Who's calling who self-absorbed? Debra Dickerson's review of Kayla Williams' book reeks of Dickerson's own jealousies and resentments. Why, because Williams got to go to a war zone? Because she got to write a book about being a female Army linguist? It shouldn't really matter why Dickerson feels this way, but her review raises more of these questions than it provides insightful, fair analysis of Williams' book.

It was the First Women's Bank, which I believe was chartered in 1975.

Poor kids, abruptly cut off from all physical expressions of affection and physical seeking of comfort from their mother because she seems to be unable to gauge how to create a comfortable set of boundaries for herself and her children, except by reference to what she imagines is going on in the minds of strangers. A mother more able to set boundaries for herself and her children would simply have told them that she doesn't like when they jump all over her in public (or in private), but that they can still share hugs and cuddles on the couch, or whatever is mutually comfortable for them. And to refuse to let her little girl stroke her arm when she was hurt on the playground seemed not only misguided, but cruel. This all-or-nothing approach is hardly a healthy or sensible solution.

Sharing physical affection and comfort with your kids is one of the great pleasures and powers of parenting. It's a shame that fear of what other people may be thinking has deprived this family of this kind of sharing.

Some parents find limited-use cellphones a useful technology for keeping in touch with their young kids, others don't. Why does this deserve sneering?

The part of this that strikes me as most stunning and outrageous are the people, including utter strangers, who seem to feel entitled to a justification for another family's naming practices. I suppose we should feel fortunate that such people exist, so that Ms. Ingall has a leaping-off point for bringing us another insightful and funny installment of her excellent East Village Mameleh column.

Thanks, indeed.

Much as I'd love to control the type and quantity of toys my four year old son is given for maximum educational quality, aesthetic impact, and durability, when inviting other people to an event at which it is customary (though by no means required) to give gifts, it is not polite to dictate what the giver must give. Even a gift that is the exact opposite of the type of thing I like my child to play with must be accepted graciously. Of course, if the prospective giver asks, then it's perfectly appropriate to give some guidelines or a wishlist. But this unilateral informing certain party guests that they are now expected to provide a particular kind of gift strikes me as plain rude.

Excited utterances and present sense impressions, two categories of statements into which 911 calls may typically fall, are exceptions to the hearsay rule which may be admitted even without the declarant present to testify. The real issue in this case is whether there is something special about domestic violence cases that would either render such statements "testimonial" as the defense would like, thus requiring the presence of the declarant in court, or turn more typically testimonial statements into exceptions to the hearsay rule because a domestic violence victim may feel he or she is in imminent harm based on past experience, even when it appears to other that the threat is over.

But Lynn Harris is a treasure!

I can hardly wait to see Scalia et al., who have fits of apoplexy when anyone tries to base an argument on "congressional intent" and refers to material such as statements made on the floor of Congress to support their interpretation of a law, when finally faced with a "Presidential signing statement intent" argument. I'm guessing the strict adherence to only the words in the statute will be out the window.

I am the happy owner of a custom-made Lace Embrace corset, made by the corsetiere for me while I was visiting Vancouver (she is a good friend of my cousin-in-law, who does some of her site's photography). Melanie is an expert in vintage clothing and underpinnings, and makes fine garments to be worn for a variety of purposes -- evening and bridal wear, to provide the correct shillouette for vintage designs, costuming, figure shaping, fetish, added support, whatever the client's needs are. Her garments are carefully researched, and meticulously designed, are comfortable, and are made with beautiful fabrics. They truly are works of art. Her large collection of vintage foundation garments has been exhibited in major museums. To slam an artisan like Melanie for extolling some kind of reactionary, anti-feminist agenda is just absurd. She's a woman running a successful fashion business making garments that are superior versions of the mass-produced lingerie you can find at any mall.