No Wesley Clark?! Good GOD, people!!!! He's got it ALL goin' on!!!

And props to those who noticed the criminal absence of Keith Olbermann on Salon's list. I'd like to add Tim Robbins as well. Susan, if you're reading this... should you ever tire of that man, send him my way.

(Oh, and of course Bill Clinton.)

"Flying the boob-hating skies"? I also don't want to see a man whip out his penis in public... does that make me "penis-hating"? No one hates either boobs or breastfeeding.

Breastmilk is best, absolutely. But in public, there's no reason not to administer said breastmilk from a bottle, if nutrition really is your only concern. We all learn to adapt our behaviors--even the normal, natural, healthy ones--to our surroundings. It's part of being an adult. And not everything we do is appropriate to do in front of people. Doesn't make the activity itself wrong (which is the part you're all not getting), just the context in which it's being done. Just like you don't talk frankly about last night's whoopie-making in front of grandma or your kids... not because whoopie is wrong, but because it's wrong in that context.

Urinating, having sex and changing my feminine products are all normal, natural and healthy activities. That doesn't make it appropriate to do them anywhere, anytime. Some normal, natural, healthy activities--like the ones that involve exposing any body part generally accepted as inappropriate to be exposed in public--should be done in private. That's just common sense, and simple respect for those around you. You might have the right do something (you have the "right" to have sex, for example), but that doesn't mean you also have the right to do it everywhere.

That's really the point. Not that boobs or breastfeeding are offensive and wrong. Both are terrific... where appropriate. A little decorum, people. No one else really needs or wants to experience your bodily functions, "natural and beautiful" (just like sex!!) or not.

I only discovered "More" last year, when I spotted Joan Allen on the cover in a mesmerizing dress, looking absolutely gorgeous... and 47. That's what struck me. They didn't airbrush her into a 25-year-old, they simply allowed her to look 47. As if it wasn't a crime against beauty. And that made me want to open the magazine. I subscribed that night.

But while I don't have nearly the chutzpah and get-up-and-go of 98% of the women in that magazine, that's not the point. It's that being in my 40s should not STOP me from being gorgeous and gutsy and chock-full of chutzpah... and that life is not the exclusive domain of 25-year-olds. I may not do all those things, but I could. For whatever reasons I don't, my age is one of the lesser ones.

That's the real point of "More." That looking 47 should not disqualify a woman from being thought of as beautiful, nor should it stop her from starting a new career or doing anything else that other similar magazines have always reserved for the young.

The president who got a chance to start over, with wide popular support, in the wake of 9/11 instead ruled as the bully-in-chief, presiding over a regime that made dissent synonymous with treason.

Six years of misery for the entire world... beautifully, perfectly summed up in one succinct sentence.

Brava, Joan. Excellent piece.

Queens pretty is not Manhattan pretty. Poor pretty is not rich pretty. Latina pretty is not white pretty.

This is more than a little over-analytical. Many--and I mean MANY--women who live in Queens (and do so by choice, because they get to keep a lot more of their paycheck and don't have to share a shoebox with roommates) work in Manhattan every day. Manhattan is not some faraway wonderland that foreign Queens girls can only dream about entering, and Betty is not one of the few who dare venture to this exclusive, magical place. What a tired cliche. Ask around in your Manhattan office, and see how many of the women there are actually from Manhattan, or even live there. (Then take note of how many of them are, indeed, pretty.)

"Poor pretty is not rich pretty" can really be translated as "tacky pretty is not elegant pretty," which applies to any borough, and any attractiveness or wealth level. The richest, prettiest girl is going to look hideous in the ridiculous, over-the-top get-up they put Betty in for that episode.

And being "Latina pretty" sure hasn't hurt Jennifer Lopez, Penelope Cruz, Eva Longoria, Shakira... or Salma Hayek. For that matter, the African-American Vanessa Williams is considered to be very, very pretty; shockingly, even in the context of this supposedly "must be white to be pretty" show (in which all the women were originally Latina).

Oh, and yeah, I live in Queens. I finally left my expensive Manhattan shoebox a few years ago for a huge place in Queens that cost $600 a month less, and cut my commute in half in the process. It was faster from Queens to my Upper East Side office than it was from my expensive Manhattan shoebox. Now I live in a house, free from noisy neighbors. We "Queens gals" can be pretty AND smart.

He insists this is "the first time [he's] ever seen Fox display any symptoms" of Parkinson's Disease.

For crying out loud. Every time I've seen Michael J. Fox in the past I don't know HOW many years, I've thought "oh, the poor guy. What a shame. And so young." To say this is the first time he's displayed any symptoms is as ridiculous as the entire episode is repugnant.

I continue to wonder how Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage & co. manage to sleep at night. They're not even remotely close to human.