Beltmann

I mentioned my wife's response only to suggest that the very voters McCain has been trying to court in recent weeks may not react well to this choice. You assumed my brief sentences were the totality of her reaction, and used that false assumption to arrive at a glib and contemptuous conclusion. Is Sarah Palin's gender the only reason the pick looks like pandering? Of course not. It looks like pandering because this woman with these positions and these credentials in this time suggests that the primary reason she was chosen was not for her qualifications, but for her gender. Is that an ac

Thank you for your insightful analysis of my wife's response. Clearly, you considered all the complexities of her reasoning and psychology.

My wife, who likes John McCain more than Hillary Clinton, just told me that she feels "insulted as a woman" by the choice of Palin, because it so transparently reeks of tokenism. She called the move "condescending."

To some degree that's always true. But even conservatives concerned about Obama's inexperience and/or policies will concede that he's impressive as a campaigner, and certainly can hold his own on the national stage. With Palin, all her first speech did was give me doubts about her ability in that regard.

Watching her speak now, I have to say that she strikes me as deeply unimpressive, at least as a campaign speaker. She sounds like a small-town mayor rather than someone qualified for the national stage. I'm actually disappointed to feel so underwhelmed.

I think he's abandoned every tactic other than "Let's snare as many disenchanted women as we can!" Without that potential, there is no way Palin would have even made the short list, which is why the tokenism seems so cynical... and yet, it might prove brilliant. Have to admire the gambler in McCain. This pick could be a game-changer, but it could also turn out to be a debacle of the first rank.

No kidding. Those two shows were terrific. Perhaps they will make their way back before tour's end...

Rosemary's Baby.

ikol, you already know that isn't the argument. The point concerns only the hypocrisy of certain Republicans who are eager to paint the Obamas as elitist (despite their humble beginnings), but equally eager to overlook how the McCains are much more likely to fit the definition. As for me, I don't care how many houses John McCain has, nor how much money his wife is worth. Good for them, I say.

I caught Tell No One at last September's Milwaukee International Film Festival, and it was definitely one of the most purely entertaining movies I saw there. Terrific fun.

Do you remember the flatulent dinosaur in The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas? I laughed so hard.

I already know that Z and ISM were better-reviewed. That is irrelevant to my point, which is that EU has not, overall, been received negatively by the press. In fact, your Metacritic link confirms that Evil Urges has received largely positive (many glowing) notices--a fact that does not change just because Z got even better ones. (I posted that same link last week to make a similar point in another thread.) You can't point to the general critical reception as "proof" that the album sucks when, in truth, the general critical reception has been favorable to the album. (I'm not suggesting t

All of the reviewers are in agreement? I guess Rolling Stone, Spin, Paste, EW, Billboard, etc. failed to get the memo about how all music critics are supposed to find Evil Urges to be a disappointment. (There might not be consensus--is there ever consensus?--but as far as I can tell, most critics think the album is pretty darn good.)

Now watching TCM's 24-hour marathon of Laurel & Hardy. Except for two, I've seen them all before, but there are some genuine classics on the slate worth re-visiting.

Interesting concept for an ad.

If that's the pick, then I have serious reservations about it. But I suppose we can save all that talk for tomorrow...

I'd say benefits are neither a right nor a reward; they are part of an agreed-upon compensation package.

Went to the movies today, and the "pre-show entertainment" included this gag-inducing . The dude yanking on the phallic sculpture might make it worth it, though.

Well, sure, in terms of the content of the speech. But the jokes were clearly chosen because they were the worst kind of vaudeville puns, and Norm's "conviction" in telling them exposed how his real joke was about form, not content. The real joke was about delivery, expectations, and the meaning of cheesiness. That might not be Andy Kaufman, but it's more than merely recycling some corny old jokes.

I know there are some fellow Beulah fans around here, so I thought I'd mention that A Good Band Is Easy to Kill is available OnDemand. I'm watching now.

Today, two silent films by Hitchcock: Champagne (1928) and The Ring (1927). Both are marked by innovative visual flourishes, but both stories--in the first, a socialite angers her father by eloping, while in the second, a prizefighter's marriage crumbles as his career takes off--are light melodramas. The Ring has a tighter, more complete structure, while Champagne has a greater sense of humor.

My wife and I laughed. "What the H is that for?"

In Guy Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain!, a mad inventor dies, is buried under the tide, then exhumed and re-animated via jumper cables, then locked in a harp box for thirty years. Later, he's abducted and burned upside-down at the stake. And that's just for starters. Loved it.

I'm afraid TheMaker is correct. A few cherry-picked reviews from places like Pitchfork do not change the fact that, overall, the general critical response to Evil Urges has been quite positive, not negative.