It's The Beginning Of A Movement, Really It Is
The lone protester outside Fox News on Sixth Avenue.
I'm in New York with Gregg for Elmore Leonard's 85th birthday and the publication of his 44th book Djibouti, which I'm reading and loving now.
It's The Beginning Of A Movement, Really It Is
The lone protester outside Fox News on Sixth Avenue.
I'm in New York with Gregg for Elmore Leonard's 85th birthday and the publication of his 44th book Djibouti, which I'm reading and loving now.
Is that the actual FOX News building, or another building? Because, if it is FOX news, this clown could turn his sign around, since the news studios front the windows, and have his message go out to millions of viewers.
mpetrie98 at October 11, 2010 10:45 PM
Other than presumptively vetting other peoples' choices for basic-cable television performers, do you suppose the individual depicted in this photograph has, in his own life, ever done anything for America? Would he not be offended if you asked him to, and mock you for the suggestion?
Why then is he so worried that America can be "hurt"? Isn't it obvious he just wants to imagine himself looking down on people?
Do you suppose he ever started a company, hired people, anything like that?
Year in an year out, people get their panties tightly bunched by Coulter and O'Reilly and Stewart and now this new Beck person, and I'll never understand it.
I don't understand how they can worry so much about how the little people, the robot TV viewers at home, might respond to this-or-that media figure, when they themselves can see the truth... Though that vision is never manifest as insight or inspiration or anything EXCEPT being "scared" of (and for) the sheeple.
They're just certain that some cable host or TV preacher (who no one really cares about) is going to set our cities on fire.
What is that? Presumably this was a weekday. Shouldn't Mr. Blue Jeans be salting fries near a drive-thru window somewhere by the freeway? He's wearing a wristwatch: Does that mean he won't be late for work? Who has time for Glenn Beck?
_________________
Closing questions: Have you ever really dated a woman who called them "panties" instead of "underwear"? (At least after the third date when they came off?) Also, how long has it been since anyone wore shorts capable of meaningful bunching?
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 11, 2010 11:47 PM
What the hell is wrong with using the word "panties", yo?!
Feebie at October 12, 2010 12:12 AM
I call them "undies". I do my laundry regularly enough that I don't get stuck with uncomfy ones that bunch. (I have a few uncomfy pairs that get worn when I run out of laundry).
On another note, today's ask Amy at the Chicago Tribune has a paternity question about a mother lying. I know it is a topic of interest to the board...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/askamy/ct-live-1011-amy-20101011,0,3815927.column
NicoleK at October 12, 2010 12:28 AM
> What the hell is wrong with using the
> word "panties", yo?!
Too high-falutin'. Too erotic for everyday use. Too British: It doesn't really work unless you punch the "T" in a way that strikes the American ear as gay, or at least effete. Americans say it like "pannies", so the elegance is lost. Which is why I think the only people who use the word (after a girl has slept with her new boyfriend half-a-dozen times) is morning-zoo guys on the radio. Booger and the Noodge on Classic Rockin' 103 FM... Those guys need all the titillation they can get.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 1:23 AM
Panties are high-falutin???
NicoleK at October 12, 2010 2:42 AM
I thought Knickers was British. And they get in a twist rather than a bunch.
Juliana at October 12, 2010 3:49 AM
Too right knickers are British - as are kecks (sp?) grundies, trollies and the generic 'calvins'. (And I'm sure there are a lot more, the English being fascinated by bottoms generally.)
Also, twist would be spot on. Never bunch.
SEB at October 12, 2010 3:56 AM
Oh, and I forgot the charming crackers or, more properly, under-crackers.
SEB at October 12, 2010 4:02 AM
The fellow in the picture's all worked up because he's afraid that people stupider than he is (which to him would mean nearly everybody) might be misled by Beck's (Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's, Hannity's, etc.) disinformation, propoganda, and lies!!! What's not generally known is that this fellow's rabid right-wing cousin is protesting with his own sign in front of CNN.
But, looking at the previous posts, it looks like Crid already said all that, along with the Underpants Digression.
Old RPM Daddy at October 12, 2010 4:55 AM
What baffles me is that he thinks a talk show guy is doing more harm than the people that are passing spurious, unconstitutional, and/or repressive legislation.
Robert at October 12, 2010 5:19 AM
The correct verbiage for us southern boys would be “don’t get your panties in a wad.” I watch Glenn Beck anytime I want to play Alice in Wonderland. Beck is a better Mad Hatter than the real Mad Hatter.
Roger at October 12, 2010 5:34 AM
I got a email from moveon.org about their planned protest outside Angle's offices in las vegas. The press was supposed to be there, and they were "supposed to provoke reactions". I like to keep abreast of what the other side is up to.
Hopefully they'll get as good a turn-out as this one.
momof4 at October 12, 2010 5:56 AM
Thank you for recommending Elmore Leonard's Rules for Writing. I taped #10 to my desk and made it my job to reduce my text into the shortest-possible paragraphs. It worked: one of my proofreaders spontaneously exclaimed "You cut out all the parts that were confusing!" I"ll thank Mr. Leonard, too.
Michelle at October 12, 2010 6:18 AM
Glenn Beck isn't leaving any litter, which is probably more than you can say for this guy once his 15 minutes are over.
MarkD at October 12, 2010 6:27 AM
I love the word "panties." "Underwear" is so common. And I make sure to hit the T.
As for this guy: I like that he cared enough to make a sign and stand outside with it. Most haters just curse at the TV. This guy has some initiative.
MonicaP at October 12, 2010 6:47 AM
This guy doesn't seem real enthused about being there. Slouched posture, his hand in his pocket. It's like his mom is making him do it as some form of punishment.
David M. at October 12, 2010 7:01 AM
Interesting is that in Korea "Panties" is Konglish aka Korean English mix and it goes for both sexes. I have had to teach my young students (after they bring it up) so many times that girls wear panties. Boys are "Underwear, boxers, or undies.
But really Glenn Beck is hurting America? How? Okay maybe he is causing a divide but so is many actors, columnists. Heck unions cause more of a problem!
John Paulson at October 12, 2010 7:03 AM
something wrong with protesting now? from all the scathing comments apparently there is. just your typical armchair non-activists feeling uneasy.
Frederick Graf at October 12, 2010 8:05 AM
"Panties" is annoyingly babyish. My mother would never have tolerated my using that term, even when I was a preschooler. I don't use it now, either.
Old-fashioned types tend to agree on that point.
From "Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior," pp. 211-212:
" 'Panties' is the nickname for underpants and, like 'tummy' for stomach, has a certain childish charm. But not very much. But not very much. Miss Manners is not vehemently opposed to 'panties,' as she is to 'lingerie,' a silly way of referring to the perfectly respectable institution of underwear. She loves to drive department store clerks crazy by inquiring for the 'Underwear Department' and watching them look puzzled."
lenona at October 12, 2010 9:04 AM
I don't wear "panties". Or underwear. I go commando, baby! And my girls wear them, but call them "unders". (Just so you know, I DO wear a bra. It's a necessity. TMI?)
I heard from BF's brother and his wife, who went to Beck's big protest/march/whateveritwas down in DC that the Washington Mall attracted all kindsa "good people", that "everyone looked out for one another" and "left the Mall cleaner than when we got there" so I guess there were a lot of warm fuzzies floating around. I dunno, I don't watch the guy, I'm too busy when he's on the tube.
That said, the blue-jeans-watch-wearing-late-to-work-being-punished(?)-guy just has an opinion. That there aren't more people joining him says something.
Or not.
o.O
Flynne at October 12, 2010 9:12 AM
I say SuperGirl Underoos, but that's just me.
Jessica F. at October 12, 2010 9:13 AM
Presumably he's, you know, just exercising his constitutional right to free speech and stuff. Amazing that you can tell he's a condescending lay-about just from that.
scott at October 12, 2010 9:28 AM
"It's like his mom is making him do it as some form of punishment."
I would hope that she'd make him wear an old-fashioned sandwich board...because she's tired of seeing his droopy-arsed pants.
Juliana at October 12, 2010 9:33 AM
> he thinks a talk show guy is doing
> more harm than the people that are passing
> spurious, unconstitutional, and/or
> repressive legislation.
Exactly. He likes getting all upset about people on TV because he likes to watch TV. He attaches more importance to these people than they can possibly bear. And I think he's offended because unlike the plotlines of "Friends" (or whatever his favorite shows are), the themes on Beck and Fox don't flatter him for his simple-minded, Disney-honed ethical sensibilities. TV is supposed to be FUN....
> And I make sure to hit the T.
You can get away with it, because you're a girl.
> Slouched posture, his hand in his pocket.
Yeah. A messages from that: Never having taken an interest in any public affairs matters before, I'm only half-committed to expressing myself here today, so I'll pretend to have something important in my pants, maybe something to do with a favorite hobby or earning a living.
It's kind of a high schooler's slouch. It would be uncool for people to think he really cared.
> something wrong with protesting now?
> from all the scathing comments
> apparently there is.
Something wrong with ridiculing him now? His choice of targets is ludicrous. He's not being mocked for using his freedoms, he's being mocked for thinking they were given to him to squander on entertainers. It's the same point these guys were making at an anti-war march a few years ago: The protester is not morally serious.
> Presumably he's, you know, just exercising
> his constitutional right to free speech
> and stuff.
As, you know, are we; "and stuff".
POWER hoody, though.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 10:27 AM
> commando, baby!
Topside too?
No reason, really... Just curious.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 10:43 AM
"Knickers" is also used in Australia.
Speaking of, in a Tokyo mall, I once passed a lingerie shop called "I
lsomber at October 12, 2010 11:03 AM
>>Too high-falutin'. Too erotic for everyday use. Too British
Homer nods huh, Crid?
Panties is so obviously NOT British vernacular - I'm surprised your normally good ear for these things has failed.
As everyone else has said, it's knickers or knick knacks ("...paddywhacks...'cos they give a dog a bone!" - but you wouldn't understand.)
Glenn Beck first pinged on my radar after UK friends sent me youtubes asking - horrified - if this was the sort of bilge that passes for news commentary in the US!
I always explain he's admired only by morons.
(Altho' momof4 has said she adores him - which I do not understand. She's many things - but not a moron!)
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 11:06 AM
...oops. Called "I (Heart) Panty".
lsomber at October 12, 2010 11:06 AM
as a conservative, I am not happy that people like Beck, O'reilly, Rush, etc. are so prominent. Using O'reilly as an example, he started off as a decent cause oriented guy who quickly morphed into an "its all about me" guy. I would rather the conservatives talk about how they are going to right the ship, than blather on about how evil the left is. Personally I feel our society has dumbed down to the point that we cannot recognize right and wrong anymore and just keep voting for the same idiots ove ran over. Please, please, an IQ and social/current affairs test to prove you are capable of making an intelligent decision when you vote. Oye, it wont be much longer
ron at October 12, 2010 11:14 AM
LOVE the Brad and Jen signs!
Amy Alkon at October 12, 2010 11:15 AM
Jody quote me on saying I adore Beck. I've never watched the guy. He and I do-from what I hear-agree on a number of issues. And anyone who makes liberals froth can't be half-bad.
It's a useless generalization to say all people who watch him are morons.
It's panties around here. Usually, "big-girl panties" by necessity of making myself understoof to little kids.
momof4 at October 12, 2010 11:24 AM
Closing questions: Have you ever really dated a woman who called them "panties" instead of "underwear"?
I can do one better. My mom is too prudish to even call them "underwear" - she has always called them "pants." And I'd say, 'Mom, men wear pants and women wear dresses!' But to this day she still refers to women's underwear as pants.
Pirate Jo at October 12, 2010 11:32 AM
"He's not being mocked for using his freedoms, he's being mocked for thinking they were given to him to squander on entertainers."
I love Crid sometimes.
lovelysoul at October 12, 2010 11:35 AM
Interesting discussion, but "pants" is British for underwear, which might explain the confusion over "panties," which is a word I've always found kind of silly sounding - sounds childish, like "blankie." I'll stick with underwear.
Thag Jones at October 12, 2010 11:35 AM
>>It's a useless generalization to say all people who watch him are morons.
Except I said people who "admire" Glenn Beck are morons, not people who simply watch him - though I stand corrected if you say you've never seen him. (Genuine error, sorry momof4)
>>And anyone who makes liberals froth can't be half-bad.
Actually, he makes this liberal smile.
(But in a really annoying, creepy, superior, 'god-I-can-see-why-morons-admire-him' sort of way...)
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 11:46 AM
> Panties is so obviously NOT British
> vernacular
It's not the word, it's the pronunciation. If you squarely hammer your esses, tees, and other high-frequency consonants, Americans will assume you're either British, or gay, or just an asshole. That's how it works over here: panneez. Usage— 'Putcher panneez back on, Sweedy, I'm done.'
> I always explain he's admired only
> by morons.
Right. You, like our hoodied protester, want nothing more than to distinguish and elevate yourself from the pitiable masses... Your remarkably pure heart and deep insight are important blessings, and you think they're worthy of respect, but they aren't really the point... Making social distance from others is the point.
You really needn't toil that way.
> I am not happy that people like Beck,
> O'reilly, Rush, etc. are so prominent.
They're not "prominent", they're on television. Complaining about this is pointless, whether from the right or from the left. In both cases, complainers are too eager to assume that droolingly idiotic but unspeakably powerful viewers are sitting in front of their sets, taking notes when these guys talk... Waiting for the signal to either [A.] burn the inner cities to the ground or [B.] violently nationalize all the yacht clubs.
But from the right, you begin to sound like David Frum, whose 2010 whinings about the tea parties have so conclusively demonstrated that more than anything else, he's committed to the conservative principle of going to a lot of white wine parties in DC.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 11:48 AM
>>They're not "prominent", they're on television. Complaining about this is pointless, whether from the right or from the left.
It's not entirely pointless, Crid - to at least keep abreast of the influence of, yes, prominent media personalities.
How else can one grasp WTF people mean when they conversationally refer to the president as a "man-child," unless you know it's one of Rush's pet phrases?
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 12:07 PM
Said Jody Tressider: "Glenn Beck first pinged on my radar after UK friends sent me youtubes asking - horrified - if this was the sort of bilge that passes for news commentary in the US!"
To evaluate that statement, we'd have to see what kind of news commentary passes for "not bilge" in the UK, and use that somehow to estimate the threshold of horror for a sensitive, thoughtful Brit.
Old RPM Daddy at October 12, 2010 12:23 PM
I scanned your blog comment left-to-right per line, knew precisely what of Obama could be described as "man-child", and didn't know Limbaugh had anything to do with until I'd digested the period at the end of your sentence.
"Keeping abreast of the influence" is just goofy... It's exactly why this guy is being mocked. He thinks he can spot the world's greatest evil... Even if he can't put in a sentence, or write it on a sign worth holding up with both hands. He's so flustered by the magnitude of the evil –or so certain that others are similarly incapable of nuance and narrative thinking– that he thinks his best argument is that someone "is hurting America."
That's where he wants to begin the conversation. That's his opening gambit. Can you imagine what an hour at table would be like with a cup of coffee or a glass of wine? Can you imagine decoding the full index of this man's worldview?
But it's not like he's surveying the ebb and flow of human intelligence... He just likes to watch TV. And pretending to get really upset about the things he sees on TV sustains his illusion of being a participant, rather than a pathetically isolated consumer of automated, unidirectional, commercial entertainment.
Watch TV, Jody! Watch as much TV as you possibly can! Hold it close to your heart and take it very, very seriously! Remember: People on TV have prominence! Stewart! O'Reilly!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 12:29 PM
Nah Rush now calls him President Jackass and the "Jackassian" presidency or something.
I quite enjoy the name calling anymore, since I'm a bit of a bitter clinger on wanting to control my own healthcare and believing in the 2nd ammendment.
Sio at October 12, 2010 12:29 PM
Crid, I've lost count of how many assumptions you've leapt to about this guy just from the one pic. Your ability to drill into someone's soul is really impressive. But the notion that TV (and presumably all media?) is just some fun-box in the corner good for a chuckle at the end of your busy day employing people and propping up the economy is a pretty brittle little platform to stack up all this condescension, isn't it? I mean, sure, I get that having gone down that path you're kind of married to it now, but gimme a break.
scott at October 12, 2010 1:10 PM
>>I scanned your blog comment left-to-right per line, knew precisely what of Obama could be described as "man-child", and didn't know Limbaugh had anything to do with until I'd digested the period at the end of your sentence.
I don't even have to SCAN your comments, Crid.
I see your name. Then I squeeze my eyes shut, make a guess, take a peek - and voila! - sentence after sentence exactly as predicted!
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 1:15 PM
In fairness, maybe Crid's detailed analysis of 12:29 is spot on. Or maybe this guy just likes the ironic counterpoint of a solitary man with a cardboard sign taking issue with a global media giant. There is a very pleasant assymetry about it, to be honest. Of course, I've never been very good at completely deconstructing someone instantaneously.
scott at October 12, 2010 1:18 PM
>>Or maybe this guy just likes the ironic counterpoint of a solitary man with a cardboard sign taking issue with a global media giant.
I like that!
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 1:24 PM
> the notion that TV (and presumably all media?)
> is just some fun-box in the corner good for a
> chuckle at the end of your busy day employing
> people and propping up the economy is a pretty
> brittle little platform to stack up all this
> condescension, isn't it?
First of all, no, it isn't.
Secondly, you too seem to be approach public expression with a presumption that a pouty expression is all you need to offer. But backhanded insinuations that your virtues are obvious-to-everyone aren't sufficient. What exactly of this man's conduct, as depicted in this photograph, do you find admirable?
Give specifics. Use a list like this, extending the count as necessary.
1.____________________
2.____________________
3.____________________
4.____________________
5.____________________
Aaaaaaaaaannd.... Begin.
__________________________________________
I've always thought it stupid for people to say "give it a rest" or "I never read your comments". It's the fucking internet... Disk space gets cheaper every day. But why waste bandwidth to complain of boredom? With fewer keystrokes, you could be reading anything you like.
If you can say something more accurate or interesting, WRITE IT.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 1:30 PM
> Or maybe this guy just likes the ironic
> counterpoint of a solitary man with a
> cardboard sign taking issue with a global
> media giant.
Right. That's the preteen fantasy cooking underneath all those hoodies... I'm just lil' ol' me, a storm-tossed urchin on the granite shoals of a world that doesn't care... But dammit, I am going to speak TRUTH to POWER!
And I'll hold my sign with one hand! That way it'll look more poignant!... Like, as if finally, one lone voice said 'No more'!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 1:34 PM
Rush came up with man-child? I'll have to break my no-tv-news-in-12-years stance (IS he a news show?) and watch him. That's as impressively succinct a description as I've seen of Obama yet.
momof4 at October 12, 2010 1:36 PM
Aww shucks, thanks for the pouty face pictures but you won't find me there. I'm not really one for standing outside earnestly. But to each their own after all. The anti-govt pouters, the anti-govt ragers. Whatever turns your screw.
But my insinuations aren't backhanded and they have nothing to do with my virtues or vices (I like to keep a few of each around so I'm ready whatever the situation calls for), evident or other. I was pretty forehandedly saying that you are, ain't ya?, a bit of of an overbearing crank who likes to tear people down like you know something about them. Do let us know where you acquired this remarkable insight into human nature -- your basement? blogs? the chuckle-box? All those hundreds of people you employ?
Since I'm on a roll of correcting your wild leaps of logic, I also never said I admired the guy, just that I couldn't reasonably attribute motivation to him based on one picture (and, later, that I like the assymetry, but that is neither here nor there). I also don't jump at your whistle Chuckles, so save yourself the time of putting together those brilliant templates.
scott at October 12, 2010 1:46 PM
> thanks for the pouty face pictures but
> you won't find me there.
No? I coulda sworn you were asking for more humility in that walk-a-mile-in-the-shoes, we-don't-know-the-deets, we-cannot-judge kinda way. But protesters are almost always assholes, especially the photogenic ones.
While your feelings have been hurt in this particular outing, I think you'll learn to like it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 1:53 PM
Hey, you think I'm photogenic! That's swell. Thanks a bunch. But I don't really go that way. Sorry. Hang in there though, there's someone for everyone and, blah, blah. You know the drill.
Anyway, not sure that you landed a shot today so no worries about my feelings. Just try to work on your material a bit and I'll pop by again soon to give you another go. Think of this as a bit of a warm-up. Can't be on top of your game everyday, after all. Do have to sign off now though, so take all the time you need to come up with a response that might surprise the regulars. Maybe try something clever.
Best.
scott at October 12, 2010 2:05 PM
>>That's as impressively succinct a description as I've seen of Obama yet.
Really - can you say why, momof4?
I read somewhere, when I was trying to figure out WHY people were using it, that it was "dog whistle" for "boy".
SIMMER down! I don't normally hold with dog whistle mutterings - some of the alleged "secret" meanings of so-called dog whistle terms just seem really perverse interpretations.
But that's wrong, isn't it? That you're meant to think man-child=boy=sniggering reference to derogatory racial slang?
(I was surprised because I didn't think Limbaugh did that sort of thing? Brian would know!)
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 2:15 PM
It's a sinister world, Jody... A perilous planet of cunning and intrigue... And public affairs is a realm of endless deception! YOU HAVE TO LISTEN FOR THE DOG WHISTLES, because the conservatives are sending their signals of racism and violence at all times... Using code! Unless you're attentive, you won't know even realize how murderous and hateful they're being! Because they use secret language! Treachery is their palette, nuance is their pigment.
Glenn Beck.
Yeah, he's like that. Rush Limbaugh, too. A guy who's on the air 15 hours a week isn't going let one about what he really thinks, y'know? He'll use code.
Jody, have you ever listened to a complete Rush Limbaugh program?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 2:30 PM
Topside too?
No, no, Crid, didn't you read the rest of my post? For me, bras are a necessity!
That's the preteen fantasy cooking underneath all those hoodies... I'm just lil' ol' me, a storm-tossed urchin on the granite shoals of a world that doesn't care... But dammit, I am going to speak TRUTH to POWER!
'Minds me of an old Ten Years After song (ear worm alert):
"I can't relate to any power structure
"where ego is the driving energy.
"I let mine go long, long time ago, now
"when I decided that I would be free"
awesome song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2P_RJJYjzY
Flynne at October 12, 2010 2:37 PM
>>Jody, have you ever listened to a complete Rush Limbaugh program?
Sure have.
And the first time - when I was still fairly fresh off the boat years ago - I thought it was all fucking brilliant satire!
But do you EVER read to the end of my not-very-long comments?
I said I wasn't a fan of dog whistle paranoia.
I made it clear I think most of the so-called code cracking struck me as bananas,
I said I didn't think Rush went in for that sort of thing. Jeez.
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 2:50 PM
Because he's petulant, like a child, first and formost. Because he seems to regard this country as his really big playset, to do with as he will. When we peons object, he gets... petulant. And because he'd rather be cool and on tv than doing his job. And because one get the sense that he's never had a responsibility in his life, so now that he does, and he's not fulfilling it, it's always someone else's fault. Very childlike, yet he's a man. Man-child.
momof4 at October 12, 2010 3:09 PM
> I thought it was all fucking brilliant satire!
It's like pulling teeth today.
Your complaint about Rush Limbaugh, whom you've introduced as a topic today, is that he ________________.
?
> But do you EVER read to the end of
> my not-very-long comments?
When your meaning falls apart in the middle, I usually just empty the pistols, just to get on with things... I almost never regret it. I mean, what I remember (not looking back here!) was that you went to some unnamed source, and SOMEONE said he was doing dog-whistles. Here now are my complaints with you... Enumerated, but because it'll break little Scotty's heart that way.
[1.] The man's been in office 22 months, has been ineffectual, narcissistic and Chicago-like, yet you can't comprehend how the fifth-youngest President my dear nation has ever hired might be regarded as callow. You had to look it up.
[2.] When someone said 'dog-whistle" for racist, you were ready to run with it... Because he's black, and you're nicer about that than other people.
[3.] Other stuff. I don't trust you. You're not from a really free country.
> one get the sense that he's never had
> a responsibility in his life, so now that
> he does, and he's not fulfilling it, it's
> always someone else's fault
Jody, go buy Starbucks for M4, and listen carefully when she talks. About this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 4:13 PM
>>Because he's petulant, like a child, first and formost. Because he seems to regard this country as his really big playset, to do with as he will. When we peons object, he gets... petulant.
Thanks for that momof4. Your explanation makes sense. Got it.
>>[1.] The man's been in office 22 months, has been ineffectual, narcissistic and Chicago-like, yet you can't comprehend how the fifth-youngest President my dear nation has ever hired might be regarded as callow. You had to look it up.[2.] When someone said 'dog-whistle" for racist, you were ready to run with it... Because he's black, and you're nicer about that than other people.
Can the pompous lecture, Crid.
My skeptical uncertainty about man-child=code for boy was due more to ignorance of the history of "boy" in the US.
I simply wasn't sure whether there was any such thing as a smirking synonym for the original, obsolete term.
And man-child, initially, just had a very odd ring to it.
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 4:46 PM
Oh... Well, when you grow up in a culture that's made as much room for African-American idioms as mine has, you can get a little presumptuous.
My mistake.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 4:49 PM
Jody -
As far as the "dog whistle" accusations, remember who is making them: Progressive leftists. And as I have said (and Limbaugh derived independently) LITERALLY EVERYTHING a Progressive says is projection. Conservatives don't use "code words". If Obama's race was the issue, we'd just say "Look at that stupid nigger."
But doing that is an actual insult to everyone BUT him. Obama is so useless that no standard insult is actually useful to describe him.
So we resort to the truth. The Man-Child. Also known as "Man who would be God". He is so much less than he believes himself to be. Momof4 pretty much nailed it down.
Also - to sum up Crid's point (that's right, I'm defending Crid) - this protestor guy IS an idiot.
Why? Back to Limbaugh again: "I can't raise your taxes. I can't put you in jail. I can't pass laws that take away your freedom. Why are you angry with ME? You should direct that anger at the people who are REALLY doing the damage."
And again, it's safe to guess that this urchin is a Progressive. And I can't find projection on any map of Egypt.
brian at October 12, 2010 5:23 PM
Besides, nobody called him "boy". Like, ever. Not in my hearing, at least... And he's been in the spotlight for nearly three years. You say that word didn't come to you until after you looked things up on some lefty source.
So I'm all, like, WTF?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 5:38 PM
"When we peons object, he gets... petulant."
And then he goes to play some golf. What's the current count at? 52 rounds? Day-um.
Juliana at October 12, 2010 5:40 PM
Amy,
Did you see the one where the judge jailed an Atty. for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance?
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=cincinnati&sParam=34714377.story
Brad at October 12, 2010 5:55 PM
>>Besides, nobody called him "boy". Like, ever. Not in my hearing, at least...
Oh do shut up, Crid.
I asked my question in perfectly good faith and I explained what I did NOT know with some care (I also recall the "baby mama" stupidity on that news crawl. So it's not as though there have never been snide insults used in public against the couple.)
And thank you brian.
Jody Tresidder at October 12, 2010 6:01 PM
I am freeeking out! Glen Beck is a NAZI! Gaaaaaah!!!!!11!!!ELEVENTY!!!!1
Steve In Tulsa at October 12, 2010 6:02 PM
I don't get it. It's like saying British people are mocked as Floopers instead of Limeys before anyone's said anything about Limeys. Why would you be looking up Floopers?
Maybe we should talk about Flynne's rack some more.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 12, 2010 6:46 PM
Do you suppose he ever started a company, hired people, anything like that?
No, those of us who do that are usually working. We don't waste our time on douchey protesting.
Christopher at October 13, 2010 12:11 AM
I must confess, my esteem for things British dropped, tremendously, when I first saw the Sun's website.
It was already low after owning an old MGB - my introduction to British craftsmanship.
Let us worry about Beck, or not. You have bigger problems.
MarkD at October 13, 2010 9:27 AM
> You have bigger problems.
Well, yeah, those folks got their issues, but people are saying nice things about the improvements at Silverstone.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 13, 2010 10:33 AM
>>I must confess, my esteem for things British dropped, tremendously, when I first saw the Sun's website.
Whoa there, MarkD.
I am not surprised by your reaction to The Sun.
But that's about as dumb as a Brit brandishing a copy of "The National Enquirer" as an example of typical serious US journalism.
The Sun newspaper is basically a comic, famous for what were known as its "page Three Girls" and not-strictly-accurate headlines. (They still have the tame nudie photos, but no longer on page 3).
Jody Tresidder at October 13, 2010 12:02 PM
Anyone remember Vanya from 1977? How could you ever forget?
I heard she got married.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 13, 2010 5:26 PM
Leave a comment