Ostensibly / ostensible
Figure, “ya figure”
Ostensibly / ostensible
Figure, “ya figure”
I’m re-watching the Sopranos thoroughly. It’s lauded plenty, so the kudos are rote by now. But The Sopranos remains quite astonishing. Certainly the most richly detailed film / tv composition that an average viewer like me could ever figure to contemplate. By a long shot.
I just watched the episode about Carmela’s dad’s 75th birthday, in which Tony gives old Hugh a cased Beretta upland shotgun. Now I know they didn’t scrimp on the Sopranos, as a rule they seemed to spend what they had to spend to get Chase’s vision right. There’s a shot here where the camera lingers briefly on the exquisite marble cake walnut stock and engraved receiver of this shotgun. This is kind of a trope-ish moment in a hunter or gun enthusiast’s life. If you travel in certain circles, you encounter this. And my side business services the niche of the ‘presentation gun’. But really I doubt that popular story telling has treated this anywhere else. Chase or his director get every detail right, especially the shotgun itself, which may have required a loan agreement with a fine gun store there in Jersey during filming. They have little production assistants I suppose employed for the exact purpose of leasing and fetching great props from here and there. But it strikes me as an enormous pain in the ass to go that extent to get a detail right that will be lost on the broader lay public. So they could have used a more pedestrian piece, and not many would be the wiser. But Chase and his crew consistently went extra to get little details like that right.
What’s the point? Bri at WWP yesterday tosses a pro-forma snarkburger at the talk radio right and 1280 the Patriot. I think this is an outdated line by now. Talk radio has like a lot of things been diminished by the entertainment available through on demand streaming. The implications of this are obvious to a point, but one thing is, those grass roots righty political energies that swirled around talk radio over the 90’s and 00′s are a lot less vibrant. I think this is what we mean when we observe diminished conservative vitriol (we may not exactly agree on this observation).
But I think it’s a thing. Ya know, I won’t now belittle how much I enjoyed listening to AM1500, KTLK, and the Patriot over the years. It was good, interesting listening, and I’ll go so far to say it was good public affairs radio in general. But I don’t listen much anymore. Haven’t heard Jason Lewis in more than a year, maybe 3, I think. That stuff got usurped.
And I think I’m less vitriolic, less pissed off, and I do not encounter those vitriolic conversations that used to germinate from right wing radio listening.
Tony gets whacked in the end by the way. As a matter of literary allusion, this is undeniable. I am kind of melancholy about that.
Over at Joey and the Dooosh, they ostensibly allow comments but have a rigorous authentication process for aspiring commenters. Only a couple people have passed it appears, so comment traffic is low.
Let’s have an open comment thread here for their posts eh?
On Bri’s column today: I’m not in substantial disagreement with his Minnesota analysis. So there.
Note Dayton is weaker than Franken. I think it’s right to perceive Dayton as somewhat inept and senile. Just because he’s inept doesn’t mean he’ll lose, as the state economy seems truly vibrant. But it’s a vulnerability for what ought to be a strong incumbent candidacy.
But….. Bri’s right, if what he puts his finger on is a lack of compelling substance from Johnson or Honour. Not sure either of those guy’s achieves the momentum to dislodge Dayton.
McFadden: He’s blander than Mitt Romney. I’m not seeing a victory for him.
Big thing: I’m just not sure I sense enormous conservative vitriol in Minnesota.
On Joe’s column: No, the guy will not be South Dakota’s Paul Wellstone. To be “Paul Wellstone”, you gotta win your senate seat, and Weiland will lose. I’ll bet $500 on that.
Bonus contemplation: If Weiland is laudable for not being a PAC money / dark money whore, why is the President not lamentable for being a … PAC money / dark money whore?
I mean, I understand the argument that the President can be against contribution whoring in principle but carve out an exception for himself in practice until the laws are changed. This explanation is acceptable to a point… that point eclipsed by $35k a plate rubber chicken dinners being a twice weekly thing for the President these days. It’s absolutely unseemly and anti-democratic. He’s a hypocrite.
Kluwe’s Penn State ‘joke’ has as its linguistic / literary anchor the trope ‘lecherous f*gs’, and in executing the joke Kluwe reveals himself as instigator of a hostile work environment.
So easily, Kluwe is a hypocrite. He’s a lefty cultural warrior, but apparently very comfortable being a provocative cretin in a sensibility / sensitivity conflict that could otherwise be defined and evaluated by prevailing liberal victimology deconstructions. That is, were this not in the ‘locker room’, and were not Kluwe having already been cast as a victim, etc.
Now, people are often hypocrites, so we take hypocrisy claims with a grain of salt around here. I think the question to ask re his hypocrisy is whether Kluwe is actually this person with advanced moral / civil rights insight we thought he was. Thing is, he obviously likes getting into obnoxious culture war arguments, and will rush to take a side when he spots an ongoing brouhaha. It may be that with this urgency, he may have merely picked the right, laudable side by chance a couple times over the years. Thing is, he’s obnoxious, and his compulsive urge is to be in the scrum ya figure.
But seriously, he’s got a real desire for attention, and this is a character flaw. He has been on the right side, but he’s imperfect. I alluded to this before.
Suffice it to say, I support the DC Circuit decision that says essentially that if not authorized by the statute, the IRS does not have the power to grant tax credits.
And there’s some chance in a year or two that ends up being the final word from the Supreme Court.
It doesn’t have to go to the Supreme Court. I’d bet the Republicans would take something in trade for correction of the PPACA statute. Like Keystone. Which is something the President would like to sign, were it not for the enviro-nutters in his own party.
Here’s the opportunity. But I don’t expect it will come to pass.
Hey you know I am kind of moved by history, and took to it pretty well. My boys basically get undergraduate quality lectures when we take car trips.
I make this point to them often and in these terms: Russia is a hell hole. Thank God your forebears left Europe.
I don’t mean to make light.
Looks like I was almost 15 when KAL 007 was shot down. My mother wept when that happened, in basic empathy and having grown up with nightmares of the Cuban missile crisis.
Things MPD / SPPD got wrong:
Target of warrant is a drug dealer
Target of warrant is a gang member
Target of warrant carries a gun
Target of warrant has attack dogs
Resident says he doesn’t deal, isn’t in a gang, and won’t touch guns. After the fact, he comes off rock solid believable. I’ll grant hindsight is clear, and foresight is ambiguous, and decisions are made using foresight, so some mistakes are expected and forgivable. That’s life. But this could have been figured out before tossing the fella’s house. You know, MPD / SPPD ostensibly has detectives on staff. Do a stakeout for a night for crying out loud. The dude has a business. Call him up and ask for a quote, get a feel for him.
The final indignity is the dogs.
“they were acting in an aggressive manner,” a St. Paul police spokesman has said.
Superficially it might be a legitimate response, pit bulls being known for a certain aggressive trope. But really what’s being said here is that the presence of pit bulls was understood as threatening by definition with the fella having been sized up as a dealer. Police probably made the decision to shoot the dogs before they entered the house.
I suspect the dogs were cowering and barking, not ‘threatening’. Because that’s what the residents said the dogs were doing, and the residents appear to have a spot standing in the shade of factuality. The police do not.
Actually, the final indignity might not be the dogs. There are officers here who ought to be disciplined by the their immediate superiors and the signing judge. There’s no reason to believe that will happen. In this day its fairly knee jerk to demand people be fired, so I’m mindful that’s not always as great a solution as it seems. But I’m not sure firing your guns for specious reasons in enforcement of a bad warrant isn’t a terminatable offense.
I tell ya, as a recalcitrant right wing crank I’m not all that resistant to a ‘discussion on race’. To that end, one of my suggestions is that white urban liberals, ie, the voters that have the power in the city, pressure their metropolitan police departments to stop abusing vulnerable minority populations. Get on the mayor’s case, and get on the county attorney’s case people.