Drat!... I put my comment in the wrong section! (next one down)

Posted by: Waynio at February 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Drat!... I put my comment in the wrong section! (next one down)

Posted by: Wayne at February 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Great column on the Oscars, as usual, Wilson. Especially given that you didn't have jack/Jack to work with, and given the sterility and all-around imp0tence of that production. May every writer/producer of the 'Enchanted' tunes drop from aneurysms. (Kidding). (?)

You couldn't have been more spot-on, in terms of calling-out the American Self-Loathing crisis. So so so true, though I'm not sure that the foreign-thrust of the acting awards was a result of that truth. After all, most of the heap o' nominees were foreign, so percentage-wise, someone "foreign" was likely to win.

Matilda Swinton made my night. That Glad Heavyweight Outdoor Yard-Debris garbage bag and her Comet-scrubbed face. Luv her. Cotillard was also quite worthy, and it was kinda cool to see the glowing (and great) Blanchett cringe when they played a clip of her WAY overacting from Elizabeth II.

The Oscars are about dead, aren't they. Eh, at least you managed to find a pulse.

And, um, Daniel Day Loo-iss is Oirish, I think. Otherwise, it's come to brass tacks when the ~only~ snappy thing about the Oscars is Wilson's annual assessment. In past years, the Wilson column was one of maybe several snappy things about the shebang.

This year, the only.

Well, maybe Jennifer Hudson's impersonation of the Cloverfield Monster was interesting, but not snappy. Nah.

(Hillary, if you're reading this, I love you and agree with you and think you are indeed the best candidate, but you gotta find a way to out-smug The Messiah, girl...not out-slug Him).

Posted by: Juan "Loathing Obamamania" de la Sahara at February 26, 2008 7:11 PM

Well, Juan -- after her Macaca moment with the raghead pic -- I dunno. If HillaBill can't handle this light work -- I dunno.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious at February 26, 2008 9:52 PM

She's ending it big -- nice.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious at February 26, 2008 10:34 PM

*Hillary/Us or Hilarious wrote: "Well, Juan -- after her Macaca moment with the raghead pic...[tumpty-tumpty-tumpty]"*

Yes, I must aver that this trick swan-dived straight from some aerie peak in the Ozarks, fer sher, but I honestly refuse to believe that the dissemination of this photo of Barrack Saddam Hussein Osama bin Laden in full hajj-drag emanated from The Lady Herself.

Don't get me wrong--I like my cornered women to be cat-scratching, kicking balls, and spitting scorpion-venom from their fangs, but that Islamobama pic doesn't have her stank on it.

No.

Moreover, it is now impossible to trust media sources (Oh, My God!).

Though I do merely like Barrack, and really luv Hill, I see this latest as more reason why multiple unruly mobs should (and I speak metaphorically here) bludgeon Nancy Pelosi as a symbolic gesture pertaining to the fact that our Democratic Party is now officially the Party of nincompoops, fruitcakes, weirdlings, oddlets, and brain-vacant dildos(oes?), all-around.

Oprahfication Powers...ACTIVATE!

Seriously, I'm switching gears/affiliations and I am going to vote for Ralph Nader this year (which I've never done, in all these Nadir-Years...hee). Suddenly Ralph looks as sweet as Jennifer Hudson's Aphrodite-bazooms on Oscar Night. I aim to ralph on Ralph, and don't know why I didn't do it ages ago.

To be quite certain, a Republican White House "win" will be most ominous, given the potential three--count 'em!--THREE upcoming Supreme Court appointments. Funny how few of the media "folks" are blabbering about ~that.~

But I suspect that is all part of the venison, too.

That being said, let's wait and see what happens in Ohio and Texico. If Hillary has to go down, I'd rather hear her go down like a strangled lynx. And let's face it: all the kvetching about Hillary Clinton's alleged "divisiveness" (especially in this retard-nation) boils down to one issue: She's a WOMAN.

The world has never seemed quite able to "get over" women and think sensibly. Mark my words.

But it's all screwed, because McCain & Co. are already circling wagons...despite themselves (and it's surpsingly, intrinsically hard for Republicans to SPITE themselves, on most sheets of paper)!

I've watched and, personally, have counted FIFTEEN extra references to Jesus and/or "The Lord" in McCain's serotonin re-uptake (un)inhibited "speeches" in the past two weeks.

Expect that number to go higher, because that is all he will need to do to grasp the massive evangelical vote to his aged, slim-line flanks...like 50 million farts carried on one cool zephyr. (Please read the latest, across-the-news-bureaux piece on 'Religion in America,'...the scientific data was released yussturday).

This McCain "shoehorn," if you will, is due, of course, to the fact that evangelicals (like most current Democrats) are dithering, blubbering idiots.

When it comes to the General Election, Barrack "Sugar Dust" Obama will be facing a very new and very overwhelming game. Hill Clinton, I know, could go toe-to-toe with the Elephants and shock some sense into our fragmented pity-Party. She's proved as much in the past. Obama, dipped in dewy moonbeams as he may be, will find rough seas ahead, should he win the nomination.

I feel for both of our Dem candidates. Truly, I do. But for sentient folk (well, speaking for foolish ME, really), they both seem awfully creepy at this juncture.

I'm Ralphing, I say! I've always admired Linda Ronstadt's ex sex-toy from afar, and now flagellate myself (again, metaphorically) for failing to drink the water-turned-wine of his brilliance in former epochs.

"Spoiler" though he may be (actually, that he ~was~), I see his light, and I gravitate toward the Ralph-Lite like a flame-doomed moth.

I hardly think that I want this nation in the hands of diddling Democrats, even if they/WE are the lesser of two evils.

On a lighter note, Daniel Day-Lewis looked criminally underfed at the Oscars the other night.

You say Potato-Famine...I say Toe(sic)-MAH-Toe (sic) Famine.

Posted by: Juan "Macaca es su Caca" de la Sahara at February 27, 2008 2:16 AM

So Juan, the truth is out, eh? You'd take Ralph Nerder or John McPain over Slamma Jamma Obama. Is his "inexperience" THAT troubling to you? I mean, our list of ex-presidents includes Nixon (actually did some good things), Warren G. Harding -- I mean, Grover Cleveland for chrissake.

Now I understand your love for Hillary -- but if she fails to win the nomination would you really support Ralph? Now that Osama might prevail *cue ululating female voices here* you think the Dems are to dumbdiddlydumb to hold the White House? Should we forget about the direction of the Supreme Court? Does the threat of the White House turning black (light brown, natch) disturb you that much?

Wow Juan, were you by any chance permanently scarred when Captain James Tiberius Kirk kissed Lieutenant Samara Uhura? (That episode was called "Plato's Stepchildren"). Because he didn't want to, you know. He was forced to by the telekinetic Platonians. And it was hardly the first interracial kiss on television. That happened when Sammy Davis Jr. smooched Nancy Sinatra in December 1967 on a special called Movin' With Nancy.

You mention Oprah Winfrey a lot - is there something about her that also bothers you, Juan? Because, you must know, she was a cosmic accident. We, as a nation, did all we possibly could to make sure that nobody like her did what she accomplished. It probably won't ever happen again either.

Juan, I hope you know, I kid because I care. Don't go over to Nader. Forgive Oprah and Obama for their imperfections -- I want us to be a unified Democratic party, no matter who wins. McPain will suck as president in ways we can't possibly know right now.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious at February 27, 2008 2:18 PM

Tsk.

Shame on you, Hillary/Us or Hilarious.

I am indeed a troublemaker, instigator and blowhard, but not overtly racist, by any shake of the big brown/yellow/red/black/white stick.

That being said, I do believe that a certain amount of innate xenophobia has been programmed into our DNA by whatever demi-urge or gnostic Archon set this bug-bus of a planet into motion.

But, again, no. I do try to "judge" people on character, which is probably some sort of cosmic accomplishment, though I've no plaque nor certificate hanging on my wall, to affirm my goodness, in that department.

For example, if Colin Powell were, say, a moderate Democrat, I would be humping his ticket like a dirty-dog in heat. Too visual? Sorry.

I have no intrinsic problem with Oprah. She's no better and no worse than any richer-than-God megalomaniac should be, in these trying times.

In fact, Oprah tips the Scales of Righteousness toward the positive side, in my o-pinion. Ambitious, difficult, complex, driven, hard-working Woman who really "made good" and (in her own, twisted megalomaniacal fashion) spreads the "good" around, hither and yon.

You see, at her stratospheric level, it's not really even about HER, anymore, it's about what she ~does~ with her HER-ness, and what she does is generally edifying and useful.

But Hillary is also an ambitious, difficult, complex, driven, hard-working woman. She hasn't lavished the world with crucial personalities like "Dr." Phil and Rachel Ray, but she's a damned savvy politician, and she's a worker-bee. And she's moderate. Our nation needs a jolt of moderation right now, to my mind. Plus, Hillary is a woman, and I am an incorrigible feminist. For the right woman, of course :->.

As I've said, Barrack Obama is a decent-enough egghead, but I find his magic-wand rhetoric and blatant JFK/MLK Jr. mimicry to be insulting. To me.

Then again, I am one of those clowns that can rattle-off every Constitutional Amendment (even if I don't know what all of them mean, exactly), and I know how our system of government actually, truly "works."

I have a suspicion (bordering on morbidity) that the ululating hordes of Obamaphiles do ~not~ have the knowledge or ability to delineate even five amendments, much less sundry.

Why?

Because our nation is intellectually defunct. And I'm talking only about basic intellect , mind ye. We're cattle. Seriously, the lack of historical awareness and grasp of pertinent data is bracing, across the board. If you don't believe me, there exist any number of studies pointing to this abysmal deficiency.

Yes, the Cintra Wilsons and Hillary/Us and Juan (de la) Sahara-types may know some pertinent shit, but most others are blissfully ignorant. This, in itself, is not damning, because our blue-collar folks vote based upon very really real realities that are realer than real, to them. They are very much in-the-moment, because they must be, unless they are insane (which they are, generally, not). Those people sort of "know without knowing," I aver.

Truly, the wealthy (and relatively wealthy) also "know without knowing," and vote according to their immediate needs. And those needs are, indeed, immediate. Trust.

But there is a disturbing vacancy--a void--in the American consciousness...one that is not so easy to pin-down. For example, Cintra Wilson, Mistress of this particular Temple, has been braying/prophesying for years about the pop-culture aspect of this Void, but she's always dragged a lot of auxilliary satellites into that orbit, via her punditry and commentary, so we cannot even pin her ouevre down to "one" genre--she's actually incorporated many peripheral aspects into the equation, and not without gusto, mind ye. I mean, her 'Colors' novel was ahead of its time in a time when people didn't know what time it was.

So there you have it. Partially.

Our nation is grossly lagging in education, economics, and exactitude, which might be okay if we were Macedonia...but we're not. The (not so very old) polarizations that occasioned our harrowing Civil War have, pretty much, simply "morphed" into new, more gleaming polarizations. It's now a flat-out accusation to call someone a "conservative" in this nation. It's equally damning to call someone a "liberal."

BAD.

The prob is...precious few really know, historically, what those things ~mean.~

For my part, I am drawn, ever-more, to the brilliance of the men who literally founded-and-grounded this nation, men who acted on wise principles and blasts of inspiration that they gleaned--not from the "religious" status quo of the time--but from the proven value of Greek philosophers and the structure of the ancient Roman republic, etc.

My truest hero shall always be Thomas Paine, in a sense. Oh my. Perhaps the appeal of Barrack Obama does indeed stem from some innate, constant, and distinctively "American" love-affair with "hope."

But I don't think so. It's nice to say. It's sentimental and romantic and sparkly, but it's not viable. The history of our nation offers us contrary facts--arbitrarily interpreted, ones, yes-- but facts, nonetheless. Obama is hardly the first Pez-Dispenser of "Hope." And it's sort of worrying, that fainting white women are clamoring for "Hope" as if they never knew it existed before. Like it's something new and novel. Like it's a sudden and unexpectedly brilliant baby that will grow-up to nuture and tend them when they get old and feeble.

Sorry, but I really get dyspeptic when the Virtues are molested and trivialized.

One of my biggest peeves is the fundamentalist/literalist/evangelical force that has swarmed over a significant portion of our nation. No matter how these people "label" themselves, religious fanaticism is alive and potent, and a force to be dealt with in the USA. An extraordinary force. Huckabee, fat-assed piece-of-shit that he is, remains in the race for good reason: his evangelical backing is dauntingly huge. McCain will draw them to his side and then, I tell you, it is "Goodnight Democracy"...again.

The irony is that we are now (ostensibly) warring against two nations of medieval religious bent, all the while our own nation is consumed with the same sort of frothing literalists, albeit with different window-dressing. If Pastor Jim-Bob Parsley of the Newer-Than-New Community Church of God could legally hang you for being a queer, he and his tongue-speaking hordes would do it...liketey-split. Trust.

Neither Clinton nor Obama have addressed this issue, which is a calculated political move, to be certain, but one that only exemplifies the inneffectuality (hey, is that a WORD?) of the Democratic Party, altogether. Until this issue is addressed, and until overtures are made, our Dems will be spinning wheels as they have done for nearly a decade, now.

I mean, for the sake of Mighty Isis, how did an absolute incompetent like George W. Bush win consecutive terms? Look to the fundies, friend. I'm not saying that they should be destroyed (though I'd sorta like it), but they need to be addressed--first and foremost--by our so-called "liberal" candidates, etc. THAT is where is the real political "jiggle-fest" needs to be mopped-up.

As for Ralph Nader. I beg you. He's certainly one of the lamest "politicians" in recent memory, but on paper that man has accomplished far more substantial gains for actual, REAL American "wellbeing'"than either Clinton or Obama. Beyond the beyond.

Nah, I won't vote for him. I said I would do so whilst caught-up in one of my own "hyperbolic moments."

If Rainbows & Unicorns Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.

But it will be with reluctance, and I'm telling you: it won't do a bit of good. McCain will blast him into the ether.

Hillary Clinton is all sorts of "whatever people are saying," but beyond the Dem primaries, she would be the one--the ONE--to pound McCain into submission and win the office by a nose-hair. Only her.

Off Topic: Why are so many writers "hating" (in such writerly fashion) upon Oscar-winner Diablo Cody? Yeah, I know she used to be a stripper (and still dresses like one), but I think Tom Hanks or Ben Affleck or Robin Williams are far bigger and more obvious whores, and they never had to swirl 'round-the-pole, that we know about.

Why are writers hating Diablo-C?

xoxo

Posted by: Juan "Always Loved Uhura" de la Sahara at February 27, 2008 4:42 PM

Ok so the worst montage out of them all which is sort of like trying to pick the worst deep fried popcorn clam out of a day old Long John Silver's number three was "The People Who Gone and Done died Last Year Montage."

Brad Renfro made almost 2 dozen films and was excised beacuse they 'ran out of time.' Heath Ledger had ONE screen capture and out good friend Anna Nicole was in a few Hollywood films including The Roral Cohenbaums "Hudsucker proxy" and not a flicker?

You wrote a great piece though as always Cintra!!!

Posted by: Cintra Wilson Rocks! at February 27, 2008 5:21 PM

Anna Nicole Smith is...is...DEAD?

You spread falsehoods, good sir!

Anna was here for lunch today, as Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, the Loch Ness Monster, and a Yeti (or two) will attest.

In truth, it was lame that they excluded Renfro, especially when they ~included~ agent Freddie Fields (formerly of Fields and Begelman) who stole millions from Judy Garland, just when she was making her umpteenth amazing comeback in the early 1960s.

Wufus Rainwight owes her BIG. Poor, poor dead Julie Garland.

Posted by: Juan "In Shock!" de la Sahara at February 27, 2008 5:36 PM

To the Juan De La That Is,

Thank you for not being offended by my off-hand mau mauing. Your spirited and erudite response shows that, at least in my humble opinion, you do know a thing or two about a thing or two.

And truth ye also spoke about the Hill Who Will. NBC News Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory pointed out last night on MSNBC that Slamma Jamma is a mite soft when compared to the Pants Suit of Power. He suggested that Slamma's cool sidestepping of Helmet Hair Hill might be fine for TV, but perhaps a tad too submissive for the big show against Johnny McPain. In other words, pimp magic might not be enough when the real political fisticuffs start to fly.

Re: Cattle -- ye might be right. Our fellow citizens, (and indeed myself, as I google the Constitution), may in fact be, in a word, dumb. But has it not always been thus? From the carnage of the Civil War, through the Charge of the Light Brigade to the deadly days on Tarawa -- there have always been misinformed but patriotic two-legged cows available for whatever misadventures the elites had planned. The Poors are always less well informed.

And we, (the United States) abandoned any attempt at creating some kind of Scandinavian wonderland with a working social safety net and near total literacy long ago. This is Rome, baby. Coffee is for closers (thanks David Mamet) and actual civilization is reserved for citizens of countries like Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Greenland. The American destiny involves keeping the bar bars at bay with our ability to move men and materiel on the one hand; while we make sure to keep our consumption up so we prop up the world's economy on the other hand.

Right ye are about our neighbors who dislike the queer energy so much that they'd asphyxiate it if they could but do so legally. That fundamentalist crack smoke is scary no matter from which direction it spouts. I heartily agree with your defense of the Virtues and your lauding of the Framers. Re Unicorn's mimicry versus Colin's putative mastery -- Colin is noble, steadfast and experienced. But the Unicorn IS magical. He's got Bill style mojo. Too bad he has never been experienced. (Thanks Jimi).

Re: Diablo Cody -- she rocks. All the media's gnashing of the teeth is because others wish they could do half as well as she has. And what Amanda said on here is true -- if there had not been a Cin Wil -- there could never have been a Diablo. Propers.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious at February 27, 2008 6:30 PM

[Ya-ya Hillary/Us wrote: Re: Cattle -- ye might be right. Our fellow citizens, (and indeed myself, as I google the Constitution), may in fact be, in a word, dumb. But has it not always been thus? From the carnage of the Civil War, through the Charge of the Light Brigade to the deadly days on Tarawa -- there have always been misinformed but patriotic two-legged cows available for whatever misadventures the elites had planned. The Poors are always less well informed.]

I don't ascribe to that, darling. I know what you are saying and I truly get the gist, but no.

I'll take-up this discussion when I have more time (and citations and references). But I will show you that this has not always been the case, at all. Far from it.

There were times when even the schmuckiest of the Poors ~needed~ to know how/when/why/what they were ascribing to. Think only of the days wherein crucial politics was a matter of pithy "pamphleteering" (sans Hollywood, sans fashion, sans TV) and everyone (including the dog) gathered 'round the hearth to form what opinions they were allowed to form.

Until the later conversation, I'll give props for saying something nice about D-Cody. It really burned my buckles to see so much negative prattle hurled in her direction by writers. Wrong, I say!

And yes, CW is one of the crucial pioneers, but lesser talents have co-opted her motifs and watered them down; Kathy Griffin (who is actually a funny improv comic) is the biggest example of that...but without the balance and smarts of a CW. Without the contribution.

Well, this could get interesting, and it's actually spot-on that people are talking about these matters at all. Yes, the nation is engaged, but it is also engaged when it comes time to vote for their favorite American Idol Piece of Mediocrity.

We'll see, and no mistake.

Posted by: Juan "Getting Into Hope" de la Sahara at February 27, 2008 7:15 PM

Ok -- whenever you wish Juan. But when you do answer, also talk about how the Hill voted for the war and twice for the Patriot Act. I wish this was all about the hatred of powerful va jay jays.

But I was doing some thinking -- historically, you know, just like you did. And here is what I noticed:
Bush Sr. 1980-1988 VP, 1988-1992 Pres.
B Clinton (and Hillary two for one style) 1992-2000
Bush Jr. 2000-2008

If we get Hillary for eight more, that's 26 years for two families.

Aside from the votes and the fear of the va jay jay -- distaste for dynasty is rearing its ugly head. It's not as if anyone from either family approached FDR in terms of excellence.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious at February 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Hillary/Us:

I have no problem whatsoever with Hillary's initial vote to give the go-ahead to Shite-For-Brains in his Revenge For Daddy Deception. No.

She was hardly the only Democrat to do so, as is obvious, based upon "information" given our representatives by The Mongoloid, at a time when anxieties and ~some~ pressing need for "showy response" was in the cards, even if the cards were not truly laid on the proverbial table.

I think it naive for the Paper Tiger to nance/prance-about and criticize Hillary for that vote. After all, she was NY Senator at the time, and I guarantee you that she was representing her constituency in that vote, in a call for action, even if the whole affair was cloaked in sewage sprayed with Febreeze-cans straight from Laura's cigarette & margarita room.

It is (btw) the job of a Senator to represent the demands of his/her constituency. If the information given (i.e. Saddam's behind it all!) is presented from the Chief as being trustworthy/iron-clad (esp. when Americans themselves are calling for blood--and Obama says that it ~is~ the people who have the BEST say, above all, even in foreign policy!)...and no one had yet demonstrated many contraindications...then she did what she felt was best, but with the very serious limits and restrictions we ALL know about, from the beginning.

It's better than being a potentially anti-Israelite chicken-shit, like Slamma Jamma, though I give props to Obama for NOT voting...but no more integrity or wisdom in his nay than in Hill's yea.

The ball-biting Black Widow in the outhouse, here, is neither Hill nor Barry: it's Dingleberry Dubyah. Liar. Monster. Fool. Evil-Doer. Dog-Turd.

Both of our Dems have reason to be proud of their initial votes, and both have reason to be proud of their vehement reactions once it became apparent (even to obese Mississippians) that the entire "Shock & Awe" shindig was a gargantuan red-herring that was especially red because it was filled with blood.

But it took a little bit of time for those facts to come to the knowledge of our best & brightest in Congress, n'est pas?

Attacks should be leveled where they belong: at the Mongrel.

This has not happened as is proper, and, instead, because we have two very formidable and ambitious and brilliant personalities vying for an edge in the Dem-race, we have the hardly surprising Dem-olition and cannibalism that is so characteristic of our erstwhile headless-chicken Party.

Really, it could put your right off your tabouleh lunch. Yah.

I don't detect this phantom "dynasty" that you attach to the Clintons, either. Billary had eight years (out of the blue, mind), and those were economically profitable years. Until the Jug-Eared Demon took office. Sure, some sort of boom was bound to drop, no-matter what (tied especially to the housing market), but I believe that the boom-drop would have been far, far, far, far less conspicuous had, say, Al Gore won what was rightfully his due. Speculative, yes, but I'll take speculative and likely continued optimism over flat-out "down-at-heel" any day of the week.

The fact remains that our middle-class (and upper middle-class) flourished under the Clinton watch. Our poor even got a leg-up (no, not enough, but still). Under the Son of Barbara "She-Beast" Bush, it all went to hell, toute de suite. This was, largely, because the mega-rich special interest (oil) ouevre took a big ole stomp on the scale, like it had been wanting to do, via Dildo-For-Brains and his "Spendgali," Richard ("Dick") Cheney.

So, no. You can call the Clintons' tenure a band of Traveling Gypsies, or a Fiefdom of Fellatio, or a "dynasty," all you like, but if it's working generally quite well across the board, "dynasty" is not necessarily a dirty word. How is it a dirty word? Obama licked the festering butt-cheeks of Ted Kennedy (and vice versa), while apparently having no problems with "dynastic" issues, or the fact that the Kennedy-clan is about the farthest thing from his uber-motif of "Change."

And, again, it was ~only~ the abject polarization caused by obese, lard-consuming, Bible-licking, pig-snouted, right-wing Christians that (in their endless self-righteousness) poured enough bucket-water on a Good Thing and spoiled everything durig the nize Clinton years. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the crusty goat-bones of St. Rosalia of Palermo--Cintra Wilson was right about weeeeeird American self-loathing, i.e. America doesn't want what it's got if it's even good.

The irony is that these "Christians" were able to consume such effusive amounts of Lord-fueling lard because of the Clinton stabilization of our general economy. Yeah, too bad that their "worldview" was marred by some va-jay-jay cigars and a series of suckings of Bill Clinton's penis, but that had nothing to do with the success of the nation. Amazing that the "great minds" at the vanguard of Clintonian downfall were Newt Gingrich and, well, that hog Ann Coulter. Or hogs like her.

Bottom line: our Democrats are not even beginning to tackle the real problem in our global community: religious fundamentalism. Here, and abroad. And just as MUCH here, as abroad.

You know, I envision a diplomatic president who might call upon all of these very ~real~ world powers (in the religious sphere) and encourage a summit. 'Cuz let me tell you--Global Warming is trouble, but it isn't as much trouble as religious fundamentalism, which ought to be classified as a "disease" even more destructive than AIDS, believe it or not. Our planet itself will survive humans, but humans may not survive religious fundamentalism. Uh, I mean, look at the rank & file of our world's truly major societal problems/conflicts, and then look at how xenophobic and/or religious-tribal fanaticisms stack-up in the Top Ten, one way or the other. Bracing.

Food for thought, anyhow.

For example: C-Span, today, 'round 9AM, PST, an Obama-publicist was taking calls from Obama-supporters and one man called, and (I quote, drawing upon a pretty well-honed memory):

"You see, I think this is why Senator Obama is making such an impact. You see, Obama is saying that he himself will not be doing any of the changing in our government, but he will inspire us to do the changing. He won't have to do anything. He'll motivate us all to do the changing, and I think that's the most amazing thing."

Well, if I could've thrown a big black boot at the head of that mealy-mouthed caller, I would have. Gladly.

Fairyland LIVES!

We don't need a president who will, himself, take the reins and make "changes"...oh, no...he will simply "inspire" us (you and me!) to make ALL the necessary changes. See, WE will make the changes in politics and government! Oh, cue the angels!

Well, I gotta tell ya: I am by no means a glorious person, but I work my ass off and pay taxes out-the-ass as a self-employed person in the uppermost of tax-brackets, in an industry that is currently in the shits (lending and "surREAL ESTATE"). By all rights, I ought to be a friggin Republican. Mind you, I fully realize that I, in this position, will get no sympathy from even the rest of my stated-income, upper middle-class neighbors...and accept that.

However, I'm the one who puts these bitches into the very homes they've been dreaming about forever. So that they can exercize their fundamental right to American Greed, live beyond their means, and take out equity lines of credit that enhance said Greed...so that the banks can ~now~ start suspending their whorish equity lines and throwing the nation into the biggest pile of doody it's seen since your great Granddaddy threw himself from a roof in Manhattan in 1929.

What else? I regularly give to charities and causes (not as much as I could), but regularly, I aver. I am involved with two local neighborhood "improvement" committees, and have been a HEAVY donator and cold-call phone volunteer for the political candidate of my choice (Hillary, in this case).

I obey the laws, hold the door for old beldams/beldudes in the grocery stores, and I recycle faithfully (though my particular community makes recycling a breeze, because of a snazzy recycling infrastructure). I never exceed the speed limit whilst driving. I eat red-meat perhaps once a month, if that. I patronize small-businesses and bookstores.

Fine & dandy. Whoop-de-doo, for me. (I'm also very bitchy and cynical and impatient--~big~ flaws, to my mind, which I am working on).

But when I hear pap like...

"Obama won't have to make any changes as president...he'll inspire ~us~ to make all the changes!"...

...you need to follow me into the Room of Olsen-Twin Purging.

The Big Stuff doesn't get done "by the inspired us" in politics, whether traditional or non-traditional. Never has. That's cos not enough people get inspired for enough time, unless they're starving (which may be around the corner, if you elect Slamma).

Americans are not idiots, but they have been conditioned to behave and to think idiotically. As if the upper-middle portions of their brains are easily fish-hooked and snagged, while the cerebral cortex is then chopped away and thrown back into the ocean as so much offal.

Again, I have no major dislike of dear Barrack-O. To the contrary. I think he has marvelous potential, but as it stands, I view him as a man still finding his proverbial (and currently very borrowed) voice, as much a hypocrite as any of them, and a cipher. I see him as a road-sign for the "Scenic Detour" that has just been set-up by tired, new-to-the-job work-people, with probably a few bridges collasped down-the-road, that they forgot to adequately check, for all I know.

The "for all I know" part is crucial. He's blaringly "untested," and I have to wonder, at this crucial juncture of American history (with global connotations), if it is wise to simply throw caution to the wind and take a big, big, big risk...based on purty speeches that have been paid for and composed by others.

I think not.

But I still like the guy. If he is as motivated in eight more years, he's probably got my vote. His experience (provided it is worthy) will be a given, then.

But not now.

It saddens me that Hillary polarizes so many women...far too many women. But my best friend in the world--a woman who lives in Vermont and is a real lefty liberal (I am moderate on some issues, lefty on others, conservative on several)--tells me that women have, historically, had a very difficult time in terms of rallying around one of their own gender, marshalling the forces, etc. There have been pockets of this kind of vision among women (as a bloc) but always at the so-called fringe, and always very minimal, given that the majority of people on earth are, indeed, women.

I like, in these times, to ascribe to that brilliant-yet-nutzoid creature, Germaine Greer, and one of her best quotes:

"I do think that women could make politics irrelevant, by a kind of spontaneous cooperative action, the like of which we have never seen, which is so far from people's ideas of state structure and viable social structure that seems, to them, like total anarchy, and what it really is is very subtle forms of interrelation, which do not follow a sort of hierarchical pattern, which is fundamentally patriarchal.

The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy, but fraternity. And I think it's women who are going to have break the spiral of power, and find the 'trick' of cooperation."

(And, by the honor system, I did not "google" that quote--it's one that I have remembered by that amazing, daft, amazing, daft woman).

So be it. Hillary is loaded with genius and experience. I'd feel quite in safe hands with her as prez, for many reasons, even reasons far removed from the peripheral "first woman in office" and "Bill the Brain= 2 for the Price of One" slogans.

The nation needs experienced hands right now. Even four years of such hands. Let Barrack re-emerge after that and I will likely be putting his poster on my bedroom wall, like a 12 year-old girl (or boy).

But we'll soon know. Tonight, or tomorrow. I wish them both well. I really do. If Hillary soldiers on, I will support her. if Obama takes it all the way, yes, he will get my vote. Reluctantly, but yes.

Now, see what you made me do, Hillary/Us?

Posted by: Juan "All Relative" de la Sahara at March 4, 2008 4:30 PM

My esteemed Juan De La,

If you're voting for Hillary because she's the woman, then fine, say so. Poor choices bravely made at least have the quality of courage. That's what Hillary did when she voted for the war. She bravely made a bad decision.

To hide behind the faint cover of her "not knowing" certain information is moral cowardice on your part, Juan, not hers. And to aver that her vote was an accurate representation of her electorate paints Ms. Clinton as more craven than I think she is. At the time of the vote, she declared she was right and that she was being a leader. And she was. More recently, she admits that she was dead wrong and that it was a bad decision regardless of her "information." She was being a leader then too.

Her admission of error took integrity and the same courage she used to make the first vote. Is Barack a prancing paper tiger because he echoed her sentiments about her mistake? Is he less courageous because he didn't make the same mistake? Hillary said she was wrong. Barack and I agree with her.

I like Bill Clinton and I loved the Clinton years. Dynasty is not a dirty word. If Bill could be president again, I'd consider it. But no matter how bad Obama turns out to be, he won't be worse than Bush. And no matter how great Hillary could have been, she will never be the change agent that Obama can become.

Unless Condi somehow manages a miracle, we as American people will have to decide whether we have a woman president first or a black president first, Juan. I'm sorry it had to be us and I am sorry it had to be now. But it is. I wish we could all get along. But we can't. Take heart in what Bogey said to Bergman in Casablanca, "The problems of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." The simple fact of the matter is that we have seen female heads of state many times throughout history, especially recently. But the world is watching, Juan. If we elect Barry, it's different and bigger than "experience." Let's talk about how different...

Let's do so by observing the "wild-eyed" Obama supporter you're so fond of mentioning: We get it. You're smarter than they are. You're more realistic too. You don't think Obama is that great (but that's just true right now). In ten, or eight, or four years, well, that's a different matter.

Maybe this disconnect is a black, I mean, a belief thing -- one you just wouldn't understand. Perhaps you save your focus for stuff like support for the state of Israel, respect for the Framers and ensuring that no one "untested," (like Bill Clinton was or Obama is) wins the presidency.

Here's some advice: Get to know your neighbors. Not those neighbors -- I'm talking about the "deluded" ones who are overly moved by Slamma's oratory. I know you know about Obama, and of course, Jay-Z and Marcus and Sojourner, Toni Morrison and let's not forget Ooopsrah! But what do you know about, I dunno, the rest of 'em? Except that there not that many of them in your tax bracket, ha!

Yesterday the Times published an article about Americans in prison. One in fifteen resembles Barack and one in nine are between the ages of 20 to 34. Compare that to Latinos at one in 36. And we all know that whites never commit crimes so their numbers are moot.

So if you were black (work with me here), and you were thinking about how your team (the blacks in America team) is doing, would you figure it was trending up or down? That might depend on how many blacks in jail it takes to equal one Obama or one Oprah. It's like a quantity versus quality thing. Or maybe it's roughly, (only roughly, since nothing could compare or should be compared to that unspeakable and historically unparalleled crime), reminiscent of the Holocaust in that it feels like you are seeing your team slowly become extinct.

In any event, ya damn right there's some swooning going on. And yeah, some of his followers might not be as realistic or grounded or free of delusion as are you. Granted. You also live, on average, about ten years longer than all of them, even the women. But I digress. Support for the state of Israel is very important. Obama could have made that clearer. Delusions can be harmful.

To conclude, neither of Hillary nor Barack write their own speeches. Girls are just as good as boys at most things and are better at many things. Golda Meir comes to mind. Uh, what else? Yes, Hillary was first lady for eight years, she's older and thus has more experience. That doesn't necessarily make her a better president. Experienced hands in this case might mean McCain's hands. He's fired shots in anger, he has the confidence of the military industrial establishment and people trust him. This race isn't about experience. Experience is a code that really means "Hillary's team" and it won't work against McCain. She loses to him if she wins the candidacy.

Posted by: Hillary/Us, Not so Hilarious at March 5, 2008 3:19 AM

~Darling~ Hilary/Us:

Tsk. You are utterly allowing me to nail-you into a rather tight corner, which you may find satisfying.

But I digress.

To begin (and as I have stated): I have no problem with Hillay's Iraq-war vote. The debate on this question is so many strands of gossamer...ephemeral, even at best.

How about if I put it ~this~ way:

I, as a voter, as a constituent, as a Democratic citizen, was in favor of the initial launch of the war "against" Iraq.

Does that make things clearer?

As a citizen of the USA, I accepted the reams of ~initial~ "convincing info" given by Our Leader, filtered through our reps, and then plopped into my interested (yet somehow bystander-ish) lap.

I mentally approved the initial launch of the war in Iraq. Personally. In my own mind. It seemed quite well-delineated, as our piece-of-sweetness Prez laid it all out.

Well, he turned out to be (demonstrably) a liar liar pants on fire. My fault?

No.

Hillary's fault?

Hardly. (Barrack wants ~us~ to charge the hope-spring of change, after all).

But again I say to you: I agreed with the initial (and national) decision. Hussein (no relation to Obama) had WMDs, was funding the 9/11 geniuses, and threatening to rape Paris Hilton (who was still a mere ingenue, at the time), etc. If that's not enough to make one weep-for-war, I fail to see the opposing point.

Seriously: I, as a citizen, agreed with the initial plan, after as much analysis as could be rendered, at the time. And, remember...~I~ am the one who is going to "change" Washington, according to Barry-Bomma. Not him. ME!

Well, we were (and are) fucked up the ass on that war (don't even get me started on the glorious Poppy-Fuck that is, remains, is, remains...Afghanistan).

The Bush League is to blame. Because they lied. And when you lie, you can't shift all the blame--conveniently--to those who were "lied to." Trust me--I've lied to some people in the past, and it is flat-out ~not~ a good idea, and not the fault of those who are urged/cajoled/encouraged/forced(!) to believe the lies. This is merely anecdotal.

So the blame rests on the "supreme" lying liar devil. Okay?

Your "Hillary voted for the war" mantra is impotent because I am a registered Democrat and I initially (as a citizen who writes li'l notes to Babs Boxer) also agreed with the initial kill-em-dead "idea."

Thus, you don't have a point to be won, here, darling, because my admission as a constituent (within the whole Technicolor Dreamcoat) neutralizes your entire point. Because there are differences of opinion. Because of hindsight, yes. (Moot).

Because the most important thing that matters is ~exactly~ how one responds to the truth, when the truth is finally trundled out for viewing pleasure, in a virtually incontrovertible manner. (And if you wanna poke me about the viability of perceptible "truth" itself, then I refer you to Aristotle, and maybe even that hog Aquinas--not me).

So that's covered.

Um...though I am an avowed feminist, Hill's lack of a penis is not a make-or-break issue for me.

I like her smarts...her brain. I like the fact that she was an advocate for underprivileged kids and was blazing across Texas to register otherwise dumb-ass voters while Barry was...um...teasing his hair (to put it ~nicely~).

Your assertion that I don't really "know" my neighbors is very nincompoop-ish and no doubt fueled by severe Sesame Street indoctrination, and futile. My heart is really going out to you, baby.

I've traveled the globe and actually lived in other nations (Egypt being one of them!), and I do tend to really feel some pathetically idealistic "luv" for most everyone I encounter, (culturally and personally), so if I were a xenophobic, racist turd, I would fess-up to it, right now. I ain't.

I'm hardly saying that I am perfect, or that I "hold all beings in a Peace-cloud of whirling bliss," but I don't look at humans that way. Again, I'd tell you if I was guilty of that. But after a quick search of my conscience (a totally "free" analysis, mind you; one normally needs a coupon)...nah.

So that skeet of yours is duly shot.

As for your prison-stats, they are interesting, though I'm taking you at your word about them, not checking. I believe you. But so what? I think we all can agree that there are serious problems (on many levels) throughout the communities of our African-American brethren and "sistren"--problems that are complex and stultifying, at times.

In my own mind, I see much of it as this: When one "people" enslaves and oppresses another "people" (the way that our forebears did), then the oppressed "people" are going to suffer from a very acute and very communal, LONG TERM form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

It grieves me to know that this is the case, or to "believe" that this is the case (there are conflicting studies galore), but it makes no difference to me. The idiots that raised me were what one would (kindly) call "total white trash"...so I tend to hedge my bets and put emphasis upon those who fight against the odds to simply "get out."

Of course, Barry Obama is an exemplary American. No, I don't buy-into his current line of tripe, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize his genuine value. Accomplished and forceful man. To be honest, I think that his wife, Michelle, is even more talented. Put it this way, darling...if he is the Dem-Nom, he will get my vote. I described that (potential) vote as being "reluctant" only because I think he's a little bit full of shit, at this juncture. But there you have it.

Many of your other references baffle me. Sojourner Truth (if that is indeed the 'Sojourner' you mentioned) has been one of my heroes since childhood. Forget Roman Catholic "sainthood" and its trappings...she was/remains the Queen of Heaven. I'm humbled by her bravery, determination, and mostly her often-audacious wisdom. I cannot imagine a woman of greater mettle--on this earth or in a multitude of possible universes.

That being said, I'm currently working on a book about the Virgin Mary, but not as she is so grotesquely co-opted by the Catholic institution: rather as a forward, incendiary woman who obviously (or perhaps detectably) imparted her views to her son...who was actually ~quite~ the radical.

Toni Morrison? Darling I'm sorry. She hasn't written a truly good book since 'Song of Solomon' and 'Beloved' (both of which I consider to be classics 0f the American canon of lit--as should anyone with sense). But she is not really relevant to me, now, though I know all about Oprah's patronage of her.

I don't feel that it is generally deserved, at this point, much like Oprah's insistence upon a great deal of stuff that is really total shit. Yes, I think Oprah is a legend and a great, great woman (period--above and WAY beyond a black woman...she is just a great woman), but she is also not terribly relevant to me, because I do not watch daily television. I revere her, vaguely. But that's about it. (TV-wise--I admit to an addiction, of sorts, to Law & Order:SVU, because Eliot Stabler is so...so...something Irish).

Frankly, Hillary/Us, I didn't get the rest of your post...though I appreciate it.

Kinda rambly.

And Hill (my chola-girl) won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island tonight.

Now, honestly, I am not looking forward to the crap that awaits. I wish both Hil and Barry the very best. Yes I do.

If you have other issues with me, I cannot fathom them.

:->

Posted by: Juan "Changeless Agent" de la Sahara at March 5, 2008 7:32 AM

My dearest Juan De La,

I've decided to become, like you, a model of brevity. I promise not to be rambly.

The Iraq Vote
If I was as satisfied by logic's absence as I am by being nailed in the corner your words on Iraq would have given me a happy ending. Alas, they did not. Hillary said she was wrong on Iraq and I agree with her. Of myself, Hillary and Barack, you are the only one who still defends her vote. Feel free to do so.

On Not Knowing Your Neighbors, Sojourner Truth, Toni Morrison and Oprah
My assertion that you don't know your neighbors may be nincompoopish, futile and fueled by Sesame Street indoctrination, but is it inaccurate? I never asserted that you were xenophobic, racist, fecal, that you hadn't traveled or that you didn't feel pathetic, idealistic "luv" for everyone.

I'm not suggesting you're perfect either -- on that we agree. But you're ahead of me in that you don't look at humans "in that way." I often do. But then I open what's known as a book. I find out more about said humans and about myself. This is neither the time nor place to discuss the prison industrial complex, distressing bits of American history and why said history might be more resonant to some than to others. But the aforementioned history, when combined with the "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" of which you speak, becomes part of the tinder that Obama sparks.

I mentioned Sojourner, Toni, Oprah, Jay-Z and Marcus Garvey because I figured that, while you would definitely have missed the New York Times article on black prison statistics, you might have heard about Morrison, Garvey and Truth in school and about the others on television. It was my rambly attempt to explain to you what's happening in this place I like to refer to as reality and why some of your neighbors won't line up to vote for Hillary.

I prefer not to use the term "white trash" when working class white is so readily available.

And as for Hillary being your chola-girl -- I couldn't agree with you more. If Barack Obama were running against Satan himself the Hispanic community would elect Lucifer by a nose.

Posted by: Hillary/Us, Not So Hilarious at March 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Really, I agree with much of the crap you have spewed, Hillary/Us.

But I have said quite enough, and I think we understand each other. I honestly do respect and embrace several of your little tenets.

But this debate cannot continue (because I've already said enough and stand by it).

Moreover, La Wilson, Doyenne of Her Own Blog, shall surely quake with disgust if she has to endure much more. Believe me--I have had opportunity to observe the Wilson Specimen at close-range, and she is a creature of notable taste and decorum. She does not suffer twits lightly (and I say this, of course, as a twit).

Soon, The Wilson will spring for a somewhat upper-scale hotel room wherein we can settle our differences like real men...but I shall not follow you into that potential den of steamy Republican sex, Iniquity, and sundry.

You are marvelous and blessed, Hillary/Us.

May all our little dreams come true. Until then, please refer to what I've already said/posted. And vote for Hillary in November.

Kisses,

Juan de la...

Posted by: Juan de la Gobi at March 5, 2008 11:19 PM

Rapier sharp is what you are Juan De La. If I have been one iota the "twit" you have been, I am indeed more pithy than I dared hope. Thank you for the distraction of our pleasant (for me) exchange(s).

I honestly believe that (given today's trial balloon), that what may come to pass is that Hillary's chocolate will join with Obama's peanut butter to go up against the pain that is McCain. Either way, Hill wins this round (the Democratic candidacy) for sure.

Barry couldn't make the numbers in the big states -- and he just wasn't enough of a cage fighter. I think Hill was definitely holding back on him. Both she and Bill could have brought much more heat to Slamma's door step.

Posted by: Hillary/Us, Not So Hilarious at March 7, 2008 9:08 PM

Please, won't you weigh in on the news? Take your choice:

1. Spitzer.

2. Centcom chief steps down because of Esquire article (April).

3. Germaine Greer says Hillary is bossy and not germane.

4. Ferraro claims race behind Obama's rise.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 11, 2008 6:27 PM

Entropy? I am not sure is you are using that therm correctly. I think of entropy as the heat in a system that is not available to perform work (I a mechanical engineer). How do you define it?

Posted by: Boris Savinkov at March 13, 2008 10:23 PM