Where I live there's a river that the kids like to float down. A few years ago, none of them floated this river, but it's the thing to do nowadays, like big bangs and turned up collars were once the thing to do. So, they do it and just never you mind that floating the river isn't enough for most of these kids: they have to likker up to make it sufficiently fun and they toss off their garbage, littering the riverbed with beer cans and bottles.

You Broadsheet writers remind me of these kids with regards to Hitchens. You ride the topical cyber-current. It's fashionable, after all, on lefty blogs to denigrate Hitchens. It takes no effort, just as it takes no effort to plop one's arse into a tube and float. And whereas you likely don't compose under the influence, you are under the influence of mob rule. What courage does it take to disparage Hitchens? None. And you and your Hitchens loathing ilk clutter the Internet with your toss-offs. You're intellectually disingenuous, for Hitchens didn't argue that women aren't funny. In a sentence, he argued the women have less incentive to be funny, but hey, that's too slippery a topic to tackle, isn't it? As I recently posted, his editor likely chose the title for the Vanity Fair piece to provoke, just as Salon editors and most editors choose titles to provoke.

Grow up.

Please.

But you won't.

You still say that Hitchens said that women aren't funny, just as Palin says that Obama loves terrorists. Nice sound bytes for simplistic thinking, eh?

Go forth, say six Hail Marys, and fly no more.

So, you think I should be pastorized? You make me laugh, old cyber-friend.

Apropos of nothing in this thread, but much at Broadsheet, I wonder why some Salon posters choose a gender specific moniker, while others choose a gender neutral moniker. With the gender specific moniker, it's as if one's words weren't sufficient and such a person needs to cyber-nod at their crotch.

Is there a greater primacy of gender for those who choose a gender-specific moniker?

Do such posters believe that gender primarily informs their positions?

Is such a position sexist?

It's not that I'd trust them or me to assay the purity of our moniker choices. I think most of us are terribly tricky and whereas we construct compact narratives to explain our reasoning, our interiors are tangled, sprawling, and chaotic.

I think Ms. Stroz, with her repetitions, is trying to pre-rebut the, "But there are exceptions, such as...."

It's hard to argue, if pair-bonding is a central aspiration, that two-plus years of failure is due to external factors, even if one has an unfortunate face.

Ms. Stroz, I visited your website and whereas your cyber-personality is cheeky, which is good, I hope you're also tongue-in-cheeky, which is harder to discern through the cybertubes.

"decades" for "years"

Ms. Walsh replies to her readers. So do Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Greenwald. Why don't you? I know you rarely do, but Broadsheet would be better with dialogue. I don't think it's your intent, but you seem supercilious to me when you don't reply. I suppose your videos are meant to be reactive to readers, but I don't even view those anymore. They're fluff, too short and too much about the person as opposed to the idea.

I've raised my concern about your Hitchens shtick several times and there's silence. Are you giving me the cyber-finger? The cyber-cold shoulder?

I expect more silence and another Hitchens misreference in a few weeks, but I'd like to be surprised.

Broadsheet writers have referenced Hitchens and the VF piece many times. And they just listed their Mr.-Hitchens-is-a-poophead piece as one of their faves.

I care about Mr. Hitchens. Writing for VF is a very big deal. It's Salon times 1000. Do you read VF? Whatever expectations you have, it'll confound them. It's delightfully mercurial, as is Mr. Hitchens. I know it's de rigeur for far righties and far lefties to dismiss Mr. Hitchens, but how much of his writing have you read?

I do adore a succinct post.

However, if you're going to expend a few words, follow Mr. Dynamite's lead.

I agree that Ms. Clark-Flory is spewing CO2. She's a walking smokestack and due to people like her, her grandchildren, if they survive the ongoing climate change, will be living in northern Alberta.

Simply, yes, Ms. Clark-Flory, your relationship isn't killing the planet. The planet is too big. You and your relationship are too small. However, your relationship is contributing to the extinction of many species and the coming forced reduction of our species.

...music!

At your cheesecakey blog, you declare that you're "the" feminist. Here, you reveal that women and men aren't equal. So, how does your feminism reveal itself?

And do Broadstreet's but-what-about-me fellows cleave to you because of your cleavage or because you also recite their lines?

I second that warm bed and financial security. Being in love isn't lucidity. I've posted this link one other time, but it's worth a read if you haven't read it. The author argues that those in love aren't rational:

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/true-love.html

Snark on: I'm against police because that's socialism! And I'm against the military because that's socialism too! As is the fire department!

That article is one of my all-time faves. I hope, someday, to write that well.

I've been wingwoman for enough buds to see how slippery sanity is when one is stricken with love. "Stricken" is the perfect word, isn't it? One is stricken with a cold. One is stricken with the flu. One is stricken with love.