Ann, the world wants you to shut up.

Ann Coulter, nemesis to all things good and fair, has struck again.

Silke at the Hooah Wife and Friends blog put up an exchange from a Hardball segment the other night where Elizabeth Edwards called in to speak to Ann.

Edwards: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean’s death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This
is not legitimate political dialogue.

Coulter: That’s now three years ago –

Edwards: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about issues if you’re using this kind of language.…I’m making this call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that’s based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.

Coulter: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

Way to miss the point, Ann. The wife of a presidential candidate called you out for the grubby, misinformed attention whore that you are. Period. But given the fact that Elizabeth Edwards has class and did so in an articulate and conscientious manner, I can see how you might not have understood. It's the rest of us that want you to stop speaking altogether.

Hope there isn't any real news this week.

Because Paris goes free today.

And per PerezHilton.com, the cameras are already setting up outside the Lynwood Detention Center.

I can't do it again. I mean, she was in jail for about 20 days. For breaking her probation. This ain't news. And it's certainly not worthy of a Larry King interview.

And so I ask you all, in the hope that the media will get the message that this is not important enough to continue to cover, and more selfishly, for my own sanity, to boycott King's show, avoid news outlets that follow Paris home from jail, and please just let this story that is so not a story die.

Please.

And barring that, write to your local news bureau and request that they start covering the Anna Nicole story again. At least that was interesting.

When I'm not saying na-na-na-na-boo-boo...

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who read the story about higher IQs in eldest children with interest. People are all in a tizzy since this is an environmental effect that they might just be able to explain. The NY Times has published a follow-up article about why this phenomenon might occur. And in it, they make a really interesting suggestion:

Something else is at work, Dr. Zajonc said, and he has found evidence that tutoring — a natural role for older siblings — benefits the teacher more than it does the student. “Explaining something to a younger sibling solidifies your knowledge and allows you to grow more extensively,” he said. “The younger one is asking questions, and challenging meanings and explanations, and that will contribute to the intellectual maturity of the older one.” (Only children receive the benefit of
more parental attention but miss the opportunity to tutor a younger brother or
sister.)

So, in point of fact, I shouldn't be sticking out my tongue and telling my sister to suck it at this finding. I should be thanking her for asking me all of those annoying questions over the years.

Somehow, someway it all ends up being about her.

(Sidenote: I wonder how long it will be before my MIL sends me this study as part of her scientific-reasons-why-I-should-provide-a-sibling-for-Munchkin campaign. I give it two days).

Maybe if I direct my thoughts enough, the Secret will go away.

"The Secret" is in the news again. No, not because those people in Darfur have finally realized its their negative thinking that has been causing all those atrocities and plan to turn it all around with a big hug-in this week. Though, wouldn't that be grand?

First, the AP has a piece about how the philosophy behind "The Secret" is nothing new -- tomes about the power of positive thinking have been around for centuries. Of course, so was the belief that demons caused mental illness and that you could rid a person of fever by simply draining copious quantities of their own blood. But that's neither here nor there, you know, because the Secret works!

But also -- finally! -- there is an accompanying piece criticizing Rhonda Byrne's book. You know, because the truth is that the Secret is bullshit. And potentially damaging bullshit at that.

While ''The Secret'' has become a pop culture phenomenon, it also has drawn critics who are not quiet about labeling the movement a fad, embarrassingly materialistic or the latest example of an American propensity of wanting something for nothing.

Some medical professionals suggest it could even lead to a blame-the-victim mentality and actually be dangerous to those suffering from serious illness or mental disorders.

Honestly, I don't know why people are so turned on by this book. Certainly, there is some truth to positive thinking in the idea that if you believe in yourself, and you work hard (ah, the catch!), you can achieve greatness. But this whole "law of attraction" thing just makes no sense to me. And I suppose it doesn't help that everyone I know who is really into this book seriously believes that they can sit on their butt all day and still achieve wealth and power, provided they are "seeing" all those riches coming their way.

But what also really interests me about this book is that so many successful people are supporting it. I mean, Oprah devoted two shows to this book. And I find that amazing because Oprah didn't get to where she is by sitting around visualizing a media empire. She worked her patootie off. I would think she'd be somewhat offended by The Secret's something-for-nothing philosophy. But instead, she's stumping for it, too.

I wish someone could explain this to me. I really do. Because as far as I can see, this is just a brilliant marketing ploy to part people with $15 (or more if you want the accompanying DVD) of their hard earned dollars for information that will ultimately hold them back from their dreams. But don't mind me. I'm probably just thinking too many fat thoughts today.

When babyproofing brainwashes you.

"They found the body of the pregnant woman in Ohio."

"Really? How did she die?"

"They don't know yet. Still waiting on the autopsy, I think. But they think the boyfriend did it."

"That's too bad. But I guess it was a foregone conclusion."

"Yeah. But you know what I just can't get over?"

"What?"

"That if the boyfriend did it, that he left his two-year-old son alone in that house with a pool of bleach on the floor!"

"Are you serious?"

"Who knows what could have happened? How long he would have been there alone? He could have drank some of that bleach or gotten it in his eye and blinded himself. And they said there was broken furniture, what if he cut himself? Or he could have fallen or wandered outside. And I have to say, I really hope that their electrical sockets were properly covered."

Is this really what women voters want?

In a NY Times op-ed, Melinda Henneberger, author of “If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear," argues that the Democrat party needs to move away from a pro-choice position in order to even have a chance at the White House in the next election.

"Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion."

This is so hard for me to wrap my head around. I realize I'm a total wackjob, but for me, it's the complete opposite. As much as I hate to admit it, I'm probably more Republican than anything else (sssh, don't tell anyone!). But I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who would try to make abortion illegal. Especially when that person would most likely also back legislation for abstinence-only sex education, restricted access to birth control, tougher adoption laws, and diminished welfare and social programs. I've simply never understood a dogma that only respects the right to life until the baby is outside of the mother.

Plus, I do believe that abortion can be a moral choice. I think that it is immoral to bring a child into the world if you cannot do your utmost to provide a safe, loving environment in which to raise it.

Is this really what women voters want? A Democratic candidate who is for social programs but will overturn Roe vs. Wade? What do you think?

Stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us!

There's really no need for this kind of nonsense, Gabriel.

And please, please let it not be true! Like I didn't cry enough with the loss of Dumbledore. I really don't think I could handle the others.

Feeling resentful.

As I type this, my son is laying prostrate on the floor, kicking his little legs and screaming for his father.

Now lest you think I'm a completely uncaring mother, I've already tried plying him with hugs, kisses, the new Little Einsteins DVD, juice, a baseball that talks, going outside to ride his tricycle, his Star Wars Galactic Heroes action figures, Matchbox cars, SesameStreet.com and porn.

(I'm just kidding about the porn. But honestly, after a good 45 minutes of this, I'd consider offering it if I thought it would actually do any good).

But all the little guy wants is his Daddy. And nothing I do, NOTHING is going to change that right now.

CPT Dick is actually home this weekend to visit. But he's off today at a football game, a last hurrah with some of the other commanders before they all take off for parts unknown. And I wouldn't mind so much if we didn't go as a couple to that last hurrah party last night and spend God knows how many evenings with last hurrah dinners and drinks and BBQs and formal events before CPT Dick took off for his new post.

For all intents and purposes, we should have been hurrahed out about 2 months ago.

My son is feeling his father's absence acutely. He freaked when we left him with the babysitter last night. And when CPT Dick left earlier today, Munchkin stood at the door, wailing, "Daddy! No bye! Daddy, no bye!" And being fairly wasted after a week of doing inventories, CPT Dick hasn't exactly been 100% with the boy when he isn't out and about. He's exhausted and is expecting a two-year-old to understand that and give him a little space. Good luck with that, honey.

I mentioned earlier that the game was a bad idea but my husband thinks I'm exaggerating the issue because I didn't want him to go. And he's partly right.

One of the problems of being a good military spouse, of being able to juggle 10 balls while people throw fire darts at you to catch in your teeth, is that your spouse can sometimes forget that you are only doing all that stuff because you have to. Not necessarily because you want to. I'm happy to pick up the slack where I can. But it seriously chaps my ass when he takes it for granted.

Sure, I can play Mommy and Daddy all week long while CPT Dick gets acclimated in his new role. But it irks me to no end that I have to do it this weekend when, with all that it in front of us, my husband chose to go to tailgate and basically pretend that he's still in college, instead of staying home and spending some quality time with the Munchkin.

It seems the more often he deploys and things don't fall apart, the less he thinks he has to do. He knows one way or another, I'll get it done.

And sometimes, I can't figure out if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Jeans for the large post-baby ass.

So I'm not really a fashionista. And the day I started working from home pretty much cinched the idea that you'll find me in (a) my Cookie Monster sweatpants or (b) some comfy jeans on any given day. I'm just generally kind of low key and appreciate the Old Navy/Gap kind of stuff. I like to find a shirt that fits well and then buy it in three colors. What can I say? I'm a simple (lazy) girl.

But I do like reading about fashion. And though most of that involves reading blogs and pop culture sites that make fun of what celebrities are wearing, I also like to see the reviews of clothing lines. Especially in the NY Times. They like to get all poetical on feathers and sequins. It tickles me.

So this week, I was reading a Q&A with Sarah Jessica Parker about her new line, Bitten. I had to read it, because, you know, I wanted to see if the designers had incorporated those ugly fabric flowers that SJP's character on Sex and the City always seemed to have tacked on to her dresses. This is critical information.

But in the Q&A, SJP touches on the fact that she's getting some criticism for deciding to provide clothes from sizes 0-22. You know, for repping a line that actually makes clothes for women who don't have an eating disorder or scary genetic advantage. Like the majority of women in America. Who, funnily enough, do wear clothes.

"What can people say to me—“how dare you want to make clothes for women who are size 16?” There’s no argument. Either you like it or you don’t."

What a frighteningly risky business plan! Inexpensive clothes for people of all shapes and sizes? Who does this woman think she is, putting a celebrity name to jeans, hoodies and tees that will not only fit my large post-baby ass but my budget? The nerve of some people!

It's funny, I get all indignant when I see the photos from the runway shows and wonder how some of these super-skinny women can even walk without their bones crumbling to dust. And I die a little bit inside when I read about some supermodel and realize that she's nearly a foot taller than me and yet somehow 30 lbs. lighter. So I have to say, kudos to you, SJP. I don't know where I can find a Steve and Barry's store (I keep thinking of it as Ben & Jerry's in my head) but if and when I do, I'm going to buy a couple of items.

I've got your back, girl. Until I find a shirt with one of those fugly flowers, that is. Because we bigger girls got enough going on without having to justify one of those crazy, flappy accessories.

Need some motivation?

Create your own motivational poster. It's fun!

Of course, the poster shown is one of the classics from Despair.com.

I remember that when I first came upon the Despair site, many moons ago, I wished I could make my own poster -- I had so many good ideas (though none I could imagine fit my life as well as the Meetings one). But now that I have a generator, I'm coming up with nothing. Total blank.

Maybe you'll have more luck with it. Because everyone needs a little (de) motivation now and then.