Tuesday, March 13, 2012
"...And Its Discontents" And Its Discontents
It's time to retire "...and its discontents." I don't think any explanation is needed, but any reader who requires one should send me a SASE and it will be duly furnished.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Elections and Beer Revisited
I'm rethinking my remarks about Nixon in the previous "elections and beer" post. I realize this is all confirmation bias, whatever that means, but we don't worry about such things here at BLECCH!
McGovern seems like a real wet blanket. Hunter Thompson, an ardent supporter, speculated that he had no sense of humor. The same HST spent an hour talking football with Nixon one time, however, and reported that Tricky Dick knew his shit. This sort of thing--knowing your shit about football--makes you pretty beer-worthy, indeed the fact that Nixon was interested in anything at all aside from winning elections makes him more beer-worthy than a good many politicians.
It's true that Nixon's visage seems to symbolize "no fun," i.e. non-beer-worthiness, but McGovern's rigid earnestness might clear out a bar even quicker. So I'm giving 1972 to Nixon.
As for Hubert Humphrey, I have read a bit about him but rarely seen film of him in action. He was reputed to be some sort of liberal 'firebrand' in his early days, but at least judging by Robert Caro's account in his biography of LBJ, he seemed to be a pretty pathetic character by the time he ran for president. So I am giving Nixon the benefit of the doubt in 1968; it's at least plausible that he was more beer-worthy than Humphrey at this point.
McGovern seems like a real wet blanket. Hunter Thompson, an ardent supporter, speculated that he had no sense of humor. The same HST spent an hour talking football with Nixon one time, however, and reported that Tricky Dick knew his shit. This sort of thing--knowing your shit about football--makes you pretty beer-worthy, indeed the fact that Nixon was interested in anything at all aside from winning elections makes him more beer-worthy than a good many politicians.
It's true that Nixon's visage seems to symbolize "no fun," i.e. non-beer-worthiness, but McGovern's rigid earnestness might clear out a bar even quicker. So I'm giving 1972 to Nixon.
As for Hubert Humphrey, I have read a bit about him but rarely seen film of him in action. He was reputed to be some sort of liberal 'firebrand' in his early days, but at least judging by Robert Caro's account in his biography of LBJ, he seemed to be a pretty pathetic character by the time he ran for president. So I am giving Nixon the benefit of the doubt in 1968; it's at least plausible that he was more beer-worthy than Humphrey at this point.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Elections and Beer
I was thinking about the current political standard of who one would "like to have a beer with," and it seems like a pretty iron-clad predictor of general election victory. The only exception is Nixon; most sane people would probably have a beer with anybody before Nixon, or even do anything rather than have a beer with Nixon. But consider:
Obama v. McCain: most I imagine would drink with Obama.
Bush v. Kerry: Definitely Bush.
Bush v. Gore: Definitely Bush.
Clinton v. Dole: Definitely Clinton.
Clinton v. Bush: Definitely Clinton.
Bush v. Dukakis: Bush by a whisker.
Reagan v. Mondale: Reagan wins.
Reagan v. Carter: I'd go with Carter but most people would probably go with Reagan.
Ford v. Carter: Carter by far.
Johnson v. Goldwater: I doubt there'd be anyone on the planet better to have a beer with than LBJ.
Kennedy v. Nixon: See my above remarks about Nixon.
Ike v. Stevenson: Ike for sure.
I don't know enough about most of the also-rans before that (Dewey?) but if it wasn't for Nixon winning twice, this would be pretty well infallible, and even so Nixon didn't run against particularly beer-worthy opponents. Although, if Bush's two elections were fraudulent that introduces another wrinkle...
Obama v. McCain: most I imagine would drink with Obama.
Bush v. Kerry: Definitely Bush.
Bush v. Gore: Definitely Bush.
Clinton v. Dole: Definitely Clinton.
Clinton v. Bush: Definitely Clinton.
Bush v. Dukakis: Bush by a whisker.
Reagan v. Mondale: Reagan wins.
Reagan v. Carter: I'd go with Carter but most people would probably go with Reagan.
Ford v. Carter: Carter by far.
Johnson v. Goldwater: I doubt there'd be anyone on the planet better to have a beer with than LBJ.
Kennedy v. Nixon: See my above remarks about Nixon.
Ike v. Stevenson: Ike for sure.
I don't know enough about most of the also-rans before that (Dewey?) but if it wasn't for Nixon winning twice, this would be pretty well infallible, and even so Nixon didn't run against particularly beer-worthy opponents. Although, if Bush's two elections were fraudulent that introduces another wrinkle...
Thursday, March 1, 2012
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nU615FaODCg?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nU615FaODCg?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Bad Predictions
In 1991 Ice T said:
Mandela won the Nobel prize in 1993. They didn't put a bullet in the Ice.
Mandela did 27 hard ones
Not in a windowed room
But in a barred one
While his wife had tears in her eyes
The man is a hero he needs a Nobel Prize
But that will never happen so I'm gonna keep rappin'
Freein' my brothers' minds from their entrapment
To silence the Ice, they'll probably put a bullet in me
But I'm prepared to die, Mandela's free!
Mandela won the Nobel prize in 1993. They didn't put a bullet in the Ice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)