Also his barber and his chef too. Only we the streets are cleared of these MONSTERS (because, hey you never know when that box of extra cheese and pepperoni might be used for TERROR!) will I feel safe!

By the way, (and I'm sure most of you smarties know this already) but what the driver was found "guilty" of wasn't even the original charge in the first place. Originally it was just the conspiricy charge. Then a law was passed and they addedd that LATER ON. So no, merely being Osama's chaffuer WASN'T illegal until Bush suddenly said it was.

Someone earlier defended the self-indulgent tactics of Code Pink by saying "Well at least they're doing something." Ooh is that like how tabloids praise attention-seeking celebrities who show up at a "charity" function wearing an AIDS ribbon as "doing something?" Funny, but I thought it was a good idea to "do something" that's actually designed to get results. But hey, the Code Pink people do get to pat themselves on the back to show how much they care (unlike the plebians who are so much inferior. It's like the activist version of being "holier-than-thou!" Why not, the attitude has worked so well for the Christians after all.)

And speaking of Christians, I read a passage of the Bible once where Jesus was warning some of his followers not to do as the hypocrits do loudly praying and making a big show of it because he said that they already got their reward. Now why did I say that? I'm one of the dumb masses so I can't figure it out. But I'm sure one of the smart people here can interpret.

You really don't get it? She doesn't "hate" these shows at all. The point of the column is right there in the title after all. Often these programs are "bad" in quality and she knows that, intellectually at least, she should "hate" them. Nevertheless Havrilesky watches them with fascination anyway. The column is then about exploring why that is and what it then says about "us" (or at least "her.") Sometimes Havrilesky hits the mark and sometimes she doesn't but I usually do get what the overall point is.

That way you can get the stick up there further. Some of y'all are some seriously uptight folk.

Today, the world has improved by his death greatly.

Um...how? As someone I'm sure Mr Helms would have despiesed (being both Black and gay, The horror!) I'll admit that I'm not breaking down in uncontrollable sobs and holding candlelight vigils for him. Nevertheless, I really don't get why I should cheer and glorify in Helmes' death? As this one poster put it, how HAS the world been improved by his death?

If someone else isn't, and does the surgery route, why is this any concern of yours?

(Damn, I typed a longer response to this, but the browser crashed, and now I need to get going. So here's a shortened version)

That's what many of the complaints are about. This ISN'T news at all. But a dull-witted, increasingly-tabloid media, a misleading headline, a fame-whore willing to expose herself and her family for their 15 mninutes (don't be surprised if "he" has a VH1 show co-starring Flavor Flav anytime soon), and desperate advocates and activist that will exploit overhyped tabloid nonsense, no matter HOW tangibly and marginally related to discuss various pet issues, say otherwise.

It's partly because, unlike other pregnant men, Beatie has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to speak to the press (including dubious tabloids like the News of the World).

A "remarkable willingness" Oh is THAT what we're calling it now? In that case Heidi and Spencer from The Hills also have a "remarkable willingness to speak to the press."

Like, say Mini-me and his unfortunate situation, this "pregnant man" seems pretty content allowing himself to become a sideshow attraction for psuedo-celebrity notoriaty. It's not that complicated, people.

And I know it's tempting, but not EVERY overhyped piece of sensationalism needs to be tied into some kind of tangibly related activist cause. I just want to make this clear before Tila Tequilla's current popularity results in articles about job discrimination among Asian-Americans or some shit like that.

I don't really get the big upset over this book/study. First of all, we live in a society where women are encouraged to do ANYTHING to please men. So the very idea that there are desperate-to-please people (and there are, trust me) may be overstanted, but it's not like it doesn't exist in the type of society we live in now. After all, porn often absorbs the cultural and social mores of society as oppose to dispelling them (Only "sluts" do those kinds of things. Good girls don't do that, etc. It's not like mainstream porn rejects the hyperbole either.)

And of course people can WATCH something, but not exactly LIKE it (Heather Havrilesky makes an example of that each week.) Porn being hated and porn "turning you on" aren't always mutually exclusive.

And exactly is wrong, with the idea of putting more kissing and more foreplay etc. in porn? Why is that a bad thing? I understand you're ralling aginst stereotypes, but would it be so horrible if they DID put more "romance" in porn? (which i assume means treating the other person with some kind of respect instead of merely a walking cum dumpster.)