I sort of alluded to this in my earlier post, but I think this deserves repetition:

Why does Las Vegas represent "America" when millions of non-Americans visit the city constantly? So when people from Germany or the UK or Japan enjoy Las Vegas, they somehow don't represent "the fat stupid lazy American Motto?"

(This by the way, is why Vegas was a really poor choice for Sirota's extended metaphor. It's NOT like other cities. That's kind of the big attraction. Remember class, context is important.)

Because I know if I was in that position, I would have to start choking our idiot press for wasting valuable oxygen with their inanity. The "moran of the week" had to be the mindless drone that asked "So how do we know the economy is recovering?" That's not a legitimate jounalistic inquiry, that's the set-up for a Mad magazine article (with the punchline being something like :"...when David Vitter can stop paying hookers with "two-for-one" Pampers coupons). I mean I'm no expert economist, but I'm pretty sure that simple things like people not losing their jobs or companies projecting gains instead of losses might be an oh-so subtle clue. What a dipshit!

By the way was anyone else offended when a "journalist" asked about Alex Rodriguez, but DIDN'T ask the President's opinion on Jessica Simpson's wide ass? Come on people, let's stick to what's important! God, now I'm going to have to continue to stand on pins and needles waiting for this vital information.

I can't believe that an anti-drug nerd like me is even saying this, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that we should end the "war on drugs" and start decriminalizing them. Glenn, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned how the economy has been a major force in shaping changing attitudes about drugs (at least from the government.) Now that many states are so broke they're (maybe literally) looking for spare change under their couch cushion, they're thinking outside the box for ways to raise money. For instance I've heard a few states (California and Orgeon for example) talking about legalizing and taxing pot to help pay for their states. I suspect that these types of discussions wouldn't even get off the ground here if the governments weren't so desperate for money.

Seriously, it's like every ten years or so, there is some tired-ass reiteration of the "Is Feminism dead" question. (I mean wasn't "feminism" suppose to have been killed off when Ally Mcbeal and the Spice Girls came into prominence? Is "feminism" then the "Jean Grey" of political movements?)

As for the referenced article, it unfortunately makes the same mistake that many people make about the Civil Rights movement in assuming that these movements just sprang up whole cloth in the 60s. Feminism existed WAY before then, even if the activist weren't calling themselves "feminist" at the time. And as an example, the feminism of say, the Woman-Sufferage 1920s isn't the same as the 60s version. Likewise feminism isn't going to come in the same package now as it did then. The point is that the beast known as "feminism" is and was always engaging in CONSTANT metamophasis. So to answer the inevitable pointless article about this in 2019: No feminism is not "dead" and yes it has "changed."

Geez, you'd think "Broadsheet" would know better then to play this game.

Don't forget about these right-wing camera-fuckers (er...I mean "Conservative pundit" of course) favorite tactic: purposely REFUSING interviews and dialogues with "liberal media" so they can then claim to be excluded. A few years back I participated in an anti O'Reilly website, and it documented that he did that shit constantly (current example: his goon squad stalking the ThinkProgress blogger because that stuck-up liberal wouldn't talk to him, even though he never actually ASKED her for a quote or to appear on his show or anything like that.) Then, hilariously, he'd claim the libtards were "hiding under their desks." Rachel Maddow has also mentioned that many right-wing nut-bags don't want to come on her show, even though she has stated that the offer is usually open. It's ridiculous. When it comes to media victimization, these Conserva-punks are more then willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Like a commenter said at the beggining 5 zillion pages ago, The RW idiot brigades REAL complaint is that people aren't going to swallow their hideous fact-free bullshit wholesale.

I don't really get what this has to do with "lesbian stereotypes." Since you obviously read the tabloids regularly, Clark-Flory (because this story would fly below your radar if you didn't), you'd know that Lindsay has had volitile reletionships with almost EVERYONE she dated. Hell she's had a volitile relationship with everyone she has even interacted with. That's kinda why many movie studios won't work with her anymore. In addition, there are many "non-crazy" lesbian couples being reported on (Ellen/Portia, Melissa/Tammy Lynn, even Rosie and her partner are just some examples).

I think (like a few other people here suspect) that you really wanted to talk about an admittedly gossipy subject, but because you work for "high-minded Salon", you needed a psuedo-intellectual, faux sociology angle to justify talking about it.

I mean, yes, Hannah Montana is silly, but it appeals to it's target audience, and that's all the justification her fans need. Sometimes kids and adults just have different taste. I admit that I liked certain entertainment venues as a kid that baffled my parents. That certainly didn't stop me from enjoying them.