Naomi Wolf's Harper's Bazaar essay on Angelina Jolie has attracted contemptuous comment. “An absurd, overwrought, swooning love letter,” Willa Paskin called it on DoubleX. Paskin’s disgust recalls Ron Rosenbaum’s condemnation of Tom Junod’s 2007 Esquire profile of the actress, which worked a strained and inappropriate post-9/11 angle.

Courtesy of Flickr user .faramarz, who has many, bloodier photos from the protests.

Every person of fairly good education and of restless mind writes a book. As a rule, it is a superficial book, but it swells the bulk and it indicated the cerebral unrest that is trying to express itself. We have arrived at a condition in which more books are printed than the world can read. This is true not only of books that are not worth reading, but it is true of the books that are. All this I take to be the result of an intellectual affranchisement that is new, and of a dissemination of knowledge instead of concentration of culture. Everybody wants to say something. But it is slowly growing upon the world that everybody has not got something to say. Therefore one may even at this moment detect the causes which will produce reaction. In 100 years there will not be so many books printed, but there will be more said. That seems to me to be inevitable.

[Via PaleoFuture]

The malls are empty, and retailers are crying for customers. American women are getting heavier by the day. Yet stores like Ann Taylor and Bloomingdale’s, and lines including Liz Claiborne and Ellen Tracy, are slashing their plus-size offerings—turning away potential sales and generating angry denunciations of “sizeism.” What's going on?

As I explain in this article on Double X, the new women-oriented spinoff of Slate, there's a perfectly rational explanation that doesn't require an animus toward larger women. It does require graphs to explain, however, and The Washington Post, owner of Double X and Slate, has saddled the ladies with a design that can't handle more than one graphic per article, let alone multiple bar charts.

Height, by contrast, looks more like a bell curve.

Here are weights for the same two age groups:

Read the article here.

The Assembly has passed a bill to set minimum standards for food in licensed child-care centers, requiring a vegetable to be part of lunch and supper and forbidding whole milk for children 2 or older....

"California enjoys a worldwide reputation for its sunny, healthy lifestyle," said the bill's author, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica). "Childhood obesity rates threaten to steal this enviable position."

The bill, which passed the Assembly on Wednesday by a 48-27 vote, now heads to the Senate.

If it becomes law, AB 627 would require low-fat or skim milk to be served to children 2 years old and older. It would limit sugar in cereals and eliminate deep frying and sweetened drinks. It also would establish an 18-month pilot project to evaluate stronger nutrition and physical activities standards.

Next up: a bill to force the kids to eat those vegetables.

In fact, the bill also contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will reshape America's economy in dozens of ways that many don't realize.

Here is just one: The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don't, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.

States, meanwhile, would have to adopt the national code or one that achieves the same efficiency targets. Those that refuse will see their codes overwritten automatically, and they will be docked federal funds and carbon "allowances" -- valuable securities created elsewhere in the bill that give the holder the right to pollute and can be sold. The Energy Department also could enforce its code itself. Among other things, the policy would demonstrate the new leverage of allocation of allowances as a sort of carbon currency -- leverage this bill would be giving to Congress to direct state behavior.

The editorial hints that these sorts of provisions have been inserted because the bill's authors are counting on fellow members of Congress not to read what they're voting on. They undoubtedly remember how easy it was to get Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs by sneaking a provision into the Bush-era energy bill.

1) The administration does have big Medicare changes planned, both immediate cuts in reimbursements and "game changers" to impose more scientific management, potentially realizing savings down the road.

2) "I hope I’m not making anything sound like they’re painless." There are going to be "hard, CBO-scored cuts" in Medicare, "mostly involving provider payments." The administration is proposing cutbacks in home-health care and Medicare Advantage payments, for instance. It isn't expecting to get its initial savings from better management.

3) Medicare First--changing Medicare and waiting to see how it works before messing around with the rest of the health care system--won't work politically. "I don’t think you’re going to get these aggressive changes in Medicare unless you do some coverage expansion now." The AARP, for example, has said it will accept significant changes in Medicare only if the money goes to expanding coverage.

My observations:

1) Unlike critics (including me), Orszag does not regard the administration's plans as a significant change in the health care system because "you’re keeping employment based insurance in place and you’re adding coverage in way that can be dialed up or down."

2) He's not particularly interested in my personal obsession, the effects of centralized controls on long-term medical innovations, which may require very modest incremental improvements that cost a lot but lead to bigger improvements later.

3) The administration is beginning to realize that it overreached when it tried to spin health-care reform as a free lunch.