So you think Jessica Simpson isn't concerned about being fat? Because it seems to me that the PETA response was about her t-shirt, right? Simpson hardly being an advocate for a revoluation in body image, I take the comments as being directed towards those who think like she does. Given that a large percentage of women in the US actually ARE obsessed with their weight, the comment doesn't seem misplaced at all. I don't think that way, but I'm not self-directed enough to think that nobody else does, and thus the comment must necessarily be an insult.

Try to keep in mind the audience they're targeting, and try not to think that every public statement is aimed at you in particular. Your blood pressure will thank you.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. Modern science has proven again and again that once we have a certain knowledge, we will exploit it no matter who it might harm. This holds doubly true for something like this, that gets under the skin of so many bigots. Of course the fundie community would support it - better thousands of children exposed to unknown risks than one gay kid born naturally. Imagine the population of physically and/or mentally afflicted children, suffering whatever consequences from being dosed with amounts of hormones they weren't meant to have running through them - I bet you anything the fundies would call them "little saints" or some such hypocritical horseshit.

Just saw this film today and I really enjoyed it. Maybe I just expect less of big Hollywood comedies than the rest of you do, but I thought it did what it set out to do pretty well. I do agree with Stephanie about the action sequences - why does every summer film get loaded down with these overblown, boring chase sequences? But the dry Brooks-Henry style wit is still there, the pick-ups from the original series are way cool, and the cast is excellent.

Why do people keep insisting on inflating their memories of those old shows into something they never were? I remember the old GS, and while it was sharp and funny, it wasn't great theater; it was just good Mel Brooks. The film isn't great theater either, but then again, nobody ever said it would be. (And by the way, both Mel Brooks and Buck Henry worked on it, and they seem to be fine with the result.)

Sure, it didn't drive me to any deep existential thoughts or spiritual epiphanies, but for gods sakes, it's a Hollywood remake of a 60's sitcom. What did you expect, Shakespeare? This is a popcorn movie, and in that, it delivers in spades.

Now what I'd like to know is when is the UN going to get the power to prosecute? It's about time that international body got some teeth, as so far it only has the power to shake its finger at people.

You're wrong. Whether religious or atheist, in the end we all go home - to the Earth, to the elements, to the universe, from which we all came. What does or does not happen after that makes no difference.

RIP George. Gonna miss your wit - it's far more effective than pedantry.

Not going into any details on George's greatness or the pleasure I've had over the years listening to him, as others have already said it.

But I would like to point out one things that always bowled me over, and yet nobody ever seems to mention it: his word lists. He did a new one of these with each new show, and they were truly magnificent. Opening each show with these long, complex poem/games was the perfect gambit. Having done some onstage performance myself, I could see how they accomplished the dual purpose of limbering up his vocal cords and timing, and also immersing the audience immediately in his linguistic rhythm and swing. They were fun, giddy roller-coaster rides, true word jazz, and the more amazing in that he never used notes or cue cards, but would go full-tilt boogie for five minutes on these riffs. Every time I was left breathless and excited at the end, and eager for the rest of the show.

And now I'm feeling sad that I'll never hear another of those linguistic dances. RIP, George. Nobody waltzed with words the way you did.

Although I think it is way past time that online services become part of birth control, this seems to me not the way to go about it. A preferable alternative would be, not presciptions, but rather pharmaceutical online services. That is, the patient would still have to see a doctor, but the medicine would be available online after the doctor had prescribed. An ideal service would be accessible to doctors and clinics, and patients who had doctor's prescriptions. Such services, which would operate on a subscription basis with the doctors and health facilities (and thus would have verification processes in place), would be invaluable in the present climate of growing judgmentalism and shrinking access.

Broadsheet has made several posts in recent months on the growing scarcity of birth control services for women in the US. It seems to me that this would be the way to solve most of the problem.