In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« More Raw Milk | Main | Janwillem Van de Wetering »

May 27, 2008


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Independent Crime turns up a hilarious old pulp-fiction cover. (Slightly racy.)

* Sister Wolf provides amusing movie reviews of two movies she's certain she'll never see. That's a great new genre of writing, reviews of works you'll never see ...

* Where men go, could "Sex and the City" be the least-anticipated movie ever? (Link thanks to FvB.)

* This subtitled Bollywood "Nipple Song" gave me a good case of the giggles.

* Randall Parker notices that social life has grown so dysfunctional in Mexico that some Mexican police chiefs are demanding that the U.S. grant them asylum.

* MBlowhard Rewind: I wondered about the relationship between negativity and criticism in the arts.



posted by Michael at May 27, 2008


I'd sooner spend 24 hours watching an endless loop of Two Girls One Cup in Taste-o-Vision than sit through Sex and the City.

Posted by: Peter on May 27, 2008 3:15 PM

I don't know where all this "men are horrified by Sex & the City" is coming from - from what I recall from HBOs demographics about its viewers, the show had a sizable male audience. I think SATC has come to represent something to a lot of men that sets their teeth on edge, perhaps because they blame it for the real-life women who emulated the more vacuous elements of the characters, but the actual show was pretty popular with a lot of people - I remember that often brutal, dirty, unsentimental humor about the current dating scene being pretty amusing to men as well.

Posted by: gil on May 27, 2008 3:56 PM

The basis of the column is that all over America women will be insisting that men accompany them to a showing of Sex And The City. Why? Do men insist that women accompany them to a showing of Rambo IV or to a ballgame or that women watch The World Series of Poker with them? They do not.
Why can't a more like a man?

Posted by: ricpic on May 27, 2008 5:12 PM

I loved SatC from the very episode with the Toxic Bachelors. Since I'm one myself, I laughed myself silly at hearing my own philosophy of male/female relations (at the time) echoed back to me from the TV. Interestingly, the women I was watching it with didn't find that part amusing at all.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 27, 2008 10:36 PM

The Indian song is indeed hilarious, as are all movies that contain songs in languages we don't understand, even if they are no more inherently foolish than half of what's on MTV.

This is Homer Simpson-level commentary, Michael. Not up to you usual standard

Posted by: David C on May 28, 2008 2:16 AM

David C:

Why would you assume that because something gives you the giggles, that means you think it's "inherently foolish"? Don't people often giggle at things without making any kind of judgment about their "inherent" nature at all?

Posted by: PatrickH on May 28, 2008 10:42 AM

Peter -- I suspect you aren't alone!

Gil -- I wonder too. Maybe it's the fact that it's a movie now? Or have attitudes changed? Anyway, apparently it's a real fact -- marketing surveys have shown that where men go "Sex and the City" may genuinely be the least-anticipated movie ever. Anne Thompson put up a link to one such survey, but I can't find it now ... It's got me feeling the beginnings of perversity -- maybe I should check the movie out just because so many straightguys are going to avoid it. Then again ...

Ricpic -- The cliche used to be that guys usually did choose which movie to see. That's one reason why the culture was so flooded with pix for 16 year old boys -- because the guy chose the movie. I wonder if that's still the case. And I wonder something sadder: Whatever happened to movies that both people in a couple can enjoy? The great ol' romantic comedies weren't just for women.

DavidC -- I wish *more* of my blogging were up to Homer Simpson's level! Anyway, I love your enthusiasm about Bollywood, but do you really think there's any malice in the video I linked to? It seems to me quite innocent. I assume that Indians find English funny, btw, and enjoy some chuckles at it. And why not? All that aside, my real point in linking to stuff like this is to highlight the fact we're going through an amazing development in cultural history. Real everyday people now have access to tools -- video, editing, distribution -- that in the past only pros could command. Fun to take note of that fact. Fun to take note of how they're putting them to use too. Still hoping you'll put up an intro-to-Bollywood 101 blogposting someday, or at least a recommended viewing list for those eager to dip a toe in.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 28, 2008 12:00 PM

Michael: Whatever happened to movies that both people in a couple can enjoy? The great ol' romantic comedies weren't just for women.

Well, women call the shots, today, in the culture, because men are wimps. Wusses, who let things get to where they are now, vis-a-vis egalitarianism, of all kinds, racial, sexual, and so on. It's easier to say, "Yes, dear!" and go along with women, and still get laid, than to say no, to the predominant trends of the day, where women are leading the charge, and risk losing out. And so, men surrender.

Anyone who wants to understand why things are as they are, must, among other things, read F. Roger Devlin. Here are some of his writings:

A couple at the Last Ditch:

And some more, elsewhere:

One should also read Fred Reed:

Posted by: anon on May 29, 2008 1:27 AM

Part II of the second article I linked above, is up:

I won't link any more of them, don't worry. Enjoy free-thinking, my fellow men! It's refreshing.

Posted by: anon on June 3, 2008 12:40 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?