Thinking of the United States as "post racial" is like thinking of women as "post female." There's racism in this country, and just because it can be subtle doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That being said, I agree with the LW who wrote that she was sick of people projecting themselves onto Michelle Obama. She is a beautiful woman, and she has straight hair. Maybe she just likes it that way. One reading of it may be that it's political, another may be that she just likes straight hair on herself. I think she should be able to wear whatever hairstyle she likes, without it being dissected.

Of course, I am not a black woman, but I find black hair beautiful. Especially when it's worn natural, or in locks. And there's no qualifiers to go along with that, like the "we're all beautiful on the inside" or "you're beautiful in your own way" B.S. that is so often used in a backhanded way. No, I just think it's beautiful. Period.

But I also think Michelle Obama is beautiful. And so are her daughters.

Certainly, standards of beauty need to expand more broadly. The work isn't done. But please, can we give the First Lady's body and physical appearance a break, already?

We've lost over 400 mountains to the coal industry. Yes, entire mountains, primarily in the appalachian range. Because the coal industry is blowing them up.

Just imagine - a mountain, an entire ecosystem... gone. Now imagine well over 400 of them. Gone.

Why? Because it's cheaper for them in the long run. They don't have to hire as many workers to mine the coal. They just blow up the entire mountain, and then use machinery to sort out the coal from the rubble.

To process and transport that coal, the industry is grossly polluting valleys and rivers, and poisoning entire communities. Because of the way coal is processed, kids are playing in school yards where their shoes and hands turn black with coal dust. Which is highly toxic, and carcinogenic.

There is nothing clean about coal. Nevermind burning it - harvesting it is one of the worst, most environmentally devastating processes that we allow to continue in America. When coal slurry breaks into rivers, it goes unreported. And yet it's devastation that is almost unparalleled.

If we want "clean coal" (probably always an oxymoron), then we've got to first figure out how to stop devastating the environment to get at it, and outlaw mountaintop removal and other insidious practices.

There's the (mildly controversial, due to lactivist.com) Breast Milk Project, which ships breast milk to Africa and to needy infants in the US: http://www.breastmilkproject.org

Then there's non-profit milk banks that serve ill infants at hospitals here in the US and Canada at low cost: http://www.hmbana.org/index.php?mode=locations

I notice everyone in this story was focused on how Salma Hayek felt so noble for feeding the child, and hey, more power to her, but nobody seemed to ask the mother how she felt about this happening. That just disturbs me a little bit.

It would be one thing if Polanski had served his time and tried to go on with his life. It would be one thing if the witness was deemed to be unreliable. It would be one thing if Polanski had never admitted to what he did.

But Polanski never served his time, and he admitted that he did what the girl said he did.

If he had gone to prison and accepted the judgment against him, then I would be arguing that a person who goes to prison, serves time, and then completes his or her sentence and goes on to not commit crimes anymore should not have previous convictions held against him or her.

However, that is not the case, and Polanksi needs to own up to the fact that self-imposed exile from the United States isn't equivalent to a sentence from a judge.

I think he should come back, and turn himself in, and go to trial. Yes he went through awful things in his life, and perhaps this added significantly to a mental state that would allow him to rape a barely pubescent girl. But that should be brought before a jury.

I had the same reaction, of it being a terrible invasion of privacy, but also there being the benefit of putting this issue on a national stage in a visceral way. What I want to know is, how does Rihanna feel? But then again, is that another invasion, as well? Do I have a right to know how she feels about all this? Where does the entitlement of the public in relation to celebrity stop?

On a side note, this weekend I was watching some TED talks and got into a thread of authors. One of them was Isabel Allende, and I highly recommend watching her talk - she broaches this topic in a really moving way, highlighting the need for feminism through humor and tragedy.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion.html

A friend of mine's husband has been out of work for an entire year now. And he still balks at doing chores, even at allowing her some free time in the morning without the toddler.

This same sort of thing has happened with other couples I know. The women who've gotten laid off actually did more around the house (after a week or two of moping), the men did less. Or, at least, not more than they had before they had all this extra time on their hands.

The few men I've known who have taken the opportunity to help more around the house were already helping a lot, and proactively so. This, unfortunately, is not the norm amongst the folks I know.

All I think it means is, the culture of gender roles is by no means dead.