Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Whaddyaknow, Eric got his request without spending $200. ;)I'm no psychology major, but I don't think Trex's problem with you is that he's jealous. His problem's that he's a jackass and you pose a challenge to his worldview. I think we've seen recently another example in bill's conduct that there is a certain mindset, prevalent on the left, that is allergic to different views because their belief system rests on the desparate need for their answer to be the only possible answer, an answer compelled by the forces of reason, and from which deviation is only possible by poor reasoning. That view can't survive the existence of an alternative view that is reasonble, and so when it encounters someone that can't easily be dismissed by pigeonholing (you're not a conservative, or conspicuously religious, or any of the other usual tools by which antagonists can easily be dismissed) and acts out in response - homophobia, sexism, strawman production, attempted intimidation, and so forth. It has to destroy your crediblity on an individual basis because there's no disfavored non-credible group that you can be consigned to, because otherwise the harmony of this indisputable sphere of perfect rationality that they desparately need to exist in order to string adherents along would fail. And honestly, I wouldn't say he's remotely worth the time or attention lavished on him herein - even for purposes of mocking.
For the longest time, I was wondering: Who's Bill?
Oh, sorry - this guy. :)
Simon said... I'm no psychology major, but I don't think Trex's problem with you is that he's jealous. His problem's that he's a jackass and you pose a challenge to his worldview. I think we've seen recently another example in bill's conduct that there is a certain mindset, prevalent on the left...What I have gathered from the psychological research literature suggests that the characteristics you describe as prevalent on the left are pretty evenly distributed across the left and right, religious and areligious, pacifist and militarist...and so on. Idealizing us and demonizing them, though, is pretty natural.
Mindsteps - I'm sure you're right. But there aren't a number of people mounting such attacks on Ann from the right, so for our purposes here, it's not particularly relevant.
There's a new egg salad sandwich challenge?
"Darling, light of my life, I'm not going to hurt you. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said I'm not going to hurt you... I'm just going to bash your brains in! I'm going to bash them right the fuck in."
Peter Hoh: Looks like. Something about mustard this time.
And egg salad = blog traffic.[Best day of traffic since July 23rd.]And Shining is the feel good summer sleeper.
Did you know you're watching The Shining on the wrong screen setting? The movie was released in the 1.85 aspect ratio--basically the same as the widescreen TV screen--and then put on DVD with extra image on the top and bottom so that it could fit on regular TVs without panning and scanning. They claimed that that was Stanley Kubrick's intention, but he wasn't alive when the DVDs were released, and he may have had that preference at a time when he didn't think everyone would switch to watching movies letterboxed. You should put it in zoom mode when you watch it, and realize that only with a widescreen TV can you see his movies with the intended composition.Only female chickens lay eggs. The egg is feminine.
That was great, but I did find Shelly Duvall's waving of that baseball bat a little distracting. Christopher: The egg symbolizes life, creation. It is not a symbol of the female. Bluntly: you can't f*ck an egg.
Very artsy presentation. It would be cool to see more vlog posts done with more artsy elements like that. As for Trex's overly analytical post - it's just free PR for BOTH his blog and your vlog, riding coattails a bit. Maybe there is a little jealousy that you're exploring performance art and creative blogging while demonstrating some interaction with your reader/viewers. That,and it's a little enviable to watch someone step outside the safe blogging box and open herself to others' interpretation and criticism. That self-assurance (without much self-disclosure, of course) might seem discreditable as flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants blogging and must be disconcerting to some that they would want to read more into things than there actually is. I think it just shows v/blogging as an amusement, a hobby for you, which might be irritating to some considering that you're offered money to do mundane things like eat an egg salad sandwich. And given that it's done without meaning aside from what it is -- discussing mayonnaise, old bread, etc. -- and without the need to tie to anything meaningful; and without the need to blog about something more, say, pertinent while have a large readership, and to clearly align yourself with any defined camps -- political, religious, etc., might irk some who blog more to discuss issues rather than exploring other things like art or psychology. I'm inclined to side with simon on that point. It's kind of like, "Define yourself and where you're going with this blog, Althouse, or we'll call you crazy...or manipulative." And you know you're "egging" it on with "The Shining" footage. You're just giving more ammo. And why not? It's not about sending a message so much as putting something out there for variety and free association interpretation. That's art. And, wurly, I think one doesn't own or moderate a vortex. Rather, one IS the vortex. And it becomes about much more sometimes than it actually is.
Galvanized said..."...without the need to blog about something more, say, pertinent while have a large readership, and to clearly align yourself with any defined camps -- political, religious, etc., might irk some who blog more to discuss issues...."Amd those who blog as part of a "movement" to press an agenda, a fortiori when it is an agenda on which they feel entitled to the support of "people like you - 'you, a law professor.'"
Simon said: I think we've seen recently another example in bill's conduct that there is a certain mindset...Great, what did I do now? Oh, talking about a different Bill and he was too lazy to capitalize. Simon, other Bills show up from time to time, but I've been the lowercase bill for years around here.You owe me an apology.
Chris: I wasn't watching a DVD. That just happened to be on TV, on a non-widescreen channel -- when I was flipping channels before doing the video. I decided to leave it on and frame the TV into the shot. I didn't pick the scenes at all, and I didn't know which part of the movie was playing -- though what was playing affected some editorial choices. (I especially liked what was going on when I was talking about ESP.)
1. That opening was brilliant and hysterically funny! I laughed so hard I missed too much of it and had to start all over again – twice.2. Regarding finding one’s self in a Fellini movie, the first time I heard that joke was in Mad Magazine # 141. Yossarian is walking the squalid backstreets of Rome when he becomes excited by the realization that he has mysteriously escaped from the war zone into a Fellini movie.3. And Joan is quite right that one cannot f*ck and egg. I’ve tried it. The process is unpleasant and messy. However, it is true that there are at least two ways to s*ck an egg!
BTW, to make it easier to find the cover, the Mad Magazine parody of Catch-22 was called “Catch-All-22.”
Althouse is big enough now, reps should be approaching her to do product placements.Well, when she's asked to pitch a beer just right for her vortex theme, I hope she'll look favorably on this one.Here's the label for those who don't like to read sideways. And who does?
Ah! I'd love to read that. Here's the cover.I was an early 1960s Mad reader, so that one is after my time.
As another early 60's Mad reader, I never knew ANY girls who would read it. "Yew! That's stupid!"That Althouse read Mad magazine and listened to Jean Shepherd (another thing commonly not appreciated by early 60's teenyboppers) says a lot about her psychology. And, God knows, those of us in the vortex are fascinated by the Althouse psyche.The fact that she got both Mad and Jean Shepherd tells those with the wit to understand that the Althouse sense of humor has deep roots.
Theo: I discovered Mad on my own -- on a drugstore rack -- in about 1961. I became completely absorbed in it and then felt mortified when I tried to get a girlfriend interested in it and she said it was for boys.
I even subscribed back then. It was the first thing I ever subscribed to.
You had a comic crush on Alfred E. Newman. It was his wit, not the ears at all. The reason many people are lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory." Alfred E Newman
Joan: It's a requirement of something being feminine that you have to be able to f*ck it?The chicken egg is like the womb.
The viewer can freeze-frame and zoom-in on that little bit of Althouse's bare shoulder.If you put your face up to the screen, your mouth is practically touching Althouse's bare shoulder.If you and Althouse were lovers, you might be expected to kiss the exposed shoulder.People, it's just an observation---not a desire.
Something can have feminine characteristics without being female. Generally speaking, yes, I'd say that being on the receiving end of the sperm in the procreative process is the defining characteristic of the female gender. There is no procreative potential in an egg. By the time it's egg, it has already been fertilized, or not.I see where you're going with the egg-shell-as-womb comparison, but it doesn't work for me. They both incubate new life, but that's as far as it goes. The egg is complete in and of itself, which is what makes it so miraculous. Here's this thing, and under the right circumstances, a live bird or reptile or amphibian or insect will come out of it. The womb, however, is inseparable from the woman; if the womb is broken, the woman will die. When the egg hatches, the shell is discarded or eaten. When the baby is born, the same womb/woman can go on to have more babies. To compare women to eggs is to call us both fragile and disposable. No thanks.
Post a Comment