Of course, TV "reporting" is a mean and sexist industry, obsessed with the physical appearance of its female professionals.

And of course, no matter what she does or doesn't do, Candy Crowley will gain back all the weight she lost -- and then some -- in probably less than a year.

Oprah, anyone?

“People aren’t lukewarm about it,” Susan Anderson, the artist, says. “They either really like it, or they have a problem with it."

And that's how you sell books, right?

For the record, I am absolutely lukewarm on the subject of child beauty pageants.

If a new usage achieves those aims, it's OK with me. If it achieves just the opposite, not so much.

A few pet peeves, mostly from the “educated” classes:

whether or not – Ugh. In almost every case, whether (on its own) works just fine.

like (every other word spoken) – Double ugh. Contemptible.

between you and I, comprised of, and other "fancyisms" – Triple ugh. Just dog-butt ugly.

A few pet “pets,” mostly from the “uneducated” classes (or Southerners):

y'all – We have personal pronouns for every form except this one. What is gained by retaining the exception for the second-person plural?

ain't - We have contractions for is not and are not. What is gained by retaining the exception for am not?

s/he say/do/walk/talk/etc. - English verb conjugations are dramatically easier than those of other languages, because for almost all regular verbs, English uses just two forms. Why not use just one? What is gained by retaining the exception for the third-person singular?

I ghostwrote that book and now he thinks he deserves the royalties. Anybody got John Edwards' phone number?

"Do not people realize that perhaps yes, your taxes will go up, but you won't be paying health care insurance premiums any more!"

Apparently they don't. Perhaps it is because most insured Americans are insured through their employers, where the premium costs are hidden. Perhaps most of them have no illusions that their employers -- freed from paying those premiums (under single payer) or freed from paying such high rates for those premiums (under an environment where a public option might "keep" private insurers honest, as if they ever were) -- would see fit to funnel those savings back to the employees.

Who writes:

"The venom displayed by the other letter writers is disappointing. Look -- people lose their homes. Banks foreclose. If banks can't foreclose, then they can't lend -- they have to have the secured asset. If banks can't lend, you can't buy a house in the first place."

Only one thing to add. Throughout the article, the author repeatedly refers to the people foreclosed on as "owners." If someone doesn't pay the mortgage, isn't the lender the owner?

Otherwise well-written and very interesting article, by the way.

Heard it before, will hear it again, how they say that boys who are not given toy guns will make one out of wood, paper, food, etc. For the longest time, I hoped I would never have a boy because of the ugliness of what this idea implies.

Fortunately, after becoming mom to a son, I learned that "they" were wrong and I was wrong, too. I have never prescribed or proscribed any particular type of toy. My son, now 5, loves trucks and trains and dolls, toys cars and motorcycles, his scooter and skateboard, Legos, building blocks, stomp rockets, his tool chest, musical instruments, almost every variety of toy. But he has never asked me to buy him a toy gun, and certainly never tried to make one!

For some inexplicable reason, on three separate occasions female friends of mine have given my son a toy gun as a present. I smile politely and say thank you, and my son has a fine time playing with the gun that day. The next day, the gun somehow, uh, disappears, and my son doesn't even notice.

Maybe I'm just lucky.

Who writes:

"If memory serves, Moore was one of the far left, Leninist elite who stumped for Nader in 2000. Instead of apologizing or even admitting what he'd done, he spewed in his next book a bunch of nut job rationalizations."

That says it all.

To know that he's really a radio guy. Must explain why he does that weird visual stuff on-camera - unaware that he can be seen. Surely others have noticed this, the way his eyes will dart to the side for a moment when he's in the middle of some rant. Don't his producers know to put the teleprompter in *front* of him?

When will otherwise skilled journalists take Pete Hamill's excellent advice and put the kibosh on "tragedy"?

Apparently, not yet Joan Walsh, who writes:

"San Franciscans who lived through the Milk-Moscone murders (I did not) are still shadowed by that tragedy ...."

People, "tragedy" is OK for earthquakes, tornados, natural events. It's not OK for premeditated murder. On a large scale, the word "atrocity" is far more appropriate. Smaller scale, like the Milk-Moscone murders? "Crime" sounds about right. Or you could even follow journalism guidelines to the letter and use the straightforward "event" (the nature of the event is clear to the reader; no embellishment is necessary).

Just please stop using a no-fault term like "tragedy" in cases where fault is overwhelmingly obvious.

Koppelman, quoting from the author of the essay:

"You want to bring back the feeling of national unity and civility, Glenn Beck? You could start by not using this tragedy as your personal political platform."

Emphasis mine.

Can we please stop referring to mass murder as a tragedy? An earthquake, a hurricane, a flu epidemic, that's a tragedy. The deliberately planned and executed slaughter of thousands of innocents is an atrocity. Why use the no-fault word? Don't want to presume "guilt" on the part of those poor, misguided fellows in the cockpits of the 747s? I'm a longtime liberal, but dear god I sometimes despise that mentality.