October 29, 2004
ENDORSEMENT EXAMINED
Perhaps we were too hasty in describing Christopher Hitchens' puzzling election rumination as a Kerry "endorsement". Harry Hutton and his gifted academic nephew take a closer look:
If I’ve got this right, the subjective votes and the objective votes cancel each other out, but Kerry wins on some kind of ironic level. You would need a fucking PhD in Irony Studies to make any sense of this.
As luck would have it, my nephew is in the third year of an Ironic Degree at Oxford. He explains: "There are several layers of irony here, most of which you will be too dim to perceive. His endorsement of Bush a few days ago is best interpreted as some kind of sophisticated double-bluff irony feinting manoeuvre, rendering today’s support for Kerry even wittier than it already would have been.
"There is no way that Kerry should be elected –indeed, he should be 'pilloried' and pelted with fruit. And yet Kerry should be elected, precisely because he doesn't want to be. What we lose in 'principles', we gain in irony.
"I'm still trying to decode that bit about Pat Buchanan. I'll get back to you."
Speaking of hasty, James Lileks writes:
The older I get, the more I rethink that whole Ginger v. Mary Ann thing. Someone needs to make the case for Ginger, is all I’m saying.
Case made.
Posted by Tim Blair at October 29, 2004 02:54 AMNope,
I'm still not convinced. Maybe I'm just not "nuanced" enough. MaryAnne reigns supreme. Although I wouldn't be above watching a MaryAnne/Ginger mud-wrestling match on pay-per-view. That is if we could turn back the clock to about 1966.
Posted by: Joe Bagadonuts at October 29, 2004 at 04:43 AMSomeone needs to make the case for Ginger, is all I’m saying.
What's her net worth?
Posted by: John Forbes Kerry at October 29, 2004 at 05:04 AMI just want to note for those of you who are, like me, pure of heart and uninterested in any salacious content, and therefore would not be clicking on the Tina Louise link in the normal course of events: Click.
There you will find the interesting fact that Tina Louise was Playboy Playmate for November, 1963 (I did not know that) via a saucy calendar from the "Johnson Petroleum Company". Naturally you will be only interested in a sort of cultural anthropology of the sexual mores of our parents' generation, and will not be sniggering at the juxtaposition of the naked Tina and the word "Johnson", and will certainly not be laughing at loud at the "Gallon" part.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at October 29, 2004 at 05:11 AMWow. Ginger Rodgers had a thing for Mary Ann Mobley. I wonder if Fred Astaire knew that.
Posted by: Gary at October 29, 2004 at 06:03 AMNo competition...
This... http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/2331/Events/2331/TinaLouise_McCar_2066147_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Louise,%20Tina
versus
This...
http://www.dawn-wells.com/
Mary Ann was better then and is better now.
Posted by: lewisinnyc at October 29, 2004 at 06:09 AMGuys, sexual fantasies aren't like politics where you only get to vote for one candidate. Instead you can have, you know, the best of both worlds. Pull the lever for both!
Posted by: Patrick Banks at October 29, 2004 at 09:47 AMHave you noticed that Hitchens, Sullivan, etc. all seem to come down on Kerry's side because they think being President will force him to do something he doesn't want to do, and force the Democratic Party to become something other than what it now is?
Is it just me, or is voting for someone because it will be good therapy for them if they win really weird?
And is it just ass-backwards to vote for someone because who they really are isn't who you want to elect, but you think maybe if you elect them they will turn into a different persn who you would want to vote for?
Thats some weak shit, no?
Posted by: R C Dean at October 29, 2004 at 10:00 AMOh, Mary Ann... but keep an island on the side for Ginger, knowwhutImean, nudge nudge, wink wink...
Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 29, 2004 at 10:42 AM*Pull the lever for both!*
Is that what you boys call it these days?
Whoops! -- R.C. Dean, I guess great minds do think alike. ;)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 29, 2004 at 10:56 AM"And is it just ass-backwards to vote for someone because who they really are isn't who you want to elect, but you think maybe if you elect them they will turn into a different persn who you would want to vote for?"
Sounds like a woman selecting her spouse. They look at men for what they think they can turn them into with the inevitable effect of making both of the them unhappy.
Same result likely here.
Posted by: Michael Gill at October 29, 2004 at 11:02 AMDemocrats do seem to be from Venus, and Republicans are obviously from Mars.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 29, 2004 at 11:08 AMLewisinNYC: Thanks for the Dawn Wells site. Her recipes look like great white-trash cooking (my favorite kind)! And I'm not being ironic.
Posted by: NJ Sue at October 29, 2004 at 11:19 AMHow much did the Dem foreign policy establishment learn & mature during eight years of Clinton’s presidency?
Posted by: ForNow at October 29, 2004 at 02:15 PMHow much did the Dem foreign policy establishment learn & mature during eight years of Clinton’s presidency?
Quite a bit. They're mature moonbats now, rather than just larvae.
Posted by: PW at October 29, 2004 at 03:01 PM>Guys, sexual fantasies aren't like politics where you only get to vote for one candidate. Instead you can have, you know, the best of both worlds. Pull the lever for both!
Brilliant reply! But the sad thing is, that then we couldn't talk about Ginger and Mary Ann.