Home | Away

Help wanted

Well, it’s happened again.  I go ahead and paste Richard Cohen’s head shot on this website, and my readers find it deeply disturbing.  Worse yet, I put Richard Cohen’s head shot on this website on a Friday, and (as you know) I rarely post on the weekends, so he’s been up there for three full days, just like he was back in October, when I did some on-the-fly Cohen-mockery at the end of a long week.  So by Sunday night, a commenter who goes by the name of John (if that is his real name) was reduced to a strange combination of abject begging and personal abuse:

Please, most dangerous one, post some new content so as to push that picture off of the front page. It freaks me out every time I see it up there.

On second thought, though, it does look like a picture of you in 20 (10?) years.

I know, I deserve it.

But what a time to be at a loss for words!  Here I’m faced with a blog emergency, I’ve got to move the Cohen photo down the page, and I’m sitting here at the keyboard, stupefied.

You know, I can understand why the press went in the tank for Iraq.  There’s no mystery why Tweety and Liddy had simultaneous wargasms about the flightsuit.  I can see why the Plame story and the Downing Street Memo are so bo-ring to the CWmeisters.  I don’t blink in disbelief when every bobblehead says in chorus, “Democrats, too, were involved in the Abramoff scandal.” I wasn’t surprised that the Washington Post, burned first by nasty mean blog commenters and then by their own Ben “even my prepositions are plagiarized” Domenech scandal, would order a takedown of Maryscott O’Connor, who, together with a couple of other liberal bloggers, has precipitated a National Civility Crisis.  I could have predicted that poor Joe Klein would need to have his many wounds kissed and dressed by Hugh Hewitt.  I know all too well why DC power couple Ana Marie Cox and Chris Lehmann have signed up for the nose-pinching “Colbert is not really our cup of tea, dahling” society.  And I don’t even think very highly of Richard Cohen.  In fact, these days I’m thinking he could beat Jeff Goldstein in a head-to-head matchup of supercilious, ignorant, self-satisfied wankers, and remember, my prognosticatin’ record has been pretty good lately.

But for some reason, I just wasn’t ready for the weekend media blackout on Hookergate.  Of all things to trip my incredulity wire!  On Friday I was readin’ around the usual blogs, and many of them were on full-alert Pony Watch.  On Monday I find that the only people still talking about Hookergate are . . . bloggers. Really smart, reliable ones like Laura Rozen and Kevin Drum, mind you, not those foul-mouthed denizens of the fever swamp (i.e., everybody else, including you).  Well, at least this reminds me why I started reading blogs in the first place, back in the summer of 2002—out of a growing sense that almost everything else had become worse than useless.  (Yes, I know it took me way too long, another eighteen months, to start my own damn blog.  Give me a break already—especially those of you who think I’ll look like Richard Cohen in a decade or two.) But that’s a long way to go to look for a good side.

Digby’s explanation is that Tony Snow is in charge, and the Blizzard of Blarney is in full effect for all the boys in the club.  Plausible enough.  But here’s what I don’t understand.  Normally, the press loves a good scandal, and by “good scandal” I mean “a scandal with gambling and hookers” as opposed to one of those bo-ring things that involve yellowcake and obscure forgeries and undercover agents working on nuclear proliferation.  So what gives?  Why are we being asked to believe that Goss wasn’t sufficiently committed to the purging of the CIA?  Who is supposed to be fooled by this?  Are our doughty reporters themselves fooled by this?  Or does Karl Rove simply have the names and addresses of all the hookers employed by the National Press Club, so that the silence is underwritten by a policy of mutually assured destruction?

I have a followup question, too.  I’m just old enough to remember how much the Nixon Administration hated the press—but the way I remember it, the feeling was entirely mutual.  Here we’ve got ourselves a dumber, more incompetent, and possibly even more malevolent version of the Nixon Administration, complete with utter dripping contempt for the press—and the fourth estate’s collective response, with a couple of exceptions here and there over the past five years, has been “thank you, sir, may I have another?” (Let’s not rehash the widespread Heather Outrage that constituted press coverage of Clinton and Gore, and that offered the Beltway punditry at their most prurient; thankfully, we don’t need to, because Digby has that one covered with two coats.  But then again, if Monica’s blue dress constituted a constitutional crisis, why aren’t juicy GOP sex scandals every bit as exciting?) Honestly, folks, I’m feeling like we’re at the point where, if the Bush Administration announced that Porter Goss was killed in a bizarre gardening accident, we would be reading in tomorrow’s paper that Porter Goss was killed in a bizarre gardening accident, and the “story” would be festooned with sidebars on how little-understood the phenomenon of modern gardening accidents really is.

So I’ve got nothing today, nothing.  If it weren’t for the pressing need to move the Wizard of Wank down the page a bit (which, I believe, I have now done—hey, mission accomplished!), I’d just go back to grading my (now overdue) graduate seminar papers and leave the blog to fester for another day.

I do have good news on the blog-festering front, though, and I’ll let you in on the details later in the week.  In the meantime, please tell me what the hell is going on in the world of the Heathers.  All theories, even plausible ones, are welcome.

Posted by on 05/08 at 09:09 AM

  1. As a frequent guest of members of the NPC over the years, I’ve been wondering what the big draw was.

    Posted by Roxanne  on  05/08  at  10:29 AM

  2. The hookers aren’t dead or missing.  Are they runaway hookers?  Flip-flopping democrat hookers?  Hookers who asked for it at a major university?  No?  Well then.

    Captcha:  light, as in “sweetness and.”

    Posted by Crazy Little Thing  on  05/08  at  10:50 AM

  3. Oh, good point.  I forgot all about about flip-flopping democrat hookers—and hookers who claim to have invented the Internet.  Those hookers have to be exposed.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  10:55 AM

  4. My guess: it’s a matter of not wanting to poke the ginourmous snot bubble that is Warshington from the inside.

    It’s bound to get all over everybody - whereas with Clinton… eh, let’s not go there.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  12:15 PM

  5. If the terrorists find out that “undercover operative” is a double entendre, they will be emboldened.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:11 PM

  6. maybe if they were blonde runaway hookers with rich daddies in Alabama....and pursued by someone Nancy Grace would want to hate

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:25 PM

  7. You have nailed it, Michael. They are covering each others’ asses. Parties and hookers must be the deal. Except for Helen Thomas. What a bunch of degenerates.

    Posted by Hattie  on  05/08  at  01:39 PM

  8. Thank you for using the word doughty. It’s much cuter than Richard Cohen.

    Posted by Orange  on  05/08  at  01:44 PM

  9. Could someone kindly (or dismissively) help me with the Heather reference ?

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:46 PM

  10. Heathers is a reference to Jim Capazolla’s Al Gore and the Alpha Girls. We just say “the Heathers” to refer to that pack of sharper-than-thou nit wits.

    The first thing I did was snap off a note to Busby’s CM to let her know she’d an inbound issue over the next several cycles—Goss and Duke being too close for comfort.

    Not just the MSM is down however, the FDL/DK fusion is fairly chuck-producing.

    But Goss isn’t the only item—Blair got hit by a bus driven by Brown and a flock of backbenchers and DeVillepin is wandering around in heavy traffic with his eyes tightly shut. Resolute Leather Clad Western Governments able to stand up for (millenarian ignorance) is reduced to a lost women from Berlin, in town for VE Day, and our own beloved.

    Posted by ebw  on  05/08  at  01:59 PM

  11. You have nailed it, Michael. They are covering each others’ asses.

    How could I have nailed it?  Only Digby can nail it.  Go on, Google “Digby nails it.” You’ll see.  Me, I don’t even have a hammer today.  I got nothing.  But if I had a hammer, I’d hammer in the mornin’, I’d hammer in Tom DeLay’s district, all over this land.

    Could someone kindly (or dismissively) help me with the Heather reference?

    If it’s dismissive help you need, you rank ignoramus, you’ve come to the right place!  Everybody who’s anybody knows that the Heathers reference goes all the way back to the press gaggle’s treatment of Gore in 1999, as reported by Heathers Time magazine correspondent Eric Pooley (see this royal and ancient post by Bob Somerby of ye olde Daily Howler.

    I mean, your question is so very.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:01 PM

  12. Why are we being asked to believe that Goss wasn’t sufficiently committed to the purging of the CIA? This isn’t what it seems, this is a real mystery.  I mean that is what Goss says it is. 

    And deeper in the blogsphere you discover that the name of Gannon creeps up out of the gutters again, seen getting in and out of certain limos in and around the Watergate and Westin hotels.  We can’t even have female hookers in this story, and there are the usual conspiracy freaks who suggest that much like escapade of other skull and boners, there may or may not (mysterious i am sure) have been underaged male escorts involved.  We only have ex-military, ex-CIA personnel to thank for that though.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:04 PM

  13. There are no “juicy GOP sex scandals” because there is no “juicy GOP sex.”

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:07 PM

  14. Ah, I see ebw has kind of beaten me to the punch.  Interestingly, although Jim C.’s deservedly Koufax-winning post of 2002 (hey, ebw would know something about that) riffs brilliantly on the “Heathers” trope, “Al Gore and the Alpha Girls” never uses the word.  Whereas Pooley’s 1999 essay contained the immortal sentence, “Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some helpless nerd.”

    We’re all about the primary sources on this helpful yet disdainfully dismissive blog.

    There are no “juicy GOP sex scandals” because there is no “juicy GOP sex.”

    Oh, all right then.  Dry and painful GOP sex scandals, if you must.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:07 PM

  15. the corporatist agenda is well served by a discredited, inept media that ignores or mischaracterizes reality.

    if you’re a corporatist, reality really does have a liberal slant—because there isn’t any way to reconcile equality and freedom with the corporatist goal of power and wealth concentrated into the hands of a few.

    the editorial page of the wall street journal is the future of publishable opinion in a corporatist-owned and -managed country like the united states.  the illusion of a free press in a country with the illusion of free expression subdues the population with the illusion of self determination. 

    right now, our agencies and instruments of governance are purposely run incompetently to bolster the argument that government cannot solve problems and should be minimized and many agencies simply abolished.  the media is purposely run ineptly to bolster the argument that it publishes no more than “opinions,” and to discredit non-corporatist instances of it.

    corporatists are probably no more intested in owning the media than they are in owning the churches, but (in the same way that banks are where the money is), the power of opinion (which informs voting decisions) currently resides in the media and significantly with the churches.

    if the media chooses to ignore the possibility that two presidential elections were stolen and fails to encourage the population to insist on measures to ensure “one man, one honestly counted vote”—then this silence is the message ... and the average citizen thinks there is no voting fraud, that the media is free to give voice to important matters, and what isn’t a story simply didn’t happen.

    the press, owned no longer by family-run businesses but by corporatists, increasingly supports corporatist agendas—low taxes on wealth, further media deregulation and consolidation, and a managed and compliant population that endorses the dismantling of governance and civil rights.

    journalism has become a protected guild in which membership is owned by corporatists.  two kinds of stories are allowed:  corporatist, and inept liberalist as a bungling foil (written by “usefull fools").  richard cohen, of course, is an example of the later.

    we are in a slow motion constitutional crisis in which the corporatist-owned media is directly complicit.  the fact that this is a non-story is the most important story of the moment.

    if, instead of corporatists, the press was owned by the leaders of one religion, imagine the impact on the nature of what would and would not be a story.

    when corporatists own education, which is what privitizing our schools means, what philosophy but corporatism will be taught?

    we’re at a strange tipping point.  we live in the richest country in the world at the richest moment in history—and we have a trillion dollar deficit because we’re convinced we’re actually poor and can’t afford to run our country.

    i can only hope we can pull back from the edge in time.  but the end of cheap oil may ensure the kinds of stresses that typically encourage a population to say “yes” to restrictions on freedom, and “yes” to distracting wars, to any politician who will falsely promise security by any means.

    /ehj2

    Posted by ehj2  on  05/08  at  02:27 PM

  16. OK, but what I want to know is “is our politicians learning?” I mean I don’t ever expect *parity* in how the Dems and the Rs are covered.  That would be too much to expect.  But can our next pres. do better than Clinton did? 

    How come the press covers their hooker scandals as interdepartmental rivalry, and our interdepartmental rivalry as hooker scandals?  I want the R’s secret formula.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:29 PM

  17. Answer #1: Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent_.  I don’t care who’s tired of hearing about it yet again.  Re-reading this book recently, I was struck by the chapter on how Migs that were never there were used as a pretext to overshadow the Nicaraguan election (WMDs, anyone?), right next to another one about how Italian intelligence faked a connection between the attempted assassination of the Pope and the Bulgarians (yellowcake, too).  In thie case, hookers suddenly become uninteresting to the press because of the standard Chomskian model: all the factors that combine to say that the press only goes against the party in power when a segment of the elite is threatened.  None of the elite want to see this particular hooker story get told; none are threatened by a defunct CIA.

    Answer #2: like any overextended empire, we’re suffering from decadence—not the stupid concept of sexual decadence that the fundies like to harp on, but decadence as in the loss of fundamental capability of society that it used to be able to do and now no longer can.  Journalism has had enough of the supports lost so that while people still remember it, it’s becoming like Greek philosophy was in the early medieval period.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:52 PM

  18. The largest paper in my state devoted a full page of the Sunday paper to tell us that a member of Congress and scion of the Kennedy family crashed an automobile. Get this, it is highly likely that conscious altering substances were involved, maybe even alcohol. And something like this happened less than forty years ago.

    Posted by black dog barking  on  05/08  at  02:55 PM

  19. Maybe the press is ignoring the “CIA Guys Evince Sketchy Ethics” story because it’s a “Dog Fetches Stick” type of story. I mean, like duh.

    Admittedly, that doesn’t seem to apply in other cases. The relatively common “War in Iraq Goes Badly” stories seem like “Cat Sharpens Claws on Living Room Sofa” to me. I mean, like duh.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  03:14 PM

  20. The problem is we haven’t seen the hookers yet. All we can see is Porter Goss and Duke Cunningham, and the thought of them having sex is enough to put you off your cream of wheat. Wait till we have lurid photos and intimate details.

    Of course, that theory presumes the hookers are female. If they’re male, don’t expect to see pictures.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  03:27 PM

  21. In line with 15 and 17 above, this diary at DKos was illuminating:

    How Tim Russert became Karl Rove’s Bitch

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/8/13191/83603

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  04:07 PM

  22. Well… Authorities said… best leave it… unsolved.

    Ever since the Gannon “gay hooker/WH shill reporter with unprecedented access” story morphed into “mean left-wing bloggers don’t respect privacy”, I have been puzzling over this.

    I know you warned against rehashing the 90’s Heather Outrage, but I do think it is necessary to continue to re-read and study Sally Quinn’s classic Beltway Kool Kidz explain their outrage piece (here from Atrios) to really understand what continues to be wrong today. This piece is a Rosetta Stone for the social, emotional and psychological makeup of these courtiers.

    I think that by now they are so locked in and invested in their “once were lost but now are saved” 1997-2004 narrative of government morality that they face a massive “defense of self-image” barrier to even acknowledging the current administration for what it clearly is. Oh, they will hint at it from time to time when it gets too egregious to ignore, but they cannot really come clean at the cost of their fantasy world and their place in it. It is for dilemmas like this that 12-step programs were invented. We are not going to see anything different until Tim Russert is either gone or he can stand up and say “My name is Tim Russert and I am a spinaholic” and then check himself in for a course of treatment at the Hunter S. Thompson Institute for Bullshit Detection in the bucolic hills of western Virginia.

    ... to illustrate the degree of self-deception I just can’t resist quoting the following from Quinn’s article ... because I can:
    “The judgment is harsher in Washington,” says The Post’s Broder. “We don’t like being lied to.”

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  04:15 PM

  23. Well, my first comment was rejected, so I guess you can forget the compliment I tried to give you.

    You acedemics make everything so hard for us lowly folk.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  04:56 PM

  24. Republican Gay Sex at the Water Gate? How delicious that would turn out to be! Of course, they don’t rail against Gay Sex, just Gay Marriage. What a corrupt bunch of twits!

    captcha is result, as this is the result of electing these bums to office.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  05:01 PM

  25. To echo shargash, I think the quiet on the Hookergate front has a lot to do with the elevated Ick Factor of GOP sex. Clinton had a reputation as a charmer before he won in 1992, and many people found him quite sexy and charismatic--biases and desperation for scoops and access and sensationalism aside, it just didn’t elicit an involuntary “EWWW!” reaction at its core. (He’s never been my type, but then I’ve never seen him in person. I also never understood the swooning appeal of Elvis, but he was before my time.)

    This particular scandal is sort of like having your great-uncle tell you how hot he always found your grandma (or grandpa, depending on where this scandal goes), and, well, EWWWW.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  05:13 PM

  26. Answer #1: Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent_.  I don’t care who’s tired of hearing about it yet again.

    OK, that would be me!

    Only kidding, Rich.  More seriously, when you need someone to explain how consent is not won by propaganda campaigns—that is, someone to explain how it is that people (even ordinary ones, like those foul-mouthed, uncivil, unwashed liberal bloggers) manage to figure out when and how the media are in the tank—I’d suggest Stuart Hall instead.  In fact, the real failure of American cultural studies in the 1990s, as I will argue someplace or other at greater length, was not simply that (as every lefty wonk thinks) one wing of it degenerated into callow, craven celebrations of consumer capital; it was also (and much more importantly) that the tensions between the Gramscian “winning consent” model and the Chomsky-Herman “manufacturing consent” model were never sufficiently thrashed out.

    But I agree entirely about the decadence.  I am so with you on the decadence. 

    The largest paper in my state devoted a full page of the Sunday paper to tell us that a member of Congress and scion of the Kennedy family crashed an automobile.

    What, your paper has given up on the investigation of Cynthia McKinney already?  And what about Gary Condit, dammit?  The people demand to know the truth!  Or maybe they don’t—see above.

    The problem is we haven’t seen the hookers yet. All we can see is Porter Goss and Duke Cunningham, and the thought of them having sex is enough to put you off your cream of wheat.

    Oh, good point, shargash.  I hadn’t even considered the details of the sexual activities themselves, and now I know why.  But I can see why money would have to be involved, yes.

    You academics make everything so hard for us lowly folk.

    I’ll take that as the replacement compliment, dms.  Thanks!

    Posted by Michael  on  05/08  at  07:22 PM

  27. If we reveal the ways in which our operatives are manuevering around, arranging clandestine meetings with prostitutes, we will give away a vital component of our playbook in the war on terrorism.

    OT: Joe Lieberman (with Cornyn) proposed legislation to make federally funded scholarship available online free of charge. The rationale: “Not everybody has a library next door. I don’t mean to be flippant about it, but this gives access to anybody,” said Donald Stewart, a spokesman for Senator Cornyn.

    compare: “In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.”

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  07:24 PM

  28. Hopelessly obscure, or dazzlingly obvious?

    Was Goss pushed out because he’s involved in Hookergate?  Insufficiently willing to purge the CIA of non-true believers?  Unwilling to go along with Negroponte’s plan to transfer covert ops from the CIA to the DIA?  Insufficiently bought in to the upcoming Iran invasion to be left at CIA?  Which of these four explanations, or any others you might conjecture, are true, or which offered merely as cover stories for what someone thinks is the even more awful truth?  Who might wish to cover which motive with which rationale?

    Those of us who aren’t major players in this farce will never know the details.  The major players themselves are presumably incapable of much understanding either, or they would not have to stage such farcical intrigues against each other to get what should be the public business done.  For this reason, the details are not important anyway.  There is no “there” there, no rational, true explanation behind all the rationales.  It makes little sense to seek a mastermind among these half-wits.

    This is the essential truth that the very obscurity and tangled nature of the rationales at play in this intrigue makes clear.  We no longer live in a republic, a form of government in which the public business is discussed openly, as a matter of public record.  Yet we still believe in democracy, that the governors must derive their authority from periodic popular elections.  So the elected dictators who govern us fight subterranean battles amongst themselves, visible to us on the surface only in terms of the unreal rationales left over from use in the equally unreal elections.

    The real question isn’t who should be director of the CIA, or which intelligence agency should be in charge of our secret services.  We have such agencies, not because any external threat demands their existence (beyond a very rudimentary developement), not to protect us from secret enemies, but to protect us from having to conduct the public business publicly.  The real question is whether we shall decide we want a republic back, and therefore decide to get rid of these secret services.  Perestroika can’t begin until we have glasnost.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  07:47 PM

  29. Thanks to ebw for the great Capozzola article. Having gone to an all boys high school I didn’t realize there was some misery I’d missed out on.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  08:51 PM

  30. Glen, amen.

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  12:54 AM

  31. El profesor,

    You have got to read Dick Cohens latest column.

    Here’s an example of his betterthancolberts humor,

    “By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499—a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators.”

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  01:06 AM

  32. Please please please update your Cohen piece to link this.  Then I can see a sweet sweet link to Dengeral Studies next to Mr. Cohen’s metldown.  Seems like he got some “disease-ridden sewage” e-mail right in the kisser.  As opposed to the clean as bright Spring day sewage.

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  05/09  at  03:37 AM

  33. It’s because no one wants to imagine them naked.

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  06:19 AM

  34. Maybe I’m stating the obvious, but the choice of the name “Heather” to refer to Gore’s chattering critics actually goes back even further to the 1989 movie “Heathers,” which featured just such a pack of cooler-than-thou high schoolers, all named Heather.

    Incidentally, Winona Ryder spent the first part of that movie wanting to be a Heather, then Christian Slater killed all the Heathers and Winona decided maybe life ain’t so great as a Heather. Not sure what all that means, other than that Richard Cohen should be very nervous if Christian Slater gets himself a syndicated column and moves to Washington.

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  09:29 AM

  35. speak well of a cat named Heather-- from Ken Silverstein today on Harper’s (dot) org. 
    I’ve been told by several sources that one of the people in attendance at the parties—not a current or former member of Congress—has a long international track record of Bill Clinton–style sexual indiscretions. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told me that this man—let me put this delicately—once, some years ago, while in Europe, kept company with an acquaintance whose work attire resembled Halle Berry’s in the film Catwoman. (Ma’am, if you are out there reading this, please contact ken (at) harpers (dot) org immediately, as I have many questions. A translator will be provided if needed.)

    as capture word suggests, it is just a “theory,” but then so is Tuesday, is it not???

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  12:15 PM

  36. The proverb “first rate people want to hire first rate people, second rate people want to hire third rate people” is the most satisfying explanation of the Press Corps love of Republicans that I have seen. Except, “second rate” is too nice.

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  12:29 PM

  37. "would order a takedown of Maryscott O’Connor, who, together with a couple of other liberal bloggers, has precipitated a National Civility Crisis.”

    Has anyone asked Maryscott O’Connor herself whether she thinks she was “taken down”?

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  01:12 PM

  38. Has anyone asked Maryscott O’Connor herself whether she thinks she was “taken down”?

    Why, yes!  Her response is available on her very own blog, and is linked in the post above this one.

    She employs a somewhat different terminology in her discussion of the WaPo article.  But that’s OK—the liberal blogosphere is a big tent.  A big tent full of Angry Flakes.

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  01:46 PM

  39. Thank you, Brian, for pointing out the cinematic reference of the origin of “Heathers”.  That no one else knew this was starting to drive me nuts.

    Posted by Jill  on  05/09  at  03:18 PM

  40. Michael,
    Amen and Hallelujah!

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  03:53 PM

  41. Thank you, Brian, for pointing out the cinematic reference of the origin of “Heathers”.  That no one else knew this was starting to drive me nuts.

    We knew it.  In fact, we alluded to it at the end of comment 11.  But we just weren’t telling anyone else.  Nyah nyah nyah.

    Captcha:  “eskimo.”

    Posted by Michael  on  05/09  at  05:27 PM

  42. I read this entire post in a daze until I got to the Spinal Tap reference, at which point I immediately perked up, and thus I can’t comment on anything substantive. But I do want to say this, because it must be said. It would be better if you had Goss choke on his vomit, because you can’t dust for vomit.

    Posted by Chris  on  05/09  at  08:01 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Sybillity

Previous entry: Mission accomplished

<< Back to main