Regardless of the fun to be had speculating about why Woods was driving at 2:25 am, what first got my attention is the possibility that something bad happened to his brain either before, or as a consequence of, hitting the hydrant and tree (see late Natasha Richardson). The delay in making an announcement and the confusion about his condition would be reasonable if he were being observed for the possibility of brain injury--they would not necessarily know yet how seriously he was hurt.

Kate, I think you should write the next marriage-advice book. Your summation in this piece is completely charming.

Um, I am happy to mock bad science any old time. But I think it's a stretch to attribute any complex motive to HarperCollins' legal action against allowing a full chapter of a new book to be posted for free online. Publicity is one thing; giving away 20% of the book is another. Especially the controversial chapter in a controversial book that is getting a lot of critical press -- there are way too many people who might buy the book just to read that chapter, based on the controversy, who don't care enough to buy the whole book if they can assess the controversial chapter for free. Plus, once you've allowed a full chapter of a new book to be posted online for free and failed to prosecute, it can be used as part of a (legal) argument for future posts of future major sections of future controversial books. I imagine HarperCollins is far more exercised by the threat to its ever-more-tenuous hold on copyright than on any criticism of the book's thesis; as you point out, criticism = publicity = sales.

Heather, you are the best TV reviewer ever. You are funny and knowledgeable, and now, on top of all that, appropriately compassionate. And I can almost always tell from your reviews whether I should bother to watch something or not.

She looks like ... an ordinary mortal!

@pgm -- thank you for the possible diagnosis. Usually I am happy to make fun of right-wing media figures, because I figure they know what they are doing and are at least somewhat cynical and in control about it. But Ms. Taitz calls forth a different reaction -- I am afraid for her. Too bad a compassionate practitioner couldn't persuade her that she is attracting too much attention and needs to lay low for a while for her own safety. She has set herself up for so much criticism that it all has to be reinforcing her most paranoid ideas -- and probably putting her beyond the reach of any kind of effective help.

Next week is National Invisible Chronic Illness Week. So I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that you can never be sure you know *why* the person at the next locker is flabby or lumpy or in some other way imperfect. Often it is several months after surgery before one is free to work out again; a bout with chronic pain can keep you off the treadmill, too; anti-inflammatory steroids can swell you up like a helium balloon. And for every Angelina Jolie who is back in her bikini three weeks after giving birth, there's a cancer survivor exhausted and drained by chemo and radiation who needs a couple of years before her dress size is her first priority again. I've known a couple of women who were proud of the post-cancer naked bodies because the scars (one abdominal, one chest) were the marks of their survival. But fat and poor muscle tone can be the products of many kinds of illness, from depression to broken bones; and they can be the products of having to take care of the illnesses of others -- ask how many Alzheimer's caretakers manage a workout every day. And so, yeah, when those people make it back to the gym, I feel the only judgment I'm really entitled to is to admire them for getting there.

My mobile phone is a limited-function LG; and my network isn't AT&T. But you know what? My mobile service still saves up voice mails for days without telling me, sends calls directly to voice mail even though I have reception, has very poor sound quality, requires a ridiculous Rube Goldberg apparatus to record calls from, and is, in general, not a reliable tool for a working journalist.

And that is why both at home and at my office, I have a land line. It is a valid professional expense. I can leave a tape recorder hooked up to it, and push "record" when important interview subjects call me, and best of all -- it rings when they call! If I'm not home, a convenient machine built into the phone takes the voice mail, and when I see the phone again, it blinks to let me know I have messages.

I use the cell for making contact with sources, editors, and friends when I am not in my home or office; but any call that matters then gets scheduled for the land line, and if that means I have to hang around where I said I'd be for a few hours so a source can call me back, I hang around. (This shouldn't be a problem for a person who doesn't leave the house for several days at a time.)

Anyway my point is that most of your problems are not iPhone problems. They are mobile phone problems. If you're serious about being a journalist, get a land line.

EOM

I just wanted to point out that these observations aren't new. Researchers were reporting 30 years ago that when a field attracts more women, average salaries decrease--one of the examples I recall is a drop in income for primary care physicians when women reached 50% of their numbers, and a similar decline in income for pharmacists as women joined their ranks. What actually sucks is that it's still true.