Blogettiquette
Somehow, I can’t work up the energy to have fun at Meghan McCain’s expanse expense, even if she makes an awfully convenient target sometimes, perhaps because I have to wonder if she’d have gotten any attention at all were her name Meghan Jones or Smith or even Davis.
Yeah, I know: callow youth. So were we all, at one time or another. (Some of us, maybe more than one time.) To heist some verbiage from Jenn:
[I]f you aren’t allowed to be a little stupid at 25 when are you? I don’t even like to think about the stupid stuff (If you read my about page you know what I mean) I was doing then.
Is this a call to “Leave Meghan alone”? Why, yes, I believe it is.
Andrea Harris »
16 October 2009 · 11:21 am
Yes, 25 is too old to be stupid. I’ll be kind and say the cut-off age for stupid should be 18 — that’s when you’re considered old enough to vote. Life is too short to waste it in the “fun” of doing stupid stuff that will come back to you when you’re older and finally want to be taken seriously.
And yes, I did stupid stuff when I was in my twenties — but nothing so stupid as to take photos of my boobs (such as they were back then), fling the photos about where people could see them (which would have involved a little more work in those days as I didn’t have access to a computer and there was no internet as such but it could have been done), and then get surprised and upset when people mocked me for it. I don’t know why the fact that it’s so easy these days to take a photo and upload it to where millions of strangers can see it at once is an excuse for doing so. It’s not some false sense of modesty or Oprah forbid, “prudishness” to think that people are much too cavalier these days with what information they are willing to give complete strangers. It’s just common sense.
Donna B. »
16 October 2009 · 11:31 am
Not all are so cavalier and I think the one’s who are, are seeking thrills and attention.
Lisa Paul »
16 October 2009 · 12:09 pm
While not old enough to be of the school that says a lady’s name should be in the paper only when she’s born, marries and dies, I am old enough to remember a time before the InterWebs, reality shows and 24 hour news coverage. I think those of us who are my generation are able to apply the screen of discretion to what we Tweet, blog, or expose to all world media. Kids of Meghan McCain’s age don’t have that filter. And alas, they aren’t tech savvy enough to know that what goes out on the ‘Net, stays on the ‘Net. And stays and stays. And develops a second life. And never goes away.
Sheri »
16 October 2009 · 12:58 pm
At least you didn’t put on eyeliner and cover your head with a blanket and hold a flashlight while weeping LEAVE MEGHAN ALONE. Now THAT would have been a impassioned plea.
CGHill »
16 October 2009 · 1:00 pm
I am the least-impassioned person I know. (However, my desire to stay off YouTube is strong.)
John Salmon »
16 October 2009 · 1:37 pm
I don’t have the slightest problem with Meghan’s expanse.
Lisa Paul »
17 October 2009 · 2:27 am
Meghan is indeed a bodacious babe. And if that doesn’t get Chaz under his blanket and on YouTube, I don’t know what would.
McGehee »
17 October 2009 · 8:42 am
I just have trouble wanting (in the purely hypothetical sense of course) a babe for whom I’ve lost respect. And when Meghan started talking, well…
CGHill »
17 October 2009 · 11:37 am
I would never claim to be immune to occasional online crushes. However, I usually have enough sense not to act on them.
CGHill »
17 October 2009 · 11:43 am
Peripherally related to the above is this observation by Little Miss Attila:
I think I would like to subscribe to her newsletter.
FMJRA 8 – Don’t Upset the Rhythm « A Conservative Shemale »
17 October 2009 · 2:01 pm
[...] like Dustbury and I are the only two willing to cut Meghan McCain a little [...]
FMJRA 9 – Word Up « A Conservative Shemale »
24 October 2009 · 1:09 am
[...] up – Dustbury who agreed that the criticism of Meghan McCain was just possibly a bit over the top. Next up [...]