>> So the April 2006 Vogue is supposed to be The Shape Issue, right?  I was taking a look at this editorial called "Mythic Proportions" -- which is supposed to be the shape editorial in the magazine.  The categories for the editorial are "thin," "tall," "short," "curvy," and "pregnant."  Now with all due respect, the models used in this edit range from 5'6" - 5'11" in height.  Since when was 5'6" "short"?  It's a nice idea for Vogue to do the whole bodily conscious thing, but this editorial says to me that all women are either short (at 5'6") and thin, tall and thin, pregnant and thin, or just plain thin.  That or you're curvy.  Who is Vogue kidding, trying to be all body conscious, if this is their version of it?  They only show the curvy model standing up once -- the other two times she is sitting down, hiding her curves.  In my opinion, they should have just used Natalia Vodianova for the whole edit and saved some money -- she covers three of their five categories ("tall," "thin," "pregnant") in one fell swoop.

EDIT:  It seems my source neglected to scan the "curvy" shots, but that issue has been rectified (Thank you, Faith!) -- so I had to rethink my reactions a bit.  Sorry about the mix-up.

>>  Who knew socialites could be so quotable? On Karl Lagerfeld:

'I think his hair is powdered, like from the 1800s,' says one socialite. 'In fact, it is from the 1800s,' titters her friend.

>> Seriously, Kate is everywhere, and it needs to stop.  I'll make buttons, we'll do a protest, whatever it takes.  The unemployment rate for other models must have gone up at least a couple of percentage points lately because in the last two months, I've seen Kate have editorials in W (March and April), V, UK Vogue, Vogue Italia... and now Harper's.  I think I'm about ODed on Kate.  Where's the variety?  I'm in some serious need of spice of life.