Kudos to LW for having a concise understanding of what happened in her youth; her letter, while expressing deep pain, is also quite clear about the causes of that pain.

And - Kudos to LW for NOT marrying a man just like dear old dad, the frequent "kneejerk" repsonse for folks from troubled childhoohds.

I found Cary's repsonse to be a tad mystifying, frankly, and not particularly to the point, turning just a tad too much of "voodoo feelgood" language. LW needs the kind of conciseness she shaped in her letter to her parents.

The simple and inescapable truth is that LW had an unusually crappy childhood, and there is no logical reason to assume that her parents will be remarkably different in their roles as grandparants (they might be loving and caring gramps and granny, but why, why would one take the risk?). Their sneakyness in not confronting LW in relation to her letter is clearly an expression of denial, rejection and unwillingness to acknowledge, even for a nanosecond, the nature of their own behavior and its consequences. Indeed, I note that the kind of triangulation that occurred between LW, her mother and father is now being re-enacted by the parents with LW, her husband and the kids. What a surprise!

LW is clearly within her perogative to permanently restrict her parents' access to her children. This involves sitting down with the gentle hubby and explaining the facts of life. Second, this also means making a close review of the folks responsible for care during the daily absences of LW and her husband to confirm that they are not susceptable. If the children are in a daycare setting of any licensed competency, a lengthy but crisp conversation, backed up with a letter sent via registered mail, should set the tone. It is not unusual for parents to take such steps to protect their children, and raising the spectre of legal action is one way to garner compliance from caretakers. There are other measures, including the potential of restraining orders, etc; it might be prudent for LW and her hubby to visit a family law attorney to understand the full weight of what they can and cannot do in their area of jurisdiction. My guess is that, as natural parents, they can do a very, very great deal.

The issue behind the issue is that taking such steps, particularly in a community where folks are "known", is that the nature of LW's childhood will now surface and be, to some extent, public knowledge. LW needs to be emotionally prepared to "break the silence", not only between her and her parents, which she did with her powerful letter, but with the daycare center and whoever else bears responsibility for child chare while the parents are not present. This is, at first, a daunting and even overwhelming step. I might suggest to LW that she will find it - freeing, sad and empowering. It is simply another step in the firm acknowledgement of the pathetic and manipulative parenting of her parents, and another step in letting it stop with her. It is another step in dashing the mythic nature of her parents' "good behavior". It does not matter at this point, that her parents will not "get it"; they are beyond salvaging. What does matter is that the correct nature of LW's appropriate boundaries for her children be fully acknowledged, even embraced, even at the cost of "privacy".

As to "needing help" - I would rather suggest that LW could use professional help to support her in untangling the malignant impacts of her parents' vicious behaviors. However, skillfully seeking and applying professional counseling for resolving childhood issues like this is very, very different than "needing" it. I would suggest that LW has done a remarkable job of framing an adult life of some emotional health and strength, and that her goal should be to acknowledge what she has already done, using that as a platform for more/deeper work.

Ric

The harsh truth of McGreevy's tawdry political life is not his tawdry sex scenes in a variety of covert environments, but his abuse of power as governor in ways that were truly awesome and stunning, even, ultimately, to those who benefited. His "coming out" disguised, or attempted to disguise, at the time, the fact that he had sold a position of some potential significance to a lover, something that is time-honored by men in power, but usually restricted to far, far more minor posts. I believe McGreevy hoped that his "coming out" would create a sympathy for him as a beleaguered "victim"; it actually is pure sophistry. He was a governor given to honoring the patronage system to the hilt; the fact that he was gay or bi is entirely beside the point. Moreover, most New Jersey residents knew so at the time, and know so now. His book remains a bit of an odd combination of a roman-a-clef, a defense, and a denial of reality, still, of his own power to be corrupt in place.

The review, an honest one by someone who knows not to be sucked into the vacuum of "victimhood" that closeted gay men can pretend to occupy, calls it as it is. McGreevy was, as governor, way in over his head, given to patronate to pay off his huge political debts incurred while garnering the Governor's Mansion; had his lover been a secretary named "Bambi", the results should have been precisely the same.