Nice to hear from a proud parent!

I don't like where baseball is headed. It's not as loose as it once was, players won't be changing teams nearly as much. That may seem like a good thing to some people, but it means that certain teams will remain bad for a longer period of time. It will also decrease the amount of money the players get, which the union won't like.

is this kanye west's....white album? what part of the cycle is he at...? twisted fantasy was his triumphant comeback, now he's sampling marilyn manson...the artist known as kanye west feels secure enough in his abilities to go really, really weird.

First, consider yourself lucky, Dan, that the Orioles are in the race. I live in Miami. Enough said. But who didn't think BJ Upton would muff it? He's under-achieved most of this career. I think you're wrong about Saunders. Orioles could use him: his results in Seattle don't necessarily correlate to Baltimore, where he'd have better offense, and be an innings-eater. But hey, you guys have Jim Johnson, who's on the verge of becoming a head case.

it's too bad both of the actors pictured are no longer with SNL. Armisen and Wiig will go down as greats of their era. Wiig has Bridesmaids and whatever else she's writing now, but I'd love to see Armisen do that slimy music biz insidery guy from the Wilco documentary again. The scene where he's comparing beach house tax rates w Jeff Tweedy is hilarious.

I didn't need to offend and I apologize, I should have said uninformed instead of ignorant. My main 3 points are thus 1. woman who has an annual gyno visit, should have been informed of this gene study at least 5-10 years ago. My sisters, whose mother died of ovarian cancer, got the test around 10 years ago. Jolie herself talked about this over 5 years ago and said how she planned to proceed sometime in the future. This is not new or not widely distributed information. It is more a sign of media's short term memory. 2. Most women can not afford the test and following reconstructive surgery. Because Jolie can, does not increase it's availability to the masses. She is not talking about this but her own personal struggle. Not sure that since she had to tell the media instead of them finding out, that her struggle is really at all relevant to those who would have much more permanent and possibly obvious scarring. 3. In light of 1 & 2, what has Jolie written that will help or demonstrates courage or adds to the conversation? When informed and productive, I love celebrity involvement in worthy causes. When the celebrity is the primary beneficiary? , just think of the book offers, interviews etc., not so much.

It seems silly to appeal to an objective reason when we're talking about fairly complicated cultural codes. There's room for differences in interpretation. I've been thinking about "be a lady" more. If you fail to be a man, it generally means you're unmanly; i.e., a woman. If you fail to be a lady, it often means that you're a slut, or a bitch; still gendered, but not classy. re, 4; Jolie and a NYT op ed are going to get a lot more publicity than virtually anything else. I still don't see why that's a bad thing. Insulting me or my knowledge is not a very effective or thoughtful argument as to why it's a bad thing. 3. It sure sounds like antipathy to me. And saying that Jolie seems to have done a good thing overall doesn't seem like especially undue credit. I don't think she's a saint; I think she wrote a decent op ed for a good cause. 2. I never said anything different. Not sure what your'e getting at with this one... and I already answered 1. And for 5; get over yourself, man.

One last attempt at reason: 1. Be a man or Be a woman are both action statements. Lousy examples at best/ non-sensical vis-à-vis the article at worst. 2. The whole reason she made this decision is about the longevity of her life. Re-read her op. ed. if you must. She decided living was more important than the inconvenience these procedures caused her. It was not about reconstructive surgery (although she could afford the best therefore bypassing the very issues you are writing about), it was about pre-emptive cancer care. 3. I'm not hating celebrities, just not giving them undue credit for personal decisions we all have to make. 4. The fact that you were unaware of this gene analysis betrays both your lack of interest in the topic and/or general ignorance on the topic. This test has been available to the wealthy for over a decade. Most women who have a genetic history of these cancers have been informed by their doctors, Oprah, morning news shows, Sex in the City and too many other venues to name. The fact that this is news to you and you look to Jolie to be your source should be a big clue that a little research would be advisable before writing on the topic. 5. Finally, what about my other points? Like a republican congressperson, it seems that you are clinging to the minor points because you can not defend your main ones.

"Being a lady" is somewhat different than "being a woman", though. That's about class as much as gender, I'd argue. Attributing anything humans do to instinct is really dicey. Linking an instinct for suvival to complicated reconstructive surgery seems weird. This isn't a struggle on the veldt; this is making complicated an informed health decisions. She's talking about a particular gene and a particular approach to prevention which I certainly didn't know about. I doubt most other people did either. Hating celebrities because they're celebrities...you realize that that's not really any different than loving celebrities because they're celebrities, right? Jolie's mostly in crappy movies and can't act especially well, but her charitable work is admirable and her op ed seems mostly to the good to me. I don't see why I have to get upset that she's famous just because she's famous.

1. What does "being a lady" mean? Is it not also about action? 2. If you have cancer or as high a chance as Jolie claims, a healthy mind is not caught up in trivialities like appearance. We are born with an instinct for survival first. 3. What Jolie is really pointing out is that she is among the few who can afford to make this pre-emptive decision. Most insurance does not cover the gene tests that cost over $3000. Most insurance will not pay for preemptive surgery like this. Then, she could afford the top reconstruction surgeons. So here are my questions Noah, who wasn't aware of breast cancer (since you claim she is bringing attention to a disease and apparently never heard of Susan G. Komen)? Who is saying the woman is deformed as a result? If she had the type of reconstruction surgery Jolie has had, why would anyone know she had a mastectomy just by her appearance? No one knew Jolie did and she has the media following her every move. So once again, other than bringing attention to herself, how does this help anyone?

Hey! The comment system lets me in! yay! Texan...I don't mean to be an absolutist about any of this. "Being a man" means what "being a man" means — it's about actions, not appearance. That doesn't mean that men are never judged by appearances at all (as many trans men will tell you), but I think it's fairly clear that maculinity is defined a lot more by action, and femininity by bodies. As far as Jolie goes...I think, yes, she doesn't entirely avoid or refute the stereotype. I think that's kind of hard to do, honestly. I think she is trying to get around it, though, and not completely unsuccessfully. I think you're overly harsh in saying she's just doing it for publicity, or what have you. She's a celebrity using her celebrity to try to bring attention to a disease, and point out that woman who have it aren't somehow deformed. I don't have a problem with that.

No problem. a few minor glitches is a small price to pay for the new look. Kudos