it seems pretty obvious she's making an attempt to break out of any possible typecasting by showing a more aggressive and sexual side. i don't think any GQ editor convinced her to do those photographs against her wishes.

and as far as photoshop goes, i fail to see where the photoshopping is. her breasts seem pushed closer which always makes them look bigger.

i'm sorry if your image of "betty" was shattered, but i think that was the idea she had in mind..

the real question is "are they helping people cope with life better?"

if the answer is yes, then who cares who they are, where they come from what kind of boots they wear.

i'm afraid your cynicism is giving you tunnel vision regarding these new "gurus."

(for the record, i'm not a new ager, a life coach nor do i wear funky cowboy boots)

she recanted after it was revealed that the incident was captured on video in a cell phone, showing that it was consensual. meaning she had sex consensual with more than one man in a bathroom, called it rape and backed off once it was clear there was evidence she was lying.

it's your abc's that sound racist and misogynist. get your facts straight before you spout off.

why do you call it a "controversial address" when the speech itself is not controversial and so far there are no hints that it did or will contain anything controversial?

you're falling for it by using their terms.

but then again, i haven't dropped mine, cracked it's screen, gotten it "a little damp" etc.

maybe it's not your iphone that's the problem here... why is it that i get the feeling any other PDA style phone would give you the same problems?

i used to believe in full freedom in the internet, but as time goes on i'm realizing that the experience is being ruined by spammers, spyware, adware, bot DOS attacks, viruses and of course an army of trolls.

there's a reason why there are laws in the flesh and blood world. otherwise ir would be a free-for-all like the internet. biggest bully wins.

i'm with you, i think all those respondents that said taking the last name should be a requirement are a buncha dummies, but... but please don't muddy the waters by making it sounds like anyone said it should be an offense that will give you jailtime. it's such a right wing sort of tactic to demonize the opposing opinion by exaggerating and twisting the meaning of an opponent and it sickens me just as much when the left does it. doesn't matter whether it's drudge or the huff post (or salon). please bitch about policies and opinions in a honest manner and you just might win people to your side. outright lie and when it's discovered you lose all credibility.

i love the crazy ladies!

the sexuality here is purely in the eye of the beholder. as someone who has kissed his mother on the lips (though not on a regular basis), please believe me, it is in no way a sexually tinged exchange, it's just the way some families express affection.

both you cary and the letter writer need to look closer at your visceral reaction, because a lot of the problem is not what the other person is doing (showing affection for mom in a way they have for 27 years) but how it is being interpreted.

just as a clarification regarding your statement about whites becoming a minority. uhm.. that's totally wrong (or at least won't happen for a 100 years).

what i assume you meant to say that whites will no longer be the majority.

huh? isn't that the same thing? nope. the scenario goes something like this: in 30 years we could have 25% latinos, 20% african americans, 10% asians, and 5% non-white others, leaving us with 40% whites. not that is not a majority, but it is nowhere close to being a minority and would never have the implication that in such a case whites would be subject to the sort of derogatory treatments minorities have had to put up in the USA for ages..

damn, camille paglia just got suckered by a fake letter promoting someone's porn company?

i'm not against the content and i'm sure they make fine porn, but camille, you just got taken for a sucker to put a free ad...

my grandfather, who was not a great or even much of pleasant man, died in 1972.

the whole family mourned him even though there were hundreds of thousands innocent vietnames that had died at the hands of the USA.

is that wrong? should we not have mourned our imperfect grandfather because there were many others to mourn?

do we have some sort of limitation on our mourning so we can only mourn for a death at time and are therefore obligated to pick the most worthy recepient of our emotions? and who makes that call? you?

if that's a yes, then it shouldn't be an issue.

morality is such a relative term that a judge should not limit parental rights based on morality he or she dissaproves of.

i don't see the issue here. i've been to two funerals in my life where a young child spoke regarding the death of a parent. granted the deceased was not a celebrity but i don't see a problem here particularly when it can be cathartic to express such emotions in public at the last public farewell..

just my two cents.

welcome to reality. even the president of the USA is not all powerful. he still needs to deal with the many branches of government.