Many of the previous posts associated with this article (about Stephen Colbert's run for president) strike me as odd.

Some people believe that Juliet Lapidos isn't in on the joke. But see this sentence in the second paragraph:

"The FEC does exempt news programs (including satires like the Report) from the "in kind" airtime ban, but not if a political party, political committee, or candidate (like Colbert) controls the show's content."

Next.

Some people believe Slate should be spending more time on serious issues. On the contrary, there are serious articles every single day (Mon-Fri) about the excesses of the Bush administration. (If I must be on one side or the other, I'll take the side that's against Bush. My point is that the articles are there whether you think there are too many or too few.) Slate isn't a zero-sum game. They can print articles of no significance at all alongside articles about life, death, and war. The number of silly articles does not diminish the number of serious ones. Juliet Lapidos and her "Explainer" colleagues mostly (or maybe exclusively; I'm not going to research such a small point) write Explainer pieces, which are usually rather balanced bits about something in the news; sometimes the subject is of dubious value, sometimes not. At quite a large risk of belaboring the point, none of this prevents the other Slate writers from writing serious articles (or pointless ones, or earnestly intended yet vacuous ones, but in any case not Explainers).

Next.

That last point leads me to this: Every Explainer article, every last one I've ever read, has this line at the bottom of the page:

"Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer."

If you don't like the questions they answer, why not shoot them an e-mail with a question of your own? Is there something about the Bush administration's activities that you feel Slate never quite gets around to? Does something else confound you about the news? It seems like there's already a remedy for such a problem.

I'll wager most of the people complaining have never once done this. Or they have, but only once because the one time they tried, the Explainer answered someone else's question that day, so they gave up. There's just no pleasing some people.

By the way (if it matters), I'm not a big fan of Colbert; I just don't find him to be that funny.

"Haw haw haw! That's because you don't understand him!"

No, that's not the reason.

haulinsacs:

By the way (if it matters), I'm not a big fan of Colbert; I just don't find him to be that funny.

"Haw haw haw! That's because you don't understand him!"

No, that's not the reason.

You're entitled to your opinion (and you seem to loathe to stop expressing it), but what exactly is your reason? That you spend too much time hearing yourself talk to listen to what anyone else has to say that doesn't massage your pseudo-intellectualistic* ego?

Just wondering.

* Yes, I know "pseudo-intellectualistic" is not a word. Don't care.

The reason I don't enjoy "The Colbert Report" is that on the few occasions I have watched it I didn't find myself laughing. If I had found it to be funny, I very likely would have laughed, don't you think? I occasionally cracked a smile, but that's just not good enough as far as comedy is concerned. What I'm sure I don't understand is why my very mild reference to my lack of interest in Colbert's brand of humor has you tied up in knots? Feel free to enjoy it, and don't allow the mere suggestion that not everyone loves it as much as you do make you cry.

The article with which this post is associated (in case you forgot) was about the legal issues that may (or may not) arise regarding Stephen Colbert's candidacy (whether it's real or not). The article was not about the author's opinion of Colbert; I merely included mine as an afterthought (with the caveat "if it matters," which you somehow missed). Had I not included my opinion, it's clear that a person like yourself wouldn't have been able to go on without knowing. I did you a favor; you can thank me later.

The main body (which is to say every last word except that which you quoted) of my post was devoted to the debunking of ideas that had been put forth in posts previous to my own. Contrary to your own blather, that required that I "listen to what anyone else has to say" (which in this case meant that I read what everyone else had to say).

If mine was the first post you read, you're doing it wrong. Look more closely at the date and time of each post, and read the earlier ones first if you'd like things to make more sense.

How could a person possibly read my entire post, get mad at me for his/her decision to read it, and then formulate such a vacuous* complaint? I don't think I've yet encountered a person with poorer reading comprehension than you've so far exhibited. Bravo!

Nice try, though. (Not really.)

P.S. pseudo-intellectualistic is a word, actually, but then you don't care.

* Insipidity may not be a virtue, but it is a word. So is vacuous. That should help you out.

Happy Halloween!

I accept your apology.