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

« From the WSJ | Main | Courbet, Seen Darkly »

June 16, 2009


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

That Cirque du Soleil crowd really knows how to party: here, here, here. Why wasn't I invited?



posted by Michael at June 16, 2009


Circus performers remind me of dancers. Toni Bentley wrote a book (not the ahem one) about her dancing days, and she mentioned that dancers were almost like animals in the way they lived in and through their bodies. So it doesn't surprise me that Cirque performers liked to get down and do the deed.

I'm getting the most amazing pictures in my mind as I imagine what a Cirque du Soleil orgy would be like. Just think of the furry people on stilts!

Posted by: PatrickH on June 16, 2009 7:15 AM

Hell, I like orgy stories as much as anybody, but orgy stores are always exactly the same.

You're missing the boat by not pounding on the Letterman-Palin story, Michael.

Something about it that doesn't interest you?

It's classic, if you ask me. Indianan turned New Yorker, Letterman, venting his spleen on the purported hick from Alaska.

So much of this hatred from the sophisticates directed at the supposed naifs is the weird notion that sex exists only among the city slickers and leftist ideologically driven perverts. Even you, our beloved moderater, consistently state this notion that sex probably isn't happening outside NYC, and if it is, the rubes probably don't know how to do it right.

This argument strikes me as pretty funny. Orgies are happening everywhere, from the styx to the cities. Same holes, same positions. Romance is being practiced in just about the same fashion in Bumfuck, Idaho as it is in Manhattan.

The notion among the liberal coastal crowd that they alone know how to fuck correctly is just plain laughable. And, isn't this the bottom line of the hatred directed at Palin? She doesn't know how to fuck right. The dumb bitch only fucks to produce brats! God alone know, the fact that she's produced a brood is the ultimate proof of this. She couldn't be fucking for any other reason, right? And, of course, she must want to send the military in to execute the participants of gay orgies. This is just obvious to anybody with any sense.

I can remember quite well meeting many sophisticates in NYC who believed quite ferociously in this formulation, and who believed that their cosmopolitan, leftist outlook meant that they alone knew how to properly conduct a life of sexual pleasure. Funny thing, many of these people couldn't get along with another human being and hadn't been laid in years. Theoretically, however, they were leading a wild and crazy love and sex life. Specific stories provided upon request.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 16, 2009 10:03 AM

ST: I can remember quite well meeting many sophisticates in NYC who believed quite ferociously in this formulation, and who believed that their cosmopolitan, leftist outlook meant that they alone knew how to properly conduct a life of sexual pleasure.

Maybe Mencken was looking in the wrong place and got it all backwards - his quip should have been about this lot. "Libertinism - the desperately suppressed suspicion that somewhere some Puritan (hick, god-botherer, governor of Alaska) is having much hotter sex than you will ever have."

Palin is as useless as the next politician, but it is undeniable that what drives her obsessed detractors nuts is her sex appeal and fecundity. Down-home libido and shameless sprogging - so tasteless in a white woman.

ST: Specific stories provided upon request.

Do tell.

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 16, 2009 4:54 PM

"Palin is as useless as the next politician, but it is undeniable that what drives her obsessed detractors nuts is her sex appeal and fecundity. Down-home libido and shameless sprogging - so tasteless in a white woman."

I can only speak for my own feeling of repulsion toward Palin, but you have it all wrong, Moira. I'm a father of 3 whose wife looks quite a bit like Ms. Palin, so it is definitely NOT her fecundity that offends, nor her attractiveness ("I'd totally hit that"). I just don't like her style or sensibility. Not to mention her tenuous, at best, grasp of basic issues and her inability to formulate a thought outside of talking points.

It's baffling to me the way some people frame the left's dislike of Palin as some kind of fear of the visceral or something. From her appearance on SNL, when she was dancing in her chair, you could tell she knew how to party by the way she moved. Gotta love that. I just don't want her anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: JV on June 16, 2009 9:31 PM

I've never seen such white-faced shaking visceral hatred of anyone by anyone to compare to the hatred felt for Sarah Palin by liberal left feminist women. They knew, somehow, that Palin represented something, a way of life, a set of choices, that was in some way I still only faintly comprehend, an attack on every value they had chosen to live by...not in career, or in politics, but in reproduction.

Modern feminism inculcates in its followers a guilt complex about abortion and childlessness that is like a gaping wound in their psyche. This inculcation is not of course part of overt feminist agitprop; obviously it's something that flies in under the radar, so to speak, via channels of the mind that used to be talked about in terms like repression, the shadow, in emotions like loss and grief and regret. Palin somehow represented to women of a certain age a repudiation of their choices about babies and family, whether or not these women had ever had an abortion or were proud mothers of five or six children themselves.

Palin pushed feminist buttons in a way that no man ever has. Abortion in particular is like slavery used to be: a stain on the collective conscience of a nation. The defenders of abortion knew that Palin represented their repudiation.

Imagine if the feminist pro choice movement loses the historical argument. How do you think they will be judged by history?

Not very kindly, I should think. The hatred for Palin is based on fear, I believe, that the repressed values of their own guilty consciences will become the dominant culture of the future, and the dark thoughts they think about themselves will become everyone else's opinion of them, too.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 16, 2009 10:22 PM


I don't find Palin any more or less intellectual than Obama. Both of them speak in "talking points." Isn't that really their job?

Obama scares me more than Palin. As the ultimate product of the racial quota system, he's puffed up with ultimate confidence based on minimal achievement. Palin is still a far more experienced executived than Obama.

In any event, the loony left is clearly motivated by sexual hatred in respect to Palin. Outside of President Bush, I've never seen another pol so viciously reviled by the left.

I'm not accusing you of being part of it, but there is a segment of the Democratic left that is composed of people who are looking for somebody to blame for their failure in love and sex. Read the now dormant BlameBush weblog for a long running satire on this.

Bush was particularly hated in NYC and Woodstock because the was supposed to be the only obstacle standing between gays and happiness. This hysteria became the orthodoxy of liberal circles. I'm still unable to pinpoint exactly how Bush persecuted gays, but for 8 years I listened to spoiled brats claiming that this was the case.

Clearly, you don't like Palin's politics. That's the way it goes. Your statement that she's inarticulate is crap. She's no more or less articulate than Obama, who can't seem to fit enough cliches within a single sentence. She was clearly more qualified for executive office than Obama. Obama entered office without any legitimate experience.

This "She's dumb and inarticulate" stuff has become the idiot refrain of the left. They said the same thing about Bush, and they said that Kerry was the sophisticated intellectual. My ass!

Mind you, I really don't give a damn who's president. I hear this crap all the time in Woodstock from the left about how intellectual and scientific they are. Most of them have absolutely no education in anything except the softest humanities and they couldn't do basic math for their lives.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 16, 2009 10:47 PM

ST, listen to interviews with and speeches by Palin. She is fucking inarticulate and was clearly not ready to perform (and yeah, I'm fully aware most politics is performance) on a national scale. Contrast that with Obama, who like him or not, can articulate a point (although he's nowhere near the orator many people think he is).

The presidency and vice-presidency are mostly PR positions for the US. Palin was horrible PR. Mostly though, I just didn't like her style or sensibility. She gives off a very ockish, ex-cheerleader vibe. I've never liked that vibe. And it really is that vibe that galls the left more than anything else about her. Much as you and many on the right don't like bookish, intellectual vibe. Most differences are fairly hard-wired.

Posted by: JV on June 17, 2009 12:11 AM

I can only speak for my own feeling of repulsion toward Palin, but you have it all wrong, Moira.

I may have it all wrong, JV, but that wouldn't follow from your personal feelings. That you personally don't participate in the widespread Palin-ophobia is beside the point.

I just don't like her style or sensibility. Not to mention her tenuous, at best, grasp of basic issues and her inability to formulate a thought outside of talking points...I just don't want her anywhere near the White House.

That describes my reaction to any number of persons with ambitions for or proximity to the White House. But my "visceral loathing" or "repulsion" here is a limited response to overt, publicly relevant characteristics - their stupidity and venality. And a similar set of characteristics may encompass your own reaction to Palin. Again, irrelevant. We're talking about an observable, widespread, hysterical reaction of a particular group to a particular politician.

Posted by: Moira Breen on June 17, 2009 7:43 AM

I suspect that you are profoundly correct, PatrickH.

In leftist circles, the murdered abortionist Tiller is being heralded as a courageous and sainted standard bearer for the right of women to be "pro-choice."

His supporters somehow always manage to avoid saying what it was that Tiller chose to do. He cracked open the skulls of late-term infants as they exited the birth canal and sucked their brains out with a vacuum.

This is what those women and Dr. Tiller "chose" to do.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 17, 2009 9:05 AM

Moira, PatH, ST: y'all are 100% right. Palin taps into primal anxieties of the left. I think Moira got it right: "Down-home libido and shameless sprogging - so tasteless in a white woman."

Witness the swine Letterman and his blathering quasimasturbatory meltdown directed at a 14 year old girl.

Maybe Todd Palin is part of the equation in the left's psychosexual drama. The she-libs want him but are terrified of that thought, and to leftist "men," he is handsome, athletic, strong&silent, sire of many, with a wife who is hot well into her middle age. In other words, he a repudiation of everyting they worked are.

Posted by: PA on June 17, 2009 9:40 AM

Much as you and many on the right don't like bookish, intellectual vibe. Most differences are fairly hard-wired.

I'm one of the most well read motherfuckers you've ever met, JV. It's not necessarily something I'm proud of. I wasted 10 years when I could have been learning a rock solid profession reading every literary classic, including the Russian bookshelf, I could find.

I've also got several bookshelves full of scientific books and journals, mostly centered on computer science and programming for multimedia and virtual reality.

So, you might want to re-think that theory. You've fallen into the typical trap of thinking that those who are endowed with athletic ability, i.e., Palin, are naturally stupid.

You've misrepresented Palin as a cheerleader, by the way. She was a star guard on a high school basketball team that won a state championship. Why are you re-casting her as a bystander? That slip leads me to believe that your hatred of her isn't really the result of an intellectual process. Her role in winning that state championship was well publicized.

Incidently, I was also a star pitcher in high school and in American Legion ball. I had a tryout with the Chicago Cubs.

Some people are able to put together physical beauty, athleticism and intelligence. In fact, quite a few. Jack Kemp, Roger Staubach, David Robinson.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 17, 2009 10:26 AM

ST, I meant the bookish vibe. I'm well aware there are many who don't give off that vibe yet are still very well-read. Pretty sure Palin isn't one of them, but from what I can tell, you are. Also, I said "jockish, ex-cheerleader." I know she's a jock.

Face it, ST, Palin was a horrible choice for the Republicans. She is absolutely the reason Obama won. I'm certain McCain would have won had the Pubs picked Romney or someone else as VP. Hell, I was quite comfortable with the idea of a McCain presidency until they announced Pailn as his running mate.

Posted by: JV on June 17, 2009 11:48 AM

-- Palin was a horrible choice for the Republicans.

I agree, but not for the reasons you cite. Palin isn't perfect, but she's among the best to appear on the political scene in a generation.

Her problem is her vulnerability to the Media Destruction Machine. They'd have an easy time "Quayle'ing" her, and making her look like a liability to right wing politics.

I'm not sure what her future in politics is, but she might be a great, galvanizing cultural icon, if not an elected figure.

-- She is absolutely the reason Obama won

I disagree. McCain was the reason the Republicans lost. He was an abysmal choice, and Palin was a plus, but wasn't enough to make me vote for the ticket. I wrote in a protest vote.

My guess is that Huckabee siphoned Romney's votes. Guliani, who could have siphoned McCain's, threw the primaries by campaining solely in Florida.

Posted by: PA on June 17, 2009 12:49 PM

Wow. Can't we talk about supple Cirque du Soleil performers shedding skimpy costumes and engaging in erotically ambitious contortions instead of rehashing the '08 election? Does every thread need to become a right/left tug of war?

Posted by: Chris White on June 17, 2009 3:45 PM

Whew JV!

I'm Tom Sawyer and I've got a fence that needs painting. You'll love doing the job!

You aren't intimidated by Palin because you think she's a loser. No, you're afraid of her because you fear she's going to win.

She is quite formidable. She won the PR battle with Letterman, didn't she?

In my lifetime, Republicans have always done better nominating the most conservative candidate possible. Every time they try to please liberals, they lose. So, I'm sure the Republican Party thanks you for your advice. Your advice is that you want the Republicans to lose. They already took that advice when they nominated McCain.

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more from Sara Palin.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 17, 2009 4:00 PM

"You aren't intimidated by Palin because you think she's a loser. No, you're afraid of her because you fear she's going to win."

You are correct in the sense that I would have been afraid had McCain won and she was VP. And I agree a political party should never base their strategy on what the other side would like. And I never said she wasn't a formidable personality. You're still dead wrong on why I dislike her. Pencil me in as a fan of fecundity.

And yeah, who knew Cirque threw such insane parties? Sounds fun. ST, I don't understand your attitude towards such hedonistic behavior. Of course it's not new. That's not the point. It's pleasurable. I don't care if a pleasurable activity I may be engaging in breaking new ground. And anyway, when you're young, it IS new. To you. Sorry you're so world-weary.

Posted by: JV on June 17, 2009 4:54 PM

And yeah, who knew Cirque threw such insane parties?

I assumed Cirque threw precisely those kind of parties. I've been around show biz and carny people enough to assume that's what they're doing.

I don't have anything against orgies. The problem is that there is damned little to say or write about them. Few writers have succeeded there. Truth is, if you've been to one orgy, you've been to all of them. Harley rallies are about the same. Been to one of them, you've been to all of them.

I am world-weary, that's true. The sex scene, however, has been ruined by an invasion of the amateurs. Every girl in America is dropping her pants and tossing a picture of her pussy up on the internet.

There is no shock value left in anything... except in women like Palin. Don't you get it? The situation is the absolute reverse of 50 years ago.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on June 17, 2009 6:47 PM

It's not about shock value, it's about pleasure. I'm not out to shock anyone, nor do I think the Cirque people are. They're just having fun. I'll agree with you that the masses ruin everything.

Palin was also a shocker, but not in the way you think. I know many women like her, their my kids' friends' moms, my neighbors, etc. The fact that she exists and represents a large swath of people was not shocking, merely how willing she was to so shamelessly pander to her audience. That godawful winking. Ugh. Sure, every politician panders, but none have bugged me as much as her.

Posted by: JV on June 17, 2009 7:13 PM

I can see why an athletic, personable, good-looking, intelligent woman with a large family who espouses morality, personal responsiblity, and smaller government is threatening and unpopular to Maoists. But as far as being "poorly read", did it ever occur to you she might have other priorities, like being a governor of a large state, mother, wife, etc.?

Shouldn't the fact that a candidate running for President has so little to do that he/she reads widely and voraciously in mid-life with a demanding job and family life be a strike against electing them?

No wonder a long string of lying asshats are enshrined in our political establishment.

Maybe we should expect less from our candidates, and more from ourselves. But that's a poor, backward idea, eh?

BTW, when the government owns our major industrial manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, the entire health care system, etc., haven't we gone well past the idea of right/left? That maybe the left/right BS was just used to get us there? Just a thought.

We are in uncharted territory, at least for US. We are now officially a fascist country, on the brink of a new world war! And people are arguing about whether or not Sara Palin is "well-read"! Holy crap are we in trouble!

Posted by: B on June 17, 2009 7:44 PM


David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

Posted by: Raisa on June 22, 2009 2:34 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?