That's Scott Adams hating on the v-neck sweater in a blog post titled "The Humiliation of the American Male in 2016." He uses a Cascade TV ad to illustrate his point that "the humiliation of American men is now institutionalized in the media" — and he sees that as a big undercurrent in the rise of Donald Trump. I guess "Make America Great Again" translates, psychically, to Restore My Manhood and consequently — according to Adams — there's going to be a massive turnout of men sweeping thrusting Trump to victory.
But what's so awful about the v-neck sweater? I was struck by Adams's certitude about the unmanliness of the v-neck. How could the shape of the neck matter? Is he reading the letter "V" and thinking of the prominently feminine V words, vagina and vulva? But there are masculine V words: virility, valiant, vigor (JFK's word), vitality, victory.
You may remember that on Christmas eve in 2014, I was puzzled by something a saleslady in Austin, Texas said to me as I was looking for a sweater to give to one of my sons (both are men in their 30s).
She pulls one out that she thinks might be suitable, but then says in a somewhat apologetic tone: "It has a V-neck."
ME: Is there something wrong with V-neck sweaters? People have some kind of problem with V-necks? What's that about?
SHE: Well, my husband doesn't like them. But he's black.
ME (resisting the urge to say "Black people don't like V-neck sweaters?"): V-neck sweaters... are... square?
I blogged that really not knowing what the problem was with V-neck sweaters. Did the commenters help? Well, Jason said "Get back home, Loretta," refers to Loretta Martin, the character in the Beatles' "Get Back" who "thought she was a woman but she was another man." But it wasn't Loretta who was "wearing her high-heel shoes and her low-neck sweater," it was her mother, who was waiting for her back home where she once belonged.
And lemondog said "Uh... oh... V-neck," linking here:
Wow! He's got his hand in the position seen in picture of John Calvin I put up in yesterday's post about the Café Fellatio (where I was hoping you'd read that hand gesture in phallic terms?).
Anyway, I was very interested in getting a solution to this v-neck mystery from Scott Adams. The v-neck, in his view, is aggressively, horrifically emasculating:
How many of the married men reading this blog have received those same sweaters as “gifts” from women? Personally, I’ve received about 25 over the years. None from men. I received three of those sweaters so far this year. I throw them away. Nice try.
That's my idea of how to answer the question whether any given person is a Christian. I'm basing my answer on the famous old Bill Clinton answer...
... which always made sense to me. In the case of whether someone is a Christian, the answer could easily vary based on whether your definition of Christian is just someone who consistently asserts that he's a Christian — which was apparently Dana Milbank's definition, causing him to insist that it's easy and obvious to say that Obama is a Christian — or whether you think a Christian is someone with a particular set of sincerely held beliefs — which could have been what caused Scott Walker to say he didn't know whether Obama is a Christian.
I would suggest that there is a definition of Christianity within which it is possible to assert that no one is a Christian and another that gets you to the answer that everyone is a Christian.
Should politicians get into the activity of defining Christianity? Consider that Obama seems to have decided he can and should define Islam. (He has a pragmatic reason for saying that ISIS is perverting Islam and therefore only lies in saying it is Muslim.) But is there any good reason for any American politician to tread into the territory of saying what Christianity is?
"There are 1000s of images available online, from glorious Islamic portraits of the 16th century to the Danish and French cartoons. If many people, especially people with big megaphones, did this maybe we would get to the point [slain Charlie Hebdo editor] Stephane Charbonnier aimed at, making lampooning Islam as banal as lampooning Catholicism."
I've been putting off talking about this, out of respect for the dead and out of opposition to terrorism and murder. But if I were to talk about it, I would say something similar to what I said about "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day. I wrote 2 posts, back in 2010:
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
Get your own great American movie director who supports your side and knows how to be funny in a 1-man empty chair routine.
Bring on Woody Allen to do a political version of his hilarious courtroom scene in "Bananas":
IN THE COMMENTS: creeley23 said...
My bet is that they'll go to Tom Hanks or George Clooney or maybe double-team them.
The bit will be smooth and rehearsed, it will affect an insouciant air (like our trolls), and it will attempt to ridicule Clint Eastwood's performance, but it won't have his edge.
I bet you're exactly right! My suggestion was a joke. Obviously, you can't have Woody Allen when you've got your war-on-women theme. (Even though they will have Bill Clinton.) But I do think they will have some kind of a response — if only in the form of numerous references to Clint Eastwood (e.g., regular speakers with little asides about how they just saw Clint Eastwood talking to a chair, somebody else talking to a chair, Clint Eastwood talking to some other inanimate object, Clint Eastwood talking to some other person, possibly Mitt Romney, who is less animate than an inanimate object like a chair).
Now we know why now why Mary shuns the Internet: it’s full of people, talking about their lives, unprompted by Mary’s probing questions, a prospect she finds completely ghastly.
Yes, it was taken over by some weird person who pretended to be you and marry one of the commenters. It's been a weird trip. Glad to have you back. (What have you been doing the last year or so?)
Palladian said:
Yeah, all the frequent posts concerning 893-mile bicycle rides through the Andes, 627-mile cross-country skiing trips through the Alpines, recipes for squirrel and morel mushroom en croûte cooked in the wild, 2800-mile drives to the middle of nowhere to collect pigment samples for house-painting projects, cutting turf with plow oxen to plant beds of sorghum... very, very distressing to those of us allergic to the unnatural lifestyles of healthy, happy outdoors-people.
Thank goodness we're back to withering, subtle mockery delivered while sipping coffee in cafes, the sort of thing that brought the better of us here to begin with.
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder explains that it’s all a cunning plan. Ambinder’s a nice guy, but his nonstop spin has become embarrassing. I mean, when you’re getting more honest criticism from HuffPo....
That's very Instapunditly sharp and enigmatic, so let's dig into the details....
First, the HuffPo (Steve Marmel):
It's December 23 - I lug my tired butt to the airport, ready to leave for vacation. Carrying a bottle of very nice wine, I have to leave my place in the security line as I can't bring it as a carry-on, check it in a bag, get a special box, go through security again and hope I - and my fancy wine - arrive intact....
What kind of idiot imagines that "nice"/"fancy" wine is some exception to the well-known rule against carrying liquids onto the plane? You didn't lose your place in line. You stupidly got into line. I almost stopped reading. But, I see: His point is that he'd become oblivious to terrorism prior to the Christmas Day incident. People traveling after the attack had a properly post-9/11 edge. But...
Meanwhile, the president continues his vacation.
America lucked out this holiday season. It's as simple as that. Something terrible could have happened and It was the bravery of passengers, and the ineptitude of a would-be terrorist, that prevented it.
Did the passengers actually make a difference? The crew was there with fire extinguishers, and Abdulmutallab was stunned and badly burned when the passengers jumped him and dragged him down. It looks to me as though the defectiveness of the device was what saved that plane.
... It was luck.
Yes. Indeed.
And if you're like me - that scared the crap out of you. You probably wanted assurances. What will be done to prevent this? How are we reacting?
If you're like me, you're not looking for Attorney General Eric Holder, or Representative Pete King, to be telling you how it could have been worse or how it will be managed.
When the nation is attacked, I expect to be informed and hopefully calmed by the President of the United States.
So I ask, one more time - of this president who understands that how a message is delivered is just as important as what the message is - What is wrong with this picture?
The picture is of Obama in Hawaii. Sure, he can still say, We must stop the terror, but...
See the problem?
Yes, the president deserves a vacation....
But that vacation should have been over moments after the plane landed at noon on Christmas day, and everybody was starting to do the math that once again, al Qaeda tried to strike at this country.
And even if it were only for appearances - even if it were simply to make people know the commander-in-chief was in front of whatever buttons and levers are at his disposal to act and react to threats to this nation - the president should have been inconvenienced as well.
There are moments like these where it's important not to simply just do the work, or be told by others that the work is being done. We need to see it.
And that could have been done in Hawaii. Just not from the back nine.
Back to work, sir. Back to work.
I would go further, as I've said. I don't think the President should be out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It's too far away. And I don't care that a temporary White House can be set up anywhere. (By the way, I would like an itemization of the costs, in taxpayer dollars and in carbon emissions, of relocating the White House in Hawaii.)
Oh, hey... remember this?
What do you think Hillary is thinking about what's going on? That she would have been back in the White House. She wouldn't have left it to the Secretary of Homeland Security to do the talking on the Sunday shows. She wouldn't be all...
So get out of the tropical foliage, Barack, and fight terrorism. Even if it's all photo-ops for you, have some sense about what the photo op should be right now.
On to Marc Ambinder:
In his Farenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree.
Ah, my association was the same as Ambinder's. Ambinder goes on to tell us that Obama has been golfing in Hawaii. And he went to the gym right after he was briefed about the attack. But Ambinder offers his usual pro-Obama spin:
There is a reason why Obama hasn't given a public statement. It's strategy....
[A]n in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic....
In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people....
So was Bush. It wasn't effective. Obama has had the opportunity to learn from Bush.
It's a tough and novel approach....
It's not novel, because Bush did it too. The only thing novel about it is doing it after Bush did it... ineffectively.
OUTCRY: “Napolitano should quit.” “I watched her on three shows and each time she was more annoying, maddening and absurd than the pevious appearance. It is her basic position that the ’system worked’ because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was ‘foiled’ by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right. That is just about the dumbest thing she could say, on the merits and politically. I would wager that not one percent of Americans think the system is ‘working’ when terrorists successfully get bombs onto planes (and succeed in activating them).”
That's Jonah Goldberg.
UPDATE: More from an Obama voter: “Now, I know they are mopping up after a failure, and there is reason to want to portray the attack as coming out of the blue and unconnected to anything that should have been the subject of close monitoring, but — damn — I hope they are doing a better job than they look like they are doing. And if they don’t look like they’ve been doing a good job, then they aren’t even doing a good job of mopping up after their failure.”
Oh! Well, I agree with that. It's me. Thanks for the link, Glenn. Yeah, I voted for Obama. Am I sorry? I should be exactly the same amount of sorry I would be if Abdulmutallab's device had not malfunctioned. So, I must say: Yes, I'm sorry.
IN THE COMMENTS: Jason said:
I think everyone should watch that Hillary commercial all the way to the end. It seems different somehow.
Place: The Arboretum, Madison, Wisconsin. Time: Sunset.
AND: Now, the eagerly anticipated Part 2, The Turkeys Continue to Walk Around:
IN THE COMMENTS: Jason (the commenter) said:
In part three it goes from a documentary to an action flick. Meade machine guns down the turkeys, who turn out to be international drug trafficers, after they kidnap Althouse and hold her for ransom.
Actually, there is a Part 3, and it does get a little action-y after Meade... well, Meade is off-camera. Let's just look at the turkeys:
The NYT has no way of knowing which articles are most emailed.
Jason (the commenter) thinks John doesn't get it:
If they have an "email this article" link they do. I see many publications keeping track of stories this way.
That was John's point:
No, that button keeps track of how many people use that button. I email articles on a regular basis and never use that button. I don't understand why anyone would use it. The NYT has no way of knowing when I send a NYT URL to someone.
MayBee snarks:
I hope Althouse updates her post to include this vital information.
John stands his ground:
Yes, the NYT gives a false picture of what it knows about how popular its pieces are. The NYT perceives its internal emailing system as the be-all-and-end-all of popularity. But they're only detecting the behavior of the tiny group of people who are more comfortable with the NYT's convoluted messaging system than with the more straightforward practice of sending a URL. There are all sorts of ways this could be demographically skewed; it probably leaves out more young (maybe liberal) readers. I actually think that's important. Maybe not as important as the very serious matter of what Brooks was talking about in his comments about his thigh, so I don't know if it's worthy of an update in the post, but I think it's worth pointing out in the comments section.
Well, I think its worthiness exceeds post updating and warrants a new post!
I suddenly realize that I have no interest in what the dorks who use the "email" button think somebody they know should read. I'm also not surprised anymore that the Brooks column did so well. Indeed, I'd been wondering for a long time why Brooks columns are always ranking so high on that list. Now, I understand that Brooks and "email" button-pushers are on the same wavelength — and it is not a cool place to be.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, I don’t think the Instapundit feed on Twitter is any sort of a scam. I think it was just set up by someone trying to help. I just want to upgrade it and need the keys. I figured it would be easier to ask the person who set it up for me first, rather than going through Twitter.
I can see why he'd want to take over the existing feed rather than eliminate it and start over, and while the person who started it may have meant well, I do think Glenn needs to control his brand. I assumed this Twitter feed was his and formed the opinion that it was awfully unimaginative. And as Jason (the commenter) notes, the fake Instapundit was following various Twitterers: "It's like Mr. Reynolds is endorsing them and I wonder if payments are being made for the follows." Well, that would be a scam.
If they're from the NY Times, guys drinking wearing elephant masks is Americana, ie. Redneck. I'd say that's their slant.
I don't think that's what Michael H is about. But it does remind me of a recent controversy — wish I could find it easily — where the NYT used a photograph of some awful-looking people to illustrate a story about rural Americans.
So I said I wanted to record — and sell — a CD of me reading some of my favorite Titus comments. I hadn't decided if I'd actually do this, so your reaction to the proposal matters to me.
Chuck b. said:
Oh my..!
I would of course include selected tracks in the music program that I play during the cocktail hour before all my dinner parties.
Like everyone else in the world is going to do once this gets in circulation!
Everyone one the coasts, I mean.
Your level of celebrity is about to tick up a notch.
So far, so good. Chuck is with me!
Palladian said:
This is a terrible idea. I can't think of anything more repellent than having to listen to Titus's comments.
But this is the way the wind is blowing around here. Apparently someone's endless commentary about their excrement and their fictive sexual encounters and their ugly dogs is what passes for interesting conversation these days.
Will you include the parts where he insults other commenters? How about when he sexually harasses female commenters, asking about their tits? What about his unfunny faux-conservative rants? Will these all be a part of the collection?
Bleh. Better to make a best-of cd of your late podcast or sell prints of your photographs or squirrel mugs or simply as for donations like Andrew Sullivan used to do?
Uh oh. I don't have Palladian! Why doesn't he appreciate Titus's absurd writings? You won't be listening to Titus. You'll be listening to me. Whatever is repellent about Titus's voice will be transformed. It won't be an attempt to impersonate him, but purely me. I think I can help you see what is so funny about it. As for prints of my photographs, anyone can download the original files and print out whatever they want under the Creative Commons license I have displayed at Flickr. As for donations, my post worked as a request for donations and I got a few. (Thanks!) I'm not desperate for money. That's not my purpose here. I really am in it for the laughs. I was reading some Titus comments aloud — the thing about the sock — and I laughed into hysteria. I'd have a lot of fun making the recording, and I only want to share the fun.... with those who find it fun.
Skeptical said:
I know why Althouse likes Titus's shtick.
Even the lame crap that Titus serves up over and over becomes performance art through his sticking to it over the long haul. When one thinks of the narrative strand that is Titus's 'I squeezed out a loaf this morning, and it had two heads,' etc., picturing it extended in time, itself like an endless loaf shat out of Titus, it has an aesthetic appeal that none of the individual loaf comments even hints at individually. So when Althouse laughs at Titus's loaf remarks, she is laughing at it not on its own, but only as a loaf-moment, if you will, in the unending loaf.
Ha ha.
John Stodder said:
I think the guy's hilarious.... [T]here is something so decorous about the way Titus expresses pride in his creations, I can't help but laugh. There's a generosity about his whole approach here. Obviously, he's one of the commenters who disagrees with the majority, but his stings are gentle and sometimes clever....
But, professor, wouldn't it just be easier for you to write a damn book? You're a pioneer blogger, a pioneer bLAWger, and a pioneer woman blogger. I'm also convinced that you've got one of the few big blogs with political content that isn't essentially dishonest.... Why don't to write a book about this blog, why you do it, what it has added to your life and career, what it's taught you?....
This is something I thought of doing and, in fact, worked on — 100 pages worth — in 2005. I abandoned the project because I didn't like the way it felt to be on the outside observing the thing I was actively doing, as if it had already occurred. To blog is to be constantly in the middle of things. I want to be the blogger, not the memoirist observing me, the blogger. That's not bloggy. This blog may seem to be about me, but it's not. You may be able to see something of me in it, and I know it feels personal. But the fact is, I don't blog about myself. I blog about whatever interests me at any given moment, and I'm not self-absorbed. I want to look out, not in.
Onparkstreet said...
I have to admit, I scroll past the Titus comments because I find them a little bit gross.
And, the funny thing is, I'm trained as a pathologist.
Ha ha ha. That is funny.
Palladian again:
Titus is not just a harmless minstrel in a faggot costume debasing himself for the pleasure of the straights. If you have read enough of his comments (and there are certainly a lot of them), you'll have noticed that there's a deep nasty streak underneath all the "namaste" crap. The titus project is to disrupt any attempt at reasonable conversation and drive away the intelligent commenters and readers. It hasn't totally worked fortunately, but I have to say that my interest in reading the comments on a post drastically diminishes when I see his alias...
"Always wondered why Titus was tolerated."
Unfortunately Althouse's commendable respect for free speech in her comments has allowed some bad-faith commenters to do a lot of damage to the community.
I don't understand the attraction Althouse has for titus's writing. I mean, the first few times he talked about his vapid life and his "rare clumbers" I thought it was amusing. But it quickly got old and quickly became apparent that his intentions were not good-faith performance art....
To me, titus is like a blackface minstrel amusing a crowd of upper-class white people. I'm not entirely comfortable with his clownish and repulsive depiction of a gay man. And I'm still not convinced he's not an entirely fictitious character.
So if I'm amused, then I'm not politically correct, gay-wise?
Jason (the commenter) said:
Always wondered why Titus was tolerated.
I always wondered why Palladian was tolerated. I bet they are the same person!
The plot thickens. But I know Palladian. He couldn't be playing such an elaborate prank on me.
Theo Boehm said:
When Titus writes about some place or thing I know about, it's inevitably misapprehended and cartoonish. It seems, as Palladian points out, as if he's toying with the suckers. His putative sexual escapades are along the same lines, again, per Palladian....
Part of what Titus is about, as has been said, is the making of everything he tells into clownish and unappealing grotesquerie. Althouse reading [some other commenter's porn] would certainly attract attention, but it wouldn't have the same underlying dark and hostile humor, if you want to call it that, of Titus' offerings. The point of porn is to attract; Titus' goal is to repel. I do think, however, there's something to learn in the process.
Althouse has in the past attracted to "comic" characters... who were classic long-range trolls, and whose goal was disruption exactly as Palladian describes. I think Althouse's commitment to free speech assumes that openness toward, and even, in the case of Titus, a co-opting of hostility that is the best way to handle it. She may have a point and a lesson to teach here. Or she may be incredibly naive about the motivations of disruptive people.
Among the many things I have learned in this blog these past years is to never underestimate Althouse, especially in her longstanding role as teacher.
That means a lot and emboldens me.
Penny said:
Two thumbs up for Althouse, two thumbs up for Titus and two thumbs up for Palladian and all the rest of you.
The beauty of Ann's blog is its diversity. She has created an exceptional oasis here, where those who have very different sensibilities can come for a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.
I love politics and law. I love art and photography, and humor, and commenting on headlines. I could go on and on. The best thing that Ann has brought us ALL, is a place where we can virtually sit down and hash nearly ANYTHING out, and nearly always without making those not-like-us our enemies...or worse yet, buffoons.
Face it. Most of us head out on the internet every day for hours. Some might like to spend most of their time listening to those who say EXACTLY what they are thinking. Some take some time to check out msm links, or even the political "opposition". But where the heck do we choose to plop our asses down at the end of a hard day, or a boring day or a so-so kind of day? Right the heck here at Ann Althouse's place.
And why is that? I suggest it is because Ann is OPEN to all of us being EXACTLY the way we are. It is her "gift", and our good fortune, to have found her in this world that is becoming increasingly intolerant.
Please don't screw up what our hostess, Ann, is bringing to the internet.
This fine lady will become famous for opening up her "living room" to all of us. ALL of us.
Count me as one who will be searching out Titus, right after I give Ann a great big hug for keeping us all human.
Money follows value, my dear. And YOU, Ann Althouse, are more valuable than you know.
Aw. Cool. Thanks.
Ralph said...
"Sex and the City" proved there's a market for women talking about dicks. Perhaps Althouse wants to prove there's a market for women talking about shit.
And hog.
Palladian said:
Good Evening fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine. Here's my attempt at a titus audiobook. I took all the comments he made in yesterday's "Mauve Cafe" post and performed them in the closest approximation of my impression of titus that I could throw together in 5 minutes. I did a bit of digital post-processing to "enhance" the performance and added an appropriate backing track.
Am I a bad person if that made me laugh until tears ran down my face (even though you tried to make me feel guilty about laughing by using that "gay" voice that only homophobes are supposed to laugh at)? By the way, Palladian left out the funniest part of the sock story, the part that nearly killed me.
Jason (the commenter) said:
Palladian,
Althouse MUST do this!
I never knew you had such a sexy voice. I always read your stuff (out loud to my friends) in a monotone.
Palladian said:
Well... uh, thanks I think. But that's not really what my voice sounds like, the pitch and speed is digitally altered and I was laying on the stereotypical faggotry pretty thickly. But my voice is quite animated and modulated, not a monotone at all.
Darcy said:
Palladian, with that bit of genius, you do realize you probably just guaranteed Althouse doing this, right?
Althouse is a leader, and shaping us all, simply with her presence.
The fucking beauty here is that she is not shaping us all in her own form.
To whoever up above asked where I came from? Same place as you. I hit a link that FINALLY makes some sense to me.
Philosophical "warrior" in need of some middle place...and YES...even better, a sometimes silly place to set my ass down when I have had enough of "all that".
Thank you, Ann, for allowing my butt to rest here.
So? Does this site make my ass look big?
TitusFreezeFrame said:
Palladian that was brillant.
Wow, the time and energy you have devoted to this is remarkable.
More please!
I laughed my ass off!
Palladian said:
Took 5 minutes each, darling.
TitusFreezeFrame said:
Regardless of how much time it took it was terrific.
I bet you even got a little chuckle doing it, didn't you?
That voice, which I know is embelished, is the voice of my comments.
I love how you pronounced burgurs the same way I spelled it. Amazing....
All and all there is a lot of love here.
And hate I guess-150 comments on me? One commenter was right I don't give a shit...obviously.
What I do think is amusing is if anyone tried to share this with someone outside of this blog.
So there is a commenter who comments about pinching loaves. I am thinking of putting it on a CD (Althouse). I am actually going to tape some of his comments in a very queeny voice (Palladian). Try explaining that to someone at your next company staff meeting.
Also, this place would be boring without me. Just another voice bitching about liberals. Ignore me, although it seems to be hard for some.
And I actually do talk to my friends like I talk on this blog. I think I have mentioned this before but I actually leave recordings on my friends voicemails of me pinching loaves with grunts and groans and everything. They in turn forward them to other friends. I have also called them when I am having sex and let them listen. The trick doesn't know but it is my little way of sharing my life with my friends.
Now I feel a virtual group hug coming on. Don't you?
Ha ha. Obama is being alpha, and he's deliberately tweaked that other alpha who just loves to hear his name invoked by his enemies. I'm picturing Rush delirious with glee, pacing the cavernous rooms of his mansion, booming out monologues to his kitty cat Pumpkin, as he waits for Monday noon to finally roll around. This will be good.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," [some Obama official explained.] "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.... I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it. ...
I'm happy to be the last man standing....Yeah, I'm the true maverick... You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts.
IN THE COMMENTS: Jason says:
The moment I heard Obama said those things about Limbaugh I went out and subscribed to Limbaugh's 24/7 service (giving him money). And sometimes Limbaugh makes me angry, but now that the government is against him he has to be cool. Like cigarettes or machine guns or heck, even drugs.
[Obama] is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me.... To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts....
Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
The conditions raised the possibility of broken piano strings, cracked instruments and wacky intonation....
Well, hell, they knew it was going to be January. If these candyass classicists can't play in the cold, they should have hired some musicians who can.
***
So we were listening to recorded music when the clock hit noon, the constitutional moment for the President to be sworn in! Then, he was sworn in and that might have been fake and there was a second of that too.
IN THE COMMENTS: Gahrie said:
It was real before it was fake, and after all isn't that all that really matters?
... [A]fter the campaign the president ran, can we really be surprised?
Jason said:
This is amazing. Just yesterday I heard the music show on NPR praising the musicians for their amazing skill "people are still talking about it." God I hate them. You think they're giving you useful information and it turns out to be junk
hdhouse said:
between Ma and Perlman they are using about 5million in instruments that do not like cold. unlike Mr. Bush, they "fake it" for a reason.
I'm fine with them keeping their precious objects out of the cold, but let them keep their precious bodies off the stage. And, yeah, they are different from Bush. Bush was President, and as such, he had to perform, whether the circumstances challenged the limits of his capacity or not. They did not have an obligation. They received an invitation do something they knew they couldn't do, and they accepted it knowing it exceeded their capacity and they would fake it.
Paul Zrimsek said:
Folks, give it up for Milli Violinni!
Simon said:
Still, look on the bright side: Obama hadn't been inaugurated yet, so they sneaked it in under the wire before the trickery was over.
LOL. Very funny! I knew those words would come back to bite me. Let it be known that I am on trickery alert.
Leland said:
Fake but accurate.
Bearing said:
It's not that they didn't play in the cold. It's that they faked playing in the cold. That's just cheesy.
We can give the new president his own super-secure Blackberry, but we can't put four musicians in a heated tent with cameras?
And — considering that $170 million was being spent on the big show — project holograms of them outdoors.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Mga Post
