocese to violate the law.

Governor Romney is trying to introduce legislation that would exempt Charities from having to serve gay families in their adoption services, but there doesn't seem to be any real interest in it, in either the legislature or the Charities themselves. The Charities stand is pretty clear: they will serve all families, regardless of makeup or orientation. It's the Archdiocese and the Vatican who are to blame.

Please, get it right. Your article, and its headline, is completely misleading.

What I find interesting is the language used, particularly "alternative." As soon as he said that, I realized he was using the same language and justification as a person using "alternative medicine." To the outside observer it's exactly the same: he believes it works, he believes it's getting him results, despite the fact that it's been proven that (a) it won't work in the future(b) it hasn't worked in the past, and (c) the "theory" behind it is complete nonsense that anyone who has taken middle school science would spot. And yet he firmly believes in what the rest of us see as snake oil fakery, and can't conceive of why we don't understand that his way works.

Except instead of wasting just his own time, money, and health, his "alternative" methods have the potential to cause serious harm and loss of life to other people.

The new airport in Bangkok: all the shops, eateries, and other things to entertain yourself while your flight is delayed are *outside* security. As are all the arrival and departure boards. Inside security all you have are the various waiting areas. Also inside security, there is no way to post a gate change unless a staff member tapes a sign up to the departure board.

I'm sorry, but I had to respond to your posting:

"I will never vote for Obama, because I think he is not qualified. He had no right to run in 2008, and I don't believe he can be a good president, let alone a great one."

It's your business who you vote for. But I can't let this part pass:

Article II Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

He has as much right as anyone else who meets those qualifications. Just because you don't think he's a good candidate and didn't follow some perceived timeline doesn't mean that he can't run.

I'm reminded of what a friend of mine pointed out about a troubled relationship that was going nowhere:

The person who cares the least has all the control in the relationship.

Lieberman doesn't care about the Democratic party nor a fillibuster-proof majority, which means he's got the balance of power here. Only by not caring about hitting that Magic 60 is the Senate Leadership going to be able to rid themselves of him.

Which they ought to do, pronto. Actions have consequences.

I'm happily child-free, so take this with a grain of salt.

But I can't help but see the parallels between the urge to swaddle and protect your child from every last thing that might go wrong and abstinence-only education. Both involve so over-protecting your kids from all the horrible things that might go wrong that you're not giving them the tools to deal with real life situations.

The same way teenagers who only get abstinence-only education are more likely to engage in risky behavior (earlier, too) because they have no other honest information about sexuality and health, those who are completely swaddled have no idea how to cope with all the real-life situations that come with being an adult. Previous posters have mentioned binge-drinking once kids got to college, inability to do laundry or balance a checkbook, inability to find their way around, etc.

Surely there has to be a happy medium. We've seen how well abstinence-only education works, and how a comprehensive education is really the best choice. There's got to be a similar path to navigate on this issue.