Hi, everyone!

I had such a damn good post planned for today. Long story short, after a few days of neither eating nor sleeping I couldn't muster the energy. Oh, don't worry. I didn't sleep instead of writing. I just stayed up preparing for (another godforsaken) conference and trying mightily to decide two key questions:

1. Should my conference presentation be given in the voice of a 1930s newsreel narrator (fast talkin', high trousers) or a Victorian era carny barker?

2. Is there any conceivable reason for me to continue getting out of bed in the morning?

(Trick question. I'm rarely in a bed.)

Anyway, I'll try to get this oversold post written at some point today, hot and ready to underwhelm your elevated expectations.

41 thoughts on “DELAY”

  • 1. I vote for the 1930's newsreel narrator (esp the high trousers bit)

    I speak for myself and possibly for others here (but not all) when I say – hold off on the post and get some sleep. We can wait, your physical and mental health is more important.

  • Again, I have to refer you to Theda Skocpol's piece on the Tea Party in the latest Perspectives in Politics. Longs story short, "The Tea Party is Racist" can now be backed up with a scientific citation. Good times.

  • Hang in there, man. You're funnier alive, and I can't imagine tolerating the next election cycle without this blog. If the newsreel guy doesn't work, try Donald Duck – everyone likes him.

  • The great Computer Scientist Leslie Lamport has been known to give conference talks in, "[the] persona of an Indiana-Jones-style archaeologist, replete with Stetson hat and hip flask. [His] attempt at inserting some humor into the subject was a dismal failure. People who attended [his] lecture remembered Indiana Jones, but not [his work]."

  • In honor of the Mercury pictures do a Carl Sagan spiel. Or just cut to the chase and do Hitler at the Nurnberg rally.

  • 1) I like the flim narrator. Other alternatives:

    – Folksy and bumbling (think the Principal's secretary, Grace, in Ferris Beuller's Day Off)
    – WWE wrestler.
    – Infomercial hawker (Sham-Wow or Billy Mays)
    – Adam Sandler in every #$%^& skit he did on SNL (childish falsetto with occasional gibberish; he was most likely stoned, so you could give that a shot)
    – JEJ as Darth Vader (the sentence rhythm's important)
    – Fernando Lamas
    – Xavier Cugat (make sure to carry a little dog)
    – Nikita Kruschev (make your point by using your shoe as a gavel)
    – Haley Barbour (the cognitive dissonance of a "nearly retarded" affectation, with highly technical analysis could be great)
    – Mr. Burns (Machiavellian scheming, fingertip tapping, nasal)

    2. Because the dried excrement eventually smells and gets uncomfortable…best to get out of bed to go to the bathroom.

  • I'm guessing from this that conferences may have fallen somewhat in stature as conveyances of ideas and risen as vehicles of entertainment. In the spirit of the times.

    Sleep is your friend, Ed.

  • 1. I'd go with the he voice of a 1930s newsreel narrator – especially if your presentation will cover timely topics, like the Depression, fascism, and impending world war. Or if you're talking about the 1930s.

    2. You mean you DON'T get out of bed every day for our amusement???

  • Use what ever damned voice most amuses you at the moment, which might involve changing between or even within sentences.

    And I, for one, want very much to see what you might write in a seriously sleep deprived state.

    That should be Teh AWESOME!


  • 1. Can you pull off the requisite Cockney accent/idiom for the Victorian barker? This is key, because it allows you to throw in a lot of nonsensical slang that might help you glide over the less well-thought-out portions of your paper:

    "'Cor, blimey, govs, 'eres a sight that'll gallivant yer outta yer knick-knacks and into yer 'ows-yer-uncles, it will! Bob's-my-eye and 'ere's-the-butcher, this 'ere one'll hang the kippers out of last week's shooting hall and send the badger up the chimney on a Sunday, it will!"

    2. No. But fake it, like the rest of us.

  • 1. I still favor Eric Stratton ("and I'm damn glad to meetcha!") as voiced by Patrick Bateman; and

    2. are there any simple pleasures that still work? I'm not religious, so I can't recommend an ashram, a year on a kibbutz, etc. But three things sometimes work for me: little kids, who know how to enjoy life; animals, especially the very young, who need no reason to gambol and therefore set a good example; and a dive bar with live music (or a good jukebox) and a Sabrett's wagon outside (or, conversely, pulling out my vinyl and warning the neighbors.) The business of life is living it, amigo.

    Besides: there is life after Georgia.

  • I will have to second the WWE wrestler option. Except go old school and make it a WWF wrestler. Give them your best Rick Rude or Randy Macho Savage.

  • @ladiesbane

    "Besides: there is life after Georgia."

    If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I don't wanna go…" Hank, Jr

    Happy April 1st everybody.


  • 1. Carny barker, definitely. If things go south, you can always break into a chorus of "Rock Lobster."

    2. Of course you want to get out of bed in the morning. Don't you want to be there to watch the first news reports when the GOP legalizes sacrificing infants to Tlaloc?

  • Thanks, Hazy Davy — if I'm not on the ledge with you, of course.

    And bb, is that a tear in your beer? :-)

  • After scanning the Williamson, et al paper totally and scanning for the key word ‘racist’ revealed that they didn’t find any overt racist T-party activity in the group of people they studied.

    In fact, they found just the opposite. Any racist behavior on the part of newcomers was rebuked and rejected in pretty direct terms.

    To wit:

    They cited another study (and the only one they knew of)

    ‘Are Tea Partiers, therefore, simply racists? Only one national survey has attempted a careful measurement of racial resentment among Tea Partiers compared to politically similar Americans. Christopher Parker and his associates find that “support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment,” even after accounting for ideology and partisanship.’

    A few paragraphs later Williamson, et al state pretty clearly…

    ‘It is important, however, to note that we found strong opposition to explicit racism in the Greater Boston Tea Party. When avowedly racist messages suddenly appeared on the Boston Tea Party MeetUp site, Massachusetts Tea Party members let the newcomer know he was not welcome. Andrea posted: “This country is made up of people from all countries, that’s what made us what we are. […] I wouldn't want it any other way.’

    So that settles it, the T party is a bunch of racists based on one survey whose details and definitions we know not, but whose reference in Williamson et al makes it solid gold.


  • Jesus Christ BB in GA! Talk about selective quotations….Rather than "scanning" the article, I may suggest that you consider reading it. In the section that you pull quotes from the authors are attempting to distinguish between overt, explicit racist statements and what they call racial resentments (and highlight through the racial undertones of certain language and attitudes). They do provide some examples of the latter.

    The article is still stupid and pointless, but if you must quote it you should at least read it first.

  • Hey Linkshare:

    Our correspondent above (Mr. HP) says this nails it "scientifically" It makes "racial resentment" (however the other guys define it) == racism.

    I dunno maybe it is, but we don't have, as I said, a solid gold case.

    Thank you for linking His name with mine.


  • Oh BTW,

    Let me share how one might scan and still get the gist of the paper

    When the section you're reading is about the percentage of former Marines who are both T-party members and have Semper-Fi tattoos on their forearms…You skip to the next section 'cause you pick up on the fact that it has nothing to do with Racism.

    When the first paragraph lets you know that this section is about how Fox Lies, Fox Lies, Fox Lies and has nothing to do with Racism, you move on.

    That's what I mean when I say I scanned the paper…get it?


  • @bb – Now I haven't read the article, so I can't speak to what it actually says. With that being said, you've basically admitted to not reading the article. You saw things in the article that you didn't agree with politically and you skipped the whole section in which that section appears. How can someone who admits to not reading the article then turn around and give a summary of what that article is about and not expect to be called out on it.

    We get it – you're a conservative. We get it – you're going to argue against EVERYTHING you consider to be progressive or liberal you see here. We get it – you think people who aren't Tea Partiers are communists. It's getting old. Lay off until you have something new to say.

  • If constrained to the two aforementioned options, I will scratch across the grain (surely knowing me, it could not possibly be intentional. oh,nooo). I would then obviously choose the carnie barker…despite the ersatz veneer, they bring more gritty, desperate truth as a result of the recognition of their station in life than do the voice-over newsreel whatever-for-a-buck establishment dicks of the never-more-wrong patriarchal early 20th century (oh, my bad- I neglected to include the 21st century). IMHO, Ed. BTW, Love yer blog.

  • @Scott

    "you think people who aren't Tea Partiers are communists."

    That's what I call hyberbole. Would you agree?

    I am not reflexively opposed to Liberal or Progressive (close on that one.)

    I was specifically responding to the comment that Williamson et al nails the T-party scientifically as Racists. Whether they are or not remains to be seen. The paper, as presented, is not definitive on that subject (IMO) and I gave my reasons.

    I did read that part of the paper carefully. Linkshare and I disagree on its interpretation. He, of course, accused me of selective quotation and comprehensive reading malpractice because I admitted to not absorbing every "jot and tittle" in the non-relevant sections. You too…

    Can you really argue that I have to exhaustively read the section that argues for "Fox lies"^nth power which has nothing to do with the contentious issue of "T-party Racist or Not"?

    I will take your advice to heart and will try to limit my comments to something new.


  • A little Houseman for Ed on the eve of his conference:

    Yonder see the morning blink:
    The sun is up, and up must I,
    To wash and dress and eat and drink
    And look at things and talk and think
    And work, and God knows why.

    Oh often have I washed and dressed
    And what's to show for all my pain?
    Let me lie abed and rest:
    Ten thousand times I've done my best
    And all's to do again.

  • ladiesbane:

    "are there any simple pleasures that still work? … a year on a kibbutz"???

    Living in a racist Jewish settlement on stolen Palestinian land is a simple pleasure???

  • ladiesbane:

    How dare you say something neutral to nice about Israel.

    That there is your modern Left barking back at cha.


  • bb,

    I am not sure what the "modern Left" is supposed to mean but the human rights left should condemn colonialism if it is true to its principles.

  • Edward:

    The modern Left is anti-semitic. The not-so-modern American Left had outright support for Israel's right to exist. GWTW.


  • bb,

    So you have created a new category, "modern Left", for critics of Israel? I have news for you– Israel's defenders have been using the "anti-semitism" canard against their critics from day one. It is an ironic defense, given that Israel is one of the most racist countries in the world, although this rhetoric seems typical of fascist-type movements.

Comments are closed.