Author: has written 5300 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

45 Responses

  1. haley
    haley August 12, 2010 at 7:38 pm |

    Ayn Rand’s publishings make wonderful doorstops.

  2. me and not you
    me and not you August 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm |

    I reallyreallyreally want to repost that to my facebook, but my officemate is also a FB friend and she’s a very very terrifyingly hard-core Randian. I really don’t want to start another argument with her about how her stance in no way reflects reality. *sadness*

  3. konkonsn
    konkonsn August 12, 2010 at 8:20 pm |

    I’m having a Poe’s Law moment…my brain refuses to believe the original article isn’t supposed to be a joke.

  4. Sungold
    Sungold August 12, 2010 at 8:37 pm |

    Okay, I first thought this was for reals, but then I looked at the original post. This is the bit that tipped it into Colbert territory, for me: “You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna’s reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn’t given the ball simply because she’d demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden’s pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn’t anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration.” That, and the part about reading all of Atlas Shrugged aloud to his daughter but leaving out the sexy stuff. The next article on the site clinched it: “Modern Yoga Poses,” which starts with the Smoking Break Sun Salutation and segues into the Feisty Goat, featuring “any inappropriate romantic partner.”

    So yeah, definitely a joke – and the joke was on me. The scary thing is that initially, I really couldn’t tell the difference between the real thing and satire.

  5. joytulip
    joytulip August 12, 2010 at 8:50 pm |

    @me and not you
    You can still post it on facebook – first, block your friend from that post by clicking on the little padlock next to the share button and selecting customize. (I had to get fancy with customizing my privacy settings when my mom threatened to unfriend me after I shared a previous post from this website entitled “Jesus was such a cockblocker.” Being a superconservative Christian, she was offended.)

  6. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers August 12, 2010 at 9:25 pm |

    Could this blog post please reflect the fact that this is a parody? McSweeney’s isn’t an actual news source, and you’re going to get a horde of people in here decrying how horrible this behavior is and what a terrible father this person is who don’t realize that McSweeney’s is fundamentally similar to the Onion.

  7. Josephine E
    Josephine E August 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm |

    I want to post this on facebook … and my parenting/domestic partner :D

  8. Thomas
    Thomas August 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm |

    I read this in the morning and sent my spouse the link. I couldn’t stop laughing. And then I remembered that the Randroids actually are trying to recruit our children. The Incredibles is objectivist propaganda. I mean, it was a fun movie and all, but it was absolutely, positively, Randian propaganda.

  9. oldlady
    oldlady August 12, 2010 at 9:50 pm |

    Alara, I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a parody… but maybe I put too much faith in our readers?

    No. You put just enough.

  10. XtinaS
    XtinaS August 12, 2010 at 9:53 pm |

    My first reaction to this post was to recoil in horror, tbh.  It took me until the last quoted paragraph to realise I was missing something.


  11. Sungold
    Sungold August 12, 2010 at 10:20 pm |

    Jill, I didn’t initially read it as parody because 1) most posts on feminist blogs highlight outrage rather than Teh Funny, and 2) the Ayn Rand Institute really is trying to reach young minds. And by “reach,” I mean they are trying to mandate Rand as part of college curricula by making targeted donations with an entire cat’s cradle of strings attached. I’ve been meaning to write about this, which is a *serious* incursion on academic freedom, all week – your post just gave me the kick I needed to do it.

    Also, I am falling in love with McSweeney’s – my first time there, and I’m a total pig in mud. So thanks. But yeah, agreed with Alara that the framing sets us up to think it’s the real thing.

  12. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan August 13, 2010 at 12:36 am |

    I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a parody…

    It sounded way too self-aware, in a way, not to be a parody. I got it. ^^

    (Though is it wrong of me that I kind of cheered initially when the little girl was basically like “fuck you, boy who wants something, this is mine”? :p)

  13. Eva
    Eva August 13, 2010 at 1:19 am |

    I was hoping that this would be a parody. But after having seen this, I wasn’t sure at first – it’s sad when reality can be so weird that it beats parody.

  14. Shiyiya
    Shiyiya August 13, 2010 at 3:14 am |

    Yeeeeah Poe’s Law means it is really hard to tell. It’s nothing to do with “faith in your readers” (which honestly sounds really condescending) but the fact that conservativism etc looks like parody these days anyway. (See: The political ad for some woman in AZ that was literally just video of her shooting guns) There have been Onion stories that looked pretty plausible.

  15. Randomosity
    Randomosity August 13, 2010 at 8:24 am |

    Here’s someone who’s doing a Slacktivist style blogging of Atlas Shrugged.

    Bagelsan, you’re not wrong to have initially cheered. I’ve seen a lot of instances in which children who are playing with a toy are told that they must give it up as soon as someone asks for it politely and only much later learn that they have boundaries.

  16. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers August 13, 2010 at 9:22 am |

    The Incredibles is objectivist propaganda. I mean, it was a fun movie and all, but it was absolutely, positively, Randian propaganda.

    Well, viewed from a certain perspective, yes.

    Viewed from another perspective — no. Syndrome is a brilliant inventor who has made millions. Mr. Incredible is a sad loser who pines after his glory days. From Rand’s perspective, Syndrome ought to be the hero of the story. But because instead of accepting his own greatness, which is intellectual and economic, he has to devote his life to destroying people whose greatness is physical, he is destroyed. One could view the story as a cautionary tale to nerds — “Get over high school and recognize that you now have dominance over the jocks that tormented you, or you will destroy yourself.”

    I mean, it’s pretty clear that Syndrome’s actual motivation is not to make everyone in the world into superheroes… or he’d *already* have publicly released his technology. It’s also clear that his motivation is not just to be a hero himself, because his technology would easily allow him to surpass some of the heroes’ abilities. His motivation is entirely to knock other people down in order to make himself look better — which does sound like a Randian villain until you remember that in the dimension Rand actually cared about, in the arena where her “supermen” were actually super, Syndrome has succeeded and Mr. Incredible has failed miserably.

    Rand would not have been in favor of a story about a low-level wage slave and a housewife who, working together as a team with their kids, defeat a brilliant businessman and inventor who acquired his wealth through his genius, because they were born with great physical abilities. I mean, if you think about it, the story of the Incredibles is a story where Willy Loman kicks Howard Roark’s ass.

    There certainly is a theme of “inborn ability will trump skill and determination”, but there’s *also* a theme of “accept what you are and do what you’re good at, and don’t try to be something you have no talent for while suppressing the excellence you do have.” Mr. Incredible and Elasti-Lass give up being superheroes for suburbia, and it was a bad call and it made them miserable. Syndrome pines for being a superhero even though he’s a incredibly wealthy genius businessman, and it kills him in the end. Syndrome *does* have fantastic abilities (maybe not superhuman, but at the top end of the human range), but he wants what he doesn’t have enough to overlook how fantastic his achievements really are, and that’s why he ends up dead.

  17. leedevious
    leedevious August 13, 2010 at 10:21 am |

    I actually read Atlas Shrugged recently, and it wasn’t that bad once I learned to keep it in context. It was set in the US but it was pretty obvious Ayn Rand doesn’t quite understand the dynamics of US society. (judging by the absence of POC and PWD and the vague, slightly-off desciptions of New York City.) I was able to almost enjoy the book when I kept in mind that Ayn Rand’s family fled Russia after their business was seized during the Russian Revolution. So naturally she had an aversian to communism. And she was afraid of communism coming to the US, one of the last “capitalist” nations. So I can see where Ayn Rand is coming from, even though I can recognize that her philosophies are really not application to our society today because I do not consider what we have as “capitalism”. (btw I’m more of a socialist)

  18. phil
    phil August 13, 2010 at 10:23 am |

    I love that you followed this with a post about the tea-party (what I consider to be the ugly face of popular objectivism). I suppose racism in that post would be analogous to entitlement in this one.

  19. William
    William August 13, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    Alara: I think you’re forgetting the context of The Incredibles. Much like the comics it was borrowing so heavily from (most notably Moore’s “Watchmen” and Miller’s “The Dark Night Returns”), The Incredibles imagined a world in which people of great skill or ability had been completely stifled by a terrified and opportunistic mob. The Parr family didn’t choose to to be wage slaves and house wives, they were forced into it. Time and again this theme is hammered home. Bob is yelled at by a man who is designed to be his inferior in every sense (and who he ultimately swats away in disgust), Helen is portrayed as a bored woman whose amazing powers are wasted at home, Dash is advised to keep his head down and not do the things he would be good at because it would make others jealous, and violet primarily uses her powers to literally disappear. You hear lines like “if everyone is special that means no one is” from the mouths of the disgusted children as well as the villain. Even Syndicate, who seems to have his own greatness, is ultimately portrayed as something repugnant largely because he less than Mr. Incredible. He wants to have being a sidekick handed to him and when it isn’t he becomes a comical depiction of what happens when the proletariat tries to play Übermensch.

    Perhaps the clearest example of this philosophy, however, comes from the film’s resolution. Victory is achieved only by the main characters breaking the rules, ignoring the little people, and duking it out in the middle of the street. A common man like Syndicate who creates something special is doomed to fail because it is not his, the supermen have to come in and fix it. That is how the Parr family finds happiness. They beat back the tyranny of the little guy, Dash dominates the track. The moral is that happiness only comes through disregarding the rules and abilities of those who would hold you back.

  20. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

    Ah, but Alara, Syndrome was the Ellsworth M. Toohey of the Incredibles. He made the comment that because he can “make” people special through technology, no one will be special anymore.

    (Yes, I read that dogawful book Atlas Shrugged–and the Fountainhead–in high school. I was naive enough to like the philosophy, but was creeped out even at age 16 by the glamorization of rape in the Fountainhead.)

  21. Xeginy
    Xeginy August 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

    I’ll be honest, I had no idea this was a parody until I read the comments, but I still thought it was hilarious. I’ve never heard of that website before.

    I also had no idea that The Incredibles was Raynian propaganda. You learn something new every day…

  22. Bushfire
    Bushfire August 13, 2010 at 6:28 pm |

    Alara, I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a parody… but maybe I put too much faith in our readers?

    I did not know it was a parody.

    Re: The Incredibles. I absolutely love this movie because I think it is about believing in yourself even when society wants your differences hidden. I’ve never read Ayn Rand, but I have a hard time believing The Incredibles has anything to do with her writing.

    Sometimes I want to read Ayn Rand just to have a discussion with my mom, who agrees with her. But I know if I do I’ll be really angry about the conservatism. I’m about as far-left as they come.

  23. William
    William August 13, 2010 at 7:53 pm |

    Yes, I read that dogawful book Atlas Shrugged–and the Fountainhead–in high school. I was naive enough to like the philosophy,

    Don’t be embarassed. A lot of my friends whose life experiences have closed off the possibility of being comfortable with right and left wing politics went through a Randroid phase at some point. At least you managed to get it out of the way in high school.

    I absolutely love this movie because I think it is about believing in yourself even when society wants your differences hidden. I’ve never read Ayn Rand, but I have a hard time believing The Incredibles has anything to do with her writing.

    I honestly think The Incredibles is more Nietzschean than Randian. Theres some overlap between the two philosophies, but The Incredibles ends on a much more up note and doesn’t portray the Parrs as being overwhelmingly selfish. They might have been born better, but ultimately they want to make things better rather than take whatever they can by force. I’ve always seen Syndicate as kind of an objectivist parody: all the personal skill in the world but none of the vision and moral authority that it takes to do something useful with it.

  24. Heather Aurelia
    Heather Aurelia August 14, 2010 at 5:16 am |

    That’s a good way to raise children!

  25. Jackie
    Jackie August 15, 2010 at 7:10 pm |

    I agree with Heather. I’m tired of “It takes a village!” being used as a ploy to get strangers, and other parents to watch their child or raise them while they’re slacking off. I’m not saying parents don’t deserve a break, but if this theoretical father’s view is that his daughter earned that ball, and the other parent’s child didn’t he has a right to that view.

    Most people would probably say that theoretical father, should be encouraging their daughter to play well with others ect. Fine, but to a point. I imagine it would be difficult explaining to a child, why she should have to share her Elmo ball which she earned for learning to potty, with a child who hasn’t. It also seems to be rewarding their parents for their lack of parenting.

    It seems our society now feels all children are the collective responsibility of the public as well as the parents. So where does that leave us? With parents who think being held to the basic standards of bring a pacifier with you when you bring your baby out, is a direct attack and an offense towards their child. If you don’t tolerate children, you must be a mean child free person, or a terrible person. Rarely is the parent’s responsibility in the situation discussed, it’s everyone out to get the parents and their children.

    So if the theoretical father doesn’t want his daughter to have to share her ball, with a child who hasn’t managed the same accomplishments as she has, he has that right. He has a right to establish the situation regarding his daughter. Why should he feel bullied into sending his daughter a mixed message, because the parent of the son might make monster face at him. I suppose he should have rewarded his daughter at home, so that other children wouldn’t have to face reality and get their feelings hurt.

    It’s parental responsibility, it means you can’t expect society and the world to stop because you have a child. That you can’t tell other parents how their child should interact with your child, when they may explain they have their own agenda going on. It’s then your responsibility as a parent to leave or distract your child in another direction. Not to get into a fight with that parent, that one would expect of their own children. Not to make faces, or sad Bambi eyes and look off into the distance as if you’re about to break into tears. Being a parent doesn’t mean you can resolve difficult situations, by resorting to behaving like you are at the same age of your child.

  26. antiprincess
    antiprincess August 15, 2010 at 7:59 pm |

    Bagelsan: I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a parody…It sounded way too self-aware, in a way, not to be a parody. I got it. ^^(Though is it wrong of me that I kind of cheered initially when the little girl was basically like “fuck you, boy who wants something, this is mine”? :p)  

    is that idea backward-compatible, I wonder?

    I mean, I try like hell to convince my son (he’s two and a half) to be generous and forbearing and cool when other children want to touch his stuff. I try to convince him they’re probably not going to wreck it, they’re probably going to give it back, and he can probably come up with either something else to do or play with the other kid.

    is it just because he’s a boy that I feel the need to impose more-or-less mandatory sharing?

    with Baby Sister hot on his heels, I fear that encouraging one child TO share, and encouraging the other NOT TO share (even for the best of reasons), would not end well for anyone…

  27. Deb Sens
    Deb Sens August 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm |

    Heh I am kind of a moron who was horrified cuz I thought it was real…..Now that I know its satire…hilarous!

  28. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan August 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    I fear that encouraging one child TO share, and encouraging the other NOT TO share (even for the best of reasons), would not end well for anyone… antiprincess

    If you think about the messaging that your son and daughter are going to get from society, that is exactly what happens, only reversed. And it doesn’t end well. But I really can’t recommend what you should do with your kids.

  29. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig August 16, 2010 at 11:21 pm |

    Antiprincess: Tell him you’re telling her to be selfish, because the world won’t let her be selfish. Or just say nothing. The oldest sib always believes the youngest one is spoiled rotten anyway.
    Funny thing: I was conversing with two siblings about the spoiling of younger siblings the other day. Little sister says she’s not spoiled at all, but big brother just pointed down at her and grinned knowingly.

  30. Jackie
    Jackie August 17, 2010 at 2:29 am |

    Jill: Um, I think Heather was being sarcastic.I hope.Although wow, Jackie, your comment… way to miss a totally over-the-top parody, and a series of comments that explain it’s parody!Amazing.Also, parents have the right to be assholes, just like anybody else.And people on websites have the right to satirize and mock them.  

    I know it’s a parody, apparently you missed where I wrote “theoretical father” at least, 3 times. Parents have the right to be assholes? Everyone has the right to be an asshole? Why should I put forth the effort to be nice, when everyone should have the right to be a jerk then?

    Apparently, it seems you don’t grasp the notion that being a parent is a responsibility not a license to just go all out and expect the world to watch your kids for you. Or has that changed?

    Parents can choose to be assholes, but if they’re with their kids that wouldn’t be such a wise choice would it? Should kids just learn to suck it up, and figure out how to defend themselves with their parents decide to take a trip to lala land and forget about them? I’m starting to wonder if parents are held to standards at all anymore. It seems anyone who suggests they should be immediately is told they’re ridiculous, or they don’t understand a parody. Since it’s easier to claim that, then face the reality that parody sometimes reflects reality.

    I understand you don’t like people saying things about parents or about children, that isn’t just perfectly wonderful. The thing is feminism, means that I should be able to express those views without being told I’m a woman, and therefore must get aboard the baby love train. If I don’t then, something must be wrong with me right?

    I’m proudly childfree, not childless. Almost everyday I run into parents who feel they have the right to be oblivious to everyone else around them, sometimes including their own children. You can spend your time trying to convince others you’re a good parent, or simply be a good parent. Watch your kids, try to avoid unnecessary conflict so as not to upset them. I don’t see why this now is an unreasonable thing to ask. I don’t understand how it’s anti-child to suggest that a parent bring a pacifier with them when they go out, if their child should cry.

    The reality is, people without children have a right to go out and not have their time made miserable by other people’s children. That parents should have a right to raise their children how they want to, without having to feel bullied into forcing their child to follow the rest of the sheeple. I don’t see why raising polite children, has become something seen as highly unreasonable or incredibly difficult. There are many people who can teach their children manners, it seems that asking parents to put in that effort is just awful, considering the other million and 1 things they have to contend with. Nobody ever understands how they struggle, except for the millions of support blogs for mommies, Oprah, ect ect.

    Meanwhile those of us who are childfree, hardly have any support. Struggle in a child obsessed world, and are told they’re horrible people for not spending every minute of their time supporting parents. After all, what kind of crazy woman would want to live a life without children right?

    So you see, essentially your denouncing posts like mine, is suggesting you don’t view childfree women as being feminist, when they are fighting the social expectation that they should have kids. If you want to declare your blog pro parents, and anti childfree by all means do it. At least then people will know that those people who are childfree won’t have a voice here, unless it’s tempered with pro parent comforting words.

    I don’t hate parents either, and I don’t hate kids. I simply hate parents who think the world should revolve around them because they had a child, or that they have a right to disturb a entire restaurant or other public place targeted at adults with their baby’s wail. I’m tired of hearing being a parent, being the same as a helpless pariah, a martyr that nobody ever understands. They bring on their own suffering, by not seeing their child is disciplined when they go out.

    As far as kids with special needs go, yes I understand it’s difficult. However having Asperger’s Syndrome, I also know that many people on the Autism Spectrum don’t look Autistic. So it’s absurd to suggest that because someone can’t magically tell your child screaming over there is Autistic, they should be seen as being anti-disability. The reality is, many people are tired of navigating a world with tempermental parents on a daily basis. There are few parents who apologize for their child’s behavior. There are many parents, who hold an attitude when someone suggests they look after their child while they’re out. Many parents who make faces like a 2 year old at people who suggest they try to quiet their child. Even people like myself, having Hyperacusis, deal with a lot of stress regarding the noises children make. So, when I hear a parent complain that other people can’t tell their child is Autistic. People can’t tell I have Hyperacusis, and I have to explain every single time I go to a restaurant I don’t want to sit near children or babies because of it. I don’t expect people to magically know I have this condition, that’s just a part of being neurodiverse.

    So, I guess if you ban me, dislike this post, or whatever I won’t be visiting here again. Jill, you have made it clear that only one voice will be heard here, and that is the voice of those who are pro-children and pro-parent. I guess women who don’t share that voice, just aren’t feminists in your eyes.

  31. Ouyang Dan
    Ouyang Dan August 17, 2010 at 4:08 am |

    OMCC… If you hadn’t said it was a joke, I might have cried.


    It definitely sounds like something from the Colbert Book of Parenting.

  32. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 17, 2010 at 8:59 am |

    @William–yeah, it was funny–I liked her optimisim–that she thought people were capable of such great things. But Lord, she was so hyper-focused on money and assumed that people were robots and not, well, human. And she really did seem to think that there was a level of people who were, um, superior to everyone else. Creepy. Also, she was the queen of the run-on sentence, and had her characters go on for 12-page monologues about the benefits of selfishness.

    @Jackie–dude. Seriously. Chill out.

  33. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 17, 2010 at 10:13 am |

    Holy fucking derailing, Jackie. Seriously–and I say this as a CFer–you need to chill the fuck out already. You’re taking a thread about a goddamn piece of satire and hijacking it to whinge about how it’s not fair some parents don’t watch their children.

    You know what tends to go over like a fart in a spacesuit? Hijacking threads.

    Perhaps someone else can weigh in with lengthy and pissy posts on the great and ponderous issues of ball manufacturing to complete the thread fail.

  34. Jackie
    Jackie August 18, 2010 at 12:16 am |

    Sheelzebub, if you and everyone else here would like to talk about this satire, as if it was conceived in a bubble, and has no inspiration or influence from the outside world, fine.

    As far as Jill’s comment, it seems the people attacking you for hatong parents and children, have won out over people who advocate for parental responsibility. Clearly this is a matter of parents never wanting to come under judgement, so their tactic is to scream someone is a child hater, rather than reflecting on what steps they could take to improve as a parent.

    Between this, and the last post about child issues, where I guess we were supposed to have been more polite, and supporting of the guest blogger’s view that they should be able to bring their 3 year old with them to a bar.

    In the majority of cases if someone doesn’t speak to how parenting is the hardest job in the world, they’re quickly dismissed as anti-parent or anti-child. It disturbs me, as it does to many other CFers, how little parents appear to show concern for their kids these days.

    Instead of considering how input from non parents might benefit their child, they seem to shut down anyone speaking to them who isn’t a fellow parent. They refuse to see how behaving their child is more about that child’s safety when they are out and about. Instead of considering it’s best for their child to learn to behave, they want to talk about how being glared at whenever they take their child somewhere makes them feel upset.

    So you can go back to beliving that satire means, inspired purely by one’s own imagination if you want to. However in many cases satire is a way of speaking out about issues that people would rather hide from.

  35. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan August 18, 2010 at 12:50 am |

    Perhaps someone else can weigh in with lengthy and pissy posts on the great and ponderous issues of ball manufacturing to complete the thread fail.

    Well, according to Wikipedia:

    “In humans, starting at about week 4 the gonadal rudiments are present within the intermediate mesoderm adjacent to the developing kidneys. At about week 6, sex cords develop within the forming testes. These are made up of early Sertoli cells that surround–”

    …that’s what you meant, right? ;p Oh wait, not pissy enough, how about this:

    “the sex-specific gene SRY that is found on the Y-chromosome initiates sex determination by downstream regulation of sex-determining factors, (such as GATA4, SOX9 and AMH), which leads to– OH WHATEVER SOX9, YOU’RE NOT ALL THAT! THE OTHER SOX GENES ARE WAY BETTER! FUCK YOUR ‘9’ BULLSHIT!”

  36. Jackie
    Jackie August 19, 2010 at 1:33 am |

    Maybe Jill shouldn’t post anymore satire, as it seems she and many other commenters here believe all fiction is a world unto itself, not reflective of reality what so ever.

    Also seems many people here just want to hide away from issues involving parents and children, instead of discussing them.

  37. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 19, 2010 at 9:50 am |

    Um, Jackie, Jill recognized the article as satire. You don’t, however, since you seem to think that satire = an invitation to go off the rails and try to change to conversation to your personal pet peeve about parents and children.

    If you want to be entered into Feministe’s Top Troll, maybe you should ask Jill about the application procedure.

  38. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 19, 2010 at 9:53 am |

    Oh, also: However in many cases satire is a way of speaking out about issues that people would rather hide from.

    In this case, if you’d bothered to read the article, satire was obviously directed at the current greed is good ethos that is infecting our culture. Either that, or at the obvious monopoly of ball manufacturers in the world of children’s toys.

  39. Other
    Other September 4, 2010 at 8:51 am |

    Awesome post, too bad about the fart-in-spacesuit commenter. More, more, more, it’s always nice to have a break from outrage. And at McSweeney’s it’s always so cleverly done.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.