How much of the sickening American fetishization of childbirth, babies and baby dolls contributes to rampant teen pregnancy?

How much driveling romanticized nonsense (such as this worthless piece of "film criticism") contributea to the notion that the most important thing a woman can do is have a baby?

Did these girls have baby dolls when they were tots:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/20/pregnancy_pact/index.html

It's no surprise that the always-superficial Zacharek enjoyed such obvious pablum as this movie. Her preference for pallative entertainment over challenging cinema is well-known and displayed in the majority of her writing. One must not go to the scribblings of Stephanie Zacharek expecting in-depth analysis, intelligent commentary, or valuable insight. It would be like going to the desert in search of ice water. Zacharek asks few questions, has now answers, and simply reacts viscerally, like a virus or bacteria, to certain stimuli such as sweeping musical scores, soft-lit photography, or sanctimonious piety passing for "nostalgia." Zacharek, like most Americans, is uncritical and incurious, almost entirely lacking in any sense of wonder, almost entirely devoured by cynicism disguised as sentiment.

How much of this incurious, uncritical, autopilot, loving of All-Things-Baby can a young woman with limited choices endure before she realizes that the only way anyone will ever prise her (or pretend to love her) is if she gives birth?

It seems that getting the Democratic Congress to change this legislation is/was about as likely as getting them to endorse Kucinich's articles of impeachment.

I suppose the telecom issue is more "newsworthy," if only in that it paves the wave for total corporate/government control of communications, which leaves us to no longer actually be able to know or discern what is or is not true, and therefore what is or is not "newsworthy." Now that the President is further empowered to break the law, there's even less chance future Presidents can be impeached for breaking the law. (Obviously, if it happens, Congress will change the law and make said change retroactive.)

But now that government spying and corporate immunity are clearly becoming law (the House just passed it), and the cause of defeating is rendered pretty much hopeless (Senate leaders guarantee its passage), maybe Glenn will entertain us with a few articles analysing the hopeless cause of impeachment. It may relieve the anger and depression that are bound to set in this weekend, Glenn, if you can imagine Bush and Cheney having to repeatedly invoke the 5th amendment on television! (Come on, buddy - you can still dream can't ya?)

Judging by the Democratic position and response on this issue, it seems like we'll need Glenn's legal reasoning and analyses under the next regime, whether its McCain or Obama. So while impeaching Bush for all this lawlessness may be hopeless and next to impossible, perhaps we can start building a case against the next abuser of power and destroyer of liberty, as it seems inevitable both parties are willing, able and eager play that game.

In spite of my petty desire to dig at him a bit, I for one have never been more proud of a lawyer-turned-journalist in all my life. Glenn Greenwald will go on my wall of heroes, if only for fighting this doomed but valiant fight.

Thanks, GG. You da man!

Asked several times previously to reproduce these "promises" as well as evidence or argument regarding Obama's "breaking" of said "promises," Alex Koppelman merely resorts to repeating his slanderous false accusations, demonstrating he is both a coward and a liar, but obviously a fine example of Joan Walsh's editorial guidance and policy.

A friend at MSNBC tells me that Joan Walsh is rumored to be angling for a show slot, and has cited the number of letters she gets to her Salon.com columns as evidence of her popularity!

It's hilarious, even if it's false (more likely, it results from some confusion in how she promotes herself among MSNBC producers). If Joan's hate-mail results in her getting a trendy regular TV gig, then perhaps we should have begun questioning her long ago, before she was able to ruin the last, good online news and opinion magazine.

Of course, if the rumor is true, it certainly explains her concern-troll obsession with attention-grabbing headlines, scary black ministers, and anti-sexist rage.

It's wishful thinking on my part - and pehaps naive to hope that the absence of Walsh would result in good journalism. More likely, she's install one of her lackluster clones in order to continue attacking Obama with some of the same charges she excused when they were leveled against Hillary Clinton.

Good luck, Joan! No one is more deserving of a television show than you! Few print editors have demonstrated such a complete lack of concern for journalistic integrity than you, making you a perfect fit for TV punditry.

Just make sure you take your boy Koppelman with you, and... well, I was going to remind you about the proverbial doorknob, but you could probably use the extra push.