She nailed it with her description of John Edwards. Is it wrong that I found her description highly amusing?

Other than that, yawn.

On a different note, Amy Benfer writes:

"Caitlin Flanagan considers it a devilishly immoral act to steal another woman's husband. I'm not inclined to disagree -- nor do I have any personal investment in defending husband-stealing, having never had much interest in the practice myself."

Fine, but can we at least agree to retire the term "husband-stealing." What's the connotation? That a husband is wifey's property? And vice versa?

And on that note, I'm surprised about the near-unanimity concerning Rielle Hunter's role as culprit, not just among conservative feminists like Flanagan, but also among mainstream feminists and gender feminists. Should we emblazon a scarlett letter on her forehead? I mean, really.

Taking it one step further: monogamy is not a natural state, and working women are not husband stealers. We just happen to be in a situation where we're working side by side with our oppositie sex colleagues. Hurling insults at us and going on book tours isn't going to garner sympathy nor is it going to reassign the laws of attraction.

Simpson has never done anything but capitalize on her assets and commoditize her body. Exhibit A: the Dukes of Hazzard music video in which she shamelessly acts out the male fantasy of washing a car, bikini clad and writhing, subservient and objectified. I might give that performance a pass if it were the least bit self-aware or satirical, or had aesthetic value. It is not. It's just trite and offensive.

And let's not kid ourselves: her new show will be about self-promotion, end of story. She's a self-involved D-list actress with zero talent and no career prospects, doing what she does best, clinging to fame. Isn't that obvious????

It lacks relevance, originality and wit.

When Broadsheet started, it was a pioneer. Always witty and incisive, it was a must read. Sadly, Broadsheet has become a shell of its former self. The thought provoking posts are still present, but few and far between.

Open comment to Broadsheet overlords: please up the quality control.

Best.

Just a thought: ban the implants and allow lingerie pics. Call me crazy.

Great post - she has this commenter's sympathy.

yes

I feel the same way.

Not only can the study control for socio-economic factors - they DID. Read the study itself.

The need to "redesign the building" is an apt analogy, and I support rallying cry. The feminist/political implications can and should be analyzed, but the implications should NOT be used to bend the science.

The NYT article is intellectual laziness at its finest. "Living healthful" is accounted for in the study. It's right there, in black and white:

"Increasing duration of lactation was associated with a reduced prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, even after adjustment for sociodemographic variables, lifestyle variables, family history, and BMI category for all tests for trend."

So let's cede on the science. Or celebrate it. Whichever.

Spitzer's a hero. SEC's mishandling of the whistleblowing preceding the Madoff scandal illustrates that competence and dogged determination cannot and should not be taken for granted.

I could give a flying fuck about his sex life, pun intended.

Also, Entertainment Weekly refers to her as a "spinster." Can't we retire that word? Pretty please.

Not unless she previously condemned the institution of marriage. See: Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinhem.

Great media criticism, Joan.

May I suggest as a feature for Salon: QOTD from Urban Baby. Pretty please. It's such a reliable source of unintentional humor.

"Leaked."

The photo was leaked. As in, provided for public consumption without her knowledge or consent. If she had released the photos, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Imagine some one beats the *expletive* out of you. Now imagine the police are called and wish to document the assault. Don't you think it's reasonable for you to assume that those photos are private?

Now let's assume, Jane Starlet gets beat up next week. Maybe she doesn't call the police because she doesn't want the world to ghoulishly peer in on her abuse. Ever think of that???

I deeply regret that I did click on the link. It's nothing short of a disgusting violation of her privacy. And the picture has the proprietary "TMZ" watermark all over it - gross. TMZ owns the commercial rights Rihanna's victimhood.

In the photo, her eyes are closed, perhaps a reflection of her private shame and humiliation. Not private anymore.

Great article.

I'd add to the list the herpes awareness and what to expect when you're getting an abortion exposes. I'm glad Jezebel covered these topics, even if at the expense of overshare.

hehehe "Limbaugh's drug of choice"

Best wishes to you and yours...

Why do the editors have an obligation to save the writer from herself? At issue is judgement, not accuracy.

Good lord, if the editors at Broadsheet neutralized material likely to generate controversy and ill will towards the author, Traister might never get published. (And I mean that as a compliment.)

To second time mom. You're outnumbered now, Lynn. Get used to the chaos! Best wishes for a nice leave, and looking forward to your return...

Keep up the great work, Heather.

The themes are universal in spite of the period, as demonstrated by the true self/false self dichotomy that Heather writes about. That internal struggle plays out in spectacular colors with Betty. False self, repressed and angry. Betty wants that daliance but she loathes herself for her desire and transfers that loathing onto her friend, and her children. True self, liberated for a moment at the bar, but fleeting. Ultimately, she resigns herself to be false again, to dutifully carry out her role as expecting mother. Depression and perhaps madness will no doubt ensue.

This is disappointing.