November 13, 2007
Gratuitous Llama Commuter Confession
Our good pal Christine over at Laudem Gloriae dug up this YouTube of the Dave Brubeck Quartet doing "Take Five", an extremely rare example of a five beats to the bar composition:
Now that the days are drawing in and the air is getting cooler, I often walk to the metro from my office in the dark wearing the ol' trenchcoat. Almost invariably, this tune starts running through my head. Dunno why. Speaking of such things, some time recently our pal Sleepy Beth remarked - in a post about "slugging" a lift into Dee Cee from another commuter - about guys who listen to Smooooooth Jazz. She didn't say anything outright derogatory, you understand, but there was just enough faint praise in the post to prompt me to confess: I usually reach my metro stop and pick up my car shortly after 7:00 PM. The local classical station to which I listen the rest of the day, perhaps unwilling to totally give up its prior gabfest format, takes this one hour out of the twenty-four to broadcast the bloviations of Jim Lehrer & Co. Bag that, says I. So yes, I typically listen to smoooooth jazz on the drive to Orgle Manor from the metro. Not only that, I often amuse myself by reciting my own Weather Channel Local on the 8's forecasts over the music. (I won't explain. Those of you who get it know exactly what I'm talking about.) And my favorite smooooooth jazz playlist entry? Here ya go: I know what you suspect, but no, I'm not. Really.Posted by: Robert at 10:50 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I have nothing against jazz (smooth or otherwise) - in fact, I like it quite a lot. I just tend to prefer it in the afternoon or evening rather than at 6 a.m. when I'm staring bleary-eyed out the window of someone else's car and praying that their reflexes are better than mine because if I was driving in the maniacal fashion they are, we would surely crash.
HRCR Rides The Stump
We Llamas occasionally get some pretty hot n' juicy letters in the Tasty Bits (TM) Mail Sack. Today we opened up one that read thusly:
Dear Parfait, Gentile Llama Kniggits: Hillary Clinton has had a few rough weeks. "Let's make them rougher" is my motto. As someone who was forced to inhale feminsim throughout her school girl days like stray dogs were once forced to inhale cigarettes by the tobacco companies of old, it has been more than obvious that Hillary Clinton is neither a strong woman or a feminist. Otherwise, she would have dumped Bill Clinton when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Instead, Hillary stood by Bill's side. In return, during his next State of the Union speech a few weeks later, he teared up, looked up at the gallery to whereOur correspondent then provides a link to one of She Who Must Not Be Named's gullywashers: You make the call. The thing that strikes me is this: As passionate as ol' Bubba could be on the stump, you always knew deep down that his main political goal was simply the gratification of Bubba: Nobel Peace Prize for solving the Middle East Crisis, pretty good. Bottle of single malt, box of Cubans and pair of eager bimbos? Well, that'll work, too. SWMNBN, well, she's a different specimen altogether. Much more Robespierrean. Perhaps politics is what it takes to, er, light her fire. But if history is any indication, such an aphrodisiac should induce all right-thinking persons to want to climb trees and pull them up after them.
she sat, bit his lip and said "I honor you." Even that whopper beamed out across the world during prime time television did not awaken the sleeping feminist within. Hillary went on to stage manage her husband's scandal and ended up getting him impeached by the House for lying under oath, found guilty in civil case for sexual harassment and barred from ever practing law again in his home state of Arkansas. So add "not smart" either to Hillary's other numerous inestimable qualiites. So, for me and other women like me (the ones who came of age in the early '80's and went to posh Northeast feminist-driven schools like she did) the question about Hillary Clinton has been, what really drives her?
>
The other night in Iowa, we found out what it is. Hillary Clinton gets a sexual thrill from power. Just listen and watch her eyes (if you can). Hugs and Kisses, Ima Pseudonym (Mrs.)
Posted by: Robert at 10:15 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
A case of premature ejerkulation
Not sure if they've reserved www.spitzerPLEASEDONTRECALLME2008.com yet... Maybe he could move to Vegas with Gray Davis and McGreevey and they could become private eyes...
Posted by: Steve-O at 02:54 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I guess the North Carolina Bar Exam doesn't have a section on constitutional law
Because clearly John Edwards has never heard of the separation of powers:
So a good question for Wolf Blitzer would be this: if the Supreme Court would strike down President Edwards' health care plan, would he as President take away their health care coverage too? H/T to AP.Posted by: Steve-O at 02:46 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Gratuitous Llama Musickal Review
Posted by: Robert at 01:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Donk-O-Rific Panic?
EJ Dionne has just figured out a central plank of the Republican campaign strategy for oh-eight: running against the do-nothing, corruptocrat, kleptocratic, foreign policy naifs running the Congress. EVERYBODY PANIC!
UPDATE: What, me panic?But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections. The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy. Instead, it’s now clear that even a weakened, and in many ways discredited, president remains the dominant policymaker on Iraq. For 50 years, legislators of both parties have ceded war-making power to the executive branch, and there is no reversing that in a matter of months — least of all when the opposition party is itself divided over what to do. What’s more, it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate. Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more. The second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically. A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.” This might yet come true by the next election, in 2008. For now, it looks like substantive weakness — the failure to drive policy changes on Iraq — has reinforced political weakness. “Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster,” according to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who analyzed public opinion on the nonpartisan Pollster.com. “The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”Who realized the Chimperor had such depths of Shaq-Fu in him? This nugget is buried in the end:
“You have also had the near absence of the war coverage in the last months, and since the coverage is generally negative, the less coverage, the less negative communications that reaches people’s living rooms.”Imagine then if they, like, just reported the nooz, instead of an editorial agenda?
Posted by: Steve-O at 01:20 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Busted
Any of these sound familiar?
Irritating Assistant Professors- (1) Professor What-Am-I-Doing-Here, (2) Professor Rebel-Without-A-Clue, (3) Professor Promising-Young-Man, (4) (from Mark Silcox) Professor Only-Teaches-His-G**d***-Dissertation, Irritating Full Professors- (4) (spelling courtesy Mikhail Emilianov) Professor Couldabeena-contenda, (5) Professor Was-Cool, (5) Professor Midlife-Crises, (6) Professor Old-Yellow-Notes, (7) (from Mikhail Emilianov) Professor I-Have-Five-Stories-So-Get-Used-To-Hearing-Them-All-The-Time, (What about Professor Seriously Tardy With Grading Papers Because He's Blogging on Useless Crap All The Time?(from Mark Silcox) Professor Wishes-He-Was-Rich, (9) Professor Uses-Tenure-To-Pursue-Hobbies-Or-Job-On-The-Side-Full-Time
Could be Either- (10) Professor Watches-Sports, (11) Professor Will-F***-Anything-Young-and-Naive-Enough-To-Admire-Him, (12) Professor Drunk-Pants, (13) Professor Stared-Into-The-Void-And-The-Void-Stared-Back-At-Him-!-!-!
Posted by: Steve-O at 12:52 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The Robbo Service
Last evening at dinner the Llama-ettes were regailing me with a Thanksgiving song written by their musick teacher at St. Marie of the Blessed Educational Method. I believe the name of the song is "In 1621", and it goes on at length about the Plymouth Colony. (I don't recall any of the lyrics, but the general trend is mildy p.c.) "See, Dad," they explained, "that was where the first Thanksgiving was held....in 1621!"
Being the kind of guy I am, I couldn't resist saying, "You know, girls, the very first Thanksgiving was held in 1618, not in 1621. Furthermore, it took place in Virginia at a place called Berkeley's Hundred, not in Massachusetts." "Really?" they said, "The why do we celebrate the Pilgrims?" "Well," I replied, "the federal holiday of Thanksgiving was established by President Lincoln. And after the Civil War, it was perhaps only natural that Yankee culture would dominate this celebration. Besides, the original Berkeley colony isn't well remembered because it was wiped out by the Indians a few years later." The gels pondered this for a bit and finally decided that the Plymouth Thanksgiving ought to be celebrated as the first thanksgiving held by a colony that escaped being massacred. I have every reason to believe that the next time they have musick class, the Llama-ettes are going to immediately pipe up with, "Ms. So-and-So, Our Dad says......." Heh.Posted by: Robert at 12:03 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
November 12, 2007
Monday Night WTFball
Tonight's episode of Monday Night WTFball (MNWTF) goes, fittingly, eclectic:
When Robbo said he was getting into model ship building, I just assumed he didn't mean this:Posted by: Steve-O at 11:13 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
FEAR the Mojo
That's some powerful Mojo. Evil, some would say:
“My knees got weak. I was like, ‘Can I [bleep] you?’ No, I didn’t say it, but I felt it - I was like, ‘Whoa! Whoa!’WARNING: Absolutely nothing visually that is unsafe for work, but I have a strong feeling that it's enough to make you want to puke.
Posted by: Steve-O at 03:53 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
"Foolish"
Dear Dick: Thanks. Thanks alot, motherf&*Ker.
Posted by: Steve-O at 12:32 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Allahpundit has finally gotten his iPhone
Heartache:
Posted by: Steve-O at 11:03 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The Colossal Hubris and Stupidity of the Baby Boomers
Why does NEWSWEEK commemorate 1968 instead of 1918 or 1941? The answer: because all of us, young and old, are stuck in the '60s, hostages to a decade we define ourselves as for or against.In a word: NO, at least if you are talking about the 1960s. I'd make an argument for the 1860s, and the long term effect of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the failure of Reconstruction, except Reconstruction's decline was a failure of political will in the 1870s. But if there's a sixties that is neglected, it's the 1760s, and the failure of the Hanoverian regime to manage the collapse of France in the Seven Years War that led to the rise of American independence. Manage that well, and we're still shooting off fireworks and BBQ on November the fifth instead of July the fourth. Somehow, in light of that, the historical awesomeness of the Baby Boomers and their precious 1960s will seem a whole lot less significant in two or three centuries.
As the pages that follow demonstrate, the '60s were not necessarily, as some baby boomers would have it, America's defining moment.That's right, the 1760s and 1860s were a tad bit more significant.
But they were an era when a generation held sustained argument over the things that have always mattered most: How should America show its power in the world? What rights were owed to African-Americans, to women, to gays? What is America and what does it want to be?I absolutely LOVE that always, because it summarizes in a nutshell the colossal hubris and arrogance of the Baby Boomers. I think you could do a much better job of finding the questions that have always mattered most in some other sources and places---they are the types of questions that got Jesus and Socrates killed, and Galileo and Newton tied into knots over faith, science, reason, passion, and the meaning of life. In the American context, yes, these are important types of questions, but to say that the Baby Boomers were the first to debate them systematically at a "generational" level is comical in its lack of familiarity with American history and the role of social movements itself. It's an insult to the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians, the progressives, the movements social, religious, and political spawned by the Second Great Awakening, the post-Civil War labor and workers movements, the campaigns over the status of Indians, women's suffrage.....the list just goes on and on. How well does Country Joe and the Fish's "I feel like I'm Fixin to Die" stand up over time to Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic," for example? Which generation in its choices of music shows that they took the issues of "What is America and what does it want to be?" more seriously: a generation that stood and fought a horrific and bloody war to end slavery, versus a generation that took a lot of drugs, had a lot of sex, listened to a lot of rock music while doing the above, and cut classes to march against "The Man"? Yips! from Robbo: Sing it, Brutha! Remember the Walking Purchase! Never trust a man with a greater than four foot stride!
Posted by: Steve-O at 11:01 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
November 11, 2007
Words cannot ever
adequately convey the gratitude of servicemen and women for the many expressions of support, large and small, of countless Americans. It makes our jobs a little easier and means more to us than you will ever know. Although composed for the homecoming of Vietnam POWs, Rear Admiral Jeremiah A. Denton's words express it better than any other:
"We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our commander-in-chief and to the Nation for this day. God bless America."Posted by: LMC at 11:59 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
To the Vets:
Thanks for everything.
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blowYips! from Robbo: Amen, Brutha. I tried a couple times today to come up with a suitable observance post, but it all rang hollow. I've never served myself. Dad was Army Medical Corps for a while, but he did his Vietnam-era stint in Texas. I've a great-uncle (I never met) who was the back-seater in a carrier-based Vigilante during the Korean War and was actually shot down. And, as I've mentioned before, my great-great grandfather was a Union artilllery officer during the Civil War. But if you read through some of the WWI poetry of people like Sassoon and Graves for example, you quickly realize that pride in such antecedents is shallow and, in the end, almost fraudulent. Indeed, is it even possible for us fat and happy civilians to truly appreciate what our vets have given for us? Can we repost stirring or tragic prose and poetry attendant to the day and honestly convince ourselves that we've done any more than scratch the surface? I somehow doubt it. So I ask the LMC and all others who serve or who have served to accept my gratitude fully aware of its feebleness. I know my thanks isn't good enough, but I offer it to you anyway.
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Posted by: Steve-O at 12:28 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
November 09, 2007
Joe-Mentum V. The Nutroots
Lieberman takes his party to the woodshed.
"There is something profoundly wrong-something that should trouble all of us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops." He added, "There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base — even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime."
"Can you hear this, moonbats? Do you want me to turn it up."
Posted by: Gary at 04:30 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Anti-Bush Liberal Elitist Film Looks Doomed At The Box Office
Even critics who'll overlook the sheer awfulness of a film if they sympathize with it's message won't give it cover.
Tom Cruise is worried. Be afraid, Tom. Be very afraid.
Those condescening we’ll-tell-you-what-to-think faces; those all-knowing imperial stares no sane movie star would ever consider showing in public; those eyes capable only of revealing a shroud of sanctimony as cover to hide the nothing shallowness and pathetic ego beneath; the smug looks of those desperate for applause at award ceremonies no one watches anymore because, thanks to their faces, we all know what they think of us.Note to Hollywood: Entertain us and we will come. We're tired of pedantic screeds that aren't even well-made.
Posted by: Gary at 11:50 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Idiot of the Week is......Jim Cramer!
Is he smoking ritalin before going on the air, or simply trying out for the role of "Clyde," the amiable orangutan in a remake of Every Which Way But Loose?
Cramer would be perfect.
Posted by: Steve-O at 11:26 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Operation "Cut 'N Run" Version 4.0
San Fran Nan is once again going for the moonbat appeasement. The Politico reports that latest Iraq appropriations bill once again tied to a pull-out:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she would bring a new Iraq measure to the House floor shortly to provide $50 billion in funds for the war, while requiring U.S. troops to begin redeploying out of Iraq immediately and conclude by the end of next year. “In last year's election, the American people called for a new direction; nowhere was that direction more called for than in the war in Iraq,” Pelosi told reporters. “And so in the next day or so, we [will] once again bring to the floor legislation that makes a distinction, a clear distinction: choose a new direction from the Bush foreign policy in Iraq.”In the last election, voters may have been calling for a new direction but it wasn't cut 'n run it was "let's win already". The Administration (and the RNC) needs to take this opportunity to highlight the recent successes of the summer surge to show how this move looks even dumber than it did a year ago. The Dems in Congress rolled the dice last spring that this would be the "summer of Iraq" and that bad things would happen to the mission if they sprinkled pixie dust and really, really believed. Well, as a venerable Jedi Knight once said, "When you gamble, my friend, sometimes you lose."
Posted by: Gary at 11:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Today's Installment of the Game Show Sensation Sweeping the Nation: Will Robbo the LLamabutcher Laugh or Cry?
Winona Ryder has signed on to play Spock's Mom.
I'm predicting "cry." Answer-Revealing Yips! from Robbo: Actually, put this one in the "laugh" column. I had a very, very mild thing about Winona back in the Beetlejuice/Heathers days, but you could smell a wiff of flaming train-wreck even back then so I never invested. Now, had it been Helena Bonham-Carter, that would have been a different story. I had a major crush on her as Lucy Honeychurch. It was pretty much nullified by the time we got to Marla Singer, but I twitced in agony over her performance as Ari. Doing Spock's Mom probably would have started the twitching all over again.Posted by: Steve-O at 11:21 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.1364 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1308 seconds, 81 records returned.
Page size 65 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.