I was somewhat torn between Dr. Phil and Rachael Ray. I'm much more familiar with Phil (so to speak), and used to enjoy his showÂalthough I found Robin irritating. But his show has gotten so sleazy! The couple of times I've seen Rachael Ray I've been puzzled at her popularity. Her food is way too unhealthy to appeal to me, although I can understand most of America liking it. But that voice! She seems like a nice person, but that never made someone a celebrity. So I voted for (against?) Dr. Phil. I like Nate a lot. I like Dr. Oz, perhaps to a lesser degree, but agree with the writer about the scrubs. What's with that? Suze Orman can be a bit much, but I wasn't aware that she had any connection to Oprah. I like Jean Chatzky, but thought she became popular on the Today Show. Gayle can be funny. I have Rosie's cookbook because my mother gave it to me as a gift. I can't stand Marianne Williamson. I'm familiar with some of the other names, but not the people themselves. Some, like Peter Walsh and Stacy London, I'd never heard of.

I tried a few Oprah picks, but they all seemed stuck on one theme: dysfunction -- usually of the family sort or women doing stupid things, then transcending their idiocy. Very noble in intention, I'm sure, but I always feel I've been thumped on the head repeatedly with a tablespoon when I read O's choices. My list would start with Mark Twain. He can get me out of a funk quicker than just about any American writer. I would like to include Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchell, but I'm with Carolyn that only one book each makes them hard to estimate. I really like Wallace Stegner's histories (e.g., about the American West, Mormons) and biographies (John Wesley Powell). I'm not fond of his fiction for a reason I find hard to define...maybe it's just because it's fiction after I have been so entranced by his skill with nonfiction. Styron has written some of the loveliest, most vivid descriptions I think I've ever read. But gosh! his fiction, to me, is depressing. I recognized that even before I knew that he was suffering depression himself. As for Faulkner, I still say that The Reivers is my favorite -- I find it hilarious. It's entirely accessible too. I know he's admired for his labyrinthine sentences and stream of consciousness, so the 'normalness' of The Reivers evidently makes it lesser somehow in some sniffy quarters. Let 'em sniff; I'll take pure entertainment when I can get it. I liked Steinbeck when I was younger, but trying to reread his fiction is like listening to stale sermons. I didn't realize how preachy some of his stuff is. I'll stick up for Hemingway any day, though I know that many women loathe his writing (and him, too, apparently). Of the two rivals, F. Scott Fitzgerald was certainly the more elegant writer, but Hemingway appeals in an entirely different way to me. I think it's really silly to compare them, but it seems inevitable for some reason. Poets: Edgar Allan Poe (and short stories) Elizabeth Bishop (I like her prose, too.) Emily Dickinson Sylvia Plath Anne Sexton (Why are so many fine poets depressives?) Mary Oliver (she's growing on me!) Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (call him corny, I don't care, as I think his corn will outlast most of the synthetics of the 20th/21st centuries)

I am not a fan of WW. I tried it a few years ago when the points plus program was new. At the end of 4 months tracking my points,exercising and going to the ridiculous(in my opinion, I know they help some people) meetings, I had gained 6 pounds and was hungry and cranky all the time. I am glad my employer paid for the program fully,or I would have been much crankier. While a lot of people in my work group lost weight (mostly the men go figure) I went back to the weight loss clinic,started the lipo shots and low carb life again, and the weight is coming off and I feel much better. ( I will admit that I believe the fact that I pay for the shots and weigh everytime I go get one helps me stay on the program, but at least with low carb, I know I can maintain it forever because I am not starving all day and going to bed with headaches and a empty,growling tummy like I was on ww) WW is kidding themselves. There are too many free apps and websites that will calculate how many calories you should have to lose weight and help people track them. When I did it, I found a free app that calculated how many points I could have and helped me track them for free. It was dead on with the numbers WW gave me. There are a few paid apps with more features, but they are still much cheaper than ww.To me, the only thing about WW that may help better than doing it on your own is the weigh ins and meetings that offer support and accountability, although one can find those for free at any number of venues. And even those are going away since they started the online program, so im not sure of the advantage anymore.And as for Oprahs joyous celebration of carby delights, i cant relate and wont be lured in. I can't have bread,and frankly don't miss it or rice or pasta,but I can eat all the cheese I want...I EAT CHEESE EVERYDAY OPRAH! SUCK ON THAT! And for me, low carb eating means I eat less calories as well, as all the fat and protein is very satisfying and sticks for a long time, so I don't want to eat all day like I did on ww. I can't fathom having to watch and measure and weigh everything and count points for all eternity,even after reaching your target weight. Also, it seems there is no wiggle room in ww. One day a week I allow myself to eat whatever I want,which is not really a nod to indulgence as it is to convenience. Since the big Atkins craze is long over, it's much harder to find tasty low carb food to grab and eat, so I find myself cooking most of my meals. And I usually have to cook 2 separate meals or at least 2 variations on a meal since SO is 6 foot 5 and weighs 175 pounds and has no intention of cutting carbs or anything else. So that one day allows me to just go to a restaurant or cook whatever without worrying about customizing or rearranging or remaking anything. I don't think even Oprah can save ww now.

I'm SO opposed to this idea at sentencing of giving the victim's family an opportunity to vent to the jury and judge. For what reason? The guy has been convicted. He did something wrong as found by a jury of his peers. The law gives a jury/judge some leeway in sentencing, but just because the family of the victim cries and yells and swears, it should not affect the sentence. It should be based on the facts of the crime - level of violence etc. Yes, I DO know someone whose son was killed for no good reason. A woman he knew called him as her boyfriend had called her to say he was coming over to her apt to kill her. Now, calling a friend would not be my first choice - I'd call the police. But she called two friends, and he did come and killed all 3 people. It was devastating for the woman I knew (a woman from my pulmonary rehab). He was her only son. He was hardly an angel - left 5 children (by 3 different "baby mamas", one a set of twins), all under the age of 5. But he should not have been killed. All this wailing and cussing has turned courtrooms into "reality TV" shows.