As an Army brat, I can tell you that a spouse's club is not "innately exclusive" and nor does it purport to espouse a "specific philosophy." The only requirement for joining is that you have a spouse in the military— it really is that straightforward and simple. It is not a religious-based club. And the social good…

I'm an atheist, childless, nerdy liberal who also happens to be an Army brat (both parents were Army officers, though they're now retired). I just wanted to let you know that sane people do exist on military bases... they can just be harder to find since so many bigots speak so much louder. Good luck to you! I hope it…

Yeah. We should have told that to the black students who wanted to de-segregate white schools... Look, why would you want to go to a school where they don't want you anyway? Go form your own school.

Ugh, I read this article without first seeing who the author was— figures it was Tracie Egan Morrissey. Tracie, do you realize that you're engaging in victim-blaming here?

this was amazing.

"Diatribe"? Seriously??? Someone's reading comprehension skills aren't up to par...

Hello 1L,

I think your point about the ability to believe in magic being linked to creative thinking is very true.

As a child who was lucky enough to have parents pull out all the stops to keep the magic of Santa alive, I agree with you. Sounds like your kids are very lucky and will have lots of warm, happy, magical childhood memories they will treasure years from now (as I do!).

My thoughts exactly! But what's more disturbing is that the content is worse than the grammar...

Haha!

Same here!

You beat me to it!

My parents do the same!

If your kid believes in Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy up until 5th grade, that means you're doing a great job making the holidays magical and special for your child. Because the holidays are never the same once the mystery and magic are gone. The best childhood memories are the gleeful anticipation of magic.

Same!

"Right kind of victim"— exactly. And that's why this entire piece smacks of victim-blaming.

I have never thought about that semantic nuance either— thank you so much for bringing it to my attention. I will definitely change the way I refer to it in the future.

The "lip-service" paid to victim's rights at the end of this article— "Of course, the motives of the men speaking out don't negate any of their allegations"— followed immediately by backtracking ("But the money they're seeking casts a shadow on an already dark situation") is complete bullshit.

I COMPLETELY agree with you. Could not have said it better myself.