A search turns up:
Finally, Some Details About Maxine Waters' Favorite BankEtc. etc. What's going on here? Stock sarcasm? Not so much. It comes across more as a desperate attempt to make you feel that this is something you really want to read... you've been waiting for it. You haven't, of course, but click this link right now. Please? Please?
Finally, Porn for Women?
Bill Clinton Has Finally Figured Out First Dudeship
Finally, a True Defense of Liberalism
Finally, "Mad Men" Takes on Race
Finally, a Challenge to Steele
Finally: 4th Amendment Underwear
Finally, A Way for Liberals to Sneer At People
The M-Bomb, Finally
Finally, Honest Spin
Finally! Economic Nirvana
Posts
28 comments:
Slate. On the modern edge of dumbing down our populace. Finally!
Those article titles are comedic gold, bordering on Onion headline silliness. I mean "Finally, A Way for Liberals to Sneer At People"?
Finally a gun we should make.
If it is such jolly fine idea, the writer of that nonsense should invest some money, time, and talent and bring it to market. Good luck with that.
Finally a gun we should make.
If it is such jolly fine idea, the writer of that nonsense should invest some money, time, and talent and bring it to market. Good luck with that.
Ar last, a post about use of "finally".
"I was in my hotel room naked, sitting on the edge of the bed when the maid walked in . . .
Finally!
Nonapod said...
Those article titles are comedic gold, bordering on Onion headline silliness. I mean "Finally, A Way for Liberals to Sneer At People"?
I looked it up. The Onion would have done a much better job with it. It was about someone who makes political t-shirts and ends with:
"Do you remember how liberals spent roughly 7 years of the Oughts making fun of stupid Republicans, before getting swept up in optimism about Barack Obama? That's over now, so, back to making fun of the stupids."
Finally! The new 'unexpectedly'...
Finally, someone does a search on Slate's exceedingly obvious liberal conceit.
"A old" or "an old"?
Finally, a new theory about the brontosaurus, by Anne Elk.
Another aspect of Slate that goes unremarked on is that it's masthead is heavily Jewish. It's like "Seinfeld" --- it's pretty much Jewish but never likes to mention that point.
That's not the goto group for penetrating insight about the American heartland, and I say that as someone who married a Texas Jewgirl.
Finally, a post that makes me realize that my "finally joke" was neither original, nor particularly funny.
I can't help but think that the anti-semitic comments are posted here by agent provocateurs attempting to discredit what is perceived as a conservative blog.
Guys, why don't you just spend some quality time with your Obama photo collection and engage in a little auto-erotic stimulation. That's all you're good for anyway.
It seems to me to be of the variety of "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Then it got diluted.
Yes, but bear in mind that these articles are competing with Slate's other offering of an article about gay twin incest .
You've got to do something to grab readers in when you're up against that.
Finally! A blog post on the overuse of the word finally that allows the at least half the comments to throw in a "finally" joke about finally having a blog post about the word finally.
FINALLY!
Proposed new rule:
At the second use of the word finally in any work (or if used in the headline at all), the offending sentence shall be read in the same manner as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson cutting a promo in a WWE ring.
FINALLY, Slate has to get back to the thesaurus. [raise eyebrow, pose, and wait for the applause]
@Scott,
I can't help but think that the anti-semitic comments are posted here by agent provocateurs attempting to discredit what is perceived as a conservative blog.
How is pointing out that Slate is staffed by predominately Jewish writers anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to point out that Commentary or Tikkun is staffed by Jewish writers?
Slate is written for a predominately liberal, urban, bi-coastal audience, and that is where the bulk of the American Jewish community lives, both physically & ideologically. I'm saying that there's an ethnic & religious component to Slate's idee fixe point of view.
Do you really have a problem with any of that?
As for the Texas Jewgirl, have you never heard of the band Kinky Friedman & the Texas Jewboys? Are you married to an ethnic minority and are so tight-assed about it that between you there are no jokes about it?
You need to look elsewhere for your antisemitism, bud.
"Guys, why don't you just spend some quality time with your Obama photo collection and engage in a little auto-erotic stimulation. That's all you're good for anyway."
Comedy gold. But perhaps you meant it for a different blog thread?
I think garage and inga may be trolling.
"Slate is written for a predominately liberal, urban, bi-coastal audience"
You know you can't use urban literally any more, right? Its now a liberal dog whistle - i.e. it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Finally doesn't count unless you say it with finality.
Finally, President Obama can grow an Afro.
@kcom,
You know you can't use urban literally any more, right?
Wait, wait! I thought "urban" only meant that when it was used for the music genre urban gospel!
Oh, it's all so confusing! What's a mother to do?
It's part of the historicism of the times. History moves ever onward, in a direction that right thinking people like. When what is the necessary next phase or step in history to right thinking people arrives, it has "finally" happened.
It's the same foundation upon which the defenders of the "living constitution" build their case that their view is not arbitrary. Whatever changes have taken place (provided they are changes that the Times approves) are "forward," and therefore fitting.
A change that, for example, strengthened regulatory takings doctrine, would be regarded as backward or retrograde or reactionary.
Interestingly, the term "reactionary," like much else in our historical vocabulary, did not exist in this sense of the term until well after 1776.
Slate: Finally, Who Cares?
Ha ha, Slate.
Used to read that silly thing, and the point where it was abundantly clear I was not dealing with normals was when Emily Bazelon, their "mommy columnist," wrote a breathless article about the agonizing Decision To Let The Boys Watch Star Wars. I remember verbiage along the lines of "we choose Saturday morning to give them time to come down from the experience."
They live in a different universe, those people.
"I was confessing to Dr. Zigler, but in that rueful way that's really a bid for absolution. Instead, on the other end of the line, I heard only silence. And then he said quietly that indeed I had erred and that Simon probably shouldn't watch any more movies with violence or even suspense, for, well, years."
In the spirit of Drudge photo analysis, I have to ask: Who's side is 007 on?
Post a Comment