Re: Bits

1

Wow, the Susan Powter video is extraordinary.

Just . . . something.

It isn't completely crazy. It's mostly sympathetic and not too far off from sane, and then it has these moments that are surreal.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
2

The egg-eating video is fantastic.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
3

I endorse 1 and 2.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
4

I think watching Faye Dunaway eating the hard boiled egg just parked itself right next to her turn as Joan Crawford on my list of great Faye Dunaway performances.


Posted by: benjamin | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
5

Now I really want an egg.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
6

This Franken speech is excellent. A really great framing of Where Constitutional Law Is At In The Year 2010 And How It Got Here. Franken's well on his way to making himself my new favorite Senator, and he'd be the second one in a row from Minnesota (Paul Wellstone, PBUH, being my most recent favorite Senator).


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
7

If only Dawn Johnsen had spent her career like Elena Kagan, as a Democratic political hack who kissed Scalia's ass in public and never said or did anything controversial! Then she would have been confirmed, no problem! Oh well...what can you do with those impractical types. It's their own fault, really.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
8

So wasteful, not eating the shell in an economic downturn. Powter ate everything but the stem.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
9

7:And just when the NYT article on Kagans' family had increased my support.

Aren't we approaching the time of year when SCOTUS hits the news with decisions?

Everything most excellent in this post. old bearded men is downloading


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
10

Is that rain coming down
Or is that gasoline
Oh Susannah, light that match
Let's find out where we've been.

Thanks, apo


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
11

Fantastic short youtube video, "dancing queen".


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
12

If we're linking, then my contribution is the stuff found on the pages of the 'International Society for the Philosophy of Architecture'. It will resonate with anyone who, like me, went to architecture school. Or who has encountered pseudo-intellectual theorising in some other walk of life. That could be lots of you.

The writing - and it is pretty much all just words, I'm afraid - tries to be high-falutin and philosophical but unfortunately it repeatedly undermines itself by being ungrammatical. The 'about' page is especially good. I wanted to email the authors directly and ask them to improve, but I was stopped: apparently it's better not to blog or email when not completely sober.



Posted by: Charlie | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
13

||

I have an ethical question. The movie theater down the street is showing Toy Story 3, Sex and the City 2, and The Ghost. Toy Story 3 might be okay, but the Ghost looks the most interesting. It is, however, directed by Roman Polanski.

I wouldn't have any problem watching any of his pre-teen-rape films, but I'm wondering whether it's okay to enrich him for work done during a time period when he should have been in prison.

|>


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
14

13: I boycott, but don't judge those who don't. Just don't see Sex & The City 2, as apparently the only person you'll be hurting is yourself.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
15

apparently it's better not to blog or email when not completely sober.

It is? Fuck.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
16

Just don't see Sex & The City 2, as apparently the only person you'll be hurting is yourself.

Or you could see it and entertain us all by telling us about it! This review was kind of amusing.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
17

I kind of liked the TV show, but I never saw Sex and City 1, so I'm not going to watch 2 first, and my BF would not want to see that. They had that Disney How to Train your Dragon, but the last showtime was at 5. Babies is also showing.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:47 PM
horizontal rule
18

Is this an open thread, to be filled with entertaining and hilarious earnest links and serious moral dilemmas?

Will There be Bicycles in the Post-Oil Future ...oildrum. Based in part on James Howard Kunstler's new novel. Not much more than a question

John Emerson, part 2 of his historical analysis of the Democratic Party

I have now gotten thru both seasons of Party Down(?), even tho I don't like it and it doesn't make me laugh. I lie. Gravity is just decent, if you can stand Eric Schaeffer. I like him.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:49 PM
horizontal rule
19

I think Babies looks interesting, and I say that as someone not particularly into babies. But if it's a date situation, don't ask me!


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
20

And just when the NYT article on Kagans' family had increased my support.

Try this article as a corrective. Then follow up with a few of her White House emails.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
21

But Teo, if you're thought of as a person whose basic good character is revealed in drunkenness, you may be OK.


Posted by: Charlie | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 4:54 PM
horizontal rule
22

You know, that is a good speech by Franken. Really good. And he focuses on the business cases, which really are the big problem with the Roberts Court but which non-lawyers never talk about. I hope a lot of folks read it; it's the first place I'd refer any non-expert who wants a quick read on the problems of the Court.

It's interesting that he gave the speech with Breyer in the room. Breyer is almost as bad -- in some cases worse -- on the business cases as the Republicans. It's good if he and the other SCOTUS liberals know that the folks on their side actually care about this shit.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
23

Response to 11.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
24

You know, that is a good speech by Franken. Really good. And he focuses on the business cases, which really are the big problem with the Roberts Court but which non-lawyers never talk about. I hope a lot of folks read it; it's the first place I'd refer any non-expert who wants a quick read on the problems of the Court.

This convinced me to read the text of the speech, and I just e-mailed the link to a bunch of my friends.

It was well worth reading.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
25

13

I wouldn't have any problem watching any of his pre-teen-rape films, but I'm wondering whether it's okay to enrich him for work done during a time period when he should have been in prison.

This is a little unclear. If he had just served the rest of his 90 days instead of fleeing the country he would have been free and clear long ago.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
26

Response to 11.

I liked it, but that felt like a commercial.

I really like some elements of the filmaking in 11 -- like the little bits of green from the garden in the background.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
27

But Teo, if you're thought of as a person whose basic good character is revealed in drunkenness, you may be OK.

I suppose I probably am such a person, so I guess I'm fine.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
28

OT:
I'm off to my daughter's debutante ball. White tie and tails, baby! Wish me luck, pretend internet friends! It wouldn't do to stumble while she does her curtsey.


Posted by: Tassled Loafred Leech | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
29

A debutante ball! No kidding. I didn't know that was the done thing anymore.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
30

Although I had a conversation recently with a small town Texan colleague, where she off-handedly mentioned the 1100 guests at her daughter's wedding, (as part of a larger story about crazy weather during formal events.) 1100 guests.

I was totally shocked and spoke up and she - and the third person in the conversation - both asserted that in small towns, you either have to invite everyone or limit it to immediate family. So at least in that small town, weddings can run to 1100 for not-particularly-wealthy people. Holy cow.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
31

pre-teen rape films seem pretty bad to me.

Meanwhile, Polanski was hardly a paragon of cinematic virtue before he had the unfortunate run in with the young-lady-what-as-was-asking-for-it and the quaaludes and the champagne bottle.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
32

30: Jeebus. Having catered and played music at some weddings, I have 120 as the constitutes-big-wedding number. Anything above that is big. 1100 is insane.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
33

30: at my cousin's wedding they were obliged to invite all the members of their church, but they only ended up at 250 or so.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
34

That right there an argument for eloping to Vegas.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
35

^ is


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
36

||

Don't drink two-day-old iced coffee that's been sitting in your fridge.

This message is mostly for Brock.

|>


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
37

36: Personal experience? If so, if the cheese didn't have any blue bits when you bought it, don't eat it if it get some later.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
38

Ghost is a film, not a book or cd, and as a collaborative effort, you will be boycotting the work of probably over 100 people including Ewan MacGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Tom Wilkinson, Kim Cattrall, and especially Olivia Williams. Now perhaps all those people deserve to die to suffer for working with a monster, or perhaps they are monsters themselves. I do not kept close and accurate watch on artist's private lives to determine who does or does not need boycotting in order to feed my self-righteousness create the feminist utopia.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
39

Hasn't Ewan MacGregor suffered enough already?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
40

If I'd invited everyone in the town where I grew up AND all my relatives to my wedding, I'd still have topped out around 700. Do you even know all your guests when there are 1100?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
41

I bet Ewan MacGregor could keep track of 1100 guests.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
42

I could have probably hit 500 guests for our wedding without inviting anybody who I didn't know (well, or at least who wasn't coupled to somebody I know)


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
43

36: Also, don't stick your finger in the path of an electric hedge clipper...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
44

If you must place part of your body in the path of an electric hedge clipper, use a toe.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
45

and especially Olivia Williams

Shorter bob: it has a hot woman in it! I can't skip it!


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
46

Do they have to provide for that many at the reception too, or do they just arrange space for them at the ceremony?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
47

45:Should I respond to this idiocy?

Would I be respectable if I only watched movies with all-male casts, or movies with nothing but fiercely unattractive actresses? This severely limits my options, but Up is available on OnDemand.

I gained respect for Williams via Dollhouse

"I love working and the next person who comes up with an abrasive, intelligent woman I shall snap it up." ...OW


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
48

I gained respect for Williams via Dollhouse

So did I. But I don't think the well-being of the other people involved in the movie is a legitimate consideration for addressing Bostoniangirl's question. They knew Polanski's past and chose to work with him; it doesn't make them monsters, but I think if you conclude that it's morally wrong to see his movies and choose not to see them (I don't think I conclude that, but if so), then they aren't being unfairly damaged by your choice. It's not as if Bostoniangirl seeing or not seeing this movie is going to lead to them starving.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
49

||

I have been known to mock the Pirates, but now it has gotten completely absurd. With everything going wrong, apparently the only person to be fired is the guy who dresses like a pierogi.

|>


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
50

I'm with 14 ("I boycott, but don't judge those who don't"). Myself, I would not knowingly contribute even a penny toward the enrichment of Roman ("it is chic and urbane and euro-sophisticated to drug and rape and sodomize a 13-year old girl, and the Americans, those barbarians, they just don't understand") Polanski, but I understand that the lines get a bit blurry when it's a project involving probably at least a couple of hundred people, and YMMV.

I do judge those who sign petitions on "Roman's" behalf, however. I judge them to be misguided at the very least, and probably blinded by guild prejudice, which is just another form of tribalism ('he's one of us, so he can't really be guilty').


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
51

Up is available on OnDemand.

Not the Russ Meyer one, I presume.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
52

51: We had Beyond the Valley of the Dolls on OnDemand once.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
53

The Al Franken speech is wonderful, and all the more effective because he's so quiet and matter-of-fact. It's not a sarcastic or baiting or rip-roaring manifesto at all. I'll definitely be sharing it.

With regard to patronizing the work of people who have done objectionable things, this is one of those areas where I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all principle. Certainly for me I weigh the costs differently when it is still a live issue -- e.g. when Brett Myers was still pitching for the Phillies; that Roman Polanski is still alive and making new movies.

But I don't think the difference is really about not wanting to "enrich" people as it is about not wanting to appear to endorse or condone their behavior. It's like continuing to socialize with someone who tells racist jokes.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
54

|| I think the peanut butter and jelly sandwich I didn't eat yesterday or today, and which has not been refrigerated, may not get eaten. |>


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
55

54: Express mail overnight to Btock?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
56

If you do eat it, just give us a brief report.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
57

55: Why waste money for fast delivery?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
58

I have to agree with bob in applying the word "idiocy" to the idea of boycotting The Ghost Writer.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
59

He was applying the word "idiocy" to my comment, which wasn't directly suggesting boycotting it.

I'm afraid I have a bad habit on nights like this when I'm busy doing other things but want a distraction of poking at people like bob and Shearer without engaging in actual argument or discussion.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
60

This year, I only plan to watch the Steelers when they are on defense or special teams.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
61

50: I'm with you on this one. He's scum and talent doesn't change that.

However, I don't see why the lines are blurry. There are few endeavors that involve only a single person, and if the rest can't be shunned because of supposed collateral damage we're pretty much left with the choice between doing nothing and the bullet.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
62

The thing that makes the boycott issue slightly tricky for me is that I'm sure there are any number of works of art (books, movies, whatever) I've enjoyed that morally suspect people were involved in creating. I tend to think they should be judged on their own merits, independent of their creators. This standard makes lots of sense when the creators are no longer alive. I can see why it gets trickier when Polansky is alive and profiting, but it's not like my individual choice to see the movie or not has a very significant impact on his well-being. And it's not as if the people seeing the movie are really the ones at fault for his escaping punishment -- that would be the governments that have failed to extradite him. I don't like extending moral culpability to people who did nothing but buy a movie ticket. So I feel like the boycott is almost more of an aesthetic judgment -- I feel a visceral sense of 'ick' knowing that Polansky is associated with something -- than it is a moral stand. Is it really my place to try to enforce some moral judgment on Polansky?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:17 PM
horizontal rule
63

On the other hand, I feel totally okay about punishing the Grand Canyon for the choices of the people of Arizona.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:20 PM
horizontal rule
64

On the other hand, I feel totally okay about punishing the Grand Canyon for the choices of the people of Arizona.

I'm a bit ambivalent about that one, myself.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:23 PM
horizontal rule
65

No more masturbating to Manute Bol.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
66

Your persistent misspelling of his name is punishment enough for Polanski, essear.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
67

bob mcmanus, when you come back, answer me this: Have you seen The Bad Sleep Well?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:27 PM
horizontal rule
68

The Grand Canyon can go dig a hole somewhere, for all I care. I mean, what has it done for us lately? At the very least it could pitch in and reservoir some oil.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
69

It got you that danish.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:40 PM
horizontal rule
70

This UP has come to in Demand listings.

67:Is that Kurosawa? I think I saw the end of it when TCM was doing a festival a little while back. Not enough to count as seeing it.

Yeah, looked it up. The ones I really wanted to see were mostly on well past my bedtime.

Law Abiding Citizen really sucked tonight.

38 isn't meant to be as snarky as it looks. I couldn't work with or sup with Polanski. I can only guess that artists take certain principles and practices about separating the private person from the public artist very seriously indeed, and that leads me to re-examine my own attitudes about it.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:41 PM
horizontal rule
71

I didn't get any danish.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:47 PM
horizontal rule
72

You weren't around, so I ate it. But that's not the Grand Canyon's fault.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:53 PM
horizontal rule
73

When you love someone,
And it goes to waste.
Could it be worse?

See, art is being made everyday by just regular, everyday people, and some of them senior citizens in advanced stages of illness who are about to die, but they still have something within them that they want to convey, and that some few of them manage to make heroic efforts to get out. It's actually not at all typical to claim "artistry" as a pretext/justification for statutory rape. It is the worst sort of elitism and star-fuckery, if you'll excuse my language, to advance such claims, and McManus, I'm frankly surprised by your blind spot here, and please don't give me any snarky nonsense about a feminist utopia (yeah, when underaged kids are no longer prey to 40-year old pedophiles, what a scary liberal-totalitarian nanny-state that will be!). Also, anyone is a bit of a moral monster who doesn't feel something while watching/listening to this.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-19-10 11:59 PM
horizontal rule
74

The Grand Canyon is such a moocher. Why do we have to protect it when it can't even protect my danish?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 12:02 AM
horizontal rule
75

it's actually not at all typical to claim "artistry" as a pretext/justification for statutory rape. It is the worst sort of elitism and star-fuckery, if you'll excuse my language, to advance such claims

Jesus fuck. How the hell could anyone misread me so badly, or have that sort of opinion of me? Try again, because that is very offensive. Quote the section you think says that. I am interested.

As far as the feminist utopia, I just don't see how boycotting Polanski movies will really make a substantial difference, will change that world. What I have seen is that a political line has been drawn in certain circles that demands a very strict conformity and certainty. The people who boycott the movies are facing a crowd that will ask them why they bought the ticket, and will find no answer acceptable.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 12:27 AM
horizontal rule
76

I did, in the end, go, and it was kind of weird being aware of Polanski's own history. There were scenes in the beginning set in London, which were obviously not shot there, and I caught myself thinking, "Well, of course, Polanski can't go to England." Then, there was the whole bit about Boston and realizing that it was supposed to be on Martha's Vineyard as opposed to some non-descript island off of Canada. And then again, "Well, obvioously Polanski wasn't in Belmont or on Martha's Vineyard."

Then there's a part where the British former PM Adam Lang realizes that he might be stuck in the U.S. if he wants to evade the International Criminal Court. In a weird way, the constrained and less than accurate landscape reinforced this point, since it held true for the director as well. (The general point is not mine and was noted by the Guardian reviewer, but the visual effect of it was strong for me.)


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
77

53: The Al Franken speech is wonderful, and all the more effective because he's so quiet and matter-of-fact.

Seconding Witt. It is definitely worth a watch, not just a read.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
78

The blog is returning to its roots! Unfogged: the world's best swimming blog! Thanks Apo!


Posted by: ukko | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
79

Smeltz! Smeltz!


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
80

fuck


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
81

Bob, speaking only for myself, I'm not trying to do avoid his movies to hurt or punish Polanski, since I'm sure he doesn't care about me and whether I go or not. It's something I do for myself, because I don't want to participate in condoning Polanski and avoiding his work is the only way I can feel like I'm doing that. But I do feel I'm doing it for my own benefit, especially since this is the first time I've talked about it.

I know I'm not totally internally consistent. I leave the room if "To Catch a Predator" comes on because the style and content will leave me ranting furiously otherwise, but I watched the NBA finals even though I think the allegations against Kobe were credible. I'll never root for him, but I did watch. (Plus I'm convinced there's probably a high rate of sexual assault among pro athletes, given the amount of power they wield combined with ego and so on; I certainly don't think Kobe and Roethlisberger -- whose name I'm pretty sure I misspelled, but my failure to check s laziness rather than boycott -- are definitely not in some exclusive ugly club.) I work with what I know to make myself comfortable, and that doesn't mean I believe the movies I see are pure all the way down to the best boy (grip) or anything, but I still don't go to see Polanski's films either.

I actually really liked reading Bostoniangirl's insights into the film. I was a teen when the movie Heavenly Creatures came out and I was fascinated by its depiction of a passionate friendship between teen girls who kill one's mother because they think she's keeping them apart. Around the time the movie came out, it was revealed that one of the girls had grown up to write mysteries under the name Anne Perry, so I read a few of those. I remember how creepy it was to read "though, of course, murder is always wrong," from someone I knew had once participated in one, not to mention that to solve the mystery, all you had to do was figure out which character was secretly queer.

I assume other people make these sorts of decisions all the time for other reasons. I'm not trying to live in an echo chamber and don't think I've done much if anything to establish a "feminist utopia" but sexual assault and child abuse are issues that I personally particularly care about and thus that probably have a disproportionate impact on my decisions, and I'm a bit surprised anyone would be shocked by that.

I actually really


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
82

79, 80: I was thinking of you, Keir! (I fucking hate the Azzurri.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
83

82: Yeah, a bit of embellishment on that one.

Unfortunately, the "possession in offensive zone with ensuing dangerous chances" stat is definitely a bit one-sided at this point.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
84

fuck Italian theatrics.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
85

France seems to be falling apart. There is a cheap joke there that I will resist.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
86

84: Actually, I'm quite fond of Italian theatrics. Just not on the fucking soccer field (football pitch, however you like).


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
87

What a bs penalty that was. To hell with Italy. They should be ashamed.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
88

Guiseppe de Rossi < Portia de Rossi.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
89

Arg. Daniele de Rossi.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
90

Despite really not liking Italian histrionics, my righteous outrage is rather muted in this case given their dominance in possession and quality chances. No grave injustice done. But NZ looking better now than the latter part of the first half.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
91

my righteous outrage is rather muted in this case

Yeah, because those Kiwis may not have been guilty of that penalty, but you know they've done something.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
92

Like being offsides on their goal if you want to be a hypertechinical American about it.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
93

You mean offside, and they weren't. The scorer was onside when his teammate last touched it. The deflection was from the Italian defender. Ergo, safe.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
94

To be a hypertechnical American about it.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
95

93: Nope, offside, teammate grazed it with head in the box, after the initial pass.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
96

I don't think it did.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
97

On that I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, but I watched it a number of times on tivo, and didn't see the ball touch the teammate.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
98

My larger point being, no big injustice done either way.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
99

Flipped over to Univision from ESPN. Same feed, but the stadium audio (and the horns) is much louder.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
100

I think that these situations are not equivalent. You are sanctioning one of the most disgusting aspects of the game--intentional diving.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
101

Sanctioning not really the right word there.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
102

99: Enjoy it wherever you may be.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
103

And point taken.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
104

As good as Italy!

(Well, near enough.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
105

"The flightless bird, the Kiwi, has taken flight today." Quoth Bob Kostas.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
106

How the hell could anyone misread me so badly, or have that sort of opinion of me?

Well, I don't think I've misread you, though I'm thinking of comments you've made in other threads. And I don't have a poor opinion of you, but I do think you are very wrong about the Polanski case. And if you're going to make snarky comments about feminism, you're probably going to get called on it (and I think it's fine to make snarky comments, btw, but it's also fine for someone else to counter that).


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
107

France seems to be falling apart.

I don't know which is more amazing, the fact that the deputy director of the FFF walked off the job today, or the fact that during all of this Domenech went on TF1 to do a debate with Bixente Lizarazu about the situation. And then Ribéry showed up uninvited...


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
108

But that statement is so French; arrogant and militant.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
109

I walked into the local South African bar (yeah, I know, it's weird that we have one) at the half and blurted to an Aussie friend (who's rooting for the Kiwis), "So, are the Italians falling down a lot as planned?" Cue a room full of pro-Italy people whipping their heads around and glaring at me. Oops.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
110

75: What I have seen is that a political line has been drawn in certain circles that demands a very strict conformity and certainty.

bob, this sounds like a generalized complaint about what you perceive to be political correctness -- which is what I take it Mary Catherine's sarcastic reference to the immanent "scary liberal-totalitarian nanny-state" in 73 is in response to.

But this, 75.last: The people who boycott the movies are facing a crowd that will ask them why they bought the ticket, and will find no answer acceptable.

Isn't clearly true: most of the pro-boycott people who've spoken up in this thread agree that there's no necessarily harsh judgment against those movie-goers who have made a different decision. There's room for discussion about the matter, and divergent conclusions are tolerated.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
111

110:Take a close look at this, pars, that MC still feels is an accurate representation of my views.

73:it's actually not at all typical to claim "artistry" as a pretext/justification for statutory rape. It is the worst sort of elitism and star-fuckery, if you'll excuse my language, to advance such claims

and recognize that the first sentence does not pertain to any forgiveness of or indifference to particular rapists, nor is it talking about artistic depictions (Lolita, Prett Baby), but very clearly talking about acts of rape themselves being justified by artistry, elitism, and star-fuckery

There are so many different paths to being accused of being objectively pro-baby-fucking. One of them is apparently just not giving much of a damn about Roman Polanski.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
112

I was working up something last about about an incommensurate intensity of affect being an impediment to conversation. I think the Vegan and the enthusiastic carnivore might talk more easily to each other than to the indifferent omnivore, and both might reprove the indifferent with a shocked:"But don't you care?"

Along with this, I was wondering how someone attempting empathy with others who deal with intense affects driven by personal experience can honestly relate. It is inescapable truth that I will not care as much about racism as a minority would, and the ways whites overcompensate are well understood. essear's comment at 45.

I try to avoid such traps of inauthenticity, but it does in certain setting, leave one open.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
113

111.last: I doubt anyone was accusing you of being pro-baby-fucking, but I see your point as presented.

I'm having trouble following 112, but that's probably because it's 90-damn million degrees, Fahrenheit, here.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
114

so many different paths to being accused of being objectively pro-baby-fucking

For example.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-10 2:11 PM
horizontal rule