You don't have to look, and you don't have to look and see anything other than a bodyguard.

Link to Instagram.

"I'm not the most famous person in the world, but let me tell you something — all the Trumpers know me from the head picture."

"They all know me. They all know my face. They all know my hair. So O'Donnell goes, "No, I'm Rosie O'Donnell, this is my best friend Kathy Griffin,' and I just looked at the guy and I went like this, and then he knew, oh he knew...."

It's long, but the lengthiness is the style. There's a party at Paris Hilton's house, Kathy runs into The Rock and says "Hi, The Rock," a conservative mistakes Rosie O'Donnell for Roseanne Barr. It's worth it every step of the way and it's worth it to watch until you get to "I went like this," which is, obviously, a visual. Very funny!

"New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach."

Let's talk about blue checks.

Some fodder:

 

I also think it was very bad for journalism as a profession that, because we belong to a group of people for whom identity verification is essential, we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass.

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) November 6, 2022

ALSO: I expect this to come up, so I'll include it here: "Twitter suspends Kathy Griffin’s account for impersonating Elon Musk" (NY Post).

Despite her handle showing her own @kathygriffin name, the moniker by her blue checkmark said “Elon Musk” — which goes against the company policy against impersonation....

I presume she'll be allowed back, because Musk later tweeted: 

“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended.... Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning. This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.”

I'm seeing some people calling Griffin's suspension "permanent," but Musk wrote "Going forward." 

Kathy Griffin, on setting a bad example and causing worry that one might be targeted for violence.

Let me tell you something, it’s a very bad practice to walk up on stage and physically assault a Comedian.
Now we all have to worry about who wants to be the next Will Smith in comedy clubs and theaters.

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) March 28, 2022

Now, square that with this:

pic.twitter.com/HG3wwVO8hm

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) November 4, 2020

"Kathy Griffin has revealed she attempted suicide last year as she was struggling with addiction to prescription drugs, and also announced that she has stage one lung cancer..."

"... despite never smoking cigarettes, and will have to have part of her left lung removed. Griffin, who was placed in psychiatric hold after her suicide attempt, says she developed her addiction to cope with the backlash she endured after posing with a bloody effigy of then-President Donald Trump in 2017." 

The Daily Mail reports.

I'm sorry to hear all that and wish her well.

What if there were a color that could drive (some) people mad?

Nope. pic.twitter.com/BgtT2wvFx1

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) July 12, 2021

It's some kind of litmus test, so take the test: 

What is your reaction to this Ivanka family photo?

Why are they doing that? Why? Why! What does it mean? That color?!! It's nuts!

How lovely for them to dress up, coordinated like that, embodying family harmony.

Absurd, stylish clowns, tweaking the uptight lefties, with just — a color!

Sometimes pure color comes to the fore and overshadows celebrity, politics, and all that is mundane.

An evil color, for an evil family — it's all so wrong, so perfectly wrong.

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: My theory is that they adjusted the color until Arabella was dressed in the shade of blue associated with Tiffany & Co. — see it here — and the other clothing (and the sky) went along for the ride. It came out so cute and hilarious that they put it up on Instagram, and the haters made it viral.

BUT: I looked through her Instagram but didn't see the picture. Others dug all the way back to last year — I didn't go that far — and found it:

"The Bidens are GIGANTIC. I had no idea."

The Bidens are GIGANTIC. I had no idea. pic.twitter.com/8JQrzLogP0

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 4, 2021

ADDED: That picture is mindbending. Fortunately, The Guardian investigated: "Why do the Carters look so tiny alongside Joe Biden and his wife Jill in this picture?/You don’t need special gear to create this optical trickery. If you have an iPhone 11 or 12 you too can loom large over a former US president." 

What amazes me is that the picture was chosen for sharing. It looks like it was the Carter Center that tweeted it. I think that showed poor judgment, but maybe they knew it was hilarious and wanted to amuse us.

PLUS:

There. I fixed it. pic.twitter.com/dmjLiX3oXk

— 🌊 Deonardo La Vinci 🌊 (@DeonardoLeVinci) May 4, 2021

FROM THE EMAIL: Nancy links to this famous Diane Arbus photograph and says: 

This was the first image that came to mind when I saw the Tiny Carter’s. (Finally, a name for my new band.) 

Perhaps The Carter Center has a good, slightly twisted sense of humor as this also reminded me of the story of Jimmy battling the giant rabbit.

I see "Jimmy Carter Rabbit Incident" has its own Wikipedia page.

Are we mocking religion?

You guys... https://t.co/oFUSmP7SX6

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) November 6, 2020

Meanwhile in Philly https://t.co/zes4Oghuwb

— Amie Coleman (@amiecoleman) November 6, 2020

Isn't everyone's answer "Mad"?

"What’s the first magazine you ever loved?"

ADDED: Oh, my! Kathy Griffin answered "The Iliad." That's a real when-they-go-low-I-go-high answer.

Kathy Griffin dabbles in fat shaming, and one of her followers serves up an impressively well-drawn poster of "The White Couple From St. Louis."

Omg Kathy! I found your Halloween costume!! Would love ❤️ To see your impression of her!! Hahah pic.twitter.com/rXP6l7q4na

— TuckLuck (@LuckTuck) August 20, 2020

UPDATE: I can't believe I omitted the "men in shorts" tag. Fixed.

I get email from Tom Cotton, addressing me as "Patriot."

It says:

On Wednesday, I published an article in the New York Times calling for an end to violence in our streets. Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence.

Feckless!*

These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. The overwhelming majority of Americans are sick and tired of this violence and want to see strong action taken to restore law and order.

I’ve caused a total meltdown from the media and radical liberals. Reporters are attacking me and going after the New York Times for having the audacity to publish a piece that doesn’t fit within their liberal ideology.

He is glorying in their attack on him and fundraising. Of course, that's how it's done.  There follows a request for a donation, with clickable links. He says "socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" are "are trying to silence," and "liberal media and their democrat cronies" — yeah, small "d" — are "trying to silence our conservative voices."

I never give money to politicians. I'm just showing you that Tom Cotton is fundraising over the NYT reaction to its publication of his op-ed, that I was addressed as "Patriot," and that "feckless" has returned.
___________________

* I've already done a post about "feckless" — back when Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a "feckless cunt." I said: "In case you're wondering what the fuck 'feck' even is that we should feel bad about the lack of it, it's just another way to say 'effect.' So to be 'feckless' is to be lame, without effect." That was in the beginning of June 2018. Later that same month, Kathy Griffin called Melania Trump a "feckless complicit piece of shit," and I blogged it here. So... "feckless" had a moment, 2 years ago.

"What was supposed to be a shallow, tooted and booted, 1-night stand has grown and flourished to something far more meaningful..."

The entire ceremony was just under 14 minutes but I have to give you guys the uncut first 75 seconds. LOVE IT! We promised you atypical. We are in love and we cannot stop laughing. Thank you @LilyTomlin and Jane Wagner!#HappyNewYear pic.twitter.com/O5vOss3TCD

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) January 1, 2020

To what extent can the House Democrats control what the Senate Republicans do about impeachment?

Or, to phrase it like Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post: "How far can the House go to stop a sham trial?"

The Senate doesn't control the House; Why should the House control the Senate? The Constitution gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." That's the text of the document the House Democrats have been making such a show of solemnly honoring. Are they going to switch now to creative hijinks? How far can they go?!

Go as far as you can!!! Rubin eggs them on. Forget how you deafened yourself to the accusations Republicans made about the "sham impeachment." Time steal their rhetoric and call it a "sham trial." Oh, you do have to be careful. This is politics and there are winners and losers. Who's worse off if the people get the idea "sham"? Will the Democrats' "sham trial" framing enhance the Republicans' "sham impeachment" framing? Republicans say a sham impeachment, like a frivolous lawsuit, needs to be met with anti-sham tools and dismissed summarily, or the shamsters will file one frivolous impeachment after another and clog up the Senate. Frivolous lawsuits don't go to trial in the courts. The courts, carrying out their duty to decide cases, have devised methods to save themselves from being ruined by excessive and inappropriate work that comes in the form of a case.

Rubin sets out 5 ideas:

I'd like to see that "Macabre Video of Fake Trump Shooting Media and Critics" that was "Shown at His Resort."

According to the NYT. But the Times, understandably, doesn't want to promote it... though they obviously must know that talking about it while making it hard to get is a special sort of promotion. It intensifies the reader's desire to get to the thing that is withheld. Would it not be better to satisfy the piddling desire than to create it and then deny it?

A video depicting a macabre scene of a fake President Trump shooting, stabbing and brutally assaulting members of the news media and his political opponents was shown at a conference for his supporters at his Miami resort last week, according to footage obtained by The New York Times.

This sounds like that old video showing Trump in a boxing ring fighting an opponent that had the CNN logo for a head. But that was silly, not "macabre," and boxing is a controlled form of violence, unlike the "shooting, stabbing and brutally assaulting" (described in more detail after the jump).

Who ran this conference? It wasn't the Trump campaign. It was a group called American Priority. But...

The organizer of the event said in a statement on Sunday that the clip had been played at the conference, saying it was part of a “meme exhibit.” He denounced the video and said his organization was looking into how it was shown at the event.

I see there were some high level Trumpsters "scheduled to speak at the three-day conference": Donald Trump Jr., Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Ron DeSantis. But there's no evidence that they had anything to do with the video or that they got a look at the "meme exhibit."

That said, it really is ridiculously violent (judging from the text, which eliminates any comic spirit that might be present in the original):

The video, which includes the logo for Mr. Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign, comprises a series of internet memes. The most violent clip shows Mr. Trump’s head superimposed on the body of a man opening fire inside the “Church of Fake News” on parishioners who have the faces of his critics or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies. It appears to be an edited scene of a church massacre from the 2014 dark comedy film “Kingsman: The Secret Service.”...

Mr. Trump stops in the middle of the church, pulls a gun out of his suit jacket pocket and begins a graphic rampage. As the parishioners try to flee, the president fires at them. He shoots Black Lives Matter in the head, and also shoots Vice News.... He wrestles a parishioner with a Vice News logo as a face to the ground and then shoots the person at point blank range. In the background, the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, is seen trying to get away....

He strikes the late Arizona senator John McCain in the back of the neck. He hits the television personality Rosie O’Donnell in the face and then stabs her in the head. He strikes Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California. He lights the head of Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential rival, on fire. He takes Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, hostage before throwing him to the ground. Then he strikes former President Barack Obama in the back and throws him against a wall.

Others shown in the video include Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; former President Bill Clinton; the film producer Harvey Weinstein; and Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is overseeing an impeachment inquiry of Mr. Trump.

The clip ends with Mr. Trump putting a stake into the head of a person with a CNN logo for a face. Mr. Trump then stands on the altar, admiring his rampage, and smiles.

Possible arguments in favor the video: 1. It's so extreme that the comedy is obvious (and you'd see that if you could actually watch it rather than read a description of it), 2. Trump has been so viciously pummeled throughout his presidency that he's entitled to a fantasy of fighting back, 3. Our movies are so chock full of violence like this that it's part of American culture and we know how to consume it and enjoy it while still remaining good, decent people who know right from wrong.

I'm not actually making those arguments. I have no position without seeing the actual video and understanding the context in which it was presented. I'm just sketching out the arguments because I can see them, and that's something I would do even if my goal was to make arguments against the video. That's how you develop good arguments.

Also: I defended Kathy Griffin when she did that severed head photograph.

ADDED: Here's a tweet with the video. I've now seen it. I expect the videos to get taken down systematically, but the hashtag — #TrumpVideo — will effectively get you to another tweet that has it.

This video depicting a macabre scene of a fake President Trump shooting, stabbing & assaulting members of the news media & his political opponents was shown at a conference for his supporters at his Miami resort.

Despicable.#TrumpVideopic.twitter.com/4Qjk1zt9aG

— The Hummingbird 🐦 (@SaysHummingbird) October 14, 2019

AND:

Re: the video played over the weekend: The @POTUS @realDonaldTrump has not yet seen the video, he will see it shortly, but based upon everything he has heard, he strongly condemns this video.

— Stephanie Grisham (@PressSec) October 14, 2019

"Everyone's too... everyone's too too too too..."

Said Bill Maher on his "Overtime" show, receiving a lightweight apology from Fran Lebowitz, who'd just said something on Maher's "Real Time" that the producers told her they were getting "blowback" about on Twitter:

#FranLebowitz clarifies her Trump comments on #RTOvertime: pic.twitter.com/m0nFrsjygZ

— Real Time (@RealTimers) May 18, 2019

Deadline gives the background on what led to that.

Asked whether Trump should be impeached, Lebowitz insisted “Impeachment would be just the beginning of what he deserves.” That’s when she suggested we turn him over to “the Saudis, his buddies – the same Saudis who got rid of” WaPo columnist Jamal Khashoggi. “Maybe they could do the same for him,” she had said....

What's interesting about the apology scene is that it's not even an effort to appear sincere. Lebowitz is mocking the producers for watching Twitter and telling her to apologize and Maher immediately takes over to criticize people in general — "everyone" — for being too sensitive. Good. There are too many bullshit apologies, too much fear of offending, and not enough tough comedy.

I wonder exactly what the producers said. I'm imagining You saw what happened to Kathy Griffin.

"When you strike at a king, you must kill him," said Ralph Waldo Emerson, famously.

I think Emerson was talking to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and Holmes was attacking Plato, hence the riposte. The physical attack was metaphorical. Holmes and Emerson were jousting in the world of words, and Emerson got off a bon mot for the ages.

I'm talking about that this morning because James Woods got kicked off Twitter:

James Woods, one of the few conservative stars in Hollywood, has been locked out of his Twitter account for over a week now for “abusive behavior,” once again demonstrating the double standard the tech giant holds when it comes to enforcing rules.

Twitter suspended Woods for a tweet that read, “‘If you try to kill the King, you best not miss’ #HangThemAll,” according to his girlfriend Sara Miller....

The tweet was apparently in reference to the Mueller report, which found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The quote is from Ralph Waldo Emerson and has been used in various forms in movies and TV shows like The Wire....

"You best not miss" is the form of words used on "The Wire" (video here), and on "The Wire" the physical attack is not metaphorical, but with a real gun with bullets. But Woods was using the physical attack metaphorically. The idea — which deserves to be expressed — is — I think — that there was a coup attempt on Trump and it didn't work, therefore those who attempted it are in desperate trouble.

This isn't a true threat, just rough political discourse. It's not much like Emerson, because Emerson was speaking in a context where it was clear that only ideas were at stake. Holmes couldn't physically threaten the long-dead Plato. I think it's also clear that Woods was talking about political power and legal troubles, though the legal troubles are bad enough that they could lead to a physical impact on a human being — that is, a prison term. But there is a problem with Twitter's clipped language and vast dissemination. Among the thousands or millions of readers of a post like "If you try to kill the King, you best not miss’ #HangThemAll" are confused, paranoid, angry people who might hear a message to go out and kill somebody.

I'm checking the #HangThemAll at Twitter, and I see this:

James woods was banned for saying #HangThemAll about treasonous leaders on the left and was banned from Twitter, but @kathygriffin isn't banned for this: pic.twitter.com/tT1x4eeVnJ

— The JP McGlone (@JPMcGlone) May 4, 2019

Yes, and that's the problem. Twitter needs to apply its standard from a neutral viewpoint.

It's the trailer for the new Kathy Griffin movie — and I might be in it!

Here's the trailer for @kathygriffin's first concert film which chronicles the aftermath of her Trump photo. It's premiering at @sxsw next month. pic.twitter.com/HAnmIp9fKB

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) March 1, 2019

If that's the Chicago show, I'm in the frame at 0:54. (In the audience.)

An interesting example of how Trump derangement syndrome deranges the understanding of facts.

Notice the projection of the derangement into the mind of the people you can't understand:

I’ll bet most diehard Maga Trump supporters who love Russia, don’t know that private gun ownership is NOT ALLOWED by Vladimir Putin in Russia.

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) February 16, 2019

To put it briefly, in case you don't see my point, Griffin assumes that Trump fans love Russia. But it's Trump haters who made up the idea that Trump is in love with Russia. Griffin sees that something doesn't make sense, so why doesn't she consider removing her own assumption instead of clinging to it as it produces more nonsense?

Now, I'll give her credit. She's a comedian, and she's entertaining her audience. Building on a premise to produce ever more precarious notions is a comic technique. She has her fun by stimulating her people into thinking those other people are really ridiculous. And if in the process, she is ridiculous, so what? She can riff her way into extreme flights of fancy, and it works in real life to the extent that her real life is being a comedian.

I get it. I've sat in the audience for her show. It's a clown show that stays in showbiz mode, which is something you can't say about Trump. He busted loose, out of his TV show and into the beyond-comedy world. That's so weird that it justifies virtually any sort of comic reaction.

Speaking of white men not "reflecting the gender and racial diversity" we've come to expect in liberal America — see previous post — look at what just came in the email from CNN?

No Kathy?! I knew that was happening, but they're not replacing her with a woman? There was a rumor that the replacement was going to be Leslie Jones (a black woman):

Griffin says she heard from a few different people a hosting rumor. “The hilarious @Lesdoggg (Leslie Jones) was in talks to co-host CNN’s New Year’s telecast with Anderson Cooper this year,” Griffin wrote. “I was elated when I heard this news. If I can’t get the gig, I will cheer for Leslie.”... But then Griffin says Jones was iced out of the hosting position...

So we have Andy Cohen, gleefully smiling as he grips his phallic-symbol bottle of popping champagne. I actually don't even know who Andy Cohen is, but that laughing face just makes me feel really bad about the ousting of Kathy. That picture looks like something from the days of Rowan and Martin. Smirking, self-pleased white men in tuxedos.