Oh yeah, no, that's crazytown. Observing the privileges of hosting doesn't mean that you get to torture the guests of honor, I agree with you there.

Well, if they're paying for the wedding, they're the hosts, and usually hosts determine the guest list. Even if the wedding is essentially a gift to the couple, surely they should get at least some input in the guest list for an event they're funding?

Yes, but I think it's watered-down to an extent that it's no longer unique. She has a look, but the things in their stores that are similar are not so similar that versions of them aren't in any number of other places. I see that she currently has a bright pink tote for sale, as does he, but so does Kate Spade. They…

The key phrase here is "by their standard." I'm not suggesting we figure out a way to go back in time and try the white settlers for crimes against humanity that weren't yet considered crimes against humanity in their era—but it's entirely fair and accurate to consider them so now. To give another example, the…

Again, I'm not sure if I agree with that. It sounds like you're trying to impose some kind of temporal relativism. While obviously it's foolish to ignore the fact that values and social/legal systems have changed often throughout history, and to refuse to understand why people who lived hundreds or thousands of years…

Ugh, you poor thing. I'm sorry you were dealing with a shitbag partner on top of everything else during that time. I'm glad things are better for you now, and best wishes for all of it in the future!

I just read that too, and BOY HOWDY. For one thing, I didn't know that a movie had been made out of that dismal Doctorow story, but I can't imagine how it could have been much different than what Lindy described. Nothing against Doctorow overall, but ugh, that story was the pits.

Oh my God, I'm so sorry. This is obviously not my business AT ALL, but since you say "first pregnancy," it sounds like you've been pregnant subsequently? Was it that bad the next time(s)?

This is a level of hair-splitting that I don't quite get. Of course you're correct that the idea that a powerful group should be considerate of the culture of less powerful groups is fairly new, but it's not accurate to say that because indifference used to be S.O.P., it's therefore not really indifference. Or that…

He does seem like a gross dude for many reasons, but the similarities between C Wonder and Tory Burch (the store) seem superficial enough that I don't understand the idea that they're somehow proprietary to her. Though I gather that some of it has to do with business strategy, not design, so that would obviously not…

1776 REPRESENT.

But a desire to have a group of people adopt a new culture and socio-economic structure is very much showing indifference to their existing culture. Indifference at BEST, I should say.

I KNOW!! Me too.

I've seen those kids photographed several times with big headphones on at concerts, so my guess is that they have plugs in. I doubt she just forgot about their ears this one time.

The only thing I got out of the Burch lawsuit is that Tory Burch thinks she invented lacquered wood.

Eek, I can only imagine. I've tried to stay away from the Gawker Media coverage of the India rape cases...I guess I should have avoided this one, too. Live and learn!

Yes of course, and no doubt they would have. The "gut feeling" surely refers to their sense that there was something in addition to child endangerment happening. I don't think the security officers are suggesting that under normal circumstances they would have just ignored the flimsy clothing.

Agreed...it just seems particularly pointless and snide in this case.

The fuck is with the sarcasm here? Is it just manifestly clear to any non-Kentucky-based law-enforcement personnel that all dangerously underdressed children are kidnap victims? Sounds like the campus police did their jobs. Good for them.

Where does that come from? I feel like I've seen it on someone I know, too.