History repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as abbreviated but evocative film noir. I see myself in something slinky and black, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and drinking pernod. Glenn Greenwald will, I hope, agree to sport something in a subdued gray flannel.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
How do you "languidly" slap someone?
For Svenn-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/languid
If only the Salon-enlightened could prevail upon a somnolent Hollywood to make movies that would reveal the (noir) depredations of this war and it's depraved instigators, the American people would flock to the cineplex to be edified.
Your next step is to do your best Greta Garbo impression, intoning "I vont to be alone."
Actually, Grand Hotel seems to be a good metaphor for the blogosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Hotel_%28film%29
You forgot to mention the toilet paper stuck to your pantyhose.
Is it a shroud?
She's not a political blogger, she's an economics blogger. Can't you tell?
I'll admit it, that was funny.
Can you please share with us what words you were googling to come up with that post?
So Megan, what does pursuing a fight with Greenwald do for your traffic numbers?
RickM: So you can slap someone languidly, it just doesn't really hurt?
She's not a political blogger, she's an economics blogger. Can't you tell?
Actually, I thought she was functionally retarded and had won the blogging spot through the Make-a-Wish Foundation.
"I see myself in something slinky and black, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and drinking pernod."
That's funny, I see you as the broad who just won't shut up until she gets a grapefruit mashed into her face. And the audience loves it. They laugh and laugh and laugh.
Boy, the Greenwald commenters sure have classed up this joint. I know blogfights with him boost your traffic, but is the tone-lowering worth it?
Boy, the Greenwald commenters sure have classed up this joint
It's like a bunch of zoo monkeys broke into an Interet cafe. If we're debating the definition of "languid," let's also look up "foot-stamping impotent rage."
Rather than attacking Glenn Greenwald's readers, maybe Megan McArdle's readers could address the issue that actually is being debated by Glenn Greenwald. Ah, but that would require defending statements by Megan McArdle that cannot be defended by any person with a shred of integrity. It is probably better for Megan McArdle's fans to resume sipping their lattes as they look down their noses at us zoo monkey. It must be depressing for you to realize that Megan McArdle makes less sense than a zoo monkey. Life is so unfair.
Original post: funny. Zoo monkeys: sound like they should be funny, but actually not funny--perhaps they are having an off day, or perhaps they've simply been overused. I suspect you have much funnier material inside you. I don't know exactly why I think they would work so well, but have you considered brine shrimp?
Also, I have an increasing vegan readership. They do not sip lattes. Soy chais, maybe.
For the record, I found Megan's blog via Sadly, No.
I love Greenwald's writing; I bought How Would a Patriot Act and A Tragic Legacy, and his blog is a multiple-times-daily stop. If I had a blogroll he'd be on it (I guess I need to learn how to do one). His commenters (of which I am one, though I do so infrequently) are par for the course. Some are thoughtful, and some just like to fight. The true test will be whether any of them stick around; monkeys eventually get bored or distracted and leave.
You should disable comments. They're lame. But since they're available, I should note that your discussion of whether or not the media ought to cover stories the public isn't particularly interested in leaves out an important consideration: publicly-funded media outlets. I'm basically libertarian and skeptical of government intervention in or funding of anything in particular, but even a passing acquaintance with both publicly-funded media (e.g., PBS, NPR, BBC) and privately-owned for-profit media (e.g., Fox News, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) reveals the vast superiority of the former over the latter. That can only be explained by the fact that the superior outlets don't have to indulge in the kind of salacious, populist, info-lite "news" coverage that the others feel the need to engage in. People really do turn to outlets like NPR, PBS and the BBC -- they're usually the only ones that provide any meaningful context.
The press has an important function to serve that is in fact too important to be left entirely to the same sort of bean-counters that give us one dreary "Hollywood blockbuster" after another. Right?
I see myself in something slinky and black...
Something like this?
I have been slapped down by an issue-oriented argument by Ms. McArdle (at 11:23), with footnotes, to which I can only respond, "ouch". The asymmetrical logic of Ms. McArdle's put-down was inescapable, and I must slither off to nurse my wounds.