JMiller! I want to read your story about "the scam artists of Berlin's Gypsy flea markets." How can I get in touch with you?

Why are you linking to the hardcover version of the book at Amazon? There is a paperback version that is 33% cheaper at Amazon. I would imagine that most Salon readers prefer paperbacks anyway, no?

I happen to be a lucky insider to whom Digby's sex was revealed perhaps a year ago and I don't think I was surprised.

I was aware, however, that there is an illustration of a man on her blog - really the only bit of branding there. Does the fact that some people were surprised that a blog written by someone named "Digby" who has carefully excised any gender information from his or her prodigious written output - and arguably represents themselves on their website with an illustration of a man - reveal the latent sexism inherent in the liberal reading public?

I'm not denying that the sexism isn't there - and I am always pleased to see more womens' voices in whatever forum - your excellent blog here, included, Joan - but I don't think that "OMG DIGBY IS A LADY!" makes it so.

Your description of the Daily Telegraph article is misleading. They appear to be loosely defining "make up" the way we Americans might define "toiletries." They are most definitely including the use of shampoo in that 5 lb. number along with things like soap and probably toothpaste.

I'll bet if you took all of the actual cosmetics (lipstick, mascara, eyeliner, etc.) that an average make up wearer uses in a year and weighed it it wouldn't collectively come to five pounds - even with its packaging.

My 15 year old daughter has gone through various phases of experimentation with make up, most of which upset me on some level... All of which she grew out of quickly on her own.

As a man I didn't have any personal experience with wearing make up. I attempted a few bans and restrictions on make up use several times, all of which were resisted. My mother, who is a jewelry designer, tells me that in her opinion this experimentation phase was something that many/most(?) girls MUST go through. She says that she feels like it is "in our DNA."

I think also as a male that I worried that my daughter's interest in make up with intrinsically linked with feeling a need to "please boys." As she's gotten older I no longer think that that's the case (not that it isn't for plenty of women). I think she beautifies to please herself and her friends.

But that's just me. I love her no matter what.

You really believe that? Your father's interpreter was calling him an "infidel dog" under his breath?

The bulk of the dishes you mention are also Thai food. They are even pronounced identically or almost identically. There's no need to quibble about the country of origin of a given dish, but the photo you have of "amok" (I would have spelled it "hamok") could have been taken in Bangkok and "Kuy thiew" is Thailand's ubiquitous "Gway thiew" streetside noodle soup.

The history of Southeast Asia consists of a great deal of overrunning and sacking of territory - and settlement and intermarriage - between the Burmese, the Thai, the Lao and the Khmer. Unsurprisingly, the different cultural traits of these countries and people - especially when it comes to food - have been blurred over the years to the point where they often belong to everyone.

Ha!

I can't take credit for that - the credit belongs to James Wolcott.

That being said, however:

Are Republicans so stupid that they don't realize that they're in love with the gruff-but-lovable DA character on Law & Order? The operative word here is character.

I'm not a tough guy, but I play one on television.

Lowell, Massachusetts

Stockton, California

Minneapolis, Minnesota

San Jose, California

Orange, California

Richmond, California

Providence, Rhode Island

I'm sure that there are plenty of others.

Somebody mentioned Paris... If you're in Paris, check out the vast Southeast Asian commercial neighborhood in the 13e outside of the Place d'Italie. Real Lao Som Tam and more Vietnamese Pho than you can shake a stick at!

It has become increasingly clear that the Shiites have a score to settle with the Sunnis after years of living under their oppression, and nothing we or anybody else does or says is going to prevent them from following through on that. There is going to be Shiite on Sunni retribution for those awful years and it is going to be a bloodbath. Our continuing presence there only acts to hold the retribution in slow motion. We must leave at some point - whether it's this year or ten years from now - and when we do finally leave, the Shiites will carry out their retribution.

Slowing this down costs us 2.5 US troops and hundreds of millions of dollars every day. If the bloodbath is coming sooner or later, why not save our own lives and treasure and depart sooner rather than later?

I saw what appeared to be nightvision footage (it was black and white) of the men they shot on the news the day it happened. It seemed straightforward at the time... Men without uniforms carrying AK-47s and running together. I really felt at that moment that, OK, they're carrying weapons they must be legitimate targets.

Things never are that simple, are they? This is probably the single greatest flaw in current American military thinking. The very issues surrounding WHO TO SHOOT are multifaceted and confusing and way beyond the morality inherent in the tragically comic "rules of engagement."

The solution?

Call everybody al-Qaeda. "Shoot 'em all and let god sort them out." Talk about the ghost of American military misadventures past.