Because the mere suggestion that they surrender the habit and give up their works usually results in responses often common to addicts. They refuse to even try to live a week without the stuff, insisting that if they don't wear it then no one will take them seriously. They excuse the expense of it by claiming it is necessary, and even resort to use of it in order to provide a sense of personal comfort. The most common use of makeup - to prop up an already weak and unhealthy self-esteem - is remarkably similar to the source of much addictive behavior.

Additionally, the responses to suggestions of surrendering makeup often indicate a motivation to use makeup which mirrors the motivation of some addicts: that is, societal and communal pressures force one to use a substance in order to fit in, conform, or otherwise measure up to external standards of success. (Think of straight-A students who develop amphetamine addiction in an effort to study longer.)

Isn't the continuing, insistent use of makeup simply conforming to a standard of beauty set by a patriarchal society?

Shouldn't "no makeup" be a feminist position?

...y'know, kind of childish, in a 6th grade way?

Privileged, educated, white, corporate women can't take 3 months off to have a baby and still get paid. The tragedy!

I wonder how all those underprivileged, uneducated, non-white minimum wage workers cope! They often don't even get two weeks of paid vacation, or paid sick leave, they can use! How do they do it?!?!

(PS. If you are one who wonders why many men see "feminists" as people who wish to eat their cake and have it too, you need only examine this issue to understand.)

For the record, I personally favor paid maternity and paternity leave - six weeks seems like a good minimum number, and longer would also seem apropos (esp. for the poor woman who squeezed out that mewling bundle of mucus and puffy flesh).

But I do not favor rewarding someone for work they have not done. Those who choose to remain child-free often carry the weight of those who drop out to give birth; they earn the rewards of remaining at work, while the child-bearers reap the rewards of child-rearing. (Said ephemeral rewards of child-rearing are something breeders simply cannot shut up about at other times, but they seem to forget these treasures when the compensation debate rears its head.)

American women and men have a variety of choices regarding childbirth. Along with this liberty comes the responsibility of living with those choices. Of course, reminding privileged, white Americans of their responsibility to others is a dead-end street lined with over-watered lawns and expensive hybrid cars.

Anyone choosing to have a child is impacted economically by the decision. Many of those in low-earning jobs have little choice but to return to work within *days* (not 5 weeks) of childbirth. Unless this inequity is addressed, it is nothing more than insensitive to insist that privileged "white collar" workers deserve more than anyone else.

Happy Birthday, USA!!!

Rot in Hell, Jesse Helms!!!

The juvenile comedy of the Adam Sandler feature Little Nicky suggests a fitting punishment for the eternal suffering of Jesse Helms. Of course it's a waste of a good pineapple, but likely a torture the old racist rapist would enjoy.

A great writer, a wonderful man.

Thank you for a fine remembrance.

Is it?

Anyway, soldiers are dying in Iraq, the mortgage industry is imploding, banks are closing, our civil liberties were seriously eroded this week and we're expected to be outraged by Bernie Mac? I'll pass.

Yet you didn't pass - you devoted an entire column to it, just as you have devoted entire columns in the past to whatever meaningless obsession the mainstream media currently promotes. You've done it all along the path of this campaign; whether it's Reverend Walsh or phantom sexism, there is no issue so trivial or meaningless that you won't devote space to it. We can count on two hands the number of significant issues you've covered - and even then your "analysis" is trite, often petty, and always uninformed. Further, your lack of depth shows in the editorial policies which guide Salon: namely, since you took over as editor, the coverage of and dependence on media-hype has increased, while detailed analysis on Salon is as scarce as a byline by a non-white.

While you bluster indignant about trivial media-hyped stories, you add to the hype. You seek a high road, Walsh, but you don't know how to navigate your way out of the sewer. Maybe you shouldn't even try: if the history of your editorials is any indication, maybe the sewer is where you belong.

The day I worry about what an idiot like you thinks, should it ever come, I hope will be the day I draw my last breath.

And no, I never tire of criticizing biased, unprofessional, unethical, and corrupt people like Joan Walsh.

Just as I never tire of mocking and deflating idiots like you, jebbie!