Just look at that chiseled square jaw, the deep blue eyes and the bright blonde hair. You do your Aryan heritage proud, Ms. Jeglum.

Where are the wingnuts storing all these blondes?

Tacky, David.

She's a firefighter. No joke.

She may be an idiot, but mocking her appearance is pretty goddamn low. And really fucking irritating.

Maybe I haven't been keeping up on the Daily neocon watch well enough, but I don't understand what the issue is unless there's actually some sort of systematic silencing of liberal opinion at the paper.

Is there any evidence that the editorial staff is choosing to run opinion pieces based on politics besides the one or two right-wing pieces Slog has linked to?

And Schmader, that title is really petty of you.

Sorry all of you annoyed at my petty headline, but if you're trying to work the Ann Coulter schtick, you can't just poop out of your mouth. You have to look like a Barbie while you do it.

Yeah it's pretty shitty to defend what was published (was there ever a counterpoint article published as well?) but I think her overall philosophy of including opinion pieces from all sides (yes, even bigots) should be applauded. Unbiased journalism and all that.

Of course, if the a rebuttal to that opinion piece was never published, then she IS a bigot, and deserves everything she gets.

And the cracks about her looks? Ouch. A little below the belt, and seeing as not everyone at the Stranger is a supermodel, seems a tad petty and spiteful.

@5: He is just being balanced. SOMEONE has to represent the beautiful people perspective.

Snarky comments about her journalism, politics, and thought processes are fine. Snarky comments about her looks are unneeded.

Free speech is for everyone. It’s not just for the majority, and it’s not just for the minority. It’s not just for people you agree with, and it’s not just for people you disagree with.

Oh PLEASE. Free speech has to do with the protesters outside your office. I has nothing to do with what you choose to publish in the Daily. Are you going to publish editorials promoting the KKK or advocating that the Daily staff should be thrown in jail? You published an article equating gay people with dog molesters. The point of free speech is to allow people to criticize and protest people like you for their hateful and oppressive positions.

This reads like a Perez Hilton article.

Just stupid, David. Can the Slog take another swing at responding to to Jeglum's editorial?

If only she really was like Ann Coulter, her jaw would be wired shut right now.

But more seriously, I feel like all this is good. Bigots have expressed their stupid opinions, and people in the community are challenging them on it. I fucking HATE what happened with Prop 8 and the other anti-queer measures that passed on Election Day, but am at least glad to see people getting actively engaged. True democracy only works if people show up and participate. The right has had their organizing shit together for a few decades and done a great job at keeping their folks energized and engaged (John McCain's loss withstanding); any movement for liberation/equality needs to be similarly situated and prepared.

Maybe wiring her jaw shut would help.

I still fail to see how the content of a university newspaper is anyone's concern who isn't faculty, staff or student body of said university. There are ways for said concerned parties to express displeasure with a newspaper: letters to the editor, protests or, most simply, not picking it up. Even if the paper is subsidized by the school, there would definitely be a reaction to thousands of unread newspapers being tossed every week. If the students are still reading the paper then, well, why the outrage?

I think people totally have a right to protest, but I also think that it's a little silly to protest a student paper. Sure, they are printing stupid opinion pieces, but isn't college where you grow and develope more educated opinion? I mean, it would be like protesting against kids who still believe in santa claus. They'll get it, it just might take a few more years.

And I think that Michael Moore has proven that to be a wing-nut of either side you don't need to be 'pretty'. And Anne Coulter is just skinny. Other than that and some make-up she looks like a fucking troll.

Unless she has compared herself to Coulter, she is not “working the Ann Coulter” schtick. She is the editor of a student newspaper. She may not be a very good one and she may take some really stupid fucking positions, but attack her on those things, not her appearance. Does being a female conservative in the media automatically mean that you are “working the Ann Coulter” schtick and thus subjected to attacks on your appearance?

Neigh, neigh, David!

I wouldn't worry about Mizz Jeglum here too much; if that writing sample is representative, her journalism career is going to be short. It's not even good cant; pure banality.

I'm sure the delicate snowflakes at UW are getting overheated at some pretty minor examples of petty bigotry (which newspapers should print in order to allow their writers and others eviscerate it).

That said, Sarah is clearly ready for mainstream journalism. She's mastered the mealy-mouthed, insincere, condescending corporate doublespeak that big paper editors use when addressing the legitimate concerns of their readers. I'd like to "challenge" her to write an authentic response.

Lol @ the people whining about her appearance. Her EDITORIAL WORK needs a makeover, it's not David's fault if her face isn't appealing to you. Get over yourself, she's asking for people to go after her with the crap she's printing, if she can't stand the heat get out of the fire.

whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it". ok, the quote may not be exact, but it is close. Just because a newspaper prints something we disgaree with doesn't mean they should shut down or apoligze. it's an editorial, an opinion, she has the right to that opinion, lets let her have the opinion and wallow in the fact she is wrong.

Hey Julie @ 18: No, being a female conservative does not automatically make one an AC wannabe. But thinking it's cute to spew (or publish) inflammatory retrograde bullshit is totally Coulter territory. (And no, not all conservatism is inflammatory retrograde bullshit.) Thanks for writing.

@22 Of course she has the right to spew her bullshit but don't be stupid, people have the right to respond. Free speech works both ways.

So, the logic here is:

- Sarah spews inflammatory retrograde bullshit
- So does Ann Coulter
- Ann Coulter looks like Barbie
- If you spew inflammatory retrograde bullshit, you must look like Barbie
- Therefore it’s okay for me to make fun of Sarah’s looks

Weak, Schmader, weak.

I'd lose the polo neck - I want to see more of your neck, I bet it will look good. The oval glasses are wrong, I want to see some sort of corner on there. Your eyes are your best feature, a good haircut and new glasses will frame your face and really show them off. You really need some eye color in there too, it'll brighten up your whole face. You'll need eyebrows too.

None of this has anything to do with her abilities as a journalist, but anyone who publicly represents anything needs to take a few minutes to scrub up a bit. Just because we're respected professionals doesn't mean we have to wander around like cave-people.

David Schmader is just a catty woman hater. That's why he makes fun of her looks.

Sarah Jeglum looks like a dude.

so because she's an asshole who happens to be a blond woman, it is fair game to make fun of her looks? you would not say she is in "coulter territory" if she weren't a blond, or a woman.
fuck you for making me defend this piece of shit, schmader, you sexist asshole.

how about posting pics of yourself and your colleagues?

In the issue of fairness, one should consider how "handsome" Schmader looks in flip flops.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cf…

Julie in Chicago - your anger is righteous and unprecedented for the reasoned writer from the windy city.

David - she's got you. This 22yr old is no Ann Coulter - yet. New take?

I did like the point above - it is a student newspaper already. Why do we care? Only reason half of us know of this patently stupid editorial is thru Slog. You are disseminating this crap as an attack - but really, it's a spitball from some frat boy. Move on. Bigger game out there.

Hey David - I do love your yard art though. If you flush it, does it turn into a fountain?

@David: And was it Sarah who spewed hate-filled retrograde bs? I thought it was just that frat boy douchebag. I mean, she might have allowed it be printed, but is she one of the writers? And if just that frat boy wrote bad stuff, does that mean he has to look like Anne Coulter?

...and just for the record, I think Dan Savage's refusal to wear a suit when he was on national television was similarly reprehensible.

I think the people hatin' on David Schmader need to go to their Netflix accounts and put Paris Is Burning in the #1 spot. Ms. Schmader is throwing shade and she is doing it well. Educate yourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu1HxO_He…

Yeah, it's lame to make fun of her looks, but I read the comment as a call for her to comb her hair, a request I fully support.

32: I wish that was my yard art! That's at the Seattle Children's Theater. My home toilet is small and boring.

Its not about censoring a dissenting point of view. Its about allowing a piece that doesn't measure up to journalistic integrity. Nowhere is there a basis for Fay's arguments. To not apologize for an opinion that is full of delusional bullshit deserves ridicule.

As for her looks, it does seem a bit misogynist to criticize her intellectual positions by confounding them with her appearance.

Then again, homosexuals are judged (harassed and murdered) on their appearance as well. Claiming that homosexuality is a problem that needs to be dealt with IS hate speech, because it presupposes a value judgment on the nature of homosexuality and calls for an extreme response.

Is it fair to criticize her looks? Depends on your perspective.

And 35: Thank you. I don't deny that my (two-word) comment on her looks was bitchy, but there's a time and a place for bitchiness, and this feels like one of them.

damn i was going to go the rally today but woke up slammed with a cold.

lame to make fun of her looks though.

but while you're at it, don't forget to keep trashing John Fay. this is just as much his fault. lets not get sidetracked by barbies.

dawginExile, the students care because they have no choice in the fact that $220,000 of their tuition money funds the paper. Simply not picking up a copy isn't protest enough to affect the paper.

Plus, it doesn't even make sense. Ann Coulter is fucking ugly.

Again, COLLEGE NEWSPAPERS SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. Let them be dumb and let the students work it out on their own.

Erica tearing David and the commenters a new one in 3, 2, 1....

awww SNAP! schmader called dat red bitch ugly

Any creepy homophobic essays should be run as opeds, not editorials. Then your excuse is the paper is open to a full range of views.

But the man and sheep outline was a nice touch, equivalent to saying: Warning! Moronic point of view expressed here!

Metaphor fail. Sorry David, but she's nothing like Ann Coulter; she's the equivalent of whoever publishes Coulter's writing. No self-respecting conservative lady would ever be seen, nor photographed, without tons of makeup.

The Daily sucked in the late 90s and I think it's a systematic problem. Jeglum's defense is exactly the same argument the Daily raised in 1998 (?) when the then-editor and a reporter (both male) got kicked out of a dorm when they tried to "interview" a woman who had been date raped a couple of hours before.

Oh boo-hoo, their free speech rights as journalists had been violated. The undergrad student senate passed a resolution calling on the Daily staff to undergo sensitivity training, and when it was brought to the Board of Publications - made up of professors and actual professional journalists who are supposed to oversee the Daily - they said they didn't want to interfere with the operations of the Daily.

I believe one of the purposes for the Daily is to teach the student writers and editors to be ethical in their work. They should try a little harder. And I do think an editor's job is to make sure that nothing inflammatory or hateful is published, including opinion pieces, even under the guise of "balance." So she deserves criticism, but not Coulter comparisons.

She's considerably more attractive than Ann Coulter. It's bullshit to poke fun at her looks, man, and you should be embarrassed for being so low and striking below the belt.
She didn't write the piece... She's an editor who published something that wasn't worthy of publishing, and her editorial was free of any 'bigotry,' and she didn't defend the douche who wrote the original article, so chill the fuck out.
I was appalled by the article, and I agree it was stupid as hell to publish something so inflammatory, but taking a bad picture of the editor and publishing it alongside ridicule of her appearance is just as wrong, frankly. It's a dickhead move.
I know so many women who have a lot of unnecessary anxiety about their appearances, and as a male, I can't imagine what it's like to have sweeping judgments made based off of that. Neither can you.

I don't know if the girl is mean, cold-hearted, bigoted, stupid, or whatver, but what you said WILL hurt her... It won't piss her off from an ideological standpoint and get her 'enraged' like you are, it will HURT.

I don't know her, or even care about her, but fuck you for stooping to that level, seriously.

Perhaps Ms. Jeglum would next month like to encourage a public dialogue between people who hate Mexicans and people who love Mexicans in the name of balanced journalism and free speech.

Two things. First, the reason this girl got to be editor, and the reason these right wingers keep getting published is because few of the now outraged liberals at UW ever want to put in the effort to write something, or do the thankless job of being editor. Its not hard to write for the daily, if you tried it would do a lot more to change the paper than a protest.

Second, you ass, the difference between Ann Coulter and this girl is that Ann Coulter is a money grubbing PROFESSIONAL attention whore, while this girl is an amateur college student. Do you think she is doing this for attention or money? She's probably some poor dumb kid from Eastern Washington who doesn't know any better because she was raised conservative. I was conservative coming into college. A lot of people were. She got the job because the high minded liberals had better things to do, and she brought her opinions to the paper. So you liberal students need to get your asses in there and replace her, but just sitting back and sniping at her looks is fucking pathetic.

For fuck's sake, "this feels like one of them". You realize that there are women who have pulled their pictures from web sites with professional contexts because they get comments? You understand that when you pull this shit you're not picking a fight with this particular woman you're offending and pissing off women (and men, many of whom support gay rights) who simply want to be able to be right or wrong in their education (like anyone) and work without having their looks constantly evaluated and commented on?

Fuck you guys. Go gay rights! It's just that on a personal level blacks and womens should find other ways to "do good" than by hanging with the particular fucks at the stranger.

@50: Do her motives exempt her from criticism?

Up top Schmader! Screw that butch dyke.

Schmader - I'm not defending what the paper printed - I could care less. You should also care less. Let the students deal with it. You're a professional "writer", working for a professional "newspaper". As @50 said, she's just a college student. Way to pick your targets.

Not only that, but you, the supposed professional writer, chose to go after her appearance. I think we've all seen your Myspace pics, and let's just say that you have no room to criticize anyone's appearance. You've also apparently built a career on seeing Showgirls a bunch of times. I guess you really are better than her. You should be proud.

@52
Criticism of her looks? Yes.

"I’ve watched my staff grow and have learned with them what exactly it means to be a student newspaper — to be the voice of a campus..."

Now if only the mouth that voice came from was wired shut like Coulter's...

What I'm getting from everyones comments and from the lack thereof on the Boy George post by Dominic is that - it's OK to make a bitchy comment/blogpost about an older gay man, but it's not okay to make a bitchy comment/blogpost about a female editor that hates gay people.

Fuck that.

I'm still showing up at 12:30 just west of the HUB for the protest.

Lies ill become those who aren't really sorry for what they did, but are only sorry that they got caught.

not hot

Hello all, thanks for weighing in. However, due to the ongoing discussion, this post has leapt onto the "Most Commented" list of Slog posts, which means the headline "Ann Coulter Wannabe Publishes Editorial, Needs Makeover" is printed there as well.

Since these two words—"needs makeover"—constitute the whole of my discussion of her looks, the leap to the list effectively DOUBLES my discussion of her looks.

I knew putting the post up was a dickish move, but I was okay with that. Sometimes I need to do things that might make some people think I'm a dick.

But now, with the title repeated on the list, the balance between worthwhile dickishness and dumb meanness is shifting, and I'm considering removing the words "needs makeover" from the subject.

Does she have an adam's apple?

@55
But criticism of Ann Coulter's looks would be fair game? An odd twist of logic.

I see that you mean that aesthetics should never be considered when attacking an intellectual argument, and its fair to say that you embody the principle you preach.

Then again we all are victims of our conditioning and should strive to over come them. Just like how Mr. Fay feels about homosexuals. Its weird that everyone would become obsessed about a minor snark about an unphotogenic moment and miss the entire point of her intellectual dishonesty and lack of sensitivity concerning a very volatile issue.

Who really is obsessed about superficiality here?

@ 23
Syllogism fail.

@60 - Really? Even AFTER you posted an "added P.S." telling everyone about how she has to look like Ann Coulter, etc.? That seems inconsistent. Maybe instead of changing the title you'd just want to add another update explaining that you were being a dick because you wanted to be a little edgy, but you didn't like that it was getting so much attention, so you'd like to back off of it.

If the situation were reversed -- if a bunch of anti-gay red staters were protesting the lonely liberal editor of a school paper in Texas for publishing a pro-gay-marriage piece -- the Stranger staff and queer rights advocates and everybody else on the left would criticize the act of protesting. Some people on the Stranger staff might be sophisticated enough to spot the ideological trap, and pretend they were criticizing some specific aspect of the protest -- a sign that might imply violent intent, or the political affiliations of the organizers -- but the core of our outrage would be directed at the protest itself; just the fact that the red-staters are so appallingly wrong, and that they would have the gall to organize a massive protest just because someone pointed out how appallingly wrong they are.

Not all arguments are equal to their opposites, or "two sides of the same coin". The choice between gay civil rights and heteronormative apartheid is not a choice between chocolate and vanilla; it's not just a matter of opinion. One choice rests on firmer intellectual and moral ground. But there's a larger implication to that fact; why would people who believe that the earth is round organize to protest an editorial by a regional minority that believes the earth is flat? This is not to say that round-earthers shouldn't react to flat-earthers, but protesting seems like the behavior we would engage in if we were trying to manufacture a consensus, rather than just pointing out the obvious.

Really, what is called for here is harsher methods, not softer. If the Daily published an editorial suggesting that we should all take a minute to reconsider our views on whether or not the Holocaust actually happened or whether or not Black people are actually human, there are things the U.W. faculty and funders would do in reaction. Those are the things that should happen now. Protesting to sway public opinion just plays into their hands by reducing the flat earth / round earth debate to a choice between two rival brands.

IMHO.

...if you're trying to work the Ann Coulter schtick, you can't just poop out of your mouth. You have to look like a Barbie while you do it... being a female conservative does not automatically make one an AC wannabe. But thinking it's cute to spew (or publish) inflammatory retrograde bullshit is totally Coulter territory.

That adds up to more than two words, David. I'd say you're leaned pretty deep into this one. You could apologize, but I'd much rather you made up for it with a new post on the editorial that is both funny and insightful instead of cheap and lazy.

yeah schmader, take it down. i'm a woman, i think the editor must be an ass, i'm bitterly against prop 8, i was extremely offended by the man and sheep editorial, but every time i read the words "needs makeover" it makes me squirm.
the rest of your post was right on the money, but those two words inadvertently jab at more women than her.
yeah yeah, a lot of women will say that it doesn't offend them at all, but a lot of others will be squimin a little in their seats, kinda icked-out, a little unable to articulate WHY, but still unfomfortable.

and yes, your myspace photos are lacking a certain appeal.

66: If her editorial had anything to offer I might do another post but it doesn't so I won't.

64: Thanks for commenting, you made me realize I should leave the post as is.

Ann Coulter is as vile a human being as there is. I think comparing Jeglum to her just because she is blond is out of line. Maybe after today's protest of The Daily the crowd should head over to the Stranger's office to protest your comparison.

David-

Who are you to criticize anyone's looks? You are a fat, ugly, dull piece of shit. You act like some kind of expert of all things journalistic and Beatle-Related, but in reality the only thing you are qualified to do is to watch Showgirls (a rare talent, I'm sure, what was your degree in?). This was such a sexist and unprofessional move. You're not being 'edgy' or 'ironic', you are just being a retarted dick. And while we're on the subject, have you ever seen or heard of this thing called a 'treadmill'? Go get on one before people get confused and start cutting bacon off of your fat-ass back.

@60, So it's our fault that we didn't let your bullshit slide, and now it's 'bigger news' than it should have been?

Well, luckily if the girl whose looks you unnecessarily commented upon visits this site, she will realize that Slog readers had the wherewithal to call you out for a dumb-fuck move. Hopefully that will be some consolation for her being dragged into this for her failure to prostrate herself at your feet by apologizing for someone else's editorial.

In the meantime, I am calmly awaiting Dan Savage's apology for what a dick you are, since he's obviously responsible for what you editorialized, right? Or should I just skip ahead to calling him a misogynist ugly and hateful person for having let your hurtful comment dirty the pages of this blog?

@68 - Glad to help you find your balls.

"Thanks for commenting, you made me realize I should leave the post as is."

Nope, you're just backing into a posture or righteousness after publicly embarrassing yourself. Don't pretend that it's anything other than stubbornness. You're not righteous, or strong for leaving it as is. You're being pathetic. You know you're wrong, and you know you messed up. But instead of being strong and apologizing, you act like you're somehow standing up to #64 when he calls you a wuss?

"It's so easy to laugh. It's so easy to hate. It takes guts to be gentle and kind."

You know what I hate? When people make fun of other people, because it's mean and stuff. I really hate mean stuff because it hurts my feelings. NO MEAN STUFF GUYS! It's mean!

Actually, I take that back. FUCK YOU ALL. YOU ARE ANNOYING PRETENTIOUS ASSHOLES WHO PROBABLY NEED A MAKE OVER YOURSELVES. SHAVE YOUR BEARDS, LADIES AND MEN! GET RID OF YOUR HOODIE! ANY NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT RUDENESS OR CRASSNESS ON A FUCKING BLOG SO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR COLLECTIVE GROUP-THINK ASS AND CHILL OUT.

ANY NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T LEAVE COMMENTS LIKE THIS. YOU'RE NOT GETTING THROUGH TO ANYONE BECAUSE YOU'RE QUITE OBVIOUSLY RETARDED.

J- You appear to be a severely disturbed individual. Please release the Caps Lock key and pull YOUR head out of your ass. The fact of the matter is David claims to be a 'journalist'. If that is the case, it is unacceptable to spew this kind of shit, even if it is a blog. He can't have it both ways and argue some bullshit Ann Coulter Logic to defend his actions. If you want to stick to just being a cheeky blogger who people laugh at and never take seriously, then fine. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you post about substantive issues like Prop 8. And really, by posting this, David really brought this on himself. Do you really think people would read his post and not find the hilarious irony in the fact that the person posting it was ugly and fat as all hell? Let's criticize David's hideous features, one by one. We could be here all year.

Sigh… It’s just as annoying that people are responding to this with critiques of David’s appearance (as well as the wholly unexpected, “the people who have a problem with this must be ugly too”).

David thought this person did/said some stupid things, saw an easy chance to take a cheap shot, and took it. Nobody’s perfect. But, it probably could have been solved with an apology early on (e.g. “sorry about that, that probably was out of line, but I was pissed about how she’s handling this”). Now he’s backed himself into a corner…

She's not working the Ann Coulter schtick, she's working the high school valedictorian schtick. Painful to read.

I love how worked up you all are over a school newspaper. The Daily long ago pissed away its real journalistic credibility. They can publish whatever they want to, and you can protest it. It's not a threat to anything. There's no reason to attack someone personally because they ran a stupid editorial- stupid editorials get published all the time in actual "real" money-making (or more accurately, losing) newspapers.

I'm not against protesting, but forcing school papers to run only editorials you agree with is actually counter-productive and defeats the goal of open debate. I'm saying that as a leftist who was fervently opposed to Prop 8. At some point you have to let a fucking school paper have its positions. This isn't PCU.

off topic quite a bit, but did the Stranger steal that photo from the Seattle Times website. You do know that is not proper editorial behavior - even in a blog and even when you give a credit. I doubt they gave you permission. Put it back where you got it, web thieves. I am the online copyright police!

77: No, it is acceptable for her to run it, because it's an editorial and isn't being presented as news. Give it up. The editorial is bullshit, 100 percent grade A bullshit, but the appropriate response is a smart, level-headed reply that reveals the lies, you know, instead of demaning a retraction or apology.

"demaning" is "demanding" of course.

Dude looks like a lady.

Baaaaah baaaaaaah sheeeep peeeeople sheeeep peeeeople. The Stranger comments section , along with most anonymous communities online (See: Any YouTube comments page), is filled with self-aggrandizing whiners who pick and choose their battles on a whim, and then circle-jerk each other into a frothing pissfest. Indeed SHUT THE FUCK UP. (Sorry my capsKEY really IS BROKEn, FUCKER)

Why all this hostility for the "needs makeover" comment? Frankly, I thought exactly the same thing when I saw this picture in the Times this morning.

Yeah, but does she play D&D?

That's not a man?

But I still maintain: no one reads the Daily.

Baaaaah baaaaaaah sheeeep peeeeople sheeeep peeeeople. The Stranger comments section , along with most anonymous communities online (See: Any YouTube comments page), is filled with self-aggrandizing whiners like J who pick and choose their battles on a whim, and then circle-jerk themselves into a frothing pissfest. Indeed SHUT THE FUCK UP. (Sorry I REallY AM a RETARd, FUCKER)

posting a picture of her saying she needs a makeover is pretty tacky, but so is posting a picture that equates my sexuality with fucking sheep. you would be better served taking the high road when dealing with shitbags like this, but personally i find it impossible to feel anything resembling pity for her.

@ JMS - no one's "forcing" a school newspaper to print only editorials "you" agree with. People are protesting the use of illogic and ugly stereotypes in a paper funded by their fees.

The image used to illustrate the homo-hate was a man and a sheep. How would you react if the opinion piece had been full of racist assumptions and was illustrated with a picture of a black man and a watermelon? Or hey, even better - a black man and a noose? Still think that falls under the aegis of acceptable commentary by a school newspaper?

Besides the makeover, she seriously needs to pull the stick out of her ass.

"self-aggrandizing whiners who pick and choose their battles on a whim"
Uhh, you do realize that you just made an anonymous comment, and did a little self-aggrandizement, picking and choosing your battle on a whim, right? I don't know whether you circle jerked, really, but you're basically in a solo pissfest. You sound like you hate that stuff, so, is it safe to assume that you've directed those criticisms inward?

And as far as anonymity goes... sure, we're all posting relatively anonymously, but I wouldn't mind having my identity found, and attached to my postings. Yours on the other hand... Are you such a douche in real life?

Oh, and to the author: did you decide to abandon this post? Is it safe to say then, that you're an unrepentant prick, or are you just too afraid to fess up to the fact that you made a mistake?

Just apologize for being tasteless already...

She might need a makeover, but what we really want to know is... is she blowing goats?

You know what's awesome? When a lesbian writes something on the web and some conservative bloggers get ahold of it and talk shit about her looks.

It's as though independent of the actual debate there's a tool that can be used to put down women in general!

You guys just don't seem to get that sexism affects all women. You can't "use it" any more than you can call a genuinely turd-like person a racial slur & have folks be cool with that.

and the conversation just reached it's natural conclusion....

I wonder what ECB's take on David's post is? Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that if there had been a post on any other site on the interweb that had "needs makeover" in the title, Erica would have turned into a demon by now.

David, I'm not trying to be a condescending dick (I know, I'm not doing a good job of it), but you really should apologize. She's a college student. This is the first time she's been a newspaper editor (I'm guessing). She may not even agree with the op/ed. It's very possible that, at this stage in her education, she feels that the right thing to do for an editor would be to take some sort of strong stand. I don't know. But again, you're a professional writer making personal attacks on a college student. And not just personal attacks, but cracks on her appearance (when it's clear that she just didn't clean up before the photo was taken). Act like an adult.

And for the rest of you complaining that we should leave David alone since she attacking your lifestyle, etc., when did "but she did it first" become an acceptable excuse for childish behavior? Yeah, they fucked up. Again, it's a college paper run by kids who were at prom 3 years ago. Instead of your having first reaction be righteous anger, maybe you could just go have some sex and eat a sandwich. I don't know. Nobody gives a shit what's published in college newspapers except for college newspaper writers and the people they offend.

Let's sum up what went down here. You, David, were rightly pissed off that someone used a college newspaper to echo the same bullshit about gay marriage. And, in all the excitement of the ever-increasing criticisms of the article, decided that the paper's staff was tacitly endorsing that view by allowing a crappy anti-gay rant to be published -- when in fact, they were probably just trying to be journalistic by allowing the editorial section to remain an open forum for opinion (regardless of how stupid, bigoted, and poorly written).
They failed to distinguish a discriminatory rant from a genuine editorial because it was thinly disguised by a weak argument. The editors are in college... They're learning how to do this stuff, so that is somewhat understandable. And it's not only possible, but likely that they found the editorial to be as ridiculous and wrong as you did.
As the criticisms and accusations of bigotry piqued and turned into outrage, and on the day of a protest against the article, you got wrapped up in the outrage, associated an editorial messup with the systemic discrimination against gays, and found a person you could pin all those emotions on. You were pissed off...
You thought that since everyone was pissed off with you that you could continue to stir the pot and found a flimsy excuse when you read Jeglum's interview where she failed to apologize enough, and (accurately) brushed the whole thing off as a learning experience. She didn't defend the article, but since everyone's pissed off, you thought we wouldn't notice or care. You took offense to something that wasn't there, and you thought we'd follow you down that hole.
And then you made not one, not two, but three cracks at her appearance, unwittingly implying that women somehow 'need a makeover' when they're without their makeup and not looking their best. You accompanied that with an unflattering photograph that may have been embarrassing enough for her on it's own, and plopped it on a well read blog, inviting further comments and ridicule of her appearance. You thought we'd be just as outraged and follow along.
When most readers didn't, you updated it with a feeble attempt at disarming your petty move. You got called on it again, and said you might remove your criticisms, but backed out because someone noted that you were acknowledging your mistake. Then you disappeared.
You disappeared and left it up, even though you couldn't defend yourself... Because you couldn't defend yourself.
She's a *student.* She's *learning* journalism. She is not a public figure, and she never submitted herself for your judgment of her appearance. But in being pissed off, you ridiculed at her in one of the most hurtful ways you can possibly ridicule a woman, and in a way that has nothing to do with your argument, and then left it online hoping that other people would join along.
And for what? You don't even know what her opinions are on the issue. I hope that if she reads this, she at least reads far enough to see that people think you're an asshole for doing that, and doesn't assume that we're all ribbing her for not living up to our standards of attractiveness.
And if you read this, (assuming you find the guts to see the response to YOUR mistake), you will do the very thing you mocked her for not doing. Apologize, retract it, and give some thought to what you say.

Schmader, you just lumped yourself with the conservative douchebag who called Rush Limbaugh to bitch about Obama's politics and closed with, "And my kid says he looks like Curious George!" If sexist bullshit is totally cool as long as you disagree with her policies, why not racist bullshit, too?

At least at The Cooper Point Journal we had Matt Groening and Lynda Barry on the staff.