slate's 10th anniversary
columns
- Slate's 10th Anniversary
Celebrating our first decade with some of our all-time favorite articles, lots of self-congratulation, and a few sharp critiques.posted June 23, 2006 - How SlateLooked
Ten years of our designs and redesigns: A slide show.
June Thomas
posted June 23, 2006 - Go Ahead—Sleep With Your Kids
The urge is natural. Surrender to it.
Robert Wright
posted June 23, 2006 - How Will the Universe End?
A cosmic detective story about the demise of the world, in three parts.
Jim Holt
posted June 23, 2006 - The Unbinding
An exclusive Slatenovel.
Walter Kirn
posted June 23, 2006 - Search for more slate's 10th anniversary articles
- Subscribe to the slate's 10th anniversary RSS feed
- View our complete slate's 10th anniversary archive
Goldberg and Orlean
Note: I Will Now Address a Serious Issue
Posted Thursday, Jan. 28, 1999, at 10:01 AM ETSlate turns 10 this week, and we're publishing The Best of Slate: A 10th Anniversary Anthology. In celebration of the book and the anniversary, we're publishing (or, rather, re-publishing) a selection of pieces from the anthology, including this article. This article was originally published Jan. 25, 1999. You can see a list of all the republished pieces, as well as everything else we are publishing in honor of the anniversary, here.
Dear Satanic Possession Lady,
Good morning! I hope you're feeling better. It sounded like you were having a rough day there, what with your head spinning around like Linda Blair. Do you think it's coincidence that Linda Blair, who was possessed by the devil in a movie, and Linda Tripp, who is possessed by the devil in Maryland, have the same first name? Do you know of any other devilish Lindas? Maybe we can do a joint-piece on this subject for some other magazine, because--this is our last day together! Woe is me. Of course, Slate could extend us to Friday, or into next week, or possibly give us each six-year contracts worth $70.9 million, like Allen Iverson.
As for your friend who thinks this is fizzling, I say, let 'em talk. I don't feel fizzly, do you? I think we're just blooming now, like one of those orchids in that thrilling, chilling, spine-tingling new book of yours (last day to hype your book; I better make the best of it).
We had another mind-meld yesterday, devil-woman: I have long thought (well, for the past two weeks) it would be a great feature story to find all those ridiculous couples you know exist who are trying to time conception in order to have the first baby of the new millennium. (By the way, I don't know about you, but I'm a strict millennium sourpuss, meaning that I will celebrate the new millennium--to the extent that I celebrate any New Year's--on January 1, 2001.)
I have an actual serious issue I'd like you to address, plz: Now that it's crystal clear the House managers have lost their case, can you explain why not one of these yahoos ever bothered to make the most compelling argument for the President's removal, namely, the national security argument, which has been made only occasionally over the past several months?
It goes like this: Here's the President in his office. In walks a woman he doesn't know who flashes him her thong underwear. What does he do? Call security? No. He gets a blowjob. By doing so, he puts himself in a position to be blackmailed. It apparently never crossed his mind that various people around the planet would like to be able to blackmail the President of the United States. I'm amazed he never thought to himself, "Hmmm, I wonder if whatever-her-name-is is working for the Iraqis, or the Russians, or the Cubans, or the French." Monica could have been a corporate Mata Hari, trying to force the President to call up the Justice Department's anti-trust people and order them to drop their investigation of, I don't know, Microsoft. Thank God all Monica wanted was love, and a job--any job--at George magazine.
Gerald Ford said--it isn't it a great morning when you get to quote Gerald Ford--an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is at any given moment in time. So why didn't they go after him for being absurdly reckless? Please discuss. This is an open-book test. Please feel free to consult textbooks, or Jeffrey Toobin articles.
Love,
Big Daddy
Note: I Will Now Address a Serious Issue
Posted Thursday, Jan. 28, 1999, at 10:01 AM ETfeedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Can't Go Wrong With A Cheeseburger, Area Man Reports
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:00:21 -0400 - Courageous E-mail To Boss In Drafts Folder Since December
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:05 -0400 - Novak Hits Pedestrian With Corvette
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:00:45 -0400 - » More from the Onion
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
- Froomkin: How to Get Away With Torture
- Milbank: (Not an) Impeachment Hearing
- Achenblog: My Bias Against Media Bias
- Krauthammer: Maliki Votes for Obama
- Today's Headlines
- Poll: Hispanic Voters Back Obama by Wide Margins
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:04:26 GMT - Opinion: Germans See Themselves in Obama
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:52 GMT - How the Mosley Orgy Ruling Could Affect U.K. Media
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:34:59 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Over the Rainbow: Angie and Jo
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:21:23 GMT - The New Tavis Smiley, Beware!
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:27:58 GMT - Go for the Bronze
Fri, 25 July 2008 4:18:27 GMT - » More from The Root

slate's 10th anniversary









