I Didn't Write That!
25 November 2011
Andrew Graham-Dixon: "Art of Russia" (BBC)
A documentary on something that my own education(having studied Soviet art & film, along with history and theatre) and work (Vladrushka) have familiarized me with, but perhaps you don't know much about, because it's not much talked about. Well, here's a really good introduction to the fascinating history of Russian art by Andrew Graham-Dixon(who also did the excellent Art of Germany). Enjoy.
___________________
A documentary on something that my own education(having studied Soviet art & film, along with history and theatre) and work (Vladrushka) have familiarized me with, but perhaps you don't know much about, because it's not much talked about. Well, here's a really good introduction to the fascinating history of Russian art by Andrew Graham-Dixon(who also did the excellent Art of Germany). Enjoy.
___________________
Labels: art, film, history, Russia, vladrushka
¶ November 25, 2011 0 Comments
17 November 2011
Monsters
Is there a single person anywhere near the Sandusky scandal at Penn State who could ever be clean again?
Yesterday, cowardly assistant coach Mike McQueary, the fellow who walked in on Sandusky raping a child in the showers and later testified to that effect(how willingly is in doubt), claimed he "made sure it stopped, not physically." We can presume, since he says nothing in his sworn grand jury testimony about Sandusky and his 10-year-old victim leaving--but that McQueary did--that he means the fact he was seen by them seeing them was enough to presume it ended.
So McQueary does not at least get the child out of there, even if he does not beat Sandusky to death? No, he left him there with him. Left a helpless child with someone he was being raped by. As he goes to tell who knows who. Sandusky had every reason to think McQueary was going to security or the cops, because that's what any even marginally responsible adult would do. Because when caught, no criminal kills and hides their victim to cover it up, ever, when given the opportunity. Like here. That could easily have happened. Terrified guilty people can do crazy things.
If McQueary in fact did go to the cops, as he now claims--though not under oath-- why not take the kid along, coward? There is no way to squirm out of this.
But he did not.
Investigators later made McQueary come forward. But McQueary at the time only ran to his dad, and once his dad said it was okay, he went to Paterno, who covered it all up. That's what his sworn testimony says, no matter what this disgusting coward says now. I say "disgusting coward" because I do not care how many excuses I see people making about this. He saw a man raping a child. McQueary's a big strong football guy. Sandusky was a 58-year-old man. There was no reason at all for him to not stop Sandusky physically. Shut up with all your rationalizations.
What I don't see McQueary's dad saying to him in the grand jury testimony-"Wait, you left the kid there with him?"
The interview he did with Costas has been much discussed. Like how any lawyer could be so fucking stupid as to let his client destroy himself right on TV--with his lawyer sitting right there, next to Bob Costas, as Costas practiced some pretty harsh and professional journalism.
But given that when 49, his lawyer got in trouble for impregnating a teenage client, I think he thinks the more we hear Sandusky, the more we will start to empathize with him. I think his lawyer, like Sandusky, thinks on some level there's nothing wrong with what he did. And if that's the case, the move makes sense. It's insane and will destroy Sandusky, but you can see the insane logic behind it.
The interview itself reminded me of Michael Jackson's defenses of his sleepovers with little boys. Truly scary is Sandusky's little story of the shower, which...you know, there's places even my mind won't go. (I'm not posting any links with this. Go look all this up yourself; I'm not helping put that picture in your minds) The manner, the tone, the phrasing in which he describes it...his tone is a wistful one. Not a guilty one. I mean that in his mind, not guilty. You can tell that he's barely hiding that this is a fond memory for him.
Jesus Christ. I think Sandusky thinks it's romantic.
In regard to this when I mentioned it on Twitter last night(out of which this piece was consolidated) Jeff Chon said, "That's why Humbert Humbert is the most compelling monster in literature." And that's correct. Nabokov, certainly, knows Humbert is a monster. But Humbert hasn't the slightest idea he destroyed lives, that he's killing a little girl's soul. He thinks he means only the best. And that's Sandusky here.
Possibly worse: There must have been a moment Paterno & Sandusky had a private talk, Sandusky right there possibly saying at least as bad as that interview, "explaining." And sounding all the guiltier for it.
This is your (depending what year you mean) present or former assistant coach. And a man you know also works with children.
Imagine yourself with that right in front of you, someone you know saying that kind of thing. Then imagine your decision is to ENABLE this.
What the hell kind of person is Paterno. Wonder about that.
I'm just glad Sandusky considers that sort of thing in the shower "horseplay." Prison will be easier for him. (And what the fuck IS "horseplay" anyway?)
___________________
¶ November 17, 2011 0 Comments
Is there a single person anywhere near the Sandusky scandal at Penn State who could ever be clean again?
Yesterday, cowardly assistant coach Mike McQueary, the fellow who walked in on Sandusky raping a child in the showers and later testified to that effect(how willingly is in doubt), claimed he "made sure it stopped, not physically." We can presume, since he says nothing in his sworn grand jury testimony about Sandusky and his 10-year-old victim leaving--but that McQueary did--that he means the fact he was seen by them seeing them was enough to presume it ended.
So McQueary does not at least get the child out of there, even if he does not beat Sandusky to death? No, he left him there with him. Left a helpless child with someone he was being raped by. As he goes to tell who knows who. Sandusky had every reason to think McQueary was going to security or the cops, because that's what any even marginally responsible adult would do. Because when caught, no criminal kills and hides their victim to cover it up, ever, when given the opportunity. Like here. That could easily have happened. Terrified guilty people can do crazy things.
If McQueary in fact did go to the cops, as he now claims--though not under oath-- why not take the kid along, coward? There is no way to squirm out of this.
But he did not.
Investigators later made McQueary come forward. But McQueary at the time only ran to his dad, and once his dad said it was okay, he went to Paterno, who covered it all up. That's what his sworn testimony says, no matter what this disgusting coward says now. I say "disgusting coward" because I do not care how many excuses I see people making about this. He saw a man raping a child. McQueary's a big strong football guy. Sandusky was a 58-year-old man. There was no reason at all for him to not stop Sandusky physically. Shut up with all your rationalizations.
What I don't see McQueary's dad saying to him in the grand jury testimony-"Wait, you left the kid there with him?"
The interview he did with Costas has been much discussed. Like how any lawyer could be so fucking stupid as to let his client destroy himself right on TV--with his lawyer sitting right there, next to Bob Costas, as Costas practiced some pretty harsh and professional journalism.
But given that when 49, his lawyer got in trouble for impregnating a teenage client, I think he thinks the more we hear Sandusky, the more we will start to empathize with him. I think his lawyer, like Sandusky, thinks on some level there's nothing wrong with what he did. And if that's the case, the move makes sense. It's insane and will destroy Sandusky, but you can see the insane logic behind it.
The interview itself reminded me of Michael Jackson's defenses of his sleepovers with little boys. Truly scary is Sandusky's little story of the shower, which...you know, there's places even my mind won't go. (I'm not posting any links with this. Go look all this up yourself; I'm not helping put that picture in your minds) The manner, the tone, the phrasing in which he describes it...his tone is a wistful one. Not a guilty one. I mean that in his mind, not guilty. You can tell that he's barely hiding that this is a fond memory for him.
Jesus Christ. I think Sandusky thinks it's romantic.
In regard to this when I mentioned it on Twitter last night(out of which this piece was consolidated) Jeff Chon said, "That's why Humbert Humbert is the most compelling monster in literature." And that's correct. Nabokov, certainly, knows Humbert is a monster. But Humbert hasn't the slightest idea he destroyed lives, that he's killing a little girl's soul. He thinks he means only the best. And that's Sandusky here.
Possibly worse: There must have been a moment Paterno & Sandusky had a private talk, Sandusky right there possibly saying at least as bad as that interview, "explaining." And sounding all the guiltier for it.
This is your (depending what year you mean) present or former assistant coach. And a man you know also works with children.
Imagine yourself with that right in front of you, someone you know saying that kind of thing. Then imagine your decision is to ENABLE this.
What the hell kind of person is Paterno. Wonder about that.
I'm just glad Sandusky considers that sort of thing in the shower "horseplay." Prison will be easier for him. (And what the fuck IS "horseplay" anyway?)
___________________
¶ November 17, 2011 0 Comments
08 November 2011
Rage Addict/Deadbeat Dad Rep. Joe Walsh Decides Yelling At His Constituents Is Good Politics
...and when you see this, it's not hard to understand what he must have sounded like as a husband and father. He yells impatiently at his own constituents within less that two minutes in this clip. Whenever I've seen him on any news but Fox, he always has that biting-my-lip-waiting-to-talk look like he could break out into a yelling fit at any time. That he cannot STAND to be disagreed with.
Well, all I can say is: his opposition now has their ad. He's scary and pathetic at the same time.
Walsh: these are not your children, whom you refuse to pay child support for. These people can, and now probably will, vote your ragey ass out of office.
I'm so glad the current crop of GOP that came in last year are mostly complete idiots. Walsh is simply the loudest one. And he's...not bright.
___________________
...and when you see this, it's not hard to understand what he must have sounded like as a husband and father. He yells impatiently at his own constituents within less that two minutes in this clip. Whenever I've seen him on any news but Fox, he always has that biting-my-lip-waiting-to-talk look like he could break out into a yelling fit at any time. That he cannot STAND to be disagreed with.
Well, all I can say is: his opposition now has their ad. He's scary and pathetic at the same time.
Walsh: these are not your children, whom you refuse to pay child support for. These people can, and now probably will, vote your ragey ass out of office.
I'm so glad the current crop of GOP that came in last year are mostly complete idiots. Walsh is simply the loudest one. And he's...not bright.
___________________
Labels: bastards, politics, right wing
¶ November 08, 2011 0 Comments
