... let's get together.
5 જૂન, 2010
What's that brown ooze?
And why all the egg cartons?
Wait. This is nicer. Or is it? The evil you don't see is scarier, perhaps. I'm getting a "The Shining" vibe from it.
Maybe this one will make you happier.
Wait. This is nicer. Or is it? The evil you don't see is scarier, perhaps. I'm getting a "The Shining" vibe from it.
Maybe this one will make you happier.
Rush Limbaugh crashed a wedding... and it made him want to get married again.
"[Limbaugh] set the date to make much younger Kathryn 'Kate' Rogers his bride after slipping into a Washington, D.C., wedding when they were in town to take in a Redskins game, say insiders. 'Rush had so much fun at the event, he made up his mind it was time to set the date,' a source close to the right-wing firebrand told The ENQUIRER."
Ah, yes! I remember the show where he talked about that. Here — September 21, 2009 — "Rush Limbaugh, Wedding Crasher":
IN THE COMMENTS: bagoh20 said: "Rush is a Groomzilla!"
Ah, yes! I remember the show where he talked about that. Here — September 21, 2009 — "Rush Limbaugh, Wedding Crasher":
So the band kicks up and starts playing music and people start strolling by and looking with the most perplexed facial expressions, "Who? What the hell is he doing here? Why is the guy on the microphone at the band saying 'Rush Limbaugh is in the house'?" So the groom comes over and he has a big smile on his face, "Hi, I'm the groom."... Then the bride came over and she brought the official wedding photographer with her, and we are posing -- now, follow me on this -- we're posing for pictures, you know, being good because we've crashed the thing. I mean, we're wedding crashers... I just got an e-mail from the groom of the wedding I crashed on Saturday night.... "Rush, half the room was current and former Hillary staffers, half the room was conservatives with huge ties to the military and the Midwest. It was great to have you crash our wedding! I'm converting as many as I can."Getting married because you really want a wedding? I thought only women... young women... thought like that.
IN THE COMMENTS: bagoh20 said: "Rush is a Groomzilla!"
"But she found the Party of the Right students compassionate, intellectual and not terribly exercised about her homosexuality."
"She was drawn to the Catholics among them, who corrected her misimpression that the existence of sin 'means you are bad.' It means 'precisely the opposite,' they taught her. 'It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved,' she says."
The NYT has an article about Eve Tushnet, the daughter of lefty lawprof Mark Tushnet. As a Yale student, she first attended a meeting of the conservative group "specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals." Now, she advises individuals with a homosexual orientation to abstain from sex.
The NYT has an article about Eve Tushnet, the daughter of lefty lawprof Mark Tushnet. As a Yale student, she first attended a meeting of the conservative group "specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals." Now, she advises individuals with a homosexual orientation to abstain from sex.
As the hundred or so daily readers of eve-tushnet.blogspot.com, and a larger audience for her magazine writing, know by now, Ms. Tushnet can seem a paradox: fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life.That blog has been on my blogroll for a long time. Her father, now a Harvard lawprof, is one of the many former Wisconsin lawprofs who are out there at other law schools carrying on what people here like to think of as the Wisconsin tradition.
Her father, a nonobservant Jew, and her mother, a Unitarian, both belonged to progressive traditions, tolerant of her sexuality.Eve became a Catholic in her sophomore year at Yale.
[S]ince 2002 she has made a meager living through writing, computer programming and freelance research. She lives in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of downtown Washington and volunteers two hours a week at a Christian pregnancy-counseling center.ADDED: Queerty says:
Tushnet's website receives "hundreds" of visits per day — hardly enough to call her an influential blogger. But that reach comes through her scribblings for magazines like the National Review, titles that are apt to give space to people "on the inside" of gays advocating against them. Her writings are interesting, we'll give her that; ex-gays! sublimation vs. repression! And so is her story.... But she is a person with a platform who is out harming human beings with her instruction, and that's simply unacceptable.
Obama's "Pet Goat."
The Anchoress:
ADDED:
We’ve just spent years listening to ungenerous, miserable people excoriate President Bush for calmly taking 7 minutes, after learning of the attacks of 9/11, to allow his Secret Service to do their thing and to–with a great deal of composure–take his leave from a classroom without managing to scare the children or give an impression of fear that would be put before the nation and the world.IN THE COMMENTS: Fred4Pres said: "My Pet Pelican."
After watching President Obama take six weeks to process the terrible news he was given–pressing forward with golf, vacations, parties and fund-raisers in order to not scare the nation–even if that it meant he seemed a little disengaged from the BP Oil disaster, I never want to hear another sneering, idiotic My Pet Goat joke, again.
ADDED:
"What Pets Can Teach Us About Marriage."
I will not click on that link no matter how long it lingers on the "Most Popular" list on the NYT website. No no no. I see what they are doing, and I'm interested that so many people are so easily played by that title, but I will not go there. I resist!
UPDATE: Uh oh! Looks like somebody could have used a little NYT advice:
UPDATE: Uh oh! Looks like somebody could have used a little NYT advice:
Even the Dog Whisperer couldn't talk, demand or otherwise coax his way out of this one.
Cesar Millan's wife, Ilusion, filed for divorce Friday after 16 years of marriage, citing irreconcilable differences as the reason....
A story about a mural in Prescott resonates with the meme that Arizonans have a race problem.
Here's the story, about a mural that some citizens complained about because it depicted "a black guy" or 2.
I'd like to see a "before" picture, showing the entire mural, because there's some complexity about what it meant for the artist to be told to "lighten" the faces in the painting. The school officials said "to make the kids look like they were 'radiating with happiness,'" so there might be some issue of them conveying the wrong mood. "Lighten" is an ambiguous word — lighten up! — but it's also highly inflammatory to say "lighten" with respect to the skin tone of the faces in the mural.
And then there's City Councilman Steve Blair who had — he's now fired — a local radio talk show, who's been saying things like: "I disagree with the whole perspective that you would have a black guy painted on two sides of that building when the history of Prescott never had a culture issue." You do now.
Speaking of painting, Arizonans are being painted in the media as racists. With the hot national issue about immigration enforcement, any little thing like this will be picked up and used to propagate the meme. You may think you've got a local issue and be willing to engage in loose talk and feel sure you're not really a bad person, but you will look like hell when it's picked up nationally. I've seen a lot of bad murals around town, using big looming faces to convey "progressive" political messages, and I can imagine someone who wasn't a racist at all bitching about them in words that would look quite awful quoted in the national press.
I deplore racism — don't we all? — but can we also talk about the atrocious murals that get slathered onto the walls of our towns? The "diversity" theme is so common in these monstrosities, and I'd hate to see accusations of racism work to silence criticism of artwork that needs to complained about.
IN THE COMMENTS: lemondog links to what I think are pre-alteration photos of the mural, and it's hard to detect a surly, hostile, or aggressive look on the faces. They are already "radiating with happiness." How ecstatic do you want kids to be about going green? I dislike government propaganda murals (and anti-government propaganda murals), but the idea of lightening the faces is bad.
I'd like to see a "before" picture, showing the entire mural, because there's some complexity about what it meant for the artist to be told to "lighten" the faces in the painting. The school officials said "to make the kids look like they were 'radiating with happiness,'" so there might be some issue of them conveying the wrong mood. "Lighten" is an ambiguous word — lighten up! — but it's also highly inflammatory to say "lighten" with respect to the skin tone of the faces in the mural.
And then there's City Councilman Steve Blair who had — he's now fired — a local radio talk show, who's been saying things like: "I disagree with the whole perspective that you would have a black guy painted on two sides of that building when the history of Prescott never had a culture issue." You do now.
Speaking of painting, Arizonans are being painted in the media as racists. With the hot national issue about immigration enforcement, any little thing like this will be picked up and used to propagate the meme. You may think you've got a local issue and be willing to engage in loose talk and feel sure you're not really a bad person, but you will look like hell when it's picked up nationally. I've seen a lot of bad murals around town, using big looming faces to convey "progressive" political messages, and I can imagine someone who wasn't a racist at all bitching about them in words that would look quite awful quoted in the national press.
I deplore racism — don't we all? — but can we also talk about the atrocious murals that get slathered onto the walls of our towns? The "diversity" theme is so common in these monstrosities, and I'd hate to see accusations of racism work to silence criticism of artwork that needs to complained about.
IN THE COMMENTS: lemondog links to what I think are pre-alteration photos of the mural, and it's hard to detect a surly, hostile, or aggressive look on the faces. They are already "radiating with happiness." How ecstatic do you want kids to be about going green? I dislike government propaganda murals (and anti-government propaganda murals), but the idea of lightening the faces is bad.
The NYT has an article about Mickey Kaus and his Senate campaign, but...
... it's in the "Fashion & Style" section.
Getting to a peek at his living conditions seems to be a big point of the piece:
Then Brown makes one of the funniest gaffes ever in the NYT:
We eventually get to his positions on the issues, and really, Mickey can't complain about this. When does a candidate with no chance at winning get written up in the NYT? They can't be covering the political positions of everyone who qualifies to be on the ballot, even in a big state. You have to go in by the "Style & Fashion" door.
Getting to a peek at his living conditions seems to be a big point of the piece:
...his two-bedroom apartment in the Venice neighborhood.... Ikea furniture buried under a flurry of political tomes, magazines, printouts, cellphone manuals, and two-year-old Christmas card photos starring his friends’ children. A red laptop balances on a stool.A stool or a DAVE?
A small TV sits on a table. In the kitchen, spilled coffee grounds share counter space with a spread of vitamins and nonalcoholic beer....There's stuff about his background — jumping from a law career into mainstream journalism and then to political blogging. But the campaign itself, per the NYT, is "quixotic" and "insane" with "grim" prospects. The writer, Janelle Brown, catches him complaining "I’m completely allergic to Washington, D.C. I was literally developing asthma." (He worked at The New Republic and lived in Washington before retreating to his homeland, California.) She needles him by pointing out that the Senate meets in Washington. He "grimaces" and backfills with "I’ll invest in a lot of air-purifying technology."
He offers his guest water in a disposable plastic cup (“I hate doing dishes,” he apologizes).
Then Brown makes one of the funniest gaffes ever in the NYT:
For a solitary blogger, Mickey Kaus is astonishingly social and well connected: It’s difficult to find a writer or politico in Los Angeles who hasn’t knocked boots (or opinions) with Mr. Kaus at a party....That's a lot of sexual intercourse! (Glenn Reynolds has already pointed out this gaffe.)
We eventually get to his positions on the issues, and really, Mickey can't complain about this. When does a candidate with no chance at winning get written up in the NYT? They can't be covering the political positions of everyone who qualifies to be on the ballot, even in a big state. You have to go in by the "Style & Fashion" door.
4 જૂન, 2010
Botox interferes not only with the ability to display emotions, but also with the ability to understand emotion.
Fascinating!
"We know that language moves us emotionally," said the lead author, David Havas, a psychology graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "What this study shows is that that's partly because it moves us physically."...
Is it really so hard to understand the French McDonald's "gay-themed" ad?
Here's the ad:
Allahpundit is mystified:
As stated at the end of the O'Reilly clip, the ad is part of a series, showing different characters. I haven't looked at the other examples, but it's easy for me to understand the ad. Like many American ads I've seen over the last few decades, the viewer is drawn in by something other than the product itself. We're shown characters that interest us for some reason, and the product is woven in subtly in way that feels positive. In this example, we see a young man and understand something about him — he's gay — and then we see his father doesn't really get that, but they love each other and spend time with each other... at McDonald's. They don't share everything, but they can share a meal at McDonald's. It's really a typical McDonald's ad, showing the restaurant as an easy, comforting family place. It's not about controversy at all. It's about commonality. We're different in a lot of ways, but we can all agree that it will be good to eat at McDonald's. The ad is well-done, charming, and sweet, and it creates a good feeling about McDonald's.
Obviously, it is also true that the ad won't work on people who get riled when they see gay people presented as regular people who are part of ordinary life. I'm sure, back in 1980, some people didn't like to see a little white boy give his Coke to the black football player Mean Joe Green in the famous Super Bowl ad. And Coke might have thought about that. This will alienate some people who are not ready to see black and white people sharing a simple intimacy. But Coke chose to do the ad and take advantage of the good feeling it would give a lot of people, a feeling that would halo around the product. They were right, too.
When O'Reilly jokes about McDonald's doing an ad in this series showing a member of Al Qaeda, he's revealing that he thinks gay people are a group that most people view with justified hostility. McDonald's, operating in France, hasn't analyzed things that way. That's their judgment call, and I hope it's a good one.
Some people say that gay people should keep their sexuality private: Why does anyone need to hear about what anyone else does in bed? But the reaction to this ad shows how obtuse that is. This young man is looking at a photograph and talking to another male on the phone in a way that lets us know he's in love. It isn't at all leering or overtly sexual. It's mild and innocent. It doesn't make any sense to say that's something that belongs only in the bedroom. The idea that expression like this should be kept hidden only makes sense if you actually believe homosexuality is shameful.
Allahpundit is mystified:
French McDonald’s running gay-themed ads for … no apparent reason
More specifically: This isn’t an ad about how awesome the burgers are, with a gay protagonist singing the praises of Le Big Mac. That wouldn’t be a “gay-themed ad” so much as a “food-themed ad” with a gay pitchman.This is a true gay-themed ad, with the product almost wholly incidental to young Jacques experiencing l’amour fou with a guy while papa blathers on ironically about being a ladies’ man. Why’d McDonald’s do it? Er … no one seems to know. Apparently there was no anti-gay incident at McD’s over there that they’re trying to atone for. The obvious explanation is “controversy for controversy’s sake,” but I can’t believe French viewers will bat an eye. Maybe they hired a director who fancies himself an aspiring Godard and he simply decided to indulge his inner auteur, burgers be damned? All theories welcome!
Actually, maybe the “controversy” theory does make sense. Below you’ll find O’Reilly making an offhand comparison to Al Qaeda, which was enough to provide Media Matters with hours of content. It’s great when everyone wins, my friends.
As stated at the end of the O'Reilly clip, the ad is part of a series, showing different characters. I haven't looked at the other examples, but it's easy for me to understand the ad. Like many American ads I've seen over the last few decades, the viewer is drawn in by something other than the product itself. We're shown characters that interest us for some reason, and the product is woven in subtly in way that feels positive. In this example, we see a young man and understand something about him — he's gay — and then we see his father doesn't really get that, but they love each other and spend time with each other... at McDonald's. They don't share everything, but they can share a meal at McDonald's. It's really a typical McDonald's ad, showing the restaurant as an easy, comforting family place. It's not about controversy at all. It's about commonality. We're different in a lot of ways, but we can all agree that it will be good to eat at McDonald's. The ad is well-done, charming, and sweet, and it creates a good feeling about McDonald's.
Obviously, it is also true that the ad won't work on people who get riled when they see gay people presented as regular people who are part of ordinary life. I'm sure, back in 1980, some people didn't like to see a little white boy give his Coke to the black football player Mean Joe Green in the famous Super Bowl ad. And Coke might have thought about that. This will alienate some people who are not ready to see black and white people sharing a simple intimacy. But Coke chose to do the ad and take advantage of the good feeling it would give a lot of people, a feeling that would halo around the product. They were right, too.
When O'Reilly jokes about McDonald's doing an ad in this series showing a member of Al Qaeda, he's revealing that he thinks gay people are a group that most people view with justified hostility. McDonald's, operating in France, hasn't analyzed things that way. That's their judgment call, and I hope it's a good one.
Some people say that gay people should keep their sexuality private: Why does anyone need to hear about what anyone else does in bed? But the reaction to this ad shows how obtuse that is. This young man is looking at a photograph and talking to another male on the phone in a way that lets us know he's in love. It isn't at all leering or overtly sexual. It's mild and innocent. It doesn't make any sense to say that's something that belongs only in the bedroom. The idea that expression like this should be kept hidden only makes sense if you actually believe homosexuality is shameful.
"'Chick Cars' Don't, in Fact, Castrate Men."
That's Mother Jones objecting to some press release purporting to identify the top 10 "chick cars" that men should never drive. MJ sayeth:
Ah, I see. The real problem isn't the gendered object. It's the way men avoid feminine things.
I suppose it’s not that surprising that the idea of a gendered car exists or that certain members of the doucheoisie wouldn’t be caught dead in a Mini Cooper. After all, driving is fraught with gender stereotypes and assumptions....I don't see anything wrong with thinking about the masculinity and femininity of the inanimate objects you associate yourself with. I can decide to wear a frilly dress or a mannish pantsuit or to paint my living room a girlie pink color or a manly dark gray. So what's wrong with shopping for a car and thinking about whether I want a chicky Mini or a tomboyish pickup truck?
[I]sn’t it time we shifted male virility away from large, gas-guzzling automobiles, especially in light of the recent, horribly costly, and damaging oil spill in the Gulf? Maybe the sexes will never agree on who’s the better driver; but can’t we at least, for the sake of humanity, retire the phrase “chick cars” and the embarrassing PR it inspires?
Ah, I see. The real problem isn't the gendered object. It's the way men avoid feminine things.
Obama singing "Hey Jude."
IN THE COMMENTS: Commenters start naming Beatles songs that could have been sung to/by Obama. Mesquito begins it with "Taxman."
આના પર સબ્સ્ક્રાઇબ કરો:
પોસ્ટ્સ (Atom)
પોસ્ટ્સ
