Take your ball and go home

JE, Detroit — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:09:49 GMT

Will, I gotta disagree with you on this one: Garrison Keillor's essay was definitely anti-gay. Those of us who have been dealing with rhetoric and prejudice like his for years can spot it a mile away. He wasn't being as obvious about it as Ann Coultergeist, which is perhaps why you didn't see his true message. People like Keillor are perhaps even more dangerous than people who are as obvious as Ann Coulter. (I'm sure you know what I'm referencing to here, but I'm not going to put her hateful words here because I don't know if that kind of language is allowed on this blog). Coulter's message is clear and to the point, so obviously bigoted that only the most hard core bigots can defend her. She's laughable. Keillor's essay, and the anti-gay rhetoric within, is more subtle, and apparently some people (such as yourself), can't spot the strong undercuurent of bigotry and prejudice in his piece. That's why people like Keillor are so dangerous--he couches his homophobic message in the tired old "for the kids" routine: too many family members are bad for kids (huh?), flamboyant parents are bad for kids (huh?), and people nod their heads and agree with him about how much simpler things used to be, how much more wholesome life was in years past. What they, and you, are apparently failing to recognize, is that he places the blame squarely on GAYS (specifically gay parents) for adding to the children's already too-crowded extended family (as if there's anything wrong with a large extended family)--and in addition, who says gays are flamboyant in the first place? You say that "People are accusing Garrison Keillor of being anti-gay" in his essay, but did you actually bother to READ any of his detractors comments about it before you naively defended him? Dan Savage's blog piece about it is an excellent place to start, but I can't directly link to it because it has a swear word in the URL (and justifiably so). But if you want to know why you're wrong in your assessment of Keillor's piece, put "dan savage garrison keillor" into google search and you'll find his blog at the top.

Take your ball and go home

Paul, Alamo, CA — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:47:01 GMT

The absurd thing about the new performer tax pushed by RIAA is that it is completely counter-productive. It will hurt new bands and smaller ones far more than the known ones, since internet radio is how many get discovered (which leads to CD or track purchases). It is even more outrageous when you consider that AM/FM radio stations do not pay this, yet they probably lead to even less sales. Internet radio and specialist channels introduce people to new bands as well as older ones they did not know about. This is an ideal marketing tool for the RIAA, yet they seem determined to kill it or at least harm its most useful function.

Take your ball and go home

Paul, Alamo, CA — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:53:46 GMT

"share its content online audiences will watch something else online" - truthfully, new sites will come along that simply act as front-ends to many different video sources. So, you will use a "You tube" like web page to watch video that may be on You tube, a commercial site, a movie trailer site, or some other content provider. In the end, no one cares how the video is stored. The question is how much tolerance for leader ads (as Viacom and others want to go to). But, sites will be there that have tags, comments, related-video, alternative sources (of varying quality length), etc. So, the future of You Tube as a value property may be in question, although they are just as likely to be the new front-end.

Take your ball and go home

Alex, Lawrence, KS — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:28:27 GMT

Hey Will, Have you found a link to that Dolce ad that is causing such a hoopla?

Take your ball and go home

Neil Wemple, Bellevue, WA — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:47:03 GMT

Somebody warn Boston: R2D2 is NOT a BOMB.

Take your ball and go home

Ben Johnson, Chicago IL — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:46:03 GMT

Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, has given support for medical marijuana http://www.marijuana.org/austinchronicle5-30-03.htm . He also has the most myspace friends of Republican candidates http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/act_blue.html . Let the pundits bat that one around for a while.

Take your ball and go home

toast lover in cali — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:27:03 GMT

I don't know about most people, but I hate hard butter. I use a simple shallow plastic dish that has a lid. Fits half a stick and its used up long before butter even thinks about going bad, and washes up quickly too. spreadable butter ROCKS!

Take your ball and go home

ME, San Antonio, Texas — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:06:55 GMT

I read Garrison Keillor's essay this evening because I just happened to have watched "A Prairie Home Companion" today. I wouldn't say that anyone who calls it anti-gay is missing the point, because it doesn't seem to have a point. Like the movie, his essay just rambles along. It's like a prose version of stream-of-consciousness poetry. One paragraph leads to the next with just a tenuous thread of familiarity. JE seems to think that "...he places the blame squarely on GAYS (specifically gay parents) for adding to the children's already too-crowded extended family..." but that is just the extension of the previous paragraph that introduces the greatly extended families that result from a lesser commitment of monogamy today than it was in his parents' generation. And, as far as the flamboyance comments "...Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show..." is he wrong there? I don't think so.

Take your ball and go home

Bob Kinderman, Madison, Wisconsin — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:18:17 GMT

The hammer doesn't "push up when its hanging." Most of the weight of the hammer is in the head, which the photo shows is under the table. It's simply balancing there, like an object in a mobile.

Take your ball and go home

Will Femia — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:34:41 GMT

Bob, I see what you mean. "Pushing up" is the wrong way to think of it. The question is whether the head is far enough under the table (and with enough weight) to balance the rest. I think the angle of the camera has a lot to do with why it looks like it shouldn't work. The whole thing reminds me of those balancing wine bottle holders.

http://www.uniqueboxshop.com/flatwinbotho1.html

http://www.touchofclasscatalog.com/jump.jsp?itemID=196276&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=11&iSubCat=90&iProductID=196276

http://www.bellacor.com/detail.cfm?Cat=38&ItemID=35412&partid=nextag-DataFeed

Take your ball and go home

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:54:09 GMT

Please please legalize marijuana.

Take your ball and go home

Viv — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:12:49 GMT

I do my own protesting against the RIAA - I buy used cds at the local halfprice bookstore and Goodwill - have found some real treasures and nobody in the "industry" makes any more money. Why buy new when all the "new" stuff is pretty much crap anyway and I can get a box set of classical for $3 at Goodwill!

Take your ball and go home

Bralio, Tampa Florida — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:42:20 GMT

Kitt has two T's in it... WHY DO I KNOW THAT?!

Take your ball and go home

M Marston, Tampa, Florida — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:55:12 GMT

"Freak out" doesn't begin to describe my reaction.

Take your ball and go home

Rob, Philly — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:27:12 GMT

Hey Will, Have you seen this guy Reggie Watts? Similar to the beat box dude, though the French guy is just, well, amazing. http://www.vimeo.com/clip:134034

Take your ball and go home

Will Femia — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:53:33 GMT

Rob, I recognize that guy from when I was looking at links related to "looping." While I dig it, I also can't help but think "lonely childhood."

Take your ball and go home

Phil, Chicago, IL — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:06:57 GMT

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/316065/strange_hammer_balance/

Take your ball and go home

Jim — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:10:51 GMT

The old saying "Ted Kennedy has killed more people than Marijuana" pretty much sums it up. In comparison to our favorite legal drugs, cigarettes and alchol, smoking weed should be required, not outlawed. Which would the police rather do, break up a drunken and angry mob, or tell all the stoners to go on home? Please, this insidious assault on personal freedom to ensure that we only inbibe the legal drugs, is ludicris. Can you imagine, whole hordes of relaxed and non-violent people out checking the sunset? What is the country really afraid of anyway? In this day and age of prescrition drug overdoses, drunken driving deaths, and first and second hand smoke, can marijuana even be considered hazardus to our health? Hell, it's even self limiting; you forget to keep smoking long before it becomes dangerous. My solution is to quit planting tobacco in the Carolinas, and plant weed instead. We'll still get a cash crop...