June 20, 2007

Ah, a nice, refreshing, troll-diluting...

... Instapundit link for the onion-rings-are-vaginas controversy here. (Note the effect on Site Meter... and I'll suppress the urge to do another Freudian interpretation.)
IF ONION RINGS STAND IN FOR VAGINAS, then to what symbolic use can we put an Awesome Blossom?
The "Awesome Blossom" link goes to a cool blog called Televisionary, which I never noticed before, although the name calls out to me. (I'm blogrolling it right now.) The post there is all about product placement on TV shows. Key passage:
[S]etting nearly an entire episode of The Office in a Chili's restaurant and talking about the various dishes they offer ("I wanted one of those skillets of cheese," says Michael; and in a later episode: "May we have an Awesome Blossom, please, extra awesome.") was more than a little excessive to say the least (as was a shot of a Chili's employee explaining their corporate policy not to overserve drinks to customers). Another glaring example was the iPod in the Christmas episode, which was featured as the gift that everyone at Dunder-Mifflin wanted to steal (The Office is available for download through iTunes). At other times, the series has referenced Sbarros, Red Lobster, Bubba Gump Shrimp, Mac computers, Hooters, Mailboxes Etc., Country Crock Spread, and Starbucks. Which, when you add them all up, is a rather halting trend for the show.
So, not about vaginas, per se, but Glenn asks a good question about those giant fried onion things. (Leave it to a law professor to ask good questions.) What are the Awesome Blossoms in the crazy world of sexual symbolism? (And doesn't Country Crock Spread sound dirty? Well, so does everything, now. Dunder-Mifflin, indeed.)

UPDATE: And the Instapundit link is overwhelmed by a Crooks and Liars link, by the darling John Amato, who also linked to his pal, the socially awkward TRex. Remember, I had my encounter with TRex and John Amato at the CNN party on election night, and John Amato was a sweet, warm guy. I enjoyed meeting him. I don't begrudge him defending the Democrats' last President. But he's soooooo far above the grouchy little prick TRex. Thanks, John, for sending me all this traffic, and I still love you.

42 comments:

JSinger said...

I read the Awesome Blossom link all the way to the bottom and was rewarded by learning that Veronica Mars is a high school student?!? I'd assumed from the late-20's ages of her classmates and the fact that her school is better-appointed and has more arcane courses than my Ivy League alma mater that she was in one of those California University-type TV colleges.

OK, I'm not the most avid viewer...

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meade said...

Blowup OleoPorn doll.

Bob said...

Awesome Blossom is teh ghey.

Icepick said...

JSinger, the Awesome Blossom post is a year old. The post mentions that in the next season (which just finished a few weeks ago) VM would be in college. And yes, it was "one of those California University-type TV colleges."

Meade said...

from urbandictionary.com:

1. Awesome Blossom

The curvature of a woman's breasts as they "blossom" out from a low cut shirt.

Low cut shirt + push up bra = Awesome Blossom
Low cut shirt + bustiere = Awesome Blossom
Low cut shirt + huge breasts = Awesome Blossom

Man, did you see the Awesome Blossoms on Jeniffer Love Hewitt and Pamela Anderson at Elton John's 2006 Oscar Party?

Paris Hilton ain't got no Awesome Blossom.

gorjus said...

Professor, just a quick shout-out from an occasional fan (and hardcore liberal). I thought your "Onion Rings" post was hilarious and dead-on--and ripe for the exact type of Freudian, armchair philsophy (of COURSE she's keeping in on a chain). As a Clinton supporter in '92, '96, and possibly '08, I love them, but . . . Celine Dion sucks.

You are, my dear, divine.

The Drill SGT said...

I for one am not a fan of troll baiting breast posts. Nor Freudian vagina=onion rings ones either.

dave™© said...

Pathectic.

Get help.

Palladian said...

Didn't Seinfeld do this all the time? Except it always seemed ironic when they did it. Junior Mints? Kenny Rogers Roasters? It's hilarious to overtly promote those products!

AlphaLiberal said...

I see. People who agree with Althouse = "readers."
People who criticize Althouse = "trolls"

I don't think you understand what that term means.

JSinger said...

JSinger, the Awesome Blossom post is a year old.

Ah, thank you! Like I said, I'm not really an avid Veronica Mars fan, and find both the British and American The Office's drearily unwatchable, so the outdatedness didn't ring any bells.

Ron said...

Vagina=Awesome Blossom=Groinal Origami...

("Oh, look, one of those cranes! How'd she do that?" "She's the Ricky Jay of the Nether Regions, that's how!")


Is this whole conversation legal south of the Mason-Dixon Line?

von said...

Y'know, I appreciate that you've got your schtick and I'm happy to help you out with your evident need to attract attention to yourself -- this time, at least. I somehow missed the "let's look at the breasts" controversey the first time around, and like getting in on the ground floor of the current tempest in a teaspoon.

Still, take note: It's not particularly interesting, however, to try to decide whether your after-the-fact-rationalizations were truly present all along. I understand, of course, what you're "trying" to do here. But it's sometimes so poorly done that I've been left with the question of you're being stupid or intentionally stupid. Not the kind of reputation I'd expect a law professor to want to attract, but YMMV. At least some folks seem to have a different view. (Or maybe they're just playing your game better than you are; you never can tell.)

Anyway, now that I've had a chance to say "I particated in Anti-Altshousiana 6/20/07" (or whatever you would call my present boredom), I can stop with the linking. All the best.

hdhouse said...

Did I call it on the Sitemeter or did I call it.

Honestly I'm so smart.

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
blake said...

And a big round of applause for "Von", trotting out the classic, "You, a law professor...."

C'mon, folks. You were had. Anyone with a sense of humor saw EXACTLY what she was doing. Admit it: You're a little too wrapped up in your politics to not be completely literal in your persecution of perceived enemies.

Verso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Verso said...

Ann,
Sometime you should do a post talking about how you feel being a laughing stock and target of nearly universal mockery and derision.

I'm impressed that you are willing to destroy your own reputation, and convince 95% of your readers beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are batshit insane and out of your freaking gourd. Simply for a one or two day bump in traffic!

You know what people never do?

They never link to your threads because they are insightful and interesting.

You are a raving spectacle. A clown. And an enormous source of entertainment.

Pleeeeease keep posting your lunatic rantings, Ann. I have become hooked on them.

dave™© said...

So who should play Blithering Misogynist Idiot in the movie - Crazy Cat Lady from "The Simpsons," or the late Sandy Dennis?

Discuss...

Paul Snively said...

"I don't begrudge him defending the Democrats' last President."

Wow. You really ARE down on the party's future chances, aren't you?

;-)

B said...

FUNNY!

As one who spent 2 years baiting our friends on the liberal blogs - because I knew they took themselves SOOO seriously - I do agree with verso:

Please keep posting such things Ann.

At the very least, the attention will draw the small-minded liberals - examples above - - and give us all a laugh and sad head scratch at the pitiful, led-around-by-the-nose-by -Kos-and-friends pathetic lives they surely lead. The intelligent commenter's from the left that regularly post here recognize the value and intent of this type of post. They too are busy laughing and enjoying the post, while cringing at the postings of the moronic left-wing never-had-an-original-thought droolers: "Look, I can say something mean,uh huh, doesn't that make me smart,uh huh, doesn't it?"

"Well, doesn't it . . . uh, anyone there?"

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, b, they all just say the same thing, and it's so... nothing.

But I've definitely learned where the hottest hot button is: it's Bill Clinton's sexual problem. Weird that it's such a big sore spot after all these years. People who have nothing better to do than to defend Bill Clinton, even from little jokes... It's pretty sad. Can you believe that I was one of signees on the law professors' letter saying that Clinton should not be impeached?

Now that I know where the hot button is, will I keep pushing it? Damn right!

Palladian said...

"Now that I know where the hot button is, will I keep pushing it? Damn right!"

It's impossible to say anything about Bill Clinton without it sounding dirty.

Not that I'm opposed to dirty or anything.

Seven Machos said...

It's kind of funny that there was a poster here named vrse who left in a huff, vowing never to post again, and now we have Verso, carping.

That's too easy. Right?

Bruce Godfrey said...

"Now that I know where the hot button is, will I keep pushing it? Damn right!"

Ann, for the love of Pete, please push whatever you have to push to cure what ails you.

Fen said...

Ann: But I've definitely learned where the hottest hot button is: it's Bill Clinton's sexual problem. Weird that it's such a big sore spot after all these years. People who have nothing better to do than to defend Bill Clinton, even from little jokes... It's pretty sad

Its psychological. They DO have some shame, and so they need to whitewash Clinton's sexual harassment into something they can live with. Thats why they still try to rewrite that history. Their contortions are often hillarious though: I had some "feminist" bloggers insisting that Clinton reaching out and grabbing Wiley's breast was NOT sexual assault. LOL.

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, Fen, you're making me think that the bizarre overreaction to my little riff on onion rings is really about a desperate terror just under the surface that things about Bill are going to flare up and ruin Hillary's run for the presidency.

amba said...

"Tom Jones." But that scene calls for a companion.

Fen said...

a desperate terror just under the surface that things about Bill are going to flare up and ruin Hillary's run for the presidency.

One woman will step forward, at the worst moment for Hillary, perhaps after a particularly bad media cycle due to some campaign gaffe.

She won't even have to be legit. All she has to do is charge Bill with sexual assault. America will then look at Hillary's candidacy and think we're not going through all that again... besides, Hillary is at fault as an enabler.

von said...

Blake, believe whatever you will. But just because someone says their brilliant and clear doesn't mean they are. Nor is intentionally baiting folks particularly interesting.

As for the relevancy of Althouse being a law professor: she certainly must understand that what she does in public is going to impact how people perceive her. Michael Moore and Ann Coulter -- two other baiters -- might sell a whole lot of crap, make a buncha money, and have people staring at them constantly. But with that comes a reputation. So, yes, the Professor is right that it's the same old thing (assuming b = blake).

But, as I say, who knows? Maybe other law professors, lawyers, and layfolk think that Althouse's blog is the cleverist of the all the cleveristas in cleverland. I don't. And, yes, it means that I'm less likely to trust an Althouse article or an Althouse letter of recommendation. That's the world. Her blog persona seems to have a different effect on others, however. As one says, YMMV.

Incidentally, unlike Ms. Althouse, I never voted for Clinton and almost certainly will not vote for Hillary (or even, "Hillary!").

B said...

von,

this is b, who is not Blake.

the b is for Brent, which I used to comment under. But one day many months ago I could not for the life of me comment under Brent, or even reregister under Brent - Blogger wouldn't let me. It kept coming up as just "b". Since I really wanted to post, I went ahead with "b", and it's been easy to just keep it ever since.

Besides, it kind of allowed me a fresh take after having been a little too harsh in some of my previous comments towards several of the regulars who differed with me. I actually as far back as I could go and read archived comments of several of those I had been sarcastic and rude to while making my political points. I saw that their comments were generally well written (certainly better written than mine), and, even when sarcastic, not filled with the level of bile I had sometimes written with. There seemed to be a willingness to be winsome in most of the regulars, even when heated.

So, "b" kind of gave me a fresh start, with a little humble pie thrown in.

Fen said...

von: As for the relevancy of Althouse being a law professor: she certainly must understand that what she does in public is going to impact how people perceive her

Sure. But do you think she should be fired from her job for it? Thats what Lefties like TRex at the Crooks & Liars link think. The only reason Althouse is under constant attack by the brownshirt Moonbats is because she refuses to march in lockstep with them. Surely you don't approve of their efforts to burn her as a heretic?

von said...

Sorry, b, for mistaking you for someone else.

But do you think she should be fired from her job for it? Thats what Lefties like TRex at the Crooks & Liars link think. The only reason Althouse is under constant attack by the brownshirt Moonbats is because she refuses to march in lockstep with them. Surely you don't approve of their efforts to burn her as a heretic?

First, I'm pretty certain Professor Althouse has tenure, of which I generally approve for all the standard reasons. So, no, I don't think she can or should be fired. Nor do I think the rules should be changed to allow her to be fired in this circumstance. Folks may argue for that, but I disagree with them.

Second, so far as I can tell, although some may view Professor Althouse as a heretic, many simply think she's frequenlty incorrect, or a bore, or has a far-too-high opinion of herself and her self-described "performance" art. I would add that I also find the tiresome need to make yourself relevant by needlessly poking others in the eye to be somewhat stupid. Who really cares that you got a bunch of people needlessly riled up?

Third, and contra claims of Anti-Alhousiana (or whatever she calls it) all of the commentary that I've seen squarely addresses, and seeks to refute Althouse's reading of the Hillary! ad. (I find Firedoglake to be as tiring as Althouse sometimes is, so I have paid attention to TRex's post.) That's not (1) ad hominem or (2) anti-Althouse. It's legitimate, on-point criticism. I assume that Professor Althouse recognizes this -- I refuse to believe that an academic is that dense. But, her shtick requires that she label it all Althouse derangement syndrom, or suggest that she's some sort of free-thinking wild thing while the other folks hate her for her freedom and/or wild thingness. That's just dishonest, and I further reason why I've mentioned that I find her blog-persona annoying.

Others clearly disagree with me -- including you. That's fine: Howard Stern, Moore, and Coulter have audiences too, and a lot of folks in those audiences really like what they have to say, and/or buy into the excitement they generate, and/or really believe that they are the radicals that they claim to be. Or maybe all three. Given my mucho-mockable interests and hobbies, I'm not going to throw the first stone on this one. But that doesn't I have to respect, approve, or believe any of these folks.

von said...

"But that doesn't I have to respect, approve, or believe any of these folks."

Sorry, for clarity, I was referring to the eye-pokers and self-proclaimed radicals. Not their readers and/or partisans.

("I am so radical! You just don't understand what I'm trying to do!" Please. We're no longer fifteen.)

Fen said...

I would add that I also find the tiresome need to make yourself relevant by needlessly poking others in the eye to be somewhat stupid. Who really cares that you got a bunch of people needlessly riled up?

So can you explain why you are here? i finf FDL and HuffPo to be innane and tiresome, but have no need to troll their blogs. Just curious why you care?

von said...

So can you explain why you are here? i finf FDL and HuffPo to be innane and tiresome, but have no need to troll their blogs. Just curious why you care?

As I mentioned above, I missed the last couple waves of anti-Althouse mania -- "Breast Thing" and "Breast Thing 2: The D-Cup Cometh"! Getting riled up about Althouse is kinda a rite of passage, like Burning Man or doing shots of Everclear. I'm not exactly riled up, of course, but now I've become transfixed regarding how long Althouse will string this thing out. We're on an impressive third day!

As for trolling: Of course I'm guilty this time. But wasn't that Althouse's entire point: Drive the trolls mad? At least, as she currently explains it? And thus am I not playing the correct role here? This is performance art, man. The audience has to participate or it doesn't work.

von

Luckyoldson said...

SHOCK ALERT!!!!!

fen-fen thinks HuffPo to be innane and tiresome!!!

huffpo basically provides access and links to about 150 news sources and bloggers on both sides of the aisle...and if you really think it's "inane an tiresome" you're not reading enough of their available content.

here's a partial list of their new's sources and blogger links:

News Sources

* ABC
* AOL News
* Associated Press
* BBC
* Bloomberg
* C-SPAN
* CBC
* CBS
* CNN
* Chicago Tribune
* Christian Science Monitor
* Congressional Quarterly
* Drudge Report
* Forbes
* Fortune
* Fox News
* Financial Times
* Globe and Mail
* Guardian
* The Hill
* Independent
* International Herald Tribune
* McClatchy
* MSNBC
* New York Daily News
* New York Observer
* New York Times
* PBS NewsHour
* Newsweek
* Politico
* Reuters
* Rolling Stone
* Salon
* San Francisco Chronicle
* Slate
* Times
* USA Today
* Wall Street Journal
* Washington Post
* Yahoo! News

Blogs
* Drudge Report
* Altercation (Media Matters)
* Americablog
* Andrew Sullivan (Atlantic)
* Bloggingheads
* The Corner (National Review)
* Firedoglake
* Gawker
* National Journal
* Informed Comment
* Instapundit
* James Wolcott
* Kausfiles
* The Notion (Nation)
* Washington Monthly
* Political Wire
* Redstate.org
* Swamp
* Swampland
* Truthdig
* US News & World Report

Luckyoldson said...

fen-fen says: "One woman will step forward, at the worst moment for Hillary, perhaps after a particularly bad media cycle due to some campaign gaffe."

*KEY ELEMENT BEING: "She won't even have to be legit."

you're hoping and praying, aren't you fen-fen?

Luckyoldson said...

ann says: "...you're making me think that the bizarre overreaction to my little riff on onion rings is really about a desperate terror just under the surface that things about Bill are going to flare up and ruin Hillary's run for the presidency."

you think writing a blog that intimates that onion rings, in bill's mind, are really vaginas...that he wanted to stick his carrot (penis) into created a "bizarre reaction"...because of the "desperate terror just under the surface??"

you actually think bill and hillary are "terrorized" by ann althouse's insane blog entry??

now THAT'S bizarre.

randinho said...

Ann,

Semiotics is serious business. Please leave it to the pros.

Roger said...

Would someone take Von aside and explain "tenure" to him?

Considering how many times the chickenhawk and other equally ridculous "arguments" have been thrown up around here, I find this chain-pulling quite interesting. It makes for a nice break.