My son is 14 years old. He was born in Park Slope, Brooklyn, where we still live. Admittedly we inhabit a rarefied demographic. But still. All the other mothers around me, and even I, wished fervently for a daughter. Girls were/are hugely preferred. This remains the case. What's this idea about a preference for boys? Hardly. This strikes me as a tone-deaf, outdated notion.

Isn't Brooks' point more interesting than your snarky take- down of his point? I'm watching my handsome, perceptive, empathic (and post-adolescent) 14-year-old son wade into the world of girls. He likes them, sees them, talks to them, but mostly texts and Facebooks with them. These days one girl in particular has snared his attention. He's a good guy, everyone says so, but he doesn't have a clue as to how to negotiate these shoals, so he goes with his base texting/Facebook instincts,and his father and I wring our hands, since in this universe we are useless as far as he's concerned (and he's right). I know Brooks is a neo dork, but this utter incomprehension of the New Normal is not a retro Brooksian trope. It's real.

I've been astonished by the wide world of hugging inhabited by my 14-year-old son and his peers. Astonished, not appalled. Which is how I read the Times article. Yes some sources in the piece had a rather stuffy perspective, but that is hardly surprising. All this hugging among teens is without doubt a notable trend, so it's a valid topic for a newspaper, which, among other obligations, is tasked with tracking social trends. I am bemused, not bothered by all this hugging. I enjoyed the humor of the piece, and the opportunity it provided to consider the trend in a larger context.

last graf, first sentence: you mean "appreciable" (not "appreciative") diffference.

This id oddly relevant to a conversation I had just today, with a professional nanny. She used to work for a oouple of my friends, competently taking care of the children, cooking meals, the whole nine yards. She never played lip service to the whiny needs of we yuppie moms -- she was always no-nonsense, extremely reliable, and full of wry humor, if occasionally somewhat detached and cool. In any case we adored her even if we sometimes feared her. She helped see my friend's daughter through the death of her mother, my friend, so she and I have a special bond. Anyway she's now working with a new family and I ran into her on the street this afternoon. We paused and had a friendly chat as her current three-year-old charge sat placidly in his stroller. This hard-working nanny informed me that she's told her sons she will NOT take care off any children they might have without being paid. "I'm a professional," she said, simple as that. "I don't do it for free." "Oh come on," I teased her. "Not even occasionally?" "Nope," she said defiantly. "You do it once and next thing you know you've got the kid for three days at a time." So there you go. This Bahamian nanny living with her trucker husband in deep Brooklyn has no plans to take care of her eventual grandchildren.

I disagree that Gibbs took Hannity down. Hannity kept making the (irrelevant) point that he interviews many people who disagree with him and that as a "journalist" (his term) it's his job to do so -- unlike, according to Hannity, Obama's circumstances with Ayers. Gibbs did nothing to address Hannity's point, which, if it had come from an actual journalist, would have been valid. Gibbs should have made the very obvious argument that Hannity was not interviewing Martin on the subject of Jews or anti-Semtisim, so his (Hannity's) defense is specious. Hannity conceded that Martin's views are despicable -- so why did he credit the guy by using him as an expert witness on any subject, let alone the suitability of a presidential candidate who does not conform to the racial criteria that Martin openly subscribes to -- again, a prejudice that Hannity claims to find repugnant. Not that I blame Gibbs for failling to nail Hannity, given Hannity's refusal to let Gibbs speak two sentences in succession. I don't tune in Fox very often. Hannity's bullying took my breath away.

Odinga's base of support Muslim? Odinga lost the election? Excuse me, but the premise of this entire dispatch is factually incorrect. Shaller's point is fine as far as it goes but it's parochial. The larger point he should have made is how glibly this guy Corsi exploits American ignorance about foreign affairs (esp. African affairs) to construct his own self-serving fantasy.

Hallelujah Ms. Brown, it's so very satisfying to hoist them on their own petard. But Ms. Harris, of course Ms. Brown knows what we know, and knows that we know what she knows. She doesn't need to show her hand to show her hand. In fact an obvious wink would diminish her point. Brown's commentary ("rant" does not do it justice) works on the face of it, AND it works to eviscerate the claims of sexism that so far have, appallingly, worked so well to exempt Palin from the rough and tumble of her campaign.

Yes, La Vie en Rose did ride entirely on Cotillard's performance. But what a performance. O'Hehir acknowledges this yet brushes it aside in favor of Christie's turn in Away From Her. Christie was extraordinary, and luminous as ever, but, my god, Cotillard pulses on the screen with the criss-crossed trajectories of Piaf's quaking soul. Her performance is simultaneously dense and light-as-air. I cannot remember the last time I felt so consumed and demolished by a screen persona. It's the Oscars, which I dutifully watch every year unburdened by expectations. But I whooped, absolutely whooped, when Forrest Whitaker said Cotillard's name.