The crash course in feminist history may be interesting to some. But I looked through the whole article for evidence of the Hilary/mother phenomenon and found nothing but the interview referenced in the beginning. Do you really want to suggest that all women are as shallow and vapid as this person must be to base her vote on a personal family grudge and continue to do it when she is aware that she is doing so? If I didn't know better, I'd say she posed as an Obama supporter just for the sake of giving that interview. Anyway, enjoy patting yourselves on the back for being referenced.

To paraphrase one of my favorite webcomics, you can go on all you want insisting that we support Obama because we're sexist - we'll just sit right here not being sexist, and you'll be wrong.

What better way to argue that something is relevant to "our time" than by quoting Frank Zappa?

Just because something is disliked doesn't mean it's brilliant satire. We "get it". We just don't think it's very good. Its satire is shallow and directed at straw men, it's based on uninformed assumptions, and its main mode of satire is rendering the other side's opinion in a stupidly exaggerated voice. By this standard, annoying third graders who repeat everything you say including "stop repeating after me!" are also "the pre-eminent satirists of our time."

Bollocks to South Park. Family Guy and almost any show on Adult Swim run rings around it any day of the week.

I'm not a Libertarian, any more than I'm a Democrat or Republican or Marxist. Candidates should be chosen on what they believe, not whose collective ass they kiss.

If you can't see the contradiction inherent in that statement, perhaps America is getting dumber. What good are a candidate's 'beliefs' if all their actions in office are going to depend on pleasing the party/base that elected them? And don't think that there is any other possibility - given the structure of our electoral politics, the best you could hope for is that if they get re-elected they MIGHT defy party orthodoxy in the last couple of years of their second term (this is what Bush did with immigration, for all the good that did). But hey, if you want to keep posturing and patting yourself on the back for being so cool and above it all, be my guest. The rest of us have actually, you know, given the matter some thought and grudgingly picked a side.

You both sound like the type of people who are convinced that anything made since the "Golden Age" of Hollywood is utter rubbish. It is understandable to be bitter when you realize that the world has passed you by, but to the rest of us it seems kind of pathetic.

It always baffles me that, given the plethora and variety of programming these days, anyone can make blanket statements like "TV is garbage" when it is impossible to be knowledgeable about even half the stuff that's on. But I'll give you some counterexamples. At least half of the stuff on Adult Swim is brilliant (especially Aqua Teen, Metalocalypse, and Harvey Birdman), though I'm sure the pre-irony generation will dismiss it as trash because it flies way over their heads. Family Guy and Futurama are probably the most clever shows on TV - instead of dwelling on a single point like South Park does, they rattle off references and brutally incisive humor without even pausing long enough to care if the audience 'gets it' or not (Drawn Together would also have gone into this category before its recent cancellation). I have not seen The Wire, but from what I've heard it's absolutely amazing. HBO series like Rome have also received praise, and they recently optioned George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" for a series as well. And of course no list would be complete without Stewart and Colbert.

I don't know how much spare time you have if this isn't enough for you. It's certainly more than I can keep up with.