... a 30-line graf with (count 'em!)

17 I's

1 me

1 myself

1 my

and 13 we's that really are I's couched in inclusive language pretending there's this entire universe of people "who understand [his] subtlety and complexity and double meanings" and "who accept the premise from the outset that [he is] not doing it 'the way it's supposed to be done,'" which, of course, wonders what is the "way it's supposed to be done" (*cough*Mr Blue*cough*)

Plus

3 mentions of his gig at Farley's

1 mention that he "didn't bomb" at Farley's

1 mention of his gig at Borders

1 mention of his web site

1 mention that he's going to put up a video of one of his gigs at his web site

... all in that solid mass of type up there. I just don't think Cary could have squeezed in any more self-referential, self-aggrandizing language in that, do you? Oh, wait: Did he get in a plug for his book? If he did, I missed it.

Maybe this is what many of us who criticize Cary - not necessarily flame in hurtful ways - are responding to.

As for that person who likened Cary to a wise old Father figure: Cary's advice to parents/about kids has been almost without exception just awful and, at times, even dangerous. So, forgive me, but *guffaw* at the wise pater image.

Maybe some of us, too, have been reading Salon since its inception, and now are daily reminded of just how far the mag has fallen, what with Broadsheet, all the narcissistic white-woman angst essays, the awful partisan blather, and just the general dumbing down of the site. Maybe we're venting some of our anger at that really disappointing development in the letters we write. (I know my original username got banned for repeatedly calling out Joan Walsh, and not even in profane language - just by calling a spade a spade about editorial decisions she's made, so you might just imagine that there are plenty of usernames out there you'll never hear from again because they've been censored in much the same way. I guess the 'invisible hand of the marketplace" moves in mysterious ways, editorially speaking. It's the page hits, stupid.)

Anyway, Cary's advice may well dovetail with a lot of the mindsets of readers out there, but please try to understand that, to many of us, it's just execrable about 85% of the time.

Many of us have had Salon bookmarked for I don't know how many years, and it's really tough to break a daily reading habit like that, even if the reading material disappoints you more and more. I know my own visits here are much-reduced in number; and the chagrin I feel when I DO visit will no doubt extinguish my Salon habit soon enough. It's just sad (and, sometimes, angry-making) to read this stuff.

Therein lies the bitterness, perhaps. See if you can imagine it's really *not* all about Cary, but about what Cary represents.

That is all.

So: it's socioeconomic status that makes you publish all those insipid teary-eyed, navel-gazing, rich, white-woman angst essays, huh?????

Well, well, well. Ain't that a stitch.

Seriously. It's pretty easy to paint everyone who calls you out on your foolishness a troll and pay attention only to the 'yes-men' out there. I think if Cary is going to do this, he doesn't deserve to have an online column.

I mean, seriously: is this column just going to turn into a place where Cary Tennis can call doubters and even detractors "trolls" while publishing column after column begging for affirmation?

Sheesh. Seriously.

Because I find it very hard to imagine any of them wanting to work together ever again - and that includes in the Senate, if that should come to pass (can you tell I'm an Edwards fan?).

I know that old chestnut about politicians who can wrangle "on the floor" as it were and then kiss and make up and merrily go hand-in-hand to some lobbyist's posh catered event, but one wonders if this is all really just a dog-and-pony show and bygones will ever be bygones again.

Just a thought.

I don't need anybody telling me throughout the day what they THINK's gonna happen, based on "exit polls", their crystal balls, or anything else.

I mean, gods forbid YOUR blithering should sway the outcome. Right? Plus: who cares? Who SHOULD care? Who SHOULDN'T wait till the polls close to hear the news? Is there any way you media guys couldn't insert yourselves into this whole overwhelmingly over-hyped process?

Seriously.

Relax - have a cuppa coffee, put your feet up, and read Paul Krugman's column here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?em&ex=1200546000&en

=a538bdbb60602bf4&ei=5087

It'll do you (and us) a world of good.

Will Farhad make it three salonistas who cry foul (or just cry) over these uber-snarky drive-by's?? I hope not.

As for the iPhone, it's all that.

And more

and more

and more.....

Just like Farhad says.

A true paradigm shift!!!!