Shouldn't Rich Lowry have the self-awareness to shut the fuck up before embarrassing himself further?
When will Michael Moore film the great social democratic rally? and who is the charismatic leader he may or may not be sleeping with?
She's a lot older there than Moore is. At the same age, she's prettier.
A lot more deceased, too.
Sweet, let's have a who's hotter thread about Riefenstahl and Lowry.
But no masturbating to Leni Riefenstahl!
I mean it, LB.
Pictures of her are off limits, okay, but I can still use the movies, right?
A younger Riefenstahl, as in The New Yorker recently.
It's ok, there's someone around here who digs fat chicks.
I have a sort of grudging admiration for the craziness of the NRO crowd. It assumes that the Dems hold both Houses of Congress and win the Presidency, of course. Otherwise, they're scary. They have built an entire alternate universe. It's amazing.
And yet their alternative universe is less alternative than Podhoretz's -- and thus, presumably, Giuliani's.
You don't think Giuliani pulled NPod in for alt.world street cred?
I think Giuliani is already living in alt.world, and wants to have like-minded people around him.
I thought Riefenstahl was pretty hot in Das Blaue Licht. The film was grainy, though.
I mean, only if you live in alt.world do you think Giuliani's is the foreign policy expertise for us.
22: Only if you live in alt.world can you think of it as `expertise'
16: I dunno. I think Lowry successfully articulates a view that Moore himself might agree with - that Americans have a deeply ingrained self-image that partly explains the country's unwillingness to adopt measures that are common in the rest of the developed world.
On the other hand, it's utterly shameless for Lowrey to accuse Moore of selective reporting and then say: "You would never know that America ranks highest in the world in patient satisfaction, or that only about half of emergency-room patients in Canada get timely treatment."
But that ain't crazy, that dishonest.
Yeah, but I assume candidates on both sides of the aisle end up believing that their experience in FP doesn't matter, because the experience-related knowledge will be available from their advisors. The candidate will supply the mythical "judgment." .
Oh, come on Tim. You read Yglesias's blog, and you know the Giuliani problem is that his only issue is foreign policy and it's an issue he doesn't know anything about. What judgment?
27: What's mythical about judgment? Is it really a matter of expertise to decide between, say, realpolitik and Wilsonian idealism?
Right. I don't think he has any. By which I mean I don't think he--or most of the Republican candidates--have any deep commitments to any FP approach. I mean, "Double Gitmo"? No way does Romney even know what that means. It tested well. If he were elected, he'd go to the Republican FP professional well. From which bucket he'd draw, I do not know.
I just cannot believe that Giuliani doesn't know that NPod is insane. (I should note that I'm another on board for Romney as the least bad Republican.)
As I read 26, Tim is saying that RG's inability to reckon with foreign policy is the same as every candidate's. My reply was meant to indicate that RG has a special problem in this area, as it's meant to be his particular area of expertise. Which, as soubz points out, it's not. What am I not getting?
the Republican FP professional well
From which we have drawn such long cool draughts as Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and Richard Cheney. Ahh, refreshing.
I just cannot believe that Giuliani doesn't know that NPod is insane
This sounds like more SCMTim Pollyannaism. Tim might tuck his kids in bed at night with soothing stories about the Great Sane Republicans who one day will return to the kingdom....
Ah, I think the disconnect is between 22 and 26. I should have said that I assume that many in the Republican infrastructure also assume that FP will be controlled by Republican FP professionals, and that candidates assume that the general electorate isn't voting for experience, but that they need to have a reason to justify--to very light questioning--their reason for voting for Candidate X.
assume that FP will be controlled by Republican FP professionals
I do assume this. It's what worries me.
From which we have drawn such long cool draughts as Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and Richard Cheney. Ahh, refreshing.
Right, but that's the issue--which group does Giuliani or Romney or whoever favor? Or, look, rate the Republican candidates from best to worst. Romney's better the Giuli, who's better than McCain, who's better than Thompson. And those are your choices.
assume that FP will be controlled by Republican FP professionals
Isn't this most of the problem right now?
And those are your choices.
Why are we playing, "would you rather have death or unga bunga?"
40: You started it.You tell me. If NRO doesn't come out for Giuliani, it'll be Thompson.
Romney's better than Giuliani, who's better than McCain, who's better than Thompson. And those are your choices.
In what way is Giuliani better than McCain? And how can you tell what Romney and Thompson actually believe, anyway?
I totally didn't start it. When did I say I prefer Republican presidential candidate x?
Why are we playing, "would you rather have death or unga bunga?"
Ok, we won't play it. But first, unga bunga.
Michael Moore, Michael Moore, that name seems so familiar...Isn't he some kind of uncouth hippie who is rather overweight?
Does current Rep FP count as death by unga bunga?
Does it matter that Lowry fucked his metaphor up? Socialism already had it's Riefenstahl.
49: Who's that? Sergei Eisenstein?
Well, yeah, that's what I figured.
I would rank the GOP contenders, from worst to least bad:
1. McCain: Unlike the others, he's an honest-to-God right winger who believes in it, and the most militaristic of the bunch besides.
2. Giuliani: Gets five bonus points for nominal social liberalism, but 10,000 deducted for being certifiably bonkers.
3. Thompson and Romney tie here, because who the hell knows what they believe? I don't think even they do.
The least bad ones, though, worry me more in a way, as their very blankslateness leaves them vulnerable to a Machiavellian Cheney overlord, and the GOP is crawling with those types.
Reifensthal was the Reifensthal of socialism, dummies. Nazis are the typical socialists.
S/B
Reifensthal was the Reifensthal of socialism, dummies. Nazis are the typical socialists.
We regret the error.
the GOP is crawling with those types
Why does the Democratic Party suffer a Machiavelli gap?
Middle School Students get diplomas with picture of Karl Marx:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-07-12-0170.html
"She really thought she was capturing clip art representing Frederick Douglass. She did a search to pull up Frederick Douglass and this is what came up . . . with the beard and the hair."
John, I wish you'd make that argument in more detail and with greater care.
Would Karl Marx have supported John Brown's raid? I would've said yes, but on second thought I'm trending nein.
Marx was alive at the time; I wouldn't be surprised if he commented on it. But I don't know if he did. Hofstadter called Calhoun "the Marx of the master class", for what it's worth, and some of the proslavery arguments were not unsympathetic to socialism.
But who was the Riefenstahl of socialism, John?
re: 49
And any number of others. Rodchenko? Ogonyek? The Soviet Constructivists? USSR in Construction?
Arguably just as influential on 20th century graphic design and photography.
Check it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kluts_stal.jpg
http://rubymatt.backpackit.com/assets/657/103/image-36.jpg [ATM]
http://rubymatt.backpackit.com/pub/657103
Why does the Democratic Party suffer a Machiavelli gap?
Hug, hug, self-congratulate, hug.
Calhoun is an interesting guy, but I don't really believe that his rather convenient "all labor is slavery" argument gets you anywhere near Marx. Maybe, though, I was too cynical when I read his stuff: it was early 2004.
The least bad ones, though, worry me more in a way, as their very blankslateness leaves them vulnerable to a Machiavellian Cheney overlord,
I believe that Thompson has signaled that he's Cheney's successor, by means of his advisors. Whether that's a false signal or not, I don't know. He's clearly a viable candidate primarily because he is the best available fit with the Bush/Rove base. That makes me think that the signaling is accurate. And those two things make think Thompson is the worst.
59:
He was in favor. Here's a column where he attacks The Economist for attacking Brown.
What about Hitler? Did Marx like Hitler?
In my view, the most momentous thing happening in the world today is the slave movement -- on the one hand, in America, started by the death of Brown*, and in Russia, on the other. You will have read that the aristocracy in Russia literally threw themselves into constitutional agitation and that two or three members of leading families have already found their way to Siberia. At the same time, Alexander has displeased the peasants, for the recent manifesto declares outright that, with emancipation, 'the Communistic principle' must be abandoned. Thus, a 'social' movement has been started both in the West and in the East. Together with the impending downbreak in Central Europe, this promises great things.
I have just seen in the Tribune that there's been another slave revolt in Missouri which was put down, needless to say. But the signal has now been given. Should the affair grow serious by and by, what will become of Manchester?
from Marx to Engels, 11 Jan 1860
Fred Thompson?
"Nach Thompson, uns!"
Yeah. Marx was very pro-union during the Civil War.
Douglass seems to have tried to talk Brown out of the raid beforehand, though.
Is there something we're to glean from this? (Serious question.)
And I was just making fun of Marx. Can we party now?
You mean I should stop looking for my notes on how much Marx loved the union during the war? Okay then.
Wait, there's supposed to be a point to these comments?
looking for my notes on how much Marx loved the union during the war
Don't make me feel guilty, you square.
It's like a piñata, but with all the fun taken out.
-- They blow up into funny shapes and all?
-- No, just square.
Snort. I say again: Who the fuck is Rich Lowry and why do we care?
We do not. Jesus. Fucker can't even write.
I'm semi-serious, actually, not to get in the way of the party. But is the NRO taken seriously by anyone we should be concerned with?
Outside of a dog, the revolutionary is the worker's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to agitate.
Ann Althouse linked to this dog. He wuvs you.
But is the NRO taken seriously by anyone we should be concerned with?
It is the NRO's country. You're just living in it.
Totally off topic, but more interesting than discussions about Lowry: Bull in Pamplona gores two brothers simultaneously - one on each horn!
And of course, a photo to prove it.
I always root for the bulls.
I sent that to Labs about an hour ago, figuring he'd like the apparent double anal.
Ouch. And I mean that literally. OUCH!!!
Clearly, a propensity to being ass-fucked by a bull is genetically determined.
90: This is not the case with pit bulls, however.
91: Who sends their two year old to get his own diaper? That's weird.
I get the feeling there's more to that story than has been reported.
At least it wasn't this dog:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467985&in_page_id=1770
Re: least-bad -- DUDE! What about Ron Paul?!
72.---Yeah, I was curious about whether Marx would have been willing to throw his personal weight behind it, in advance. According to the bio I read, Brown was very disappointed in Douglass's refusal. I've forgotten what firebrand wrote that bio, someone retrospectively feisty!
If that bio is the bio I think it is.... is it this one? Feisty ain't the word, 'zackly.
Hmm. Apparently you are all subject to false consciousness.
Also, I once shot a Kulak in my underwear. I'm not proud of it, but there it is.
How did he get into your underwear?
Well, there was this proletarian comedian's union, which required samples of past jokes, political references and evidence of underwear. And I told them ....
Baby-rapers seem to get a lot more sympathy if they're dogs. Not fair.
103: ever since Rich Little took over on America's Funniest Baby-raping Hounds I feel like it's descended into kitsch. Perhaps it is my coastal elitism.
96: I'm Ron Paul Bitch!
(Runs in circles, gesticulating wildly. Shouts: "nerrrrrr!!!!!!!" Launches, and follows, soaring piles of hundred dollar bills. Runs in circles, chirping.)
(snaps out of it)
Wait, Republicans? They are our prey, no?
Mitt Romney tied his baby raping dog to the roof, just to be safe, but sooner or later it bored through the roof with its titanium cock. Tagg, you're it!
more to that story than has been reported
Right. We haven't heard the dog's side of the story. I expect the dog's lawyer to argue that the kid consented.
Just a redblooded, affectionate, doggy dog entrapped and enticed to his doom by a cunning stinkerbutt spawned in Hell. This happens a lot more than people realize, but PETA is on the case.
97.---No, I'm embarrassed to realise that it was the WEB DuBois biography. Sorry, WEB!
Y'know, I hesitated to link to that story because I thought it might be too awful for even this crowd to joke about. I can't decide whether I'm proud of you or ashamed.
97: Hardly surprising. The Union army was stiff with Germans who had emigrated after 1848, and a lot of them were friends of Marx and Engels.
Breaking: the Minnesota Republican legislator charged with attacking his wife with Bibles was ruled guilty of one misdemeanor change but not guilty of a more serious charge. His wife has forgiven him for attacking her, and he also has forgiven his wife for having been attacked. No word as whether or not he's enjoined from weilding Bibles in his wife's presence.
In the Civil War the famous First Minnesota was about 1/3 foreign born and included one Prussian officer.
FYI, the First Minnesota single-handedly won the Battle of Gettysburg.
91: So Santorum was a prophet after all. He just got the word order wrong.
It's pure foolishness to pronounce any Republican the "least-bad" one. Back during the 2000 primaries, if you had to guess which GOP candidate was least likely to lead us into war, you'd probably go with George Bush, since McCain was the hero of the Weekly Standard and the torchbearer of "national greatness conservatism" while Bush was complaining about Clinton's various interventions in Haiti and the Balkans and promising a "humbler" foreign policy. Empty-headed ciphers like Romney, Thompson, and Bush are impossible to gauge, and are every bit as likely to start a disastrous war as ideologues and outright nuts like Giuliani and McCain. There is no realistic "least-bad" option here.
