I find myself feeling protective of her just because so much of the vitriol she's absorbing these days is clearly a response to her being a woman who's transgressed cultural norms.

Yet again, Broadsheet Does. Not. Get. It.

NO, Kate, it's not about "transgressing cultural norms." It's about being a selfish, delusional brat more concerned with her own self-image than with what might be good for all those kids. (Not to mention her poor mother - has the woman come to her senses and left that house yet?) It's about a little girl who can't leave her baby-carriage fantasies behind, and who feels not the slightest remorse at sucking up what will eventually be millions of dollars that others will have to pay to indulge her. It's about an entitlement whore who can't get it through her head that the money she receives from the government makes her EXACTLY THE SAME as all the other families who receive money; her kids needs are no more "legitimate" than those of any other kids receiving aid.

Our world is choking to death on our presence, and you expect people to pat this self-regarding brat on the head? GIVE ME A BREAK.

about 15 years ago. Why should I spend that kind of money for stuff I can get elsewhere for less? With the combination of my internet connection and my Netflix ($25 and $18, respectively), I get all the entertainment I need. And since I'm not a format geek, whether or not it's in HD means very little to me.

you'd practically have to set the whole thing in Ethiopia or put the entire ensemble in roller skates to catch our attention.

Speak for yourself, Heather. YOU may need such idiotic "updating" in order to be interested in a classic story, but some of us have better taste than that. I'll bet you loved 300, didn't you?

I have to agree with a couple of people who posted comments yesterday:

1) Broadsheet seems to have no standards at all when it comes to picking stories to write about. You seem to revel in choosing the most irrelevant, prurient crap. Oh, and the more opportunities to say things like "ewww" and "creepy", the better. It still surprises me that posts here aren't larded with OMG and LOL and YMMV and other such nonsense. Which leads me to...

2) The constant high-school-freshman tone of the writing. The inanae kaffeeklatsches seem to have been dropped, but the use of tone is still unbelievably childish, especially given that these writers complain when they're not taken seriously. "Boob" instead of "breast" is only one example. Is there any reason why these subjects can't be talked about as adults, instead of giggling adolescents?

A comprehensive study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the pit bull breeds are the breed most often involved in fatal dog attacks in the U.S. Out of 238 dog bite deaths for which the breed was known from 1979 to 1998, 66 were caused by pit bull attacks (over 20%), more than any other breed.[5] There is no national recording system for non-fatal dog bites in the U.S.

Please get your facts straight next time.

Also, please keep in mind that many breeds can be lumped under the term "pit bull".

Paltrow has always been a spoiled rotten, conceited brat. She's notorious for being hell to work with. (A woman I befriended when doing extra gigs in the mid-90's told me how Paltrow had banned any woman with long, straight blonde hair from the set, because she didn't want anybody around who looked anything like her.) Besides that, she's a dreadful actress; I still don't know what anyone sees in her.

That her little project reeks of her self-importance and blindness to the reality of life is not surprising. The arrogance is takes to burble about - what were they? salmon roe patties with gold-plated jimmies and a side of unicorn hoof? - whatever the dish de jour is...man, that's some deep hubris.

But fame like hers depends on looks, and she's not the Next Young Thing anymore. Something tells me she might end up learning a little about real life, after all.

As usual, pathos is achieved by indulging in stereotypes. The dog was a "pit bull" (a meaningless designation that is not any one breed, but a disparate group that get lumped in together). Therefore, it must be prone to violence.

My dad always had a thing for whatever breed of dog people were scared of. In the 60's, it was German Shepherds. My family had four within that decade. In the 70's, Doberman Pinschers. We had three, including my Andy, whom I did not allow my dad to have mutilated. In the 80's, by which time I had left the family home, it was pit bulls. My parents had three. (By the 90's, my parents had decided they were too old for dogs; thank the gods, because I don't much like Rottweilers.)

None of these dogs showed the slightest sign of being "bred for violence" or dangerous temperaments. On the contrary, all of them were brave, good-natured dogs. (My Doberman Andy was a coward; she would duck her head and tail if you so much as looked at her funny.) The Dobermans put up with my little sister after she was born, and there was not a single biting incident that I can recall.

To prejudge an animal because of a cultural prejudice is not only wrong-headed, it prevents you from really getting to know the animal itself, who is just as likely to be a great guy as a psychopath, no matter what his breed. Bruno had his withered leg to get people to overlook his breed. Other dogs don't have a quick way around our prejudices, more's the pity.