One time I made my profile picture a photo of me in a field and my dad commented, "is this that time you shit in the field?" (referencing me as a toddler on an ill-advised family outing to the lake.

Okay you guys. Apologies in advance because I'm gonna pull a major fangirl wank right now...

AHHHH. You guys, I have this weird obsession with all of the Careers. I think it's a combination of my fascination with both child soldiers and Olympic gymnasts. But, like, the concept of being raised and brainwashed and trained your entire life to willingly go into a deathmatch that you're not even guaranteed to win…

Um, just so you know, David Brooks is the manliest man about every manly thing!

Just look.

He even talks on the phone like one of those "rugged, invulnerable" super-men:

Yes, because having your parents pay for you to remain jobless is quite the opposite of emasculating! Gosh, I was tempted to ask my parents for money after 6 months of unemployment, but I resisted and took a shitty job instead. Very feminine of me.

But men are so bad at expressiveness, just look at Shakespeare, Faulkner, Poe, King, ...

But, surely, there has been some ineffable shift in the definition of dignity.

1) the word "surely" always signals that the writer is about to give a completely baseless opinion; and

Now, thanks to a communications economy, they find themselves in a world that values expressiveness, interpersonal ease, vulnerability and the cooperative virtues.

Why are there holes where their eyes should be?! Why is my gut response to a baby panda "KILL IT WITH FIRE!"??? The world is upside down.

True story: Carmen Sandiego was my first (recognized) same-sex crush. So whatever PBS has planned will likely revive some initially confusing feelings for me.

When she kept saying "it's what's in their hearts that matter".

Of all the crying this last week, this was good crying. That lil meow just made me tear up. (maybe because it looks like one of my cats)

While this interview pisses me off as much as anyone, I sincerely hope the legacy of this trial is not "current protections accorded to criminal defendants are bullshit." The same hallmarks of our legal system that Zimmerman was able to take advantage of (DJ, which is not a question here because the State does not…

Well, the mistrial ship has sailed. But you know what would make things better in the future: a 12 person jury.

I am so angry. I guess I'm putting my tinfoil hat on:

"But some people just fall in love like that."

Juries are supposed to be pretty well sequestered from these things, and failing that to not be considering anything not from the actual courtroom in making their decision. Referring to "George said," "George's rendition," etc. if it wasn't part of the trial should be grounds. I'm no lawyer, though, so I don't know.

Tainted jury? Fuck, I don't know. Sometimes there is such a clear distinction between what's actually right and moral and what our legal system does that I don't even know how to wrap my brain around it. And then I'm all like:

Not sure what the grounds would be for a mistrial; not that it matters after a verdict has already been handed down.

Mistrial, anyone? Please? Does our fucked-up system allow for that? JEEZUS.