I went a bit further than Miller, and compiled my own list of the 49 Most Conservative Madonna Songs. http://justemilieu.blogspot.com/2006/05/49-most-conservative-madonna-songs.html

I read an interview with Laura in New York magazine, and apparently, her mother and Jeffrey's mother became friends after the mom challenge, so Laura's accusation could have stemmed from some knowledge there. Who knows? It just seems strange that Jeffrey's clothes pretty much sucked all season - the designs as well as the craftsmanship - and now he's able to pull out an admittedly stunning body of work. Uli's stuff (which I loved) looked like Uli's stuff, Laura's stuff looked like Laura's stuff. Michael's, unfortunately, just looked bad - he really showed glimpses of true talent, but I was embarrassed to be rooting for him in the end.

Also, did you see Jeffrey trashing Michael in the commercial segments after the show? He said something to the effect of: Michael's just pretending to be a momma- and Jesus-lover, but really he's the kind of guy who talks about "strippers and ass." Aside from the fact that he could easily be both, why is this news? Michael described his look in three words: "sensuousness, sexy and seductive." He consistently presented overly sexy designs. Hmmmm... I wonder if this guy has ever thought about ass?

The other odd thing about this season: Last season, Gunn remarked on his blog that Santino could not have won because it would be like announcing, "Attention, freaks, come to PR." But Jeffrey is a much bigger freak. How come his collection is "innovative" when Santino's was just "weird"? (Obviously, I'm still sore about this. Santino was robbed!)

I think it's funny that other comments have associated Bergman with snobbery, fine wine, etc. If you like Woody Allen movies, then you'll like Bergman. If you like gorgeous women, then you'll like Bergman. If you have ever had a family, ever aged, ever felt lonely, or ever sensed the presence of a ghost, you'll like Bergman. Not liking Bergman without having seen one of his films is snobbery. Liking him is easy.

The first Bergman movie I saw was "The Seventh Seal." I was in college, and went into the theater with a giant cup of strong art-house coffee. I couldn't sleep that night. The images kept playing in my head. Playing chess with death - I'd seen the homage to the concept in the sequel to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" (they play Twister with death), but only after seeing the movie did I understand its implications. I moved on to "Smiles of a Summer Night," which was so completely different - like a stylish, Swedish episode of Benny Hill. Then "Wild Strawberries," which was both hilarious and poignant. It seemed that if each Bergman movie I watched left me surprised and astonished me in new ways - but they always left a knot in my gut.

Bergman may not have been the greatest artist of the 20th century, but his name would be included on the short list. And he's certainly not snobbish or dull.

As defiant as Hillary seemed last night, she was 100% right. Why does Obama represent change? Because he claims to? Because he doesn't have a lot of experience? Because he's African-American? The press is leaping on this idea that people are embracing change by choosing Obama, but all I have seen him do is talk about how he represents change, how the people "want a part in their government," or "want to know the government is listening." What does he stand for? Hillary answers questions in a straightforward, presidential way. She's the best candidate. And I'm disappointed that this country is still too sexist to see her potential.

I think he has a point. On the long list of who and what is to blame for what is going on in the economy and in the market, CNBC (and the media in general) would be nowhere near the top. Stewart is riding the wave of populist revolt, and I find it a little scary. If Cramer were more articulate, he would have been able to defend himself during that attack. Because Stewart's points were naive (is CNBC to blame for the practice of short selling? Do people not know that there is real risk in the market?) and embarrassingly self righteous. And if the Daily Show is such a media watchdog, why are they only paying attention after the fact?