Is she not smart enough to know the rules about keeping Hollywood homos in the closet unless they come out first? I'm being completely serious about this. That comment seems way over the line, PR wise.
You just won't learn, will you.
Joe, of course I have no idea why you think liking shoes and being gossipy makes a man a homosexual. Your assumption seems way over the line, enlightenment-wise.
Benicio del Toro is sexually attracted to girls.
I'm pretty sure 2 is directed to me, Joe.
"It was like having a girlfriend on the set." Sounds pretty wink-wink to me, especially for someone who already gets the wink-wink treatment.
Why, I ask you, am I genetically incapable of getting jokes?
Only Republicans find things funny, nowadays.
Rhys-Meyers has an incredibly sexy walk in Match Point--the way he moves generally, but especially his walk. It was riveting.
I don't know if it was a gay walk, though.
I liked him a lot in Bend It Like Beckham.
"Rhys-Meyers" would be an excellent name for some sort of scientific discovery or medical procedure. Unfortunately, his mind is too occupied with gossip and shoes. I hope he has some siblings or cousins who can help me out on this.
Really, ac? I thought his walk was super affected. It was almost a gangsta strut.
I liked the film a whole lot, though, except for some terrible dialogue toward the beginning.
But I can say for sure I never had a passionate encounter with him.
This sort of implies that there other men whom she's not sure whether she had a passionate encounter with or not. Maybe she likes the Roofies.
Gossiping about which celebrities are gay: not prissy, but, it must be said, gay (no strikethough). And fun! Ogged, you are slowly redeeming yourself as I rank you on my list of men in order of the enthusiasm with which I consider sleeping with them.
I was not getting gangsta strut. More catlike.
I found most of the dialogue excruciating.
"incredibly sexy to ac" = "gay." And I don't mean with a strike.
I was vaguely under the impression that del Toro used to be hot, so I image-searched, and good God. Is it just the Spanish name? But I was never vaguely under that impression about Luis Guzman.
We're all about unstruck-gay, Tia. Tell me when I crack the Top Ten.
The dwarf was Jonathan Rhys-Davies, I believe.
I think Joe has it exactly right, Scarlett just called this guy gay.
My favorite movie dwarf was Polanski in "Chinatown". He was heterosexual, however. I believe that he also played a murderous dwarf in "The Saragossa Manuscript", as I remember.
I was dreaming that you would say that, Ben.
I feel the best murderous dwarf is the one in Don't Look Now.
I also thought Match Point was enjoyable. I was waiting for it to become "Hitchcockian", as the reviews all said, and it certainly turned into quite the suspenseful film in the second half. Unexpectedly good.
Yeah, it really snuck up on me. I thought I was hating it until it was over, when I realized that I liked it a whole lot.
Rhys-Meyers responded by saying that he feels it's unfair that his ability to empathize with women prevents his from having intimate relationships with them, that women only want the bad boys who treat them badly. Nice guys finish last!
That smasher link is perhaps not safe for work.
That guy does look sensitive as shit.
That picture=not incredibly sexy to ac. So there.
That picture, to me, has more of a bad boy/rebel look. Or, a little goth.
Which of JRM, Ewan McGregor, and/or Christian Bale made out with each other in Velvet Goldmine? I can't remember but it was teh hott.
I agree with Michael. Long hair is not gay (no strikethrough).
All of the above? Maybe not Bale and JRM.
A rebel who really understands you.
So 33, 34, 36 just prove me right.
The bad boy pic drives the genius of comment number 30.
Did you just say "30 gets it exactly right"?
The big, anticipated love/sex scene was between Bale & McGregor. JRM & McGregor also got it on.
That's like necrophilia, without the stigma.
There's a stigma?!
Crap.
Long hair is frequently not gay, but there was awhile there, in the 50s and the 90s, when it was kinda gay.
I don't really get why Bale & McGregor would be hot. McGregor is cute, but not outside the "normal man" attractiveness scale. (I guess I don't get calling McGregor, or anything associated with him, anything but cute.}
being sensitive was a big part of the rebel thing (Brando, Dean).
John,
Yeah, the rebels were sensitive and frustrated, not exactly traditional masculine traits. And they were martryed. Add the long hair and viola - Jesus.
It wasn't McGregor, per se, as much as the scene I remember being hot. Bale, who is normally very attractive, was also made under in his role in a not-very-cute way. Still, the scene was way hotter than, say, Brokeback Mountain (which was disappointingly not very hot). And my taste in guys tends to be closer to "normal man" than traditional Sexiest Man Alive territory anyway.
Look at those sideburns! He looks like a girl! Now, Johnny Unitas, there's a haircut you can set your watch to!
I know, I know. But it's my favorite quote from the whole series.
McGregor has a neutral quality that enables you to project on him. He can also have amazing, amazing charisma.
Also, Johannson - fairly plain, I think. A McGregor-Johansson match would be appropriate.
Also, Johannson - fairly plain
Also, SCMT - plainly insane.
I don't know a single gay man with that kind of long hair.
MacGregor is in the top 3 on my scale of men in rank order of the enthusiasm with which I consider sleeping with them, and the other two are people I know in real life. It has as much to do with style and attitude as looks. In fact, a huge part of it is his "I can be femmy and sensitive and have maybe had sex with guys, and I'm really virile and you, you hot womanly thing you, give me a massive erection." Also, he manages both to project impish bad boy and devoted husband. He walks a lot of lines brilliantly.
And even I want to have sex with Scarlett Johansson. Oof.
my taste in guys tends to be closer to "normal man" than traditional Sexiest Man Alive territory anyway.
You're just saying that to give us hope.
54 gets it exactly right. MacGregor is teh hotttt. t.
Have I mentioned that I thought he should have used his Trainspotting accent in the Star Wars movies?
59: Have you seen The Pillow Book? It's about a solid hour of exposed Ewan penis.
MacGregor is teh hotttt. t.
Ho'ototott even.
Don't call me gay, but in the far back of my mind I find something offputting about Scarlet, or at least the character she plays. Total animal magnetism, but also sort of blank. Advantage: Natalie Portman.
Johanson gets extra points for being blonde and fair. Apparently SCMT lacks that fetish.
EB doesn't understand Becks' definition of "normal", obviously. But we should all endeavor to look like McGregor.
To me he looks like an Allmon or Doobie bro, or a Skynyrd. Maybe I found the wrong image.
Portlman inherited Natalie from his roommate.
Scarlett, not Ingemar. Got that.
OMG. NP over SJ? Insanity. NP is a bad actress (yes, in whatever that precious New Jersey movie was called too), and no amount of physical beauty can overcome that in teh race for teh hott.
Armsmasher inherited Natalie....
My condition is worsening.
Scarlett, is so, so much ho'o't'tottttter than Natalie, and I think Natalie is pretty fa'afafine. Scarlett is all wounded and somewhat dangerous. Natalie is so nice-seeming.
In related news, I've got issues out the mineshaft.
Advantage: Natalie Portman.
Natalie Portman is beautiful, but she is also teh flatt. Sorry to be crass. Advantage: Johansson.
Angelina has an unhealthy complexion, if you ask me.
Is this thread deteriorating? If it is, I'm glad to help.
Scarlett Johanson = poor man's Chalize Theron
NP is a bad actress (yes, in whatever that precious New Jersey movie was called too)
"Garden State."
jvance, Theron has nothing on Johansson's pout.
JD... whaaaaaaaaaaat? shit, you don't have to use makeup to make Johanson ugly, just stick her in the wrong outfit. Did you see how much makeup they needed for Monster?
Scarlett Johanson = poor man's Chalize Theron
Still more insanity! Charlize Theron is teh hott, but in a generic, hard to recognize her from magazine cover to magazine cover way She is a great actress though. But SJ is no slouch herself, and probably just hasn't found a vehicle like Monster yet. Also, SJ comes off as smarter than CT in interviews. Advantage: SJ.
Do threads deteriorate to "x is hotter than y" just because it's a topic on which everyone believes they have an expert opinion? Let's talk about how incisive baa is, instead.
Baa is teh inccccccisive!
Nah, it's just not the same.
baa is way more incisive than Lizardbreath!
(That's how you do it.)
77 brings up an interesting theory of mine: Conventionally pretty is conventionally pretty no matter what, but radically beautiful is almost freakishly ugly. Johansson, Jolie...it takes only a small nudge to make them freakishly ugly. Just a tweak here, a tug there.
I feel the same way about great films/plays/books etc. A good movie is a good movie by anyone's measure, but a truly great movie is almost awful, though it never crosses the line.
Add the long hair and viola
...and you've got what? Some kind of fairy string quartet?
How incisive is baa? Let me count the ways.
1.
an interesting theory of mine...radically beautiful is almost freakishly ugly
Note the subtle self-congratulation. Seriously, I've heard this elsewhere, probably because it's true.
Weiner is right: baa is crazy more incisive than Lizardbreath.
Joe, you're tainting the shallowness with that shit.
Charlize wins hands down in the family values area, though I personally would love to meet Uma's dad.
I'm nothing if not self-congratulatory.
I know my tastes can't be accounted for so I won't even state a reason, but: I agree with advantage: Portman.
But baa looks incisive partly because he has a great vehicle, namely, his "I'm a reasonable conservative who loves wrestling." LB just hasn't found the right niche.
82: Nonsense. It is impossible to make Jolie ugly.
I thought LB was the crazy feminist who seems reasonable, an even more rare breed. But you're right, not quite the same, marketability wise.
If you only knew how many words it took to make baa incisive.
Hrmphf. You should see me with a carving knife and a roast goose -- then we'll talk about who's incisive.
there was something freaky/hot in gone in 60 seconds.
see me with a carving knife [...] then we'll talk about who's incisive
Actually, I think that would pretty much make the talk stop.
SCMT really is free of the milkmaid obsession. Jolie is sort of an anti-blonde, even though her dad was way blond.
Ogged, I mean that baa's "hey, look at me, I'm Mr Reasonable, plus VOTE BUSH!" makes for scene-stealing material here at Unflogged. LB's just not given as many great lines by our general left-but-women-hating script.
I love having Labs around to lower the in-poor-taste bar.
I think ogged is the most incisive. he split this comment thread in twain!
So you're saying I should go find some endlessly chatty bunch of conservatives to hang with, because I'd be able to wow them with my apparent rationality? Oddly enough, I've tried this. The results were dull.
103: No, you just need a respectable cloth coat.
I see that campaing has already begun for Incision: 2006.
104: Ooo, and a puppy? I'd like a puppy -- Mr. Breath's niece, her fiance, and their nine-week old husky/German Shepherd/whatever the cat dragged in visited for Christmas, and I was in love.
Puppies rock! So do adult dogs, for that matter. LB sounds like she's describing our dog, except that he's 12 1/2 years old -- still beautiful.
Horses and whores are both far better than puppies.
Benecio del Toro is sufficiently attractive, I think. Plus he is reputed to have amazong upper-body strength, right? So maybe that's the source of the attraction. Still, I suspect Johansson could do better. (She could certainly have me, if she so chose.)
he is reputed to have amazong upper-body strength, right?
???
Ogged- should be "amazing." I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't correct it.
I don't think that's what ogged was querelous about.
I don't mean the amazing, I mean that he's reputed to have amazing upper body strength. Yeesh. Anyway, I found it.
He lifted Penelope Cruz, and one of his lackeys reports that he has "amazing upper body strength." Cruz must weigh, what, 80 pounds?
He also lifted Cruz' mother. Maybe she's a porker.
Note that it doesn't say he lifted Penelope's mother, just Penelope. One has to assume that the mother was dragged out by her ankles.
That's not the top hit for "del toro" + elevator.
BTW, I'm told that you shouldn't do that when the elevator is trapped between floors. If it starts moving while you're getting out, things can get nasty.
Interesting. Though she doesn't deny having sex with him.
I noticed that.
She should be able to do better than Hartnett, too.
Regardless, it is a demonstration of selfless heroism. Many women go for that.
Especially when you consider that most men from Hollywood would, I suspect, have just panicked like Cruz's mother.
Penelope Cruz is another hottie that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, by the way. She is the hott sexxx.
most men from Hollywood would, I suspect, have just panicked like Cruz's mother
What is that supposed to mean? (But props for having wifi on your tractor.)
I think I can take this thread down a notch or two: wreckin' homes like Angelina Jolie.
About Penelope Cruz:
"Del Toro adds, 'It was pretty hairy but I only did what any other man would do.' "
Noted without comment.
What about the fact that Johansson is only 22? That surely excuses some faults, like Del Toro and Hartnett.
I think she also had a brief fling with Colin Farrell, but from what I hear, Farrell's Hollywood conquests are so numerous as to necessitate expressing the figure as a percentage of the whole.
124-
My comment was supposed to mean that Hollywood men are notoriously, um, prissy.
Now what on earth was your tractor comment supposed to mean?
necessitate expressing the figure as a percentage of the whole.
"I see, she found your love too interesting, too intense, too...jackhammer."
"No, not specific enough."
I knew someone would catch that one.
We're something of a Colin Farrell gets shot down site.
Is every link in what's linked at 132 dead? Sorry.
Is it time to start talking about age of consent?
John, the world really needs an age of consent blog.
I think my local newsstand carries this in magazine form. With pictures.
I think that 22 is below the cultural age of consent (1/2 + 7) for most of us here. Except Armsmasher, who is himself below the cultural age of consent. At least the police don't enforce it.
Oh John, we just made that rule up for you.
Dude, I have stories. Once, when I was 12, I was on a community college campus, and this guy tried to hit on me. He must have been pretty hard up, because I didn't look so good when I was 12. I said, "Do you know that I'm 12?" He ran away. That's my story. The same thing recently happened to my 13 year old cousin, though not on a college campus.
At 23, I would make an ideal match for Ms. Johansson.
Based on personal anecdotes.
Not quite personal, but I had a friend in high school who was convicted of statutory rape after he turned 18 for sleeping with his 15 or 16 year old girlfriend (her dad was pissed at him). He got house arrest, and had to wear an ankle bracelet for a while. We had a lot of laughs at his expense, cause in truth, he was rather skeezy.
142: I think she needs someone a little older to show her the ways of the world. I.e., me.
Wait, but Ben, this is madness -- now you're a Johansson fan?
He only said that he would make an ideal match, not that he'd be interested.
Well, my brother in law did time for sleeping with a girl a couple of months older than him, whereas a different brother in law slept with his eighth grade teacher.
You can see why I'm always bringing this up.
I also have bestiality stories, but not involving family members.
In Ghost World, she was the less attractive lead. Even I have to admit that she's now even beautiful.
I'm 23 too. Though I act about threve seven.
John, your sisters know how to pick 'em.
Our family has come to the conclusion that none of us should ever get married.
The things I mentioned weren't even a serious problem, but there were others.
Johansson has already been counselled by Lawrence Fishburne and Drew Barrymore, so Ben may not be needed.
threve seven would be like... 15. or 357.
This isn't just about what Johansson needs.
it's about what she doesn't know she wants, right ben?
Feel free mentally to italicize either "Johansson" or "needs" as you like.
Or what jvance, fka tweedledopey, said.
Hey Joe, were you kidding about Elisha Cuthbert?
I'm in the middle of the best crossfade ever.
About how she won't stop calling me? Yes. Ha ha.
Or did you mean about me finding her hot?
My response to Match Point was like Joe's until the end of the film, when I failed to realize I liked it a whole lot. Or at all.
A slightly more sophisticated way of saying "that chick wants me so bad!" But only slightly.
I thought it was plausible, given the theater connection.
ogged, now you're venturing into the world of my shameful success fantasies.
Well then, who else won't stop calling you, IYKWIM?
Scarlett's favorite music is, and I quote, "classic rock (Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Rosemary Clooney, etc." I don't know what to make of that.
Horses and whores are both far better than puppies.
?!
I think she also had a brief fling with Colin Farrell, but from what I hear, Farrell's Hollywood conquests are so numerous as to necessitate expressing the figure as a percentage of the whole.
Dame Eileen Atkins says that three weeks before her 70th birthday Colin Farrell spent two and a half hours begging her to fuck him -- but she turned him down. She said she was so flattered that a 28-year-old guy wanted her that hitting 70 was a breeze after that.
I said, "Do you know that I'm 12?" He ran away.
Good god. btw, in Illinois I believe it's only statutory rape if there's more than a 5-year age difference between the participants. Five years might be a little too long, but the principle makes sense. That way you don't have idiotic things like 18-year-old guys getting locked up for screwing their 16-year-old girlfriends.
in Illinois I believe it's only statutory rape if there's more than a 5-year age difference between the participants.
I find this wildly implausible. A 47yo and a 53yo are mutually off-limits?
Don't they teach the meaning of "only if" in that fancy grad school of yours?
You mean, who else do I find hott? Johansson, obviously. She's the current fave. Jessica Alba is nice; she and Scarlett have similar faces. Joss Stone is really sexy, though I think she's 10 feet tall, and I'm all of 5'8". Also, those women listed in that other thread.
Scarlett's grandfather Ejner Johansson's scriptwriting career was only moderately successful, since he wrote his scripts in Danish.
Well, that'll do, but really I was hoping you'd spill some deep dark secret.
Don't they teach the meaning of "only if" in that fancy grad school of yours?
Ah, shaddup.
in Illinois I believe it's only statutory rape if there's more than a 5-year age difference between the participants.
Very funny, ben. In addition to the requirement I mentioned, the younger partner has to be below the age of consent. So yes, my wife can have sex with me without being guilty of statutory rape.
Frederick has clearly made this argument to his wife many times.
Well, that'll do, but really I was hoping you'd spill some deep dark secret.
apostropher won't stop calling me.
apostropher won't stop calling me.
Me too! Apostropher, you slut!
I forgot to mention that Salma Hayek is a total babe. Jennifer Aniston, Helen Hunt, and Kirsten Dunst, while possibly not as hott, are not exactly unattractive.
So a six year old could have sex with a one year old, but a seven year old couldn't.
Could a six-year-old have sex with a one-year-old?
You know, at GNXP these threads are done without irony.
Oh, for Pete's sake. If a seven-year-old were messing around sexually with a one-year-old, that would probably be some sort of juvenile offense, but it wouldn't be a crime since the kid is not an adult (i.e. 18 or older).
188: Frederick, welcome to the Unfogged Museum of Willful Obtuseness.
Leave Pete out of this, he's got his own issues.
187: We're being ironic about Scarlett Johansson?
Ruinzhatova's simultaneous cover of Sex Machine (right channel) and Larks' Tongues in Aspic (left channel) is pretty awesome.
I think we're being ironical about shoes.
My best friend in HS got massive grief about falling for a freshman when he was a senior, but dang if they didn't get married and dang if they aren't still going strong after, I dunno, about 28 years so far.
My point being, umm, not really sure. Sometimes things work out?
Yeah, that's it.
And when I was 17 I had a marvelously great time with a 13 year old.
194: Yeah, 13-year-old girls are the bomb.
Peaking at 17 leaves the rest of one's life fairly, oh, how shall I say, weakly soupy, though.
cry, cry, masturbate, cry
Around 25 years ago a local HS teacher married a high school senior from the school he taught at as soon as she graduated. They're still married -- he's a superintendant, she's a lawyer.
I had a HS English teacher who married an ex-student 15 or 20 years before he taught me. He was still sleazing on the female students, although harmlessly.
oh ogged, props for the del toro filename.
(gah, for some reason the URL keeps getting erased)
Um, personally I wouldn't admit that in a public forum, Tripp. For the enlightment of ben and John, here is the statute I was thinking of:
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 710, section 5/12-16(d):
The accused commits aggravated criminal sexual abuse if he or she commits an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with a victim who was at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age and the accused was at least 5 years older than the victim.
Illinois doesn't actually use the term "statutory rape" or even "rape." It's all "aggravated criminal sexual assault" and such.
But don't all you perverts run into Illinois and start fucking little girls (or boys). If someone does the stuff described in the above quote but is not 5 years or more older than the, um, fuckee it's still "criminal sexual abuse," which is a Class A misdemeanor.
cry, cry, masturbate, cry
Try to cry less and masturbate more.
My uncle has been married four times, each to a student in his freshman English class. (The first one was the same age as him, each subsequent wife was younger than him by a progressively larger margin.) The fourth marriage is ongoing (though not particularly long lasting yet).
Who says you need to cry less?
Well, it would be nice if one were not so sad that one needed to cry all the time. But if you are and it's cathartic, go for it. But look into antidepressants if that's your normal state.
I mean to say, the first woman he married was in a class that he was also a student in; the rest were students in classes he taught.
204: Please tell me you're kidding.
How many times has he flunked freshman English? Some people just are not cut out for academic work.
Freddie Freeloader: See.
Truly, you have a fine mind!
197, story of my life. Dad was 27, mom was 17, though they swear up and down they were never academically linked. Still happily married.
Haven't we been over before how tinyurl is kind of useless? It's also nice to have an idea of where links are taking you.
Has there even been one use of tinyurl in this thread?
It's sort of hidden, but I think there may be a tinyurl link in 201.
You didn't hear the baby Jesus puking a dozen comments ago?
Sorry, should have mentioned who that was directed towards.
Incidentally, w-lfs-n, you wouldn't happen to know of anyone in your area, possibly a student at your university, looking for a roommate in the near future, would you?
Would it be better to ban Frederick from commenting until he's read the complete archives, or just to make fun of him each time he goes obliviously on?
The latter is traditional. Although so is the former.
So what keeps you from doing both?
How long do you figure it would take an average adult to read the entire archives at this point?
Gimme a minute...
...while I figure it out, I mean.
It's probably not that hard to get from the beginning to the party thread that first topped 100 - I actually did this during ogged's hiatus, but it took a while - but after that the comments are just too much.
I knew someone who married her tutor. She was an Oxford undergraduate in the 30's, and he had been a Rhodes scholar from Australia. They waited to start dating until after she had graduated. (He was married with a child as well, but he divorced his wife and had to send her to an asylum.) She joked that today it would be called sexual harassment, but she thought it was charming. They were married for many years, and he became the head of an Oxford college, vice-Chancellor of the University, and Chancellor (an honorary position--usually given to a non academic like the Duke of Edinburgh or Chris Patten) of Liverpool University.
Would it be better to ban Frederick from commenting until he's read the complete archives, or just to make fun of him each time he goes obliviously on?
Jesus Christ. I'm obviously going to have to take about a month-long leave of absence from my job so I can read the entire Unfogged archives.
Shit, I went offline for a couple weeks over Christmas and I *still don't feel like I'm up to speed. I finished off the 600+ thread this morning, though, so I think I'm caught up.
I confess to not having read, except for linked threads for in-joke explanation, back much past September or so of 2004.
re 224:
Or just keep commenting. After all, where do you think new running gags come from?
I'm pretty out of the loop on most of the in-jokes (except for the one about the bunny slippers--which isn't really a joke exactly), but people have been remarkably kind to me. The unfoggedariat is hardly merciless.
Tia--Is that the essential hazing?
Seriously, Frederick--keep plugging away. This bunch will make a lot of fun of you, but they make a lot of fun of each other.
I don't think I've been vested with hazing rights. You're not out of the woods till FL hangs you from a tree branch by your knickers. Have fun.
Ok, I dumped the entire archives into a text file (yes, I do feel better, thanks). Trivia: AOTW, we have almost exactly 4300 posts and 77000 comments. That's a 33MB file, and a 19,157 page Word file. Total words in the file: 5,117,104. Stripping out the extraneous stuff like headers and such, we have 4,051,138 words. If I'm doing the math correctly, and assuming a reading speed of 400 words/minute (which is fast, but this ain't Aristotle), I get that it would take about 169 hours to read it all. In eight hour work-days, that's 21 days.
It's odd becoming an insider. I hadn't been commenting here more than a month or two before I found myself reassuring someone that they shouldn't apologize for commenting when they didn't know any of us.
does that mean I'll get let off this tree branch soon?
It's better if everyone feels insecure all the time. I think only the Apostropher, Michael, and Farber have been here from the beginning.
but my knickers are torn. and I'm cold.
I didn't realize Michael had been around so long. Somewhere I'd gotten the impression he'd only been around slightly longer than I had. Who knew?
I was thinking my knickers tearing, and my current situation, could fill only a trilogy.
Hey, I've been here a while.
Eb, I know a guy looking to sublet his room, is that good enough?
I'm trying to find your advent, Ben. It's funny, as I look back through the first comments--of course the first commenters would be bloggers, who saw us linking to them. So, our first commenters were Kieran Healy, Glenn Reynolds, freakgirl, and Farber. And Magik Johnson, of course.
Wait! The first commenter who's still around was...baa!
A sublet is actually closer to what I'm looking for, depending on the dates/terms. Could you e-mail me? eb1871 at hotmail dot com.
Hey, the archives are full of surprises, the next commenter who still comments was...Ted H. (This was when we picked on Leiter.)
to 243. no offense to baa, the antichrist.
Then Holbo (though he doesn't comment here anymore), and girl27, who's still around somewhere.
Then the Invisible Adjunct...still waiting for the other two who I thought were old timers.
I am old school, bitches. Respect my authori-tie!
There's the Apostropher, just a few days later in July 2003.
Aha, Michael in August of '03. Still no w-lfs-n.
Huh, there's Maynard Handley. He still comments here, though he's not quite a regular.
While we're waiting, can I just say that the title of this post is reminding me of the scene in The Cocoanuts where they sing "he wants his shirt" to the tune of one of the arias from Carmen, I think.
He wants his shoes, he wants his shoes, he can't be happy without his shoes....
And w-lfs-n, a few weeks later, in August of '03. There you have it.
'round about the time he stopped being an evil, alien mecha-sheep.
I would find these purported historical "facts" more credible accompanied with links.
I'd be curious to know what my first comment was.
But how do we know none of the current pseudonyms aren't also old pseudonyms? I mean, if td can become jvance just like that then who knows?
Nonsense, no linking is necessary. These facts are as rock-solid as Chuck Norris's cock.
I wonder when mine was. 2004 sometime, but I don't know when. (I started heavy commenting when I changed jobs, one year ago today, but I'm pretty sure I'd commented a bit before that.)
Apo-- I thought we decided that it was authori-tay; cf. DYNO-MITE.
Yeah slol, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with Tweedledopey becoming jvance.
Yeah, I stopped using "Glenn Reynolds" when the cock jokes started flying fast and furious.
Considering how I feel about my job...
The last time baa was BAA was September 15, of 2003.
Links would take too much time, sorry.
Looking back in the archives, Johnson was interesting. Baa-ish politics and civility, but a little more interested in mixing it up. Shame he's not around anymore.
Yeah, I really miss Magik. I don't think the site would have caught on without him around to argue with people.
Links would take too much time away from licking toads to get high, sorry.
I thinks links would be a better use of your time, frankly.
Apostropher's first comment. Not very funny, apo.
You don't put them all the way in your mouth. Gross!
Oh, but we were all so earnest back then.
No, not very funny. Nor insightful. Correct, however.
Besides, it's eb who's the toad-lover.
I always wondered if Dean mightn't have done okay in the South, if he'd made it that far. All New Englandy and shit, of course, but he seemed to speak 'rural', and isn't that half the battle?
The unfoggedariat is hardly merciless.
239
That's like 16 short novels.
Is there a Cliff Notes version, or should I wait for the movie, then skip the movie and just read the reviews?
Apparently you haven't made much of an impression, minger.
That should have read, speak for yourself.
there, is everyone happy now?! actually, I only changed it because I finally bought my own domain, but it's not like it matters.
ming (the merciless)
That name triggered a Flash-back for me. Juvenile onset PTSD, I guess.
No, Dean would have gotten waxed in the South. Worse than Kerry. Much worse.
At least I don't draw negative novice attention, like Frederick.
You do know ming is a British slang word, right?
Oh, well. I liked him. Then again, I liked Kerry. And Edwards is the darlingest thing since sliced bread, and a heckova speaker.
LizardBreath: Not The Median Voter.
We need to write off the South for now, anyway. They, in gross, just don't like us right now.
289: grrrroan
Erm, may I suggest that not limiting our selection of candidates to those with maximum appeal in the South, given that that hasn't saved us in the past, is different from 'writing off the South'? There's lots of decent people down there.
297, I think so.
Jackmormon: Not The Median Voter, either. I spent 2003-4 arguing to Europeans that America was coming to its senses.
You do know ming is a British slang word, right?
For, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party?
Actually, it is a slang word, and independent of `minge'.
Just makes you feel like whoever it was in 1972: "I don't know how Nixon could have won -- I don't know anyone who voted for him," doesn't it.
Except, I know lots of people who voted for the President. I just don't quite understand them. Cue baa.
I was going for a different set of associations.
Ouch, my arm! I didn't think you could send a punch over the internet.
Depends where you grew up. I usually say, you owe me a Coke.
Sorry for spoiling the one-man straight-man routine.
Obviously I grew up with different rules.
I remember there was a brief period in which calling jinx had to be followed by a series of caveats in order to close off several time-sensitive loopholes. Something like, "Jinx–personal jinx–1-2-3 no takebacks!" screamed rapidly.
Gosh, that's right. Usually you had to say "infinity", too.
Speaking of BAA/baa, why is SCMT "scmt" today?
fucked up the first time I commented today; unwilling to expend the energy needed to correct.
Smasher, I note "owe me a coke" is alleged to be Texan in origin. (But I am not.)
All I remember from jinxing rules is one of the punishments: a punch in the arm, or two for flinching before the first.
As I recall the jinx penalty involved both a smashed arm and a Coke obligation. Tough justice in Texas.
Those are the punishments for talking before someone has said your name 3 times, I take it.
That's it. We should implement a similar scheme for banning.
in my house, there wasn't any hitting. that was reserved for punchbuggy.
You're banned. You owe me a Coke.
Hey, this is almost better than imitating baa.
gah, trying to get rid of the loooong titles.
Aw, crud. I meant, "You're banned. <smash> You owe me a Coke."
Which would have been almost better than imitating baa.
We should keep a running tally, and then exchange cokes/punches accordingly at the end of the year. We could have a rule about one owed punch cancelling out another corresponding owed punch, leaving people responsible only for the difference, but a giant brawl could be fun as well.
Does punchbuggy still work with the new Beetles?
Does punchbuggy still work with the new Beetles?
Blasphemy! Of course not.
329: no. they are far too prevalent.
TD-jvance-blah-blah-blah-[. . .] is banned!
piss off smasher. you owe me a coke.
We need to write off the South for now, anyway. They, in gross, just don't like us right now.
No, no, no, this is totally wrong. Take NC, for example: Democratic governor, both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, 10 of the 15 largest cities have Democratic mayors, roughly the same numbers for the city councils.
Gore got more votes in Florida, remember. If they'd been counted right, the last five years would have been a completely different story. Plus, if you write off the South, then we practically have to run the table everywhere else. That's crazy. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina - those are as gone as Utah and Wyoming. But never underestimate how much Southerners distrust "Washington," and "Washington" is undeniably GOP and has been for years now. That isn't difficult to run against.
Democrats can win in the South (they do win in the South), and they don't have to be Southerners. But John Kerry and Howard Dean simply won't. And oh god, please not Hillary Clinton.
I just remembered, at my first place of employment various supervisors used regularly to punch people in the arm for making work-related mistakes. Naturally, making work-related mistakes was referred to as having done something gay.
And you're not from Texas, slol? That's some backwards Southern shit.
Democrats can win in the South (they do win in the South), and they don't have to be Southerners. But John Kerry and Howard Dean simply won't.
I take it that my current Senatorial sweetheart Russ Feingold--he's single (again), ladies!--doesn't have a chance in hell either. So what is it? Richardson, Warner, Edwards, v. Clinton?
slol--Menzies is the Lib Dems foreign affairs spokesman. Charles Kennedy is their leader. (I miss Paddy Ashdown, although I heard he was a great ruler/ protector in Bosnia or one of the former Yugoslav states.)
Feingold has a better chance than Kerry ever did. And it will matter who the GOP nominee is, as well.
I think it has to be Warner. A CEO governor from a Southern state who simply doesn't sound like a douchebag, pounding the podium over administration/Republican corruption, would put the march in the southern Democrats' steps. Preferably if backed by a handsome, former general veep. Nevertheless it certainly feels as if Clinton's inevitable.
So when do we change the party names to the Bushes and the Clintons?
Is it Warner who is pro-life? I know he didn't let it get in the way of how he felt in VA, but wouldn't that cause issues (supposing that the Roberts court doesn't overturn Wade next year or the year after)?
Warner's pro-choice. He's from NoVa, that's not really southern.
Is there anyone here who feels good about a Clinton candidacy?
ah... it was/is Kaine who was characterized as "pro-life" because he has religious objections...
bg--Kennedy just resigned the Lib Dem leadership over alcoholism I think; Menzies Campbell is running to replace him, but faces opposition as of the last Google News search.
Feingold has no chance at all of becoming President. He combines the vanity of Kerry with the priggishness of Gore. Even if people like him -- which they wouldn't -- the press wouldn't let him be elected. Warner, Clinton and Edwards would all be better nominees. Gore might have been able to ride the same do-over momentum that Bush rode in 2000 were it not for the beard. Clark would be a great VP.
I'm much more excited about the Clark vice-presidency than I am about the presidential frontrunners. I.e., Hillary Clinton.
I think Clark would make a good presidential candidate, he just needs more experience campaigning. He was at a real disadvantage last time coming in as late as he did.
#54: Yes.
#345: Yes, except that I feel irked that everyone assumes Clinton is unelectable. Ticks me off.
Re. old school commenters: I stand firm on my claim to fame as the only commenter who has ever been banned and reinstated. Take that, y'all.
Bostoniangirl, you're not up on your Lib Dem trivia. Kennedy is out, Campbell is acting leader and presumptive favorite to succeed.
I think that if the Democratic party in other states is as incompetent as it is here, it doesn't really matter who the candidate is. We'd lose if Jesus headed the Democratic party ticket.
And you're not from Texas, slol? That's some backwards Southern shit.
Smasher, there are other parts of the South than Texas, y'know.
Apo:
Eh. Two objections.
(1) . But never underestimate how much Southerners distrust "Washington," and "Washington" is undeniably GOP and has been for years now.
I don't know if I buy this. The only thing I really care about is the ongoing assault on civil liberties. I suspect people are more upset about things like Padilla and the NSA brohaha in the North than the South; my sense is that "time of war" justifies a lot in the South, particularly when those whose civil liberties are being violated are not members of the majority.
(2) Whatever coalition gets built will be fed in the next several election cycles, and will define the ethos of the Democratic Party. My sense is that the "libertarian" votes are more likely to be found in the West, and the "strong defense" votes in the South. I prefer the libertarians. Also, I loathe the Dem leadership that now obsesses about the South (e.g., DLC and TNR).
(3) I don't trust the "run the table" arguments. We need X electoral votes; beyond that, I'm deeply suspicious of the analysis.
I will say that I that TN, VA, AK, and NC all should belong to us. Also, I find it curious that the Southern states that seem most Blue congenial from the outside are the ones that seceeded only after the war started. Wierd.
B, can I assume Clinton is unelectable and be ticked off about it? Or does that tick you off, too?
Or maybe I'm part of the problem by assuming that none of "them" would ever vote for her...
#355: LOL, but only in reaction to me, so I am still the first and best. Phttttbbbbb.
You know why Clinton's unelectable? Shit like this. Democrats will not elect a finger-wagger.
#357: No, that's cool. I feel the same way, actually: that she's unelectable simply because people think she's unelectable. It's so annoying.
I think that the Dems might consider trying, not a Southerner, but a Westerner: someone who can do the straight-shooting, no-bullshit talk kind of thing, make the kind of case Edwards (or Obama) makes about the importance of the Dems to working class voters, that kind of thing.
I'm not exactly sure that Hillary is unelectable, but:
1)She is pre-vilified for a significant number of Republicans.
2) Independants are unhappy with legacy presidents.
3) She keeps answering my constituent letters with "I share your concern about X." and then votes with the Republicans.
No, she's unelectable because, e.g., "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life".
My sense is that the "libertarian" votes are more likely to be found in the West
Still not likely, though.
I will say that I that TN, VA, AK, and NC all should belong to us.
Surely you mean AR.
I feel decently good about a Clinton candidancy. I honestly think that the macho bullshit that has won the Republicans the last two elections wouldn't work if they were running against an *actual* woman, rather than a man they are accusing of being too much like one. Seriously, if every election is just going to be about gender politics we should really just do it for real.
362: Do you really believe that #2? How do you explain GWB?
1 and 3 are pretty compelling, though.
I thought we'd all learned from 2000 and 2004 that actual evidence on the effects of policies, and actual candidate statements and positions, don't much affect voters.
Re. the video game thing: here is my take. I think that Clinton is--intelligently--trying to present the Democrats as the "family" party (not the "family values" party). The one that cares about shit like a living wage, stable employment, social security, health care, all that good stuff.
I had an epiphany while driving through some vast midwestern state not too long ago. PK was with me, and we were listening to the radio--and I had to flip and flip and flip b/c, though I have no issue with gangsta rap for teenagers, I do not want my 5-year old to deal with ethnic slurs, misogyny, and violence quite yet. I don't think he has the critical judgment to understand that that kind of stuff in music can be objectionable, in principle, but still okay, as art. Anyway, we ended up listening to Christian radio b/c that was all there was.
And Clinton's thing with video games, come on: the issue there is labelling. Would I buy, say, a 15-year old boy an ultraviolent videogame? Probably not. But do I think it's *entirely* unreasonable to buy a violent videogame for a 15 year old, but feel uncomfortable realizing that said game can also be pornographic? No. It's not necessarily the same set of priorities I have, but it isn't completely alien, either.
I think that on issues like videogames, misogyny, crappy television, etc., that actually the right and the left aren't all that far apart--when it comes to their own, personal kids. The difference is in what we want done on a broader scale about it. But I think that Clinton has figured out that if you keep the rhetoric focused in a way that people think you are talking about *them*, that it will have cross-over appeal. (I think the same thing would be true about abortion, if we could get past the generalizations onto some specifics, but that's another long comment somewhere else.)
So for that reason, I'm not hung up about the videogame shit.
Put me in the anti-Hillary camp, too. I used to really love her, but I doubted her charisma; the last couple of years have largely killed my affection for her, and she doesn't seem any more charismatic.
My interpretation of 362.2 is that there's a bloc of people who will look at Clinton, a second legacy presidential candidate, and say enough's enough.
370: Fair enough.
368: I think that could be pretty compelling. I read a lot of Penny Arcade, so the videogame shit bugs me, and I worry that it's indicative of a more serious set of issues on which I disagree with her. But I'd feel better about her if she took the position you describe explicitly.
Ah, but re. legacy, there's a major difference between being someone's *son* and someone's *wife.* Again, this won't matter in terms of the general public's response, and I think Arm is right, but it annoys me, because *most* women who succeed in politics do so (the same way guys do) through connections. Given that most of those in power are still guys, some of the women with connections are gonna end up married to those guys. And then, whoops, sorry lady! You're not qualified.
I mean, think about it: Hillary put her profession on hold (and changed her name) b/c of her husband's career. Now it's her turn, and the fact that she's an ambitious, political-minded woman who married an ambitious, political-minded man--and then did the politically pragmatic thing, and let him go first--means that she's considered a "legacy" candidate in the same way as baby Bush, who rode his daddy's coattails from the time he hit puberty.
Grrr.
370--Yeah, that was pretty much it. My parents--outliers, sure, but broadly characterized as Reagan Democrats; both ended up voting Libertarian (gak) in CA in 2004--are both viscerally disgusted with the thought of electing any more family names to the Presidency. They're suspicious now of Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons almost equally.
and then did the politically pragmatic thing, and let him go first
You're not really arguing that she's even a third the politician that Clinton is, are you, B?
368: It isn't that specific thing, it's a stand-in for an entire approach. The patch from the internet that unlocks an easter egg in a video game that can't be legally sold to minors is not cause for Congressional hearings, even if you agree with her on the entire "family" suite of issues.
She comes off overwhelmingly as a nagging busybody. In other words, a more photogenic Ralph Nader. Good to have them in our national discourse, of course, but it's a TERRIBLE image to project in a national election.
"nagging busybody" plays just fine many places. My Republican congresswoman gots lots of publicity in the hearings after Janet Jackson's appearance (!?) in the superbowl. Her "no tits on TV" platform gets her lots of support, and she'll probably get re-elected again, despite having about a 170,000 to 140,000 disadvantage in party registration..
oops, sorry, forgot to sign that last comment
#374: I think people underestimate her.
#375: I think, from the pov of most people who are not programmers, that the GTA (it was GTA, right?) thing is an issue that bears consideration for government regulation, just like music, tv, and movies.
I worry about her (well, no -- I wouldn't vote for her in a primary) because of her position on the war. She is still not out front saying that it was a bad, bad, terrible idea. I can get over someone supporting the war initially, but by now they should really be saying "Whoops, I screwed up."
It's not so much the war, as it is a proxy for someone who can be bullied, and so I don't trust them to get anything done against opposition. (I will say that I don't know offhand where all the other Dem. possibilities are on the war -- anyone else who is still as pro-war as she is is also disqualified.)
377: I don't think Apo saying it's not that she's unelectable, but rather that he doesn't want a nagging busybody to be President. If I may put words in his text box, it's not the woman that he minds, but rather her personal politics.
"nagging busybody" plays just fine many places.
I understand this, but what I don't get is that efforts to restrict marketing to children get NO traction with Republicans. Sex at the Superbowl is a straw man compared to the manipulative commercials aimed at kids' shows. My swing-voting, suburban, Mormon sister has taken to renting DVDs of popular kids' shows from the liberary: the TV is, on anti-consumerist grounds, verboten to her young children. And my only Republican in my adult writing class looked into advertising to children for his research project and ended up writing a quasi-Nadarite final paper.
I mean, if we're going to get all puritanical, why not start with issues that leftist Puritans are good at?
In her continued support of the war, I think she's been following the old strategy of moving to the center before a presidential election. That strategy worked for Bill, but I think following it now is actually insane. There isn't any more center. It's beyond worrying about actual insincerity -- I'm sure they're all insincere -- instead I question her judgment in doing something that obviously comes off as insincere. She's not going to pick up any pro war people from the right by continuing to support the war, and she's lopped much of her support from the left.
See, I'm not on board with the idea that concerns about the content of popular media--and let's be honest, even though GTA isn't legally sold to minors, don't teenage boys play it?--is being a "nagging busybody." I know it's the done thing for liberals to think so, but I think it's a libertarianism position we might want to reconsider.
southern democrats and coastal democrats are not necessarily anywhere near each other policy-wise, much less in their ability to appeal to the south.
a lot of southern dems have particular local appeal that doesn't have any coattails for them librul northerners. evan bayh's not an indication hoosiers agrees w/ new yorkers, just that he's got legacy cred, for example.
and if someone like bayh or one of those nelsons somehow survived a primary, they'd probably take as much flak from the various dem bases as from the Rs. herding cats is hard.
I don't think that the Democrats should try especially hard for Southern votes. Last time around they would have been if they'd won Iowa or Ohio or Florida or Missouri or Arizona or Colorado. The Republicans write off the NW and the NE, and they still win.
The things the South wants are shitty. Not so just things relating to race or abortion, but anti-unionism and hawkishness.
I've really turned into a Yankee bigot, I confess. Southerners are in the driver's seat and they're telling me what's what, and I have to sit and take it, but they're not doing anything to convince me that I should like or respect their shitty, ruined part of the country.
if they'd won Iowa or Ohio or Florida or Missouri or Arizona or Colorado.
Yeah, but they didn't win any of those states, and largely for the same reasons they didn't win any southern states. And the big one, Florida, is a southern state. I agree with Tim that "TN, VA, AK, and NC all should belong to us." Florida, too. And if you're taking those states, you'll probably be taking Arizona and Colorado as well.
I've really turned into a Yankee bigot
Whatever makes you feel better.
Teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here, but 'the South' doesn't want anything -- it's a geographical region. In which nearly half of the people voted for Kerry. Absolutely we shouldn't sell out anything the left stands for in the hope of attracting more Southern voters, but being rude about the South doesn't do anything to help.
And the food's good down there, if you like fried, which I do.
Few or none of the states that Democrats almost won were southern states. Florida is half to a third Southern. Missouri is border.
If I were a strategist for the Democratic Party, I would speak quite differently, but I'm just one single registered Democrat, and I'm sick and tired of being told I should care what those shits think. The stuff they say about my kind is at least as bad as what I'm saying right now, and they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. If you look at their representatives in the Senate, at least half of them are either nasty or loony or both. And those are the people they choose to represent them.
The stuff they say about my kind
What have I ever said about your kind, John?
Like I said, I'm not trying to help. I'm just sick of having to cater to Southern bullshit.
The South may not want anything, but I sure have been hearing a lot about what we have to do for them. We should make a list of the states which we almost won, and see what we want to do there.
The Southern voting results are misleading, because such a high proportion of the Democratic votes are black. The South isn't going to get any blacker.
Do black votes count less or something?
We've moved from Hollywood gossip and sexual politics to policy analysis. Am I wrong to think that the trend is usual in the other direction?
Nothing personal, apostropher. But Tom Delay is the person Texas chose to represent them, and he's a nasty piece of work. Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms. Really sinister, evil guys, and people down there seem to love them. I just don't see the purpose of a Democratic strategy keyed on convincing Jesse Helms voters to vote for us.
Eh, I just want to leave the door open for them (Southerners who really ought to be liberals) to come back. Lots of people who live in those states are already on our side.
(Although I do know how you feel. That 'Fuck the South' thing that went around after the election? Struck a chord.)
Jesse Helms won by tiny margins here, John. And the folks who voted against him hated him with every bit the purple passion you do. I guarantee you I hate Jesse Helms more than you do, because he was my senator for 30 years. There are more Southern voters like me than you apparently believe.
If Mississippi is 30% black, the Democrats will get 30% of the votes. But that is the maximum from that category, because Mississippi isn't ever going to be 50% black. And getting the white voters is a whole different story. There don't seem to be a lot of swing voters.
To be fair, John, only Sugarland gets any vote about Tom DeLay. The state as a whole chose John Cornyn, who's pretty frightening himself.
I like the South, and I mostly like Southerners.
But I don't hate Clinton's position w/r/t GTA, so we can still isolate and gang up on the apostropher.
Well, I shouldn't have said it. But on Yglesias and Drum I was always listening to "moderate" Dems tell me what we would have to do to win over the South, and I ended up deciding that that was our worst possible strategy.
The Cleland election was a last straw. People assured me that it wasn't the smears of Cleland's patriotism that beat him, but the fact that he was thought to be pro-union and too liberal. I just decided to forget Georgia forever right then.
If Mississippi is 30% black
Nobody's advocating targetting Mississippi.
There don't seem to be a lot of swing voters.
This is where you're wrong. The Southern states to be targetted are getting younger, experiencing huge Hispanic growth, and lots of in-migration.
I think we should all send Emerson grits. And okra. Is there a Grits of the Month club?
OK, if there are Southern states that are winnable, go for it. But normally a lot of baggage goes with trying to do that.
Plus, don't forget urbanization. Nashville is pretty Democratic, I think. And there's gotta be a reason why the Texas Republicans went nuts with that redistricting thing.
I hate Hillary. She has always supported the goddamned Iraq war, for which she (and Kerry, Edwards, Biden, etc.) should hang her head in shame. She also likes trying to suck up to the Right by signing on to some of their bullshit issues (ban violent video games! pass anti-flag-burning legislation!). The irony is that the Right still hates her, and the Left thinks she's a phony.
Moreover, the fact that she drives the wingnuts insane is a Really Bad Thing. If she is the candidate, the wingnuts will be incredibly energized to contribute money and GOTV. Most people are going to be pretty fed up with Dubya and the rest of the Rethuglicans by 2008. A lot of the people who will show up just to vote against Hillary will stay home if we put up Clark, Warner, or someone else who doesn't drive them apeshit.
You people need to look at an electoral map. Kerry lost the southerns states by huge margins. The soft states for us were OH, IA, Nm, and NV.
I don't hate her, and I'm pretty happy with her as a Senator. (What I want to know is why Bill won't run for mayor of NYC. The city would fall as one at his feet, and we could break the goddam string of Republican mayors.)
And okra.
Okra is the worst "food" on Earth. When I am rotting in hell, I'm sure I will be served okra at every meal. And yes, the South sucks massively -- although if someone like Warner or Clark, or maybe a Westerner like Schweitzer, is the Dem candidate, we could take some Southern states. Oh, and God damn the fucking electoral college to hell.
Okra is delish. Also grits. And greens. And pretty much all the other southern comfort foods.
Okra is the worst "food" on Earth.
Surely you jest. Have you had it pickled or fried?
Nm
Seriously, what's up with your shift key today?
What are the voting stats on migrants to the south, anyway? Are they less likely to vote Republican than multi-generation southerners?
Yes, I have had okra fried. I stand by my comment. Southern food is horrible (although I've never had grits or greens; I assume they suck, too). I actually like black-eyed peas, if they count as Southern.
My god, keeping up with Unfogged comment threads is like a full-time job. I think I'll quit, and go see my neglected wife and daughter before they go to bed.
Unfogged is the real threat to the American family, rather than the gay.
I don't want to send Emerson grits. After years of reading Slashdot, I'd have to picture him holding them naked and petrified.
Newt Gingirch was born in Pennsylvania and IIRC spent his early life there.
My sister spent 20 years in SE Kansas, which was plenty southern ofr me, and it seemed like a hellhole. With courtly manners and everything, but a hellhole.
The soft states for us were OH, IA, Nm, and NV.
I can't speak from personal knowledgte about OH, IA and NV (although I did read a long article in the NY Times Magazine about the apparent incompetence of the OH GOTV effort).
NM, that I can speak to. I spent every weekday for the 7 weeks until the election as a volunteer at the Kerry HQ in NM, and some weekends, about 300 hours. Since then I've probably spent aat least as much time on NM party politics, and another bunch of time on two other campaigns, a City Council race and even 30 or 40 hours on the upcoming congressional race. All as a volunteer.
In NM, the Democratic party is wilfully ineffective. The party couldn't get out a vote if a voter called every party official and said "hey, where's my polling place?" I blame Bill Richardson, but that may not be a belief based in fact. But the only thing I've seen the party, or the coordinated campaign, effectively do is to get thousands (yes, thousands) of volunteers to mill about in meetings and parking lots. Milling about doesn't really do much for the GOTV effort. Kerry lost NM by 6,000 votes, and it was entirely avoidable. Yes, the electoral college is most unfortunate, and NM has only 5 votes, but it was certainly winnable.
Back when I had hope, I put some stuff on the web. If anyone cares, it's still there:
http://users.hubwest.com/msch/dpbc/dpbc.html
Nothing has changed since then.
We had people milling around in Oregon too, which shouldn't even have been a swing state at all. Multi-problem party.
I just want to say that I love you all for playing jinx. My boyfriend will not respect the rules of jinx, even though I've totally jinxed his ass fair and square on a number of occasions, counting to ten before he says his name, as required by my understanding of the rules. In the beginning, I tried to explain to him patiently that if we did not obey the rules of jinx there would be anarchy, but appeals to reason were fruitless. Typically I'm left standing apoplectic in a video store, hissing, "You're jinxed! You can't talk until I say your name!" while he makes some absurd claim about needing to be able to talk in a public place, even though it is totally unnecessary to talk while picking out a video, and all I want is his silence while I declare that anyone who does not think that Tia is the smartest, most beautiful, most fascinating all around best person in the world, and any jinxed persons are much inferior, speak now or forever hold your peace, close sentence, no takebacks, this is the immutable truth forever and ever.
That is all.
419 - (No offense, Emerson. It's more the petrified part. That's always creeped me out a bit.)
Face it, if the big shift toward Republican dominance was the loss of the Dixiecrats, then to insure Democratic dominance you have to get the South back. Yeah, for the next election, you can try to pick off voters here and there. But the grand strategic sweep argues for a massive effort to win back the south. So you should learn to love it. And think big.
In NM, the Democratic party is wilfully ineffective.
That's what machine politics'll get ya.
Hell, in New Mexico they were even giving out free breakfast tacos to all voters before 11 AM (according to my phone banking script, at least).
Free breakfast tacos and still no turnout! What more does it take, people?!
We had people milling around in Oregon too, which shouldn't even have been a swing state at all. Multi-problem party.
I do tend towards the simplistic explanation, but I don't think it's multiple problems. It's multiple symptoms of the same problem: many of our leaders are much more intersted in preserving their own personal power base than in building the party. Richardson wants to make sure he stays at the head of the DPNM, and if that means cutting the party off at the knees, that's a price he's willing to inflict.
... anyone who does not think that Tia is the smartest, most beautiful, most fascinating all around best person in the world, and any jinxed persons are much inferior, speak now or forever hold your peace ...
I'm holding my, uh, peace.
Kansas is in no way part of the South.
Hell, in New Mexico they were even giving out free breakfast tacos to all voters before 11 AM (according to my phone banking script, at least).
Where were you calling? I hadn't heard that. I was handling incoming calls on the main telephone line the days before election day (although on election day I moved to handing randomly selected precinct maps and walk lists to randomly selected volunteers) and I didn't get that message.
Every day, the last few weeks, when I got home from campaign HQ there'd be a message on my answering machine from som earnest volunteer back east imploring me to go down to HQ to volunteer. I couldn't find out who was coordinating that, nor how to get my name off that list. I felt bad for those callers.
AC -- yes, that's how we got to where we are, but the idea that what we need to do is reverse that trend exactly is ahistorical. What we need to do is find more votes somewhere, but not necessarily right where we lost them.
No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.
The country really is polarized now, and the northern Roockies, Great Plains, and most of the South are the other pole. The SW, Iowa, and Ohio look most promising to me. And some of the less-Southern states too, maybe, but "The South" is theirs.
I think that when a party loses a lot of close elections it's more likely an organizational problem than an issues problem. If the Republicans were winning 55-45 we'd have to change our message, but they aren't.
Free breakfast tacos and still no turnout! What more does it take, people?!
Hey, I voted, even without the breakfast tacos (tacos? not burritos?). Absentee, though.
More seriously, the Kerry campaign really didn't do the kind of outreach they should have to the Hispanic community, which was none too impressed with Kerry as a candidate. I'm sure the stuff Michael is talking about played a role too.
SE Kansas is adjacent to Oklahoma and Arkansas (within about 40 miles). It was Southern enough for me.
430 - I don't remember which city in NM we called but I'm positive about the breakfast tacos because it was such a bizarre script. We (NY Citizen Action) only called New Mexico once because we had such bad results -- too many "not homes" because of the time difference and none of our group spoke enough Spanish. We were reassigned to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I think that when a party loses a lot of close elections it's more likely an organizational problem than an issues problem. If the Republicans were winning 55-45 we'd have to change our message, but they aren't.
Thank you. If I'd had enough brains I'd have said that. Agreed. Losing NM by 6K votes out of 700k isn't a landslide.
More seriously, the Kerry campaign really didn't do the kind of outreach they should have to the Hispanic community, which was none too impressed with Kerry as a candidate.
Being hopelessly congenitally Anglo I can't really have an informed opinion on that. But here I go anyhow. We had a real progressive in the congressional democratic primary. But he lost to the candidate who had Richardson's support, Richard Romero. Romero went on to lose to Heather Wilson in the general, 55-45. I can't help but think that the Hispanic part of the party (notably inlcluding Richardson) didn't do everything it could have for him.
But the party failed to reach out to lots of people. I normally spend about half or a third of my time out in Gallup, where my partner lives. I asked the campaign staff what was being done out there. I was told "we have a coordinator working with the Native American community. If you want to do anything about the 20,000 or so Anglos who live out there, feel free to rent an office and hire a staff, and we'll wish you best of luck." I didn't find that a useful answer.
The Kerry campaign seems to have done almost everything wrong. I was one of several trying to get them to deal with the Swift Boat type of stuff, and they essentially refused to do anything at all. We were gathering information and they just refused to talk to us.
In my bad moments, which are frequent, I believe that the Democratic Party is being sabotaged from within. Just basic nuts and bolts stuff was screwed up.
I do than you for the effort, Becks. That is bizarre.
No answer was a real problem. I did tallies sometimes for calls going out of HQ. I remember days when we'd made 5,000 calls, done the data entry for all those calls, run the numbers, and got 112 YES answers. And we thought we were calling likely Democratic voters.
(although I've never had grits or greens; I assume they suck, too)
You've never had greens? I have personally tried greens in the following forms (list is incomplete) and will personally attest to their non-suckiness:
No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.
This I would dispute. Democrats do tend to splash their political strategies across the front pages more than the Republicans do, but the whispering through RedState.com etc. seems to indicate that Republicans are serious about increasing their profile--gradually, if necessary--in these areas.
438
Thesis: all greens are better with either butter or shrimp and preferably both.
I friend of mine who's an ABD in related stuff says that the Republican ground game was infinitely better than the Democratic game. They had a fantastic database and fantastic outreach.
Somehow smart Democrats can't convert their knowledge into results. Karl Rove has one year of college at Utah (I think), and he knows more about his subject than 100 PhD's.
PhD's have trouble taking Rove's knowledge seriously, but he's smart and they're dumb.
Despite my pseudonym, I am also hopelessly congenitally Anglo, but what I've heard is that the campaign treated Hispanics like part of the Democratic base (i.e. counted on their votes without doing anything for them) instead of treating them like a swing constituency (which they very much are -- Bush is popular in NM and Richardson's opponent in 2002 was John Sanchez). Of course, I wasn't around during most of the campaign, so I don't have much first-hand knowledge. For that I defer to Michael.
Romero is a good guy, but he isn't much of a politician. He's a prime example of the machine nature of NM Democratic politics -- two chances against Heather and he miffed both of them. Remember Eric Serna?
I was one of several trying to get them to deal with the Swift Boat type of stuff, and they essentially refused to do anything at all.
That could have been a bad, but considered, policy decision by the campaign. I tried something simpler.
After the election I learned that the party had names and contact information for 15,000 people who had volunteered during the campaign. I thought that would be very useful information for the 2006 Congressional race. I offered to help them get that data in order so it could be used. The answer I got was, in esse, "we've assigned that task to our most junior and incompetent computer illiterate employee. We're waiting for her to screw it up, then we'll forget it." I believe that's what happened.
The Republicans are always trying, which is a big part of their advantage. Even with blacks and Jews and gays.
But no one lays down an ultimatum and say that they HAVE TO win back the 40% of the country where they're not competitive.
Michael H S: maybe it's not sabotage, but there's tons of information suggesting that too many high up on the Democratic staff are untroubled by defeat as long as they've still got a job.
No answer was a real problem.
There's a cultural problem there; a lot of older Hispanics are reluctant to discuss politics, especially with someone they don't know. My sister canvassed for the DNC that summer and she said their out-of-state organizers were always very gung-ho about pressing people for answers and that often just alienated people (may have even contributed to the low turnout).
I don't think it's so much a matter of smartness as a matter of analytical strategies applied to politics. My sense is that Republicans are more up on the details of institutional structures and how to make use of them while Democrats are more interested in broader questions of policy and social/cultural trends.
I may be filtering this through the tension between social and political history in academic history departments, so I could be completely wrong. Plus I don't think I expressed that very well.
Everything Rove knows is applied, whereas a lot of Democratic brains filter everything through academic jargon first.
Romero is a good guy, but he isn't much of a politician. He's a prime example of the machine nature of NM Democratic politics -- two chances against Heather and he miffed both of them. Remember Eric Serna?
Oh yes. I remember AEric Serna. And Phil Maloof. I still have marks on my nose, I had to hold it so hard when I voted for them. I attribute their candidacies to 'loyalty to Glorious Leader" rather than loyalty to the democratic machine - but maybe that's a distinction without a difference.
See, but in history you're not going to find too much academic jargon about institutional politics - committee structures, procedural questions, etc. - because there aren't many historians studying it. So there isn't anything to filter wrongly. (Poli sci is something else, but I don't know much about it.) A lot of the stuff in history that's ostensibly about politics doesn't get down to that level, even though people will address policy questions.
I suspect the historians have so little influence that this doesn't matter at all for real life.
There's a cultural problem there; a lot of older Hispanics are reluctant to discuss politics ...
That's very likely. I'm not good with actual interacting with people, so I avoided direct voter contact. But with the telphone banking, a lot of the no answers were literally no answer - often because the phone number was wrong, or disconnected, or the person had moved, or noboday answered the phone.
Certainly an effort to involve people to work within their existing social netwworks and institutions would have been good, and that I didn't see much of.
Democrats are more interested in broader questions of policy and social/cultural trends
Good point. I'm particularly interested in questions such as "we're expecting two thousand volunteers saturday morning, what do we need to do to get them walk lists and maps and back out knocking on doors as efficiently as possible?". Unfortunately, the staff answer seemed to be "don't worry, we know what we're doing, it'll work out". And, of course, it didn't.
No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.
Of course not. They're winning without them. The Democrats, on the other hand, are NOT winning when they don't take a Southern state.
I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?
in history you're not going to find too much academic jargon about institutional politics - committee structures, procedural questions, etc. - because there aren't many historians studying it.
Is that really true? In my narrow range of specialized reading about history--England and France 1770-1840--there's been a fair amount of analysis of the situations and structures that produced certain policy positions and not others. (And yes, from that reading I could extrapolate that flooding Iowa with good-intentioned Dean-supporters from out-of-state would probably not work.)
A lot of the stuff in history that's ostensibly about politics doesn't get down to that level, even though people will address policy questions.
I don't know much about poli-sci either, but I ran into a number of people with recent poli-sci degrees. Their answer to "how do we get enough volunteers down here to stuff 2,000 fund raising letters?" appeared to be "let's do automated calls to 2,500 possibles and ask them to call here" (I don't know where they got that list). They didn't work through questions such as "If we only have two incoming telephone lines which the six staff members and the fax machine are using, and no person assigned to answer incoming calls, will that really work very well?" They'd have done better with someone who had some experience with managing volunteers. But I'm sure they are very good with policy questions, and writing television ads.
I should have emphasized that it's American history I'm talking about. And the best work on the American revolution does focus on institutions. After that? Not so much, though there seems to be a trend towards increasing interest in that kind of political history again. Most of the people interested in Congressional history are still in poli sci, for example, even when they consider themselves historians.
Glorious Leader being who, though? Those elections were pre-Richardson.
(Maloof spoke at my middle school. What an idiot.)
I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?
What's this "we" shit, educated urban person?
Sorry, that's just a joke.
I think it has much more to do with social group affiliation. Republicans are very good at making people feel like they're valued members, participants in the group. I'm on some republican mailinglists, and they're very good at making me feel that they want to include me.
That's why it upsets me so much when Democrats treat volunteers like dirt. The consistent message I get from Democrats is "if you really want to stuff envelopes, put your name on this list and we might call you, but we really don't care who you are or what you think or what you're good at. And please send money"
Of course, it might merely be that the Democrats know me, and find me objectionable.
Glorious Leader being who, though? Those elections were pre-Richardson
There you go again, trying to confuse me with "fact" from the main stream media.
Okay, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't been following local politics very long. But I had the impression that Richardson had been around since Emilio Naranjo's day, and maintained his control of DPNM affairs after he left Congress and went to be Energy Secretary, etc. But I'm likely wrong
Apo, we need to switch 4% of the votes, and where they come from is not the issue. The South is more hopeful than the Great Plains and Northern Rockies, but not much more. There are better places to look.
If you're talking about campaigning more effectively in the South (and everywhere else), fine, but in the past this argument has always been about choosing issues and candidates to please southern voters, and I'm reluctant to do that. Based on what I know, southern voters (at least 51% of them) and I think far differently about most things.
Democrats treat volunteers like dirt.
My experience too. I think it's because the pragmatic Democratic pros fear and mistrust the Democratic rank and file, who usually have convictions on issues.
Richardson has been around for a long time, but my impression was that he was just very ambitious and always on the lookout for personal advancement (as he still is). I wasn't even old enough to vote in those days, but I always thought he was at best a minor player in the machine that kept nominating Serna for various offices and losing when the Greens split the vote. And I doubt he had much influence in the party when he was at Energy; he had enough to deal with right there. But I could also be wrong.
My experience too. I think it's because the pragmatic Democratic pros fear and mistrust the Democratic rank and file, who usually have convictions on issues.
Possible.
My theory is that the party has bought into the notion that it's all about the money, that if they can just raise enough money and buy enough TV ads pushing the right positions and issues, they'll win. Therefore, volunteers don't matter.
They don't see that the Republicans have won recently because they have the emotional and social allegience of a lot of people, and that's not won with money.
I always thought he was at best a minor player in the machine that kept nominating Serna for various offices and losing when the Greens split the vote.
You're probably right. I should read some [shudder] history. eew ick. I just figured we weren't getting candidates of the quality of Serna and Maloof without some political favors being paid for. I assumed it was Richardson making the payoff, but I must admit I'm speculating based solely on prejudice.
I don't think the issues are the problem, it's the candidate. Kerry was poison down here. He wasn't even very good in the blue areas. He was a terrible candidate.
As I said earlier, Democrats totally run NC state politics and most municipalities as well. There's no point in looking to TX, AL, MS, SC, KY, etc. But if you can flip just NC and VA, that's 27 electoral votes - more than Florida, more than Ohio, more than all the other target states you've listed combined. And it's achievable - the demographics in both states are moving steadily that way: younger, more urban, more diverse, more educated.
I'm quite certain we could field candidates that can win the mid-Atlantic states. In order to build a working majority, as opposed to a one-time victory, you'll need to do that.
He was a terrible candidate.
What was terrible about him as a candidate?
criminy. It's now officially tomorrow. I'd best go see my neglected pillows and bed. My thanks to everyone for this discussion.
Well understand, I like Kerry. However, just an awful TV presence. His inability to ever say what he was thinking without four dependent clauses was painful. He came off as 1) the bright but insecure kid in class who wants to be sure everybody knows how smart he is and 2) not really possessed of any real passion or charisma.
That's no way to pick a president, but unfortunately, it's the way we do it in 21st century America.
410: okra, SO GOOD. you're inspiring me to go out and get some masala bhindi right now. or jhatpat bhindi.
301: are there slang dictionaries like this for other languages? anybody?
A friend of mine in a policy grad program was assigned, just after the elections in 2004, to re-imagine the campaign so that the Democrats would win.
Me: 'Are you allowed to choose another candidate?'
Him: 'Sadly, no. I asked.'
After that we boiled it down to 'keep gay marriage initiatives off the ballot.'
It was a really, really close election, and I agree with Emerson et al. that that indicates an organizational problems. The GOP managed to spin the exit polls to show that Democrats were out of touch with the 'moral values' of the U.S., and somewhere along the line a lot of the policy wonks decided to believe them.
There's nothing wrong with courting the South as long as it doesn't entail jettisoning all the party's values to make everyone like them more. Right now it feels like the Dems lost a beauty contest and are obsessing over the two pounds they didn't lose. Jettison women's rights! That's losing us votes! Keep your head down!
And, really, it's hard to cite any policy issue as the cause given how close the vote was, and given organizational incompetence.
What is it about you people and okra? Blecch. But if spinach counts as "greens," yes of course I've eaten spinach, and it's swell.
Thesis: all greens are better with either butter or shrimp and preferably both.
Can't argue with that. Of course, anything is better with butter or shrimp and preferably both.
I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?
There's something to that, too. If you made Chicago its own state, the rest of Illinois would be a Red State. But the South is still solidly Red at the presidential level despite having some big cities.
One thing that Democrats are fighting against is that they are not getting their message out to a large chunk of the population. You very seldom see or hear an effective Democratic spokesperson on the radio or on TV. Even the better newspapers (Times / Post) have been intimidated.
For about 17 years the Democratic party's response to this has been to become more "moderate" and to suck up to people who can give big chunks of money to buy TV time. It hasn't worked; the Clinton Presidency was a very mixed success.
And as I said, after reading people from Georgia, including Zell Miller Democrats, talking about Cleland's defeat, I ended up concluding that there are big chunks of the South that weren't worth bothering with.
From my limited volunteering experience, I'd agree with 458 and 461.
This is a problem that confuses the heck out of me -- how do you heal a screwed up organization? I should be involved in local Democratic politics where I am, but I'm not: a combination of not enough time, and that in my area there's a bit of a Latino-Anglo power struggle going on, and I don't particularly want to come in on either side. (The president of my co-op board is an involved local Democrat, and mostly talks about wresting control of the Community Board away from corrupt Latino politicians. I'm really unimpressed with him, personally, so I tend to assume that everything he's saying is wrong.) In an ideal world, I would be getting involved anyway, but I just don't.
Then there's those of us who live in such solidly blue states (RI) that there doesn't seem to be any point in getting involved in local Democratic politics.
well, m3, you could work to get your republican senator(s) out of office. that'd be a start (although, don't replace them with liebermans [liebermen?]).
republican senator(s)
Wait I thought Linc Chafee was a RINO?? (g) The (s) looks unnecessary as Senator Jack Reed is a Democrat.
Or possibly he is a DINO -- I know not.
Chafee is a republican. He's I guess a RINO, but there are times... I wasn't sure about the other one (Reed), hence the (s).
474: I'd say the same about NYC, but we have that pesky mayoral problem. I give money, but I should be doing more.
Jack Reed is a pretty good Democratic senator, as far as I'm aware.
Replacing Chafee with a Democrat is indeed a noble goal. Chafee talks a good "moderate" game, but he still votes with his caucus when push comes to shove. His family name goes a long way here in Rhode Island, though.
Wasn't his dad senator before him? I think I heard on NPR that he, or another republican representative, was extremely popular and personable in the state with family history as well, which was why it was so hard to run against them. Although apparently, the republicans weren't so happy about him being a "RINO," so next year they're going to try and run someone against him (I don't know when Chafee is up for reelection).
He is up this year. The Club for Growth (ew) is pushing current Cranston mayor Steve Laffey in the Republican primary. Conventional wisdom seems to be that if Chafee loses in the primary, the Democrat has a much better chance.
And that's probably the most that RI politics has ever been discussed on Unfogged.
I think it's the most RI politics has ever been discussed anywhere.
If the parties were reversed, don't you think there'd be a lot of "Don't throw me in that briar patch" activity from RI Republicans? Giving money to Laffey, crossover primary voting if possible, sententious editorials about how "As a Democrat, I fear Laffey's potential for energizing the untapped conservative RI majority? I'm never sure if this sort of thing is a good idea, but Democrats seem to do a lot less of it.
Gaaah earnest earnest earnest earnest. Can we get back to the cock jokes? RI politics are so...
...gripping? ...gut-wrenching? ...spine-tingling?
Connecticut is so much cooler. It was founded by a Hooker.
I'm ashamed that the 'postropher beat me to an R.I. Red reference.
Also, RI politics are sometimes interesting.
Re: 201
Even though the moment has passed I must reply to Frederick.
Firstly, I doubt Illinois law applies since we were not in Illinois.
Secondly, as I stated, I was four years her senior, not five. Coincidently I am four years older than my wife, and we have been married nearly 24 years now.
Thirdly, I don't recall saying anything about sex, you naughty naughty boy.
how do you heal a screwed up organization?
I'm planning on backing my daughter for President but she won't be eligible until 2021.
So I dunno. I also should be involved at the local level but can't seem to find the time.
Thirdly, I don't recall saying anything about sex, you naughty naughty boy.
Actually, I didn't say in 201 that you had had sex with said 13-year-old girl. Since we had been (mostly) talking about sex, I did assume that was what you meant. Maybe you just "had a marvelously great time with a 13 year old" taking her to the zoo or something. Nothing wrong with that.
JR-D brags that he saw ScoJo's boobies.
A media counterstrike? Or merely coincidence? You be the judge.
Due to how far this thread has drifted, I read 495 and thought "J.R., Democrat from where?"
Not from North Carolina, most likely.
468: Well understand, I like Kerry
My apology for toddling off while you were still answering my question. At midnight my head turned back into a pumpkin.
His inability to ever say what he was thinking without four dependent clauses was painful
I'm thinking that causation runs the other way. That is, in a person towards whom one is inclined favorably, peculiar locutions are an endearing foible. For those whom one is inclined against (in the metaphoric, not literal, sense) it's confirmation of one's low opinion. Compare "people misunderestimate me" with "I voted for the war before I voted against it."
I think this is not unusual reasoning:
473: I'm really unimpressed with him, personally, so I tend to assume that everything he's saying is wrong.)
Here's a totally fictional example. All names are changed, and are used pseudonymously:
P1: Tia thinks X
P2: I want to move upwards on the list of people with whom Tia might have sex
Ergo, I like X, I've always liked X, I liked X before X was even invented, and I like X more than anyone else could possibly like X.
Of course, in this example sex is just a proxy for a whole constellation of things, such as status, employment, amusement, money, etc.
This is exactly the sort of reasoning I used to blame Richardson for Serna.
Hey, how come Ogged failed to mention this important news item from the same story to which he linked?
Sienna Miller has been painting with her breasts. The on-again-off-again sweetie of Jude Law has been in character to play Edie Sedgwick, one of Andy Warhol's entourage, in "Factory Girl" and she's been using her breasts to paint large canvases, which she has displayed in her London home. She explains: "I've got rooms covered in [bleeps]."
P1: Tia thinks X
P2: I want to move upwards on the list of people with whom Tia might have sex
Ergo, I like X, I've always liked X, I liked X before X was even invented, and I like X more than anyone else could possibly like X.
Kramer (on "Seinfeld") evidently had the same approach:
Waiter: Anything to drink? Some wine, perhaps.
Mickey: I like Merlot.
Karen: I love Merlot.
Julie: I'm crazy about Merlot.
Kramer: I live for Merlot.
Waiter: We're out of Merlot.
O tempora! O mores! That we could have descended to the point of quoting Seinfeld episodes!
That we could have descended to the point of quoting Seinfeld episodes!
Fuck. Yet another faux pas.
498:
And this kind of reasoning (which is perfectly natural, and I've just copped to indulging in it) has been exploited to incredibly successful effect against Democratic presidential candidates in the last few elections. The whole "Gore is a big liar, or at least somehow, shifty" thing; "Dean is a wild-eyed lunatic"; "Kerry is an effete snob" -- none of those are provable or disprovable, but to someone who thinks they're true, almost anything, no matter how inoffensive, is fresh confirmation. Once you have the media talking about such an impression as the conventional wisdom, it's maddeningly difficult to root it out, no matter how silly it is.
(The 'Kerry is effete' thing really, really puzzled the hell out me. War hero, who at 60 or so is still an athlete, and the kind of athlete who's doing stuff for fun rather than Bush's sort of grimly determined fitness program, with a history of dating beautiful women culminating in marrying a hot (within reasonable standards for a woman of his age) billionaire: that his political opponents managed to spin that sort of life history into a picture of Kerry as insufficiently virile just astonished me. They're really good.)
The "Kerry is effete" thing bugged *me* because "effete" means "worn out," rather than "effeminate."
'Effeminate' is one of the meanings of 'effete'; after 'barren', 'overly pampered and soft', and I would guess (not bothering with the OED atm) probably a later meaning conflating 'pampered' with 'feminine'.
not bothering with the OED atm
wait, wait, if I understand the etymology of "glans" this will all go much better!
Not unless the etymology of 'glans' involves 'lubricant'.
Mineshaft denizens tend to avoid eye contact, preferring to check out likely partners with a sidelong glans.
Cala, you're confusing use and men's shlongs.
LB-- I saw a thread on MYDD about a Republican Congressional district accessible from New York via Metro North--District 19--that you might get involved in. The incumbent Sue Kelly sells herself as a moderate, but she doesn't appear to be.
We throat a din for wrens.
Tia, 514 is hott. I am a fool for trying to respond in kind.
Nonsense, SB, you are the ungendered monarch of Mineshaft puns. (Maybe some affordable housing advocates could announce that they tout a din for rents?)
preferring to check out likely partners with a sidelong glans.
Amply demonstrating the vas deferens between the men of the Mineshaft and the women of the Banana Lofts.
LOL, apostropher. Well done. The way you got to 1200 in the "Innocence" thread was really sleazy, though.
As for effete, in addition to "effeminate," another definition of it is "soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence." I'm sure the Rethuglicans were happy if referring to Kerry as "effete" brought either or both of those senses of the word to people's minds. Of course, Bush probably had a more pampered upbringing than Kerry did, but the Rethugs never let facts get in the way.
Didn't Safire use 'effete' in one of his alliterative contributions to a Nixon speech? (a la 'nattering nitwits of negativity')
Apostropher, not conforming to the highest ethical standards in increasing the size of Unfogged comment threads degrades the moral fiber of this country.
...soon we'll be posting about dogs in comment threads. Dogs!
Add ROCK HARD inches to your throbbing Unfogged comment threads! Discreet shipping, all major credit cards accepted.
521
Agnew instead of Nixon, and the phrase was "effete Eastern intellectuals."
Apostropher is in my head
Apostropher is in my head
The blog grows; the glans shows;
You oughta know this stuff is
lame
We may have reached the point where actual blog posts are now superfluous.
I know that "effete" *now* gets used to mean "effeminate." But that's because people are wrong.
Normally, mind, I'm not a language Nazi. But for some reason this one really annoys me. Probably b/c it's so obvious that the reason for the slippage is simple sloppiness.
I know that "effete" *now* gets used to mean "effeminate." But that's because people are wrong.
I'm not sure that's right. Apparently, that "fete" is from the same root as "fetus," and "effete" means lacking vitality, specifically, like one who has already given birth. So the connection with the feminine isn't an error.
Also, "nattering nabobs," not "nattering nitwits".
I was wondering how long it would take someone to point that out. "nattering nitwits" sounds better to my ear though.
28: Are you using an idiosyncratic definition of "half"?
533: No, he is using an unorthodox definition of "good".
529: On the other hand, you can't go wrong with "epicene".
536: Well a lot depends on context with this sort of thing.
I think "epicene Eastern intellectuals" would have done very nicely. But who am I to write lines for an Agnew?
Right I'm down with that -- I'm just not prepared to say, "you can't go wrong with 'epicene'" -- seems to me there are plenty of contexts where it would not be the appropriate term.
Rather than not speak and express tacit agreement, let me note that I quite liked Match Point. I just think that as a manner of either objective run-time or subjective time perception, far less than half of the film is suspensful. Much of it reminded me, thematically, of Crimes and Misdemeanors, though I wouldn't put MP at the same level of quality as that.
I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster has, as its first definition of "nicety," "the quality or state of being nice." Is that legit? I know people use it that way a lot, but I always thought the proper meaning of the word was "subtlety." What say you, grammar mavens?
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nicety
I think it works if you take it in the more archaic sense of being 'nice': not merely the modern sense in which nice=pleasant, but nice meaning orderly and with a fine attention to detail. Think of the following attempt at faux Jane Austen: "Her dress was nice in it's simplicity and propriety.... The nicety of her attire attracted the approbation of the observers."
I wouldn't use 'nicety' as 'the quality or state of being pleasant', but for 'the quality or state of being precise' I think it works.
The OED has "niceness" as its first definitional group but makes clear that that usage has become obs. Most of the definitions within this group have also become obs., with the exception of the phrase "to a nicety," which can be rendered "completely," "accurately," or "precisely [and prissily]." The next definitional group relates to "nice things," most of which are active. Here we get, roughly:
a luxury, a dainty food, a minute distinction, a skill requiring accuracy, a detail of etiquette.I associate "nicety" with fussy roles for social etiquette, but that's just my first knee-jerk reaction.
Drat it, I have a messed up 'it's' up there. My commenting is not nice.
(And I'm here writing a memo that has to go to a client tomorrow morning, which suggests that I need to worry about my proofing.)
M-W New Int'l 2d explains:
Nicety ... 1. Quality or state of being nice; specif: obs a. Folly; light conduct. b. Ignorance, simplicity. c. Pleasure; lust. d. Self-indulgence; luxuriousness; excessive elegance. e. Modesty, reserve; also, prudishness.
The discrepancy between c. and e. must have led to some interesting conversations:
"Madam, I applaud your exquisite nicety."
"You cad!" (Strikes him with fan, and flees, weeping, from the room.)
There's a name, I think, for the group of words that are their own antonyms. But I can't remember the word, and the only examples I can think of are cleave and sanguine - and sanguine isn't quite it's own antonym. But yes, that's why having a cigar and bushy eyebrows to wag while making indelicate suggestions can be so helpful in eliminating ambiguity.
gak. Are excessive apostrophes contagious? "proof" is another word with lots of strange meanings. One day I must look up the etymology.
You're probably thinking of "sanction". This came up on Car Talk a while ago. (Not just there, of course.)
A word that serves as its own antonym could be autoparasemous. Maybe.
Contranym, which I'd never heard before.
Sanction. That's a good one. I can see where I got from sanction to sanguine. But sanguine (bloody) and sanguine (optimistic) are pretty strange bedfellows to cohabit in the same word.
Dang, SB beat me to it. "Sanction" is a weird word:
This Court cannot sanction the defendant's conduct! Accordingly, I am imposing sanctions on the defendant.
Good explanation of "sanguine" in the word history.
557: thank you. One day I gotta learn how to use those internets.
I find the concept of the retronym interesting - a phrase created because a word now requirs a modifier to express its original meaning, like "acoustic guitar," "silent movie," or "regular coffee."
Is there a term to describe when metaphoric extensions survive, but their referents change? I'm thinking of 'dogs of war", which (I think) started with 'dog' in the sense of 'a device for holding something back, like a chock' (lathe dog, fire dog, dog the hatches!) and which now seems to refer to people who are like Dobermans
started with 'dog' in the sense of 'a device for holding something back, like a chock'
Nope, it's Shakespeare: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" (Julius Caesar, I think?) In context, clearly canines rather than fasteners.
I understood the Shakespeare quote to refer to dogs in the sense of chocks. Those great seige engines which threw things - ballistae? mongowhatsits? and their cousins - were cocked, and then held by dogs. To let slip the dogs meant to fire the missile (I think. I may be wrong). So, I'd thought, "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" Meant to loose the reins, the chocks, to let slide the things that held back the forces of war.
This page says Shakespeare's "dogs" refers to soldiers. But it doesn't offer any analysis or proof.
Looking at the full quote, I can't absolutely refute that, but it doesn't ring true. After all, by Shakespeare's time they were using cannon, rather than catapults, making the idiom you describe unlikely to be one that Shakespeare would use.
But I'm working off what sounds right to me, rather than a reliable source, so I could be wrong.
And this page, though it doesn't answer the "dogs" question, says that "havoc" was a military command meaning, basically, "take no prisoners" and was banned by Richard II.
I haven't found any online support for my assertion that catapults, trebuchets, mangonels, and the like were held cocked by a dog.
And this page says that the "dogs of war" are " The horrors of war, especially famine, sword, and fire."
Yeah. The tone of the phrase is 'release uncontrolled forces', much more than 'fire an aimed weapon'.
But there's got to be another good example of what you're talking about in 560. "Tow the line" might be going there, if I could figure out what it could reasonably mean.
The cite in 567 just takes us back to Shakespeare; I'm sure that reading, which was similar to B's reading, it not unknown or uncommon.
If he had written "and let slip the dogs of fire!" would you accept that he was talking about removing the andirons?
Maybe it's the 'let slip" part that I find persuasive. You 'let slip' reins. You 'let slip' chocks. Chocks, andirons, lathe dogs all work when they're kept from slipping. If the andirons slip on the floor, you've got a problem. When a lathe dog slips, the work piece stops turning. If you let slip the reins, the horse runs free. If you let slip the reins of war, war runs free.
Where I don't buy it is that in context, the phrase has the sense of starting a process you can't stop or control. If dogs=fasteners, letting them slip=taking one shot. Anthony isn't calling for a single attack; substituting "Take aim, and fire" into the speech wouldn't work. He's saying "Start the uncontrolled bloody chaos of war", which seems much more like 'loose the [canine] dogs" than "fire a weapon".
According to this page:
DOGS OF WAR (or war dogs). War dogs of the middle ages were especially fierce and trained to kill men, as in Shakespeare's phrase "Cry 'Havoc!' and loose the dogs of war." They were a varity of mastiff. Wardogs were brought over to the new world by the Spanish were especially devastating to the locals. They would use the dogs to execute natives as they saw fit, the natives not being Christian had no rights.
If he had written "and let slip the dogs of fire!" would you accept that he was talking about removing the andirons?
Well, no. That just wouldn't make sense. While andirons do contain a fire, they're more an aid to piling the logs than a restraint. In the absence of andirons, you don't have fire spouting uncontrollably into the living room, you have a less-tidy pile of logs.
559: "regular coffee" does not "require a modifier to express its original sense" -- the modifier is superfluous. If you walk into a coffee shop and order "coffee" no modifiers and they bring you a decaffeinated, I think you would have cause to feel like they were acting weird. In "decaf coffee" the modifier is required (but the noun itself can be omitted).
569: the phrase is "toe the line" and it means "walk within the prescribed boundary".
I know what the orginal phase is -- if you look back at 560, I was suggesting that it might be a candidate for a cliche so commonly misunderstood that, in the minds of many speakers, its metaphoric referent had changed (to something, I'm not sure what, where 'tow' rather than 'toe' makes sense).
Oh I see, I misread your post. I didn't know "tow the line" was a common usage.
Adding on to my 576, it is a mistake (here in NYC and its environs) to order a "regular coffee" when your meaning is "one with its innate caffeine intact" -- "regular coffee" is generally taken to mean "coffee with a lot of milk and sugar in it". If you order coffee and the person taking your order asks "regular?" the proper response (if you do not care for lots of milk and sugar) is "no, black". Come to think of it I can't remember the last time I heard "regular" in its "not decaffeinated" meaning -- if you want decaf you ask for it. I guess at parties I have heard hostesses pointing to the two pots of coffee and saying "this is regular, this is decaf." But again here, "regular" is not part of the phrase "regular coffee", it is serving as a predicate adjective.
I have a riddle: name a word that, if you change one letter, becomes the antonym.
Not a perfect antonym, but (l/n)ight is close.
pretty good. not the one I was thinking of, though.
How have we not mentioned "inflammable?"
But that never properly means fireproof, does it? It just looks as if it should.
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
walk/balk, kinda, but I bet that's not what you were thinking of either.
Mine are more latinate, and are near-perfect antonyms.
How about, god forbid, "cut the mustard"? Drives me batshit crazy when people use that.
I had no idea that was wrong. On the assumption that it is, what's right? "Cut the muster"?
I can't actually make literal sense of either.
I always thought it was "cut the cheese". No?
The frustrating thing is that I'm almost positive I've been stumped by Tia's question before, and I still can't remember the answer.
Well, I made this riddle up, but it's self-evident enough that I'm sure lots of people have thought of it.
I mean it's self-evident when you're already contemplating the words. Sensitive Weiner.
proscribe/prescribe? Probably not, but what the hey.
I'm betting SB's answer is the one Tia was looking for.
ungendered monarch
I do have a gender, it's just (for no particular reason now other than tradition) undeclared.
I don't care what the pages say. "Cut the muster" is from a muster roll: you cut it by deciding who to include and who not to include. Not to "cut the muster" means you're not good enough to take into battle. "Cut the mustard" makes no goddamn sense at all.
(It also works for proscription/prescription obviously.)
Hey, SB is teh winner.
Okay, I have another riddle. I'll forever regret that I heard this one when I was a kid and didn't have the cognitive capacity to solve it. No googling, now, and no answering if already know it.
There's a door to Heaven and a door to Hell. They are guarded by two identical men, one of whom always lies and the other of whom always tells the truth. You have one question in order to establish which door to choose. What should you ask?
(NB. There is more than one correct answer to this riddle. In fact, there are more than two.)
Of course, the question is, "Where did Ewan MacGregor wind up?"
Hey, SB is teh winner.
Woo hoo! Me too, since I placed my bet prior to Tia awarding the prize.
603 -- when you ask the question do both of the men answer or do you have to ask just one of them?
Hey, SB is teh winner.
Hooray!
I am also teh pwn on the riddle. Speaking of which, thank goodness heaven and hell aren't guarded by the Paradox Dragon.
Sorry, JO, you're right, that was ambiguous. One man, one question.
"Cut the muster" is from a muster roll: you cut it by deciding who to include and who not to include. Not to "cut the muster" means you're not good enough to take into battle.
I can't buy this without some citations. While it's possible, I'm not familiar with any army where the officers sorted through their troops before battle, and let the lousy ones sit safely behind the lines. Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive?
How does "tow the line" not make sense? It can be nautical. To "tow the line" for someone would presumably mean that you're pulling their cargo, or at least helping them to pull it. Therefore if, say, Glenn Reynolds is said to be "towing the Republican line", you get an image of Reynolds helping them transport their garbage.
I know the idiom with precedent is "toe the line", but what if this is an alternative idiom that makes just as much sense? "Toe the line", incidentally, conjures an image of someone going up to a line (maybe a line in the sand, say) but being unable to cross it. Toeing the line, but not really committing to go the distance. Kind of like only getting your feet wet.
Ooh, fun! Puzzles!
Name a word whose pronunciation changes when it is capitalized.
Wordorigins thinks otherwise:
The OED2 has it deriving from the slang sense of mustard meaning the best (flavorful, what makes something else taste good). O.Henry uses the word in the 1904 Cabbages and Kings in this fashion. The phrase cut the mustard comes from about the same period, first appearing in print a year earlier. The cut refers to harvesting the plant. If you can't cut the mustard, you can't supply what is best.
Apo, have you heard this? No cheating.
Also, there's another way to go about it. The unprissy will figure out the set of all possible answers.
616: Very nice. Not the one I was thinking of, but now I have two.
How is the city name Reading pronounced? I thought it was pretty much the same as the gerund reading.
Seems very easy that way, Tia. Cologne/cologne, for instance.
Teh ringer?
So, in the Paradox Dragon, the second head has to be the one that alternates, since neither of the others could say it was lying (third panel). Then in the first panel the outer two heads seem to agree that it is one question -- which would be paradoxical -- but the first says "You must ask one question, then you have to guess which is which," which is a stronger statement. So the first head is the lying head, and you don't have to guess which is which. Except then in the second panel, the second head must be telling the truth (since it lied in the first panel), and the third head shouldn't be saying that the second head is lying. Contradiction.
Standpipe, when do I get posting privileges on your blog?
618: I believe it's pronounced as if it were spelled "Redding"
[slaps forehead] Ah I see now ... Never mind!
It may depend on whether it's Reading, PA, or Reading, UK? The first is "redding."
623: Thanks. Now I can avoid embarrassing myself in suburban PA. What about "King of Prussia"?
'a'/'A'. The first is pronounced 'uh,' the second 'ay'.
What about "King of Prussia"?
That's pronounced "Springfield".
Tia--
Ask a question to which you already know the answer, e.g. "What color is the sky on a sunny, temperate, cloudless day on the planet Earth?
If the person questioned answers correctly (Blue), then that 's the door to heaven, and vice versa.
Now I see I have been playing Monopoly wrong all of these years!
I think "King of Prussia" is pronounced how you think, but "North Versailles" is pronounced Ver-sayles.
631 -- so the "North" is silent?
629, But then how do you know which door is which? Your mouth has been sewn shut by this time.
Teh ringer?
Um, that was a brain-o. Disregard.
Standpipe, when do I get posting privileges on your blog?
As soon as you find it.
New Prague, Minnesota, is pronounced "Noo Prayg."
Pierre, South Dakota, is pronounced "Peer."
Huron, South Dakota, is pronounced "Urine."
629: Chopper, you don't know who is guarding which door. If the truth teller is in front of Hell, you're screwed using your approach
Newfoundland, NJ is pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. Takes a little getting used to.
If I were to ask the other guy ...
Are you sure? I thought it was pronounced "Pier."
Not me. I don't suck. It was your riddle.
Then there's Thames Street, in Newport, which is pronouned "thaymes."
And New Athens, IL is pronounced "New Ay-thens."
Any why isn't "pear" a homonym for peer/pier instead of pare, anyway?
(vein popping)
Since if you were SOLVING the riddle, you would say the whole question, I can only presume you have heard it before, in which case, you are SPOILING it for people who are solving it now. Besides, there is another approach that I take it you prisses haven't thought of.
Sequim, WA: "Squim"
Puyallup, WA: "Pugh-WALL-Up"
Spokane, WA: "Spoh-CAN"
Gotta mention Chicago's Goethe=go-ee-thie.
Worcestor, MA is pronounced wuster.
Dorchestor, MA is pronounced dorchester.
funny that,
But Tia, who hasn't heard that riddle?
(don't even try it Weiner. I'm far too determined.)
Hey, what's going on in here, guys?
Tia does seem to have found my "must close the thread" button.
You all really must listen to this new Sufjan Stevens album, Illinoise Annoys A Noisy Oyster.
Tia, I never had you pegged for a number-slut.
Is it a "dominate the sidebar" thing?
She was going for 666, beasty little thing.
The number of the beast was recently shown to be, in fact, 616. So Tia wins anyway.
#610: That people imagine "tow the line" meaning exactly what you're saying is one reason that it's entered the language; but since that's not where it comes from, that's a retroactive rationalization for a mistake, rather than an origin, and as such, it's annoying.
"Cut the muster / mustard." Huh. If the OED says "mustard," I'll accept that, but I'm so horrified by it that I think I'll just erase both phrases from my own usage for the rest of my life.
That people imagine "tow the line" meaning exactly what you're saying is one reason that it's entered the language; but since that's not where it comes from, that's a retroactive rationalization for a mistake, rather than an origin, and as such, it's annoying.
Tell me about it. This is why I changed all my Monopoly cards to read "Get Out Of Gaol Free".
Far too late I realize that if I had really wanted to make that work, I needed to set up as many browser windows as I needed with my complete comment, and then press post accross all of them consecutively. I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you damn...
Y'all were evidently pwned on my riddle.
I acknowledge defeet of my dogs theory. May I cry Hammock! and let sleep the dogs of war?
May I cry Hammock!
No I had dibs.
Last night when we were in line buying tickets for Match Point, I overheard the teenage boys in front of us talking about which was gayer: Brokeback Mountain or Tristan and Isolde. Their conclusion? Brokeback Mountain was gayer but Tristan and Isolde was gayer. I felt amused to be in the presence of kindred spirits and distressed that those kindred spirits were 15-year-old boys.
683 is the 12th number in the Jacobsthal sequence
Jakobsthal sequence -- there are 683 ways to tie a necktie using 10 turns.
