pageok
pageok
pageok
This is Just Creepy...:

Go to 3:54: "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind."

Hoosier:
I for one welcome our new compliant servants.

But as to 'creepy': How about the end, with those formerly-individual Americans all fading away into a picture of our leader?

First thing that came to mind.
1.21.2009 10:43pm
Mike& (mail):
Those people are all rich. Some, like Sean Combs, are super rich.

Why don't they all just write checks for a cool million each?

Oh, because that would require something other than a moronic and empty verbal pledge.

Disgusting.
1.21.2009 10:44pm
Carlos Echevarria (mail) (www):
This is cult of personality worse than Mao,Stalin,Fidel, Che and Scientology put together...
1.21.2009 10:45pm
Jagermeister:
Ending slavery sounds good, but short of invading Sudan and Niger, and a variety of other unsavory countries, its difficult to see how that's going to happen. After all, Mugabe is still in power, and last I read there were violent ethnic conflicts in 47 countries. Absent the use of force, things don't seem to change very much. I'm all up for pledging to do something to improve the world, but I sense that committing to the necessary steps to actually change things is lacking. Somehow I don't think diplomacy is going to solve any of these issues.
1.21.2009 10:48pm
Jonathan Rubinstein (mail) (www):
No it is not creepy, its the other side of the same old coin of self-indulgence, moved to Sedona. Not to worry, the meltdown that our self-induced Tulip Craze has induced is going to grind all of this into dust. But it will not be pretty. We are going to find out over the next six to ten years who are real patriots. I am betting there a quite a few, possibly including a few of the folks on this very silly video
1.21.2009 10:48pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
Here's a shorter version with just the pledge, followed by my commentary: link.

I'm even more puzzled over how they could have released something with such a cheesy, Brady Bunch-style effect. The guy who edited Woodstock was doing more with less forty years ago.
1.21.2009 10:50pm
Jeff Hall (www):
Wow, who knew so many Hollywood stars were actually Republican agents provocateurs?
1.21.2009 10:51pm
Hoosier:
"I pledge to help all Americans suffering from scrofula to get to Washington so that they may be cured by the touch of the Leader's garment."
1.21.2009 10:53pm
Jagermeister:
Two more thoughts: Were these not problems when Bush was president, or was opposing Bush the higher priority? And, why is no one is pledging to help stop HIV/AIDS in Africa? Could it be that would mean giving some credit to the hated Bush?
1.21.2009 10:56pm
davidbernstein (mail):
Who are these people? (Other than Demi and Ashton?)
1.21.2009 11:00pm
Ricardo (mail):
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" -- former interview question at Department of Justice

Partisans will always construct a cult of personality around their leaders. This didn't begin with Obama and it certainly won't end with him either.
1.21.2009 11:01pm
Michael B (mail):
Iowahawk does a terrific spoof of it.

But if you want an example of truly supine multi-cultists, pervasive and at the upper levels of govt., Europe is the primary example. Not pretty, not funny.
1.21.2009 11:01pm
Hoosier:
Who are these people?

I saw Dave Grohl kissing his own biceps. Which was just devastating to this aging Nirvana fanatic.

The others must be famous individuals, in the People Magazine sense of the term. Are most of them Angelina Jolie's children or something?
1.21.2009 11:02pm
Repeal 16-17 (mail):
The end of the video reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek. All that was needed was for them to say, in unison, "resistance is futile."
1.21.2009 11:03pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
I managed to get thru 2/3 of it before succumbing to nausea.

You pledge to end slavery? Good, here's a rifle. Same way your ancestors did it.

You pledge to be a servant to all mankind? I need some research done. (And in the case of the cuter females, other forms of service to mankind could be arranged). Know anything about plumbing?
1.21.2009 11:08pm
mls (www):
Obama needs reinforcements in Afghanistan. I think we have found them.
1.21.2009 11:10pm
R. Gould-Saltman (mail):
. . . and Carlos Echevarria goes for, and JUST misses, a Godwin's Law three-pointer!
1.21.2009 11:23pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
I think I prefer the other oath.

""I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
- Atlas Shrugged
1.21.2009 11:29pm
Phil Smith (mail):
Thankfully, Hoosier, that was Anthony Kiedis, who hasn't done anything worth noticing for years.

But I was sad to see Michael Strahan associate himself with that collection of rusty tools.
1.21.2009 11:31pm
egn (mail):

Who are these people? (Other than Demi and Ashton?)



The others must be famous individuals, in the People Magazine sense of the term. Are most of them Angelina Jolie's children or something?


My God. Seriously? I mean there are a few I didn't recognize (mostly pop musicians I think), and I'll give you all a pass on the likes of Eva Mendes, Dakota Fanning, Peter Krause, Kat Dennings, Josh Groban, and Robin Wright Penn.

But Cameron Diaz, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, George Lopez, Mandy Moore, Lucy Liu, Puffy, Aaron Eckhart? The incredible Laura Linney? Jason Bateman? No Arrested Development fans here? Come on.

I agree that the video is stupid and borderline creepy.
1.21.2009 11:34pm
davidbernstein (mail):
I have to admit that I have never heard of Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart or Laura Linney, much less the rest of the group you mention in para 1. I did recognize Courtney Arquette from friends, and Lucy Liu looked vaguely familiar. Didn't notice Bateman or Diaz. I probably haven't seen Lopez for at least ten years.
1.21.2009 11:40pm
Hoosier:
Phil Smith

Kiedis, eh? What a relief!

Thanks, buddy. You saved my life. And my Foo Fighters CDs.

egn--Seriously.

Aaron Eckhart? The incredible Laura Linney? Jason Bateman?

Who?

No Arrested Development fans here?

What?

and I'll give you all a pass on the likes of Eva Mendes, Dakota Fanning, Peter Krause, Kat Dennings, Josh Groban, and Robin Wright Penn.

The only one of these I've even heard of is Dakota Fanning. But I don't know who he or she is.
1.21.2009 11:46pm
Cornellian (mail):
Aaron Eckhart

Rent Thank You For Smoking.
1.21.2009 11:48pm
BGates:
Know anything about plumbing?
Plumbing? They're not even licensed.

What's more, egn says Puffy is in the video - and I happen to know, for a fact, that "Puffy" is not really his first namee.
1.21.2009 11:48pm
Mao:
Quick everyone, find your Little Red Book and hold on tight for the Great Leap Foward.
1.21.2009 11:49pm
BGates:
...or his first name.
1.21.2009 11:49pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Just to clarify: that is creepy, yo.
1.21.2009 11:49pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Oh, and also: non serviam. Obama works for me.
1.21.2009 11:53pm
Curt Fischer:
It gets better! This is how lead organizer Ashton Kutcher sums it up: "We were greeted by a chorus of courage," Kutcher told the crowd, "because when you make a pledge, you are making a promise. You are holding yourselves accountable."
1.21.2009 11:58pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
I don't know who most of the nobodies are, but I certainly noticed AlyssaMilano.

I think the one at 2:54 is someone who's introduced others to Sc}ent0l0gy. She also seems to only have that one bit; perhaps she couldn't do the pledge part.
1.22.2009 12:01am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Fans of creepy videos will appreciate seeing the way obsequious indoctrination has been spread even to children.

But that just goes hand-in-hand with people saying stuff like this:

He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge…

I think that God picked the right man at the right time for the right purpose…

He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this…


But I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see statements like that. He Himself encourages those statements, by saying stuff like this:

I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.


But at least people are noticing all this and speaking up about it. Thank goodness for that. Hopefully we can nip it in the bud before we get to the stage of seeing Mao-style billboards glorifying "Our Leader."
1.22.2009 12:34am
DiversityHire:
jbg: there are no vapid hotties in any of those links :(

I'm withholding judgement on the video until Alicia Witt, Kate Winslet, and Famke Janssen make their position on pledging clear.
1.22.2009 12:39am
Kirk:
egn,

I didn't recognize a single name on your list. And while I've watched, and greatly enjoyed, numerous episodes of Arrested Development, I have no idea who any of the actors are, nor (apparently) do I even recognize them when they're out of character. Well, OK, I do of course know who Winkler and Minelli are, but apparently they were too smart to appear in this video (or maybe I just gave up on it too soon.)
1.22.2009 12:46am
Guest12345:
I'm with Jagermeister in wondering why none of these people could give a crap about their fellow humans until the Barack came along? Couldn't help end hunger in America when Bush was signing paychecks? Pretty low.
1.22.2009 12:53am
Alaska Jack (mail):
Dave Hardy:


I managed to get thru 2/3 of it before succumbing to nausea.

Holy moley! I came it at just under a minute myself. And I don't know whether to be proud of that or ashamed.

- Alaska Jack
1.22.2009 1:39am
Dave N (mail):
Michael B,

Thank you for the Iowahawk link. That was the funnniest thing I read today.

The video itself is one of the creepiest things I have seen in a long time.
1.22.2009 1:40am
Dave N (mail):
And most vapid.
1.22.2009 1:41am
Matt L. (mail) (www):
I don't know what is most terrifying: the video itself, the fact that they thought the video would be effective, or the possibility that the video was effective!

But I suppose I shouldn't expect much else. I mean, without celebrities telling us what to do, how else are they going to get us to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQN3ccbxQi0">drink this s***</a>? (apologies to all Bud Light fans)
1.22.2009 1:54am
Matt L. (mail) (www):
1.22.2009 1:55am
MatthewM (mail):
Jukeboxgrad, you are pathetic. In the last 24 hours alone, there have been a hundred times more "personality cult" events in homage to Obama then there were in the entire 8 years of Bush. And yet you continue to point to a few, isolated instances in which a few people made vague allusions to George Bush as a personality cult leader, none of which had or have any significance whatsoever in the general culture or society. You are focusing on a gnat and ignoring the elephant in the room; you are fixated on a thimbleful of Bush worship and ignoring the ocean of Obama sycophancy which is drenching us up to our necks. Begone! We have had enough of your ilk.
1.22.2009 1:59am
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
In his own way, jukeboxgrad does have an (unintended) point: that partisan hacks tend to ignore or attempt to downplay all the creepy things their side does (such as through logical fallacies).

Meanwhile, I made the video above, but I also commented on a creepy pro-Bush event: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/002132.html

And, I contemporaneously commented on the same billboard jukeboxgrad is presumably linking to: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/002197.html

Can anyone find those who commented on the event, the billboard, and the rest now raising questions about things like the celeb videos?
1.22.2009 2:23am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
diversity:

there are no vapid hotties in any of those links


I think the dame with the mic has a certain charm.

================
24:

I also commented on a creepy pro-Bush event


You did, and I respect you for doing so. Unfortunately, you're sort of the exception that proves the rule, if you know what I mean.

Can anyone find those who commented on the event, the billboard, and the rest now raising questions about things like the celeb videos?


Can anyone find examples of the reverse, other than yourself?

================
matthew:

In the last 24 hours alone, there have been a hundred times more "personality cult" events in homage to Obama then there were in the entire 8 years of Bush.


Haven't I told you a billion times not to exaggerate?

Also, it would be nice to show proof for your claims. That is, other than one or two people uttering the word "servant."

And speaking of "personality cult" events, I guess you missed Reagan's funeral.

a thimbleful of Bush worship … you continue to point to a few, isolated instances in which a few people made vague allusions to George Bush as a personality cult leader


Only "a few people" were obsequious? Really? I guess you forgot about this:

here comes George Bush ... he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness ... —and I’ve worn those because I parachute—and it makes the best of his manly characteristic ... run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America ... all those women who say size doesn’t count—they’re all liars. Check that out ... he's coming across as a -- well, as women would call in on my show saying, what a stud ... and then guy -- they're seeing him out there with his flight suit, and he's -- and they know he's an F-105 fighter jock. I mean it's just great.


And this:

One of the more cringe-inducing TV moments in recent memory was Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy sprouting rhetorical woodies over the spectacle of Bush on the carrier deck in his flight suit, his parachute harness showcasing the presidential bulge ... the two of them should take a cold shower, preferably not together.


And this:

Why the President Had to Show His Balls ... This was the first a time a president literally showed his balls ... [the] manly exhibition was no accident ... I can't prove they gave him a sock job ... but clearly they thought long and hard about the crotch shot.


And this:

Why did he have an erection upon seeing all those young men aboard the carrier? ... I felt like he paraded his crotch in my unwilling face. I'm sure they did quite a lot of custom fitting and alterations on the flight suit, as they had gone to a lot of trouble to put a huge embroidery of his title across the back. We've already been told of the effort made to position the carrier for the correct background shot out to sea -- no doubt the angle of the sunlight was also calculated.


And this, from the sober, august, ultra-serious WSJ:

Hey, Flyboy ... Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie! ... there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking -- how to put it? -- really hot ... a business suit just doesn't do it the way a flight suit does ... The New York Post ran the hot shot on its front page. And Newsweek called it a photo-op but gave the president what can only be called a centerfold. ... my friend Emily, a mother of two and probably a liberal, examined the picture of the president in his fly-boy gear that I just happened to have in my purse. She looked carefully, grinned and said, "He's a hottie. No doubt about it. Really a hottie. Why haven't I noticed this before? He looks so much better than Michael Douglas in that movie we saw ... Alexandra, an unmarried event planner in her 30s, e-mailed: "Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!"


What those folks were staring at looked to them like a whole lot more than "a thimbleful."

And in a quick jump directly from the profane to the sacred, I also like the book written about "The Messiah: The Chosen One."
1.22.2009 2:52am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
And what's particularly important about Bush's cult of personality is that he made a series of statements to encourage it. Like this:

God speaks through me


I can just imagine the way you folks would howl if Obama said that. But when Bush said it, the sound you made was this.
1.22.2009 3:13am
TokyoTom (mail):
I'm no fan of the "let's be a servant to our President" closing, nor particularly of the rich and famous being quick to make their piety public, but for Pete's sake, one would think that on a supposedly "libertarian" blog we see a little more toleration - if not encouragement - for the chief theme of this announcement, that it is we the people, acting individually and in cooperation with others, who are responsible for making our society better.

It's nice that Obama - fed by the rampant division and cynicism of the Bush years - inspires this. The little "cult of personaility" aside, this is not an appeal for more government, but more like "200+ million points of light". It's nice to see some liberals getting this libertarian (and conservative) message, as it really is not government that is going to get us out of our mess.
1.22.2009 4:19am
Boonton (mail) (www):
"This is cult of personality worse than Mao,Stalin,Fidel, Che and Scientology put together..."

Indeed, I can tell you for a fact you could not see any Youtube video like this under Mao or Stalin or Che. Since Fidel is still in power, though, I'd like you to know I'd be happy to help you in your quest to seek liberation by helping you purchase a one-way ticket to Cuba.

Seriously, though, the video is overthetop. I think a lot of Obama supporters would agree with that.
1.22.2009 4:30am
PlugInMonster:

Seriously, though, the video is overthetop. I think a lot of Obama supporters would agree with that.


Uh no they won't - because they are all worshipers of the cult.
1.22.2009 5:16am
mzeh (mail):
I am sure most people have noticed Jukeboxgrad's childish formula by now as he repeats this ad nauseum on multiple threads. Take a comment made with a right-of-center view and scour Google for counter examples from a liberal view. He then parades a series of links, often out-of-context (but will never admit this even in the most clear-cut cases). It is rather tiresome and usually rather silly. This is another case in point - to be able to dredge up a few links from eight years of an administration is really meaningless. Only a deluded person would believe that Bush was a more "personality cult" phenomenon than Obama.
1.22.2009 7:33am
Winston Smith:
Wow, all I can say is, "He loved Big Brother."
1.22.2009 7:47am
PersonFromPorlock:
Not the first time it's happened among American progressives, though. I seem to recall reading something Sinclair Lewis wrote about Upton Sinclair's really having become a lap dog for FDR; and at least one of Sinclair's 1930s novels was embarrassingly fulsome about a certain unnamed President. At least the first half was, at which point I quit.
1.22.2009 7:53am
Floridan:
mzeh: "Only a deluded person would believe that Bush was a more "personality cult" phenomenon than Obama."

Let's give Bush some credit . . . it's pretty difficult to develop a personality cult when only a about third of the population thinks you are a competent leader.
1.22.2009 7:57am
resh (mail):
Wasn't that the same video used for the Jim Jones camp, welcome-advertisement?
1.22.2009 8:07am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad:

- comments cited about President Bush in flight suit -

People can hold differing opinions on whether it was good politics for President Bush to fly into an event held on an aircraft carrier. But comments about his "crotch" and "package" are fairly ignorant. Bush was probably wearing a PCU-56 torso harness. The parachute is connected to the harness by means of four Koch fittings. The harness is supposed to be adjusted so it is snug. If it is too loose, the aircrew member risks becoming detached from the harness including when the harness is used to hoist someone out of the water (via D ring), etc.

Sorry, but President Bush was not the only one who was "snug" that day (see the other two aviators in the photo). And snug is good when your life depends on not being detached from the harness. If that someone offends people, so be it.
1.22.2009 8:18am
General Christopher Gadsden:
I pledge to fight global warming while ensconced in my third 12,000 square foot home

I pledge to decry the use of large, safe, 4WD vehicles to transport children while I transport myself, my personal assistant, my stylist, and my Brussels Griffon by private aircraft

I pledge to uphold free speech as long as it comports with all my prejudices; otherwise I pledge to fight hate speech.

I pledge to have a “Save Tibet” bumper sticker on my car whilst referring to every challenge of a leftist idea as “McCarthyism.”

I pledge to bring awareness to Americans, for awareness allows for the assuaging of my conscience, but requires no sacrificial action.

I pledge to “Save Darfur” whilst protesting any and all military actions.

I pledge to support gun control, unless a person works for my security team.

I pledge to pretend that surgically-induced “good looks” are a proxy for acting talent.

I pledge to confuse petty charity work with real leadership.

I pledge that I will make sycophantic videos which demonstrate I have never, ever heard of Damocles.

I pledge that I will never be burdened by self-reflection; I will be my own caricature.
1.22.2009 8:38am
Happyshooter:
Preach on, General Christopher Gadsden. Well said. No reason for me to add to that.
1.22.2009 8:46am
Randy R. (mail):
Rzeh: " Take a comment made with a right-of-center view and scour Google for counter examples from a liberal view. He then parades a series of links, often out-of-context (but will never admit this even in the most clear-cut cases). It is rather tiresome and usually rather silly."

Yes, what he does is set up hypothesis, then finds evidence that supports it, then comes to a conclusion. it's basic IRAC form, something we all learn in law school to support our arguments and be persuasive. Tiresome? Only if you like ad hominem over actual discussion.

If you don't like the conclusion, then you are free to counter with your own factual analysis, of course. Or better yet, just skip over his comments altogether. That way, you will ease yourself of the discomfort of finding out that you might not always be correct in your opinions.
1.22.2009 8:46am
Randy R. (mail):
I'm as liberal as they come, but I just hate the Hollywood super righteousness crowd. To me, they are cringe-inducing as the religious right wingnuts. They parade their moral superiority over everyone else, without a trace of self-doubt (okay, I'm dodging the brickbats you are all thowing at me!)

I agree - where were these people when we needed them most? why can't they just start their own foundation to accomplish some of these tasks? If they each wrote a check for $1 million, that would raise enough money to actually accomplish a lot of their goals.

There are too many people actually doing the hard work for little pay or recognition already, and these folks basically want to come in hijack the party. I bet not a single one of them has so much as written a letter to their congressman. But to parade themselves on a video where they get some self[-promotion? Oh any day.
1.22.2009 8:52am
Hannibal Lector:
Sieg Heil!
1.22.2009 8:56am
Randy R. (mail):
Okay, I'll take them up on their offer. When Peter Krause fulfills his pledge to be find out who his neighbors are, be nice to them, ask how he can 'be of service" to me,, I will inform him just how he do that.
1.22.2009 8:57am
Dissenting Justice (mail) (www):
The return of the living dead....I cannot live through this -- and I'm a liberal. How is this different (or safer) than the Bush "loyalty" situation? Well, it's actually different because Bush's loyalty litmus test only applied to people in his administration. Apparently, Obama's applies to everyone!
1.22.2009 9:08am
GW 2L (mail):
Hoosier,

Some Nirvana fan. That's not David Grohl. It's Anthony Kiedis from Red Hot Chili Peppers.
1.22.2009 9:08am
Joseph Slater (mail):
I agree with Randy R., both about the substance and about Jukeboxgrad.
1.22.2009 9:13am
Yankev (mail):
Quick, Natasha, call Central Control and get instructions from Fearless Leader.
1.22.2009 9:28am
Bad English:
"then finds evidence that supports it"

Well, he certainly finds some website somewhere where somone posted a comment that flatters his partisan preconceptions. I guess it all depends on whether you consider anything that someone has posted on a website somewhere "evidence."
1.22.2009 9:38am
Phil Smith (mail):
I'm going to regret this.

The problem with jbg is that he presents the least charitable interpretation as a matter of absolute fact when making claims about the content that follows his links. Just for one example, in the "God speaks through me" article, we learn that the quote was a translation back into English from a translation into Arabic. Read the whole article; it just doesn't support the "God speaks through me" contention.
1.22.2009 9:41am
Joe Bingham (mail):
That's real weird.
1.22.2009 9:42am
just me (mail):
remember that old Star Trek episode, "we are one in Landreau," or something like that?
1.22.2009 10:15am
David Warner:
"The incredible Laura Linney"

I'll second that motion.
1.22.2009 10:16am
Calderon:
Just to echo Michael B's post, Iowahawk's parody of this is hilarious (though I didn't see quite as many redheads as he did). Also, I highly recommend his stuff generally as he's the funniest humorist I've found on the web.
1.22.2009 10:19am
Hoosier:
GW 2L
Hoosier,

Some Nirvana fan.
Don't even try to imply what you are implying. I swear, I cut you man!

That's not David Grohl. It's Anthony Kiedis from Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Yeah, I know that now. I wasn't paying very close attention to the vid, to be honest; as I said above, I didn't recognize these people, and didn't realize that they weren't just regular folks until I saw what I took to be Grohl. Just saw the tattoos and the hair, which looks like the way Grohl has been wearing his.

So now that I've established that no members of Nirvana or the Melvins took part, I can go back to living a productive life.
1.22.2009 10:29am
Hoosier:
PlugInMonster:

Seriously, though, the video is overthetop. I think a lot of Obama supporters would agree with that.

Uh no they won't - because they are all worshipers of the cult.


As I read through this thread, I am starting to fear that you are right.
1.22.2009 10:33am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Yes, what he does is set up hypothesis, then finds evidence that supports it, then comes to a conclusion. it's basic IRAC form, something we all learn in law school to support our arguments and be persuasive. Tiresome? Only if you like ad hominem over actual discussion.
If you think that "set up hypothesis, then find evidence that supports it, then come to a conclusion" is IRAC, then you neither understand IRAC, nor do you read jbg's posts, because his posts are neither IRAC nor what you describe.

His posts are more like, "Come to a conclusion, google to find some links that one might think would support that conclusion if one doesn't read them, and then proclaim that everyone else has to prove him wrong." (Remember, this is someone who still won't admit that a post about grammar was not "about Israel" merely because it mentioned the word Israel.)

Look above, where he cites links from the Village Voice and Salon which are attacking Bush as though they support his claim that people were "obsequious" to Bush.

If you don't like the conclusion, then you are free to counter with your own factual analysis, of course. Or better yet, just skip over his comments altogether. That way, you will ease yourself of the discomfort of finding out that you might not always be correct in your opinions.
Actually, his posts generally confirm the opinions of the people he's trying to argue with. The problem is, he monopolizes threads and badgers people who try to ignore him.
1.22.2009 10:37am
Mister Snitch (mail) (www):
I pledge to never, ever do anything this self-aggrandizing, cloying and insipid.
1.22.2009 10:38am
Blue:
I guess dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.
1.22.2009 10:42am
Lively:
I pledge to watch the entire video.
1.22.2009 10:45am
GeorgeW (mail):
I pledge not to drink the Kool-Aid.
1.22.2009 10:53am
Hoosier:
Randy

Yes, what he does is set up hypothesis, then finds evidence that supports it,

This is the standard methodology of the social 'sciences.' Which is why I cannot recommend them.
1.22.2009 10:53am
Javert:
When one wants to control people, unite and rule is much more effective than divide and conquer.
1.22.2009 10:54am
LeonR (mail):
At the risk of invoking Godwin:
"Before God I swear absolute obedience to Adolf Hitler, Commander in Chief of the German Army and to the superiors appointed by him... I swear to you, Adolf Hitler, Germanic Führer and Remaker of Europe, to be loyal and brave. I swear to obey you and the leaders you have placed over me until death. So help me God."
1.22.2009 10:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
It would be nice if the crowd on the fainting couch would take a moment to think about why this video exists (as tom has already explained).

Thanks to Obama, a new generation of young voters is suddenly interested in politics, citizenship, and public service. Unless you hate democracy, this is a good thing. (Then again, it's a bad thing for the GOP. Voters under 30 picked Obama, 66%/32%. Only two other demographic factors were substantially stronger predictors: being black or being Jewish.)

And unless you hate democracy, motivating young people to stay interested in politics, citizenship, and public service is also a good thing. And that's what this video is for. It's addressed at that group, and for that purpose. And in the whole four-minute video, there are precisely two statements that are objectionable: "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama … I pledge to be a servant to our president." Big fucking deal. Those two sentences don't negate the value of what's being presented in the other 99% of the video.

When Bush's former White House Political Director said, in Congressional testimony, "I took an oath to the president," that was reported this many times at National Review, Weekly Standard, Power Line and Volokh (in aggregate): zero. And that's not just an airheaded celebrity who is confused about the concepts we're discussing. It's an airheaded Bush official. Which of these should worry us, or surprise us, more? Which of these is more worthy of comment? The extreme difference in reaction is yet another example of blatant GOP hypocrisy.

Anyway, I hope the GOP keeps putting out lots of cynicism, negativity and mockery. It's all you've got. And it's exactly what the country needs and wants right now, right? As demonstrated by recent electoral behavior.

By the way, a bunch of the same people made several PSAs encouraging young people to vote. Like this video. And this one. These videos were viewed by millions. Are these videos also objectionable? After all, they helped Obama win. Even though they never mentioned him.

=================================
javert:

When one wants to control people, unite and rule is much more effective than divide and conquer.


I wish the Founders had been as wise as you. Maybe then they would have picked a different name: the Divided States of America.

But please keep reminding everyone that the GOP is indeed all about "divide and conquer."

=================================
pluginmonster:

Seriously, though, the video is overthetop. I think a lot of Obama supporters would agree with that.


Uh no they won't - because they are all worshipers of the cult.


An example of a highly liberal publication slamming the video is here.

Still waiting to see examples of the usual righty suspects condemning the many examples of Bush-worship that I've cited.

=================================
mzeh:

He then parades a series of links


Some of us still have the quaint idea that when making claims, it's helpful to show proof.

often out-of-context (but will never admit this even in the most clear-cut cases).


Speaking of showing proof, you are presenting an impressive number of examples, to back the claim you made: zero.

Only a deluded person would believe that Bush was a more "personality cult" phenomenon than Obama.


Only a deluded partisan would make a fuss now after being dead-silent during 8 years of Bush-worship.

I know of one non-liberal who spoke up, and I complimented him, in this thread. How come no one can come up with any other examples?

=================================
bad:

he certainly finds some website somewhere where somone posted a comment that flatters his partisan preconceptions. I guess it all depends on whether you consider anything that someone has posted on a website somewhere "evidence."


Someone else who is allergic to presenting proof. Let's see an example where I've based an argument only on "anything that someone has posted on a website somewhere," or where I've relied on evidence that shouldn't be considered evidence. This is a representative sampling of the sources I've used in my posts here:

whitehouse.gov
uscourts.gov
state.gov
dod.mil
defenselink.mil
usdoj.gov
intelligence.senate.gov
intelligence.house.gov
globalsecurity.org
9-11commission.gov
wmd.gov
heritage.org
aei.org
thomas.loc.gov
gpoaccess.gov
uscourts.gov
cia.gov
nationalreview.com
fas.org
merriam-webster.com
usembassy-israel.org.il
townhall.com
foxnews.com
newamericancentury.org
americanrhetoric.com

Let us know if those sources fit your idea of just "a website somewhere."

How ironic. You claim there's a problem with the proof I present. And the proof you present to support your claim? None whatsoever.

=================================
smith:

Read the whole article; it just doesn't support the "God speaks through me" contention. … the quote was a translation back into English from a translation into Arabic


Wrong. Do some work on your reading comprehension. The statement I cited is something he said to Mennonites. News bulletin: the Amish don't speak Arabic.

I'm going to regret this.


There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, as long as you're willing to admit you made a mistake.

=================================
fury:

If it is too loose, the aircrew member risks becoming detached from the harness


You're suggesting that he 'needed' to look that way. But he didn't 'need' to be wearing that outfit, just like he didn't 'need' to arrive on the ship on something other than his normal chopper, just like he didn't 'need' to make a speech on a ship at all. It was all done for spectacle, and theater. His codpiece was a prop, just like the ship itself was a prop.

President Bush was not the only one who was "snug" that day (see the other two aviators in the photo).


Yes, and the whole point of setting up the scene that way was to get some of their machismo to rub off on him. And it worked.

But comments about his "crotch" and "package" are fairly ignorant.


The commentators who admired his manhood were not being "ignorant." They were being obsequious. And their reaction is exactly the reaction that the whole spectacle was designed to evoke.

And the incident is relevant here because at the time I don't remember this gang making a fuss about 'cult of personality.' Y'all think 'cult of personality' is just fine, as long as the 'personality' is part of your tribe, and not the other tribe.

=================================
randy:

it's basic IRAC form


I appreciate learning that. I never heard of "IRAC" before. This is sort of like finding out I've "been speaking prose all my life, and didn't even know it."

Anyway, thanks to you and joseph for the kind words.

If they each wrote a check for $1 million, that would raise enough money to actually accomplish a lot of their goals.


Some or many of those people have probably written some big checks like that, so I think the criticism is unfair.

=================================
hoosier:

Just saw the tattoos and the hair


Those kids all look alike. Hey, get off my lawn!

This is the standard methodology of the social 'sciences.' Which is why I cannot recommend them.


Is there some other "methodology" you "recommend?" Maybe making claims backed by no proof at all?

=================================
nieporent:

Remember, this is someone who still won't admit that a post about grammar was not "about Israel" merely because it mentioned the word Israel.


Remember, this is someone who claims that a post about the Israel lobby is not "about Israel."

And that a group which says "wherever there is open space in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan, settlements should be established" is "anti-Zionist." Welcome to the world of logic, nieporent-style.

Look above, where he cites links from the Village Voice and Salon which are attacking Bush as though they support his claim that people were "obsequious" to Bush.


Duh. I cited those articles because they do a good job of explaining the meaning of the event. I didn't claim that they alone prove that "people were 'obsequious' to Bush." I provided ample other proof of that.

badgers people who try to ignore him


I realize you live on that special planet where someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read posts you'd rather "ignore."

=================================
blue:

I guess dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.


If you're suffering from the illusion that there's an absence of liberal "dissent" against Obama, maybe a good place to start relieving your ignorance is here.
1.22.2009 11:16am
arminius (mail):
I pledge to use Pledge. Sometimes you just need something between Enddust and Old English, and in those cases, Pledge works just right.
1.22.2009 11:22am
Bunnymomrocks (mail):
I can't believe that no one has remarked that this complete piece of fluff was produced by Oprah's production company Harpo. Just one more rich person who can only do good things now that Obama is the president. Before Tuesday it was much more important to oppose the man. But now they are the man.
1.22.2009 11:23am
Hoosier:
At least there are more enjoyable things on Youtube.
1.22.2009 11:27am
Kevin P. (mail):

Randy R. (mail):
Yes, what [Jukeboxgrad] does is set up hypothesis, then finds evidence that supports it, ignores evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, then comes to a predetermined conclusion.


There, I fixed it for you. JBG is an extreme partisan. If I know what the issue is, I know what JBG's position will be and the "facts" and "evidence" he will muster for it. He is the classic demonstration of the liberal in a bubble.
1.22.2009 11:32am
wilky (mail):
It appears that many of our "enlightened" peers, and really that's all Hollywood and musicians are, are brain dead. When will the government give me my money back for lack of education it was suppose to provide.
1.22.2009 11:34am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad:

You're suggesting that he 'needed' to look that way. But he didn't 'need' to be wearing that outfit, just like he didn't 'need' to arrive on the ship on something other than his normal chopper, just like he didn't 'need' to make a speech on a ship at all. It was all done for spectacle, and theater. His codpiece was a prop, just like the ship itself was a prop.


Please re-read what I wrote. I specifically noted:

"People can hold differing opinions on whether it was good politics for President Bush to fly into an event held on an aircraft carrier."

I was specific in not addressing the political wisdom (or lack thereof) of flying into the carrier. I was writing specifically about why the three people in a picture looked they way they did from a non-political perspective - and that was because the harness needs to be snug or else bad things can happen in an emergency.

and:

Yes, and the whole point of setting up the scene that way was to get some of their machismo to rub off on him. And it worked.

Please. Machismo is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1: a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity
2: an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength

The naval aviators that I know are confident, professional officers, who have a unique skill. But I would not call them having an exaggerated masculinity, etc. If you have some specific information that the naval aviators were selected by President Bush for their machismo, then by all means share the info. Otherwise, your comments are, well, pretty ignorant.


And the incident is relevant here because at the time I don't remember this gang making a fuss about 'cult of personality.' Y'all think 'cult of personality' is just fine, as long as the 'personality' is part of your tribe, and not the other tribe.

I'm not sure who you referring to when using "y'all", "your" and the like.
1.22.2009 11:44am
Hoosier:
Wilky--

Now, now. Let's not condemn all rock musicians. There are those who have a decent amount of sense, and who understand that the posing is nothing more than that. For instance, King Buzzo. (Watch from :25).

Plus "Hooch" is one of the great songs of the '90s.
1.22.2009 11:44am
Seerak (mail):
It looks like America has officially entered its Weimar phase.
1.22.2009 11:48am
Hoosier:
1.22.2009 11:48am
Roux (mail):
The thing is, many of us and in fact most of us have already work hard, are patriotic, are taking care of others and are responsible. We don't need to take a pledge. We do it without these pledges because we already know what's right and wrong.

These celebrities can KMA.
1.22.2009 11:50am
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Those folks who weren't willing to watch it all the way through denied themselves a treat -- you can't possibly get all the juice out of Iowahawk's parody without watching the whole thing.
1.22.2009 11:51am
M:
My God. Stop arguing with jbg. It's so boring. Just do what I do. When you see his name, start scrolling until you are past his post. When you all start arguing with him it hijacks the entire thread which wasn't about him in the first place. Now it is. And it is so, so tiresome.
1.22.2009 11:52am
Guest12345:
Hey JBG, you still posting? I am waiting for your admission of being completely wrong re. TAP and your "fuzzy reasoning". As long as you persist in refusing to acknowledge your errors you are suspect as having any valid points or reasoning.

I pledge to help Marisa Tomei integrate.
1.22.2009 11:55am
Phil Smith (mail):
I completely dismissed the MWR quote, since the columnist who wrote it wasn't even in the room when the statement was allegedly made. The best evidence you have is hearsay. That won't stop you, though.
1.22.2009 11:56am
AntonK (mail):

What a bunch of vacuous asses in that video. Pledge her voice? Smile more? Cure Alzheimer's? Meet my neighbor? What do they think the rest of us "commoners" out here are doing? We are doing all of that, silently, without the camera, and without telling anyone. I pledge not see any of their movies, buy any of their products, look at their faces or acknowledge their existence.
Indeed
1.22.2009 11:57am
Quint:
jukeboxgrad says:

>>This is the standard methodology of the social 'sciences.' Which is why I cannot recommend them.


>Is there some other "methodology" you "recommend?" Maybe making claims backed by no proof at all?

I'm not the one you are responding to, but maybe a better methodology is to make objective observations and THEN draw a conclusion from the data, regardless of the direction it goes in. As opposed to deciding on a narrative preferred by the social scientist (conclusion first), and then finding any scrap that appears to support that narrative, which seems to be the common practice in the soft sciences.

I'm just saying.
1.22.2009 11:57am
Hoosier:
M:

[I don't think they're listening to you.]
1.22.2009 12:00pm
M:
Seriously.

How about that creepy video, huh? With the actors pretending like they've been living in Stalinist Russia over the last eight years and only now are free to do things like help old ladies across the street?
1.22.2009 12:02pm
Hoosier:
Yes. "I decided to treat other people like human beings. Yesterday."
1.22.2009 12:04pm
JAL (mail):
Ricardo (mail):
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" -- former interview question at Department of Justice

Partisans will always construct a cult of personality around their leaders. This didn't begin with Obama and it certainly won't end with him either.


You're joking. (Tying in Bush.) Loyalty is different than worship (idolotry).

Cult of Personality certainly did not begin with Obama, but I don't recollect in my probably very minimal recall of American presidents anyone who garnered this kind of overt, and quite frankly bizarre, adulation and adoration.

There is absolutely NO comparison here. Seen the pictures of the tee shirts with a lamb holding Obama's name on a flag -- direct rip off of a traditional orthodox Christian "Lamb of God" symbol? Talk about offensive ....

Obama is aware of this stuff (the pictures on everything, the fealty vows.) I would like to ask why he hasn't put the kibosh on it.
1.22.2009 12:11pm
Spitzer:
As a card carrying member of "all mankind", I have to wonder whether I will have to pay payroll taxes for my new Hollywood servants?
1.22.2009 12:12pm
Kanamits (mail):
We pledge to serve man.
1.22.2009 12:18pm
Keith (mail):
Like Hoosier, I found it all creepy, especially the ending as the camera drew back and they all spoke as one. Maybe I'm showing my inner geek here, but it reminded me immediately of:

"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

Certainly a cult of personality exists with most top political positions, but what I see in these, and other like-minded individuals, is a zombie-like (hence the Borg ref) marching in lock step. Only their "leader" will make things right. All was evil before their "leader".

Why did these celebs not get involved 5, 10, 15+ yrs ago? Surely if Pres Bush was so evil, the need for their good deeds and commitment would be even greater then.

What greatly concerns me is their probable lack of knowledge and education as to constitutional and other issues. I would lay money down right now that if a civics/govt test were given to them, a majority would score well below 50%. Do they believe all the "hysterical" reports re. current issues? Those reports that upon later investigation turn out to be mis-construed or downright wrong.

I wonder how quickly they would gleefully suppress basic freedoms and liberties for others, especially those with whom they disagree. All is support of their "leader". My gut fear is the answer is not good.
1.22.2009 12:25pm
Dave C (mail):
The 'Flush after a deuce, not a single' has to be a joke.
1.22.2009 12:27pm
Kevin T. Keith (www):
Well, it's a little painfully earnest, but it's funny, too. ("I pledge allegiance to the Funk - to the United Funk of Funkadelica!" - how is that not hilarious?!)

As for "creepy", what the hell is wrong with y'all?

For decades, Republicans' only answer to other people's problems was "let private charity solve it voluntarily". Now that Obama has urged his massive campaign apparatus to turn itself to just that task, and they have responded enthusiastically, suddenly there's something contemptible about people committing themselves to making the world better? As was obvious all along, "charity" for the right wing turns out to be nothing but an excuse to do nothing - anybody who actually takes it seriously is somehow dangerous.

As for the "faces=Obama" thing, I agree that's a bit too cultish. But as "Hoosier" points out, it's also no more than a manifestation of a metaphor that Hobbes invented and took quite literally. (Oh, and Hoosier: Hobbes didn't consider the "Leviathan" metaphor "creepy" - he considered it the only justifiable basis of civil authority. His description of that authority is still accepted by political philosophers today.) If Obama manages to harness that same phenomenon for eleemosynary ends, I suspect Hobbes would be both amazed and approving.

Obama could do a lot worse than inspire a lot of Americans to pledge themselves to help others in large ways and small, even if most of them turn out to be only partially successful. That they do it because he asked them to sounds to me like . . . leadership.

But you're welcome to remain mocking, angry, selfish, and indifferent as long as you like. Every day, you get smaller and smaller in the rear-view-mirror of history.
1.22.2009 12:27pm
Occidental:
I pledge to slaughter all my enemies, sow their fields with salt and listen to the lamentations of their women!

Oh yeah, I might also chip in a few hours at the local retirement home.
1.22.2009 12:38pm
Hoosier:
Kevin T. Keith

(Oh, and Hoosier: Hobbes didn't consider the "Leviathan" metaphor "creepy" - he considered it the only justifiable basis of civil authority. His description of that authority is still accepted by political philosophers today.)

Yeah. I figured that one out, too. Yay for us! I suspect that Michael Oakeshott caught that little tidbit as well. But one strongly suspects that he, like me, would have found it "creepy." Even if Cambridge dons would use a different word. "Utter fiche," or something.

But you're welcome to remain mocking, angry, selfish, and indifferent as long as you like. Every day, you get smaller and smaller in the rear-view-mirror of history.

My two options:

1) Love the Leader;

2) Go down the memory hole?

Well.

Interesting.
1.22.2009 12:43pm
Hiding out from the Obamamaniacs (mail):
" Every day, you get smaller and smaller in the rear-view-mirror of history." -- Didn't Jimmy Carter say the same thing?
1.22.2009 12:47pm
Mark Jones (mail):

My God. Stop arguing with jbg. It's so boring. Just do what I do. When you see his name, start scrolling until you are past his post.


Or, if you're using Firefox, get the greasemonkey add-on and use the Volokh Ignore script. You can ignore any particular commenter you like.
1.22.2009 12:53pm
bbbeard (mail):
jukebox:

Just to be fair, I clicked one of your links to see if there was anything to your argument. It was the story about the Mennonite "W said something about God" story. You are passing along the comment from one reporter about something another reporter wrote about what the President said. It's clearly stated that the White House denied the report. I think you are being more than gullible here and have crossed the line into willful hypocrisy. Even to talk about an "8 year cult of personality" with respect to George Bush is outlandish -- what state do you live in? I live in a very red state and I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly you don't either.

Reading your other comments, I gather you are unfamiliar with the distinction between fact and cant, between proof and propaganda. What a waste.

BBB
1.22.2009 12:54pm
Ralph Gizzip (mail):
I pledge to do everything in my power to thwart the socialist agenda of Barack Hussein Obama.

1.22.2009 12:59pm
Robohobo (mail):
More rampant narcissism on display. The whole thing is just pathetic. There is so much wrong with all of this vapid hero worship of Obama - The One - that we cannot abide it.

Wait an see what comes of this. See who even donates money to AIDS in Africa or here at home. Who works to improve the country.

These narcissists do this to say, "Oh, look at me being genuine! Look what I did! Isn't that so fine?"

Sickening that the US has fallen so low. But maybe not surprising. They only worship at the alter of the self.
1.22.2009 1:03pm
Fury:
"Or, if you're using Firefox, get the greasemonkey add-on and use the Volokh Ignore script. You can ignore any particular commenter you like."

Sorry to be dense here - where is the script located/how do you use it?
1.22.2009 1:04pm
Jeffersonian22 (mail):
Funny thing is, I've been doing about 90% of the stuff they point to for years, although without the self-congratulation and leader-worship. It's good to see the port side finally catching up.
1.22.2009 1:08pm
methodact:
Bunnymomrocks:

[P]roduced by Oprah's production company Harpo.
It was Oprah Winfrey that pushed Obama for president in the first place, he was her candidate. The danger in pointing out that this was Winfrey behind this propaganda, is that in future projects, her fingerprints won't be so blatantly left behind.

It is no secret that what Oprah Winfrey is after, (in having floated a succesful candidate for president), is for a position to be created for her to fight the war on sex, particularly in regards to young people. Winfrey's propaganda machine was a principal in fomenting the hysteria about "sexual predators", that allowed the draconian laws and violations of the First and other Amendments to be enacted into law. She has said many times, that she would be leaving entertainment to wage that war.

Winfrey models her endearing-to-the-public formula, after the character Monty, in Brewster's Millions. She gives away token amounts, both in-studio to audience members, and also to complete strangers she may hear about. But that gimmick is little more than product placement, that she invests in her image. One product placement story that I recently read, said that so-and-so thought it was the best day of his life, when he heard from Oprah Winfrey, but then as incredible as it might seem, it got even better, as she was giving him money. Or you may notice she has product placement in Ocean's Thirteen (2007), where Pitt's and Clooney's characters croon about her.

I will always know Winfrey as Woman-Who-Spits-In-Glass-Of-Water, as she did in, The Color Purple. She seems to be behind the campaign to vilify bottled water, which is also slammed in this spot.

Hoosier:

Oprah Winfrey has had Dakota Fanning in her clutches for awhile. Most of the celebrities she has employed in the spot, likey lack the sophistication sufficient to understand their part in her machinations and larger plans. Fanning has been on Winrey's show while promoting her movies and of all of the celebrities in the spot, she is, in my opinion, the best actress. Fanning's controversial film Hounddog, played at Sundance Film Festival, about this time 2 years ago, but is yet to be released, because of the strong sexual content.
1.22.2009 1:11pm
Undertoad (mail) (www):
Aaron Eckhart

Rent Thank You For Smoking.


Um rent Batman: The Dark Knight; he's the D.A.

And then rent In the Company of Men, where he's the most evil character ever written in any film in history.
1.22.2009 1:13pm
whit:
i thought soleil moon frye looked simply fab.

the sad thing is that i recognized all but one of the people.

i ph33r that makes me a celebrity junkie.

granted, i do think they are all sycophantic idiots.

ashton kucher is becoming especially insufferable. he has an editorial up at huffington post that is positively streisdand'esque.

"For decades, Republicans' only answer to other people's problems was "let private charity solve it voluntarily". Now that Obama has urged his massive campaign apparatus to turn itself to just that task, and they have responded enthusiastically, suddenly there's something contemptible about people committing themselves to making the world better? As was obvious all along, "charity" for the right wing turns out to be nothing but an excuse to do nothing - anybody who actually takes it seriously is somehow dangerous."

first of all, your initial statement is false. bush, for example, used (lots of ) public money in regards to AIDS in africa, and never gets credit for it from the left.

second of all, your point about repubs rings hollow considering that (study has already been posted) repubs/conservatives give a greater %age of their income to charity than dems. that's not even debatable.
1.22.2009 1:25pm
Zaggs (mail):
Gee I can't imagine why some people call the hollywood types unamerican. Oh yeah because of crap like this. This exposes their "patriotism" as completely phony. Sorry but where was this in 2001? Why wasn't it important to help our president back then? For people like Tokyotom thats whats wrong with the overall theme, that its contingent for a democrat to be president for them to even consider acting in a helpful manner to their fellow americans.
You don't like the president at a certain time, fine, feel free to criticize as long as its above the belt. But stop this crap that now that OBambi is in office its cool to be good americans when for the previous 8 years you derided people who acted that way as nazi's intent on killing everyone else on the planet.
Also its interesting the liberals now what to give lectures on helping others when conservatives do and have always given more to charity.
1.22.2009 1:31pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Wrong. Do some work on your reading comprehension. The statement I cited is something he said to Mennonites. News bulletin: the Amish don't speak Arabic.
I see JBG is lying again, assuming nobody will read his link. What the link actually says is:
Brubaker, in a follow-up column, said he checked with his source, an Amish reporter, who rechecked with attendees and had gotten different wording from several of them
In short, it is not something he said "to Mennonites." It is something one columnist originally said that an "Amish" (*) reporter told him, but that in fact said reporter admitted that there were different versions of the quote.

Either JBG didn't read the article he cited, which would be a form of dishonesty, or he deliberately omitted information from that article that called the claim into question, which would be a more egregious form of dishonesty.




(*) We won't even get into the fact that the Washington Post reporter -- and JBG -- doesn't know that there's a difference between Amish and Mennonite.
1.22.2009 1:42pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
And then rent In the Company of Men, where he's the most evil character ever written in any film in history.
IOW, he's a Yankees fan?
1.22.2009 1:47pm
Yankev (mail):

we learn that the quote was a translation back into English from a translation into Arabic.

As accurate as the ever popular apocrypah Chinese rendition of "Coke adds life" -- "Coke resurrects your ancestors."
1.22.2009 1:50pm
Mr. Zero:
I pledge to continue ignoring brainless self-absorbed celebrities.
1.22.2009 1:51pm
Yankev (mail):

(Remember, this is someone who still won't admit that a post about grammar was not "about Israel" merely because it mentioned the word Israel.)
Or that a thread about whether the press was doing its job in detecting fraudulent photos and videos was not about whether George W. Bush fulfilled his military obligations, because it mentioned the forged memo that Mapes and Rather defended.
1.22.2009 1:53pm
Yankev (mail):

Do some work on your reading comprehension. The statement I cited is something he said to Mennonites. News bulletin: the Amish don't speak Arabic.
JBG fails to note that the "proof" that Bush said this is a second hand report based on a single source, and that Bush and the White House denies that Bush said it. If he did indeed say it, certainly it would be curious if there were not similar statements from Bush that were heard and reported by more people.

The same second hand source DOES give credence to two Arabic reports from the PA, which has not established a track record for veracity.

Voters under 30 picked Obama, 66%/32%.
Yes, the most inexperienced and mis-educated segment of the population.


And unless you hate democracy,
We live in a republic, not a democracy, though there are certainly moves afoot to change that fact. Pure democracy, as the founders knew, sooner or laterdegenerates into mob rule and lawlessness, and into segments of the population banding together to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
1.22.2009 2:06pm
Yankev (mail):

Seen the pictures of the tee shirts with a lamb holding Obama's name on a flag -- direct rip off of a traditional orthodox Christian "Lamb of God" symbol? Talk about offensive


Obama is aware of this stuff (the pictures on everything, the fealty vows.) I would like to ask why he hasn't put the kibosh on it.
And THIS is his SHOE!
1.22.2009 2:11pm
mj:
"And then rent In the Company of Men"

Never do this for any reason. This movie is awful.
1.22.2009 2:14pm
Yankev (mail):

As for "creepy", what the hell is wrong with y'all?
So there's nothing creepy about Americans pledging to serve their president (who is supposed to be the people's servant, not their master) rather than their country, or their neighbors or their world?

As was obvious all along, "charity" for the right wing turns out to be nothing but an excuse to do nothing - anybody who actually takes it seriously is somehow dangerous.
No, no -- that's religion, not charity.


But you're welcome to remain mocking, angry, selfish, and indifferent as long as you like.
That's not what Michelle said. She said once her husband became president, he would put a stop to those things.
1.22.2009 2:18pm
Mark Jones (mail):
Fury, the Greasemonkey add-on for Firefox is at http://www.greasespot.net. Once that's been added to your Firefox browser, the "Find User Scripts" link on that same page will take you to a long list of user scripts you can run with Greasemonkey. Search for "Volokh" and you'll find it.

Once it's in place and running on your browser, the header line for every comment here, where it shows links for emails or websites (if there is one) for the commenter, includes "ignore this user". Click on that and it reloads the page; all future views of comments here show a header for that user but the comment doesn't appear. You can then click "unignore this user" if you later change your mind.
1.22.2009 2:31pm
H. L. Trisky (www):
Hey, rich movie stars, psst…we fought a little thing called the Revolutionary War to rid us of the likes of your kind…Court Jesters! Bathtime!
Thanks for bringing this to our attention at FemiSex.com and a special shout out to gattsuru whom we quoted on our site for the excellence of their Atlas Shrugged quote!
1.22.2009 2:58pm
Bill45000 (mail):
I wonder what these hypocritical hollywood sheeple spend each year for tax attorneys to help them shelter income?
1.22.2009 3:05pm
prison rodeo:
I saw this when the comments were at N = 127. I watched the vid, and got through a couple dozen of them (comments) before realizing that no one was saying anything new (or even right).

(a) There's nothing creepy about people pledging to do nice things for other people.

(b) Dave &Co.: If you don't know who any of those people are, you are badly showing your age, and/or need to get out more.
1.22.2009 3:06pm
Bill45000 (mail):
"Its always dangerous to impute
Special virtue to the cute" ~ P.J.O'Rourke (methinks)
1.22.2009 3:07pm
dr:

It is no secret that what Oprah Winfrey is after, (in having floated a succesful candidate for president), is for a position to be created for her to fight the war on sex, particularly in regards to young people. Winfrey's propaganda machine was a principal in fomenting the hysteria about "sexual predators", that allowed the draconian laws and violations of the First and other Amendments to be enacted into law. She has said many times, that she would be leaving entertainment to wage that war.



Really? She has? She's said that she's leaving showbiz to fight the war on sex?

For real? Many times? In public? You sure?

Huh.
1.22.2009 3:16pm
Nigel Tufnel (mail):
These celebrities feel the same way about Hugo Chavez.
1.22.2009 3:17pm
furious (mail) (www):
"The Simpsons" writing team should have a field day with the celebutards:

Ooh! A lima bean that looks just like the Leader! I'll put it with the others! -- Homer Simpson, "Joy of Sect"

I, for one, welcome our new Insect Overlords. -- Kent Brockman, "Deep Space Homer"
1.22.2009 3:32pm
BobDoyle (mail):
I pledge to scroll past all jbg posts and similarly to scroll past the posts of any other Conspiracy commentators who would seriously address any of jbg's vomitations.
1.22.2009 3:38pm
furious (mail) (www):
Does pledging to "be the voice for those that have no voice" include standing for the Unborn?

Oh, wait, "stem cells", never mind...

Does pledging to "use less plastic" include patronizing fewer plastic surgeons?

Does pledging to be "a great mother" mean Nicole Ritchie will marry the father of her child?

...and Ashton Kutcher's mom is WAY hot.
1.22.2009 3:49pm
methodact:
dr:

Yes i am sure, I have saved videos of television interviews where she states that. They pre-date her deal with HBO, though, so if Obama doesn't try to create a cabinet position to wage a war on sex, in the image of government's war on drugs, she may focus on waging that war from HBO.
1.22.2009 3:52pm
Hoosier:
dr

I know you were not talking to me. But I want to go on the record that I totally oppose any war on sex. And I further declare that any young women made refugees in this conflict can always find shelter at my place. When my wife is at work.
1.22.2009 3:55pm
Hoosier:
Yankev

You bloody heretic!

Follow the GOURD!
1.22.2009 3:57pm
dr:

Yes i am sure, I have saved videos of television interviews where she states that.



Forgive my skepticism, but would you mind providing a clip of one of those videos of television interviews you have saved, in which Oprah Winfrey says "I'm going to leave show business because I would like to fight the war on sex"?

I'd actually settle for a verbatim quote, no sense you going through the hassle of uploading the video. But as I say, I'm skeptical. I just have this nagging feeling -- can't quite quantify it -- but a nagging feeling that maybe you're kinda sorta putting your own methodact spin on what she might have said.

Or to re-state, I think if we asked Oprah Winfrey, she would probably not agree with your characterization of what she's "made no secret" of...
1.22.2009 3:57pm
dr:
Hoosier,

I see we are brothers in this mighty struggle. I too plan to open my home as a place of refuge, and will furnish the camp with much plush upholstery and rich velour, just to make sure that everyone's comfortable as we ride out this terrible, terrible conflict.
1.22.2009 4:00pm
Dna (mail):
Hey "entertainers", talk is so damn cheap. Get out there and show us something, like whipping out your checkbooks and writing big fat checks to your local charities. While you're at it, stop taking any deductions on your taxes. Then maybe "celebrity" marketing like this would have some credibility.
1.22.2009 4:02pm
dr:

This is cult of personality worse than Mao,Stalin,Fidel, Che and Scientology put together...


When I saw this, my first thought was "Where's Sarcastro when we need him most?" Then I realized -- Carlos Echevarria
is Sarcastro. There's no other logical explanation.
1.22.2009 4:04pm
Hoosier:
dr

UNHCR has promised an airdrop of cognac and Barry White CDs. Just keep in mind the dangers inherent in our humanitarian mission. So always use precautions.
1.22.2009 4:04pm
dr:

Hey "entertainers", talk is so damn cheap. Get out there and show us something, like whipping out your checkbooks and writing big fat checks to your local charities. While you're at it, stop taking any deductions on your taxes. Then maybe "celebrity" marketing like this would have some credibility.


Yes, that would totally give them credibility. Like when Ted Turner gave a billion dollars to the UN, and now Ted Turner is universally respected. Or like how Oprah Winfrey gives millions to various charities, and nobody ever questions her motives.
1.22.2009 4:06pm
Hoosier:
(OT: "precautious" really should be an adjective.]
1.22.2009 4:07pm
dr:
Hoosiers,

I have been working closely with Playing Doctors Without Borders on this. We are doing all we can do, but it is a difficult road ahead.

Keep on keepin' on.
1.22.2009 4:08pm
David Warner:
Huger,

"At least there are more enjoyable things on Youtube."

I consider the WarPigs link debt now paid. Too bad Living Colour were one hit wonders, as that was quite a hit.
1.22.2009 4:10pm
David Warner:
As for this thread: the last eight years the lefties made fun of the righty dorks, so now the right makes fun of the lefty dorks? What say we make fun of, you know, Hamas or something for a while, or say the Chinese financiers who hold our country hostage maybe?
1.22.2009 4:11pm
Hoosier:
I have been working closely with Playing Doctors Without Borders on this

dr-- Zing!

I bow out. I could never top that one. EXCELSIOR!
1.22.2009 4:12pm
Hoosier:
Too bad Living Colour were one hit wonders, as that was quite a hit.

Glamour Boys was kinda a hit. But they were a hot band, and my life would have been happier had they stayed together.
1.22.2009 4:15pm
dr:

I bow out. I could never top that one. EXCELSIOR!


[Half bows, palms together in prayer gesture at his chin, eyes closed humbly.]

Thank you, thank you.
1.22.2009 4:15pm
Tully (mail):

There are too many people actually doing the hard work for little pay or recognition already, and these folks basically want to come in hijack the party.


Bingo. And now we hear from the summer patriots, who want to get credit for all seasons.
1.22.2009 4:18pm
Wrath of Corn:
Just like I always thought: Wind up a celebrity good and tight and the damn thing will say just about anything.
1.22.2009 4:36pm
Phil Smith (mail):
"Too bad Living Colour were one hit wonders, as that was quite a hit."

Well, maybe so, but their final offering (Stain) was their best.

Make that their final offering before reforming in 2003, of which I was not aware and am now very thankful to Oprah and Ashton Kutcher for providing the impetus for this discussion. Every cloud has a silver lining.

I am surprised resigned that none of these celebs pledged to do, say, 10 USO shows per year.
1.22.2009 4:37pm
methodact:
dr:

No problem, I will find the videos and note the exact syntax. The gist of the matter is that Winfrey stated she planned to leave doing her show and devote the rest of her life to fighting sexual predators. Ofc she did not couch it in terms of the "war on sex".

Having largely pioneered this area of law, she appears to believe it is well within her province.

You are welcome to try and disabuse me of my perceptions. I know this stuff pretty well, I follow it pretty closely.

I am still chasing down my notes in reference to Reagan, after a challenge by EV, so digging up the Winfrey videos is right in the queue behind that. As I suspect the issue is not soon going to go away, there will likely be plenty of chances to present her remarks, verbatim, in the future.
1.22.2009 4:39pm
dr:

Ofc she did not couch it in terms of the "war on sex".


Just curious: Do you think she sees a difference between "sexual predators" and "sex"? I suspect she does. It seems fairly intuitive to me.

One thing I genuinely appreciate about EV and OK and perhaps a few other bloggers and commenters here is their ability and willingness to couch their opponents' views in the reasonable, even charitable, terms. Because of this, I'm willing to listen to their arguments with a more open mind, because I feel confident that they're not misrepresenting the other side.

I also will say that it's one of the things I like about our president. And it's one of the things I liked about the guy he beat out (heat of the campaign excepted). Does wonders for your credibility when you can assume goodwill on the part of your opponent.

Fair to say that I do not have the same confidence in you.
1.22.2009 4:52pm
Dave N (mail):
Instead of the Brady Bunch finish, maybe they should have linked arms and sang "We Are The World" with slightly modified lyrics for the chorus:
We are the world; we're for Obama,
We are the self-indulgent jerks
who can't stop talking.
1.22.2009 4:53pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
I pledge to be patritoic and dissent early and often from Obama's policies.
1.22.2009 5:22pm
methodact:
Dr:

Yes, ofc, I had already figured that out. I agree with EV most of the time, OK, some of the time. This site reveals a great number of independent thinkers. This site has enough clout to even nominate Nobel Prize candidates should it choose to do so.

The star-studded fawning video clearly shows that money buys opinions and buys servility. I sure haven't spent lavishly like that. I did not point out that it is Winfrey who has blood lust, seeks harm against a class of people, and is obsessed with managing that herself. I have not called for in kind sanctions against Winfrey. Yet, the irony is that her own schools in foreign countries have a reputation for abusing children and on her TV shows, she cannot herself, seem to keep her hands off of the kids, she apparently has to touch them.
1.22.2009 5:27pm
monkeyfan (mail) (www):
I pledge to shoot 1/2 MOA.
1.22.2009 5:31pm
steveD (mail):
Yes end slavery - free the 11 million slaves of Castro!!!!
1.22.2009 5:51pm
TQ White II (mail) (www):
You people are such cynical creeps. These people are a community and they are thrilled to have a president that they like and respect. They felt like they wanted to get together and say so. I cannot imagine why any of you are prepared to disparage them for it. You may not like Barack or even the idea of getting into am emotional mood with your friends but jeez, lighten up. It's not creepy, it's sweet. Smaltzy is about the worst I think should be said.
1.22.2009 5:53pm
Yankev (mail):

I pledge to shoot 1/2 MOA.
Impressive but expensive given the expected taxes on ammo, brass, and primers. Doesn't it take a lot of practice to shoot that well?
1.22.2009 5:56pm
Dick Eagleson:
Oh, my God! That book 'To Serve Obama'... IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!
1.22.2009 5:56pm
R:
You're not being the change, Danny.
1.22.2009 6:12pm
R:
I did enjoy the vaginal reference at 2:56.
1.22.2009 6:15pm
New York (mail):
I pledge to push for an "Entertainment Windfall Tax" that taxes Hollywood actors, writers, directors, producers and musicians 90% on every dollar they make over $100k on projects they're involved with to help pay for all this "change."
1.22.2009 6:16pm
New York (mail):

You people are such cynical creeps. These people are a community and they are thrilled to have a president that they like and respect. They felt like they wanted to get together and say so. I cannot imagine why any of you are prepared to disparage them for it. You may not like Barack or even the idea of getting into am emotional mood with your friends but jeez, lighten up. It's not creepy, it's sweet.


It's sick and creepy because it's all BS! Bush already freed millions. Where's the love for that?
1.22.2009 6:20pm
Randy R. (mail):
I'm waiting for Clayton Cramer to explain what it all means to me.
1.22.2009 6:29pm
Jimmy S.:
Prison Rodeo:
(b) Dave &Co.: If you don't know who any of those people are, you are badly showing your age, and/or need to get out more.


I would submit that a person who knows who most/all of these people are needs to get a life of his/her own, instead of living vicariously through movies/ television/ People Magazine.
1.22.2009 7:08pm
methodact:
I love them. Movies provide catharsis. It's just that arguably, some of these actors have been handed the wrong script.
1.22.2009 7:37pm
section9 (mail):
Eventually, this Cult of Personality will wear thin, very thin with the American People.

We elect a President, not a Fuhrer.
1.22.2009 7:43pm
LM (mail):
Ahhhh, the festive bashing of jukeboxgrad and Hollywood celebrities, combined in one thread. It's like mistletoe at an Ann Coulter lecture -- Win-Win!

I'm sure taking pot shots at easy targets like movie stars (and lawyers) will never go out of style. But I sure hope future generations of VC commenters don't just talk about the jbg-shoot like some quaint old ritual without relevance to their time. Call me a dreamer, but I'd like to think they'll challenge themselves to build on what's been done here, and find ever-more imaginative ways of satisfying themselves that their own partisan musings are groovy, but partisan responses to them are disingenuous hackery.
1.22.2009 7:46pm
Sarcastro (www):
This is scary. Now if only we had squashed dissent in war-time like Bush wanted we wouldn't need to worry about this.

Also, Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan...wait, what are we talking about?
1.22.2009 7:52pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Sorry, folks! VA ethics courses frown on laptop use.]
1.22.2009 7:54pm
nohype (mail) (www):
Many Americans are encouraged to do what they think is right--to follow the golden rule--by their traditional religious beliefs. It may actually be good if those who no longer believe in traditional religion now have a motivation (or more motivation) to do what is right. I do not think the video is creepy--it just illustrates the need for some kind of religion, traditional theistic or untraditional non-theistic. It does worry me, though, how the people like those in the video will react if their faith in Obama fades. Will they then lose their motivation to do what is good for others?
1.22.2009 8:27pm
TokyoTom (mail):
Does wonders for your credibility when you can assume goodwill on the part of your opponent.

I agree that Obama at least appears to convey that to those he disagrees with, and to win their respect and good will, if not affection. His apparently warm relations with Bush, for example; even while pointedly criticizing his leadership in the inaugural speech, they left the Capitol and departed apparently on the best of terms. (Of course this reflects graciousness by Bush as well.)
1.22.2009 9:19pm
TokyoTom (mail):
Only a deluded person would believe that Bush was a more "personality cult" phenomenon than Obama

Yes, but it wasn't particularly a result of Bush and his handlers lack of trying to cultivate such status. It seems to me that rally-'round-the-flag popularity bennies were a part of the calculation in taking us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq - certainly "war president", "nation at war", patriotism and "God told me smite them" were all deliberately and cynically played to later.

There certainly IS a "personality cult" surrounding Obama, but isn't much of it simply a reaction to people's disappointment in Bush, and with the cynicism, divisiveness, lack of candor, and squalid corruption and cronyism that accompanied his administration?

It is this disappointment - and desire for change - that boosted Obama over Clinton and McCain. Clearly Obama doesn't deserve adulation, but he's only getting it because people are fed up with Republican governance. There will of course be a swing back - after Republicans have had their time in the desert, and Dems have had their opportunity to misgovern.
1.22.2009 9:38pm
TokyoTom (mail):
This exposes their "patriotism" as completely phony. Sorry but where was this in 2001? Why wasn't it important to help our president back then? For people like Tokyotom thats whats wrong with the overall theme, that its contingent for a democrat to be president for them to even consider acting in a helpful manner to their fellow americans.

Zaggs, is your patriotism "completely phony" since you apparently see no need to "help our president" now? Or is it possible that one may love his country and disagree with, distrust or even despise its leaders at the same time?
1.22.2009 9:45pm
David Warner:
"Barry White CDs"

The Eurovision winner.
1.22.2009 9:50pm
David Warner:
TokyoTom,

"Or is it possible that one may love his country and disagree with, distrust or even despise its leaders at the same time?"

One indeed can. I'm looking forward to making it more than one (side) now that we have a President approved by the side that heretofore evidently thought it impossible. Maybe next time that side is on the outside looking in they can improve on their prior performance.
1.22.2009 9:53pm
David Warner:
Sarcrusto,

"squashed dissent in war-time like Bush wanted"

To squash dissent one must first be aware that it exists.
1.22.2009 10:16pm
Bill Clinton (www):
We can't love our country and hate our government.
1.22.2009 10:16pm
Bill Clinton (www):
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny... There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.
1.22.2009 10:20pm
David Warner:
President Clinton,

"We can't love our country and hate our government."

We, kimosabe? Have you read the websites of of your good buddies these past eight years?
1.22.2009 10:51pm
Californio (mail):
I Pledge...(the true celebrity pledge)

to support our President when he is popular and well liked by everyone in my industry,

To only file a 1040EZ tax form - here is my income - here is my tax - God Bless America!

to make a promise that I can never be held accountable to...

To ejaculate in my pants at the sight of my DEAR LEADER - and when this is pointed out to me, Angrily post repthugican instances of their ejaculating in THEIR pants over THEIR leader!!!! (not MY president!)

To urge everyone to set aside their differences to serve a president I like (reserving the right to dissent if a different party takes the white house next time - Dissent is Patriotic...THEN, but NOT NOW!!!)

To be vapid.

finally, I wish they all would just pledge to shut up and look pretty.
1.22.2009 11:20pm
Sarcastro (www):
Oh those celebrities, always with the ejaculating in their pants!
1.23.2009 9:02am
Yankev (mail):

I do not think the video is creepy--it just illustrates the need for some kind of religion, traditional theistic or untraditional non-theistic.
Okay. Some of us theists find the worship of a human being to be creepy. And some of us find it creepy that people would pledge their service to the man who holds office and not to the country, or its people, or its laws and constitution.
1.23.2009 9:15am
Hoosier:
Sarcastro
Oh those celebrities, always with the ejaculating in their pants!

[Bukkake Obama?]
1.23.2009 10:08am
Sarcastro (www):
Hoosier Ya gotta admit, you'd be curious enough to watch!
1.23.2009 10:23am
RonF:
I recognize 4 of those people - Ashton Kutchner, Demi Moore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz. In context, I presume that the guys wearing athletic logos are players for those teams, but I couldn't name them.

I rarely go to movies, often because my wife and I rarely agree on what to see - I rather loathe "romantic comedies", as my minimum standard for a comedy is that it makes me laugh. Odd, I know. And she's not much into anything with any action in it, although I point out that "Romeo and Juliet" the greatest love story ever written, had poisonings and a sword fight in it. Billy knew how to keep everybody happy.

But, I digress. No, my life isn't influenced by the opinions of entertainers, people who make obscene amounts of money by either being excellent athletes or musicians or by mimicing emotions and actions of others, generally fictional. I fear for the country when I note that there are a huge number of people who ARE so influenced.

As far as the content goes: 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Why weren't these people calling others to service, and why weren't those others giving service BEFORE Obama was elected?
1.23.2009 11:07am
Yankev (mail):

Romeo and Juliet" the greatest love story ever written, had poisonings and a sword fight in it.

Several sword fights, in fact.
1. Montague and Capulet retainers.
2. Tybalt vs. Riff Mercutio.
3. Romeo vs. Tybalt.
Were there more, or is that it?
1.23.2009 11:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin:

what [Jukeboxgrad] does is set up hypothesis, then finds evidence that supports it, ignores evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, then comes to a predetermined conclusion


Surely you must have some very impressive examples of me 'ignoring evidence that contradicts my hypothesis.' When are you going to show them to us?

================
fury:

If you have some specific information that the naval aviators were selected by President Bush for their machismo, then by all means share the info


It's self-evident that naval aviators have more machismo, than, say, street-sweepers, and it's self-evident that this has something to do with the fact that Bush chose the former and not the latter as props for his photo-op.

I'm not sure who you referring to when using "y'all", "your" and the like.


Republicans, conservatives, and/or people who voted for Bush.

================
guest:

I am waiting for your admission of being completely wrong re. TAP and your "fuzzy reasoning".


I notice you posted no link. I wonder why. What I said is here. Anyone interested can figure out who was "completely wrong."

================
smith:

I completely dismissed the MWR quote, since the columnist who wrote it wasn't even in the room when the statement was allegedly made.


By that standard, you should 'dismiss' virtually everything you read, because it amounts to some form of "hearsay." The statement was cited by a credible reporter, who interviewed people who were present. And Bush has made many similar statements about his relationship with God. Like the one I cited here. But I suppose that since I can't present you with videotape, you're also going to dismiss that one as "hearsay," too. Even though Bush made the statement directly to the author who is quoting him.

The best evidence you have is hearsay.


As far as I can tell, your definition of hearsay is 'any statement that I can't see/hear for myself on tape.' Did I get that right?

bbbeard:

It's clearly stated that the White House denied the report.


I guess that settles it, then. Obviously the reporter is a liar (even though he interviewed multiple attendees) and the White House is telling the truth. Because it always does, right?

you are unfamiliar with the distinction between fact and cant, between proof and propaganda.


Hopefully you can gather some examples to prove your claim.

================
nieporent:

it is not something he said "to Mennonites."


The article is here. The statement was made by Bush to a group of "some Amish folks." Whether or not that group included Mennonites, or only Amish, is a highly pedantic distinction. The statement was reported in the Mennonite Weekly Review, which suggests that Mennonites were present.

said reporter admitted that there were different versions of the quote


And there are no indications that any other version of the quote would be materially different than the quote that was printed. As the column said:

The question is, how is it that Bush so confuses groups as diverse as the Palestinians and the Amish? Is it the Andover-Texas accent?


And this is far from the only example of Bush making a statement like this.

We won't even get into the fact that the Washington Post reporter -- and JBG -- doesn't know that there's a difference between Amish and Mennonite.


You're being pedantic, as usual. The distinction is hardly relevant to the way the words were used by the reporter or me.

Anyway, thanks for that nice example of paralipsis.

================
quint:

maybe a better methodology is to make objective observations and THEN draw a conclusion from the data, regardless of the direction it goes in


Thanks for that intelligent answer. I agree with you, and I think my political beliefs are a result of the process you described.

================
jal:

I don't recollect in my probably very minimal recall of American presidents anyone who garnered this kind of overt, and quite frankly bizarre, adulation and adoration.


I think your recall is "very minimal." Aside from that, I think it has something to do with following someone who is widely viewed as the worst president ever. (I see tom made a similar point.)

================
keith:

Why did these celebs not get involved 5, 10, 15+ yrs ago?


A lot of people, especially young people, have gotten interested in politics fairly recently (i.e., just in the last few years). And there are some fairly obvious reasons for that.

================
hoosier:

My two options:

1) Love the Leader;

2) Go down the memory hole?


There are quite a few other options. Here's one: avoid gratuitous mockery.

================
zaggs:

where was this in 2001? Why wasn't it important to help our president back then?


In 2001, Bush's approval ratings reached 90%. Memory is helpful.

================
yankev:

the ever popular apocrypah Chinese rendition of "Coke adds life" -- "Coke resurrects your ancestors."


I like this one: 'the spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak' becomes (via Russian) 'the vodka is good, but the meat is rotten."

Or that a thread about whether the press was doing its job in detecting fraudulent photos and videos was not about whether George W. Bush fulfilled his military obligations, because it mentioned the forged memo that Mapes and Rather defended.


I didn't claim the thread was "about … whether George W. Bush fulfilled his military obligations." I just pointed out how the subjects are related. The way it came up was not surprising.

If he did indeed say it, certainly it would be curious if there were not similar statements from Bush that were heard and reported by more people.


I guess you're not really paying attention. There are indeed "similar statements from Bush that were heard and reported by more people," and I have cited examples, directly and indirectly.

Bush and the White House denies that Bush said it … The same second hand source DOES give credence to two Arabic reports from the PA, which has not established a track record for veracity.


I'm combining statements you made about two different quotes, because I'd like to point out that "Bush and the White House" also "has not established a track record for veracity."

By the way, it is not "the same second hand source." The article I cited discusses two entirely different situations, via entirely different sources.

So there's nothing creepy about Americans pledging to serve their president (who is supposed to be the people's servant, not their master) rather than their country, or their neighbors or their world?


What's "creepy" is taking precisely two statements from the video and treating them as an excuse to ignore the other 99% of what was said.

And I'll repeat what prison rodeo said, very correctly:

There's nothing creepy about people pledging to do nice things for other people


================
lm:

Ahhhh, the festive bashing of jukeboxgrad and Hollywood celebrities, combined in one thread.


I sort of appreciate getting lumped in with them, but they get paid more. I'm just as good-looking, though.

================
warner:

the side that heretofore evidently thought it impossible


You seem to be claiming that people who opposed Bush did not think it "possible that one may love his country and disagree with, distrust or even despise its leaders at the same time." I wonder if you would consider presenting something remotely resembling proof.

================
bill clinton:

We can't love our country and hate our government.


It's true that Clinton said that, and I disagree.

But that sort of reminds me of what Tom DeLay said: "While we may not support the President’s ill-advised war, we do support our troops … you can support the troops but not the president."

Of course, what he meant was 'but only if the president is a D.'
1.23.2009 1:58pm
Hoosier:
Sarcastro
Hoosier Ya gotta admit, you'd be curious enough to watch!
Depends. Are they gonna show it on pay-per-view? Or can I get it free?
1.23.2009 2:24pm
Hoosier:
Sarcastro

Depends. Are they gonna show it on PPV? Or can I get it free?
1.23.2009 2:28pm
Hoosier:
[Or can I double post when VC tells me that I failed to post?]
1.23.2009 2:28pm
Yankev (mail):

It's self-evident that naval aviators have more machismo, than, say, street-sweepers, and it's self-evident that this has something to do with the fact that Bush chose the former and not the latter as props for his photo-op.
Yeah, he ignored the street sweepers who had just finished a relevant mission in the Iraq war, and rounded up a gratuitous aircraft carrier that had nothing to do with anything. Especially given his background as a street sweeper in the National Guard.
1.23.2009 3:28pm
Fury:
Mark Jones:

Thank you very much for the directions
1.23.2009 3:41pm
lucia (mail) (www):
Hoosier--
I used word search to see if anyone in comments was weireded out by the bicep kissing. Evidently, he's named his biceps "Barack" and "Obama". Very, very weird.
1.23.2009 4:12pm
Sinuous (mail):
I pledge this: To skip over ignornant and hateful inputs on blogs and news sites. I pledge this: to keep the way I've been in helping others that I already do and not expect and hand out but give a hand up; I pledge this: to keep driving the car that I'm driving &not bend to the whims of the ignorant and stupid masses who are slaves to the "master(s)" and the popular, pretty crowd; I pledge this: to be an individual, to raise my children to be individuals and to stand for what is right for now and the future, preserving our foundation as a country; I pledge this: to give every beating heart a chance, unborn or born; I pledge this: to serve only one God and that is the God Almighty, the creator of heaven &earth and no earthly form will dissuade me into thinking that your president is God; I pledge this: to keep informed and knowledgable, to not go with the popular ideas and theories but to stand by my convictions and not be swayed by pretty lights, people, words and lies; I pledge this: to forge ahead and put this idiotic video behind me as well as the liberal, arrogant piss ant whining..and not let this ruin my day..
1.23.2009 5:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
yankev:

Yeah, he ignored the street sweepers who had just finished a relevant mission in the Iraq war


He did something very much like that ("ignored the street sweepers who had just finished a relevant mission in the Iraq war"). Most of the people on an aircraft carrier aren't pilots. It takes lots of mundane, menial work to run a war, and to run an aircraft carrier. Someone actually sweeps the decks on that ship, and it's not the pilots. But when it was time for his photo-op, Bush didn't dress up like a sweeper and pose with a bunch of sweepers. He dressed up like a flyboy and posed with a bunch of flyboys. And this created the intended result: people in the WSJ and elsewhere drooled over his manhood. So the photo-op was a success. Too bad the war wasn't.
1.23.2009 10:43pm
Hoosier:
lucia

I would even say that that is "creepy".

How very, very confused he must be. As I said earlier, I am so happy that it's not Dave Grohl. Grown-ups have to deal with disappointments. But don't take Nirvana away from me. I really couldn't handle it.

[Just to keep the record straight: My "guns" are both named "Brady Quinn." Naming them after Obama almost seems an ironic dig: He needs to cut back a bit on the CV stuff and get into the weight room. Chest: so-so. But arms: thin, thin, thin.]
1.23.2009 10:53pm
Guest12345:
Surely you must have some very impressive examples of me 'ignoring evidence that contradicts my hypothesis.' When are you going to show them to us?


How about your hypothesis that there are no errors on The American Prospect's propaganda page re. vice failings compared between blue states and red states?

I spent a bit of time pointing out that there were errors on that page and you just kept on claiming there weren't. Even going so far as to make up new and exciting (and entirely wrong) standards of numerical analysis. Does that count as ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis?
1.24.2009 12:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Does that count as ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis?


No.
1.24.2009 1:05am
LM (mail):
Hoosier,

My "guns" are both named "Brady Quinn."

Mine were "Tip O'Neill" and "Bobby Sands" until some liberal celebrity stole the names from me. So I re-named them "Jaco" and "Pastorius" to impress on you that self-indulgence isn't inconsistent with genius. (Read that any way you like. They're all true.) I'd link to your recent swipe at Jaco, but it seems to be on one of the threads that was mysteriously erased. Hmmmm....
1.24.2009 3:18am
Hoosier:
LM

Mine were "Tip O'Neill" and "Bobby Sands"

So one is shriveled to nothing and one is bloated and discolored?

Weird.

Thanks for the link, but I'd advise you not to read anything written by ND alumni. [Except for me, of course.] They are kinda psycho about the place. Which is really 'not all that and a bag of communion wafers.' Or whatever the Franciscans are saying these days.

My recent swipe at Jaco? But it seems you have no evidence for that claim, do you? You can't prove it!




So let me help you out: Long bass solos are overindulgent and really, really boring.

Clip that and save it for later use. Always glad to help! (Smiley-face emoticon.)

PS--Nothing above should be taken as a criticism of Jack Bruce, who is officially the Coolest Guy Ever.

PPS--What do Ginger Baker and coffee have in common?--They both suck without cream. [I love that one.]
1.24.2009 8:01am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
lm:

it seems to be on one of the threads that was mysteriously erased


Maybe there's some other comment you're thinking of, but I see one that comes up in a site search for hoosier pastorius. It's here:

I'm corn-fused. Did Operation Pastorius involve over-indulgent playing of jazz bass?


Looks like over-indulgent use of corny rock jokes.

hoosier:

What do Ginger Baker and coffee have in common?


I suppose you know what drummers and groupies have in common?
1.24.2009 9:29am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad:

He did something very much like that ("ignored the street sweepers who had just finished a relevant mission in the Iraq war"). Most of the people on an aircraft carrier aren't pilots. It takes lots of mundane, menial work to run a war, and to run an aircraft carrier. Someone actually sweeps the decks on that ship, and it's not the pilots. But when it was time for his photo-op, Bush didn't dress up like a sweeper and pose with a bunch of sweepers. He dressed up like a flyboy and posed with a bunch of flyboys. And this created the intended result: people in the WSJ and elsewhere drooled over his manhood.

From this perspective, your previous comments about machismo to now calling naval aviators "flyboys" demonstrate a palpable level of disrespect for military personnel, in order to make a point about President Bush.

And you're correct, Bush didn't dress up like a "sweeper", but he certainly did "pose" with plenty of military personnel other than "flyboys":

Here

and here

and here

and here:

and several photos here:
1.24.2009 9:43am
Phil Smith:

Brubaker, in a follow-up column, said he checked with his source, an Amish reporter, who rechecked with attendees and had gotten different wording from several of them.

Brubaker may or may not be a "credible" reporter, but he never actually heard the statement that he confidently reported. He was told by an anonymous Amish reporter, who couldn't verify the statement when asked. That's hearsay. But things get worse for our intrepid reporter's credibility.

I did a little digging. The original report was in the Lancaster New Era. Archives are pay only, but the synopsis reads as follows:
Article 4 of 5, 10207563


Published on July 23, 2004, Lancaster New Era (PA)

Did George Bush really say, 'I trust God speaks through me'?

Last Friday's Scribbler column about a private session President Bush conducted with Amish when he visited Lancaster County early this month has drawn a wide and close reading.

The column quoted an Amish reporter who had interviewed some of the 60 Amish adults and children who met with the president. One particular line attributed to Bush has drawn special attention.

At the end of the 20-minute meeting at Lapp Electric Service in Smoketown, Bush reportedly told the group,



So, Brubaker didn't hear the statement being made. He quotes a reporter - who also didn't hear it, but instead interviewed people who may have. And as already noted, when asked to verify, he couldn't.

I'll take my definition of hearsay over your definition of credible, every time.
1.24.2009 10:49am
David Warner:
Fury,

Dude, JBG's harsh is too strong to mellow.
1.24.2009 12:02pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Do you think she wants to serve badly enough to get down on her knees and beg to be of service?
1.24.2009 12:35pm
Roxanna:
I pledge to never pay a lick of attention to the self-indulgent tripe of Hollywood celebrities and to laugh at their self-importance every chance I get.
1.24.2009 12:35pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
The 'Flush after a deuce, not a single' has to be a joke.

Depends on what kind of hand you are drawing to.
1.24.2009 1:26pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
I suppose you know what drummers and groupies have in common?

One likes to pound skin the other likes skin pounded.
1.24.2009 1:29pm
David Warner:
"One likes to pound skin the other likes skin pounded."

Iguana skin, in this case. Around 3:00 he breaks into Moby Dick, I think.
1.24.2009 2:33pm
LM (mail):
Hoosier,

But it seems you have no evidence for that claim, do you? You can't prove it!

Thanks to JBG's minions at Google, it's back. Hah!

So let me help you out: Long bass solos are overindulgent and really, really boring.

I couldn't agree more. My guess is jazz bass solos are like CEOs' million dollar office decorating budgets. Some idiot said "OK" to the first one, and it's been impossible to get the genie back in the bottle ever since.
It's a big part of why I'm a jazz fan, not a jazz fanatic. If Jaco's credentials as a mentally ill drug addict who died violently at a young age don't convince you of his genius, his ability to make long bass solos interesting ought to.

PS--Nothing above should be taken as a criticism of Jack Bruce, who is officially the Coolest Guy Ever.

Jack Bruce's bass solos were boring me long before I had any idea I'd be exposed to endless hours of that crap as the price for hearing some of the greatest (jazz) music ever made.

PPS--What do Ginger Baker and coffee have in common?--They both suck without cream. [I love that one.]

Elvin Jones' reaction to Ginger Baker's solo on Toad:

Cat's got delusions of grandeur with no grounds, they should make him an astronaut and lose his ass.

... and that quote comes from anonymous commenter Crimson Mask I on the message board at WrestlingClassics.com, so you know it's reliable. Actually, I've heard it before. Why that's the only place I can find it presumably speaks only to my woeful Google-foo.
1.24.2009 3:19pm
LM (mail):
jbg:

Maybe there's some other comment you're thinking of, but I see one that comes up in a site search for hoosier pastorius. It's here:

Thank you for finding that. Last night the same search showed zero results. Now I get the same result you did. Forget the celebrity video, that's what I call creepy. Either my Google-foo is even more pathetic than I thought, or I have to reconsider the whole black helicopter thing.

Adding insult (actually, self-embarrassment) to injury, it turns out the thread is still active with one argument... and I'm one of the arguers! Oops. Which reminds me, I have to go explain the significance of tu quoque to Richard Aubrey. Again.
1.24.2009 3:39pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

your previous comments about machismo to now calling naval aviators "flyboys" demonstrate a palpable level of disrespect for military personnel


I think you're over-sensitively perceiving an insult where there is none. 'Flyboy' is just slang for 'pilot' (link, link). I'm not aware of any pejorative connotation.

And machismo just means "a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity." That doesn't necessarily mean the person is intentionally exaggerating, or doing anything dishonorable or inauthentic. It just means the person is perceived that way. And in our culture, fighter pilots are seen as having machismo. If this was not so, Hollywood would not be making movies like Top Gun. And there's nothing disrespectful about this. On the contrary.

he certainly did "pose" with plenty of military personnel other than "flyboys"


You're correct that pictures can be found where non-pilots appear in the picture. But the pictures seen most often in typical media reports (example) were pictures where Bush was standing near pilots. And this was so their (well-deserved) glamour, prestige and machismo would rub off on him. And it worked.

================================
smith:

He was told by an anonymous Amish reporter


It's a little misleading to say the reporter was "anonymous." You're implying that Brubaker didn't know who the reporter was. But he did. The article I cited doesn't give us the original reporter's name, but that doesn't mean the reporter was anonymous to Brubaker.

I did a little digging. … Brubaker didn't hear the statement being made. He quotes a reporter - who also didn't hear it, but instead interviewed people who may have


Your "digging" is pointless. The article I cited already explains what you're treating as a major revelation, that the Amish reporter wasn't there, but interviewed people who were there:

Brubaker, in a follow-up column, said he checked with his source, an Amish reporter, who rechecked with attendees and had gotten different wording from several of them.


So we already know that the original reporting was based on interviews with attendees, not on the reporter being there himself.

when asked to verify, he couldn't


Not exactly. "Different wording" doesn't necessarily mean 'couldn't verify.' There's nothing to indicate that the "different wording" was materially different in meaning from the original quote.

I'll take my definition of hearsay over your definition of credible, every time.


'Credible' is what you would be if you weren't pretending that this quote is the only one. I've cited several, directly and indirectly.

================================
simon:

One likes to pound skin the other likes skin pounded.


That's clever, but the correct answer is this: they both like to hang around with musicians.

================================
lm:

Last night the same search showed zero results. Now I get the same result you did.


Here's my guess as to what happened. There's been some trouble here lately with comments. On a few threads, some or all of the comments disappeared. (I know you mentioned this upthread. I'm just reviewing.) But some repair work (on some but not all of the damaged threads) has been done by the hosts.

So that's why the google result changed. I've noticed that google is amazingly fast at reflecting changes at sites like this.

Either my Google-foo is even more pathetic than I thought…


I'm sure my google-foo is no better than yours.
1.24.2009 4:00pm
Hoosier:
David Warner:
Fury,

Dude, JBG's harsh is too strong to mellow.


I read the word as "hash" while scrolling down. To bad. That would have been cool.

M. Simon
I suppose you know what drummers and groupies have in common?

One likes to pound skin the other likes skin pounded.


As I recall the joke, they both hang out with the musicians.

LM

You have maligned Jack Bruce! I am not sure that I can continue visiting this blog if you don't stop that viciousness. Pastorius? Yeah, I was stunned when I heard about his death. It may have been well-known that he was bipolar and a serious user of heavy drugs. But I honestly had never heard that until the obituaries came out.

He was hugely talented, and I recall trying to learn on bass whatever you call that Bach cello piece on his second solo album. But I didn't enjoy it. He was one of those guys--like Al Di Meola, who you were supposed to like. In both cases, I didn't.

My memory of the 1980s is almost gone by now. But I do recall listening to the early Mahavishnu Orchestra albums over and over. Their bassist was the type of bassist that I appreciated. So I don't remember his name. Which may be the point.

I never paid any attention to Jack Bruce's solos, or solo albums. But his playing with GBO, Cream, Lifetime, Mahavishnu Orchestra . . . great stuff. He was also sharp as a razor during the Cream reunion concerts. Forty years and one liver later, I think that's impressive.
1.24.2009 4:47pm
Hoosier:
I should add that my favorite bassist these day--aside from Bruce, who now dwells in Asgard--is Jared Warren. So I suppose one might question my taste.
1.24.2009 4:58pm
LM (mail):
The Melvins blow. No, I'm kidding, I like them.

You don't remember Rick Laird? I was never crazy about Mahavishnu Orchestra, and Bitches Brew was about my least favorite Miles Davis album. That said, Sri Chimnoy (who used to work out at this little Nautilus club in Queens I belonged to in the late 1970's), hoisted Sid Caesar and Yoko Ono. That's some strange ju-ju.
1.24.2009 8:28pm
David Warner:
Great, not only am I almost cool (one typo away!), I've also heard of none of the musicians mentioned in the last thirty posts. It's enough to make me want to join the cool kids pledging their allegiance to Obama.
1.24.2009 11:31pm
Hoosier:
LM

You like the Melvins? So they exist outside of my hallucinations?

I mean, Electroretard is a real album? You can hear it too?!!! Be honest with me. Gluey Porch Treatments? Even . . . "Anal Satan"?

It's not just me?

David Warner

No worries. I didn't pledge my loyalty to Obama. But I'm still one of the coolest of the cool kids. In fact, I know the owner and I can get you into the club.
1.25.2009 12:01am
LM (mail):
Whoa, slow down there pardner. I said I liked them, not that I knew their stuff by name. The last record I knew the name of was The White Album, and that was thanks to a prominent visual aid.

I also should have qualified "I like them" with "relatively." My girlfriend a while back worked for CZ records, which gives you an idea of the playlist those days chez LM. One day I said something like, "hey, this isn't quite as awful as most of the crap you listen to," and it happens to have been (who knows what by) the Melvins. That triggered an exegesis on Kurt Cobain and Shirley Temple's daughter and Jello Biafra, and that's about all I remember. Anyway, whenever I'd had my fill of Rage Against the Machine or, God help me, Elliott Smith, she'd fall back on what she knew I could stand: Nirvanah, Nick Cave (who I do really like), the Meat Puppets, the Melvins, and a few others I've mostly mercifully forgotten.

Of course I'd have rather been listening to, oh, say, Weather Report! Or Shawn Colvin, or Bill Evans, or Stravinsky, or William Shatner, or my favorite then, Jimmy Durante... but life is full of little compromises. (The truth is she also loved the music I did. I was the only intolerant one.)
1.25.2009 3:04am
Hoosier:
LM

I'm just trying to verify that I'm not that only person who can hear them. They seem to be invisible to everyone that I know.

But then I may just be imagining you.

C/Z Records? The Gits and 7 Year Bitch, eh? Not quite Sub Pop or Matador, but impressive nonetheless.

I'll agree with you on Stravinsky, though it took a while, and I still can't stand any of his noodling-work, e.g., most of "Firebird." Does one need Valium to appreciate Weather Report? Or was that the Yellow Jackets? I forget.

Shatner: EXCELSIOR!
1.25.2009 8:36am
LM (mail):
Hoosier:

I'm just trying to verify that I'm not that only person who can hear them. They seem to be invisible to everyone that I know.

But then I may just be imagining you.

Here's what I look like. Does that help?

I still can't stand any of his noodling-work, e.g., most of "Firebird."

Yeah, Rite of Spring was his Freebird. Firebird's a more acquired taste. Be grateful I didn't say "Webern" or "Berg." For a grungier (slower, less syncopated, but equally dense and lush) Rite, try Schönberg's Verklärte Nacht.

Does one need Valium to appreciate Weather Report? Or was that the Yellow Jackets? I forget.

So do I. I think they're both great, but I hardly listen to either any more. On the other hand, I still listen to Hendrix and Pink Floyd, so who knows?

Shatner: EXCELSIOR!

One of the more cognitive dissonance inducing experiences was my recent first viewing of I assume an old rerun of Boston Legal. Shatner applies his trademark light touch to playing, seemingly, himself, and he's actually very good! I don't know what to make of it. Neither do I understand why, but I suspect it's true, this somehow means I'm now really, really old.
1.25.2009 8:05pm
Hoosier:
Here's what I look like. Does that help?

Has anyone ever told you that you look a bit like King Buzzo? Maybe it's the nose.

Stravinky's Freebird. That has gotta be one of the ten best comments of the (academic) year on this blog.

My rave-fave of Igor's is his Symphony of Psalms. I like the way his use of time signature causes the stress to fall on different syllables of the Latin each time around. No clue why that does it for me. Perhaps I'm still frustrated with high school Latin, and this seems subversive.

Or maybe I'm just a bit "off." But a guy with hair like yours is no position to talk about that.

By the way, there's a funny vid on Google Video in which Buzz tries to buy a mansion in Beverly Hills on street cred.
1.25.2009 11:10pm
LM (mail):
Hoosier:

Has anyone ever told you that you look a bit like King Buzzo? Maybe it's the nose.

Actually, more the hair (long ago in a universe far, far away). But I'd never be caught dead in that jungle camo caftan. Desert camo's so much more flattering with my complexion.

That has gotta be one of the ten best comments of the (academic) year on this blog.

That's very kind. Here's where I'd like to think an Ivy education would have taught me to quit while I was ahead. Alas....

Or maybe I'm just a bit "off."

Nah. Temporal subversion was his thing.

Buzz tries to buy a mansion in Beverly Hills on street cred.

I'm sure that's meant to be funny, but I'll be taking notes.
1.26.2009 2:45am
Hoosier:
LM

Actually, more the hair (long ago in a universe far, far away).

I am not trying to rub that in in the slightest when I say this; there is actually point: I have very thick brown hair, which I keep close-cropped (When I remember to get a cut). But I want to grow out my hair into an Afro of Doom, as Melvins fans call it. Seriously. It would annoy my colleagues tremendously, and I live for that.* But my wife won't let me.

*My life is Kafkaesque. Now, I usually can't stand it when people say that. But that's because they always mean they feel like one of Kafka's anti-heroes, who is confused and abused in a world that makes no sense. But I am one of those functionaries who has developed deep resentments toward the institution that employs him, and so takes perverse pleasure in being what Kafka used to call a "total dickhead." Those are the coolest characters in the stories, and I can't understand why they surprise and perplex Kafka's protagonists. Because it totally makes sense ot me.
1.26.2009 10:28am
LM (mail):

My life is Kafkaesque. Now, I usually can't stand it....

I'm sending your comment to a friend who's Kafkaesque in the way you can't stand. He'll get a kick out of it. At different times my life has resembled both your Kafkaesque and his, so I have lots of empathy for both. Which I suppose makes me, but for my lack of talent and tuberculosis, Kafka.
1.26.2009 3:32pm
Thaddy Meautreux (mail):
I pledge to research general statements and sound bites fed to me by celeberties - Many of whom are ill equiped sponsors employed by media to sway my thoughts and opinions.
1.26.2009 3:46pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.