• Guided By Guide Dogs
• Frankie Goes to Hollywood, FL
• (I Hope) Sleater-Kinney (Road Has Handicap-Accessible Sidewalks)
• SebadOh, My Aching Back
• Martha Raye Spex
• His Name Is Dead
• Veruca Salt-Free
• The Flaming Lipitors

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

36 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

41 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

2 comments

It read, in part:

The "summary of Gould's article as 'y'all are just jealous' is facile to the point of being misleading. Ironically though, it serves as a perfect metaphor for exactly the kind of manipulative junk that makes the whole Jezebel cardboard cutout so distasteful, as Jez then went beyond the pale with a post that accused Gould of impugning their 'reporting.' No such thing actually occurred though, as (to cadge a term from old timey philosophy) Gould didn't point a finger at the form of their argument but rather at the substance that it was made of. There wasn't an accusation of poor reporting but just an accusation of a sort of emotional purpose behind that reporting. Just as at no point did Gould accuse the Jezebel writers of being jealous and catty, she said that they were encouraging those feelings in the online community, that they were unconsciously pointing people in that direction.... Marx used to say that money was simply fetishized power-that it was a talisman that represented something, and for the Jez community that fetishized currency actually is outrage and righteousness."

[Ed. Note: Further commenters, however, go on to note the currency of outrage is widely accepted at all of today's best Internet boutiques! That, as Emily pointed out, it's not proprietary to Jezebel.

Also, then this commenter goes on to talk about: "But Jezebel doesn't actually police that voice, or educate women, or pretend to debate any sort of truths which encompass any world that involves the 49% of the rest of us that apparently make up the female-mashing machine that is human existence." Which, ack! Anyway, I couldn't let this go by without qualifying, sorry! -c.]

---

See more posts by saythatscool

95 comments

We wondered how many kitchen utensils we really needed. And why our dogs were so stupid. We wondered: how many coconuts we could get for a fish?  Actually, we answered that.  My significant other wondered: does this swimsuit make my ass look big? It doesn't Clarence, you are as beautiful as the day I married you.

All that time with our loved ones made us question our relationships. We questioned our sexual preferences and why we get divorced. We wondered how badly we screwed it up and what we missed in the process.

Others queried what they were doing in the first place? We wondered how to make amends and move on.

The youngs asked: how old is too old? The olds wondered how to make themselves attractive again to the youngs. The olds then asked: why are we attracted to the youngs in the first place? Then we all wondered about that leery stranger. Then we wondered when they were going to play our song.

We wondered where we could gas up cheaply and about that nearby disappeared sex prison. We asked what kind of man likes what kind of superhero and if we missed the summer sequel.

I started to wonder if sorry your heinous was Lee Marvin or Toshiro Mifune and why anyone would ever compliment an Albanian.

We came back to our work and demanded to know whatever happened to Electric Six and Abe. We wondered about our futures and what we were really doing. 

References were made that I don't get, but apparently everyone else does. Others around us just seemed very lost.

My conclusion? Love is a literal battlefield. (All apologies for messing with a Pat Benatar classic.)

No but seriously folks. Most importantly? I Shirley Templed a bro and now he can tap dance. And on and on and on.

Don't forget to email me your suggestions if you see something you like: awlcomments@gmail.com.

---

See more posts by saythatscool

23 comments

"As a white, Christian, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, presumably well-off male, Davis can afford to be all, 'lets discuss.'"

I guess that's consensus, of a sort.


But there wasn't a groupthink love-in. Diplomatic #2357, Mar pleaded for patience and understanding:

I think it's important to note that Davis didn't say that he would be defending all of the Republican party's positions. Instead, he said that he would be explaining why he, a fairly average Republican voter, would continue to support the Republican party. That's an important distinction. Very few people could give cogent, thorough explanations for how the Republican or Democratic parties could solve ALL THE PROBS, especially with a community of smart, angry wonks nit-picking at the angles of every permutation of every issue.However, giving an explanation for why an intelligent, ethical person would support the Republican party is worthwhile. For all that libs like to cry out against Othering, there's some very classist, elitist Othering of Them What Live in Flyover Country & Don't Know What Life Is that goes on in pretty much every lib community. It's very hard for a lib to give a critique of Sarah Palin that doesn't use the term "white trash."


So, it would probably be a good idea (by which I mean, an idea consistent with most secular humanist ideals) to treat Davis as a Republican individual, rather than a symbol of all Republicanism, ever. The Republican party isn't just made up of hellghosts like Cheney and Beck; most Republicans are dotty grandmas who bake cookies from scratch; or incredibly lovable Friday Night Lights characters; or Elle Woods types who just read their first Ayn Rand novel got excited but who will later become Democrats; or autistic uncles who don't understand ambiguity or metaphor except when it comes to Myst. Quit othering them.

On the other side of the political spectrum, KarenUhOh used the post to continue her Junior Samples bashing. Contemporary!


The gubment aside, sometimes we just want to problem solve and search out answers on our own.


In "Adventures in Facebook Privacy" after Tiffany Hodges noted that it was strange that a wetback (caldorone) [Ed. note – not his real name] and a towelhead lover (obama) [Ed. note- not the real president] is meeting and dissing OUR COUNTRY IN OUR WHITEHOUSE," helpful #1881 kneetoe proposed It'll be such a productive meeting: Obama can take the towel off his head and use it to dry Calderon's back. Problem solved." While curious #153 BadUncle was inspired to take on the burden of original research with Openbook- "Just testing the waters with a few favored search terms, I came across this: 'I want his choad in my anus. if anyone finds him please tell him i want his black ass.'" Ooofa, servicey.


But as Barry White used to tell us, sexual is nothing without the intellectual. Accordingly, we heard from Academia with "The Shame of the Professor's Summer Vacation" and advanced theories were offered for pontification and stuff! Forced from his reclusive North Dakota estate, Dr. #3787 Larson E. Whipsnade argued:

The key word in Dettmar's post is "glory" in point #1. It's closer to the medieval/religious conception of glory than the common modern/secular application of the word (to achievement in sports, for example). The whole problem with the institutionalized study of literature is the vestigal religiosity. "The profession" often thinks of itself as more of an order than a profession. It's religion stripped of religion. The sanctimoniousness, shame, guilt, self-pity, and monkish denial of the worldly remains. It's probably the world's only profession (and protests too much by constantly yelling PROFESSION!!!) that frowns upon money to such a comic extent. Certainly this is not the case with everyone involved – I'm describing an overall tone. [Unnecessary, bitchy sentence redacted] Also, there's work and then there's work and then there's work. 8-12 hours a day, 7 days a week of digging ditches is a different sort of work. The work of the mind is hard work, but let's not brag about the hours put in to a type of work that does not cause the same sort of physical strain as hard manual labor.

Religious? Sure. But F'ING CATHOLIC MY ASS!! (Sorry, I had to do it.)

Speaking of a lovely getaway, ravishing # 384, BookishLookish suggested a "Wisconsin Death Trip." I took a look at the vacation video and was disturbed.

So we opted for chick flick instead. Which made saintly #69, Dorothy Mantooth and us awl gush and beg for an addition to the cast here. Lindy West, come on down!

For our evening plans, the sensual #975, Wrapitup requested we dress a certain way on our date. That in turn, inspired elegant #273, Baroness to offer an alternative and an unrealistic demand for "median" hairy legs.  Stop objectifying me!

We went to a late dinner with the gourmand #1321 Art Yucko who showed us his discovery of an On-Site Sausage-Gravy Dispenser.

Finally, we went home to Twincest which continues to haunt us awl. After that disturbing encounter, we just wanted to curl up with a good book but Garrison Keillor kept complaining that there were too many choices with "18 million authors in America, each with an average of 14 readers, eight of whom are blood relatives. Average annual earnings: $1.75."

The mysterious #2416, Screen Name, had a rebuttal:

Strangely, it never occurs to those who share Keillor's dismay about the sad demise of book publishing that what they've experienced for the past, what, 50 years?, and benefited from financially (thanks for pointing that out), was itself an unsustainable bubble that emerged from the stranglehold publishers exerted as sole gatekeepers into the rarefied air of Tribeca rooftop literary parties.


The "new economics" of publishing aren't really new at all. It's an economy familiar to industries throughout history when the barriers to production suddenly fall, or in some cases are overthrown, and the unwashed masses suddenly find themselves free, literally, to participate at will. The flood of new production overwhelms the system and destroys the old pricing models. Naturally, those who benefited most from the old economy hate the new one. I imagine that long ago someone not unlike Keillor once stood in front of a public library and complained that it's such a terrible thing to see the relatively few good books in the library get stuffed in among all the terrible ones. And people will be able to choose on their own which ones are good? Like they know! Such a terrible thing.


Yes, it's true, Mr. Keillor; no one is going to pay me a large sum of money for my manuscript. No corn row whoops for me. You're sorry I missed the Old Era? Don't be. I'm sorry for you that the most beautiful moment you retained from it was once getting paid a large sum of money.

In conclusion, have a lovely holiday weekend and send me some recommendations next week: awlcomments@gmail.com.

---

See more posts by saythatscool

40 comments

Why? Because I love the comments and I love you. No, not you. YOU.

I love KarenUhOh's well-crafted one-offs. I love scroll_lock's puns. I love Matt's childish obsession with Green Lantern. I love Bad Uncle's 1970's gear head humor, Nic Fit's references to Michael Alig and Abe's mid-western independence. I love mathnet's conversations with herself and HiredGoons' lively retorts.

You just scanned that list for your name and didn't see it? Well, I love you too. And I am going to recognize your wonderful comments soon in exchange for a sexual favor, to be given to me here in Chicago.

Just so we are all clear, this will not be an award or a game show. There's no funny name and we are not giving away merit badges. What we will be doing is merely trying to offer the noble reader a chance to catch up on some stuff that's easy to miss at the end of the day and the end of the post. Also, I can absolutely guarantee you that I will miss some of your brilliance because I am slow, fairly incompetent and desperately illiterate.

But I also promise you that every day, if I am sober, an interesting comment and/or exchange will be chosen for your reading pleasure. Funny's always good but insight and edification is better. Also, I can't do this alone, so for the love of God, send me some recommendations. awlcomments@gmail.com.

So without further adieu, our let's do two!

Our first less stupid comment comes from old #262, kenlayne, who writes in "Limited Edition Denim" Officially Gets Out Of Hand:

"saw these awful things at the store yesterday. It's good to know our nation's unemployed single parents can start their little corn-syrup blobs on the early path of wearing shit-filled undergarments as clothing. And when they are, as TMZ says, All Grow'd Up, they can move up to these 'pajama jeans.' (That is a 'self link.' Oh please do not ban me, Metafilter.) When the Huggies come with a belly-button ring and neck/ass tattoos, America's work will be complete."

Jedi ramifications aside, Mr. Layne paints a picture with words worthy of a tattooed warbling Cyrus herself (Iron Maiden shirt optional).

Soon I gotta bolt for the Motor City this weekend to go sling some rock and enjoy a refreshing Vernors. So I am going to pack it in early and leave you this nugget from today's post, "Financial Reform Bill: Eh, Don't Worry About It!", by the incomparable #220, lawyergay.

I actually have a "job" (okay freelance gig) that requires me to stay on top of this financial reform trainwreck, and I can't read anything about it right now, either.

The "sausage making" metaphor that everyone invokes when talking about Congress and lawmaking doesn't really do this process justice, because when you make sausage, you shove everything into a meat grinder and something sautee-able and delicious comes out. Pretty straightforward!

This is more like 17 hobos making a collage out of macaroni and back issues of the National Review using safety scissors and airplane glue.

Oliver Wendell Holmes and/or John Curtis Holmes couldn't have said it better.

Have a safe weekend and remember to wear sunscreen. And don't forget to email me your suggestions if you see something you like: awlcomments@gmail.com.

---

See more posts by saythatscool

64 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

24 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

13 comments