I really love the Reader and (almost) all it encompasses. Since moving to Chicago five years ago, I have measured my time and my interests via the Reader and all the information it gives me about what's going down with music, movies, the neighborhoods in Chicago, and current events, localized and globalized. It's one of the best parts of my week, sitting down on Thursday nights and figuring out what I'll be doing the next week.
But I'm at a complete loss for words as to why and how Liz Armstrong [Chicago Antisocial] is allotted a full page (sometimes more) for her meaningless, transparent, uber-self-absorbed attention seeking. It's completely beyond me how a great free paper like yours (when there are wars, ethical issues, great debates, and fascinating events going on all around) will give her a full page to tell the same story week in and week out. Step 1: she goes to some party (yeah, we all go to parties). Step 2: at least two or three different guys (or girls! Bisexual! So hot right now!) tell her she's beautiful and try to make out with her. Step 3: she punches someone or kicks someone or makes out with then punches someone (so extreme!). Step 4: have somehalf-baked quasi-cathartic one-liner at the end that's there to make us think she was getting somewhere with the whole story and that we didn't just read the damn thing for nothing.
Liz, we get it. You go to parties, your abortions were way worse and way more painful than anyone else's, the parties you go to are totally exclusive, and you're totally hot and everybody wants you everywhere you go even after you vomit on them or punch them! Enough is enough with this vapid blog nonsense. Get a blog, Liz, and give up the Reader page to something more worthwhile than what basically amounts to an attention-starved trust-fund brat that needs the world to know she's pretty and she parties. Hey, me and my mates are all for the party, and we do love a pretty girl. But we don't feel the need to tell the world of it all, because, hey, they're doing it too.
I think the epitome of her writing came when at the tail end of the Roe v. Wade "piece" [March 17], in which she almost made a point, she made the eighth-grade (if that) statement that amounted to "hey, if you don't like abortions, well, like, don't have one!" I'm sure she high-fived herself after that eloquent statement, but the amazing thing is she's too self-absorbed to understand that people that care about real things and real issues and not just when the next party at Jerkstore [March 24] will be--well, we can't just "not do" stuff we don't agree on; we have to fight for such things and be heard. All I can hear from her writing is a little girl who needs everyone to look at her.
I trust the Reader will bear witness to my stunning and right-on-the-mark observations, and this page will forthright be turned over to a more worthwhile endeavor. Cheers.
Matthew Winfield McEwen