Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Presumptuous Insect

Published Letters: 772
Editor's Choice: 5

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 09:10 PM

I have a solution that combines etiquette and exhibitionism.

It might work...if you dare.

First, keep a lookout for your neighbor. When you see him coming, have your husband drop his drawers and hop on top of you on the couch to simulate sex. If the neighbor knocks, pretend you didn't hear it when he then walks in and sees your husband's buttocks in motion; if he just walks in, even better.

If he goes away in embarrassment, that's good. You will need to repeat the process so that the idea of dropping in unannounced doesn't seem like such a great idea to him any more.

If he stays, be sure to act acutely embarrassed while he remains (this shouldn't be too hard). And then--this is where Miss Manners comes in--when it is time to go to bed, you and your husband must both rise together and say to your neighbor, "It's been great talking to you, but we have an early morning, etc." Miss Manners says never overdo it with excuses because then it makes it seem as if you don't have the right to your privacy, btw. Make it polite, but short.

If you have to repeat the process, you can then start locking the door. If he finds the door locked, he will think you are having sex and go away.

If you need to suggest to him to call before he comes by at this point, then the blow has been softened a bit. He will think your horny beasts, perhaps, but that will allow him to save face a little.

Friday, March 6, 2009 11:04 PM

No one more deserving.

Congratulations, Glenn! I am very happy for you.

Sunday, March 8, 2009 06:44 PM

"Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich will get angry and say mean things, so of course it's unreasonable to expect him enforce the law."

Just to add to Glenn's comment on making excuses for Obama:

Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and that whole gang, including the approximately 1,245 rightwing politicians who have recently apologized to Rush, are going to be angry and say mean things, not to mention untruthful things, for as long as Obama is in office.

No matter what Obama does--even if he puts a thousand-foot wall all along the Mexico border, even if he increases troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and decides to nuke Iran, even if he gets rid of all taxes on the rich and privatizes social security and gets rid of welfare for the poor, even if he sends all blue-state, latte-sipping elitists into exile--Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich et al. are going to be angry and spew shit about him.

There is simply no way to appease these people.

So Obama is truly free to disregard their yammering and bouncing and sniping. Absolutely free.

For him to make such people even a tiny percentage of an excuse for not doing the right thing, he is an idiot, and disingenuous in the extreme.

Monday, March 9, 2009 06:39 PM

"They are a hive, a Borg collective, but all together, they don't seem to create a fully functioning intelligence."

That, and they have one set of teeth between all of them.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 03:07 PM

bstraub on hard-working journalists who are doing their jobs

My guess is you can't because no such evidence exists. While some columnists and celebrity journalists may agree [with Marcus], my guess is, speaking as a former White House correspondent, most reporters would love to get their hands on this information and write about it.

This information—the Obama administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege to block lawsuits challenging wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, etc.—has been readily available for a long time. I read more than the average person on these matters, and have seen very few critiques or analyses of the problem with such actions. I am not nearly as well read as Glenn, obviously, but my impression is that there is either silence on or support for these outrages, especially in the mainstream. Why, indeed, aren’t White House correspondents jumping on this? Are they asking about it at press conferences?

But there are still many hard-working reporters in Washington who would love to have this information revealed to them.

“Revealed to them”? I think the use of the passive is, uh, revealing here. Isn’t it the job of the stenographer to passively record information that is given to him/her? And isn’t Glenn (and Thomas Jefferson) saying that reporters need to be aggressive in order to protect the interests of the people?

…"most of our press corps'' works hard to unearth information hidden by the government. Cut the generalizations.

I would love to see some examples of mainstream exposés, muckraking, etc., concerning Obama’s continuation of Bush’s unitary executive plans, state secrets privilege, etc. That would actually make my day.

Most Active Letters Threads

476

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
169

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon