Saturday, January 12, 2008
game over, man!
Bill Paxton's old band Martini Ranch asks a question for the ages:
posted by Scats : 1/12/2008 03:37:00 PM
posted by Scats : 1/12/2008 03:37:00 PMThere Will Be Hype?
There Will Be Blood went completely over my head. Why is everyone freaking out about this movie? Can anyone explain?
While we're at it, the same question goes for Sweeney Todd. Masterpiece? Wha?
UPDATE:
I also took acid and went to Astroworld and had a really bad time.
posted by Scats : 1/12/2008 05:33:00 AM
While we're at it, the same question goes for Sweeney Todd. Masterpiece? Wha?
UPDATE:
I also took acid and went to Astroworld and had a really bad time.
posted by Scats : 1/12/2008 05:33:00 AMfuck THIS guy
Friday, January 11, 2008
Sweet
Dope.
posted by Blicero : 1/11/2008 06:06:00 AM
Asked about last weekend's Persian Gulf incident in which Iranian speed boats harassed U.S. warships, none of the presidential rivals found fault with U.S. naval commanders on the scene.
But several took the opportunity to stress their determination to take stronger steps against Iran in the future.
"I think one more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing," said Thompson.
Huckabee said if it happened again, the Iranians "should be prepared to see the gates of Hell."
McCain, the only candidate with experience in the Navy, refused to second guess the actions of the commander of all the battle groups.
"I believe Iran represents a very serious threat," said Romney. He added he believes the incident was a calculated one to test U.S. defensive responses and was a "diversionary action ... It points out that we have in Iran a very troubled nation," he added.
Romney drew mixed boos and applause from the audience when he criticized Paul for saying the United States must avoid another war.
Romney said Paul had been reading "too many press releases by (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad" the Iranian president.
"Make fun buddy," muttered a clearly irritated Paul.
posted by Blicero : 1/11/2008 06:06:00 AMThursday, January 10, 2008
hopeblogging from the changeosphere
Voice
I think it's worth noting again just how sad and depressing Clinton's saying "I found my own voice" is.
posted by Blicero : 1/10/2008 12:40:00 AM
Not because it's phony (which it mostly is); not because it's practically absurd in a situation where these candidates have to repeat these exact same speeches--with "emotion"--over and over and over again for literally years in order to win office.
It's depressing because in the current situation, "finding one's voice" would be a moral act requiring the political equivalent of the candidate falling on her sword, or gouging out her own eyes on camera. It would require martyrdom at the hands of Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell, which must be worse than breaking on the wheel or boiling in oil.
And remember, according to the age-old speakingcorpse standard of value in proportion to media sadism, Clinton has not only earned this nomination and the presidency many, many times over, but should actually be sainted. (Given that Mark Foley, Gary Condit, and Michael Jackson have reportedly dropped out of the race.)
Just adding speakingcorpse's comment, for the record:
Clinton really has reached a nadir/pinnacle in endurance of media savagery--a new amcop standard.
I'm not sure if this goes without saying or not, but Clinton has arrived at this hallowed point--has attained to being pierced on this pinion--through her own active collaboration with the torture mechanism. She is truly in the penal colony. Her claim to have found her voice is her acceptance of all of the brutality as necessary and justified, her claim to have been rehabilitated by the punishment, her pathetic assertion that she has finally learned her lesson--which is really only the declaration that she she wants and needs further abasement.
posted by Blicero : 1/10/2008 12:40:00 AMWednesday, January 09, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
No Surprises
There shouldn't be, of course, but even so, I have to say I was taken aback when tonight I got home from the airport, turned on the teevee, and literally the first thing I heard was John McFuck pronouncing:
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 09:23:00 PM
We are the makers of history, not its victims.
"Not its victims"? This to an audience of television viewers in the United States of America in the year 2008?
Again, I shouldn't be surprised at this open display of fascism.
But as this blog has noted before, McFuck is mentally and morally deranged as a result of having spent too many years being tortured in a cage; and sadly, and frighteningly, he has again and again proved himself worthy of being put back in it.
Update:
As if on cue, when I finished that blog post and turned the teevee on, the first thing I heard was Tom Brokaw talking about McFuck's cage-torture, and Chris Matthews talking about Winston Churchill.
Now they're all talking about Hillary's "emotional moment" and "sympathy" and "women."
Do any of our readers own a truck underneath the moving tire of which I could place my head?
Update:
Just now one of the best teevee moments ever. Matthews cut to Buchanan and Maddow for commentary on the Clinton comeback "mystery"--and after Buchanan talked about how NH had given a big fuck-you to the press and their forcefed narrative--Maddow nodding her head on the split screen all the while--Maddow took her turn and said (I'm paraphrasing): "In fact, according to the very influential (on the left) [sic] blog Talking Points Memo, these voters were angered and energized specifically to you, Chris Matthews, and things you've been saying about Senator Clinton over the last few days."
Matthews asked her again for the name of the blog, purpo
rting not to have heard of it. Can a man [sic] who has made his career as a politics bobblehead actually not know the names of the handful of most widely read Dem-leaning blogs in the country? These blogs have been around now for 6 years and more. Is he fucking kidding?
Also: why is Olbermann so generous in mediating Matthews's aggressive idiocy?
Update:
Fixin's provides us with this campaign poster, which he says "should help AmCop's readers decide who to support in tonight's primary, based on the candidates put forward."
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 09:23:00 PMEmotional
When I went to TPM election central yesterday and saw that there was a posted video titled something like "Hillary Responds to Media's Reaction to Her Emotional Moment," I thought it was a joke--that perhaps I had landed on the Onion website.
Later, on Facebook, my "news feed" or whateverthefuckitscalled alerted me that a Friend had very recently participated in some sort of Polling Application and responded to the question:
One thing that strikes me is that this season's "campaign" "coverage" has been more wantonly cruel and aggressively vacuous than ever. I guess that's not a surprise. Hillary has been abjectly abused, Obama has been celebrated via empty sensationalism, and Edwards has been irrationally and even obscenely ignored.
I'm probably being totally anachronistic by claiming anything superlative or even different about this coverage compared to '00 or '04. It's true I've taken a lengthy hiatus from following "politics" at all. But it also strikes me that I've been doing this blog for over 4 years now and I still have absolutely no insight into why what comes out of the mouths of Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell comes out of their mouths, or why the headlines appear in the newspapers in the manner they do.
Anyway, I noticed that a commenter on TPM who was complaining about the lack of Edwards coverage received a response (apparently from a TPM employee) to the effect that TPM had "covered" everything about Edwards that there was to cover.
Which says a lot. It doesn't mean that blogs like TPM don't spend most of their time covering "issues" or whatever. Perhaps it's understandable that in the primaries, the blogs can't really do anything but follow the horse-race and react directly to the media's exact, um, talking points. But it's still depressing.
And reading the frenzied, often irrational and even demented comments to posts on other sites (like Firedoglake) is just depressing. "Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing" and so forth. Come on.
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 01:23:00 PM
Later, on Facebook, my "news feed" or whateverthefuckitscalled alerted me that a Friend had very recently participated in some sort of Polling Application and responded to the question:
Will Hillary's emotional moment
a) hurt her
b) help her
c) have no effect one way or the other
One thing that strikes me is that this season's "campaign" "coverage" has been more wantonly cruel and aggressively vacuous than ever. I guess that's not a surprise. Hillary has been abjectly abused, Obama has been celebrated via empty sensationalism, and Edwards has been irrationally and even obscenely ignored.
I'm probably being totally anachronistic by claiming anything superlative or even different about this coverage compared to '00 or '04. It's true I've taken a lengthy hiatus from following "politics" at all. But it also strikes me that I've been doing this blog for over 4 years now and I still have absolutely no insight into why what comes out of the mouths of Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell comes out of their mouths, or why the headlines appear in the newspapers in the manner they do.
Anyway, I noticed that a commenter on TPM who was complaining about the lack of Edwards coverage received a response (apparently from a TPM employee) to the effect that TPM had "covered" everything about Edwards that there was to cover.
Which says a lot. It doesn't mean that blogs like TPM don't spend most of their time covering "issues" or whatever. Perhaps it's understandable that in the primaries, the blogs can't really do anything but follow the horse-race and react directly to the media's exact, um, talking points. But it's still depressing.
And reading the frenzied, often irrational and even demented comments to posts on other sites (like Firedoglake) is just depressing. "Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing" and so forth. Come on.
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 01:23:00 PMThe proverb goes
This comes to us courtesy of The Fixin's Bar, who resides in the UK:
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 12:23:00 AM
And this comes to us by way of a spam email from a certain "SJB":
Like in the witchery, at her age of 61 years old Senator Hillary RODHAM CLINTON is to become overnight a candidate for a change, pulling a rabbit out of her hat. This can happen only in the witchcraft that she and her husband William J. CLINTON, former President reportedly believe in and practice. This is what comes up in the Google search under words of their names, witchcraft, satanic and/or Shamanism, subject to easy verification. The proverb goes that an old dog cannot learn new tricks. The final say belongs to the American people, casting their votes in primaries.
It only gets more interesting from there.
I have only these observations to make:
1) Don't count out Clinton's candidacy yet.
2) Huckabee will not be the GOP candidate.
posted by Blicero : 1/08/2008 12:23:00 AMMonday, January 07, 2008
New Hampshire Presidential Primary
There's to be a primary. Who do you think will win? Barry O'Banlon, or Scott Hutchinson? Or Griz?
posted by Blicero : 1/07/2008 02:10:00 PM
posted by Blicero : 1/07/2008 02:10:00 PM
