|
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage
September 5, 2008
variations on a theme: The “an ordinary clock glimpsed in its moment of brief Obamalot awakening†post (from the protein wisdom conceptual series)
50 Comments ::: Post a comment »RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=13215 Leave a commentIf you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. |
||
|
herbal viagra forums
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:00 pm #
Love it.
By responding and arguing, he elevates her. Biden is supposed to be doing this stuff, while conversely Palin is doing precisely what she’s supposed to do.
Meanwhile, McCain is being ignored….
Comment by Dan Collins on 9/5 @ 2:01 pm #
More faces than Big Ben, and a tic in each of them.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:01 pm #
Also, Whittle has a good essay out.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 2:02 pm #
Testing.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 2:04 pm #
Okay, Jeff et all; I’ve finally prepared my Grand Organized Theory of Why it is That No Respectable Person Ought to Respect Sarah Palin. You will find it at National Lampoon. Respond when ready; I look forward to reading your reply.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:07 pm #
Who says we’re respectable, Barrett?
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 2:07 pm #
I are respectable and I respect Sarah Palin. For real you should see my new area rugs.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:11 pm #
You have turtles, hf. Thats the kind of thing respectable people send you out of the room for before you give them to the kids.
Comment by mojo on 9/5 @ 2:14 pm #
“Dis here’s a class joint. Act respectable.”
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 2:18 pm #
Tru dat on the turtles. That whole salmonella myth is way overblown but I still wash my hands a lot.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:24 pm #
OK BB, I went and read the thing - it was the Palin Drones one, right? Mildly funneh. Do you write drunk?
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:25 pm #
hf - the salmonella thing is true if you eat turtles, prob’ly. But you need a good fork for that.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 2:25 pm #
Why come no link? I’m a good clicker, but I have to have a link.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 2:29 pm #
The salmonella thing mostly came from like 1952 when they told you to feed your pet turtles raw chicken. I’ve had gator but never no turtle. I’m open to iguana, which you used to could buy in Texas at HEB for like fajitas and stuff but I never did. Maybe just in test markets though. I don’t feel really good about eating turtle but if someone went to all the trouble to cook it I wouldn’t be rude.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 9/5 @ 2:31 pm #
I think that Barrett guy is fairly talented, for a guy who writes at National Lampoon.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:33 pm #
Ah. Turtles are what used to soup out East. Terrapins. Now its just mock terrapin, with the mock turtles. Which I guess you eat with walruses and carpenters.
Comment by Jim in Killa City on 9/5 @ 2:34 pm #
He’s no PJ O’Rourke, though.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/5 @ 2:34 pm #
Barrett Brown; he no likey teh god botherers.
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:36 pm #
Welll, I dunno what happened with the link I just did. Bad juju.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/5 @ 2:37 pm #
We should get nishi and Barrett together for drinks and ample yucks about cudlips, xtians, creationists and theocons. Methinks they they would laugh and laugh just before being struck by lightning and diseased frogs..
Comment by TomB on 9/5 @ 2:42 pm #
Poor Barrett, he has the immensely poor timing to peddle his cute little article in the same thread where someone posts a link to a Bill Whittle column.
And the results are as expected…
Comment by Squid on 9/5 @ 2:48 pm #
My favorite part is where he mocks the candidate and the party for their blatant use of her sex (and her sex appeal), and without taking a breath imagines the Obamanatics wearing “Fierce Negro” buttons.
“Silly GOP! She’s a gimmick candidate! Just like Obama!”
Methinks self-awareness ain’t this guy’s strong suit. Not that the Lampoon guys were ever much for suits.
Comment by Sdferr on 9/5 @ 2:50 pm #
I thought the bit Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz did with Rove clips and O’Reilly clips couldn’t have been done better. Very funny, and biting where it hurts.
The sexism bit doesn’t really come off though, what with winding the whole thing up with the joke refuting clip of Palin herself eschewing any such complaint, even unto to this day. That fact undermines the Pfotenhauer bits. It seems to me to be possible to distinguish between the complaints of say, Sen. Clinton on her own behalf and the complaints of a surrogate with whom Mrs. Clinton is free to disagree (presuming the counterfactual that she had had the good sense never to complain of sexism in the first place).
Comment by mojo on 9/5 @ 2:54 pm #
Why I Like Treacher, Part whatever:
Ay, compadre! Muy simpatico, eh?…
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:55 pm #
To be fair, BB is a Barr man. So he could share buttons with the Nader guys: “Weirdo White Guy for Prez” it might say
Comment by urthshu on 9/5 @ 2:57 pm #
Admittedly, I don’t know much about Barr. But hey, making up shiznitt is teh kewl on the intartubez.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/5 @ 2:57 pm #
tic
O! :” Uh, so, uh, um, So Hillary, hows it goin’…”
tic
Hillz: “Oh, Hi Barack…I thought I might be hearing from you…”
tic
O! : Yea, um,…I was, um…, just calling to congratulate you on that boffo speech you made in Denver last, uh, week. It, uh, was a real stemwinder…Heh, um, It was better than Teddy’s…”
tic
Hillz: “Why thanks Barack…”
tic
O! : “I was, er, um, wondering…um, Are you doing anything…um, for, um, the next two months or so?”
tic
Hillz: “Well, I have a little business to do…I still owe a pretty large pile of dough that I need to get back…Y’know, the pile you were gonna help me with…and all…Billy Jeff isn’t too happy about the hole in his wallet…”
tic
O! : “Um, ..,er…,um,…Oh…Think you’ll have any time at all?”
tic
Hillz: “Well, truth be told, I really need to shrink my jeans and do some laundry…Why don’t you call Claire McCaskill or Kathleen Sebilius?”
tic
O! : “*sigh* OK”
–click–
tic
tic
tic
tic
O! :”That Bitch…”
Comment by BJTexs on 9/5 @ 2:58 pm #
So Barrett is s Doobie Libertarian?
Don’t bogart, man. GOLD STANDARD, DUDE!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 9/5 @ 3:03 pm #
You will find it at National Lampoon.
Has that magazine ever been funny since, say, 1980 or so? I’m honestly curious. I doubt if Barrett’s piece can match the seminal and lasting political influence of “The OC and Stiggs Guaranteed Method of Boning the Vice President’s Wife”, but I’ll have to have a look. Federalist Papers, Two Treatises on Government, and Wealth of Nations rolled into one, that was.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/5 @ 3:13 pm #
“By the way - that calico cat and gingham dog? I had nothing to do with it. Honest.”
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 3:14 pm #
“Do you write drunk?”
Mostly stoned. It is a tradition in the comedy industry. Also, I write drunk. Oh, wait. That’s what you were asking. Yes.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 3:15 pm #
“Has that magazine ever been funny since, say, 1980 or so?”
No.
Comment by Jim in Killa City on 9/5 @ 3:35 pm #
Oh, you’re in the comedy industry. And you do your writing in an arugula-thatched dishwasher box on the Upper West Side.
The longer you hang around the clearer the picture becomes. We do need to know your astrological sign, though.
Comment by P.J. on 9/5 @ 3:44 pm #
Man, that Whittle article is great.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 9/5 @ 3:50 pm #
Well, my face is red. Google tells me that:
OC was actually “O.C.”
The title of the article was actually “The O.C. and Stiggs Guaranteed Method of Porking the Vice-President’s Wife” not “The OC and Stiggs Guaranteed Method of Boning the Vice President’s Wifeâ€Â.
Finally, I am forced to concede that the article was printed in 1982, rather than 1980 as I first suggested.
I just wanted to save Barrett the trouble of writing one of his scathing, apposite, and not-at-all-deliberately-obtuse rebuttals.
My point, she is dispunctio.
The shame… it burns.
Comment by cranky-d on 9/5 @ 3:55 pm #
Now that you’ve admitted your error, SBP, how can we possibly take anything you say seriously? If you cannot get the tiniest little facts correct, you must be way off on the big stuff.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 3:59 pm #
“I just wanted to save Barrett the trouble of writing one of his scathing, apposite, and not-at-all-deliberately-obtuse rebuttals.”
Chill, dawg. I’m just watching some sweet Atari Teenage Riot videos. Write all the nonsense you’d like.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 9/5 @ 4:01 pm #
Write all the nonsense you’d like.
That’s why we have you, Barrett. I wouldn’t want to cut in on the turf of a professional.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 4:04 pm #
“I wouldn’t want to cut in on the turf of a professional.”
Good, the union doesn’t take kindly to you scabs.
Comment by Jim in Killa City on 9/5 @ 4:12 pm #
Oh, you’re a Teamster, too?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/5 @ 4:22 pm #
Good, the union doesn’t take kindly to you scabs.
What’s that union gonna do, swing their bics?
The Teamster’s - now that’s a union that knows the difference between a broken pool-cue and a tire iron when it comes to negotiations.*
*IIRC, from the late Robert Asprin’s “Myth” series. Paraphrased and applied for here.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 4:25 pm #
I’m guessing Aries.
Comment by Jim in Killa City on 9/5 @ 4:59 pm #
I was hoping Leo, happyfeet. Just because the imagery of a lion teamster mushing a 40-mule team of comedy through the PW comment threads somehow appeals.
Of course, it’s no flaming armadillo.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/5 @ 7:28 pm #
BJ, at 18, nails it in regards to BB. He hates the Godbotherers and their demanding God. It’s a shame, too, as I agree with much he says when he actually talks about policy. But then again, I’m a Godbotherer who believes in the absolute personal when it comes to faith. Jesus wasn’t a community organizer, nor a liberal, nor a conservative nor a commodities broker. He was concerned only with the spiritual and the true path to God. Concerns of the earth, that is the secular, weren’t his nevermind. I don’t know. I just think it’s odd, the amount of vitriol some libertarians/classical liberals have for Christians. I’m both a classical liberal and a Christian. There are FAR more like me than they can ever begin to imagine.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/5 @ 10:25 pm #
I don’t hate people who believe that Christ is a manifestation of God, and I don’t mean to cause them any offense whatsoever, although I realize that I often do cause offense in the course of writing what I think needs to be written. But there is a significant contingent of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and whatnot who care nothing at all for this country’s constitution nor for the Enlightenment, and who, given the chance, will use the state to imprison other American citizens who engage in the “wrong” sort of consensual sex or who consume the “wrong” sort of drugs. Obviously, I am opposed to those policies and hostile to the people who agitate for them.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/5 @ 10:30 pm #
Joey Biden was the guy that made steroids illegal and he keeps expanding the definition. I think he’s gay.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/5 @ 10:47 pm #
I hear ya, BB. I kind of get caught up in it at times. It’s kind of hard as a Christian who does want his religious beliefs segregated from his secular, or political beliefs. I think they can and should be mutually exclusive from one another. I’ve been on the receiving ends of ridicule by both secular folk and religious folk. I try to convince/persuade people of the same religious affiliation as mine, to not try and force their “beliefs” onto others. I still witness if I can, though. It’s a very hard sell at times. Awww, shit, now I’m sounding like a victim and I honestly do not want to sound like one of them. Fuck it. I just think that Jesus didn’t give a shit about the secular. He was kind of above the fray, if you know what I mean.
Comment by Rebecca on 9/6 @ 12:36 pm #
OI and BB - while I completely agree that religious beliefs as the basis for laws, I think that the line is often blurred by both sides of the issue.
1) Should we have laws against dancing in public places because some religious sect considers dancing “sinful”. Hell no.
2) Should we require businesses that provide dance floors for their patrons to be licensed as such, thereby ensuring that the facilities offered conform to building safety codes, agreed to by the general public, as a reasonable protection of the patrons? Whether you agree or disagree, the aforementioned, “Hell no.”, isn’t quite so obvious.
My objection to the dogpile on religion (but mostly those crazy Christians and Jews), is that many questions have been reframed by those who argue against them, and that new framework has become the default basis for the argument.
I simply cannot argue against abortion from a scientific viewpoint, not because I’m unable to make the case, but because the whole argument has been, quite successfully, reframed as an inherently religious one. Whether or not the person making the argument is of any particular religious background, tradition, or belief, they will be branded as a whacked out fundamentalist as soon as they open their mouth, and any points that might be made are drowned out by the other side. It’s simple. The forgone conclusion that anyone who opposes abortion is a religious zealot, and anyone who does not oppose it is speaking from scientific principle. Now we just shift to the next argument: Should religious fundies be allowed to force their beliefs on everyone else? The answer is a resounding, “Hell no!”, and we have dispensed with the whole ridiculous concept of the anti abortion freaks.
Any of our laws could be argued back to a basis in Judeo-Christian belief, and thrown out with as little real discussion of the issues. Doesn’t that scare anyone? What, exactly, was the basis on which we decided to fiercely battle against some of our own states, over a period of many more years than the actual Civil War lasted? What made us so certain of the morality of our position that we were willing to alienate, antagonize, legislate against, and finally take arms against our fellow citizens in order to end a practice that had long, worldwide, historic roots? Certainly that institution was argued for, vigorously, from a scientific viewpoint, by many of the great minds of the time.
I’m not arguing equivalency here, as I fully expect the standard, exasperated response, that one of these things is an *obvious* evil, and only some kind of Christian Soldier Extremist could see any similarity in these situations, and by the way, end of argument you dumb ass Jesus Freak. And they bomb abortion clinics too, those hypocritical bible thumpers!
At some point, a whole lot of citizens lost an argument that they’ve never even been able to make, by painting all of them with the broad brush of dangerous, witch hunting puritans. When I hear people railing about having someone else’s beliefs being forced on them, I wonder what “beliefs” can acceptably be forced on others, and which ones cross that magic line.
Oh, yeah, I’m one of those offensive Smokers, too.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/6 @ 12:41 pm #
Well said, Rebecca.
Comment by B Moe on 9/6 @ 6:25 pm #
The problem as I see it is differentiating between folks who say a thing should be illegal because it says so in the Bible, and folks who say I vote that this thing be illegal because the Bible advises me so. I am opposed to the first, but not the second, even though I don’t see the Bible as anything but a good book.