I'm pretty sure that she was aware of what Stephen Colbert was doing. The thing is, if you watch his interviews, you konw that the surest way to look like an idiot is to try to answer his questions seriously, and to argue with him. So people figure they'll avoid that peril by just playing along, and they end up doing what Flanagan did: sit there with a straight face and agree with everything he says. That is the second-surest way to look like an idiot. The only way not to look like an idiot (aside from not going on the show) is to do what Colbert is doing: up the ante on everything he says, answer his questions by asking him ridiculous, unanswerable questions, change the subject suddenly and bizarrely, etc. Very few interviewees manage to do this. He is extremely good at what he does, and luckily (at least from my point of view) he uses his powers for good.

My guess: lots of expensive alcohol. Assuming that it was just the two of them, that's just about the only way to get into the quadruple digits.

Here's the restaurant's surpisingly clunky website: http://www.citronelledc.com

Their special Chef's Table Dinner "starts at $275.00 per person for food and wine pairing," which gives you an idea of their prices.

A couple of movie theaters near where I live have "baby night" -- a couple of screenings a week that parents can attend with babies under a year old. If you don't arrive with a baby, they make sure you know the deal before you buy your ticket. This allows parents a chance to get out during the evening without unduly inconveniencing other movie-goers. There is usually a fair amount of shrieking during the earlier shows, but the later ones are fairly quiet, since most of the babies are asleep.

I would never bring my daughter with me to a live performance. And you know, on the nights when my husband and I go out without our daughter, we don't particularly want to have to listen to other people's kids in the theater or restaurant.

I collect soundalike typos, and there's a great one in this article -- "eminent" where the meaning is clearly "immanent." I've never seen that one before -- kudos!

It never hurts to have a big Hollywood delegation behind your cause.

Maybe. It can call attention to a cause, but also turn off people who resent Hollywood stars for trying to use their celebrity for political purposes. If performers want to donate their talents for fundraising events, that's one thing, but I don't see why I should give more attention to what they think about any given social issue than I give to, say, policy professionals.

(Of course, I still firmly believe that IVF and other infertility treatments should only be available to people who have first adopted a child or exhausted their adoption possibilities, and that infertility treatments should be taxed to provide for children in foster care.)

Of course.

Do you realize what this would entail? How would you verify that a couple has "exhausted adoption possibilities"? Do you know anything about how adoption works? And what does "other infertility treatments" mean? That's a pretty broad category that could include a lot of mild drug treatments. Maybe we should withhold all elective medical procedures from anybody who doesn't adopt a child first.

Sheesh.

One thing to keep in mind is that PGD can only be done in concert with IVF. IVF is an expensive, stressful, invasive procedure that people don't undergo without a compelling reason (usually the inability to acheive a pregnancy any other way). I doubt that large numbers of people will start doing IVF solely so that they can have PGD. I do know a woman who had it done to screen for Huntington's Disease, but that's hardly comparable to a breast cancer gene. I'm always suspicious of polls that report that X% of couples would abort if they knew the baby had a gene predisposing it for obesity, or whatever. People might say that when asked about a hypothetcal situation, but until you're faced with the choice you have no idea what you'd do.

Interestingly, significantly more Americans who adopt from overseas prefer to adopt a girl. It's not just a "supply" issue: yes, in China and India, far more girls are available for adoption, but in countries where the numbers of adoptable boys and girls are about equal, such as Russia or Guatemala, the waiting list is longer if you want to adopt a girl, and if you don't express a preference, you're likely to be matched with a boy.

I don't know what this means (I have my theories), but it suggests that the parental preference for boys isn't universal.

I didn't see a smirk. Just a robotic turn of the head.

It's by Malcolm Gladwell, and it's up on his website:

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm

I read it when it was published, but I haven't reread it and don't remember it well, so I don't necessarily endorse the content. But I have to say, due to pregnancy and nursing, my last period was over a year ago and I haven't missed it!

that on yesterday's "New and Notes" (an NPR program on "topics and concerns of interest to African Americans today"), all the participants their daily roundtable discussion agreed unequivicolly that Jefferson should step down now. If he's innocent, he can come back once he's been exonerated, but in the meantime he's hurting his party and his constituents. Pelosi should demand Jefferson's resignation.

On the other hand, I don't think that protest of the raid on his office was a matter of "circling the wagons." After all, Hastert and others in the Republican leadership are also publicly condeming it. Again, Pelosi should demand Jefferson's resignation, but the issue of separation of separation of powers doesn't seem to be a partisan one.