Give us a break.

Sent by John | 6:34 PM ET | 07-18-2007

I've listened to NPR/Morning Edition/ATC for years and never heard of this guy. He's truly obnoxious, at least in print form.

The cheap shot at Leroy Seivers' blog is beneath contempt. Period.

This trash isn't worthy of NPR, but I'm not the program director, unfortunately. There's satire and commentary, and then there's nastiness to build yourself up at someone else's expense.

I realize this blog is to get people inflamed. Congratulations, NPR, it's working. And it'll cost you listeners.

Sent by Bruce | 7:33 PM ET | 07-18-2007

I teach writing to high school students. I know high school student writing quality. This blog, so far, is almost up to that level.

Alright, now I'm done being glib.

Chick fights are hot? Did I accidentally log on to FoxNews.com instead of NPR? It's not that the ideas here are politically incorrect, it's that they are so obviously meant to start a fight that they aren't worth reading.

I would hope that NPR would expect better things from their bloggers. Hell, I could write better than this and I've got a killer radio voice. Give me a call and I'll do this guy's job.

Sent by Brian G. Fay | 7:54 PM ET | 07-18-2007

I have enjoyed John Ridley's comments in the past, although I don't recall that they took quite this tone or approach (or remember any recent ones). Anyway, edginess for the sake of edginess isn't all that interesting. Anyone can be outrageous (a nonsubtle form of edginess, I suppose). This piece seems to want to find a line between the two. It contains some good lines (about Coulter, for instance). Even the mildly shocking "cancer guy" comment was intriguing with its unstated (or unintended) reference to stories (and blogs) about the many sad, personal challenges that the media make available. But the commentary still comes off as an over-reaching effort to shock or to aim for humor in the use of television sitcom language ("bee-yatch"?) and now-tired terms ("Grrrl"). The topic -- Elizabeth Edwards' being aggressive in her public comments -- has an inherent interest, and the potential for a humorous take, but Mr. Ridley failed his own subject, I think, in his quest for -- what? satire? I was left unsure just what his goal was. I like satire, but this piece doesn't manage to reach that level. Now that I think of it, it has the tone of a so-so standup comic's looking for quick, easy laughs.
Mr. Ridley is better than that (or should be). Just because online space is infinite doesn't mean we should try to fill it up without thinking through what we are shoveling into the void. Enough other people are doing that.
(note not part of comment: Using my full name is fine; I think it should be required in online comments)

Sent by Dan Hortsch | 8:49 PM ET | 07-18-2007

I come to NPR for progressive, intelligent commentary, not for misogynist blather.

Sent by Amanda Kersey | 11:28 PM ET | 07-18-2007

What's wrong with you, NPR? I thought you held higher standards. If I wanted to read unintelligent, cold-hearted, sexist tripe, I could pick up any Rush Limbaugh book. Brainless denigration does not equal viable social commentary. Render this man invisible.

Sent by Rebekah Koran | 12:28 AM ET | 07-19-2007

I don't believe I have heard Mrs Edwards referred to as Liz before. Her name is Elizabeth and she and John stand equally tall in my eyes and both deserve more respect than was shown here.

*FROM RDLY: WE'RE CHANGING "LIZ" TO ELIZABETH. AS EVERYONE KNOWS I HATE TO OFFEND.*

Sent by J Matlock | 6:30 AM ET | 07-19-2007

Today I'm grateful. For having teachers who taught me to read. For a certain level of privilege that means I have electricity and a laptop to acess NPR. For courageous, articulate people like Leroy Stevers who shares, in a very public fashion, his innermost thoughts and feelings about living with and fighting cancer. For memory that will always prompt me to bypass the 'snarky guy blog' where the innermost thoughts that are shared aren't worth reading.

Sent by Jp Brennan | 7:00 AM ET | 07-19-2007

Interesting that the comments seem aimed toward Ridley. The shots at Ridley are just (re: Leroy Sievers)and I completely agree with the "edginess for the sake of edginess" comment(although the use of "viraling" - a gerund?)piqued me. However, who can disagree with anything said about Ms. Coulter by Ms. Edwards or as curious but oddly interesting as the "pre-op" post-op" comment by Ridley. Regarding Ms. Edwards,if she were running and not her husband, I'd be down with the South in a heartbeat (sorry NPR'ers - of which I am one). Her grace under pressure, her dignity in the face of her cancer, and her spirit as a woman would seem to pull together and trump all of the previous comments at once --not that this was the goal of this post. However, she is a very comeptent and successful woman, ("sexy") and is facing with a remarkable grace a cancer that has life threatening implications. That she can be so "aggressive" (is that a "bad" thing?) as a woman and so politically spirited and not shrink from the attention of people and the media in the face of her cancer and be just a retiring wallflower "wife of a Senator" in the background standing by her man is a great credit. She deserves every measure of respect we can accord her. Her confrontation with Ann Coulter was noteworthy for Ms. Edwards' calm resolve, civility but tenacity that is lacking in the majority of such public "smack downs" (Ridley).

Go Elizabeth and be strong.

Sent by George Geysen | 7:51 AM ET | 07-19-2007

This is NPR, where listeners/readers go to be enlightened...not just any old political blog. Please bring your tone and diction up a few notches; I get enough Beavis and Butthead-sounding commentary from my 18-year-old students every day.

Even though I find Ann Coulter idiotic at best, it still makes one sound as bad as she often does to make reference to her manly appearance rather than the inane content of her TV chatter. Two name-callngs do not make a right, to confuse the old cliche.

Sent by Rachael Williams | 8:41 AM ET | 07-19-2007

I just think John Ridley has been watching too much Comedy Central. While his premise edges on a real situation close to my heart his delivery is too cute.

Two things have been obvious for many years: One, there are not enough women in leadership positions in this country and two, in order to attain those positions women have had to step outside that Mrs. Cleaver comfort zone of lacy aprons and fresh baked cookies.

It is a shame that in order to compete with men, women have had to exhibit some of the darker nd well honed male traits like combativeness and derision.

The obvious answer is to vote for women whenever possible and be supportive of them until they are comfortable enough in power positions to find and express their own inner voices. Women have been oppressed by men and men's religions since the dawn of time, if women were in charge of the world today I seriously doubt we would have depravity in the name of gods that currently exists in this country and the rest of the world.

Mr. Ridley you have sort of defined the root problem, please don't make light of it. Women's rights need serious action now and the best motivtion for that action is open, intelligent discussion. Help, don't hinder, please!

Sent by Dale Birchett | 10:38 AM ET | 07-19-2007

Wow, maybe I'm the only reader who woke up this morning with my sense of humor still intact. Keep blogging; I'll keep reading.

Sent by Courtney | 11:23 AM ET | 07-19-2007

When I see a pop-up on NPR's webpage touting the Sexiest Woman in Politics, I know that NPR has left reasoned reporting behind and is in competition with Fox News. First, you will lose if you compete with Fox News; they're too good at what they do and will always be ready to trump you with something sillier. Second, I'm no longer interested in getting my news from this source.

Sent by Cynthia Weehler | 1:17 PM ET | 07-19-2007

It's not a matter of "humor"--sure, his comments are funny. In a Comedy Central sort of way, that is. It's just not the kind of thing we expect from NPR.

Sent by Rachael Williams | 1:24 PM ET | 07-19-2007

I admittedly am not familiar with Mr. Ridley's other work, perhaps this was a fluke, but on the whole it strikes me as not really up to NPR's standards.

I agree that a true display of intelligence and power (in that order) is sexy in both women and men. Ridley's disparaging and dated turns of phrase ("li'l dukes," "Grrrl claws"), however, only serve to undermine this assertion, which he seems to share. By choosing such words he implies that the intelligence and power these women wield is somehow inferior, smaller, easier to handle than those wielded by men. Is their prowess not inherently equal to that of men, whatever societal structures may allow?

In addition, it seems that Ridley buys the old idea that a woman's strength detracts from that of her partner, emasculating him to the point where only a feminine slur can be used to describe him. He must be "lowered" to the status of a woman.

In short, I agree with the main thrust of Ridley's post, that displays of strength, intelligence and political acumen are magnetic, even sexy, but he could have gone about it in a much better way while maintaining both humor and his dignity.

Sent by Ann M. Kasprzak | 1:46 PM ET | 07-19-2007

I'm not sure this has anything to do with anyone's sense of humor. How is this funny? "Men think women fighting is hot" isn't exactly an edgy comedic premise, and there's really nothing here except repetition of it.

It seems totally obvious that this was written to annoy and irritate NPR.org readers and notify them that they were now reading something Really Different, nobody's going to tell Ridley what to say, blah blah blah. And honestly, I'm not above laughing at sexist stereotypes if there's any actual humor being applied, but there isn't. This is just mindless recitation of a hoary, fratty old joke, and it's not even written well.

Not sure what the future holds for this apparently new feature, but if this is what Ridley considers "intellectually aggressive," it's not going to be something I'm going to feel the need to read.

And one more thing: I would think someone would have had the sense to remove the tacky, gratuitous reference to Leroy Sievers before this saw the light of day. The rest of the piece is mostly just dumb, but when one contributor is using your space for a cheap shot at another contributor's discussion of his battle with cancer, a line has been crossed.

Sent by Linda | 2:44 PM ET | 07-19-2007

A failure to find offensive, sexist and immature commentary funny does not indicate a lack of a sense of humor. I'm relieved to read that most NPR listensers have higher standards for humor.

Sent by Erin | 3:00 PM ET | 07-19-2007

The blog is a tongue-in-cheek take on pop-culture and politics . . . am I the only one getting that? I've listened to some of John Ridley's comments when Tavis Smiley was on NPR and I've read a couple of his articles in mainstream magazines. Granted, I don't agree with all his views but isn't that what makes America great? A place where you're not subjected to "group-think?" Just because a person chooses a humorist take on politics doesn't make them less intelligent.

Personally, I was glad Elizabeth Edwards stood up to a bully in the form of Ann Coulter. Even Chris Matthews (the host of hardball) said the next day on "The Today Show," if he had to choose who won the round, he'll give it to Elizabeth Edwards. Now, what is the difference between how Matthews rated the "fight" in a couple of minutes without showing what he (and millions of men really think) to Ridley writing what other's are really thinking? If you ask me, it takes courage to do the latter.

Sent by Moji Oderinde | 3:06 PM ET | 07-19-2007

I am not sure which is worse: Anne Coulter or the NPR listeners that have already commented. Do us all a favor and get that giant stick out of your arse and while you are at it get a sense of humor.

Sent by Lauren | 5:37 PM ET | 07-19-2007

If Ridley is going to assume some semblance of faux intellectual humor, he'll need to sharpen his wits. There are a million ways to attack Coulter and yet Ridley relies heavily on transphobic rhetoric to get his joke across. I'm not impressed.

Sent by Devon | 6:39 PM ET | 07-19-2007

My sense of humor is entirely intact, thanks much, and I'll laugh when something is funny. This isn't, by any stretch of any reasonable persons' imagination.

When you have a massive land clearing of all the stumps in your own rump, maybe we'll consider removing the sticks from our own. Obnoxious, not clever and not funny are the trademarks of other networks. NPR deserves better and has--in general--always delivered better.

Sent by Bruce | 7:48 PM ET | 07-19-2007

NPR: Please stop trying to be hip and/or funny. You do neither well. The news is news. We don't come to public radio expecting to be entertained (with a few exceptions; they know who they are). We come to public radio to be better informed. So stick to what you do best please and stop trying to go after the elusive younger, hipper audience

Sent by kathryn woll | 11:20 AM ET | 07-20-2007

Kathryn -

"So stick to what you do best please and stop trying to go after the elusive younger, hipper audience"?

It's not just young people who are hip. Older people are hip, too! I hope my mom doesn't read your post. I find your comment to be VERY age-ist. Put down the bigotry, and open your mind please.

Sent by Rdly | 12:33 PM ET | 07-20-2007

I guess this is what you get when you hire a blogger who advertises his attitude as "Who cares what you think?"

Sent by Linda | 12:46 PM ET | 07-20-2007

There are some hallowed sign-posts here. How about Ann Coulter being described as a half-man inhuman charlatan because she has strong opinions. I would offer Bill O'Reilly as her mirror counterpart, but I challenge you to attack him from a gendered perspective. I'm not a big fan of Coulter, but I see sexism I call it, then deal with it. A black man, and a white woman running for president. In America....you were expecting racism and sexism not to come into play perhaps, or perhaps devoted to a storied belief that they had been slain in the 70's to prevail. Only the catharsis of the movies could convince me of this convenient and uncomplicated standard. I had wondered what kind of pertinent stereotypes would come up in application to this presidential "race". I just wondered when opinions would come up that were brave enough to strike at the inflamed and begging subject.

I think, Ridley, that your comments are a little more then riddled with a copious amount of sexism proper, seeing a cat fight, for instance as a promising arousal of interest to be watched and entertained by. However, I think it's foolish for most to merely deride these comments for their political incorrectness. Yes, this is base thinking, but on another note, it's probably not far from what a lot of people will be contextually engaged with because this election may in fact involve a woman and a black man (take the time machine with this idea to 70's America and shudder at the difficulty of the notion).

In the political culture, it may be more then eventual to say that playing to the tropes that have been maintained by sexism and racism over the years will inevitably come up in this upcoming election. Inevitable also is that they will be strategically considered by the candidates. I gather, no doubt, that it will iterate itself as a selective embrace of one sort of identity for one sort of representative moment, and mostly be made up of schizophrenic strategies that deny the candidates holistic existence and replace it with something far more paint and number, still less difficult then the one-dimensional Republicans.

So, while I disagree with the general sentiment made by the author and its inherent sexism, I do see them as a significant context in which to view the presidential race. I don't agree with them but I would chide anyone who posted with outrage at the comments made, without accessing their content. If there is something deplorable in the truth of situation, it is only that opponents of the deplorable are not willing to admit that it's true, and so turn a blind-eye away. That is not what you believe, so calling it vulgar will abolish it?. But in terms of that kind of thinking I am not gullible enough or quixotic enough to believe that Ridley's views don't speak to a portion of the American mind and I don't think the terms "black" and "woman" will be so absent from this race. If you think that picturing them as absent means that they are, then I will have to admit, I admire the fact that a democratic country exists where one person can deny a tidy portion of America, whether you agree with the terms or not. But it seems both right and left are more then willing to get involved in the distractions that make debates less about politics and more about our understanding of how they are people through rote stereotypes. At least Republicans and Democrats are equal on that ground.

Sent by J Parke, New Jersey | 3:19 PM ET | 07-27-2007

When I read most of these comments, I have an image of smug, pretentious fellows in a smoking room wearing powdered wigs and monocles saying, "Wot, wot, Sir Ridley!" with smug looks on their faces. Give him a break and untighten your jaws.
Good post, Ridley-keep bloggin' away.

Sent by J Mackey | 9:43 AM ET | 09-21-2007

Gee, John, you ticked off a lot of feminists, proletariats and people deeply pained with goiter with your comments about Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter. You know, when people are in deep spiritual pain, they absolutely hate it when someone else shows them what satirical humor looks like. A hundred years after Mark Twain's death, these people are still condemning his books. Way to go, Mark! Best eulogy he could ever ask for.

As for the Fred Thompson comment: Thompson portrayed President Grant in the DVD "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee." Right after the Little Big Horn, there's a scene where Grant, General Sherman and Senator Dawes are having a discussion on how to save the Indian culture. I'm not going to dimidiate the scene by attempting a description. Let's just say Fred Thompson was practicing being in the White House. What Mrs. Thompson will be doing with her time? I hear she has been offered a cameo in "Desperate Housewives."

As for Liz and Coulter and let's throw Hillary onto the heap. If you ran a vote today on those three, Hillary would come in third. Maybe fourth, if you take into account the rumors that Coulter might be transsexual for all we know.

It comes back to that question of women in politics. Okay, you want to come into the men's room? Remember when then Vice President George the elder Bush called Geraldine Ferraro a Brick? And George the elder made that comment about kicking some female tail in their vice presidential debate? Well, George the elder had been struggling with the national image of being a wimp. Even Nancy Reagan was proud of George the elder for treating Geraldine like a male political competitor.

Kind of reminds me of the time a biker's wife, in a biker's bar, beat me at arm wrestling. Yeah, she outweighed me by 186 pounds. But there was five dollars laying on the biker's bar for that arm wrestling joust.

Okay, ladies. If you can't handle the heat, get your heads back in the ovens and quite trying to play politicians with the men. You can't have it both ways. You can't be men one moment of the debate, then be women the next moment of the debate. Pick a sex and stick with it if you want to be in politics.

And Barack, they're going to come after him with the Nickel word like Bush went after Ferraro with the Brick word. If Barack so much as flinches, he's dead meat on the campaign trail.

Oh, yeah...as for the Intellectual Left Antiwar movement: Let Cindy Sheehan go home. She needs to start spiritual mending. She lost a son. She's been used and abused. Enough is enough.

Speaking of trails, a funny anecdote from the Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock DVD. Jimi was the closing act at Woodstock. But promoter Michael Lang admitted Jimi wasn't his first choice as closing act. Lang had asked Roy Rogers to close Woodstock by singing "Happy Trails to You, Until We Meet Again"

Fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 1:29 PM ET | 09-23-2007

Wonder what Marshall McCluhan would have to say about the fairly new technology of cyberspace, the word coined by sci-fi writer William Gibson back in 1982. Would McCluhan call the internet a hot or a cold medium? Is the internet a participatory medium, or is the internet a medium for the observer who doesn't personally get involved?

As for meeting members of the opposite sex, the internet takes participation. No doubt about that aspect of cyberspace. As for politics? From my experience, for every left wing blogger, there is a right wing blogger. The in-between commentors, there's equal amounts of passion on both sides of the fence. Except that the majority of bloggers and commentors are being so passionate in expressing their opinions, they are not listening to one another.

Hence, as a great unifier, I get the feeling that political cyberspace does not unify as mightily as most bloggers and commentors seem to believe.

Modern technology has truncated the human attention span. Let's say that of the majority of blogs, the average reader takes in the first two lines before formulating a personal opinion, and starts commenting without having read the entire blog, to the end. If a blog is more than three paragraphs, the average reader moves past and onto something more simplistic.

Consequently, as for unifying a political opinion among the bloggers and commentors, the internet is really all not that participatory. Even though many are participating. The original purpose of unifying and coalescing thought is lost in the shuffle.

Which leaves the subliminal message response. The messages that are delivered below the conscious level. Those are the messages that more than likely strike a nerve more than the overt messages.

The medium is the subliminal massage.

Fred call

Sent by fred call | 7:42 PM ET | 09-23-2007