« Greenwald Fouls One Off | Main | Supporting The Troops, Take N, For N Large »

August 29, 2006

Comments

as someone who finds the "Democrat Party" trope fairly annoying, I must say that I find this particular quote fairly non-annoying.

It's a matter of context, after all--it's not as though the very word "Democrat", in ever context, is offensive. It's not as though I object to members of the Democratic Party being called "Democrats". That's what they call themselves.

And in this context, it seems to me "Democrat issue" means roughly "an issue that matters to Democrats".

So it just doesn't grate on my ears in the same way. At any rate, that's my reaction.

I just found it amusing after the little tete-a-tete the other day, and I couldn't resist highlighting it, because it sounds a bit odd to me. Not a Democratic or Republican issue sounds better to my ear, but perhaps we need to hunt down Gary for the definitive call.

I had to read if three times before I caught the problem, but I'm a sloppy reader.

As a former Republic, I think the whole thing is a bit silly.

As a former Republic, I think the whole thing is a bit silly.

So you're a monarchy now, or what, Slarti?

I'm a pure democracy now, Bernard.

Not sure if there actually is such a thing, actually.

I would assume that Slarti is an intrinsically heterogeneous state, whose nature is oblique.

I think it's Stockholm Syndrome.

"we need to hunt down Gary for the definitive call"

by all means.

I believe you can contact him immediately by misspelling Gandhi. Or by putting too many dots into your ellipses..........It's like the Bat-phone, only quicker, and Alfred never answers.

Good one, Bruce!

You could complete the similitude by assuming something malevolent about my nature, then bashing me over the head with it.

"It's" being Dorgan word choice, not Slart.

As for Slart, the club who had him as a member, agrees with him, or something...;)

So I'm reading Senator Byron Dorgan's new book, Take This Job and Ship It
WHY? No, seriously, Byron Dorgan is not a trade expert. He's a US Senator, not an economist. If you want a good anti-globalization book, read Stiglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents or Fair Trade for All. If you want a good counterpoint to that, see Doug Irwin's Free Trade Under Fire or Jagdish Bhagwati's In Defense of Globalization. But at least make it a book by an economist - not a politician masquerading as a polemicist.

Mini,

I was sent Senator Dorgan's book to review it. It would be impolite to review it without at least reading it first.

Abstractions about the governmental structure aside, we must ask the real question - is Slartibartfast a state sponsor of terror?

I'm all for terror, st. I just watched Alien 3 last night, in point of fact.

Although the second one scared me a lot more, to tell the truth.

I always thought the Exorcist III was pretty damned terrorizing, and its only WMD was George C. Scott.

Since Slarti is a former Republic he is a former state, sponser of terror movies.

It would be impolite to review it without at least reading it first.

"This book fills a much-needed gap."

Following up on my Cheney comment of yesterday:

F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.

And, from the looks of it, I guess I'll get to say the same thing about Rice and Bush.

""This book fills a much-needed gap.""

If you made all of the table legs the same length, that wouldn't happen.

Why would anyone need a gap, and then fill it with a book?

Why would anyone need a gap, and then fill it with a book?

The joke is that the gap was preferable.

Ah. So I'm guessing that the gap wasn't much needed until the book came along.

I'm probably the only one puzzled by the phrasing of this, but it appears that clarity was sacrificed to the brevity god.

Which reminds me of someone, come to think of it...

the brevity god

Who is correctly referred to as G.

I'm probably the only one puzzled by the phrasing of this, but it appears that clarity was sacrificed to the brevity god.

Too much clarity would kill the gag. The idea is that it sounds vaguely like praise until you think about it for a moment. If you rephrased it as "this book fills a gap that ought not to have been filled" all the humor would be drained out of it.

I think I've noted my humor-draining properties in the past.

You're a singularity in the field of comedy, Slart.

I prefer to think of myself as a democratic plurality.

Andrew - point taken. I thought you were reading it for fun. That would be curious indeed.

F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.

So we're facing a vast, global fascist threat and we're ready to fight">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800916.html">fight another war?

My goodness! Dangerous Donnie's ready to get jiggy! Grrr. Grr. Hold my cardigan, Dick!

So we're facing a vast, global fascist threat and we're ready to fight another war?

Plenty of Navy and Air Force jets not being used out there, plus Halliburton's stock is off its 52-week high and we don't have to compete with Jon Benet any more for airtime.

Chaaaaaaaaarrrrrge!!

F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.

in the words of Matt Yglesias: Rumsfeld is a buffoon. A punchline. A well-known liar.

i'd also add: Rumsfeld is a vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert.

A buffoon? Oh I don't know, but let's not be silly. Might I be a buffoon? Who knows? I could be, I might not be, it's undeterminable.

Punchline? Well, that's just wrong. Did I suggest something funny? No. Was I hinting at something? Of course not. Punchline? Let's be serious here, these are serious questions I'm asking myself and I need to give serious answers to me.

Well-known liar? Well, I like to think a lot of people know me. Do they stop me on the street? Certainly. Do people honk and waive? Of course. One fingered salutes? Everyday. Kisses from Lieberman? Sloppy. Liar? I wouldn't describe myself quite that way. Mendacious? On Tuesdays. Untruthful? The weekend. No longer operative statements? All the time. Silly? I'm a member of the party, though I was a member of the slightly-silly party for a very long time. But liar? Would I lie to me?

Vacuous? I don't think so. Unthoughtful? Maybe. Purposeless? In bed. Inane? I think I'm missing an 's' somewhere in that question. Vacuous? Let's just say that were I vacuous, you would know it, I would know you know it, you would know that I know that you know it, and it would be dangerous for the country.

Toffee-nosed? Now, I like toffee, I know I like toffee, I know where the toffee is, and it's just a matter of time before I get some more toffee. But toffee-nosed? I think not. Do I have a nose? It looks like it. Do I look down it at people?Right now. Is it brown? It seems that it might be so. Toffee flavored? My tongue's not long enough, sorry.

As for malodorous pervert, should I answer that question? Perhaps. Is it a good question? Ask me later. Do I know what malodorous means? No, but I will try to find out for me. Pervert? I don't feel comfortable talking about that in an open session. Could I be a pervert? It's a open question. Do I think about it? Constantly. Would I say I was obsessed with it? Well I wouldn't say that, you might, the voices in my head certainly do, my mother worried often, even the President cocked an eyebrow, though not without help from the Vice President, but would I say so? Sure.

Eh, on a second read, that's not all that funny.

If the terrorists learn that we can't fight a second war while taking them on, the terrorists will have won.

"we need to hunt down Gary for the definitive call"

by all means.

I believe you can contact him immediately by misspelling Gandhi. Or by putting too many dots into your ellipses..........It's like the Bat-phone, only quicker, and Alfred never answers.

I'm sorry, the mawster has been out being ill, having his gout act up, all the usual; have you tried Aquaman? Or Bat-girl?

And I'd say "Democratic" would definitely be more correct, as the adjective, and less grating, but we'll hold back the assassination teams for now. (And I'm also always dubious that a politician is the actual author of writing that goes out under their name, and in any case, the copyeditor should have caught it; it seems unlikely Dorgan would have stetted it if the copyeditor had, but then I'd be rather surprised if Dorgan checked his own proofs.)

"This book fills a much-needed gap."

Moses Hadas, for the record. He also said "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading it."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad