>That so many men continue to make this choice instead of embracing women as full human beings vs. simple objects of lust/receptacles for their pleasure is so fucking disheartening.<

It's only disheartening if you think 1) such men worth pursuing; 2) you just have to have such a man in your life no matter how unreasonable his demands. Seriously, are any of these guys worth constantly living with the fact you will never be "good" enough for them? Are they worth the subtle (or not) criticism, the eternal striving to make them happy, the losing sight of who you are in order to make their lives better?

>Why choose to live a stunted, stilted life? How many men can lust after the same woman / archetype until they get tired of being fed the Maxim bullshit and start thinking for themselves?<

Until they've got one foot in the grave...or maybe even longer than that...:)

>Dying alone is not to be sneezed at.<

Hon, we _all_ die alone. The idea that a happy (and normal) death means passing away in your bed surrounded by friends and family is 1) a fantasy inspired by too many Victorian/Charles Dickens' illustrations; 2) a crock. How many people actually check out that way? And exactly how can one ensure one will not die alone--send invitations? Ask a friend or a family member to come with you as far as the Pearly Gates? :) Dying alone is always one of those "singlism bingo" cards people play when they want to give you grief about being single. "But...but...you don't want to die alloooonnnne, do you?"

>It is actually a terrible tragedy for long married women who lose their spouses death to spend those remaining years alone.<

...which proves my above point. I would bet that "dying alone" prospect terrifies far more married people than single ones.

...and this is hardly a trivial "food fight." (And shame on you, Joan, for calling it such. What--are issues involving racism and black folks triflin' to you?) It's about the right trying to erase history and any trace of the "Southern Strategy" that made them what they are today. It's about them trying to "re-saint-tize" a man who set this country on the sorry path we are on today. Krugman and Herbert had every right to see and raise Brooks on this pernicious, cloaked-in-"reason" bullshit. Hell, it's a shame they don't take him to the woodshed with every fact-free, winger-pandering, oblivious column he writes. Relatedly, the only time Maureen Dowd has ever been worthy of respect is when she called out Judith Miller for her barrage of lies.

1) LOL!!

2) "Way Lay" runs on Thursday or Wednesday these days, IIRC.

...to toss an audience into a strip without a least a little background/context. The movie THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI ACROSS THE 8TH DIMENSION was the last (and only) time it was done fairly well--and even still it was kinda hard to catch up on some of the backstory.

I've been reading SALON long enough to remember that when it first got started, it was running at least two or three graphic comic strips (including a Frank Miller-esque noir number that had its points.) None of them did well, so I guess KANSAS is yet another try to launch one.

>If the goal of the strip was to unify the Salon reader community, then it has succeeded. I say to you, bravo, Ms. Schlesinger and Mr. Bachtell, bravo.<

And I'd like to thank youse two for doing a strip so awful it has sparked posters to talk about far more worthy comics I'd never heard of before. And you get even _more_ props for inspiring the artist-posters in our midst to yield trade secrets/ace reference books. Praise Alan Moore and pass that stuffing, folks!! :)

>Does that mean I'm a provincial rube, or should I just smugly nod and pretend I belong to this elite club of jetsetting yuppies this magazine caters too?<

Nah--the fault is bad writing that does a spectacularly poor job of setting up characters/plot. Geez, even Bret Easton Ellis had the wit in AMERICAN PSYCHO to use brand names to establish characters, not _be_ characters...

>Somebody help me here. I mean, I think I'm a liberal because of my political views, but apparently I have drink obscure French wine and have a summer home in a wealthy Paris suburb too.<

Well, hell--that means I'm in serious "lib-cred" trouble, too...(deering proudly takes a sip of her Snapple and reflects she's nowhere near getting a summer home even in New Jersey...:))

If you had really worked in the industry (or picked up PEOPLE once in a while) you would know that film production is hardly a year-round, work-available-24/7 thing. It's more like feast-or-famine. The amount of money a gaffer or lighting guy makes on one project may have cover him/her and family for an entire year or more. So for you to act as if union members are not only working all the time, but get to do triple overtime on a regular basis is inaccurate and ignorant.

>While they stand there gaping stupidly, they deserve to be conquered and have their skulls turned into my children's drinking cups. Just sayin'.

"We are BEOWULF!" (Anybody else seen that stupid movie yet?)<

Nah. Even if I wanted to (motion-capture--ugh!), your version is better. :)

>But I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious point that these men would quickly lose incentive to assemble if there weren't any naked boobs to be seen in the first place.<

1) So, because a few women occasionally act out and get stupid means the rest of us have to suffer?

2) Do these men have _any_ responsibility to act like they have sense--or are they so driven by their dicks that they get a pass?