Gender roles were very much in contest in Britain during the era of the French Revolution. An early feminist, Mary Hays, had this to say about British men who didn't fight but stayed in England and took jobs that women desperately needed:

“Fine citizens and soldiers this race of delicate, contemptible beings would make, if called out for the defence of their country!” (Letters and Essays).

So I like "a race of delicate, contemptible beings" and another phrase she used, "she-he gentry," but this period is a great one to mine for such phrases, so I'll see what else I can find.

Citizen X, the word "package" would make a great double entendre.

You have Bush's manly package from the infamous Mission Accomplished images, and then you have the idea of packaging as PR or fabrication; both the literal and figurative meanings fit in beautifully with Glenn's exploration of faux masculinity.

I wonder if any of the absurd utterances of Chris Matthews might be used. I think Glenn or another Salon writer has talked about Matthews's obvious attractions to all things that signal the rightwing idea of manliness, such as Bush's package and Thompson's smell of leather.

The Right-Wing Package: Manufacturing the Warrior Myth

The Strong Leader’s Package: The Infinite Gap between Myth and Reality

The Faux Package: Masculinity, Myth, and Reality in Right-Wing Discourse

Alden doesn't have to prove anything to you. No one should give a shit what anyone who posts here looks like.

Implicit in your post is the idea that if Alden is fat or not attractive enough in some way, then s/he is worth less.

Alden has made a rational argument. Is that all you have to counter it?

You are the definition of intellectual poverty.

"A Dirty, Un-Serious Fringe Hippie"

Perfect! I thank you.

Before you answer Glenn's question about puff pieces, could you please define what you mean by puff pieces? I just want to know exactly what you refer to in order to judge your argument on its merits.

Assuming we are talking about political writing, would it be something like: a piece with little substantive content, offering no real analysis of relevant, meaningful political issues, that focuses instead on trivial details or horse races or attempts to evoke subjective, emotional responses rather than rational ones?

about Bill Maher's Religulous??

I am anxious to hear about it.

AGAIN.

"'Republicans sex scandals are getting to be like Iraqi car bombings. By the time you hear about one, there's been another. Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Vitter, Craig... It's like "Clue" only the answer is always "A Republican... in the washroom... with his cock.'

As a good liberal, I would complain about your stereotype... except it doesn't seem to be so much a stereotype as the way these authoritarians seem to act. Not sure why. Was it covered in Bob Altemeyer's book?"

The cock quote is from Bill Maher over at HuffPo.

Glenn's exposure of journalists' mendacity never fails to shock. I have to wonder what kinds of rationalizations they use when they so brazenly contradict themselves. Timelagged, I don't think it's gullibility. It takes skill to write the way these journalists do. (No, seriously.) To make something horrific seem like a rational choice, to give a gloss of professionalism and authority to the words on the page, to give the appearance of well-researched erudition, and to imitate an even-handed impartiality--all of these things require skill and a careful consideration of rhetorical choices. These people are not stupid, which is why it is all the more dismaying that they use their skills in the service of a lawless, corrupt regime.