« Bravo to Brilliant Satire!!! | Main | It's 3 A.M. Do You Know Where Your Chief of Staff Is??? »

December 12, 2008

A Teachable Moment: An Open Letter to The Onion

Dear Onion Staff:

This is an open letter regarding your recent video, How Can We Make the Iraq War More Handicap Accessible?

I am married to an active duty Marine officer who returned from a one year tour in Iraq in March. As the daughter of a career Naval officer (27 years) and proud wife to a Marine who has served his country since 1981, I support your First Amendment right to speak freely. That freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution and defended by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, includes the right to say unpleasant and unpopular things; to bring up controversial topics and voice opinions others may find puzzling, disgusting, offensive, or flat out wrong headed.

This is part and parcel of this great experiment we call America. In Canada there are laws against hurtful or offensive speech. Not so here in America. We Americans tolerate even hateful sentiments because we believe the best disinfectant for noxious ideas is lots of sunshine and vigorous debate. So in that spirit I'm not going to ask you to remove your video, though I confess I'm a bit confused about the object of your satire.

Instead, I have a few questions I'd like you to think about, because I believe discussion is more instructive than simply trying to shut you up or shout you down. Your video appears to lampoon the Pentagon's willingness to allow soldiers and Marines who have recovered from combat-induced wounds to resume serving their country. I looked up the word satire. It means, "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule". Sometimes it's a lot easier to sneer than it is to examine ideas seriously. I'd like to challenge you to put aside the comic masks for a second and think about what you really said in that video, because as a military wife, I know I found the premises you advanced profoundly disturbing.

Why do you find it "laughable" for wounded soldiers who have recovered from their injuries to resume the duties for which they have been trained? If they have been ruled medically fit for duty and wish to continue serving, what would you have them do? Slink off into the sunset with their tails between their legs? Should someone else make up their minds for them - you, perhaps? Did they give up their freedom of choice when they were wounded, or just when they donned a military uniform?

If they can still perform their jobs, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve if they wish to?

Do you think the Pentagon should treat these men and women like confused and/or mildly retarded children?

Should America look a soldier or Marine who displayed the grit to recover from grievous combat wounds in the eye and say, "Sure, technically you are fit for duty. But in our expert judgment, you are no longer as serviceable as your unwounded comrades in arms. So thanks for the memories. Take a hike."

What, precisely, was the point of that clever dig about the "plan to prop up catatonic soldiers outside of storage warehouses as guards"? You see I looked up catatonic, too. It's a medical phrase with a very specific meaning normally associated with schizophrenia. Did you mean to imply only crazy people would volunteer to go back to a war zone? What does this say about military folks in general? Or have you bought into the John Kerry/NY Times narrative: you know, psychotic combat vets returning to a neighborhood near you? You have to watch "those people". Never know when they might just snap and waste innocent civilians by the boatload.

Over and over again in the video you imply barriers are being lowered to make recovered vets more "equal", that the military is only allowing them to serve out of "pity", or that allowing them to serve will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. You mention wheelchair accessible Strykers and stump guns, but in fact no such accommodations are made for vets who wish to return to duty. Do you have any idea how wrong and insulting that is? Does it bother you that not only will some people believe this nonsense, but that you're mocking men and women who have overcome tremendous challenges in order to continue defending your right to sneer at them? What makes their efforts a fit subject for your derision?

Dave-Rozelle_new.jpg Have any of you ever run a Triathalon? For that matter, are any of the writers at The Onion in as good shape as this man?

After participating in the 2004 San Diego Triathlon Challenge, Maj. Rozelle became a proud supporterof the Challenged Athletes Foundation (CAF). He serves as a role model and mentor in CAF’s OperationRebound program. He recently represented the Challenged Athletes Foundation at the Ford IronmanCoeur d’Alene and was recognized with the Ford Ironman Everyday Hero Award.

Afterwards, Rozelle was driven to conquer the Ironman Triathlon World Championship in Kona – animportant goal he set for himself to prove that he’s not only “back in action,” but back with a purpose. In Hawaii he went over an hour faster than his qualifying time, finishing in 12:46:26.

Finally, why is the human desire to overcome adversity, to be "useful", an appropriate subject for scorn, derision, or ridicule?

I am a combat veteran who was wounded in 2005, while serving in Iraq. The severity of my wounds resulted in the partial amputation of my left hand, as well as nerve damage to my left hand, skin grafts on 20% of my body, traumatic brain injury, and multiple shrapnel scars.

One of the first questions I asked my doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was "When can I go back?"

That question is asked by most of the wounded who lay in those beds. Man and women who often have multiple limbs missing. It is to the credit of the Department of Defense that they realize that the injury does not define the person, and if they choose to continue to serve, the Military will keep them.

Of the 300 million people in our nation, less than two million serve in the Armed forces. Over 30,000 have been wounded in combat. Many have suffered horrible injuries and fought to regain the use of damaged limbs, or struggled through pain to learn to use their prosthetic quickly, so they can return to duty and continue to serve. We do this because we believe in what we are doing, and we believe in the military as a team. We follow our the Warrior ethos, which reads:

I am an American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values. I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself. I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American Soldier.

How dare you poke fun at the Men and women who have risked so much, given so much, and continue to sacrifice every day for your security? Even if you don't believe in the mission, or even agree with the war in Iraq of Afghanistan, who are you to call them "stumpy" or make fun of their disabilities?

Do you have a problem in general with people who would rather earn their paychecks than exist on the government dole? No one goes to war hoping they'll lose an arm or a leg. But when such things happen is it not inspiring when they are able to muster the courage, strength, and resolve to rise above misfortune and overcome whatever challenges are sent their way?

Why would you want to belittle courage like that? To what end? This is what I find incomprehensible. How can people like you, belittle men like this?

SealHospitalDoor.jpg

The only answer that makes sense to me is that you do it because you don't know them personally. To you and so many like you these men and women aren't real people, but just pawns used to score political points.

We have the freedom in America to say anything we desire, but there is a difference between freedom and license. Words - ideas - are immensely powerful, and mockery can be a powerful tool as well. It is most often used to tear things down, to destroy them, put them in their place, cut them down to size: institutions, policies.

People. Is that what you intended to do with this video? Did you truly intend to say that wounded soldiers should just give up? That they aren't good enough to serve this country any more, even if they want to? Even if they have worked for months to recover and are medically fit for duty? Did you really mean to say that after everything they've done, we should treat them like unruly children who don't know what's good for them, or mentally ill misfits who should be warehoused somewhere where they can't do the rest of us any harm?

Perhaps you simply didn't stop and think before making that video.

Perhaps that is something that should change.

"The moment you give up your principles, and your values... the moment you laugh at those principles, and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period."

- Oriana Fallaci

CWCID: MaryAnn

Others blogging:

Greta
Bouhammer
Laughing_Wolf

And as always, Mrs. G brings it all home. She has a great link to MaryAnn's place you shouldn't miss:

IIt's about the ten Soldiers of Operational Detachment Alpha 3336 of the 3rd SF Group who will be awarded the Silver Star today for their actions in the Shok valley of Nuristan province, Afghanistan back in April.

"You can take my leg, but you can't take my heart and you can't take my soul. I'm a Green Beret."

I think that pretty much says it all. Go check it out.

Posted by Cassandra at December 12, 2008 08:37 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2591

Comments

Well said. Very well said.

But regardless of their age, the Onion staff are permanent kids.

And I did detect a whiff of shame among the actors in the video. They knew what they were doing. That's why they were punching it so hard. Other Onion videos have many of the same actors but they don't push their lines as hard. Pushing lines means inner resistance to them.

Posted by: vanderleun at December 12, 2008 04:06 PM

Jesus christ. It wasn't making fun of soldiers who want to serve, it was making fun of the Pentagon for tweaking rules that force poorly equipped soldiers to serve anyway, even if its against their wishes. My brother who is in the Air Force has certainly told me some horror stories.

I'm afraid to inform you that you can't ever accuse anyone of being Politically Correct or being over sensitive without being a huge hypocrite

Posted by: Logans at December 12, 2008 04:28 PM

Jesus Christ, Logans, are you ever an asshole.

You should talk to your brother in the Air Force about this urge to embarrass yourself.

Posted by: spd rdr at December 12, 2008 04:58 PM

Sweet, I was almost afraid I wouldn't be called an asshole today. Keep up the good work, spd rdr.

To be fair, I have done a few embarassing things in my life. But none of them even approach penning a 1000+ word rant because I was unable to identify the target of satire in a three minute internet video. Processing the plot of a half hour sitcom must be dizzying for Cassandra.

Posted by: Logans at December 12, 2008 05:12 PM

Their maybe a handful of stories about troops who are being sent back to a combat zone because of a "bad back" or because they passed a poorly done medical screening but they're making fun of amputees and catatonic soldiers. Show us a story where the Pentagon is sending amputees back "against their will".

When a soldier is given an option to keep his legs and being in a wheel chair for life or to have them amputated to to get prosthetics that will allow them to run with there kids, and they choose the latter, I think it's rather crass to say the least to use them in satire against the Pentagon.

Geez Cass where do you get these guys?

Posted by: Mrs G at December 12, 2008 05:15 PM

Actually Logan, it *was* making fun of soldiers who want to serve.

Reading: it's fundamental. Try reading the linked stories. But then that requires effort. Also intelligence. And it might shake up your preconceived notions about life and we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 05:21 PM

Haysus Christos, Logans, you're being deliberately obtuse if you think this post had anything to do with politcal correctness or oversensitivity. I am tempted to try and explain, but if you didn't *get it* from Cass' excellent writing, any further attempts on my part would be an expenditure of energy that, IMHO, you just aren't worth.

Posted by: DL Sly at December 12, 2008 05:22 PM

My brother who is in the Air Force has certainly told me some horror stories.

Oooh. We have an expert among us.

[sitting back, preparing to be schooled on the subject of predominantly Marine and Army wounded who have volunteered to go back]

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 05:24 PM

"you're being deliberately obtuse if you think this post had anything to do with politcal correctness or oversensitivity."

Please. you see this from libs all the time. "WAH WAH I'M OFFENDED." Any minor perceived slight is blown up into massive proportions. It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies, and even if it was poking fun of soldiers, I'm of the mind that they are tough enough to not be bothered by it.

Posted by: Logans at December 12, 2008 05:31 PM

And that's no slight to the Air Force, by the way.

But "horror stories" from "my brother" somehow doesn't strike me as authoritative as to whether 'poorly equipped soldiers' are being forced to served against their will.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 05:32 PM

It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies, and even if it was poking fun of soldiers

Ah. So now we change our tune.

So Logan, you haven't answered the question: should soldiers who want to serve be denied the chance because you think they'd be "safer"?

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 05:34 PM

In Logan's world, the Nanny state will step in and eradicate that troublesome free will thingie :p

Sooooo annoying. And unsafe. Kinda like war.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 05:35 PM

"My brother who is in the Air Force..." That reminds me of an old joke from my Paratrooper days.

"Why would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?"

Because the Air Force assumes it's a good aircraft.

Levity folks, it gets us past the dim bulbs.

Posted by: Allen at December 12, 2008 05:39 PM

No, Cassandra, I am not "changing my tune," I have stated definitely that its policies that are being made fun of, not soldiers. READ MORE CLOSELY.

How can anyone who has achieved a functional level of literacy read "It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies" and think that the person writing has any other opinion besides "It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies"?

I'm simply saying that if I can't help you to realize this fact, then it STILL isn't a big deal.

And I'm not under the delusion that expertise can be absorbed through osmosis. Hell, for all I know he was lying or telling me rumors. But I'm inclined to believe him.

I for one, think it is absolutely offensive to imply that anyone who wants to serve should be denied because of minor physical setbacks. Given that, there is absolutely nothing "offensive" about this video.

Posted by: Logans at December 12, 2008 05:48 PM

Do you feel even the slightest requirement to make sense, Logans?

Logans' first comment:

It wasn't making fun of soldiers who want to serve, it was making fun of the Pentagon for tweaking rules that force poorly equipped soldiers to serve anyway, even if its against their wishes.

Later on:

... It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies, and even if it was poking fun of soldiers

OK. I get it! The video wasn't *making fun* of soldiers... it was *poking* fun at them! The difference is CLEAR!

Yep. No reversal there.

And finally, we have the logical icing on the cake:

I for one, think it is absolutely offensive to imply that anyone who wants to serve should be denied because of minor physical setbacks. Given that, there is absolutely nothing "offensive" about this video.

Translation: except for the entire premise the video is based on, there's absolutely nothing "offensive" about this video :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 06:02 PM

Jesus Christ, Logans, you're even a bigger asshole than I gave you credit for the first time around.

You waltz in here with your only cred being that your brother is in the Air Force (God bless him) and start mouthing off about "fuctional literacy?" Are you fricken kidding me?

Listen, Logans, there is a lot more going on here, about this subject, than you in your little snide world will ever be able to comprehend by listening to "horror stories' from your brother. Your point was that you thought that it this bit of "satire" was directed at policies rather than people. Got it. Now go think about what that attitude means to actual people.

Better yet, ask your brother.

Posted by: spd rdr at December 12, 2008 06:04 PM

Because, you see, it's a silly idea for the Pentagon to allow an amputee who can run a Triathalon and wants to serve to "let" him do what he wants to do. :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 06:06 PM

I think I see where the confusion lies. You've never been told what the phrase "even if" means, and might even be confusing it with "even though," which is something entirely different.

You see, "even if" proposes a hypothetical situation. For example "Welfare doesn't help the poor, and even if it does, it's wrong to use tax dollars in this manner." You see, the speaker in this sentence isn't conceeding that welfare does in fact help the poor, he was saying that even if in the fictional and hypothetical circumstance of welfare being beneficial to the poor, that doesn't make it morally right.

Similarly, when I said that "even if" it is poking fun of soldiers, I was not saying that I agree with your original argument. I'm simply saying that in the fictional case of me agreeing with your argument, it's wrong to think that servicemen, hardy bunch that they are, would take offense.

Let me know if anything else confuses you.

Posted by: Logans at December 12, 2008 06:18 PM

Another bullseye, Cass. Those of us who sit around in comfy chairs all day will never understand the heart of a warrior.

The best we can do is read about it, in places like this and those you link to, and those on your blogroll.


Posted by: ZZMike at December 12, 2008 06:19 PM

You mean, "even if" it means putting up with pretentious blowhards like Logans? :p

Posted by: Cassandra, so 'confused'... at December 12, 2008 06:26 PM

Actually Logans, you're wrong about "even if", but try not to let that bother you too much.

If you meant to convey a hypothetical case you really should have used the subjunctive case, as if "even if they were making fun...". However, you failed to do that, leaving the precise meaning of that clause open to interpretation. For instance, it could just as well have meant, It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies, and even if it was [also] poking fun of soldiers [at the same time] .....

This is why precision in language is so important when we want to convey ideas clearly. Now do run along, dear.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 06:33 PM

I love what you wrote Cassandra! My dad was an immigrant who proudly served in the Navy during Korea. My daughter is Army ROTC, following more in the footsteps of the other grandfather who was in the Army Corps of Engineers.

The best kids in the town I live in now (precious few of them, to our shame!) are now serving in Iraq, and Afghanistan and other places their country needs them. The ones I know would want to go back.

On humor, I love certain kinds of tasteless humor like Monty Python, but I don't like this particular video and you were right to lambast it. What's funny in it is the parody of politically correct speech about other situations. But not using our wounded troops as the object. That's foul!

The basic problem is that our culture is made uncomfortable by heroes, military or otherwise. It prefers to read about substance abusing celebrities or whoremongering corrupt politicians, next to whom we can mostly feel virtuous.

So mocking real heroes is predictable. Remember the scene in "The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe" when the hags, witches, trolls, and generally creepy goblin types only dare poke at or defy the self sacrificing Aslan when he is down. One swat from Him and they would be history.

Posted by: navy brat at December 12, 2008 06:40 PM

Thanks :)

What I find amusing in all of this is that I didn't insult the folks at The Onion, nor did I ask them to take their video down. I just asked why The Onion doesn't think the Pentagon should allow soldiers who have recovered from their wounds to return to duty if they want to, and provided several links to soldiers who, in point of fact, have recovered and want to return (or have returned) to such duty.

Logan, rather than trying to refute anything I said, resorts to insults right off the bat and then when cornered tells us his brother is in the Air Force and he's heard unspecified "stories". (I guess we're supposed to trust him on that one)

Not an impressive argument.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 06:59 PM

PS: There is a heroic streak left in mankind. On Veterans day - Memorial Day in Europe - there was a news story about three men who fought in WW I - they are now all over 100 years old, and they come every year for a wreath-laying ceremony.

Just a few minutes ago, I found this one:

Heroic War Veteran Dies at 94

"A Second World War hero who stopped the enemy capturing a vital bridge in Italy has died.

. . . . . .

“He did not talk about the war because, as far as he was concerned, he was doing a job. He didn’t go to France to see the memorials and would cry on Remembrance Day because it brought back so many memories."

Posted by: ZZMike at December 12, 2008 07:02 PM

Thanks, Mike :)

Those of you who know me also know I'm the last one in the world to over-romanticize the military. We have our share of a**holes just like every other profession.

But if there is one thing I have seen over the past 5 years, it's that there are also some amazing men and women serving this country. Working in the small way I have with Valour IT and Operation Fresh Air has allowed me to meet some very inspiring folks. I don't think I would have believed there were so many people like that if I hadn't seen them with my own eyes.

So I guess I don't take kindly to seeing what they have achieved mocked, or seeing them depicted as victims by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. That diminishes the very real sacrifices they make every day for this nation, and it's wrong.

That's not political correctness, because none of these people need my pity and they sure as hell don't need The Onion's misguided "help" to "fix" a program they support and they asked for. It's just plain a respect for the truth and if people like Logans don't like it, they can kiss my rosy red a**.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 12, 2008 07:22 PM

And here I thought your @$$ was lily white, not rosy red. Even though it is rosy red, they are fortunate to have the opportunity. Even if it isn't positive reinforcement.

Posted by: Sly's Wardrobe Mistress at December 12, 2008 08:15 PM

By the light
(by the light, by the light)
Of the silver-y mooooooooon
(of the silver-y moon)

Posted by: Cassandra, Smart Ass at December 12, 2008 08:26 PM

Wait, now it's silver? Make up your damn mind, woman!


And my motto is that it is far better to be a smart ass than a dumbass.

Posted by: Sly's Wardrobe Mistress at December 12, 2008 08:29 PM

For some people to raise themselves up, Cass, they just find it far more convenient and easier to tear others and their creations down.

This is called making yourself taller by cutting other people off at the knees.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 12, 2008 08:53 PM

Guilty as charged, Ymarsakar.

My apologies to the Princess, and to all VC denizen, for my inappropriate language.

Posted by: spd rdr at December 12, 2008 09:25 PM

I wasn't actually referring to you, Spd ; )

I was just answering Cass's open letter references about why someone would want to make fun of disabled American soldiers. "We Support the Troops when they Shoot their Officers", for example.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 12, 2008 09:32 PM

Hell, for all I know he was lying or telling me rumors. But I'm inclined to believe him.

It is unfortunate your brother isn't here, for obviously we would benefit more by talking with him, since all your views are copied from somebody else. Lacking originality is a rather decadent trait, don't you think.

Btw, why wasn't I invited to this little comment party, heh? Who set out to try to slide this one under the radar here at VC. Well, I suppose I'll just have to make do with being late: really late. But I swear, somebody is going to pay for this.

Any minor perceived slight is blown up into massive proportions.

No, No, sirrah, what gets blown into massive proportions is a person's braincase and rib cage after he has given offense in a society built upon standards (like politeness or Leftist conformity) and enforced by the Code Duello. That's what gets blown into massive proportions. The Left simply doesn't have the enforcement clause, so they tend to insult people all the time, like you tend to do.

How can anyone who has achieved a functional level of literacy read "It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies" and think that the person writing has any other opinion besides "It's obviously targeting Pentagon policies"?

Propaganda instructors would have bitch slapped you for such stupidity a long time ago: unfortunately, you never had any such instructors.

No, Cassandra, I am not "changing my tune," I have stated definitely that its policies that are being made fun of, not soldiers.

So, how can anyone believe you have an opinion other than that the ad targets Pentagon policies?

I for one, think it is absolutely offensive to imply that anyone who wants to serve should be denied because of minor physical setbacks.

Well, there is one.

even if it was poking fun of soldiers, I'm of the mind that they are tough enough to not be bothered by it.

And a second one. Here we have two opinions of yours, that you say you didn't have, in addition to your opinion about the vid. As for how someone can think you have a view other than the one you stated concerning the video and the Pentagon, why, that would be because you yourself created a hypothetical statement that stated an opinion that it doesn't matter whether soldiers were made fun of or not, it would still be inoffensive to you and it would still be about the Pentagon's policies. That is a separate opinion entirely. After all, it is one thing to say that the sun rises in the East and totally another to say that "the sun rises in the East, and even if it rose in the West, it would still be in the East regardless".

For someone that has identified themselves as "educated", Logan, you sure have the education level of a village moron: a 1520s village moron at that. Btw, do you mean "it is" or its policies? To refer to the Pentagon or the vid as "its" is rather obtuse, don't you think.

Given that, there is absolutely nothing "offensive" about this video.

I believe you are offensive enough by yourself not to necessitate any external aid from the vid.

I'm afraid to inform you that you can't ever accuse anyone of being Politically Correct or being over sensitive without being a huge hypocrite

Certainly we can agree that we would all be afraid if you started informing people concerning what they can and cannot do. The rate of fatalities and accidents would go up more than would be tolerable had anyone followed your diastrous words.

Sweet

I'm trying to remember what age group, generation, and pop culture iconography used that phrase "Sweet" in the context that Logan used it. Hrm... 1990s high school: to take one guess? Come on Sly, I bet you have a more accurate answer than that.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 12, 2008 09:36 PM

The best thing about having a conscience, Ymar, is recognizing when it's applicable to the situation.

Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: spd rdr at December 12, 2008 09:37 PM

Actually, spd, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by: Sly's Wardrobe Mistress at December 12, 2008 10:47 PM

Think about it...what do the average person on the street know about loyalty, and honor these days?

And people have the cajones, no, I guess it isn't cajones...its just plain ignorance, and stupidity, to make fun of wounded warriors who have professed their undying support of the country and constitution that is the greatest history has ever made notice of.

You never really miss something until it is gone.

Posted by: gunnypink at December 13, 2008 10:33 AM

Actually, Ymar, the term "Sweet" is the current term of choice for 13-17 yr. olds. Which, given the number of conflicting opinions that Logan's has claimed to hold, coupled with his debating *style* would be just about the right age group for him. Personally, I think he needs to quit skipping class and learn the basics of debate -- starting with the formation of a cogent and consistent premise.

Oh and sorry about not informing you of the comment party, you spend enough time over here, I just figured you knew.....
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 13, 2008 01:21 PM

I took a few days of break. All the (external) arguments seem to start when in those times.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 13, 2008 04:32 PM

coupled with his debating *style* would be just about the right age group for him

Btw, you are so cruel, Sly. Don't you realize how damaging it is to a young man's ego when being made fun of by women?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 13, 2008 04:34 PM

"Btw, you are so cruel, Sly."

Awwww, you *noticed*.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 13, 2008 05:07 PM

Check this out.

Link

Pretty funny, peeps.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 13, 2008 11:05 PM

When I click on the link, I'm informed that I'm unauthorized to access that page. Did they take the video down?

Posted by: MathMom at December 14, 2008 11:41 AM

They did indeed!

Posted by: Cassandra at December 14, 2008 12:16 PM

Video? I get sent to an Elle article informing me that literati dudes actually dig waify anorexic types....more than bankers.

Which I find amusing on several levels.

Especially since my neighbor's a banker and looks sorta-kinda like Ann Coulter...

Posted by: BillT at December 14, 2008 01:12 PM

That's what I got, too, last night when I checked the link.

Posted by: DL Sly at December 14, 2008 05:30 PM

OMG! Logans is a certifyable idjit. I was going to light this assclown up, but can't keep up with Mr. rdr or the blog princess. I'm rolling on the floor.

Posted by: Mark at December 14, 2008 06:49 PM

You know very well, Bill, that they were talking about the Onion vid ; ) At least you should have.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 14, 2008 08:58 PM

Check this out.
Link
Pretty funny, peeps.
Posted by: Ymarsakar

When I click on the link, I'm informed that I'm unauthorized to access that page. Did they take the video down?
Posted by: MathMom

Why would I *not* have taken advantage of a juxtaposition like that?

Posted by: BillT at December 15, 2008 01:28 AM

Common societal standards, of course.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 15, 2008 10:29 AM

Beautifully written, Cassandra.
As always.

Posted by: Michelle at December 15, 2008 05:37 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)