Yeah, that's the kind of piece I usually haaaate, where it's supposed to be about the subject but ends up being mostly about the writer, but I really like Edith! So I'm conflicted.

Well, Chris touched her knee and kissed her knuckles, so I think it's fair to hate her. But I read four pages, and I know blessedly little more about his high hotness, and that's disappointing.

I think pieces like that work if it's a regular feature, where readers are really interested in reading "the adventures of Edith". But as a single piece, it's so much more about her than him, it's really off-putting. And bad journalism, according to the old rules.

saw this on twitter:

Until Anthony Weiner finds something permanent, he could try being a lesbian blogger.

Hee, LeN.

I saw that article the other day, and thought it was skin-crawlingly awful even for celebrity "journalism." I have no idea if it's typical for GQ, but this suggests it's not unique: [link]

There's no way I'd read a competent interview with Chris Evans, because I don't care. But I looked at that because people were discussing it. So GQ got more attention by publishing something terrible, and I am part of the problem. Damn me.

Well, it's not at all journalism, is one thing.

Kathy - that was the problem with the HMO choices that the state picked: people outside of the Chicago area were not served by those choices.

Any of our esteemed law librarians around? Is there a (free) way to figure out if this guy [link] is the same as, oh, this guy [link]

I, on the other hand, would have liked to read about Mr. Evans. It was incredibly boring. I am not Edith's friend. I have no you go girl response. I don't read groupie stories, as a rule.