Alba’s logic seems pretty unimpeachable. Of course, people shouldn’t have to change themselves through radical surgery so that people will love them, or accept them into a certain social circle, or offer them a job. But the truth is that people do, every day. Alba herself mentioned in a 2007 interview with Elle that she wouldn’t rule out a li'l surgical booster in the future: "I'm never going to say never for sure ... I don’t know if, for example, having babies will stretch my stomach beyond what is acceptable." It's not exactly having reconstructive surgery to look like Grace Kelly, but Alba, too, might look to plastic surgery regain an "acceptable" body shape.

Xiaoqing’s solution sounds extreme, but according to the Shanghai Time Plastic Surgery Hospital, young women seeking cosmetic surgery to look like celebrities are not entirely uncommon. Indeed, rather than rejecting Xiaoqing's request, some surgeons view it as a challenge: doctors at the hospital have offered to do the procedures for free in order to display their surgical skills, perhaps as a model for future clients who want similar procedures. Being surgically altered to like like someone else to impress your ex-boyfriend, is on the cuckoo side of things but it comes from the same place: a culture that tells men and women that you can have everything you want if you were a only a little bit thinner or your boobs were bigger or your hair was a different color or you looked more like Brad Pitt.  Maybe what's most remarkable about Xiaoqing’s story is not that she thinks looking more like a Hollywood star will make her happier, but that she's saying so in public.

[He] said, "People who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House whose name is Barack Hussein Obama." And then he went on to say that people at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country, which is the same thing that happened in the 50's to prevent African Americans from voting. It's innate racism and I think it's why young people are turned off by this movement. And I'm sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English.

John McCain was already on the tea party's shit list (Tancredo actually celebrated his failed presidential bid), and his daughter's irreverent daytime commentary sure won't help him any in that regard. Not that I mind, but it seems the senator is being seriously undermined by his family.

[T]here's a particular brand of power-positioning at play when a woman walks confidently into a room in a pair of heels that make those who'd be suffering vertigo blanch: How can she walk in those? Pure grit -- that's the explanation. And yes, please infer that if those four-inch stilettos don't draw tears from the woman wearing them, then neither will some ambitious colleague's backstabbing ways. Fashion, in this sense, is power.

Um, OK. But also, four-inch heels might convey power for Couric because without them, she's itty bitty -- which is high among the reasons why she's struggled to be taken seriously throughout her career. Givhan writes as though Couric's image challenges were the (stereo)typical career gal ones -- i.e., being treated as a sex object even while chafing in androgynous power suits -- but as a journalist, Couric's most famously suffered from an equally limiting but decidedly unsexy problem: She's adorable. Physically, Katie Couric comes across as the kind of person for whom hot pink capri pants with tiny embroidered palm trees were invented. A brief foray into Queen of Mean status notwithstanding, the adjective most often used to describe her is "perky." None of this comes up in Givhan's piece, which implies that Couric's bombshell factor has long been hidden under a boxy navy blazer, as opposed to a Lilly Pulitzer shift. But Couric herself speaks about it in the interview that accompanies the photo spread. Phoebe Eaton writes:

She points to a photo on the wall of herself up to something important with General Ray Odierno in Iraq. "I look like a little peanut compared to him, don't I?" she asks. She looks like she's about 16 years old. It's the Tinker Bell nose. "I know," she says glumly. "That was a real detriment for me earlier in my career because I had a kind of young look. Those were the days."

While the look Couric's sporting in Bazaar is indeed a departure from what she's known for, then, it's not because she's spent the last 25 years eschewing markers of femininity. It's more because she's been boxed into a single image of femininity that all but rules out raw sex appeal (no matter how widely admired her legs are) -- the Madonna instead of the Eve. And both images are equally effective when it comes to diminishing a smart woman's perceived gravitas. Givhan seems to be suggesting that Couric deftly avoided falling into the hot bimbo trap for long enough that she can now afford to mix sexiness with power, but that ignores the fact that, like Paula Zahn -- whom CNN regrettably introduced as "just a little sexy" 10 years ago -- Couric established herself as a powerful woman despite people's intense focus on her gender and appearance, not by successfully distracting them from it. "Sometimes I feel like a little Barbie that people dress," she told Eaton. If her recent wardrobe choices have tended toward the dull and colorless, it's because "With the job I have, it's much easier to pick apart what women are wearing, and I think the less ammo everybody has, the better."

So I'm having trouble seeing Couric's adopting a sexy bitch look for a fashion shoot as a big step forward. If she had historically been seen as sexless because her viewing audience and potential employers were so overwhelmed by her intelligence, talent and unisex blazers they naturally afforded her exactly the same respect as her male peers, never giving a moment's thought to her looks or gender, I might be cheering this reminder that a woman can be simultaneously powerful and sexual. But Couric's really just one more example of an exceptional woman who managed to become successful even while everyone was relentlessly hung up on her appearance and femininity. No matter how different this style is for her, at the end of the day, it still leaves us talking about her face, legs and hair at least as much as her accomplishments. Talking about those things is Givhan's job, granted -- but what excuse do the rest of us have?

The 20-year-old is seeking restitution -- to the tune of $3.4 million -- from those caught in possession of these images. Last February, in a landmark case, a man was ordered to pay $200,000 to Amy. She's currently pursuing 350 such cases, and other victims have followed her lead, filing requests of their own. Now, the Washington Post reports, judges across the country are being asked to traverse this rugged legal terrain. 

The philosophical questions that arise could make even Sartre's brain explode: Is Amy revictimized every time these images are viewed? How do you quantify the harm caused? Would it be abuse if she didn't know the images were out there? (If a tree falls in the woods ... ?) Does it make a difference if the viewer's motivation is nonsexual? Judges' answers to these questions have been all over the place; there is no clear consensus. 

One thing is certain: The large-scale spread of Amy's photos wouldn't be possible without this here Interweb. This is just the latest example of how our view of child pornography is being challenged. Consider the debate over "virtual" kiddie porn, in which, say, a real child's face is Photoshopped on the body of an adult woman. Similar mind-benders arise: What does it mean to be a "virtual" victim? Is any harm caused if the material is strictly kept private? When does sexual fantasy cross over into reality? Or, take the rash of "sexting" cases where teens were charged as sex offenders for swapping nudie pics of themselves -- can a teenager sexually abuse herself? As technology is making it easier to produce and distribute child porn, it's also making it harder to define.