Add RSS RSS

Non-Sequiturs: 08.28.08

hillary duff birthday decision.jpg* Rick Reilly continues his transition from inane blather on Sports Illustrated to inane blather on ESPN. [ESPN.com]

* Taxpayers in Texas had to pay money for a judge to deal with Hilary Duff's birthday party. [Houston Chronicle]

* Target will pay $6 million in damages and make their website accessible to the blind, having already succeeded in making their website perfectly accessible to those who are poor and have low standards. [Law.com]

* The Justice Department is apparently going to try the Joanne Galloway "I strenuously object" argument with SCOTUS. [SCOTUSblog]

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:38 PM

oh poor people. They are so hilarious with their bad taste and their patronage of Target. We should mock them every chance we get.

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:51 PM

The same ADA applies to this site as to the Target site, so when is ATL going blind friendly?

Excuse any typos in this post as I am blind.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:52 PM

In fact, 2, the typical comments on this site are the clearest example I've ever seen of the blind leading the blind.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:03 PM

I heard Hilary Duff wanted to have her 25th birthday party in Bratislava!! Can anyone confirm??

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:03 PM

I heard Hilary Duff wanted to have her 25th birthday party in Bratislava!! Can anyone confirm??

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:10 PM

Rick Reilly is an arrogant piece of garbage.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:19 PM

Should, or should we not, follow the advice of the galactically stupid?!?!!?


*throws all the papers from desk on the floor*

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:23 PM

Rick Reilly is the absolute worst.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:26 PM

I had a feeling this new guy sucked. Target comments confirm.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:28 PM

Espn.com's non-objective writing jumped the shark a long time ago. Let's hope that Simmons gets Gammon's Sox Seizure to abate the 80's movie metaphor articles on that worsening website.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:29 PM

7: Time to go chase her through the rainstorm. Or have another swig of Jack. Or both.

Mystal: Don't mock Target. Lots of us were/are poor in law school. Go back to autoadmit, you goddamn snob. Also, last time I checked, you just became a professional BLOGGER. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with what Target sells to "poor people."

12 Posted by Elie Mystal | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:51 PM

9, 11 - Sorry. Have I said anything to make you think that I am not poor and/or have any standards whatsoever? I'm pretty sure that the only thing I own that doesn't come from Target/is marginally better than what can be purchased at Target is my computer. And that is only because of our awesome tax laws.

Of course, if you would prefer I mock the blind instead of a large corporation ...
--Elie

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:57 PM

Yes, you did--or at the very least that you're self-loathing, poor and lacking standards.

Come to think of it, the fact that you took this job probably implies the latter option...

Also, stop sucking so much.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:00 PM

Elie,

You tried to mock Target, it wasn't good or funny but instead merely resulted in insulted Target shoppers.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:05 PM

Elie-

I guess I just misread the sentence as suggesting that you didn't shop at Target because it was for poor people with low standards. If you're trying to be self-deprecating, I would suggest a reference to the "self" part. Sorry for the offense. I'll see you in Cookware. I'll be the guy looking longingly at the largest Foreman.

Oh, and good job on the Galloway reference.

11

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:23 PM

Is Hillary Duff 18 yet?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:30 PM

Rick Reilly actually makes complete sense in this article. These steroid abusers have made millions at the expense of people who have better talent but chose to not cheat. There are some cheaters who would have been All-Stars anyway (but now they're Hall-of-Famers) but there are plenty others who I'm sure would never have made the majors without steroids. Its a zero-sum game folks. There are only so many spots in the majors and the All-Star game every year.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:34 PM

Hmm, anybody think Marin or F&D would be doing a better job?

Me neither.

ATL Idol is fact. Quit bitching and give the new guy some time to adjust.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:03 PM

Rick Reilly happens to be a great writer. That piece sucked.

The Mag will always hold a special place in my heart, though, since I used to write for it.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:29 PM

Fact of the matter is, ATL was Lat. He often was a douchebag but with intelligence, cleverness, the ability to write. and a capacity for not taking himself too seriously. He never got involved in the discussions. Like the best bloggers, he was a provocateur, not a partisan. I daresay that few people who know him from just the blog have any idea what he truly believes, about anything. The idol participants were amateurs and wannabees (maybe even amateur wannabees), not all that different from the Autoadmit crowd. Gawker should have hired laterally for Lat's replacement, not promoted from the associate ranks. ATL is probably in for a string of "new guys" until lightening strikes again. This isn't the sort of position you can fill from a contest. This was all very predictable. The HLS parodies were rarely funny, and invariably precious and self-important. Those qualities are fatal with a crowd like this.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:44 PM

Elie, you will be better once you get some more time to adjust. Try and find some more interesting issues though, and please stop all the damn references to your time at HLS. It really just makes you seem like an ass. I have faith in the fact you will make this blog at least as good, if not better, than Lat made it, so get working!

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:52 PM

Who or what is Elie? Is it as unhealthy as Venable?

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 12:03 AM

Congrats San Fran. Federal District court! You have successfully used the First Amendment as toilet paper by forcing anybody who uses the internet for commerce to make it accessible to the blind. Go shoot yourselves.

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 12:06 AM

Let me guess, the idiots in the activist San. Fran. Dist. Ct. were appointed by idiot Democrats who think that the Constitution is "alive" and changes its meaning every day, and that judges should do "justice" rather than interpret the law.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 12:14 AM

Elie, Rick Reilly has more writing prowess in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 7:04 AM

That precious post on Silverglate makes me think that when we elected you we collectively showed our lack of standards. Oh well. I suppose I could just focus on my doc review. It's more interesting than this site, these days.

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 9:03 AM

Let me gues, r23/r24 is a dim-witted Fed Soc douche?

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 9:49 AM

"Of course, if you would prefer I mock the blind instead of a large corporation ..."

What's so great about mocking a large corporation? The fact that it's a large corporation? That fact, standing alone, is no respect mock-worthy.

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 9:53 AM

Wow, not only does Elie suck at blogging but he's also an asshole. target kicks ass.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 10:29 AM

Actually among the two, Target is for poor people with standards, and Wal-Mart is for no class poor people.

HTH.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 10:46 AM

LOL POORS

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 10:56 AM

24 - Instead of guessing, try readng the opinion. It was based on federal law, not the "living Constitution." I believe that at least one Republican appointee was in the majority. And there's no such thing as the "San Fran. Dist. Ct."

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 2:12 PM

Do NOT hate on the Target! Setting aside their corporate policy of donating a portion of profits to local non-profit organizations (sure, most corps do that but Target does it LOCALLY), their products are AWESOME!! Ever since I was a kid the greatest day was going to Target for Back-to-School items like notebooks and peasant dresses and the big crayola boxes with the sharpener on the back. Now, nothing beats their house-name grocery items, the chance to get Isaak and Graves and other's designer items (that also win design awards). And the store is well-laid out and is CLEAN. Wal-mart is like shopping in the world's largest dollar store/garage sale.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 2:21 PM

Do NOT hate on the Target! Setting aside their corporate policy of donating a portion of profits to local non-profit organizations (sure, most corps do that but Target does it LOCALLY), their products are AWESOME!! Ever since I was a kid the greatest day was going to Target for Back-to-School items like notebooks and peasant dresses and the big crayola boxes with the sharpener on the back. Now, nothing beats their house-name grocery items, the chance to get Isaak and Graves and other's designer items (that also win design awards). And the store is well-laid out and is CLEAN. Wal-mart is like shopping in the world's largest dollar store/garage sale.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 2:25 PM

Commenting in your own post is unseemly. It's okay to maybe keep one eye on the comments but the editor should stay above the fray.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 3:36 PM

Pot shots at people who shop at Target? I really don't know if this makes you an elitist prick or just an ignorant jackass.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, August 29, 2008 10:24 PM

Elie I thought you were a liberal. See p. 126 of the handbook, which clearly states that you can make fun of Walmart, which is from the south and isn't unionized, but you cannot make fun of Target, which is from the north and gives money to polar bears.

Post Your Comment