I agree with Gina, but I went to the movie anyway and have not criticized it to anyone & here's why.

I hadn't planned on seeing it after I saw the previews. It was pretty obvious that I would be irritated by the many liberties taken. But a couple of my fellow middle-aged, married with kids female friends wanted to see it. They had actually made an effort to be kid free for a night & they invited me along. I went. I shrugged to myself at the end of the movie, thinking it reminded me at times of Wuthering Heights. BUT my friends LOVED IT! I didn't tell them they were wrongheaded to love it or how the director had got things wrong. Rather I was thrilled that my friends made comments that they were going to read the book now (having never done so.). I was pleased that it provided a stepping stone for them to gain interest in the book, the real revelation.

Movie makers get adaptations wrong all the time. But often times it leads people to read the book, which to my way of thinking is the true good that comes of it.

It's not very rational to take the writings of a young college student predicting her future to heart. After all, as some have mentioned, she has yet to live the life of an adult. Unless she has no need to earn a living (i.e. a trust fund), she'll find out why working isn't always optional, with or without kids.

Personally, I think all women should work to earn a living, be it full-time or part-time. In addition to being just plain good for the soul, it gives us a chance at economic independence which is one of the main goals of feminism as I see it. Economic independence gives us control over our lives. We work, we make our own money, we get our own benefits, we contribute to social security, unemployment insurance, and hopefully our own retirement fund. It's just plain common sense.

Earlier this week readers got into a gender war based on a letter Cary responsed to. There were 125 letters. Now that we've progressed (I use the term loosely) to a human/animal war, I'll be interested to see the final tally of letters. As of 2:15pm ET it stands at 68.

This entry makes no sense to me at all. What's the point? I don't think there is one other than the correlation that Broadsheet makes between "sass" & foul language. In my book, foul language shows a lack of education, a lack of communication skills, ...can't find another word so let's use one of these nasty words. Shock 'em, sock 'me blogging.

The truth is when you don't have anything useful to say it's best not to say anything. Apparently Broadsheet couldn't let the time go by quietly.

While the US Congress Website doesn't state the January 31 2006 start date, I did a quick search & found a few reps who have the date on their respective Websites. Alderholt (Alabama 4th), Kind (Wisconsin 3rd), and Snyder (Arkansas 2nd) each specifically state on their sites that Congress reconvenes January 31, 2006.

My rep doesn't have the info on his site & I plan to write to him about it and the inappropriate delay for DeLay.

Of course he's sorry, he's sorry he got caught. Otherwise he'd have continued with business as usual.

Thank you, Salon, for another delightful piece from Garrison Keillor. I particularly enjoyed his tongue-in-cheek description of Dennis Hastert. What a sly fellow, our Garrison is.

Where is Tim? There hasn't been an new post in the War Room blog since 1400 ET yesterday. I'm sure there's news going on.

I've read the comments by all & I'm a little confused on why people presume the LW is a stay-at-home Mom. She doesn't state this. In fact she states early on that she & her husband started their own business. But she doesn't state clearly what the particulars of her daily life are now, 11 years and the 3.something children later. She may very well be working, rearing children, and doing her art all at the same time, all the while contemplating grad school.

Uh, I've read the bickering & won't get involved other than so say that some of the same names crop up in the bickering about male/female issues in many different letters section. I see the names & skip right over them. It gets old fast. Oh well.

Iky has my vote of best comment, btw.

What I wanted to share, was that the subject of the article reminded me of a delightful movie from 1953: "How to Marry a Millionaire." Three beautiful women (models) scheme to marry millionaires but end up marrying for love. Very funny. Lauren Bacall, Marilyn Monroe, and Betty Grable.

Why does Salon even give this woman (Kate) space on Salon. There are more important and more interesting things I'd like to read about. In fact, I didn't read this interview. I've heard enough from & about her to fill a lifetime.

I starting reading science fiction along with the many other genres that interested me when I was about 15. I'm now 49.

I'm reminded of the adage "much truth is said in jest."

NYTimes has an article titled: “Paper Closes Reader Comments on Blog, Citing Vitriol”

Salon’s own Joan Walsh is quoted in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/business/media/20blog.html

Unfortunately the Times doesn't use the correct quote from Howell that started the furor in the first place.

I keep reading columnist and bloggers who state that "someone" should ask Scott McClellan this or that, or that "someone" should talk with the tribes regarding their interactions with the President or Abramoff. Why can't the people saying this be the "someone?" If I were a reporter I'd certainly start investigating these many details.