Lame

That's this criticism of Rachel Maddow by Adrian Chen, which only demonstrates that 1) Chen doesn't understand humor at all, and 2) he's as prone as anyone to logical fallacies (using the "Pie Spy" satire to tar Maddow, when there's no evidence that Maddow had anything to do with it, except that it's her show). He is right on one score -- the segment's not funny, but it has nothing to do with the reasons he cites, nor, for that matter, anything to do with Maddow.

Sullivan pointed the way to this one, which only figures: he seems to have only a rudimentary sense of humor himself, and certainly isn't one to sit still for someone practicing actual civil discourse in public -- at least, not if it's not on the Village's terms, which is to say, one may only repeat received wisdom, the only variation being in the source.

Sullivan's post is a reader response, and this I found hilarious -- quoting a prior post of Sullivan's:

"Maddow is better [than Olbermann] but oozes toxic levels of smug."

The mind boggles.