Randomness round-up
posted at 11:42 am on November 21, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
George Lopez, racist? From an email we received last night:
At this years comic relief it was a leftwing garbage storm as pretty much anyone would have guessed. But when George Lopez came on stage and started his act with jokes about the latest Ecoli out break and how it was “they’re bad” (meaning mexican migrant workers) but that it was ok because “only white people got sick” “poor people just got the runs”.
I cannot help but wonder if Kyle Allgood’s parents were amused by his death from Ecoli after all he was white but after all he was only 2 years old….i wonder how the other people who got sick feel that its ok that they are sick “because they are white.”
Not to defend Michael Richards — at all — but why does Lopez get away with making this kind of joke? Especially at a relief concert? And why did Richards’ hecklers get away with calling him a “cracker?”
***
I missed Friday’s Battlestar Galactica. From the sound of this email, the show continues its slide into flaccid moral equivalency:
This time Adama is revealed to have been involved in a black ops mission over the armistice line before the Cylon Attack. He feels that he is responsible. The president suggest that he was not the only one, and that there must have been other provocations. His son says it is not his fault it was the admirals, he was following orders.
It seems from week to week the Cylons represent America, then the Islamists. What I find incredible is the “moral equivalency” of the Cylon’s attack. How can the leaders of the remaining 40,000 humans imagine they provoked a holocaust of 20 billion lives.
This is an important commentary. After 9/11, in the back of our minds is the feeling that a more deadly attack would wake up those who just don’t get it. How many would it take? – if not 3000, then 30,000, or 300,000, more?
This (the show’s take) is dumb for so many reasons, which Jonah Goldberg explains here. We in the West are, as Jonah says and I’ve said once or twice as well, incredibly narcissistic to assume that the enemy’s motivations always revolve around something we have done. It’s the “we had it coming” way of looking at the world, which ultimately puts the power for ending whatever conflict you’re talking about in your own hands. That would be comforting if it were true, since we could at any time just take this or that action and end the war. But it’s not true. The enemy, in this way of thinking, can be placated with a set of policy calibrations or incentives, or if we make nice with them somehow. That’s deadly foolish. And it reduces the humanity of the enemy, since it puts the moral responsibility of his choices onto us. He chooses to blow up a school bus, and it’s our fault. That kind of thinking absolves the enemy of culpability, and reduces his incentive to stop blowing up school buses.
If BSG keeps going along this path, it’ll lose me. I get enough of this moral equivalency from the media and the Democrats. Friday night sci-fi just isn’t the place for it.
As for the emailer’s last question, I wonder if any significant attack on us now won’t produce a schism from which we won’t recover. I don’t think it would unify us.
***
Yeah, banning Sager is dumb. I’d prefer it if the quality and unoriginality of his work took care of that on its own accord.
***
My last thought in this round-up: We’re not a serious nation. We’re at war and we’re not taking it seriously. We have been airing all of our dirty laundry on this war, even debating war strategy and tactics, on the blogs, cable nets and front pages. The enemy isn’t doing that. He’s keeping his strategies within his own council, until he chooses to act. But he’s paying attention to everything we’re willing to put out there. And he’ll adjust according to what we say. We’ve already seen it with Iran, which responded to our trial balloon from the Iraq Study Group to (incredibly and inadvisably) bring Syria and Iran into discussions to pacify Iraq, by holding its own summit with Syria and Iraq that freezes us out. Suppose the Iranians strike a grand bargain with the Syrians (who are already their lapdogs) and the Iraqis — and deliver peace to Iraq. The Iranians, as instigators of much of the Shia-led violence, have it in their power to curb much of that violence. Suppose they do it.
Where does that leave Iraq in the new Middle East? Where does it leave Syria and especially Iran? And where does it leave us?
Update: Heritage hasn’t banned Ryan Sager. It just didn’t invite him. They’re within their rights to do that.
Two things here: Don’t believe a word Andrew Sullivan says about conservatives (he seems to have raised this issue on the radar). The peddler of the politics of pout just isn’t a reliable source. For the purgemaster, Ryan Sager, to assume that a non-invitation is a ban is…humorous. If it were a ban, Sager’s just getting a taste of the very same medicine he has been prescribing for the GOP for several years now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We’re at war and we’re not taking it seriously.
The number one person to blame for this is George Bush. He has failed to make the case successfully to the American people that we are at war, and need to make sacrifices. He has tried to fight the war on the cheap, and has not taken the fight relentlessly to the enemy. Basically he tried for guns and butter, in a reprise of the failed approach of LBJ in Vietnam (who didn’t motivate the home front either). All this is mystifying, because his Presidency will stand or fall based on success or failure in this war, and he has clearly screwed it up.
Lehuster on November 21, 2006 at 11:49 AM
I don’t keep up with Galactica, but I’m not surprised by their stance. Anyone remember the second season of Lost where Sayed’s flashback implied that he learned torture techniques not from Sadaam but from the US military?
vcferlita on November 21, 2006 at 11:49 AM
“We’re not a serious nation. We’re at war and we’re not taking it seriously.”
This is the crux of the matter in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recall the WWI song, “Over There”? The last line of the song is: “And we won’t come home ’til it’s over over there.” Unfortunately, our schoolchildren can put condoms on bananas, but can’t put their fingers on a map and point out Iraq.
We don’t have a grasp on the seriousness of this war because we have let slip our grasp on the world at large. No, we’re not serious about this war. We’re not serious about anything but comfort and living in the moment.
windbag on November 21, 2006 at 11:50 AM
That pretty much sums it up.
vcferlita on November 21, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Is 40,000 large enough for the Humans to be genetically viable or are they doomed to extinction? This reminds me of the cheetah. There was a point in the felines existence they were near extinction; but, a small group inbreeded. The genetic damage can be seen in their chromosones now and biologists are developing breeding programs in both captive and wild populations.
allie on November 21, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Because White Americans are too scared to defend themselves (although I think that is slowly changing).
SouthernGent on November 21, 2006 at 12:04 PM
I was laughing out loud at how transparent the BSG moral insanity was. In approrpiately blame, none was left for those that committed a nuclear holocaust of billions.
Sort of in line with recent show where military tribunals were abandoned in favor of “truth and reconciliation” commisions.
I am just grateful someone other than these people are defending civilization c. 2006.
Clark1 on November 21, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Too many heads are firmly hidden in the sand. People want to believe that if they ignore it that the bad things will just go away. They won’t.
Puritan put this Machiavelli quote in a comment on the Hitchens-Baker thread, but it’s appropriate here as well:
This is exactly what we have done and what we are doing. And we are doing it to our own detriment.
thirteen28 on November 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM
I think it’s more of a guilt complex than fear. People think, “Well, gee we did conquer this land, own slaves, discriminate against minorities, I guess I can’t say too much when the worst I get is called a cracker.”
JaHerer22 on November 21, 2006 at 12:11 PM
I can’t get too worked up about being called a cracker.
jdpaz on November 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM
maybe I’m just not trying hard enough. ~working up outrage~grunt~ Nope, sorry.
jdpaz on November 21, 2006 at 12:18 PM
As far as BSG goes, I find it scary that Adama is the one equivocating while Laura Roslin, who was very liberal when the show started, has become the voice of reason. There is a time for moral debates, but when you’re on the run with the last remnants of humanity is not one of them. Even two episodes ago, it was Roslin who wanted to deploy the virus against the Cylons and Adama looked the other way when Helo sabotaged the plan.
Maybe its time for Colonel Tigh to take command. His empty eye socket is a constant reminder of exactly what the Cylons want to do to humanity. And considering how he killed his own wife for being a collaborator I don’t think he’ll have any problem with killing some Cylons.
mhexel on November 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Guys, in BSG noone represents anyone. Any resemblence to actual entities in the show is fleeting, at best. Yes, the premier was obvious and over the top, but for the most part the show does a great job of very subtly touching on themes from current headlines without being concrete enough to actually make a point… in short, it makes you think, but doesn’t tell you what to think–usually.
To watch the last episode and find some sermon on specific current political events requires a need to be outraged which I can’t understand.
Just enjoy the show, and quit trying to get pissed all the time.
DaveS on November 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM
I thought the end of that BSG episode was great. When Tigh and Adama sat down for a drink and it went to credits. That was great.
I thought Adama was a pussy in this episode; he’s usually the one who knows what needs to be done. Roslin has surprised me 2 episodes in a row now. Brain transplants perhaps?
lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM
I agree. Take it for what its worth. Like Family guy. Its a totally liberal show, but I love it. Who cares. If you are trying to defend your beliefs to a TV show, you got bigger issues.
lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM
That is something that as a parent I can control. Now at 8 and 10 years old I make a concious effort to explain what is happening in the world, ask thier opinions and answer thier questions…
All I remember as a kid in 68-69, was that my brothers left, that they were in the army and came home when I was 8…end of story.
Later I put it all together myself and vowed to not repeat that idiotic cycle.
CBarker on November 21, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I just read the NRO piece, and it is off-base for the same reasons that I think you are, Bryan. Sure, Adama’s conclusion that he is to blame may be a reprehensible commentary on current events if you presuppose that every little thing is meant to be a commentary on specific current events.
But in reality, if you or I were Adama and experienced what he experienced just before the entire human race was massacred (essentially), we would certainly have pent up emotions and harbor feelings of guilt that perhaps we were somehow to blame. On a human level, the storyline is absolutely believable. It only becomes a problem when you assume that they are meaning to comment on this or that.
And in the end, his feelings of guilt were dismissed by Roslyn who gave him an award, so to the extent that the show might have actually meant to provide commentary it came down in a fairly neutral way that didn’t end up saying anything.
DaveS on November 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM
I think the real moral of the episode was; don’t let your enemy build a war machine. It’ll come back to haunt you. If the colonies had worked to defend themselves (knowing what the cylons were doing), maybe the events would have been different.
But, sitting there (apparently forgetting about the enemy) made them complacent. What happened was probably inevitable, whether or not Adama broke the armistice.
And the guy in the fighter that got destroyed. Why does he feel ill-will toward Adama? He knew the risks going in, obviously and was probably well aware that if he was discovered, he’d be killed or his ship destroyed - cylons or humans, his discovery would not have been acceptable. I thought he was a coward for ejecting personally.
lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Don’t get me wrong. I love BSG. Its tied for my favorite show with Lost. As I said though, there is a time for moralizing. Like Roslin said when they were debating whether or not to use the virus on the Cylons: Even if they’re judged morally wrong, that means that they protected humanity and there are people left to judge them. I understand Adama would be conflicted. But for two weeks now he has put his moralizing above what is good for all of humanity. As a leader, that’s just not acceptable.
Look back even at the issue of banning abortion in the Fleet. Roslin was pro-abortion, and probably still is. But for humanity to survive, they need to have babies. She knew this, and was able to put aside her personal feelings.
mhexel on November 21, 2006 at 12:53 PM
There a couple of things that might destablize things to our advantage, but I doubt we’d all get on the bandwagon:
1. Cut your gasoline consumption by just 10%;
2. Cut your purchases from China just 10%.
They will have an impact. But will America do it?
sharinlite on November 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM
I didn’t mind any of the other BG episodes. During this one, I just kept thinking “Adama ain’t that stupid.” He wouldn’t believe he caused the war or that this guy got off a base star and found the fleet…
Bryan, I do think making insulting comments about a group is different than calling someone a name to their face. Not to say that what Lopez said was good and/or funny…
MamaAJ on November 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM
Stealth ship caught on the other side of the armistice line… sounds familiar. Kobayashi Maru? Adama’s solution to the no win situation - shoot the hostage and then turn to jelly while navel gazing. Interestingly, Adama is not paralyzed by guilt for leaving a pilot behind. He invents culpability for genocide instead. Adama, too responsible.
Has anyone seen criticism of BSG for its frequent depiction of smoking? I find the lack of criticism surprising.
You know who else had the call sign “Bulldog?” Jeff Gannon. Brokeback Battlestar, wait for it.
rw on November 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM
I think people are reading WAY too much into the show’s “message”.
Outside of that I’ve thought it was funny that liberals were saying the Cylons were conservatives when the show clearly states at the beginning of each episode that the Cylons “have a plan”. So if there is a hidden message in the show it would be that conservatives do in fact have a plan and liberals don’t.
Benaiah on November 21, 2006 at 1:13 PM
I’m a Cylon. I have a plan. For all those hot cylon babes!
Colonialists can keep Starbuck. Ick.
I’m off to work on my plan.
lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Bryan. Nailed. It.
Period.
Look, I don’t watch BSG to see a 3rd Millenium version of the 70’s Star Trek voyages. And I don’t approach the show expecting nor looking for those messages.
But to any of you who argue that Bryan’s reading too much into this episode - step toward the light, you are in DENIAL.
It’s the same old, “If we do this we’ll be no better than them” argument. Ok, I’ll go along with that in theory. Just because the Jihadis cut off heads doesn’t mean we should, too. But hey, war stinks. You have to bomb cities and do stuff that you would rather not do.
You. Must. Survive.
Firebomb Dresden? Check.
Nuke Nagasaki? Check.
Win the war, dude. We haven’t and won’t commit(ted) genocide against the Muslims, even if they want us all gone. BUT…
BSG is a totally different story. They are MACHINES!!! They’re not real…. well, humans. Kill them all! They bent over backward to get us to see that we must consider that they have rights, we must be tolerant. Just like the MSM and liberals want us to respect and be tolerant of those who declared war on us.
y2church on November 21, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Adama was safely up on the battlestar while Roslin was down on the planet with the cylons. I think that toughened her up.
Bad Penny on November 21, 2006 at 1:31 PM
Liberals would just say that the conservative/cylon plan can be found out the PNAC site.
rw on November 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Sorry SG, but does anyone seriously think the word “cracker” carries with it the vile historical weight of the word “nigg-r”? If I can ever find my indentured servant-great-great-great-great-grandmother’s journal, do you think I’ll see the word “cracker” used as something other than as a means of sustenance, as in a racial slur?
As far as your comment about “white Americans” being “too scared to defend themselves (although I think that is slowly changing)” goes, that offends me. Considering the fact that “white Americans” make up more than 73% of current war-time military recruits, I think we can agree it’s safe to rule out that as a race we are pu$$ies, no?
Anyway, since the election there are many “white Americans” like me whose blood pressure has been spiking out of control especially when near anything put out by MSM. We are easily recognizable. Just look around the next time you find yourself at a newstand or in a waiting room with a tv permanently set to CNN. We’re the ones with the bulging neck veins and pink to reddish flush on our faces. Although I don’t claim to be their spokesperson, I would have to note that we no longer fit the characteristic “white cracker” profile. So, perhaps we’ll have to come up with a more accurate but colorful “slur”. I’m sort of leaning toward “tomatohead” but remain open for suggestions. Try to be nice though. I’m new around here ;^)
NightmareOnKStreet on November 21, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Blame Bush, Lehuster? Oh, piffle.
I assume you’re serious, in which case I’d like to suggest that the reason President Bush has been obliged to soft-peddle the war in the first place is because in the decades prior to 9/11 our nation - more precisely, our culture - had its collective spine slowly and proudly taken out and replaced with velveeta cheese and nerf sponge in the form of [insert liberal cultural triumph here].
For example, think about our public schools and how remarkably screwed they are, especially if you’re a conservative who actually likes the United States of America. Think about how they got that way. Think about how long this “progress” in social programming has been marching on.
Apply that same filter pretty much across the board, culturally.
See what I’m saying? Fact is, we progressive U.S. citizens were farked when it came to steeling ourselves for war and its implications a looooooong time before jihad crashed on our shores. If President Bush speaks to us as if we are, for the most part, a nation that can’t handle the ugly, ugly truth with maturity and responsibility and the necessary tightening of belts and etc., well - in this day and age, he has a point.
Doesn’t the fact that the man had to compromise his way to a half-assed declaration just to win votes for going to war in Iraq in the first place suggest that President Bush has never actually been the problem?
We aren’t serious, and blaming Bush is just a way of looking for a scapegoat that makes us feel all good about ourselves. “We stayed the course, but he didn’t!”
Who do I blame? For starters, I blame my 3rd grade teacher who spent an entire week in 1973 teaching the class the lines to The Carpenters’ “Sing.” That’s my grade school education in a nutshell.
While I’m at it, I may as well go ahead and blame Sesame Street in general.
This could be fun. Who else can we blame for America’s not being ready to wage war?
ccwbass on November 21, 2006 at 1:49 PM
BattleStar Galactica
The real story is how a small band of survivors prevail over setbacks. The genocide is ancient history, it happened, that chapter of human history has already been written.
In every human situation there are emotional ups and downs, and currently BSG is down, ‘way down. There have been factions dividing the group, and there always will be; it’s part of the human condition.
If you must make it a lesson for humanity, consider this. We are divided, we are on the verge of going to war with ourselves, rather than fighting our common enemy. We have factions within our group who commit treason, who are on the side of our enemy.
So what are we going to do about it?
I know, I know, I’ll write a letter to the editor. . . .
rockhauler on November 21, 2006 at 2:17 PM
OH
I wanted to finish my post with the question:
Has anyone seen the movie “V for Vendetta”?
Little Green Footballs had a comment and a link to a gathering of characters. . . .
I love the costume.
rockhauler on November 21, 2006 at 2:26 PM
Here’s the story of the day!
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS03/611190639
Read the quote from mom!
No to a time machine. Yes to a nuclear device LOL
That’s good parenting.
lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 3:10 PM
I assume you’re serious
I am absolutely serious in my view that Dubya has failed to sell this war to the American people and keep it sold. Worse, I am not sure he has really tried.
the reason President Bush has been obliged to soft-peddle the war in the first place is because in the decades prior to 9/11 our nation - more precisely, our culture - had its collective spine slowly and proudly taken out
The nation got a wake-up call on 9/11, and wanted to be led, but the message - the leadership! - from the administration just wasn’t there. Go back to bed, lead your normal life, see a movie, go shopping, that was what we heard.
For example, think about our public schools and how remarkably screwed they are,
I agree that is part of the problem, but has Bush taken ANY positive steps whatsoever to reverse that process? It took decades to get as bad as it has, and you can’t turn that supertanker around on a dime, but what is the evidence he has even put any pressure on the helm?
The administration, when it has tried to fight cultural battles at all, has fought them incompetently and half-heartedly. Why should we expect an administration that won’t even defend our border to defend our culture? If they cared about our culture they would control the border!
If President Bush speaks to us as if we are, for the most part, a nation that can’t handle the ugly, ugly truth with maturity and responsibility and the necessary tightening of belts and etc., well - in this day and age, he has a point.
If the battle is lost, he shouldn’t even try?
Doesn’t the fact that the man had to compromise his way to a half-assed declaration just to win votes for going to war in Iraq in the first place suggest that President Bush has never actually been the problem?
That is a perfect example of his timid non-leadership! The guy didn’t have the stones to make a straightforward, honest case for removing Saddam on the general principle of realpolitik, so instead he had to cobble together a half-assed mishmosh of reasons that soon fell apart.
We aren’t serious, and blaming Bush is just a way of looking for a scapegoat that makes us feel all good about ourselves. “We stayed the course, but he didn’t!”
I have more confidence in the American people than that. I think the spine is there, it just needs a brain to lead it and some balls to motivate it. Bush has not provided either.
It is astonishing to me that anyone could deny that (a) it is the President’s job to provide war leadership, and (b) Bush has failed in that task. It is fundamental to the job description of the President to provide war leadership! That is what he is elected to do!
Lehuster on November 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Who do I blame? For starters, I blame my 3rd grade teacher who spent an entire week in 1973 teaching the class the lines to The Carpenters’ “Sing.” That’s my grade school education in a nutshell.
Maybe s/he thought you’d spent too much time in 2nd grade studying the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Lt. Calley’s trial for the My Lai massacre.
While I applaud you for remembering anything from third grade, but I have to wonder what you expected to learn at the ripe ol’ age of 8?
Seriously, I do agree with you about the failure of schools to prepare us for
facing war, balancing a checkbook (nevermind a state or federal budget)… anything. Having worked for several years in a school system (pre- and post- Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act”) I can tell you there was a collective sigh of relief from the bad teachers all over the country when the Dems swept the recent election. Most of those teachers have been forced to work harder since that program’s inception and it’s tie-in to federal funding of education. Before then I think there was a sense of no-one’s-watching-the-storeschool.The last few years there has been a significant positive change (should I dare to say a national upward trend?) in test scores. Some schools have felt the heat as administrators scrambled to keep their districts from falling into that dreaded third and final year of failing standardized test scores.
Now, with Bush in his lame duck years, the program will fall by the wayside because the Dummycrats hate it. They prefer their voters to be educationally challenged. After all, it’s so much easier to influence those who are content to get their “current events” (part of every Friday’s assignment when I was a child) from MTV or The Dailey Show.
God bless all the conscientious teachers who work very hard and get paid relatively nothing for it. It won’t matter to them which party is in power.
Just needed to get that off my chest. Thanks. ;^)
NightmareOnKStreet on November 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM
I like BSG overall; but at first watch, I found this episode disappointing and annoying. A grizzled, old admiral is almost weeping over a botched tactic (suicide mission) that is likely to be called for in some extraordinary circumstances. I thought it was grossly out of character. But I have already decided to give the series a week or two to redeem itself. It has done so several times already when questionable things have come up.
urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 6:06 PM
No worries here. I don’t believe much of what that pedantic Drama Queen has to say on any subject.
thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 9:58 PM
I don’t know that I agree with this. Almost anytime you hear Bush sound bytes in the news, he mentions the war on terror and stresses the importance of our fight. I think we just hear it so much that it becomes background noise. The problem is that those sound bytes are mostly what we get. He has been criticized - fairly, I think - for not framing the debate in strategic and frequent speeches. Blair did this very well, but while leading the liberal Labor party. Bush on the other hand, leads (or led) the choir and could have taken a page from the Blair-book on how to communicate uncomfortable and philosophical ideals in well-timed pieces. It’s about a strategic message over time, and it’s the “over time” piece Bush fell down on. His other problem is that he delegates too much. He may be “the decider”, but I think he has remained too far-removed from the grunt work to know if his advisors are earning their pay. There’s no doubt the Iraq war will be the piece that defines his presidency. We know from his grade point average that he is an intelligent man. I just wish he were a bit more clever.
thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 10:11 PM
COULD YOU BRING BACK THE BSG OPEN THREAD on Friday? Please?
hotdax on November 21, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Re: BSG
It was a horrible episode. Not because it necessarily paralleled anything in the real world (though I do think that, as usual, Jonah Goldberg is onto something), but because it rendered the psyche of Adama inexplicable. I can actually accept that, given the circumstances, a person could develop irrational beliefs that he was in some way responsible for the genocide of this species–faced with that kind of stress and trauma, the mind can do all sorts of strange things. That kind of delusion could even form the foundation of an interesting character. But in the case of Adama, there’s no way we could have not seen it until now. That kind of deeply disfunctional belief, granted Adama’s critical position, would taint his every move. Instead, we’ve seen no hint of anything even resembling genocidal guilt until this latest episode. That’s a fictional no-sale.
Also of irritation was that not even Roslin–the supposed voice of reason in this case–didn’t make the obvious point: That in light of the fact that the Cylons did indeed launch a massive attack against humanity, perhaps the “paranoia” of the Admirals leading up to the recon mission was in fact well-founded, as in retrospect the Cylons were indeed amassing an invasion fleet.
It can make good fiction when characters hold irrational beliefs (in fact, that might even be necessary for good fiction), but it never makes good fiction when all the characters–including the ones meant to be smart and insightful–come across as conspicuously more dense than the audience.
Blacklake on November 22, 2006 at 1:20 AM