I haven't seen the movie yet, as it opens today, but I hope it's in the spirit of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" or "Only the Strong Survive," both semi-documentaries, but not like "Dreamgirls," which was slow and somewhat dull, mostly because Beyonce's character (who, of course, was not Diana Ross) was not developed. She preened instead of acted.

I also like "Ray" and "Walk the Line," though Joaquin Phoenix seemed more angry and less folksy-charming than Johnny Cash on stage. And, going way back, I liked "Coalminer's Daughter" and "Lady Sings the Blues."

So I hope people who see the movie will post about how it compares with the others, and/or suggest listservs where such a discussion might take place.

I'm very happy that the Obama daughters are going to a Quaker school. I went to a Quaker college during the civil rights era, and it gave me a lifelong passion for social justice. We all demonstrated, wrote letters, gathered food, took risks, and never questioned the need to put ourselves on the line to fight against wrongdoing. It was just understood that that was what one did.

I can't think of a better way to grow up, with one's mind and with one's heart.

I've become wary of reviewers who trash "women's movies" nowadays.

"Sex and the City" and, especially, "Mamma Mia" received vicious reviews, and yet I loved both of them. In fact, I kept/keep going back to see them, because they're joyous and funny, warm toward women but never cloying. They're about reconciliation and loyalty, as well as fun (and in "Mamma Mia," glorious music).

I liked the original "The Women" as a portrayal of the catty wives women had to be at the time. I think it's cleverly written.

I haven't seen this one, and am wondering whether Williams is a woman's-movie trasher or a sensible critic. Guess I'll have to go see the movie to answer my own question.

Why do we (allegedly) want firepits?

I truly don't understand this. What are we supposed to be firing up?

I hate to shop, but I'd go to the mall if parking were close to the food shops.

As usual with pieces like this, the term "obese" isn't defined, and being "obese" (whatever that is) is presumed to be bad.

First of all, it's well-known that being "obese" (a BMI above whatever) is meaningless as an evidence of health or lack of it. It's an index used as a form of social control by the weight loss/weight surgery profiteers. If it measures anything, it MAY measure fitting a certain beauty (but not health) ideal.

The use of the ugly word "obese" is part of the weight hysteria fueled by the profiteers. Why not say "fat" or "round" or "plump"? Or just say that some people are large, some people are small, and diversity is great?

For what it's worth, Brad Pitt is "obese," according to Paul Campos's book _The Obesity Myth_. So are all National Football League players.

So the research finding, such as it is, says that fathers have more influence (in Australia) on whether young people become "obese" (whatever that is). Well, fathers in the United States may have more influence than mothers on whether teens eat hot dogs. Or maybe not. Who cares?

This is a Who Cares? exercise (not even a study) dressed up as if it means something.

Jamie Lynn Spears' faux pregnancy is actually more interesting. We're in bad shape, folks!

I object to Tracy Clark-Flory's offhand comment about burning off excess Thanksgiving calories.

When will women stop inserting gratuitous self-hating messages in what they/we write?

Hundreds of times a day, we're bombarded with little items like that, telling us we've eaten TOO MUCH, we've enjoyed life TOO MUCH, and we need to PUNISH OURSELVES and OTHER WOMEN.

This is annoying, and it creates a cloud of hostility fluttering around every woman.

Let's enjoy eating, enjoy reading, throw out the bathroom scales, and be the laughing, loving, enjoying women we can be.

Of course, now that I've started posting, I'm snorkeling around, trying to figure out something to say so that I'll make it to the Editors' Choice section.

I so hate making a mediocre posting, especially since I am first, and therefore have an obligation to be a role model to all who come after me.

So, let me say, that four score and seven years ago, I was not here on this earth. That was 1920, at which time there were Giant Celebrities, not the pygmies we have today in our barbarous and fallen times.

The 1920s had people in serious need of rehab. Zelda and Scott! Dorothy Parker! Ernesto Hemingway! Warren Harding (except that he was already dead--but maybe he needed resurrectin').

These celebrities of today, with their silly little panty-less episodes and name calling and finger licking--they are but dwarves, midgets, and amoeboid things compared to the goddess and god celebrities of yore.

I have spoken. I hope this is an Editors' Choice.

If not, I've wasted several minutes on a Friday night, minutes that shall never come by again.

I am awaiting the Editors' verdict.

I read A. S. Byatt's POSSESSION, which I suppose is what previous posters are referring to. I like the idea--biographers fall in love--but I felt the book was excruciatingly slow. I could not finish it.

I'm wondering if this book is the same, as are so many in which the novelist parades his/her literary knowledge.

That wasn't the case with Byatt, who cared more about rumination than pacing.

I can't stand sentences bogged down with adverbs, such as Henry James's. I like Stephen King's rule: NO ADVERBS.

I'm an impatient American.

I hope someone will tell me whether this book MOVES or not.