At $18, did they bring the bottle to your table and open it for you? Let you taste and approve?

Or did they just bring you a glass full of who knows what?

Between this, Miss Bolton, and Miss Dougherty, you're on my Blog Roll.

Posted by: staghounds staghounds at July 30, 2008 7:22 AM

Ciao Muire,

I understand your bitterness about having wasted a lot of time, money & effort on schooling that led nowhere. Feeding our cherished delusions is one of the last growth industries left in the U.S. Perhaps the only question is how far one has to go before the realization sinks in. In my case I spent a few years chasing the brass ring in L.A. Competing with people who wholeheartedly embrace rom-coms, action, horror, and kung fu satire, let's just say I wasn't a good fit.

My girlfriend co-wrote a short film that recently got into the Tribeca Film Festival. Yeah, a big deal, esp. for the director, who scored a meeting with the Weinsteins' development scout. However this is not all that different from winning a script contest -- you can have all kinds of meetings with big names, but if your stuff isn't "commercially viable", so what? As they say, don't quit your day job.

I still write, but I have no illusions about getting anything produced in the U.S. As for whether independent film exists, I regard "independent" as a relative term, for ex., made without studio backing. It could also be synonymous with "unprofitable".

Carry on,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne Wayne at May 15, 2008 5:13 PM

This is equally true of the majority of MFA programs. They're blatant pyramid scams. I have become a firm advocate of vocational school. People are only going to stop mortaging their futures for a useless degree when there are plenty of high-income, high-status people (or at least people with a lot of breezy self-confidence) out there who don't have a college degree and don't care.

It's too late for ~moi~ but at least I flaunt my CMT.

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at May 16, 2008 1:22 AM

Reading this article, I can't help but think that you want to eat your cake and have it too.You want to make an "independant" film, but then want it to succeed inside of the studio/hollywoood distribution & marketing system.Under those terms, of course there are no "independant filmmakers"
I think it's a bit of an either /or choice : make an independant film that is made as a work of art, OR make a commercial product ready for market.
Now there's no rule that says an independant film can't achieve some commercial success , and commercial products can be chock a block with artistic goodness, but at their hearts, they are either one or the other.

Posted by: rob tough rob tough at May 23, 2008 6:25 PM

ps- yeah, i know, it's "independent" not "independant" :P

Posted by: rob tough rob tough at May 23, 2008 6:33 PM

"If given the chance, could I ever make something as transporting as The Wizard of Oz or La Dolce Vita?

If you want to then you can do it, that's my motto. Peter Weir dropped out of college and became a filmmaker when he walked into a lecture about his favourite book and then the prof. proceeded to tear it to bits and the rest has been very damp film history. Werner Herzog advised Errol morris and his ilk to make films at any cost including 'stealing equipment.' Where there is a will there is a way and yes agree when that will includes a large trust fund it is that much easier!

I know the close relatives of MAJOR studio heads who can't break in like Tarantino and those who are coasting through the industry like a Kitson bag dipped in non GMO flax oil so yeah your last name CAN help

The audience has the final word though and as the visual medium of the big budget film is till unsaturated by the masses unlike music and video clips, and is the ultimate golden ring in the merry go round of fame, riches and everlasting immortality; the silver screen always was and still is the most powerful aspect in the apex of fame so I still want it.

Great essay!

Posted by: SUPER POLAND SUPER POLAND at June 9, 2008 10:46 AM

Your theory is elegance itself. I hadn't noticed the negative symmetry shared by Gibson, Hasselfhof, Lohan, Spears and Wilson until you pointed it out. With Spitzer, the zealous law enforcer caught with prostitutes -- he had surpassed his much admired father. The guilt at having done so must have been overwhelming. Maybe he feels some inner satisfaction at having removed it at last.

You must also be mightily amused by Mel and his family's "private commiseration" with Britney consummated at a Russian restaurant this weekend. It's like the initials WTF aren't big enough for one's amazement at the galactic weirdness of it all.

But what do you make of McGreevey and his newly revealed proclivity for threesomes with his wife-to-be? Does that change your theory at all? I mean, it's one thing if she was deceived by a sexual Quisling. Is it any different if she knew all along and played along? Do you think any of our so-called heroes get out alive, image-wise? Or is the self-immolation inevitable? (Oh, by the way, hot off the presses -- Steve-O of Jackass fame entered the Immolation Zone just this news cycle).

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 17, 2008 11:51 AM

Cintra, you are brilliant and insightful but you are so fucking ugly. I mean good God get a little sun or something, you are so fucking pasty you make a ghost look tan. Put a fucking bag over that ugly mug of yours; you fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. I know you think you were hot in fucking 1991 (which is arguable) be Jesus tap dancing Christ that was a long fucking time ago and you are a fucking beast now. Good God please spare us from you hideous visage, I mean seriously, I know Jewish guys that wouldn't bang you, Hasidic guys even.

Posted by: Isaac Mizrahe Isaac Mizrahe at March 17, 2008 10:59 PM

Hey Mizrahe,

Ugly? Seriously? On exactly what corner do you buy your crack dude? I think you're getting a raw deal. The Cintra is a lot of things: Sometimes infuriating, bionically sarcastic, often highlarious -- but the one thing she's never been is ugly. I'm sorry, almost anything else, I'd hold my tongue -- but she's always been smokin' hot dude -- blazing. You're not even close to reality with that one.

Not that she needs any input on this topic from the likes of me. But I've been following her career for some time now -- so I just had to weigh in...But then again, what kind of gentleman would stoop this low? For shame Isaac -- do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Ms. Wilson -- I'd actually come here to joke (and then go to hell for being out of line) about our new governor's confession that in fact, he'd also been "seeing" someone on the side -- that he'd kept his wife "in the dark" about his affair the same way she'd kept him in the dark about hers. Bla bla more jokes about being blind to the evil that men do and so on.

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 17, 2008 11:34 PM

Methinks "Isaac" is a thwarted authoress now working the edible undies display at Victoria's Secret in NYC, regretting the $2,000 she spent on a pair of mismatched strawberry jam-bags some "doctor" shoved into her tits in Guadalajara, in 1999, you know, to further that literary career.

It wasn't the botched boobies that sunk you, "Isaac," it was the writing. Now shut-up and sell those yummy undies, like a good girl. You have a distempered Shih-Tzu to support.

La Wilson--ugly she ain't. "Isaac" would kill for Wilson's (ostensibly genuine) rack and waistline alone, much less that glowy, 1920s baby-doll look she's been rockin' with the face. The chick knows how to light-up a room just by strolling along, and that's more than most of Hollywood's A-List Airbrushees could dream of. She does piss people off, from time to time, but not one of us can ever truly have it all.

I am a(n) Hasidic Jew and I approve this message.

Posted by: Juan del la Sahara Juan del la Sahara at March 18, 2008 8:40 AM

Issac is usually on my you tube channel calling me a fat whore or posting lyrically intellectual comments such as "get of the niggerjew, jew jew boo" , I guess he became tired of his adult baby service and Womble porn and decided to troll-a-rama over here? Or perhaps all that estrogen in his bottle water leached via heat and melted plastic has turned Issac into a little catty bitch? Or his flesh light for bantams has yet to appear in that plain brown wrapper?

Cintra Wilson is very romantically beautiful apart from being one of the greatest living American writers and essayist. without Cintra Wilson there could be no Diablo Cody and no Super Amanda. She needs no defending but the internet culture still dictates that fans and friends stand their ground.

Bottom line for me is that Sinbad and I have been trying to dodge snipers at The Costco samples booth and we'll both be over the border to North Beach Trader Joes by dusk, safely I hope with one square each in hand dolled out with discernment by the cantankerous Crow, Chelsea's ceramic straightening iron and Eric Clapton's greatest hits in hand.

I am occasionally mistaken for Shoshanna Lonstein's taller calf endowed sister and I approved this message

Posted by: Super Amanda Loves Cintra Wilson! Super Amanda Loves Cintra Wilson! at March 18, 2008 12:25 PM

I look so pretty!!

Posted by: Caligua Hurt Caligua Hurt at March 18, 2008 12:29 PM

Cintra is a great writer. She's like Philip K. Dick, except that he was a man and he worte science fiction and he was a genius and he was a brilliant writer. Besides that they're pretty much the same. Without her there wouldn't be a Super Amanda! I think that statement really, really, really says a whole hell of a lot. I view Cintra as the writing version of Chelsea Handler, without all of the genius of course.

Posted by: Roy Cohen Roy Cohen at March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Ya know, sometimes anagrams are fun. A cool anagram for "Cintra Wilson"?

"Crawl Into Sin".

Don't run, don't walk...crawl.

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara Juan de la Sahara at March 18, 2008 3:24 PM

Hola Juan D,

By the way, what did you think of Barry today -- the speech and all? I'm not trying to draw you into a give and take for my own pleasure -- I'm just curious. Seriously.

It seemed like it did more than the assignment -- which was neutralize the wacky Rev. It was like watching, I don't know Juan -- I felt like I was watching history in the making, like I'd tell people I heard that live. Kind of teary at the end -- I'm not ashamed to admit.

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 18, 2008 5:16 PM

The speech? The SPEECH?

The fact that he needed to make this speech at all--to "spin" his very intimate spiritual and disciplinary relationship with the Jew-hating creator of the 'Audacity of Hope' slogan--is tenuous.

His Kennedyesque flourishes mask a real problem. Substance on many fronts, now, including moral ones.

We all know he has learned to be an oral mimic of both Kennedy and MLK Jr., but the fact remains that he has gathered/co-opted much of his doctrine and his "thrust" from his delerious Pastor/ex-Pastor.

Witnessing history today? Yeah, it's part of history. So was Britney Spears flashing her hoo-haw. History is relative.

No, I was not impressed, beyond his already very studied and calibrated stage-presence, which is now more apparent than ever.

This is the bottom line for me: An unproven pet-rock, fairy-dust candidate is in thick (and has ~been~ in thick) with someone who is not only an ideological racist, but a flat-out racist, which is not only ironic, but vastly disturbing.

If Barrack Obama is his own man, and such a "visionary," an independent thinker...ready to lead the world on all diplomatic and inclusive fronts (as he claims he is), full of wisdom, moxie, and brilliance...AND if he now claims to utterly REPUDIATE these serious & longtime ideological racisms of his mentor, then why did he not have the visionary, independent, thinking "strength" to leave this man's fold the moment he heard such garbage?

That's a question that was not addressed or answered--yet.

Why did he not have the innate motivation and sense to be offended ~before~ and thus leave...and we know without question that dear Barry has heard these strains of thought many, many times.

Why, if he is SO visionary and self-empowered, did he not blanch at these very serious doctrines the first time he heard them and say: "This is fundamentally incompatible with my worldview as a strong leader who determines both policy and practice! I am strong enough to reject this massively flawed thinking. I shall seek less-flawed counsel elsewhere."

Why did he not immediately forge his own way (as any true non-follower ~would~), i.e. find a new church, etc., if he is now so utterly disgusted, as he claims.

Instead, he intially demurred that the man was merely like an "old uncle" (a racist uncle), and he was uncly enough to have influenced Bar to snag the audacious hope title for his crap-tome.

I find it very duplicitous, and these are serious questions.

The irony is that Obama did not want "race" to be part of this campaign (rightly so), but his personal history has begged to differ.

Highly, irrevocably unimpressed. Don't mess with the Jews, baby. Not even remotely.

(Well, you asked).

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara Juan de la Sahara at March 18, 2008 8:07 PM

Juan de la Glass of Cold Water to the Dome,

I certainly did ask you - thanks for that bracing serving of another point of view. It's exactly what the doctor ordered on a day when the whole country, (including me), was crushing hard on B. Funk. I appreciate it buddy.

On a wholly separate note -- RIP Arthur C.

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 18, 2008 10:29 PM

NO! NO! NO! Bear Stearns is not in trouble. Don't move your money from Bear! That's just silly! Don't be silly!

Oh look. Here comes helicopter Ben! Hey there! Gonna get the IMF to dump that gold yet?

Posted by: Jim Cramer Jim Cramer at March 19, 2008 1:06 AM

the speech? the speech was pretty damn honest despite employing the word 'stain.'
Seriously it's the economy and the world bank that people care about, race is for the junior league. My concern is if Obama is going to shouting and emoting all the time what happens when he has to have tea with heads of state, I just can't see his quiet side I guess.

Posted by: Super Amanda Super Amanda at March 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Amanda -- One reason I love this comment area is its unique approach to reality. It's so freeing to be able to say "We all know," as opposed to making one's case by careful reasoning, citing of sources and so on.

I thought someone conservative and pro-Israel like Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic might give you another point of view on the speech. I also thought Juan would prefer that ideological slant. Sullivan said:

What I do know is that it was the right speech, with the right nuance and brave. If America cannot embrace such complexity, then that says more about our current polity than it does about Obama.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 19, 2008 4:02 PM

"someone conservative and pro-Israel like Andrew Sullivan"

I did not say I agreed with the speech, I just said it was 'honest.'
I've spent about nine months debating with racial extremists and nationalists on You Tube and have found it illuminating to listen to people honestly express how they feel about race.

The liberal that is mad at Obama is most likely turning around and paying his illegal immigrant nanny as little as possible. Catholics know that they paid out gazillions to molesters but they don't dare right off the church? I'm still not sure who I'm voting for but at least Obama did not lie about who he is.

I think Israel has the right to exist but they've gone too far and I'm tired of fearing the label of anti-Semite when I want to perhaps critique their apartheid and less than stellar human rights record so I doubt a pro-Israel conservative is going to connect anything for me but I'll check out Sullivan's column anyway.
Cheers

Posted by: Super Amanda Super Amanda at March 19, 2008 7:43 PM

Amanda - Phew. We're on the pretty much the same page re: Israel etc. I feared we were not so I tread carefully -- thus the Andrew Sullivan. As you were...

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 19, 2008 8:25 PM

Y'all are spooking me out. I've been thinking much the same re: Israel (for quite awhile), but from a slightly different angle, perhaps.

Super-A's blunt assessment of Barry's speech was spot-on in many respects. All this stardust and posturing and elegant wordsmithing (and Bary is a star, who postures elegantly with well-hammered words) grows painfully thin under scrutiny. How is he over tea, exactly, in Pakistan, peradventure?

And scrutiny is what he's under. I noted before that, while I prefer Hillary, I do like Barrack Hussein. But I like him less these days, and one of the reasons is due to his increasing arrogance (not necessarily the "good" kind of arrogance, but the "sense of entitlement" arrogance), and also for this bizarre situation with the dear Reverend Wright.

Barry is intimately close to this man, and has been so, even while in senatorial office. He has heard this man's anti-Semitic screeds, and yet he did not (apparently) have the vision or backbone to either challenge these dangerous ideologies heretofore, or distance himself from a man whose beliefs he now conveniently and vehemently "repudiates." Why did he not "repudiate" long ago? Did he not feel strong enough, or independent enough? Not very presidential. No, not at all. Wright has held him in some sort of thrall, it seems, to the point wherein Obama "borrowed" the very name of his hit soccer-mom book, 'The Audacity of Hope' from the lore of Wright himself.

I thought it noble of Barry to have not rejected his Pastor outright, or to have condemned the man categorically. His loyalty was very reasoned on that count, I think.

But what I would have liked to have heard was something along the lines of: "I have heard these divisive and dangerous anti-Semitic and anti-American words from Pastor Wright on various occasions, and while I still admire and respect the man, I have personally taken issue with him about these very things on occasions in the past. In a spirit of fraternal discourse, I have challenged him then about these matters that I repudiated then, and which I now repudiate."

He did not say that, nor (apparently) did he ever challenge his Pastor. That is disturbing. I know the structure of African-American churches--not hierarchical and dominating in Vat-cat way, but rather quite fraternal in terms of leadership, at least in principle. Autonomous churches, by and large. Again, the (apparent) fact that Bar allowed himself to encounter and hear these ideologies unchallenged, by a mentor, speaks of a man who lacks independent vision (and perhaps) backbone on some very key issues. Not good in any scenario, and far worse if one is shooting for the Oval Office under the "I am the new, new bringer of unity & change & hope" slogan.

So it all is a muddle for him, but the public (that portion that cares, and a lot of people in the Dem Party are "caring" right now, mobilization-wise) needs to know these things. This will sting Obama terribly in a duel with McCain and indeed already has. It portends a great deal as to whether he is fit to win the GE, viable to win it. His little lead against Hillary has already eroded due to this, and the erosion is more bracing when juxtaposed against McCain.

There has long been a very strong antagonism in black churches against the Jewish community. Not a hatred--I wouldn't go that far. Long, long ago (in a galaxy that seems far, far away) I sat on an ecumenical task force and this sense of antagonism held by ecclesio-centered black communities for the Jewish communities has always been palpable. Let's just say that black pastors and leaders have pervasively put themselves at odds with the Jews for reasons stemming from perceived "disadvantages," almost always ( but hardly exclusively) in urban settings. It's not hatred (for I find it very difficult to believe, from my experience, that the black community "hates" anyone), but rather "anger," as Barry said.

Well, the problem of unity is certainly not being addressed by Obama's hero/mentor Wright, and Barry's "spin speech" is really so much toothpaste trying to be funneled back into the tube, as I see it.

Israel has the right to exist, IMO, mainly because it...um...~exists~ and because we are facing much bigger socio-politico-economic "troubles" in our dealings with the Muslim world. Serious, obvious troubles. That being said, there must be continued and ongoing efforts to heal the breach between Israel and the Muslim nations, and the US must be at the vanguard of this effort--along the lines/intentions of a Jimmy Carter (but one who is an actual politician and not just a "nice nice man" {or woman}).

For myriad reasons, our current economic and globally diplomatic (and, to an extent, even environmental) woes are bound-up in big knots with this endless Middle Eastern/Far Eastern drama, and that is why Obama's strange bedfellowing with Wright is (and should be) alarming.

It's sad that so many pundits, even in the Dem Party, are saying that the current battle between Hill and Bar is just plain bad for the country (the implication always seeming to be that one them--uh, HILLARY--needs to step down and leave the fray). I think THAT's disgusting. The Dem Party has been witless and flaky long before this epic duel between our first potential female or African-American Prez nominee.

Obama has made race-elations a BIG issue now--he himself has done it...via his intimate association with (and discipleship at the feet of) a vocally anti-Semitic black leader. This not negligible. Not only does it make it much harder for him to get the nomination, but, to my mind, makes it nigh impossible for him to beat McCain in the GE. If Hillary wins big in Pennsylvania (which seems a lockety-lock) and something is made of these Florida-Michigan redo notions, then it is has now become far more easy to envision her gaining the nomination by a Super-delegate nose-hair.

Ideally, it may actually be coming to the point wherein (if you are a Democrat), you'll need to start genuinely shouting--and loudly--for that 'dream-ticket' of Hill/Obama-Obama/Hill, if we are to spruce-up even a corner of this fading nation's luster once again. Hillary has already shown herself open to such a ticket (wise move), while Obama has derided the idea.

At this point, he may need to humble himself a tad, detach from the shiny (but misleading) glare of the klieg lights, and ponder the idea. It would be a great opportunity for him to really season himself (and that's what he needs most--some hard-core seasoning) and then go on to take the presidency for himself in eight years. I'd vote for him at that time, under such conditions. You bet I would.

Then again, what the hell do I know about anything, and thank Zeus that the American People can still surprise you (in a good way). I have to believe at least that much.

Ciao, kittens. Good discourse in these here parts. No mistake.

And sad sad sad to hear of A.C. Clarke, Hillary/Us. I'm with you on that. Do you know that a he was the "question" to an "answer" on Jeopardy last night!??? For a moment I thought Alex was going to say a quick "in memoriam" when the contestant came up with his name, but then I remembered--duh--that the show was taped weeks ago. Hollywood--ever behind the times, but ever a bedraggled soothsayer.

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara Juan de la Sahara at March 20, 2008 10:39 AM

My lovely quote about Cintar is coming up in google serches-see? I kill Issacs dead, like glitter RAID.

I think actually I know I'm voting for the democratic front runner (NADER BE DAMNED!) I had not heard the comments about Natalie Holloway until last night, which were pretty atrocious but disowning the guy would be hypocritical even if it may end up costing him the race now.

Note to self: have no one attached to my campaign who is not doing a fair impression of the lead in the rock opera TOMMY when I run for office!

Let's see what happens.

This is how Hot Rod Hedi and I feel about the war in Iraq by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwe4Nv9N5lw

Posted by: Super Amanda Super Amanda at March 20, 2008 7:38 PM

Whoooo!

Super-A, you really are a woman of passion, substance, and then some. And them some after that.

BTW, here's a piece from the LA Times, from a black man (self-described) and his thoughts about Barry's speech. Just another opinon, but he hit all the notes I'd been trying to sing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,4038350.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

Ciao, Dregularly Good People!

Juan

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara Juan de la Sahara at March 21, 2008 12:21 AM

Juan De La, Super Amanda, Ms. Wilson et al,

Michael Myers, the author of the article recommended by Juan, is an interesting thinker and founder of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. (He reorganized the New York City Civil Rights Coalition into a more cohesive organization). The fundamental differences between his style of problem solving and Barry's are why we have elections. The conservative approach to race is to be above it, so to speak. So noted.

Let's take a closer look at Myers, his organization and its backers.

The Manhattan Institute is a think tank to which Tamar Jacoby, assistant secretary of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, belongs. The Institute is funded by organizations such as the Scaife Foundation (funds conservative causes), Bristol Meyers Squibb (large pharmaceutical company) and Exxon Mobil (large oil company). The Institute was against the federal government negotiating for lower drug prices in the Medicare Part D prescription program. They opposed federal regulation of drugs like Vioxx.

That's why the VA pays lower prices for drugs than, say, my mom. Frank Lichtenberg, Institute member and Columbia University business professor, believes that drug price negotiation is dangerous to veterans. George Kelling was co-author of the seminal Atlantic magazine article "Broken Windows" that was the seed for Mayor Rudy Giulani's police strategy of community policing.

Insitute members who also belong to the coalition include Abigail Thernstrom -- noted affirmative action opponent and thinker on race politics. Other Institute members include William Kristol -- conservative pundit, David Asman -- Fox News anchor and Peggy Noonan, former special assistant to Ronald Reagan.

My point, which I think I share with both Myers, Juan and Obama -- is that, at the end of the day, it's not the color of your skin -- but the content of your character (and that of your board of directors), that matters most. Myers may be black, but he is part of a larger societal program with which, for the most part, I disagree. But thanks, Juan, for pointing out this column, it was illuminating. And thanks to you all for, you know, the exchange of thoughts. It's just great.

Posted by: Hillary/Us Hillary/Us at March 21, 2008 5:33 AM

Yes, there are issues with the NAACP (I've always had 'em), but Myers's piece struck such a tone of truth (next Obama book, "The Tone of Truth") that I felt his viewpoint should be at least seen, and sweet sassy Hillary/Us came through.

Yeah, babe. You are exactly right, and well said. But this was one tim ein which I really felt that the NAACP (and Myers, en particulier) sort of "got it right."

On we go...to what? A better USA--good grief, let's make it happen.

Posted by: JdlS JdlS at March 22, 2008 7:25 PM

Bill Richardson is the first...Finally, a g'rup speaks.

Hopefully the rest of the superdels are listening.

Barry is on vacation till Wednesday -- so hopefully we won't help John McCain's campaign between now and then.

Posted by: H/U? H/U? at March 24, 2008 1:29 AM

Crikey, people!
I thank ye most humbly for defending my honor and visage. But that's really not what's important right now. What's important right now is that Amanda has fantastic tits. I think we can all agree on this.

Posted by: Cintra Loves Amanda Wilson Cintra Loves Amanda Wilson at March 29, 2008 1:46 AM

Hey wait, do you think Isaac Mizrahe thought that picture of John Hurt doing the Caligula drag act from I, Claudius on this post was ME?

That would be, like, the compliment of my LIFE. OMG.

That, and/or shining the combat boots of Rachel Maddow, which I am not worthy to do.

Life is good.

Posted by: Cintra "Queer for Rachel Maddow" Wilson Cintra "Queer for Rachel Maddow" Wilson at March 29, 2008 2:05 AM

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

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

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

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

She's ending it big -- nice.

Posted by: Hillary/Us or Hilarious 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 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 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 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! 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Boris Savinkov at March 13, 2008 10:23 PM

I don't know how the numbers crunch in Iowa, but my take on Obama's win has more to do with Boomer Fatigue than fear of