Archive for October, 2009

I see God upon the ceiling

Just some fun images from DanceAthens this weekend, including a song that was extremely satisfying to dance to. Love your choreography Miss Allison (she’s the pretty blonde in the Michael Jackson hat. Just so’s you know.) I didn’t get any the night of the show because I was working. Oddly, calling people to go onstage is more exhausting than performing. Go figure. Also, in homage to the song, Brother Dan’s homage to Michelangelo. The painting fits the song.

As for politics, no disrespect Michelle Malkin, because I think you’re brilliant and an amazing investigative reporter, but this guy makes sense to me. However, those who fall in line with Hoffman and Palin, keep on with the protestations because it might be the only thing that provides tread on the slippery slope. Still working it out. And here’s Malkin’s opinion on the issue. It contains a video of Newt on Fox News explaining his support for someone that, admittedly, is worrisome as a candidate. I like it for his explanation but also for the introductory discussion of one Georgetown student seeking a personal assistant. Yeah, that’s pretty much the attitude I felt when I went dancing there. Newt’s right: this kid needs his mommy. Hey Charley, no hate here. But please pardon me for laughing. You might be a little pampered kid. And also ridiculous. Just sayin’. UPDATE: yeah, pretty much what he said.


Download bài hát When I Dream Of Michelangelo

Read Full Post »

Bring in the clowns

These two make me remember why I always disliked teacher’s pets. Fawning, obsequious, fair-weather and small-minded (but doing everything they can to convince people otherwise. Yuck.)

But you did it first and even though I loudly proclaimed how bad it was then I secretly wanted the attention and now that I have it I’m not so sure it’s bad…unless you get all the attention again. Then it is.

It’s like watching the Smothers Brothers or Vince Vaughan and Owen Wilson in Wedding Crashers. Brilliant comedians these two. Hilarious.

Read Full Post »

Blast it, this one’s hard. Both Newt and Palin have invoked Reagan in their decision for backing opposing candidates in the NY 23 special election. And I’ve been working it over in my mind for most of the morning because it really is a question of pragmatism and politics versus principle.

So, is Newt betraying conservative principles, acting the turncoat and just playing power-hungry politician by backing someone he acknowledges he doesn’t agree with on many, many issues in order to create a Republican majority? Or is he being super savvy, recognizing that anything less than opening up the tent a little is — as Pops likes to say — just preaching to the choir and does no real good beyond stimulating the vocal minority into telling each other the way things should be?

And what about Palin? Backing Hoffman is unquestionably a political move on her part as well — dare we begin to think these two are actually aligning themselves as opponents under the GOP tent for upcoming elections?

I recognize the danger in going down the path of capitulation — it is indeed a slippery slope. I also recognize the futility in rhetorical principle only; that is to say, principle that doesn’t do what is necessary to utilize the system in order to make the rhetoric a reality. Rhetoric without action is fairly useless in these matters. I suppose some would argue that the voters who turned up in the Tea Party march on Washington are acting and can affect change on their own with a majority vote. But are they numbered enough to affect change without political maneuvering at the highest levels?

Jeeza pete people — I just don’t know. I’m with Pops on this one — this is why he never wanted to be a politician he says because he can stand on principle and never have to waver.

As for both invoking the name of Reagan, I believe they are both correct. Doesn’t make it any easier does it?

And, courtesy of the Little Rock, the following cartoon. It’s true. They can.


Read Full Post »

Whew, had my hands out of the dough for a few days. First things first: I have to give a belated thanks to the Little Rock for taking me dancing. I took the opportunity to shake things up in stuffy old conservative Georgetown with my decidedly non-conservative, dirty South, representin’ the ATL pop-n-lock. They didn’t quite know what to do with me. But I bring the South with me and always will. They’ll get used to it.

Second, I have been following the White House efforts to marginalize Fox News with much interest. The whole thing just solidifies the crazy that comes with trying to figure out if this administration is made up of evil geniuses or certifiable ignoramuses. What I mean is, their blatancy can only be the result of either extreme ego of the magnitude that leads to full-fledged propaganda techniques (which you can find a handy list of here. See if anything jumps out at you regarding recent statements made by Axlerod et al about Fox (non)News…), or is the result of absolute incompetence of the magnitude that will continue to see that approval rating dip. People tend to not like being force fed. It has been known to lead to revolution.

Anyway, to me, it seems a bit below the White House pay grade (heh) to start dictating who they think is cool. One thing’s for sure — it’s all about image, not too much about substance because those with the ability to get the job done care little to nothing if people think they’re able to get the job done. Just makes me think the lady doth protest too much. Just sayin’. UPDATE: Yeah, pretty much what she said.

And to the Georgetown dance kids (they were okay really. Actually two of the girls were quite complimentary. I just wanted an excuse to embed this video b/c it was covered on Glee last week and is really just an awesome song…):

Read Full Post »

Are women to blame?

As a woman, this topic interests me. While there are indeed two sides to every story, the short answer to the question is: of course they share the blame if they involve themselves with someone unavailable. Yes, I know all about love and the heart wanting what it wants and all that — I’m not as cold and evil as some would have you believe. And it never fails to crack me up when the liberal lady who believes in feminism declares it perfectly reasonable to, um, tap another lady’s keg (I know, probably disrespectful but i couldn’t think of another metaphor) because marriage is an antiquated restraint that’s bad for the woman. The inconsistency of destroying another woman’s life in the interest of empowering women is hilariously tragic. You know who you are girls. I have met many of you as well.

But ladies, true feminism is standing up and looking out for your sisters. No matter what might be in it for you in the short term. Men, even the best of them, are human (as are we ladies) and can be easily tempted by the flesh. And most women know the scenario of being propositioned by someone who’s not free to do so. It’s even harder when the attraction is emotional and intellectual. Sure, it can be hard to say no, but you should. Do it for women everywhere because, after all, biology hasn’t really served us well in the monogamy game and we should really try to help each other out.

Also, Krauthammer references Chauncey Gardiner in this column. Nice and appropriate. Somehow it comforts me to know Krauthammer has seen this movie. I don’t know why…

Also, thanks to Miss Chelsea at the dance studio, I am incapable of not listening to this artist. Please give “Secretly Dear” your ear. And she’s from the ‘hood. Nice.

Read Full Post »

Still appropriate. Have always loved this guitar riff and when he starts slinging his dreads (braids?) around. Nothing new under the sun…

And, just a few idle thoughts: I had many commitments this weekend (not the least of which was watching UGA get slaughtered live by Tennessee. Man it hurt. I do not love Cox. His passing game leaves a lot to be desired and even Richt has commented that he needs to pass the ball to Green. So, for those of you blaming Richt, I think Cox is a bit of a showboat who over estimates his own talent…I miss Stafford…) so I put most thoughts of politics and world affairs aside for a few days. But Juje and I managed to have a discussion Friday about how it’s important to entertain differences of opinion and avoid only dealing with people who believe exactly what you believe. And that one reason we both tend to gravitate towards conservatism — in addition to the fact that most of the conservative philosophy just makes sense from the perspective of logic and reason — is because others who gravitate in that direction tend to be a little more tolerant of debate and differences of opinion (it could be argued this is simply an “underdog” mentality but I’m not so sure it is). Some of the meanest people I’ve known — those who have been the most willing to cut one to the quick — have been liberals who’ve discovered you do not agree with them. Now, by no means do I think this applies to all liberals. I don’t. Most people are just trying to sort things out and they should be given some latitude to do so. I’m simply saying that the mean liberals are among the meanest people walking. Something Anita Moncrief alludes to here.

But there is the problem of exasperation, even in trying to be tolerant and, hell, maybe learning something you didn’t know before, that comes when the argument just becomes silly because the liberal you are debating starts using tired talking points, emotional appeals intended to produce feelings of guilt, etc, etc.

Then I read this. When did the debate start is a really good question…

Read Full Post »

You know what I have to say about this? aheh….aaaaahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahaha!!! Holy cow ya’ll, that shit is funny! It just confirms my cynicism that humanity finds comfort in the grip of the cult of personality and will seek to promote that shallow state of affairs if possible. So what…is the Nobel committee having trouble paying its bills and maybe not wielding the same heft of respect they have in the past? Cause, ya know, Grandpa Soros is loaded and he knows a lot of people…the irony of awarding the prize to someone for the most shallow of reasons to regain an image of principle would be sad were it not so gut-wrenchingly funny! I love that he took office like two weeks before the nomination deadline….don’t you all find this hilarious?

Well, except you Afghan women’s rights activist and other fellow nominees who were beaten out by the shining star of diplomacy. It’s not so funny for you…

But for the rest of us, wow! What a joke.

I’ll let The Heritage Foundation explain it a little more graciously. (The first comment — from Worldbfree4me (just for you buddy?) — is seriously awesome and those of us from the South will gladly meet you in the parking lot in a few minutes…)

UPDATE: Oh my God, stop it, please! I can’t take anymore…terrorists?…ahahahahaha! These guys should go on the road…

Read Full Post »

Oh the humanity

For this poor fellow, it may rival the tragedy of the Hindenburg. But some dudes just need to have their butt kicked by a drag queen. It’s the only shot they have at finding any humility and becoming decent human beings. Thank you unnamed man in high heels. You’ve done the world a great service.

Read Full Post »

You know that scene in As Good as it Gets where Helen Hunt’s character breaks down to her mother and laments, now that her son is being properly treated, she’s not quite sure how to live her life without that nagging fist in her stomach telling her to be alert, be aware, worry.

Yeah, so do I.

While getting used to that feeling — harder than you think it would be — there’s been ample opportunity for reflection and one concept is a perfect opportunity for deep thinking. Mark Steyn, in his column Friday, brings up a concept that our culture rarely bothers with anymore but it’s as old as mankind and really does hammer down the notion that one’s ability as an artist does not really forgive their human transgressions. Any lover of artistic expression knows the struggle of defending the art not the artist. Anyway, here’s the column. The amazing paragraph is the last (in its entirety below). The paradox of diminishing someone’s artistry by elevating them above what actually defines art is blowing my mind. But that’s not too hard to do these days. Little fragile over here. But no worries. This or something better. Always.

And that, in turn, raises another question: Earlier bad boys – Lord Byron, say – were obliged to operate as “transgressive” artists within a broader moral order. Now we are told that a man such as Polanski cannot be subject to anything so footling as morality: He cannot “transgress” it because, by definition, he transcends it. Yet all truly great art is made in the tension between freedom and constraint. In demanding that an artist be placed above the laws of man, Harvey Weinstein & Co. are also putting him beyond the possibility of art. Which may explain the present state of the movie industry.

Read Full Post »


And also, bravery interests me. What is so egregious about this is that journalism is, by its very nature, a field of work that attracts and demands — indeed, relies — on people who ask these kinds of questions. Punishing Nutting for being, essentially, a journalist, is so laughable it’s not funny. And I mean every word of that.

Read Full Post »