« Wait 'til he hears about messenger bags | Main | DON'T DO IT!!! »

February 20, 2004

Inka Binka

We really thought she was full of shit, but Girl-E has gone and gotten herself published, albeit in a pretty small market for now. But look out Cat Fancy...

Her first clip is here, and the 'zine has accepted two more pieces which should be up some time this month (including the Karaoke Prom story which we know you are all drooling for). Also including the Ok Go review from this blog a few weeks ago, which she just went and ripped off from us without asking, the bitch. Our attorney will be contacting her shortly, Bryan Lamb-style.

Posted by The Twins at February 20, 2004 02:14 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Excellent article. Much more articulate than my "I don't trust that Droopy Dog bastard."

And stop teasing us with that Karaoke Prom story, already. Put out!

Posted by: nikita at February 20, 2004 02:55 PM

I know I know! The editor is supposed to send me the edited version for review any day now and then it should go up-- but I can't post it here until it goes up there because it was on assignment, rights and all that nonsense.

Posted by: EV at February 20, 2004 03:00 PM

that's a kick-ass article girl!! and it puts into words the unease i've been feeling.

Posted by: kat at February 20, 2004 04:54 PM

i like the article -- well done! i don't know if you were responsible for the picture/caption, but they're quite good as well.

but can i quibble? or is this a quibble-free zone?

Posted by: bryan at February 21, 2004 11:28 AM

Please! Quibble away! This article was actually adapted from an email I wrote to the Kerry campaign that took me 10 minutes of my gut reaction. And when I say "adapted," I mean it was changed from second to third person. So of the existence of massive holes in the argument I have no doubt.

Posted by: EV at February 21, 2004 12:48 PM

Congratulations on getting published!

Posted by: She-Dork at February 23, 2004 09:51 AM

ok, fun. here's my quibble:

the big problem with the gay marriage issue is that the public is against it, and by a pretty wide margin (roughly 2 to 1 in polls i've seen). if kerry takes a strong stance in favor of it, he is likely to take very serious (and perhaps fatal) hit in the electability department.

my political calculation goes something like this: i would rather kerry only weakly support GM and get elected than see him strongly support it and lose. i think that that would be my standpoint even if i were gay, simply because the cost of a victory for bush is so astronomically high. in other words, do you really want your politician to come out boldy in favor of your cause when you know it will cost him his chance to lead?

as an example, i look at abe lincoln. the man probably did as much as any other individual in american history to end slavery, yet frequently described himself as no friend of "the negro" and often said that he believed them to be an inferior race. should he have said that, even if he didn't believe it? i dunno -- i mostly think i'm glad we're not looking back on how president douglas established slavery for good.

my $0.02.

Posted by: bryan at February 23, 2004 12:29 PM

Good stuff, Bry. I actually pretty much agree with you... that's why I said I am ok with him getting elected by holding back his support, as long as he is helpful once he gets the White House. I guess the sentiment was mostly that it sucks that the best we can hope for is someone who is forced to be wishy-washy, and there is no one viable that liberals can be deeply excited about issue-wise. Also, I didn't talk about this, but along with this goes the crappy reality that a conservative can be pretty bold in his/her statements and will still get lots of support because Americans in general are Cretons.

Posted by: EV at February 23, 2004 12:35 PM

i agree -- politics sucks because people can't just say how they feel. if it were a different world, kerry would say, "i support gay marriage, and i'm willing to work to persuade those who feel differently from me." but the thought of his saying that is laughable.

bottom line, the electorate is viewed as static. voter beliefs are treated as fact, and what politicians say and do not say is calculated on the basis of who it will and will not appeal to. it's like the difference between art, which challenges the viewer to grow and think, and advertising, which just tries to flatter and affirm the viewer.

Posted by: bryan at February 23, 2004 02:28 PM