... who are claiming that the article is innocent but we the readers are being sexist--damn, talk about missing the forest for the trees! No, there's nothing inherently wrong with being feminine, but look at the context here. This is a presidential race (like the last two) in which toughness and masculinity have unfortunately played a huge role, and where the public perceptions of these candidates, which is formed more by "news" articles like this than by anything else, is critical. Everyone (including Scherer and Walsh) knows that to the general public, calling a male presidential candidate feminine is an insult, effectively saying he's not qualified to be president, and that the perception of Democrats as sissies has done them immeasurable harm in recent elections. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and you can't ignore the fact that this article plays perfectly to the prevailing stereotypes just because being feminine isn't necessarily bad. If Scherer honestly wanted to explore the way that these campaigns are subverting stereotypes, he needed to acknowledge the power of these stereotypes, note the way they've been exploited by Republicans, and point out that they're erroneous and narrowminded. Instead, he fills the article with flip remarks like "May the best woman win," and he feigns ignorance about the effect an article like this has in the real political world, just like you do.

P.S. Paging Glenn Greenwald: Please write your next blog about this article. It's a perfect subject for you.

"... why not confront these politics head-on? Why not ask the question directly: What's so great about electing a president because he claims to have the most machismo?"

Why, indeed? And why didn't you do it the first time around, Michael? Instead, you sidestepped the tough questions, treating this subject in a half-jokey manner, as though this wasn't a heavily loaded subject that's continually being used so effectively to smear Democrats. As though calling Obama feminine couldn't possibly be construed as a slight, so therefore you didn't need to worry about being clear about it. That's just grossly naive. Your follow-up proves that it's not so difficult to put things in the proper context, and you should have done it the first time.

Also, you say "I assumed that, in the context, readers would see [the final sentence] as the hyperbole it was, a provocative exaggeration to prove a point. I obviously was wrong." No, we all recognized your last sentence as hyperbole. We were complaining because it was a really stupid choice.

It's ridiculous to rely on individual consumers to make sacrifices in order to benefit society at large. And it's even more ridiculous to expect industry to do it. We all know these strategies won't make a difference. This is what we have government for! To regulate industry and guide consumer choices in ways that benefit us all in the long term, so that consumers and industries are free to fulfill their own interests and not worry about what's best for society, which they're not good at assessing anyway. The only way we're going to significantly reduce global warming is through government action. Period. So why waste our time trying to get people to tinker with their individual carbon footprints?

The best thing any of us can do is make this more of a political issue. Any way we can.

People have been talking about distinguishing among types of editors, and I think it's important to note the difference between the task of deciding which articles should be published, which is done by the top editor(s), and the task of "editing" those pieces to make them read as well as possible, which is done mostly by lower-level editors. Kamiya, obviously, is talking about the latter.

And by the way, it's the former with which Salon has had trouble lately. The problem with a Paglia article isn't that it wasn't edited well enough; it's that someone chose to run it at all.

Sorry, but continually lying to someone you love, even if it's about something small, is fatal for the relationship. LW already had to bullshit her by pretending not to know what he knows, and he seems to think he'll have to keep doing this. And yes, the feelings of inadequacy are his problem, not hers, but if they're really in love then he'd better share it with her sooner or later. It's important for him not to hide his feelings from her, both because he should open up to her and because she deserves to know if he's a bundle of insecurity or if he's obsessed with her ex.

And finally, the only way that telling her what he did would hurt her is if he's unsympathetic. If he really believe the ex mistreated her and she deserved better, then she'll be happy to hear that. And if he's actually sympathetic to the ex's point of view, then frankly the girlfriend deserves to know that, too. Don't bullshit her just to avoid hurting her; you'll only hurt her worse down the line.

Bottom line: Just be honest and stop calculating.