February 11, 2010

At the Great Man Nightclub...

... if you meet the Buddha in the museum...

DSC07612

...stare at him.

And if you should encounter Picasso...

DSC07668

... talk behind his back.

22 comments:

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

When I look at that Buddha, I see peace and serenity.

When I look at that Picasso, I see a sense of confusion about the modern world and how it shapes modern women into overly complex creatures who are dissatisfied with a simple relationship.

When I look at those four girls, I am reminded of my principled avoidance of women carrying big handbags because they require too much attention.

When I look at Sarah Palin, I see many a Marius in her.

chuck said...

When I look at the woman in front of the Buddha R. Crumb comes to mind.

Saint Russell said...

chuck: I thought the same thing. She has a sculptural quality that I find compelling.

Palladian said...

Arianna Huffington wrote one of the worst biographies of Pablo Picasso I've ever read.

LonewackoDotCom said...

1. "Going dog-sledding later?" Within a minute she'd be begging for it.

2. Should I send JenniferAniston a card this year?

3. But seriously: those who throw around the "Troofer" label are basically just scared, low-wattage hacks. There's a huge difference between "Bush knew!" and admitting that lots of things are possible. Those who use that label are implying that the gov't has told us the complete truth about everything involved, that their own investigation largely clearing them doesn't have major problems, and that it would have been impossible for someone - even at a low but important level - to have LIHOP or even tried to MIHOP. Those who use that label are showing that they either have little integrity or have little ability to figure things out and understand fine distinctions. And, that's dangerous for the U.S. because it helps politicians mislead about other matters. Discuss.

Synova said...

"Those who use that label are implying that the gov't has told us the complete truth about everything involved,.."

No, they're not.

But there is an expanse between "absolutely everything" and implying that there is anything whatsoever mysterious or unknown about the events of 9-11. There simply is not.

And if an actual non-Truther is so uninformed as to default to some wishy-washy political hedge on the issue, that's a problem in itself.

Where was the woman all this time?

Synova said...

As for the Buddha and the Picasso... I find them both disturbingly ill-formed.

Even so, I'd probably spend more time contemplating the Buddha trying to figure how the proportions are off. The Picasso is rather obvious.

Synova said...

Does that Picasso have a penis?

Palladian said...

Jesus, LoneWacko, I thought you were boring and contemptibly mediocre before, now you're turning into a fucking truther sympathizer?

LonewackoDotCom said...

Synova is, of course, wrong. "Troofer" is short-hand for "we know all there is to know and everything we've heard is the truth about everything and you shouldn't ask any questions about anything at all or we'll smear you too."

There are indeed many open questions, with some being more valid than others. For instance, "were the plans really UFOs?" isn't that valid a question. OTOH, some of the questions here - such as why the rush to discard the scrap metal or this involving Willie Brown - are quite valid. And, since at least one Afghan highschooler knew about the attacks days before (or is an actual psychic), it's perfectly valid to ask whether someone else in the gov't - even at a low level - also knew about them.

Those who use "Troofer" are trying to conflate the two types of questions in order to protect the establishment which - at the very least - completely dropped the ball. The "Troofer" issue is a mild instance of what happens in totalitarian countries with their "mental hospitals" for those who ask the wrong questions.

Revenant said...

Jesus, LoneWacko, I thought you were boring and contemptibly mediocre before, now you're turning into a fucking truther sympathizer?

The phrase "turning into" implies he hasn't been one for years. :)

Chip Ahoy said...

Lully. As always.

Now look, you get one warning and only one warning. Do NOT stare at the Buddha too long.

The Crack Emcee said...

Chris and Saint Russel,

You find that woman's boo-tay "compelling".

And so do I.

It's The Macho Response.

The Crack Emcee said...

Chip,

Nice one!

MamaM said...

Another good one,Chip! From Contemplation to Incineration, with levitation and laser side action! So much for peace and serenity.

To complete the set, I'd like to see Picasso's woman put her big foot back on the ground, adjust her breasts, get up, pull the rest of herself into alignment, and walk out of that scene in search of some new adventure. As she leaves the girls who aren't paying attention behind, I imagine the one sort of watching saying "Oh my God" under her breath, and remembering that moment for the rest of her life.

ethan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul Zrimsek said...

When I look at that Buddha, I see Sonia Sotomayor.

Jake said...

I'm pretty sure the one with the boots would make nauseous.

paul a'barge said...

Chip, you dah mahn.

mariner said...

When I look at a Picasso I wonder why in hell he's considered a great artist.

former law student said...

When I look at that Buddha, I see peace and serenity.

When I look at that Buddha, I see man boobs.

She has a sculptural quality that I find compelling.

Reminds me of the ex-girlfriend of the professor's son.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

The Picasso is interesting but those girls are fascinating.