Contrary to an earlier assertion, doping isn't swept under the rug in cycling. So many dopers have been revealed due to aggressive testing. It hasn't stopped the doping, but when they are caught there are stiff penalties. If baseball (or football, for that matter) players were subjected to the same level of testing I have no doubt that there would be a load of dirty players revealed. And, how the hell does a baseball player test positive in 2003 and only now it is being revealed? Sounds like professional baseball's anti-doping program is a joke.

By the end, I wanted to laugh. Which is awful given that Shawn is a real person (at least that is what we're told). I think it was because I was expecting at the end that he was going to say that he went to college and now he works on Wall Street and reunited with Jackie. I wasn't expecting the gay go-go dancer job and 17 year old girlfriend. It then seemed obvious given the path this series has taken. I don't know why, but I found that amusing on some level.

The idea for series is sound, but there's something missing in the execution. So far it seems like a case of revealing the "under belly of society" for the sake of titillating upper-middle class professionals who have been sheltered from these types of experiences. I can't put my finger on it, but there's nothing really here to grab you. These stories aren't much different than the ramblings you might find on Open Salon or any number of blogs.

Completely agree. Debate? What debate? Two lunkheads in the UK might be having this debate, but not women who live in the real world. There might be a tiny fraction of the female population who emulate Madonna, but they aren't the norm. And, enough with the work vs. motherhood "wars" of the priviledged upper classes. Hasn't it all been said already? If Ms. Lewis is so bereft, shut the hell up and get pregnant. Then in a few years she can write another missive about how hard it is to be a mommy and how she misses her work. Oy vey.

Why does broadsheet waste time on this sort of nonsense. Isn't there anything else interesting you could be writing about, like say the women in Obama's administration? And, I don't mean talking about their asses or hair.

First, what a nice thing for Ms. Hayak to do. Kudos.

Second, now I understand my frustration with Broadsheet. The only stories about women deemed worthy of attention are those that involve pop cultural references or celebrities. That explains why issues relevant to a broad swath of women are generally ignored.

Why waste space in Broadsheet on what amounts to a catty, gossipy, take down of Gwyneth Paltrow? I don't like her either, but who the hell cares what she writes on her blog. What is here sphere of influence, a couple of hundred people? Broadsheet writers, I get it that you're obsessed with celebrities and manufactured drama, but could you maybe try a couple times a week to write about a person or issue that has relevance to the lives of women? Please, I beg you.

Bush raised approximately $42 million from private donors, Obama roughly $41. The other costs added to the $170 million being guesstimated by the media include the same expenses incurred by Bush, such as federal and city security forces. For Bush's inauguration those costs came to $115 million. So, Bush's 2005 inauguration actually cost more than $150 million. Given that 3 times as many people attended the Obama inauguration it's not much of a stretch to imagine that the security costs will be higher for Obama's inauguration. But, I'm sick of hearing the lie that Obama's inauguration cost 4 times more than Bush's.

As for the documentary, good luck Ms. Pelosi, but I won't be watching. I can't stand the ignorance and hatred, I get enough of it from family members, god love 'em.

I don't think the court case will change anyone's mind. I"ve noticed that as the studies come out the reasoning changes. First it was the thimerosol, but after that was taken out it changed to the frequency or number of vaccines. Maybe what would help ease parents minds is to give the vaccines more spread out like they did when I was a kid.

Also, I keep reading about an increase in autism rates and I've often wondered how much of that increase is due to better/different methods for diagnosing it. When I was growing up in the 60s, I knew children that are like those now diagnosed as autistic, but they were all considered "retarded" or "mentally handicapped". I never heard the word autism until the 80s. It's like ADHD. I knew lots of hyperactive kids growing up, but today they'd be diagnosed with ADHD and given prescription drugs.

Thanks for the morning chuckle.