« Why Now? Letterman Sees the Light | Desidero's Blog | Hiatt Firing Froomkin: WaPo Jumps the Shark »
Gollum and Mordor: Making the Best of Hypocrisy
I keep seeing a disturbing refrain, whether with Palin or Ensign or whomever, essentially condensed down to "they did X which is hypocritical, so I no longer have to limit myself to good taste and liberal democratic values".
Values are non-fungible. Gollum got the Dark Lord's ring, and every time he used it, he became a bit more tied to its spell. Or maybe it was using him. In any case, he ended up a slimy creature walking the edges of the upper world, no longer welcome among the creatures of the Shire.
There are always excuses to support a little bit of torture, a little bit of sexism, a little bit of chauvinism, just to get the upper-hand this one time.
The Democrats problem is in deciding whether they want to really be Democrats, to decide what that means after all these waffling years, or if they really want the starkly defined lines of the Republicans, the party of no doubt, of self-assurance, of victory at whatever cost (and boy has it cost).
Here's a hint: with the internet, everyone seems to be rushing to become a politician themselves, planning strategy approvingly along side the masters in Washington, tracking the polls, staying one step ahead. Leave it. Politics like trash collecting is dirty business - that's why we tend to hire the lower echelons of society to do it for us. Stick with real values and let the party come to you.
Values are non-fungible. Gollum got the Dark Lord's ring, and every time he used it, he became a bit more tied to its spell. Or maybe it was using him. In any case, he ended up a slimy creature walking the edges of the upper world, no longer welcome among the creatures of the Shire.
There are always excuses to support a little bit of torture, a little bit of sexism, a little bit of chauvinism, just to get the upper-hand this one time.
The Democrats problem is in deciding whether they want to really be Democrats, to decide what that means after all these waffling years, or if they really want the starkly defined lines of the Republicans, the party of no doubt, of self-assurance, of victory at whatever cost (and boy has it cost).
Here's a hint: with the internet, everyone seems to be rushing to become a politician themselves, planning strategy approvingly along side the masters in Washington, tracking the polls, staying one step ahead. Leave it. Politics like trash collecting is dirty business - that's why we tend to hire the lower echelons of society to do it for us. Stick with real values and let the party come to you.
Advertisement
Okay, so in the last few posts you have:
Put words in liberals mouths, compared us to Gollum, and claimed that we throw our taste and values aside when our opponents make hypocritical blunders. This post seems designed to say "shut up and play nice just like you used to do in 2004"
Disingenuously repeated Sarah Palin's talking points. Nobody can honestly believe Letterman's joke was about Willow. Throughout the debate you dropped other talking points like "millionaire writers" while not even addressing Palin's long history of anti-feminism and inciting violence.
Declared Barack Obama would probably have been aborted if it had been such an "easy and acceptable alternative" when he was born. And found every opportunity to criticize his administration.
Went on a binge of confederate apologism. (!)
Seeing as it's nearly impossible for you to really believe your own talking points, yet you seem to often align yourself with liberal ideas and the democratic party (while undermining them in posts like these) I'm calling you out as a deep-cover conservative.
June 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody can honestly believe Letterman's joke was about Willow.
--------------------------------------------------
I just can't understand why we keep seeing this refrain. Several people, liberals and progressives, have posted here that they believed it was about Palin or at least the joke was ambiguous enough to be seen both ways. I don't know Letterman's intend but I think its possible he meant Willow and I can easily see how it can be perceived that way irregardless of his intent. Are you calling me and all others who disagree with you liars?
The very last thing I, and most of the others here who hold this view, would want to do is side with Palin. I dislike her as much as you. There is not one single policy issue that I share with Palin.
I believe the joke was sexist. I have a long history of speaking out against racist, sexist, antigay, anti fat, and other abusive humor and commentary. Not as often or as eloquently as Des but it is there. The only reason I haven't weighed in so far is Des is expressing the same views as me much more clearly and articulately than I can. I've read all the blogs on this issue here and 100% agree with everything Des has written.
Its the height of ignorance to accuse Des, and by implication all others here who have expressed similar views on this issue, of lying or of being a "deep-cover conservative." Des has been here for years as well as many of those who agree with her on this issue. Their political bent is well know. You're really looking like a fool now and losing what ever credibility you might have had.
June 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
More tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain simple differences of opinion? This sort of stuff is why the democrats can't seem to get and hold a majority, despite the obvious advantage of having way better policy ideas.
June 17, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok then, if we're calling each other out... I'm calling you out as a buttmunch.
Wait. I need a judge's opinion. Can I call this guy a "BUTTMUNCH" & not be rung up for abuse?
After all, Urban Dictionary says "buttmunch" is just a way to say someone's "irritating." But to me... BUTTMUNCH means so much more. Or less. Ok, more or less, I think we can all agree that Credente isn't just ACTING buttmunch, Credente stone cold INHABITS buttmunch.
You're calling someone out? Really? After a month? Really? That is so cool. And that came after... what... MINUTES of research? And because Des argued against your fine fine position on this issue, he MUST be hiding some deep "AGENDA." You know, on your other blog there where you keep asking Des for his "AGENDA." And after not getting a response you're happy with, you make the command decision to call Des out "as a deep-cover conservative." Which would be a natural and logical conclusion, seeing as Des has made about 311 posts against sexism this past year. Clearly he's a deep cover, double-reverse conservative. Thanks for seeing through all that.
BUTTMUNCH.
And your argument on the issue? "The bottom line is this, the jokes were marginally offensive and directed at two people who I feel it is completely okay to make fun of."
So there we have it. Buttmunch doesn't like Sarah Palin or her daughter, and... therefore, it is ok to make fun of them - in marginally offensive ways. And how will we judge how offensive our sexism and racism IS? Well, BUTTMUNCH IN HIS BUTTMUNCHHOOD (word) came up with the great idea in their post to differentiate between "racially-charged" and racist... and also between "sexually-charged" and sexist.
It's genius. This helps so munch. Errrr, much. When it's against someone you don't like, then it's sexually-charged. But when it's against someone you DO like, I guess that runs the sex charge-o-meter up too high, eh? Like how high does it go before it crosses into sexism? 11?
Beavis, is that you? I think you blew your cover dude.
Heh heh. He said "blew."
June 17, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about that great philosopher Baron Von Buttmuncher. He flies around in this huge blimp and kind of goes
WHAT'S THIS THEN
and such. And he is kind to young boys and girls and is not even a priest.
And he seeks to find the good things in life and always hopes for the best.
Now you have just taken all buttmunchers and thrown them into some pile, all together without taking heed of the individual case.
Er was that Colonel Blimp? I get them mixed up sometimes.
June 17, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea for a film. We'll take some crotchedy old guy, attach his houses to balloons, and then send him off for a trip... only with some irritating kid tagging along for the ride.
We could call it, "Beavis & Baron von Buttmunchen."
June 17, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I was saying, that I stand by, was that you can make statements that bring up race or gender without neccessarily being racist or sexist. Michael Steele is being used as a token to make Republicans look like they're not racists. That is not a racist statement, but it has racial elements. I still don't think that Letterman's joke was demeaning to all women or even all stewardesses. It is obviously offensive to some, but most good comedy is. It doesn't set women back in the way that promoting abstinence only education or forcing them to pay for rape kits does. The Left should not make censorship a high priority.
As far as my suspicions of Desi's agenda go, did you read the "southern hatred and ignorance" back and forth with Desi and Jade? I don't know what he's been doing in the last "few years" but the last few months since I've been around it's been a whole lot of just barely veiled venom against Obama and his supporters. As I noted below Desi still needs to explain the state ment that Obama would have been an abortion if it was "an easy and accepted alternative" like it is today.
June 17, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if someone made a joke about Obama's mom being an easy lay for foreign grad students, that in your view would be about sex, not about sexism?
What is it about Letterman's suggesting that Palin's daughter being easily 'knocked up' by a passing ball player that makes you think that that is good clean sexual fun rather than demeaning sexism?
Just because you don't like Palin that doesn't make her kids a free fire zone.
June 17, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'll stop goofing now. In all these issues Credente, you're reading "criticism" as equalling "opposition." It's an old, enormous debate. Every government I've supported has the same gang war. It never gets resolved, there are real judgment calls to make, but the most basic thing you cannot do is mislabel those who are internal critics as external enemies.
I regard Palin as a genuinely dangerous politician. She's ruthless, mean-spirited and has all the makings of a strong fascist frontperson. She's comfy with big big money, the hard right church, guns and war, blood and iron and family, she hasn't a clue about foreigners, she hates the cities, and she'd be utterly happy to be the tool of others.
But what I wouldn't GIVE her is anything to FEED what she and her supporters are addicted to - "resentment." So no low blows, nothing that appear genuinely sympathetic as she poses as having been wronged. Nothing a neutral or moderate person would think she was right about.
You may read this stance as being ANTI- Letterman and PRO-Palin. But it ain't so. Some of us believe this is the most principled stance, and also the politically SMART one. Answer me this. What would Obama have advised? The quick, clean and complete apology, or this dragged out horseshit that Palin will raise for the next 10 years? Obama would've done a Des.
It irritates the shit out of me when people take their anger at Palin (which I share) and decide that means they're justified in throwing EVERYTHING at her. No holds barred. And they think this is tough, and smart, and fair - and if you disagree, then you're "soft" on the Right. Sorry, it doesn't. It's not smart politics, it's just anger. And it gave Palin some traction.
On the South, same thing. Personally, I felt like that was an intellectual low-point here. People accusing Des (and others like myself, without naming them) as being apologists for slavery. I just thought they were near brain-death. By saying the North had slavery too, you can create a DEEPER understanding of why and how racism CONTINUES ON TODAY than if you do this completely absurd, it's 100% the South's fault. If it was all just the South, then we can't understand racism against the Natives, we can't understand racism in Northern cities, etc. Does that mean I'm arguing the South had more light and truth and morality? NO CHANCE. Does it mean I'm an apologist for slavery? Only a fucking moron would think so. Does it also mean I have a far better chance of rerooting the Democrats in the South than some arse throwing rocks? Hell yeah.
Same with the secession argument. People didn't get that the "treason" argument might actually be really self-destructive, and even immoral. Why? Well, because the rebels of 1776 broke a country up (Britain) and were widely regarded as "traitors." Like I said, I still LOVED them. Which means, sometimes you can like and agree with a "traitor," and think there are higher moral ends than national unity. For me, the only way the Civil War makes SENSE and is supportable is if it's fought for a very large moral reason - namely, against slavery. If it's fought JUST to keep the Union together, then I think it has a weak moral basis. You don't kill 500,000 people for that reason. But to stop slavery, maybe you do.
As for the ongoing venom against Obama, I'd suggest some of the folks here are doing us a public service. After a candidate wins, the usual cycle is - 1) delirious early support (during which we let the candidate and his advisors be pulled away by the big boys behind the scenes), 2) before eventually we lose our temper and insist on reeling the candidate back in, 3) only to find the advisers and smart-asses saying it's too late, we're too close to the next election, time to close ranks.
So on health care, the banks, Afghanistan, torture - some people here insist on holding the line, hard, even against our guy, and they're doing it early on. That's fine with me. People argue that that's dividing the party, but the counter is that if we can actually elect a politician and MAKE THEM DELIVER on their promises, we're going to do a whole hell of a lot better come NEXT ELECTION. You tell me what the right answer is to that debate, and you'll have solved a centuries-old debate.
June 17, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I hate to encourage you to "stop goofing", that was excellently written, Quinn, from start to finish.
June 18, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi's criticism of Obama and his supporters has hardly been veiled. But he's right about this one and so is Quinn (below).
People on the left (and some on the right) are appalled at the racist jokes about Obama. These jokes are being told and circulated by people who oppose Obama like the left opposes Palin. It's just not okay to attack the person and it's especially not okay to attack the family of the person. Palin has plenty of whacked out policy views to attack anyway.
June 18, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, when Des wrote "they did X which is hypocritical, so I no longer have to limit myself to good taste and liberal democratic values", she was addressing it.
June 17, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no! Don't call me a conservative!
Oh, okay, I confess. Yes, I'm a liberal conservative.
I believe in respect towards women and people of all cultures, of keeping the planet clean and trying to pay as we go, of not living beyond our means, of standing up for moral values, of helping where there's helping to do, of minding my own business where it doesn't concern me, of protecting the defenseless where needed, of letting people have their freedom where it doesn't step too much on others' toes, of strong defense and effective diplomacy, not in that order even though it rolls off the tongue better that way, of leading by example rather than just words, of faithfulness to the Constitution as an only slightly flawed but generally very agreeable framework, of hard work and responsibility and leaving things in better shape for our kids and theirs, of giving people freedom to use their energy constructively and passionately, of progress through chaos, e pluribus unum, nationwide and worldwide.
Painful, you saw right through me.
June 17, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still feel like you owe an explanation on your ridiculous abortion comments. I find your entire notion that "Obama would have been aborted because now it's so quick and easy and there are no consequences" unbelievably offensive.
This is more than a simple difference of opinion. You're going to bat HARD for Sarah Palin, putting her word alongside terms like "freedom fighter" and making really offensive statements about Barack Obama. You're going into a tizzy of feminist outrage, then making incredibly offensive statements about abortion.
Then this post which reads "abandon pragmatism". Obviously,learning to play politics is working pretty well for the democrats now. They've had power for five months, OMG they haven't flipped the earth on it's axis.
If you're not a wolf in sheep's clothing, intentionally sowing discord, you're just completely off the reservation.
June 17, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree 100% Credente.
It is hard to take a guy seriously who gets his undies knotted over jokes on diva Sarah Palin's poor skills at motherhood, makes analogies comparing Palin to a Obama's dead grandmother, thinks Sherman had an air force inflicting damage like WW2 fire bombings and has a smiling atomic bomb as an avatar.
June 17, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get down off the cross, des (and oceankat) we need the wood.
June 17, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's already recycled pressed shavings. Or didn't you guess?
June 17, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he recycles it again, and again and again...........
June 17, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guillotines to build?
June 17, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were dickday, I'd offer you some sort of award for that comment.
I'm not, though, so *applause* is all you get.
June 17, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Nebton. I was hoping the allusion wouldn't get past everyone.
June 18, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Desi, and after I had such a good time gutting Mark McKinnon on the Ensign matter.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
I think I should have stars put on my jammies or something.
It is hard being such a well known national pundit like I am.
Are you telling me I really do not make a difference?
Ha
June 17, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are forgiven, my son, you have battled with the dark angel in fair regard, and come out triumphant. You have not resorted to illegal clench moves, hand holds and other violations of sacred wrestling ordinances. You are hereby vested with the Sacred Order of the Muskrat, by which you are allowed to adorn yourself with its musky smell till all the varmints come home. Consider yourself cleansed.
June 17, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, whatever, Des... and now for some breaking news about Palin-Letterman!!!
(And believe it or not, this isn't a parody from the Onion.)
Harharharhar!!!
And meanwhile, back in that tiny segment of reality that isn't on TV, Desidero nailed it.
June 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pole, why did comments get disabled on your earlier blog....just when it got interesting? Can you rehash it in another blog, please, or do you think its just too toxic? There's plenty to be said about the issues raised by your provocative piece. For whatever reason, some people got a little hot and bothered, and things got personal, which really shouldn't be a big deal on the innertubes.
I was truly appalled at how you were treated there, though.
June 17, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it got played out in his previous blog, just had to play Sherlock Holmes.
June 17, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was glad he did that, because he ended a tit-for-tat that would have been stupid, and has become a pattern here when similar blogs have gone on and on and on and on.....
I was glad when it was nipped in the bud, and for ONCE I was on the side of the root veggie. (For the record, I really like rutabegas
June 17, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfair, Bagey, you selectively edit and take out the funnest stuff:
And really, A-Rod nails it. Why is Des so persecuted?
He feels my pain!!! All of the above!!!
June 17, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. So that 'sticking with real values' part would require some self examination in the context of the media's memes as well as our own cultural dispositions, or am I reading this wrong? Seems like a long shot, with so much to distract, but you've got to try. Don't you?
June 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Paul's wondering why the people who were against the war are now for the war. Just because the White House changed? Well, yeah. Wonder what he's smoking. It's a Democratic War now!!! On to the Hindukush!!! Secure the Oxus!!!
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-17/ron-paul-opposes-supplemental-appropriations-act/
June 17, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Des is a boy (not that it matters...I just have this thing about apprppriate pronouns).
2. Des is right.
3. But can I still laugh when I re-watch Wanda Sykes making fun of Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner? Because that joke was also over the line and aimed at the king of the hypocrites. I would like to be the better person, but it was so freaking funny.
June 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a thing about pronouns, but not about spelling. That should be "appropriate."
June 17, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, O. Des is, of course, right. Sometimes it's fun to laugh at inappropriate stuff. The difficult part, I guess, is knowing when it's too inappropriate.
June 17, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, everyone enjoys driving 130 in a 50mph zone now and then. And theoretically you *could* run over a 3rd grader headed home from class. On the sidewalk. After you chased him half a block. But these things rarely happen, so enjoying some of life's guilty pleasures, well, where was I going with this?
June 17, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanda Sykes, David Letterman and Larry the Cable guy are "allowed" to say things Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh are not.
Let the other side be the humorless thought police. While dems are doing things like passing the Lily Ledbetter act, it's hard to paint them as the party of intolerance
June 17, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Letterman told a joke in poor taste. His initial apology was flippant He apologized in more detail earlier this week. Palin accepted the more recent apology. Letterman is not identified as someone who would tell a joke implying the rape of a 14 year old.
Don Imus, on the other hand, had a history of telling edgy jokes some bordering on racist. When Imus joked bout the Rutgers women's BB team he got criticized. In Imus' case, he upset African-Americans who worked at NBC and MSNBC. Al Roker and others went after the I-man. Al Sharpton did not bring down Imus, African-Americans at MSNBC raised their voices in protest, forcing MSNBC to take action.
If women who work at CBS start bad-mouthing Letterman, then CBS leadership will be forced to take some action.
Chelsea Clinton was the butt of some awful jokes told by Rush Limbaugh and John McCain. The jokes did not become major issues because the Clintons did not allow the jokes to take over several news cycles by issuing a loud protest. I suspect that Letterman's ratings have actually gone up as a result of the Palin flap.
Rush is the current leader of the GOP. McCain was the GOP's Presidential candidate with Palin as his VP. Letterman is still on CBS. SNL, an NBC program that did a skit with Chris Farley appearing in drag as Chelsea Clinton, still airs.
12-14 year old girls survived. Chelsea survived.
Letterman apologized, something Rush, McCain and SNL never did. Letterman made a mistake. if we see repeated bad behavior then Letterman will be branded just like Imus.
June 17, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just last night re-read one of my all time favorite short stories, "Lila the Werewolf" by Peter S Beagle. Following is an excerp. The last paragraph quoted is where I laughed out loud and is what came to mind as I read this blog.
Farrel has moved in with his girlfriend Lila who he has come to know is a werewolf.
He told his friend Ben Kassoy about Lila when they met in the automat for lunch. He had to shout over the clicking and rattling all around them but the people sitting six inches away on either hand never looked up. New Yorkers never eavesdrop. They only hear what they simply cannot help hearing.
Ben said,"I told you about Bronx girls. You better come stay at my house for a few days."
Farrel shook his head. "No, that's silly. I mean, it's only Lila. If she were going to hurt me she would have done it last night. Besides, it won't happen again for a month. There has to be a full moon."
His friend stared at him. "So what? You're going to go on home as if nothing has happened?"
"Not as if nothing has happened," Farrel said lamely. "The thing is, it's still only Lila, not Lon Chaney or somebody. Look, she goes to her psychiatrist three days a week, and she's got her guitar lesson one night a week, and her pottery class one night, and she cooks eggplant maybe twice a week. She calls her mother one every Friday and one night a month she turns into a wolf. You see what I'm getting at? It's still Lila, whatever she does, and I just cant get terribly shook about it. A little bit, sure, because what the hell? Anyway, there's no mad rush about it. I'll talk to her when the thing comes up in the conversation, just naturally. It's okay.
Ben said, "God damn. You see why nobody has any respect for liberals anymore? Farrel, I know you, you're just scared of hurting her feelings."
June 17, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love me? Love my werewolf.
Beautiful.
June 18, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if my deepest values are searching for common ground and healthy compromise? I mostly prefer the Learned Hand stance of not being too sure.
But I'm sure of this: We're way better off than if the GOP held the White House.
June 17, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But shouldn't common ground and healthy compromise come from real values?
June 18, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Bob Barr, for example. Not an alliance of convenience - an alliance of important principle over party allegiance.
June 18, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you put Palin and Ensign in your first sentence. As two complete frauds, they belong together. Enough said!
Actually, WAY TOO MUCH SAID, AND YOU ARE GUILTY OF INCITING IT DES! YES! WAY TOO MUCH SAID
ABOUT THESE TWO LOSERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
No thanks to you.
June 17, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
To refer to your comment below, did I really ever suggest the "moral superiority of Palin"? Is your reading comprehension that atrocious? Am I indeed debating with a 6-year-old here? Should I use smaller words and draw more pictures?
June 18, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, POOTSLOP!
Is this blog really about hypocrisy? Values being non-fungible? Democrats being really Democrats?
Des has stung himself on the cross of at least 4 blogs to blather about the moral superiority of -- the morally bankrupt Sarah Palin -- and all the rest of us are -- morally bankrupt?
I don't think so.
"Hypocrisy" Thy name used to be Palin. Now it is Desirado. You have gone over the edge, an reality means nothing to you. OK, we all know you are bitter about Hillary, but is this the best you can do? REally?
June 17, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The low slung man turned warily to face the door from whence the groan of rusty hinges emanated. The face of a killer, scarred, and unkempt, stared him in the eye, and inquired, "Are you Desirado?". Low slung shuffled a bit, reached for his drink, and said, "Nah. Don't know anyone by that name". Scarface hesitated, then addressed the room, "Anyone here know Desirado? A 20 dollar goldpiece for the man who speaks up!". An eerie silence dropped over the room like a heavy blanket settling on a lover going down on his sweet thang on a cold winters night. Rufus in the corner, spoke up, saying he knew a 'Desiree', a sweet girl in her early teens. Scarface thought of cracking wise about the nubile one, but reconsidered. "I'll be back", he intoned as he swung back through the door and onto the street. Low slung turned back to the bar as the player piano resumed its' plinety plink, addressing the barkeep, "Details are slippery thangs. Not really fungible. If you get my drift".
June 18, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm snorting in my coffee. Now I'm reaching for my spurs. Gimme back my bullets...
"And what do you mean by inscrutable,
Oh Gunslinger?"
"I mean to say that He
has not been seen since 1833."
June 18, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inscrutable is as inscrutable does, said the low slung one.
. . . If that is the case then
is your horse the Turned On
Horse of whom we've just now heard
and if that may be true how is it,
your horse is also that
magnificently nervous mare
I've back there held?
Back There?
what is it you ask?
Is that your horse and was it
the Turned On Horse.
Then sat we mid aftermath
and those unruly customers in Lil's
cabaret and the Plugged In Horse
covered the table
with his elaborate plans
and as he planned he rolled
immense bombers
from the endless Tampico
in his saddle bags
What's happened to my black ace
the Horse inquired
scraping his chair, reaching
under the table,
smiling, passing at the same time
his bomber without limit to me.
June 18, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would not know
of the long plains night
where they carry on
and arrange their genetic duels
with men of other states
so there is a longhorn bull half mad
half deity
who awaits an account from me
back of the sun you nearly disturbed
just then. I
Lets have that drink.
STRUM
STRUM
June 18, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm cool with the drink. Always. As george would say, "bring it on". The half mad/half deity bull... now is that a euphemism for Wall Street or another high plains drifter cum to settle a score?
June 18, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd never seen that Byrne video before - wonder if Twyla Tharpe helped with choreography, brilliant. Time isn't holding us, time isn't after us.
I think I need some high plains drifting myself. Am I right? Am I wrong?
June 18, 2009 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this outrage & self-righteousness ignores your own sacrifices of good taste to make your political points.
June 18, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Political points"? I didn't realize diatribes against rampant, irrepentant sexism were "political points". I thought I was being apolitical - it's a bi-partisan, across-the-spectrum problem.
June 18, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to sexist statements, Desidero's own words...............He of course was the child of a woman who dealt with an unintentional unmarried pregnancy at age 17, and had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead........is just as sexist as Letterman's Palin joke. Both statements attack underage girls.
No Palin daughter got "knocked" up by Rodriguez at Yankee stadium. No Obama abortion occurred. Both statements have an undertone of ridiculing the difficult choices women and girls have to make with an unexpected pregnancy. Both Bristol Palin and Ann Dunham choose to go through childbirth and both wind up being part of witticisms from Letterman and Desidero, respectively.
Desidero's statement is an attack on a Caucasian woman who decided to give birth to the child of an African man. Letterman, at least, apologized for his rape joke. Will Desidero follow suit an apologize for talking about a nonexistent abortion?
June 18, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheer nonsense. I'm just point to statistics.
In 1990, 60% of unmarried pregnancies under age 25 didn't complete. 1 million pregnancies to teenage girls a year, and 80% of them unintentional.
What's the abortion rate for 17-year-old, not-hard-core-religious girls starting college? Pretty damn high, I'd hazard.
Race had little or nothing to do with it. But given acceptance of abortion these days, do you think a free-spirited girl who wants to see the world would tie herself down so easily to a guy she's known for 2 months given a choice? Hardly the attitude these days.
Denying reality or acting like I said something awful doesn't change the facts.
June 18, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS - Obama put his whole family tree on stage with him, with Dreams of My Father, his sister campaigning for him, meeting his great aunt in Kenya, etc.
June 18, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink