ReflectedSky
ReflectedSky
ReflectedSky

I do not understand your perspective here. The fact that many people are pointing out that his point of view is inaccurate and despicable means he is contributing something valuable? You're claiming you are concerned that minority/subversive viewpoints should not be drowned out, and you mean GEORGE WILL's viewpoint

Are you seriously suggesting that 73 year old white men, especially 73 wealthy, white conservative beltway power player men are UNDERREPRESENTED in our public discourse?

Pro tip: If this troubles you, Sunday morning broadcast chat shows, Fox News, pretty much the entire Washington Post editorial board, the Wall Street

Except the person who punched the wall is the person who got her job. So, is she a bitch, or was he unable to handle reporting to her and undermined her with the boss?

Women are humans. So sometimes they suck, just like men. But this just reeks of Old Boys stuff. The reality is that the New York Times was bleeding

My knowledge of this show mostly comes from Internet articles, predominantly but not exclusively on Jezebel.

I wonder if one reason the reaction was so strong and apparently so long-lasting re: Rachel Frederickson is that she actually got thinner than the judgmental fat shamers watching the show. Can't have the

Based on what?

Another part of this that doesn't get enough attention is that there's evidence that being under relentless stress actually changes how you process food and store the energy. I think the theory is that evolutionarily, we're designed to store energy more efficiently under stress, because before modern times, stress

Re: the judgy, pretty hipster: Be aware that telling this women you don't like her handsome boyfriend is not likely to do anything except end your friendship. There's a lot of insecurity on both sides of that relationship, most likely, and if he really is good-looking, that's power. If you do talk to her, I would

I have tried to resist this, but it's clearly futile. Team JoTara it is. Weirpinski? Whatevs.

Two quick thoughts: 1) She deserves more credit, as the anchor that keeps him from floating off into the twee-niverse. 2) Their skating commentary is actually good; it's not all about the fabulousness. I appreciate their

Thanks. I didn't expect anybody to see this. I didn't want to distract from this particular story. But whenever I read about this stuff, it brings it all up again. Judges DO hear these stories, don't they? I just this minute turned off Chris Hayes, who was interviewing a survivor of campus rape about how most

Burying this way down here because I feel guilty venting. A long time ago, I had a friend who was raped and killed in a notorious case in NYC. Her "deathbed" statement (on the operating table, as they tried to save her) was blared all over tabloids; I had to walk past her quotes in screaming headlines in rows and

I'm glad she's retiring, because she doesn't seem to understand the word "criminalize", which is NAGL for a writing professor. She does realize that the government hasn't actually done anything to Mr. Sterling, I hope.

Some of her other points are well-taken. But you know who clearly still feels quite comfortably

And yet I could read that joke over and over again, because it is so on point. People repeating jokes on Deadspin doesn't usually seem to be a problem...

Oh, how I wish there was some kind of ultra-high powered level of star one could give a comment like this.

Part-time jobs are real jobs. The football team is also a unit, yet each individual gets paid. It is clearly not a voluntary position, as it comes with auditions, restrictions and requirements.

And again, lots of people contribute to the economic value of the team and the entertainment experience even if the ticket

Hiring a good science writer would be a public service — which I realize isn't how Nick Denton views his company, so... But having said that, I bet there would be a way to use clear, explanatory science writing to garner clicks.

Here's what I carried away from the articles I read when I poked around in this issue a few

The team creates economic value by delivering entertainment to a mass audience. The cheerleaders are part of that entertainment experience. They are, therefore, contributing to the economic value created. If they do not contribute to the entertainment experience, then by all means, don't pay them - but then also do

I find this POV fascinating. What makes it a hobby, rather than work? What makes this labor undeserving of economic enrichment? It seems to me for most owners, the team is a hobby, one that enriches them massively.

What makes it not a "real job"? They perform work, they deliver economic value to the organization.

Unless he's got specific health problems (I am not willing to Google and find out), don't hold your breath. The wealthy live longer. The odds are pretty good he's got another ten years.

I know a lot of people with both digestion issues and anxiety and depression issues, and it intrigues me how they seem to cluster. I realize that could be confirmation bias at work.

I hadn't thought about the fact that I was using "neurological" sloppily — that it refers to the entire nervous system, rather than