And now a word from our sponsors....

So clearly my blogging has been spotty lately, but as it turns out, my readers (or at least my people who know I keep this thing) have been doing my work for me! Win!

There's all kinds of good advice-columny-stuff going on out there this week, most of which I failed to post. But here's a sample:

From ALS: Amy admits to a faux pas!

Dear Amy: When responding to the letter from "Just Friendship," from a woman who wasn't romantically interested in her morbidly obese friend, what led you to use the "elephant in the room" analogy in your answer?

It seems insensitive and really adds to this nation's already unbelievable bias toward overweight people. I'm disappointed that you could not have come up with something better than that to make your point.

Did you realize that the headline over your column would read, "He's the 'elephant in the room,' but she's not interested"?

Shame on you.

-- Disappointed

Dear Disappointed: I don't know what I was thinking.

Well, I do know what I was thinking, but that's still no excuse. I apologize for an unfortunate pun. Individual newspapers decide on the headline over the column. I agree that it was also in poor taste.

I read this column in the Denver Post, which left out the bit about the headline (probably because it was a Chicago Trib headline and the comment wouldn't have made sense in their paper). Thanks for pointing this out to me! I, too, have been guilty of sacrificing sensitivity for a pun when it comes to headline writing.

From AMR: The pioneer woman adds advice to her already illustrious resume of blogging, photography, cooking, home schooling and ranching, and poetry! And she's not bad! Of course, she has the advantage of not actually BEING an advice columnist, which gives her the freedom to give five pontential answers and then say, "but what do I know?" Ironically, this approach makes her seem more like a friend and, perhaps, more worth listening to. And it works in her blog, quite well. But it's not concise or direct enough to fly in a newspaper column. What do you think...do folks with problems want direct, authoritative advice, or chatty, friendly meandering?

Either way...thanks friends, for doing my job for me!

On Respecting EVERYONE'S Right to Choose....

Who would have thought that deciding never to become pregnant could raise as many hackles and sermons as deciding to terminate a pregnancy?

When there is no conceivable (ha!) harm to any stage of human life, no breaking, bending, protesting, or changing of any law, WHERE do people get off thinking that the life-changing decision to reproduce rests with anyone but the potential parents?

Yesterday Amy ran a series of letters from readers responding to an earlier letter from a woman seeking a snappy comeback for people who insist on questioning her decision not to have children. The column in its entirety is below; my comments interspersed.

Dear Readers: Some time back, I ran a letter from "No Babies in South Dakota," about how to respond to frequent queries about when she and her husband would have children.

Because they don't plan to have children, they were looking for a "snappy comeback." Readers responded by the bushel. A surprising number of readers accused people who don't wish to have children of being selfish. [This is unbelievable to me! Selfish with respect to whom? Whose needs are not being considered? It just makes no sense!]

Other readers offered snappy comebacks or other responses to the age-old question: "When are you going to have kids?"

Dear Amy: Why is it necessary to have a snappy comeback? Most people ask out of curiosity.

Being a person who is decided against kids and marriage, I always politely but firmly say that was my lifestyle choice.

Only a Neanderthal would push the point, and then I still politely but firmly say, "These questions are getting a little personal." — Personal Choice

[Hmm...as is so often the case, the vanilla answer is probably the only one that will get the inquisitor to realize that THEY'RE the one being rude. Snappy feels good, but just gives the busybody the chance to denounce you as a terrible person and rejoice that you're not choosing to multiply your DNA. Which I guess still achieves the same end.....]

Dear Amy: I'm a 49-year-old woman. When people ask me why I don't have children, I just say, "I love doting on other people's children, and with such a wonderful niece and nephew, that's enough for me." This has worked well for me, but on occasion I have had to set some boundaries with particularly insistent people. In those cases, I said, "It is a personal decision that is not open for discussion." — Elisa

Dear Amy: "No Babies" should more honestly rationalize her decision by just admitting, "I'm selfish, and I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle" or "I dislike children; they are so untidy," or "I'm afraid I'd make a child turn out as miserably neurotic as myself." — Disgusted

["Disgusted?" Seriously? I cannot understand why these people are SO BITTER and judgmental. "I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle?" A child is not an interruption--it's a paradigm shift. You shouldn't be having children unless family life IS your lifestyle. Choosing how you want to live your life, and how you CAN live your life, is not selfish. Having a child that you know you can't love or care for properly--THAT'S selfish.

You can LIKE children without wanting to be a parent. Or you can honestly DISLIKE children--in which case the decision not to have them would be well-founded--but that doesn't mean the only "honest" recourse is to announce this preference widely. Just as, in the company of a garbage collector, one wouldn't say "I could NEVER be a garbage collector, it's so DISGUSTING," tactful people who don't want kids are probably right to remain reticent about their reasons--not only because those reasons are personal and private, but to avoid giving the impression that they look down on the choices of their friends and relatives who ARE parents--something parents tend to read into these situations, but non-parents generally have no desire to convey.]

Dear Amy: If you don't have kids and you're happy with it, you're "childfree." If you don't have kids and you're not happy with it, you're "childless." — Childfree by Choice[

[Yay semantics!]

Dear Amy: My husband and I have known couples that have "elected" not to have children. It seems that these couples always replace the children in their lives with a very pleasant lifestyle that includes frequent vacations, nice clothes, fine cars, above-average homes, season tickets to sporting events, plays, concerts and a lifestyle that couples with children never dream of.

All to replace the emptiness of an empty nest. This all smacks of the '60s hippie culture through the '70s "me generation." — Not Buying It

[This, to me, smacks of the Depression-era/Greatest Generation, raised to sacrifice, adhere to one's duty, live simply and frugally--and that to do more than that is ostentatious and selfish. That there's something shameful about a "very pleasant lifestyle." Yes, couples who do not have children, in most cases, have more disposable income. That's just math. It does not mean that they're trying to "replace" children with luxury or embrace a profligate lifestyle that "couples with children never dream of." WHY would people without extra mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and minds to educate stick to the same budget and lifestyle as people with them, while their earnings sit in a stack at the bank?]

Dear Amy: To the couple with concerns about inquiries: Bottom line — it is your private business! Remember, too, that you have the right to change your mind. In one case we know of, it took 17 years, but when the baby came, it was for all the correct reasons. — No Excuses/No Regrets

Dear Amy: I, too, have the same "no babies" problem.

Nothing infuriates me more than when people say, "You want them, but you just don't know it yet." I am 31, and my husband is 33. We know, and it's a no for us.

I am starting to think "We can't have kids" is the easiest response. — No Babies in Meraux, La.

[Right, until people start asking questions about your fertility and your attempts to have children or pursue adoption.....]

There are so many more complicated, troublesome problems in the world that need questioning and prodding....why on earth do so many people care about the choices that other adults have made--choices with which they are completely content, and which have no bearing on anyone else's quality of life?

This question of course could, and should, be extended to include any other number of issues where benign personal choices somehow become ammunition in any number of private and public forums....live, let live, and MYOB!

ADVICE COLUMNIST SMACKDOWN!

It seems Amy's been getting a great deal of publicity for her new book, and perhaps (according to some) riding the coattails of her predecessor, Ann Landers, a little too closely. Ann Landers' daughter, Margo, has plenty to say about it, and she did so in today's column. HOLY COW! The Etta James/Beyonce @** whooping scandal is nothing compared to this. It's too late at night to dissect and analyze, so for now I'll just link and post. But whoa--right down to the icy "dear" in the last line.

Dear Amy: I have a problem. My distress has actually been going on since 2002, the year my mother died. As many people know, my mother was Ann Landers, and she was Ann Landers for 47 years. That's a long time to build a brand … and build a brand she did.

Because the name "Ann Landers" was iconic in the second half of the 20th century, people often tell me whenever they hear or see the name now — seven years after her death. Alas, mostly they are hearing it from you. And therein lies my problem.

Most recently you did some television promotion on "Good Morning, America," "The View" and God knows where else. You allowed people, if not encouraged them, to consider you "the new Ann Landers." Well, you are not the "new" Ann Landers because there is no "new" Ann Landers. It is a copyrighted name and trademark, and what that means is that no one else can use it — not to write under, and not to promote themselves.

Before they had fired most everyone at the Tribune (your home paper), a few top editors were informed that introducing you as "the new Ann Landers" was skating close to copyright infringement.They backed off — for a while. But then (because the newspaper business is in trouble and you are flogging a book?) there began yet another round of publicity touting you as the new, well … you know.

In short, when the Tribune hired and syndicated you, that made you their new advice columnist, period. You are no more "the new Ann Landers" than Carolyn Hax, Dan Savage or any of the dozens of advice columnists who were bought by newspapers to fill the space previously occupied by my mother.

By law, the only person who would have been able to become "the new Ann Landers" was me. And that was nothing I chose to do. You see, dear, even I knew that there could only be one Ann Landers. — Margo Howard

Ok, I do have to add just one thing. I looked up the Trib's bio of Amy, to see what they really said about her. Most of the bio lists Amy's many experiences and accomplishments as a journalist, writer, and radio contributor. They mentioned Ann Landers once, as a segue--to say that Amy's column replaced hers is simply fact, not promotion, and I think they were nothing less than respectful and accurate in how they stated it. The potentially offensive paragraph is:

Amy Dickinson joined Chicago Tribune in July 2003 as the newspaper's signature general advice columnist, following in the tradition of the legendary Ann Landers.

I smell a copyright suit! Oh wait, that's just some burning plastic....

**Days later: burning plastic? What? What did I mean by that? Oh well.**

Hail to the Queen!

My friend Jill just informed me (because I was not paying close enough attention to be aware of it myself...oops) that Amy Dickinson wrote a book that was released....YESTERDAY.

The Mighty Queens of Freeville: A Mother, a Daughter, and the Town that Raised Them

is Amy's memoir of her life and, um, her daughter's (sorry to re-state the title) as they make their way in and around the world--and are always drawn back to their roots in a tiny upstate New York town (where I was surprised to learn this summer that Amy had re-settled....I'd had no idea she was literally phoning it in--no reflection on the quality of her work meant--to the Tribune).

Read about it on Amazon.com here!

I think it sounds intriguing...I enjoy these memoirs of eloquent, intelligent, and strong women who have been through enough shit to laugh at it. (Anne Lamott, Anna Quindlen, I think).

I'll try to check it out (an opportunity to finally get my Ann Arbor District Library card...?) and report back.

Tough Broad Ties the Knot?!?

So Amy Dickinson.....she's had a colorful and successful career as a writer (and radio contributor), often in large part due to the challenges and triumphs she's had as a single mother to her only daughter, now in college.

She was always up front about her "status," relating to other single parents, discouraged spouses, and frustrated singles just looking for a date. And now....unbeknownst to me (how COULD she???) Amy went ahead and got married about a month ago! Now, it's not like she was secretive about it...there's a giant NYT feature. Although I never would have found it if I hadn't been googling her, certain that chicagotribune.com was not keeping her columns up-to-date (they weren't).

So....congrats Amy! (Or, as Miss Manners would insist, best wishes for a lifetime of happiness, Amy, and congrats to your groom). And I mean that with all sincerity. She has worked hard, come far, and done it pretty much all on her own....she (well, and everyone!) certainly deserves to have happiness and companionship.

I guess I just feel a little disconcerted because she didn't let me, and her thousands of other readers, know. No "Oh, I'm getting married, so we'll be running 'classic Ann Landers' for a few weeks until I get back from my honeymoon," nothing.

One could argue that it's no one's business.....but when you're an advice columnist, and people turn to you for guidance and, well, advice, it does matter. Especially in this day and age. There was a time when the advice columnist's persona was just a name and a writing style (indeed, the original "Dear Prudence" was a man), and "the advice columnist whose real life is totally counter to his/her trusted column" trope has certainly succeeded in plenty of novels and movies.

But that doesn't really fly anymore. People don't trust who they're reading without a bio and a resume--readers wanted a picture with two heads in it when both Pauline and Jeanne were writing Dear Abby, and only one head when Jeanne took over for good.

Amy's entrance to the Tribune was marked by a column titled, "She's here to help" (um, I only remember that because it was linked on her advice page for years, and now of course it is gone...true to Trib form these days), which was basically nothing more than a reference and letter of recommendation, from a trusted figure (naturally now I can't remember who) to the Trib readership, describing exactly why Amy was qualified to replace Ann Landers.

Advice columnists can't get away with anonymity any longer, and I'm not sure how far they can get with privacy--ok a certain show of privacy--around their major life choices. Does Amy's marriage undo the fact that she was an ambitious and successful single mother for 17 years, who can sympathize with and guide her readers as she always has? Of course not.

But, as I learned from the New York Times feature, it does mean that she's just gained four stepdaughters, two of them adopted from foreign countries.

It seems she had also moved from Chicago back to upstate New York, where she was born (this is how she reconnected with her now-husband, who was a friend from her childhood), to care for her elderly mother.

All of these major changes make her a richer, wiser, and more complex person--and probably a better advice columnist. I hope she intends to incorporate them into the body of experiences she's willing to draw upon and share for her columns. And that she'll do that by telling the readers what's up, and not just mentioning, five years down the road, that her youngest stepdaughter and she have disagreed about dorm furniture.

Kitty Kustody Kalamity!

Today has been a day for taking action. I wrote to the Tribune at large re: the unlinked advice columns, and also to Amy for some very (VERY) poor advice she gave to a fellow whose happy home and family of a girlfriend and 2 cats had just been shattered

First, his letter and her response. Then, my letter back to Amy. I've written to her before--only when her advice gets me really steamed, which isn't that often--and she has yet to print a response. So here's the issue:

Dear Amy: My live-in girlfriend of two years dumped me a couple of weeks ago, saying that she had never loved me.

Since the breakup I haven't been doing well. We had two cats, one that I had adopted and one that we adopted together. I finally found an apartment. I had been under the impression that I would be taking both cats.

The two cats are very close, and I've always been the primary caretaker for them. I have been the one who cleaned the litter box and took them to the vet.

When I went to the apartment to pack, my ex told me that she wouldn't let me take both cats.
She told me that if I took our cat she would feel bitter toward me and that we would never be able to have a relationship of any sort.

I was furious and upset. I cried and screamed, and my anger really scared me.

To be honest, I am still in love with her, and I don't want to do anything that I know will cause me to lose her forever.

But I'm also horrified at giving up my cat, and horrified to think of my other cat crying all day and all night and refusing to eat, the way he did the only other time I separated them and took him to a new place.

Now I'm incredibly sad and lonely.

It seems like a lot to lose. Should I give up? And how can I deal with my anger, frustration and sense of loss when I do?

—Lonely

And Amy's totally lame response:

Dear Lonely: Your ex sounds like a prize jerk who is holding your cats hostage while she emotionally blackmails you.

I hope that you recover from your hurt soon and that you are able to see how mean this is. It might help you to move on.

In terms of the cat you acquired together, you could take your ex to court and make a claim for custody—even though doing this would prolong this drama, which I don't think is a good idea for you.

I agree that splitting up this feline pair is also probably not a good idea, but you should visit the cats to let them see you and curl around your ankles.

Your best bet at this point is to head to your local shelter to find a new pet (or two) to add to your family. Visit a shelter a few times to spend time with and play with all the cats. You might also consider volunteering at a shelter—homeless kitties need food and affection at all hours; volunteers make sure these animals are well cared for, and this could help you through your loneliest times.

OK, just reading that made me mad all over again. "Your ex is a jerk who is manipulating you by holding your cats. So you better let her keep both of them and go volunteer at the animal shelter." What???? Plus, ahem...if SHE was the live-in girlfriend, why is HE the one who moved out? Anyway--I'll let the letter speak for itself. Normally Amy is a huge advocate for pets and the people who love them. I feel like she really dropped the ball here.

Dear Amy,

I have to say I totally disagree with your advice to Lonely, who was heartbroken over the fact that his girlfriend, who unexpectedly dumped him, refused to give up the cat they had adopted together. (And based on the comments posted on chicagotribune.com, I don't think I'm alone)

You imply that Lonely's only options are 1) "prolonging the drama" by taking the girlfriend to court to sue for custody of the cat and 2) letting her keep both cats, but visiting them regularly. (How does option 2 NOT prolong the drama of interacting with this woman?)

This really surprised me--the girlfriend never said "If you take the cat, I'll take you to court." She said, according to her ex, that if he took the cat she would be "bitter" and unable to have a relationship with him. How convenient, since HE is already bitter, and she has in fact ENDED their relationship!

I couldn't believe you didn't say he should just take both cats and run, out of concern for the kitties, and for his own sanity. Cutting off the relationship with his ex would probably be the best thing he could do for himself and, as you state quite correctly, recognizing the manipulative trick she tried to put over on him should help him get over her.

Why, in this situation, should the thoughtless girlfriend who doesn't take care of the cats get everything SHE wants, while the guy who's had his world shaken loses it all?

Loyal Reader in Ann Arbor

And for you enraged cat lovers out there, here's a little something to put some joy back into your Sunday. Check out Ninja Cat!

The Dog Days of Summer: the Readers are Restless

Sigh. Throughout the spring and summer (and probably before) Amy has been running occasional letters from folks distressed by the fact that someone in their family has named a dog or cat after another family member, and it "hurts" them to hear the precious, precious name of their loved one applied to a lowly beast. ("Jack, stop eating your vomit! Bad Jack! Bad Jack!")

Before we begin, I should reveal that I am not entirely objective in this issue. I once named a goldfish "Mary," at which point I learned that that was also my grandmother's first name (not Grammie?)

As a result, I've been pleased and grateful to learn that it's rarely the "victims" themselves who are upset by this--people who actually share a name with a family pet seem to recognize that this is usually 1) a tribute made by a loving (or ignorant) child with good intentions 2) um....a coincidence.

Instead, it's the parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents of the victims (in other words, those who probably don't have to hear about Jack-the-dog's personal habits on a daily basis) who perceive this catastrophe as a deliberate slight to their loved ones. Today's contributor, though, really takes it to the next level. In fact, I think I'd like to award him the newly established Crank Of (the) Week (COW) Award.

This honor will be awarded based upon a rigorous evaluation consisting of my personal judgment. Taking into account my own tendency to "vent" (whine) about completely inane issues, it should be considered a highly prestigious award in this field.

But--back to our winner! Here's his letter:

Dear Amy: I have been following the letters in your column about dogs that are named after people. There are two dogs in my neighborhood, one with my granddaughter's name and one with my nephew's name.

Dogs are not the same as people. I can't bear to hear these dogs being called by names of my family members.

—Upset

Amy takes these folks with a grain of salt and a handful of brevity: "Dear Upset: You're right. Dogs are not the same as people, and that is precisely why you should not take this personally."

But certainly "Upset" is within his/her rights? I would have advised Upset to become active in neighborhood, even city (!) government, taking legislative action against this heinous situation.

Perhaps by petition, s/he could institute a mandatory poll of anyone who at any time might come into hearing range of any local family-dog interactions to ensure no duplicate names. (Naturally, the logistics for determining "hearing range" would have to account for folks on their porches with ear trumpets, listening carefully for the offensive name)

Failing this, "Upset" might prefer to simply pass a law prohibiting crossover between animal and human names. We could take this thing back to Beethoven. There could be a sliding fee system, where both parents AND pet owners could be charged based on their use of ambiguous names, such as "Kitty."

Right. In short, I agree with Amy completely on this one--except with her decision to print this letter.

"Upset" does not have a question. S/he is not seeking guidance. S/he wants to weigh in on the ongoing conversation--a valid thing to do, if you have a new idea or suggestion to contribute. But instead Upset just takes the issue to a new level of crazy. Why keep printing these, unless to mock your loyal readers?

So congratulations to you, "Upset," on your two-fold victory. Be forewarned that, as a winner of the COW award, you cannot win again for at least 6 months--although with an alias, I'd never know the difference. So keep on keeping on!

Advice For Amy

Here's an entertaining article I found this morning. It was written for USA Today five long years ago (ok, so it's not exactly news) when Amy Dickinson ("Ask Amy") joined the Trib to fill the hole left by Ann Landers' death. The author, Emily Toth, gives a bit of insight into Amy's colorful background (reporter? lounge singer? single mother?) and also offers a devoted and affectionate tribute to AL, explaining just why she was so darn good.

In the last 5 years, Amy has definitely held her own--she's still not so "pithy," as the article points out, but she doesn't beat around the bush. She's fresh and entertaining but consistent, which I think is vital--you don't want every answer to sound the same, but you do want to understand and be able to anticipate your advisor's values and attitudes toward various issues--you need to know it's the same person, the one you trust, writing back each morning. I love her, though I don't always agree with her. (She's never printed any of my argumentative responses, alas).

Toth pokes fun at Amy's apparent WASP-ishness--the best advice-givers have always been Jewish, she claims, and it's hard to argue with her. But you can't deny that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to say, "Sure, I'll pull up a chair to Ann Landers' 56-year-old desk and give it a whirl."

I speak figuratively of course--Ann Landers' real desk is owned and used by Dan Savage--true story.

And, what? The Chronicle of Higher Education has a column called "Miss Mentor"?? I've got to check this out.