If you have to do that routinely, it isn't working. Besides, you're about four or five times his size. You hitting him hurts a lot worse than him hitting anybody else.

Yep. Our reaction to tantrums at home has always been to ignore them. After a while kids get bored or wear themselves out.

I disagree with the writer about saying "no" just because you can as a way to get your kids used to it. There are plenty of times you have to say no, for health and safety reasons. (No, cookies are not dinner. No, you can't run around the museum making airplane noises. No, you can't throw your truck at your sister.…

I think what he did was terrible and reprehensible. That said: Seriously, if you say 'we cannot care for this child" the state leaves them with you for six months? That's plenty of time for a poor fit to escalate to outright violence or abuse. It seems like there should be a quicker response.

I used to work with the non-Jewish girl who had the Jewish wedding. This is the first I heard of it. She struck me as a ditz, but ... wow.

That is the most horrifying thing I have ever seen in my life.

Legally I would say he's a rapist, because I don't want the courts to be in the position of deciding whether a guard coerced an inmate or not — the power dynamic is completely skewed on tyhe guard's side, regardless of the individual prisoner's wishes. Sex happened, he knew it wasn't supposed to happen, he should face…

Yep. I'm 36 and my youngest will be four next month. God willing, by the time I'm 51 they'll both be out of the house and I'll be able to go back to doing fun stuff. I can't imagine starting at that point.

Yeah, I can easily believe it. My grandparents were 40ish when my mom was born and the generation gap was definitely a factor there. People need to make the choices that are right for them and all of that, but it's not something you can just brush off.

More power to her, I guess, but my desire to have a kid at 50 remains precisely at zero.

And also, government email policy was still being codified during the Bush administration. They were still being shady but not quite AS shady.

D'oh.

See, I feel like she's getting a decent amount of prominence for being one part of a big cast (and is usually the best thing on screen).

I'm 36 but I like hella because it's SO SoCal that it makes me feel like I'm living in a Weetzie Bat book or a No Doubt song and somehow these are good things.

Right? I've never heard of someone needing to ASK for an email address ether in the public or private sector — you just get one when you start.

I think people aren't considering it because it's virtually impossible. First off, if that were the case her people would have said so as a first line of defense. They haven't.

Yeah, I was hoping she just hadn't switched from her Senate account and this was Republicans making mountains out of molehills again. (Though even there, switching a work email address is not hard.) But nope, looks like by personal we mean "personal" and not just "non-State department."

The NYT says it wasn't government, so you're right — she didn't just carry over her Senate account, as I had hoped. It still might have been a Clinton Foundation account or something from another nonprofit she worked with, but that's not going to play much better in the media than if it were AOL.

whitehouse.gov, senate.gov, clintonfoundation.org ... but AOL is funnier for clickbait purposes.

Yeah, this one makes no sense. All I can think of is that her "personal" account was actually senate.gov or even whitehouse.gov (left over from when she was first lady) and no one saw it as an issue because the security level, etc., was about the same. But even there, you'd think SOMEBODY would want to follow…