No, Walters is not at fault; Broadsheet is. The "it" in Walters' phrase is Hillary's figure, not her butt. That's made absolutely clear in the Traister story about Walters' memoir, to which this entry links. Walters has told the story before.

Sure, the backside is part of the figure, but the reference, in a fashion anecdote, is unexceptionable. Broadsheet is nursing a weak grievance beneath a sensational headline.

Will NBC be able to find someone with appropriate "gravitas" for this position? Ted Koppell? Joe Scarborough? Joan Walsh?

An official Obama site is requesting users' email passwords for access to their private address books? That's a pernicious rumor and a smear in its own right if it isn't true. Will someone please point to a link or an image? All I see is a space to enter the email addresses of friends to mass-mail.

When actor Herschel Bernardi passed away in 1986, I wrote a bit of doggerel about his character's odd predilection:

Charlie

Where but in TV Land

Would a tuna demand

To be slaughtered and canned

A particular brand?

Sorry Herschel! Your "commerschel"

Was always in very poor taste.

Charlie's role in the food chain is much like that of the Hamburger Clown or Hamburger King, to make a self-aware and empathetic species more comfortable with the mechanized slaughter of fellow creatures for its use.

Yes, I'm in the club, with eyes open.

No, Broadsheet encompasses all topics related to gender. However, only the interests, concerns and preferences of a single gender are represented. It's an employment mechanism for persons of snark.

My statement concerned Broadsheet's coverage of topics related to gender, not about whether newspapers serve the varied interests, concerns and preferences of male readers.

"Topics related to gender" was essential to my point but missing from your reply. You've merely selected a few of my words and tossed them back, thereby illustrating the difference between snark verbalism and constructive argument.

These "trolls" have offered reasoning and particulars, while you've labeled, dismissed and rhymed. It's called rationalism, and you're right to be impressed.

My reasoning was straightforward. In response to LibTex, I made a falsifiable statement about Broadsheet, that it covers issues of both genders from the limited perspective of one.

You haven't made a counterargument about Broadsheet. You haven't even proposed that a balanced or androcentric discussion of gender issues can be found in newspapers. You've merely proposed that other material of interest to men may be found in any newspaper. That's not a counterargument, though you borrowed my words; it's a flailing non sequitur.

And rather than acknowledge your error, you've labeled as trolls those who have graciously attempted to guide you through an evidence-based reasoning process, as it differs from a schoolyard taunt.

>why do brightstar, ..mortalman, parsonjim et al. read this column, or "Salon" at all?

Good heavens, is there no value in seeking out information that does not merely reinforce one's existing viewpoint?

If you read Graham's piece again, you'll find that the element he describes as the "piece de resistance" of the Beverly Farms "Horribles" parade was the large penis spraying water on the crowd.

Thus the phrase "societal shame as a deterrent to randy teen boys and slutty teen girls" would have been a more accurate characterization both of Graham's comments and the "Horribles" display itself. Their call-out to the teens was balanced; yours to Graham was not.

I look forward to seeing which you hold most dear: your own intellectual integrity or the trumped up victim's status that is Broadsheet's stock and store.

>So, um, which is it, Barry?

It was a firm correction with a bit of face-saving room for the offender. A technique that maintains and strengthens relationships, and damps the impulse to take arms. Essential for leadership on Lifeboat Earth.

Obama has a broad repertoire of responses. This one very much fit the moment.

And would you consider the Economic Club of Canada a rally, or a political gathering?

Please read the piece slowly, and consider Tracy's words rather than "other words." She's personally torn over the popularity of these classes because "[t]hey remove the aspect of commerce from stripping while, ironically, commercializing and mass-producing it."

Which is the favorable half of the equation and which is the unfavorable? Tracy is torn because it is grand to remove the commerce from stripping, but unfortunate that doing so risks encourages women to perform in a way that pleases men. "Only now, who actually needs a whore when a wife can be taught to pretend to be one?"

Is that not at least a reasonable interpretation, and, if so, could you perhaps communicate disagreement without the tribalist snark?

"risks encouraging women..." And note that the appeal to men is introduced not by Linney but by Tracy, with the word "wife."

>I maintain that TC-F's primary objection to this pole-dancing thing, whether it's professional or recreational, is that it commodifies women's bodies.

And yet, a moment earlier, you had Tracy "standing up for the profession" Linney believes she is denigrating. Moreover, your present interpretation has Tracy not "torn" over professional and recreational stripping but condemnatory of both.

You've twice ridiculed the reading comprehension of others, but have failed to sustain a counterargument that might have balanced Tracy's equation. So again, if you will: Why is Tracy torn?

Comprehension entails understanding the author's position, not conflating it with your own.

But Tracy did not say she was torn between condemnation of professional pole dancing (the war) and empathy for the needs of its practitioners (the troops.) She said she was torn about classes in erotic dancing for women seeking exercise and recreation (the civilians.) That means she finds one or more troubling factors, and one or more appealing factors.

So, for your props in reading comprehension, I ask again: Why is Tracy "torn" about these classes? Her empathy for professional erotic workers is immaterial. What troubles her, and what appeals to her, about these classes?

Linney proposed an answer, which you derided. You've proposed none.