Your review is dead on. It sadly doesn't surprise me that most people I've spoken to who have seen it, and all the reviewers I've read, gush on about the quality and ignore the content.

Although it's true that in real life, few villains- like few tycoons- are motivated by money. The money might be a counter or a token or a tool, but real criminals are powered by the act of hurting others.

This Joker is a very good portrayal of genuine bad people.

Still I agree with you about the saturation in violence of movies. Enough already.

Posted by: staghounds staghounds at September 11, 2008 10:15 PM

I don't get the joke. I do get that those, like yourself, who use humor to illuminate the world (and you do illuminate it) have a duty to hoist each side upon their specific petard when deserved. In other words, you can't really play favorites. So, good on you for your even handed lampooning. But whose balls, exactly (to use an expression often heard on the Sopranos), are you breaking? This is my fault for sure -- I'm lame -- but I just don't understand. Is it that Chris Matthews always big ups the Clintons? Is it that the Dems, like addicts, are more about feelings than facts? Throw me a bone here.

Posted by: JokeAnon JokeAnon at September 1, 2008 6:54 PM

Here's the bone: The piece was a lampoon on MSNBC's, particularly Chris Matthews, obsession with the Clintons. The whole media is obsessed with the Clintons, whether they are doing anything or not. I find it annoying. Especially when real news is happening.

So the joke is that they are addicted to the Clintons, but with them gone from the race they must now go somewhere else to get high.

Chris Matthews has a love/hate relationship with the Clintons, he's never been able to get over Bill Clinton calling himself "the comeback kid" after coming in second in the 1992 Iowa caucuses and he has some serious issues with Hillary to the point of it being disturbing (as do the rest of the media). When the Clintons are up, they drown them in praise and call them unstoppable. When they are down, they beat the crap out of them. Either way. They want their fix.

Hence the joke!

Hope that helps!

Posted by: The Black Snob The Black Snob at September 6, 2008 2:37 PM

If it were nothing, then the Jihadis wouldn't be choosing to fight too.

Maybe the GIs, or the Jihadis, are just targets. Those young Germans on the beaches of Normandy didn't die for nothing, they died so the forces of liberty could win. As did their little sisters roasted in Hamburg.

But it's not nothing.

And I liked the dwarf story.

Posted by: staghounds staghounds at July 29, 2008 1:26 PM

any black man with an ounce of sense would be aware of the severe repercussions should he try to harm the lily white.

Paris doesn't have a history of lynching, darlin'. The Africans I have met there have all considered themselves free and equal citizens, if they have ever considered the matter at all. It's most refreshing.

Great story!

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at August 6, 2008 4:35 PM

Point well taken, Pretty Lady, but there is still this. France has a history of racism, especially toward North Africans and other Africans colonialized by France. To ignore this would be irresponsible. France claims an official policy that all French people are French, and distinctions such as Algerian-French or Mauritanian-French do not exist. This policy sometimes blinds the people to reality. France do not have the same baggage as the US, but they do have baggage.

France is a beautiful country with a wonderful culture. They do a lot of things a lot better than we do. But like the US, they are not beyond reproach.

The main point being, who wants to be molested by any creepy guy in leopard print bikini panties. So yuck.

Posted by: Muire Dougherty Muire Dougherty at August 9, 2008 11:00 AM

We are in full agreement on that issue. I, too, learned the hard way that testosterone is a deadly poison, which renders the victim incapable of understanding any English other than "F*ck off, you creep," or any French other than "Laisse-moi, du con," delivered in a sufficiently lethal tone of voice.

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at August 9, 2008 11:38 PM

3 words, snob: hot comb alopecia. don't do it! you'll be walking round looking like danny devito about the head! lol.

Posted by: Me Me at July 3, 2008 10:48 PM

Going natural was the best/worst thing ever. No more $50 for a perm or a press n' curl. But about every three weeks I have to spend four hours twisting up my hair. While it's only shoulder length curly, straight it would go down to the middle of my back. I forgot my hair could grow this much, but this is about how long it was when I was a kid.

But I'm always at war with my head because the white folks, Indians and Negroes in my bloodline keep fighting over what hair I should have. The front is Halle Berry and the back is Angela Davis. The sides are Bushwick Bill -- My hair is playin' tricks on me.

At least twisted up it almost all looks the same.

Posted by: The Black Snob The Black Snob at July 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Amen snob! I have the same damn problem.

Posted by: Raina Raina at July 4, 2008 2:31 PM

(found you randomly through Stumble Upon.)

It's a terrible thing, but true, that the new Ms. O probably couldn't get away with any form of natural hair. I kinda hope she does it after the election, just to be spiteful. But, maybe she actually likes it the way it is.

But, white girls can't get away with natural hair either. If it's straight, it should be curled for special events. If it's curly, you should straighten it, or you're a hideous cow. (See: Princess Diaries) Anyone else remember when every other white girl in school had a nasty, smelly perm? And, if it's wavy or doesn't respond well to discipline, or worse, you don't blow dry it every day, you'll never get by in life.

I look forward to the day when women of all shades can do whatever stupid thing they want to their hair... so long as I don't have to blow dry mine or put product in it.

Posted by: brenna brenna at July 22, 2008 10:53 PM

yes! add to that, gordon ramsey going into doctors' offices disguised as an overweight woman, setting them straight on how patients are the subjects and not the objects.

or gordon ramsey attending gallery openings, and busting up the little gallerist-sidle-up to the rich collector-looking dewd, by insisting on interpreting the white walls racially.

or gordon ramsey, breaking into the last segment of a hetero date, and observing the poor technique of the hapless male, pointing out to him, with much contempt and profanity, where the clitoris and the g-spot are, and demonstrating how to touch a breast effectively.

I like it!

Posted by: claire claire at July 14, 2008 6:12 PM

a. saw you in "So I Married An Axe Murderer,"
b. remembered you borrowing my French book in Mr. Peterson's class for six weeks while you added funny captions to the pictures and I dropped dismally behind.
c. googled you, read the blog, had a point to make, forgot it.
d. remembered the point (dollar so weak, the blowjob will become the standard unit of american currency)
e. realized point off-color, not stellar contribution, put "charlie don't surf" on the turntable in honor of the sidebar about Osama
f. and said "fuckit," hit the submit button anyway.

Posted by: Philip Williamson Philip Williamson at May 11, 2008 3:09 AM

It's discomforting how, typically women, even vote for her. In Hillary you haven't a confident, intelligent, and warm person, but, as Paglia so aptly titled one of her editorials, 'the first drag queen'. The wiser know psychologically Clinton is not 'feminine' in any sense of the word. Sans the pantsuit, slightly extended hair, ear rings, and contrived regality, she's a male politicial aristocrat in drag.

Now I can just see Cintra, a 30' Apple Display the only source of illumination late at night, organizing an assortment of male wigs on a Photoshop canvas (which includes Trump's comb over) adjacent various tailored suits, mastering the possibilities.

Well, if she doesn't I eventually will. I'll also go out the same night, a warm smile at Casa Nueva greeting any female interested in casual conversation, while sipping a raspberry microbrew , because men can also be as strong as women.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 11, 2008 4:52 PM

There's a difference between knowing your inner monster, understanding it, and keeping it chained up in the basement--for consultation before you go toe-to-toe with Karl Rove--and trying to turn the world into a basement. My suspicion is that Obama has got a basilisk in his basement, but that he only calls it forth when diplomacy fails.

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at May 11, 2008 6:14 PM

(Brother Philip's head rests in his hand, sighingly..)

How do I put this. When Hillary leaves the stage, she wants to chain Karl Rove in her basement, a place where human intimacy simply does not exist but power does, unless Kenneth Starr is assisting in throttling her husband which is just enchanting, and that's the bottom line.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 11, 2008 6:28 PM

So, Sir Philip, when all the flotsam and jetsam is removed, what you are basically saying is:

"Hillary is a bitch."

How utterly original.

Look, I know the woman has her flaws; we all know she has her flaws. They've been well-documented. She is not averse to "stretching the truth" when it suits her. She is aggressive to the point of stepping upon someone's cerebral cortex (and their lovely testicles) if these things get in the way of her ambitions.

Yes, I consider those traits to be flaws, and they are the only flaws that can be generally attributed to her, as far as we know...in terms of hardcore documentation and (egad!) "rumor."

This being noted, these particular flaws are the sorts of flaws that often mark (or mar) the characters of highly successful, driven people.

(Who are usually, but not always, men).

I agree with you about her flawed status, but find your ostensible Hillary-is-Just-a-Big-Ole-Bitch smokescreen to be pure misogyny. Moreover, it is pedestrian.

No matter what one thinks of her, it is wiser to remember that, ~unlike~ many other members of The Flawed, she is an accomplished, extremely intelligent, successful, and formidable human being of noteworthy character. Debate the quality of her character all you wish, but there's no question that she ~has~ one.

Her status as a potent, worthy human being in the public sphere is demonstrable (Pun intended for your benefit, Philip--there's a "demon" and *almost* a "monster" in that one word, so how convenient is that for your purposes? I just indulged you with buckets of shiny black rose petals. Take the gift).

But wait, there's more!

In delineating your tu'penny/ha'penny Hillary =Bitch "dogma," you made her perceived lack of "femininity" a corollary to your general idea.

Ahem...are you serious?

You want more culturally, traditionally ~feminine~ "monsters," Sir Philip?

Look no further than to the lovely ladies of the Utah Church of God's Fundamentalist Bible Truth, Sundry & What-Not.

They are very feminine, Phillip.

Ultra-fem. Right down to their Laura Ingalls color-coded prairie dresses and right up to their Dippity-Do-Dah-Day tsunami-bangs. And their femininity is all the more delicious due to their willingness to let their pubescent and pre-pubescent daughters be whalloped in the gazzoo by any number of "husbands."

Spare us the commentary on what constitutes your world-class vision of "femininity." Better yet, spare yourself. Monsters, indeed, can be found in gingham and gunny-sacks, with purty JeeZuss-hair and hypnotic, brain-fried mouse-voices.

Think about it, before dithering-about and making one case or another about ~one~ particular woman's perceived femininity and its overall value.

As for Camille Paglia, that person has not had a truly relevant, compelling light-bulb appear o'er her addled head in two decades. I can't think of a pundit more out of touch with reality than Paglia--save, perhaps, Coulter, Ann.

Of course, this is only my personal opinion, but I don't think I share it ~en seul.~

So Barry goes into the gauntlet of all gauntlets. Fiat Lux. (Moonbeams and fairy-dust, as well). I'll vote for him, even though he's single-handedly banished forever the thrilling memory of the Pet Rock.

And Cintra...by all the gods: Hillary's name is spelled with two "Ls," not one. You're brilliant and you are a journalist. Snap-to!

Posted by: "Where is Regan?" (She's in Here...with US) "Where is Regan?" (She's in Here...with US) at May 12, 2008 4:41 PM

People, you are grossly confusing the issue. The problem is not that Hillary is a bitch, nor is it her femininity or lack thereof. It is that her overweening will to power trumps all aspects of her judgment.

We all know that she voted for the Iraq war because of a cynical calculation that she could not afford to be seen as a lily-livered, feminine pacifist and get elected President. That was the extent of her calculation; she didn't even bother to read the bleedin' report. Her recent comments about 'hardworking, stupid white people are for me' can be put down to that same egoistic cynicism, minus the finesse they might have had if she weren't running desperate. That really is the way her brain works.

Politicians have to be pragmatic, they have to be strategic, and they have to fight when necessary. But I do not want someone running this country whose ego is their ONLY compass.

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at May 13, 2008 6:04 PM

I will tread the ground between Sir Phillip's perhaps troubling portrayal of Hillary and Where Is Regan's trenchant rebuttal thereof. Hillary is a true American hero betrayed by magic (when Barack Obama speaks, flowers bloom - I've seen it) and the double-edged sword of her last name.

Lend me your ears, for I come here not to bury Hillary but to praise her.

Imagine, if you will, certain women, biding their time for decades. Title IX passed; Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisolm and Geraldine Ferraro spoke; the Equal Rights Amendment failed; Roe v. Wade continues a slow, almost cinematic dissolve and thus we get, through dozens of other, similar close shaves and near misses over the years -- to now. A woman named Hillary finally has a chance to be president.

Then, glance with me at her years spent being the wife of "America's first black president," William Jefferson Clinton. Only a glance though, for this is, after all, Hillary's eulogy. She has probably spent more time smiling at Martin Luther King day recitals, working to help African-American interests and forging relationships with various parts of that community than Obama has spent breathing. (That's only a slight exaggeration). And then there is everything else magnificent that she is and has done. This includes what people refer to as her "flaws." As many have noted, I'd take Hillary over Barack in an back alley brawl any day of the week.

So imagine her fury when one of her own, if you will, Obama -- comes to take away the only thing other than Chelsea that has made her life worth living for the past few decades -- the chance to be president. You too, my friend, might feel a little righteous fury in her position. She's no bitch -- she's an angry and superbly capable human being doing her damnedest to win.

But this, my friends, is no back alley brawl on the water front of our imaginations. This is a presidential race. Whomever wins that race will be one of the most powerful people on the planet. In addition to the other mechanisms used to pick this person -- the speech is a primary tool. Hillary was defeated by Barack's ability to create a group-think via speeches, which led some elite Democrat operatives to visualize a non-Hillary world and then jump ship. You see, sans Clinton, the Democrat ranks open up. Lots of people who otherwise have to remain in lockstep get to increase their power and significance. With her comes the stagnation of Clinton-era debts paid and alliances forged. With Obama -- a large cadre of the political class receives a promotion. You can almost hear them thinking -- John McCain is no Bush, either senior or junior. He's a 100 years old and he has the glass jaw of his temper, his druggy wife... surely we can beat him.

Then you take one look at Barry, hear him speak or watch him play basketball and boom. Another Hillary vote bites the dust.

This is the history that plays against her. This is how being a friend of Bill's hurts her. This is the double-edge sword of her provenance. On the one hand -- it makes her a hard target. On the other hand, it encourages treason in the ranks by the ambitious. This is the geometry of how Obama really got the upper hand.

All Barack had to do was close the deal every time he spoke, and he did that in spades (no pun intended). So toast Hillary as she becomes an eminence grise in the Senate. Imagine the stones it will take to smile in the public eye as she concedes defeat and know that, as you watch her, you are in the presence of excellence.

Posted by: Hillary/Us? Not Hilarious Hillary/Us? Not Hilarious at May 13, 2008 6:16 PM

"Thoughts."

'Pretty Lady' wrote:

>It is that her overweening will to power trumps all aspects of >her judgment.

Rubbish. So, are you saying that a person who seeks a position of great power should not ~have~ power, or ~display~ power, or even ~want~ power?

POOF!

Plus, when you aver that Hillary's judgment is deficient in "all" aspects, that is a pretty silly slice of "overweening," eh?

"ALL"?

"ALL" of her judgment (and "all" means every single judgment) is trumped or awry?

"ALL"?

Please. Ask your doctor if Plavix is right for you.

And Hillary/Us...WHULL!

What a treacly paean you composed. I'll pay you sixty bucks to write my eulogy. Deal?

Yeah, you are correct about many things. Anyone who mentions Ms. Chisolm merits serious veneration.

That aside, Obama skated-through this battle because millions of bored-yet-dreamy, upper-middly Oprah-watchers (whose husbands' equity-lines are about to be yanked to their ankles) are fantasizing about how hopefully audacious Barry might be in the sack.

There. I said it. (Oh, the RAW humanity! So COMMON!).

In a nation of upper-lefties that secretly lick their lips for even the most vapid shred of news about Britney Spears' latest bowel-movement, we should not indeed be stunned that Obama could enthrall so many boobs with one vague-yet-spit-polished "speech" after another.

Good for him. There are many positive by-products of this Dem0-battle. More people are voting (even if it is all a bit of American Idol-ish legerdemain). More people are involved.

But I'll tell you: one so-called "working-class" person is smarter and more sensible than thirty Jazzercized dingbats pushing designer strollers and "stressing" because they don't know, exactly, how best to use their Blackberries.

"GAWD! I'm going to have a panic attack! Barry Obama save us ALL with your darling speeches!"

Anyhow, I'll vote for the cipher, because we need not only to whisk some serious Demo-roux into worthy existence, but we need to think about how the Supreme Court is going to be (hopefully) stacked/re-configured.

No one is talking about that, much, and I think people need to be talking about that.

Go Barry.

Posted by: Keep Away...The Sow is MINE Keep Away...The Sow is MINE at May 14, 2008 1:49 AM

"So, Sir Philip, when all the flotsam and jetsam is removed, what you are basically saying is:"

So basically after guessing what point you are struggling to make, what you are basically saying is flotsam and jetsam.

"Hillary is a bitch. How utterly original."

Bitchiness means fettered hair, this is recognized even in Emo subculture. Bitch genuinely is something more than a soprano, and sometimes more than an unforgettable one night stand. Bitch is in the ears and eyes of all however, is a woman's militarized radiant warmph, instantly ready to induce headaches in men over what is thought to be 'insensitivity'. It's also to men, hot. By odd contrast, to watch Clinton's temperament flare behind closed doors must be as dry ice evaporating in lukewarm water.

Now my point was concisely and thoughtfully wrote for ease of reading that Hillary is never a bitch, but as Rove and Thatcher a monumentally insensitive and entitled bastard, sort of deceptive but overtly shallow human ugliness Biblical passages scare children about.

My stronger point is this shouldn't be pointed out to people, particularly female, who are expected to intuitively grasp what positive female characteristics. That is, not the worst of males. But apparently making the same mistake with a male adaquecy-driven drag queen they make with men is something of a cultural oddity at the moment. It cannot end soon enough.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 3:47 AM

"People, you are grossly confusing the issue. The problem is not that Hillary is a bitch, nor is it her femininity or lack thereof. It is that her overweening will to power trumps all aspects of her judgment."

A distinct characteristic of males, quite literally the worst, and never one to endorse to be sure. Especially in a pantsuit wearing middle aged woman.

"Politicians have to be pragmatic, they have to be strategic, and they have to fight when necessary. But I do not want someone running this country whose ego is their ONLY compass. "

I think it would be poetic justice to have someone with female plumbing strong arm Iran's theocracy with it's atrocious human rights, but that's the extent of any remotely positive sentiment toward Hillarious A'ngst Clinton II. And like all those positive sentiments, it's perverse.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 4:02 AM

"Rubbish. So, are you saying that a person who seeks a position of great power should not ~have~ power, or ~display~ power, or even ~want~ power?"

You are voting for Clinton. We get the idea. But you don't grasp her motive for running, really quite obvious though with a little insight applied: it's completely self-centered. Does this mean Obama isn't? A visible difference exists between someone radiating dignity and narcissism. The superficial the contrived and the shallow are always indicate it's presence. By contrast, his class and character to other political charlatans is notable to say nothing of his genuinely uncontrived presidential temperament and manner. His record is also pristine, Clinton's is extensive but absent substance. America rejects itself by rejecting someone fundamentally like him.

You can be forgiven because women aren't expected to 'get it' why some males preoccupy their time with nothing but validating their adequacy as males. Everyone after World War II is supposed to however, oppose it. Now, if you don't mind, please?

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 4:36 AM

Apologies for the missing words, my wireless keyboard is being insensitive.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 4:42 AM

[quote]I will tread the ground between Sir Phillip's perhaps troubling portrayal of Hillary and Where Is Regan's trenchant rebuttal thereof.[/quote] No, I fully agree with you there's nothing magical or enchanting about Hillary and to her credit sorcery either..

"Hillary is a true American hero betrayed by magic (when Barack Obama speaks, flowers bloom - I've seen it) and the double-edged sword of her last name."

When Obama speaks, he does so in a mature and thoughtful way, it's endearing as most of us do this in front of people naturally.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 5:06 AM

Pah, thought this used common forum tags, isn't there a preview option? = /

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 14, 2008 5:11 AM

Oprah watchers? Whatever helps you get to sleep at night, Keep away, the sow is MINE.

I'll tell you one thing though -- the chromatically mysterious "working class" voters of West Virginia who rallied behind Hillary would never, ever vote for Obama OR watch Oprah -- so you may have made a small, but cogent point regarding who is and who isn't for Barry. Let's be honest, neither Barry nor Oprah nor anyone who resembles them should accidentally run out of gas at night anywhere near these small burgs. Point taken.

That's a very old point, though, one that Barry seems on the verge of finally decoding. Maybe the hallowed working class will like Edwards better -- heck, according to NPR, 7% of them voted for Edwards even though he wasn't on the ticket...

Posted by: Hilary/Us. Not Hilarious Hilary/Us. Not Hilarious at May 14, 2008 9:47 PM

So, are you saying that a person who seeks a position of great power should not ~have~ power, or ~display~ power, or even ~want~ power?

No. And you know that's not what I said.

The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded to the person who most-successfully defies gender stereotyping, thus providing vicarious wish-fulfilment to frustrated female bloggers everywhere. It is an ACTUAL JOB with ACTUAL POWER to affect ACTUAL LIVES. And someone who values power over EVERYTHING ELSE--including the lives of the people they sacrifice in initiating, supporting and maintaining a war, for no other reason than a ~display of power~ is an ACTUAL MONSTER. There's a thing called 'balance.' If a will to power is not tempered by something beyond the ego, whether it be a moral code, a Higher Self, or just a pathological fear of appearing tacky, it is a purely destructive force, and must be opposed by anyone with a conscience.

The fact that you would grossly twist my words to support your display of self-indulgent but empty rhetorical flourishes causes me to suspect that you have some unresolved power issues yourself. Grow up. Maybe ~you~ can be the first female President.

Posted by: Pretty Lady Pretty Lady at May 16, 2008 1:12 AM

Pretty Lady -- you rock.

Posted by: Hillary/Us? Or Hilarious Hillary/Us? Or Hilarious at May 16, 2008 9:03 PM

Awww, Pretty Lady, don't get your pretty li'l kickers all in a bind.

I mean, it's not as if anyone were launching a frontal attack at the very spleen you seem so intent upon protecting. Your organs are quite safe.

That being said, you still can't seem to swing your cerebral pendulum away from using/abusing "absolutes" in your statements.

You said:

[someone who values power over EVERYTHING ELSE--including the lives of the people they sacrifice in initiating, supporting and maintaining a war, for no other reason than a ~display of power~ is an ACTUAL MONSTER.]

Whull! One might conveniently apply that remonstance to Dubya, of course, but within this context, you clearly are apllying this to Hillary Clinton.

The fact remains that you have no proof whatsoever that ~this~ is what Hillary (or Dubya, for that matter) truly, utterly, absolutely (and actually) feels/felt in the fluttering pink boudoir(s) of their hearts. No proof.

Pure conjecture. Speculation. Irrelevance.

You cannot know the absolutism to which any of these players, in terms of ACTUAL personal intent, committed to these decisions, thereby rendering them ACTUAL MONSTERS.

It takes not the flimsiest of rhetorical "flourishes" to indicate that absolutist statements about an individual are spurious, at best.

But what you've got going for you, Pretty Lady, is some wonderfully righteous ire. And that...I can admire.

But here's a caveat:

Righteous ire kills far more than it inspires.

(Copyright 'Give Us Time' 2008, via CW Dregublog).

(Whah! I think I'm going to trademark that bit. I may have read that somewhere before--not excluding the possibility, mind you--but I don't think so. I really think that I just now made that shit up).

The grand thing, Pretty Lady, is that your passion is stirred, and that (at least in this case) is a glorious thing--right 0r wrong though you might be.

Your end-trail burblings about my own hypothetical "power" issues are, sadly, not up to the same tenable speed (in terms of debate) as some of your other, more effluvient protestations. But you remain...Magnificent and as Pretty as U Want 2 Be.

And Hillary/Us...what horrid depths of emasculation have smashed into your being? What vile enchanter has snatched the radiant rosette from betwixt your normally steaming (yet gallant) horns?

We all need to lighten up. I suspect we are all crammed on a "page" more philosophically and politically more acceptable than we think.

Yah.

Posted by: Give Us Time! Give Us Time! at May 17, 2008 2:47 AM

"We all need to lighten up. I suspect we are all crammed on a "page" more philosophically and politically more acceptable than we think."

Then of course there's a childlike, barely readable mess you struggle so ever hard at the keyboard with, for only someone supremely compassionate to read and respond and get rewarded by louder, more unsatisfied sounds directed at them.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 17, 2008 1:13 PM

"You cannot know the absolutism to which any of these players, in terms of ACTUAL personal intent, committed to these decisions, thereby rendering them ACTUAL MONSTERS."

It's called intelligence and educated insight, an essential life skill to be sure. Try it sometime, after you master third grade English, that is.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 17, 2008 1:22 PM

Sir Philip said: [It's called intelligence and educated insight, an essential life skill to be sure. Try it sometime, after you master third grade English, that is.]

No, Sir Philip, Gallant Knight of the Somewhat Oblong and Abstruse Table.

The particularly absolutist statments made are not (in this case) conveniently categorized as a matter of intelligence, nor "educated insight."

They are pure hyperbole--speculation and conjecture based upon passions: both guided and misguided. Albeit, they are seasoned with the spice of peppery passions. That's nice. But they are not objective.

And I vow to surge-my-way through third-grade English if you vow to master the wealth of remedial "Dick, Jane & Spot" literature.

Fair enough?

Be happy, everyone. We have a fair-to-middling chance to see a Dem in office in November. I think our bloggy thrashings herein are interesting, but they are also disturbingly symptomatic of the very "in-house" nonsense that might make that possibility rather slim. None of us want that.

Not I, of course.

Ta!

May Truth and Goodness (and Fairy Dust) win the proverbial day.

Posted by: Fear The Priest! Fear The Priest! at May 19, 2008 11:22 PM

No no, I meant actually make sense. American Politics is actually a popularity contest like American Idol, except the voters should be embarrassed. So a mess really isn't required, as 90% voting for Hillary just want a caricature of a woman center stage, while 100% voting for Obama just want well, someone passably human.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 20, 2008 2:49 AM

Sir Philip, I think it is safe to say that Hillary is, indeed, a real woman in the strictest physiological sense of that term. Yep, she's female.

By implying that Hillary is merely a "caricature of a woman," you unwittingly reveal your own reliance on caricatures. To say that Hillary is a "caricature of a woman" (much less that people who vote for her are enamored of a caricature), is, frankly, absurdist.

So, if Hillary does not fit ~your~ caricature of a woman (center stage), which feminine caricature would you prefer? You can't have it both ways, saying things like that.

Agree (somewhat) about the American Idolism aspect of the election process, at least in how it plays-out re: Media perception. Does this make Simon, Paula, and the Other One "superdelegates"?

(Or, esp. in Paula's case, superdegenerates?)

Vote Nader!

Posted by: Lick me! Lick ME! Lick me! Lick ME! at May 20, 2008 8:50 AM

A caricature in the sense there is nothing underlyingly feminine about her. Or do you think Bill's infatuation to Lewinsky, a healthy proportioned, warmly jovial and feminine woman, wasn't telling enough? This is the twenty million dollar political high wire act pantsuit act: firm, intelligent, experienced, warm when required, and garnished with regality. Great, right? Except it's nonsense: it's completely at odds with her past and present behavior, direct and indirect.

But am I even slightly wrong? Or I'm exaggerating her oddness, perhaps you may think. Watch her behavior when Obama is the predicted winner. She will break character and essentially age regress about why she should win or make silly, useless statements insinuating even her party's unfairness. The party, who she actually works for - not you, chossing someone more overall attractive and not her.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 20, 2008 7:07 PM

[Sir Philip said, in reference to Hillary]: "...there is nothing underlyingly feminine about her..."

Oh, dude. Do you realize how utterly FAR you have stuck a feather-duster up your trutch, with that statement?

Now, Sir Philip, I am not about to denigrate your right to a strong opinion (this is a forum that encourages "cultural dogfighting" after all). I champion and encourage you to keep expressing yourself with passion. Please do.

But when you reveal a bias like that, I regret engaging you.

Glamor-girls, high-heel wearers, big-titted gals, sun-glossed athletes, mousy-chicks, hippy-chicks, bull-dykes--they are ALL feminine, my friend. ALL "women." All equal.

I cringe at the very idea of some concept of "underlying femininity."

How do you possibly have the nerve to define that? Or narrow it down?

There are all kinds of women on this earth--and each one of them is "attractive" in her own way, regardless of any stereotypical "norm" pertaining to your so-called "underlying femininity."

Women are, each one of them, ~women.~

I not only take umbrage at your misogyny, I condemn it (without condemning you...please know the diff).

For example, there's one lady who used to post here frequently (SuperAmanda) who is every inch a woman of independent ~human~ thought, yet rightly proud of her voluptuousness and, frankly, bodacious "outer" traits. One helluva certain kind of woman.

Too, I know of other women who have posted here who do not fit her exact "image," yet they are also potent women, like SuperAmanda is. All equal. Diverse. Meaningful.

A woman can have massive tits and five kids, and yet be more brilliant than you or I will ever hope to be. A woman can be ectomorphic,dowdy, and straw-haired, and she, too, can be just as real and sentient. Just as beautiful.

Sorry dude, I am a guy and a virulent feminist.

I pop-in here, at Cintra's corner of the 'whirled,' only occasionally, because I like to be a gadfly, and because she's such a mercurial creature--dainty yet dangerous (I speak from experience).

When you say, however, that there is nothing "underlyingly feminine" about Hillary Clinton...whull, that boob-job of yours stands on its own.

It doesn't bear countenance.

Live and be well, Sir Philip. Live and learn.

Posted by: "What a lovely day for an exorcism." "What a lovely day for an exorcism." at May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

"Sorry dude, I am a guy and a virulent feminist."

A feminist is a 6 foot 200 pound Marine who wants a thoughtful, intelligent knock out partner and would also find it endearing her taking interest and excelling in his male oriented pursuits (much as women find it when men do likewise) and is enraged at how Muslim men abusively treat women. (Freud's Ghost On The Other Line: Vhile tyh'pically wv'earing dresses!).

Or were you talking about female masculinism, which aims to ensure no male is ever naturally turned on by one ever again, one pass in public at a time until all men are subjugated. (Freud's Ghost: "Mein gott! This hg'appens in r'everse too!")

"It doesn't bear countenance."

There's a visible universal difference between dignified and repulsively self-centered, if that is also what you are struggling to point out. And yes it does because Clinton clearly resents femininity. Then there's Monica, whose affair was due to that fact.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 21, 2008 12:22 AM

"I cringe at the very idea of some concept of "underlying femininity."

So you prefer a woman lying on top (..at the top lying?).

"A woman can have massive tits and five kids, and yet be more brilliant than you or I will ever hope to be."

If that becomes a "movement", surely Steve on Jerry Springer is going to be on his toes as clever split-second leveraging of flab inertia square upward mobility can mean a chair obtaining closure or not.

"Glamor-girls, high-heel wearers, big-titted gals, sun-glossed athletes, mousy-chicks, hippy-chicks, bull-dykes--they are ALL feminine, my friend. ALL "women." All equal."

(Brother Philip's eyes widen as all cliches and stereotypes and standards evaporate leaving nothing but an Oprah certified spiritual clarity. He braces as he's catapulted to OT III.)

"Why why, Paris Hilton could also become one of the youngest engineers at the Large Hadron Collider!", his chair is violently flung backward. The chair is smacked forward again as adrunk, heavyset college student's head emerges from the adjoining wall, sending dust and pieces of drywall onto the carpet. Music partially fills the room.)

"Duh, does that also mean Lindsay Lohan could win the D1 Grand Prix drift competition topless with a case of Coors in her. Dude, I would so want to marry her."

(Brother Philip weighs this possibility thoughtfully against the earth shattering insight that you are equal to others no matter how obnoxious, repulsive or self-centered by means of objective insight you actually act.)

"Yes!", Brother Philip snaps with religious authority simultaneously contemplating the bounciest lounge couch in town off which to hop in front of the women he intends to marry the living shit out. His high speed train of thought is derailed by questions continuing to beckon answers..

"What about Angelina Jolie getting back to letting it all hang out and like coming over during Halloween Fest and throwing down some shots and getting loose pole dancing and all that, you know I bet as soft as her ass is, she could also open longnecks and crack wallnuts if she just believes she's equal to Amy Winehouse. "

"Now don't say that too loudly!", Philip says wisely.

"Well I was just thinking." the heavyset drunken athlete shrugs and receeds back to his habitat.

"Oh dude.", his head re-emerges, more drywall is flung onto the carpet. "How about like, Guns & Roses getting back together and finishing Chinese Democracy before World War III."

"Let's not get carried away. Ok?", Philip dashes out of the window. His outline clearly visible on the window that wasn't actually open. A piece breaks off.

"Ok..", a slightly disappointed the head receeds back into the wall. Still, more drywall falls onto the carpet.

Posted by: Sir Philip Sir Philip at May 21, 2008 4:01 AM

Recent events motivate this very late comment on this post. By recent events I mean it's now become okay for folks (of no particular chromatic distinction) to openly joke about killing the first serious black candidate for president.

Colin Powell's wife Alma dissuaded her husband from running because (it was whispered among certain folk) she was certain he'd get lynched - or shot. Well, now that the kumbayahs are over and the real race approaches, we see Alma was not so crazy after all.

I don't have a punch line here. I'm just afraid I'm going to see a Dealey Plaza deja vu and it's nauseating.

Posted by: Hilary/Us Or Hilarious Hilary/Us Or Hilarious at May 27, 2008 8:25 AM

Recent events motivate this very late comment on this post. By recent events I mean it's now become okay for folks (of no particular chromatic distinction) to openly joke about killing the first serious black candidate for president.

Colin Powell's wife Alma dissuaded her husband from running because (it was whispered among certain folk) she was certain he'd get lynched - or shot. Well, now that the kumbayahs are over and the real race approaches, we see Alma was not so crazy after all.

I don't have a punch line here. I'm just afraid I'm going to see a Dealey Plaza deja vu and it's nauseating.

Posted by: Hilary/Us Or Hilarious Hilary/Us Or Hilarious at May 27, 2008 8:26 AM

Roy Scheider didn't attach the shark to a power pole, he killed it with an oxygen bottle and a rifle.

Posted by: staghounds staghounds at June 20, 2008 8:54 AM

Here's the DC Career Track in a nutshell: Elected Official: Go directly to K Street after term is up, collect millions of dollars. Political Appointee: Do the bidding of your Dark Lords, resign to spend time with family; write a book you hope washes the blood off of your hands and umm collect millions of dollars.

And what about The Father of All Lies himself, Karl Rove on Charlie Rose peddling his latest cart of dung that Congress pushed Bush into the war in Iraq?

Bush constantly says that History will judge whether he was right or wrong, but INSTANT HISTORICAL REVISION? Bitch, the people who remember how it went down are all still alive. It doesn't work that way.

For what it's worth, Scott McClellan was never very convincing in his job. I got the impression that there were men in another room with a soldering iron and ball peen hammers ready to mutilate his family to the fifth cousin if he deviated from the script. It doesn't mean he isn't a slime ball enabler, but he looked so desperate all the time. I'll bet he had botox done on his forehead and underarms to keep the flopsweat at bay.

Tony Snow was just plain smarmy and evil and I got an odd satisfaction knowing that he was a Russian Nesting Doll of corruption. While he was gnawing away at the truth, something was gnawing away at him from the inside. Did he think he looked noble and brave wast