Feeling especially lazy after a three day weekend? Me too! So instead of my usual witty commentary, I'm just going to throw two links out for your amusement/horror.

1. First and foremost we have a new story from Laura Sessions Stepp. You'll never believe it, but she's writing about how gender roles have changed! It seems like she's written so much about this stuff that it could fill an entire poorly reviewed book! Here's a fun quote:

A preppy guy in high school might pair a lime-green Polo Ralph Lauren shirt with light yellow J. Crew pants, a Lily Pulitzer belt and Rainbow flip-flops.

Is a Pulitzer belt even real? Or is LSS subtly trying to remind her audience that she actually won one? The Pulitzer Prize I mean. I don't know if she has ever won a belt.

She also used Jack Sparrow as proof that men are more in touch with their feminist side. And of course this new femininity is a result of women being sluttier. Duh.

2. Now to something more serious. As a privileged WASP growing up on Cape Cod, I remain unaffected by most of the problems in the world. AIDS and heroin addiction have been two exceptions. Both have hurt my family and I take them very seriously. That makes this New York Times article especially important to me. Hopefully the many NYT readers around the country will read this and note how the federal government is allowed to jerk us around.


  1. I can't believe LSS gets paid to not only write that tripe, but to teach college courses on how to write it.

    The needle exchange program is one of the more shameful examples of the bizarre sort of neo-colonialism that typifies the relationship between the District and Congress...it's not just taxation without representation on the federal level, it's taxation without the ability of your elected representatives to apportion your local tax dollars, based on the political agenda of other peoples' representatives...and meanwhile, people quite literally suffer the consequences.

  2. You've mentioned several times that she's won a Pulitzer. Not exactly. She edited a 1981 series that won for public service, but that award goes to the newspaper (The Charlotte Observer) as a collective, without individual citations. Of course, being the editor of a prize-winning series is notable and commendable, but that doesn't mean she personally has the prize or should necessarily be referred to as a Pulitzer Prize-winner (even though countless media outlets do just that). Am I wrong? It's a curious issue. If this logic is correct, then Bob Woodward is not technically a Pulitzer-winner. Yes, he contributed to two endeavors (Watergate coverage and 9/11 coverage) that won Pultizers for the Post, but he has never been officially cited individually. If someone who's been on the Pultizer board is reading, please clear this up.