for 28 February 2001. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Tim Cavanaugh
Special Guest Editor

Terry Colon
Art Director

Heather Havrilesky
Senior Editor

Joey Anuff
Publisher

Polly,

For three weeks I've followed you as you've categorized, delineated, summarized and thumbnailed personality types which may or may not exist outside your odd worldview. And now you've exhaustively, obsessively, painfully, and sardonically paired these hapless archetypes for us as a way to pad your resume for your upcoming Days of Our Lives staff writer gig. But the crass, puerile public is wanting to get down to brass tacks: How's the sex?

Peter Crimmins
<p_crimmins@hotmail.com>

If I knew that, don't you think I'd already have that job at "Days of Our Lives"?

I'm really hoping the people at "Guiding Light" get back to me first, to be honest. I've got some fiery hot dialogue for Lujack's long-awaited return.

Lujack: Hello beautiful.

Beth: Oh god. Lujack! You...Is it really you?

Lujack: What does your heart tell you?

Beth: My heart tells me it's you, but my eyes say it's that middle-aged guy from the Sinutab commercials who finally got his big break by landing a role on daytime TV.

Puerile,

Polly

Subject: Q-flavored Filler

Polly,

I couldn't help but observe today's Filler (2/21/2001, for reference in case the horde of adoring fans with beautiful man-titties keep you away) work out rather well in a queer dating pattern.

For example, who can deny Mr. Jumpy and Mellow Boy would make a perfect couple? Jumpy's always afraid to speak up, Mellow Boy's doesn't care his boyfriend lacks a spine because it would, you know, ruin the mood. Together they'd develop legendary prowess at killing through amicable boredom.

Or how about The Terminator and Tough Girl? The HR agent from hell enjoys hurting her girlfriends, but little Miss Tough Girl will never show it and only lash out. Thus begins a perfect cycle of codependency that'll be promptly misunderstood and crafted into film legend.

Mr. Double Standard and The Lightweight are perfect for each other! Though the wires may not go there, so to speak, what does it really matter when The Tinkerer is open to a three-way?

Who wouldn't envy That Buddhist Guy and The Overanalyzer for getting together? After a brief 'honeymoon' where each tries in vain to undo the other's carefully constructed facade of calmness, they move onto more interactive challenges: getting their mutual friend TV Boy a date with that

Insecurity never dies, it mates for life: The Princess and Miss Jealousy were made for each other. Little Miss Half-Empty and Party Girl would be a difficult initial romance, but let's face it: after they can stand to have a five second conversation, they'll realize U-hauls and Volvos were made for relationships this unhealthy.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I could see The Control Superfreak and Little Miss Understood working out as a lesbian S&M couple. (I'm not good at lesbian imagery, so don't ask.)

John M
<johnincolumbus@hotmail.com>

Did I ask?

Thank you for pointing out that all of the Men and Women to Avoid are actually gay. And they're more likable, somehow, in gay form. Why is that? Aren't all things gay more likable, ultimately?

I have a friend who recently became more firmly gay than she was before, and I like her a lot better for it. Why? I have a friend who's always been gay and even when he's a dickhead I like him much more than his less irritating straight counterparts. What can explain it?

a. The obvious allure of queer culture

b. Jealousy

c. Self-loathing

Well then, when is self-loathing NOT the explanation?

Polly

i dunno. it's more probable that miss jealousy would end up with the terminator and the lightweight would end up with the overanalyzer. don't let gender get in your way of seeing the truly intriguing combinations.....

Dean Mathiowetz
<dean@myroad.com>

When does gender NOT get in the way of seeing?

Polly

You let me tell you something, Ya know, what's really tragic about this whole thing is the money it's going to end up costing the American taxpayer, in particular, me. Bush and his Vietnam era staff are really trying to restart the cold war with some one who can't pacify a nation the size of Rhode Island.

This silly ass "Star Wars episode II" thing is just going to goad everybody into trying to buy more military technology they couldn't afford the first time around. Oh my god don't forget China!

Also, anybody who thinks the Abrams M1 is slow or lumbering has never had the sensation of nearly being run down by one of these 63 ton monstrosities. Well, Beers, since Jr. is going to "skip a generation" of development, you better start to think about your new laser gun and jet pack.

Ci$co
<ciscov@avaya.com>

I've had the sensation of nearly being run down by one of those 63 ton monstrosities, on a tank trail at Fort Benning. I was driving a Bradley. Said Pfc. Bray: "Mommy!"

I got out of the way.

Pacifying Rhode Island with a laser gun,

Ambrose Beers

Monsieur Beers:

I find myself in an odd spot. I agree with you and with the Hackworthies that a great many current weapons systems are boondoggles and unsuited for current realities. However, I disagree with you about the current administration. I doubt most seriously that Shrub's current posture of skipping straight to the next generation of weapons systems represents original thought. His retinue includes fans of such tax-dollar-absorbing tripe as the V-22 Osprey (1976's Weapon of Today) and, as you point out, Star Wars. It's also worth pointing out that updates to the old stuff often work nicely: consider the venerable B-52, still a fine way to get lethal payload from one continent to another, or the M16A2, merely the latest incarnation of a forty-year-old rifle.

My suspicion is that Shrub and his owners realize that some of the high-dollar systems that they are contractually obligated to continue buying are PR disasters in the making (only a matter of time before somebody gets a good 20/20 piece on the flammable aluminum Bradley IFV) and that they can afford to piss off one or two lesser defense contractors, if their goal is to wildly enrich more favored ones with contracts for vaporware. After all, skipping the current generation of war toys means buying ones that...aren't ready yet. But we do have neat prototypes, and in the meantime, would you like a few hundred of our almost-completely-tested model that will have to be replaced when R&D finishes with Armored Windows 98?

Yrs,

Michael Treece
<nonwhiz@earthlink.net>

You're right on several points, but I'm still holding on to some hope. His retinue includes Dick Cheney, who I find really unimpressive generally but who also tried to kill the Osprey, way back when, when he was the secretary of defense.

Really, I think the extraordinary thing about all of this is that it's astonishing to even hear an actual elected politician say that, no, we shouldn't just spend more money on the military. And then actually asking someone with the reputation of a reformer to write a public examination of the big machine...

It's not much — in fact, in substance it's nearly nothing — but in an age of absolutely no political guts or creativity, it's Wizard of Oz stuff. (Look, everybody, there's a man behind that curtain. Uh, gasp.)

Still, yeah: If we're still working on the Osprey, and maybe getting ready to bring the Crusader out sometime before my grandchildren are born, it's hard to imagine how we can revolutionize a whole hell of a lot. Dick Cheney tried to kill the Osprey during, we say again, the last Bush administration — and the Marine Corps cut back on testing to rush the project forward. Wow.

Anyway, let's give 'em a few months and see what they do next. Like I said at the end of the essay: wouldn't it be great to be surprised? I mean, to find out that it's still possible?

Ambrose Beers

Good piece today. Wish you had a send to a friend feature. Nonetheless, I've let quite a few know about it. Also, linked to your piece at the top of "On the Web".

BTW — Noticed you found the same link we used for Eisenhower's MIC speech — I assume just a coincidence. We use Google a lot over here.

Cheers,

Vlad Signorelli
<vlad@polyconomics.com>

We do have a "send to friend" feature, but it's kind of outdated and we don't publicize it much. Basically the deal is, if you read something on Suck that you'd like to share, just notify us, with your friend's street address and a photograph, and we'll make sure he reads it. We are generally fairly gentle.

As for the link, yeah: Adding links is not the fun part. Google search, scan top two or three, cut and paste that sucker. This is not an area where my creativity shines. Especially since I have a 56k modem, and have to watch pages assemble themselves like a time lapse photograph.

Ambrose Beers