nancynall.com » Hallelujah.

Hallelujah.

The short ver­sion: If you get a chance to see Leonard Cohen on his cur­rent tour, take it. You won’t see a bet­ter show this year.

In fact, if tick­ets are avail­able, stop read­ing now and go buy some, fool. They’re pretty ridicu­lous, price­wise — the cheap seats at the Fox The­atre in Detroit Sat­ur­day were $65 plus ser­vice charge, rang­ing up to $250 — but like I said, this is a rare pop-music out­ing that’s worth the price. The 74-year-old Cohen plays for more than three hours, and if you have a favorite song, you’re likely to hear it. Alan is not an eas­ily pleased con­cert­goer, and he turned to me after the third num­ber and said, “This is a top-fiver.” That’s not an annual ranking.

An ele­gant stage set — a riser for the band, sim­ple scrims lit by changing-color lights, every­one in black and white — walked a care­ful line that sug­gested the grav­i­tas one of the great­est liv­ing singer-songwriters has accu­mu­lated over his long life, but never edged into pre­ten­sion. This guy worked hard for the money. There was less love-me vibe com­ing from the stage than you’d find at the Amer­i­can Idols also-rans show. Cohen spent five years in seclu­sion at a Zen cen­ter dur­ing the 1990s, and he must have learned some pow­er­ful lessons about sim­plic­ity and understatement.

Oh, what am I say­ing? He’s known that for a while. Truth be told, I didn’t leap at the chance to go when Alan sug­gested it; it’s been my expe­ri­ence that singer-songwriters fre­quently put on lousy shows, and the sole time I saw Bob Dylan live will remain a life­long dis­ap­point­ment. Get them in a small enough venue and it works, but what is Cohen about? The lyrics, and that mourn­ful, whis­pery bari­tone. He plays best on CD, when you’re alone and able to con­cen­trate and stare out the win­dow at some Cana­dian land­scape. The thought of see­ing him over­pow­ered by an elec­tric gui­tar didn’t sound worth $130, plus ser­vice charges, park­ing and add-ons.

I shouldn’t have wor­ried. The sound mix was a mir­a­cle — you could hear every word, even while the musi­cians did any­thing but fade into the wood­work. There was every­thing from a Ham­mond B3 to an oud to a gong onstage, and you heard every one as well as you did Cohen’s voice. Add three angel-voiced chick singers, one of them Cohen’s long­time col­lab­o­ra­tor, Sharon Robin­son, and that was a stage full of tal­ent that could have sup­ported any singer capably.

At the final encore, every­one took a quick solo, and Cohen lined up the whole gang for an extended farewell that sounded like a vale­dic­tion. “I don’t know when we’ll be pass­ing this way again,” he said. In other words: This is it, folks. (The story goes that this tour was neces­si­tated by money trou­bles, but ah well — even the great­est artists have to eat.) As the last show of a dis­tin­guished career, it’s hard to imag­ine how it could have been better.

[Pause.]

In other news at this hour, Kate and I went to see “Star Trek” on Sun­day, and that was pretty good, too, although once time travel gets intro­duced into any movie plot, that’s my sig­nal to stop ask­ing ques­tions and just let it wash over me. For­tu­nately, it was a pleas­ant bath.

If you’re look­ing for a way to intel­lec­tu­ally jus­tify your atten­dance at the same movie, take one op-ed and call me in the morning:

I can still remem­ber the first time I saw “A Piece of the Action,” which was set on Sigma Iotia II, the gangster-movie planet, on which Kirk and Spock donned fedo­ras and pin­striped suits to blend in. As a boy in grade school, I found it excit­ingly ridicu­lous but baf­fling. Why was Spock wav­ing around a tommy gun?

For­tu­nately, my big sis­ter, then already in high school, was on hand to explain the won­drous nar­ra­tive physics of the episode. I was watch­ing a puz­zle made from three things, she said: one, the “Star Trek” I under­stood; two, a period crime movie our father liked, called “The Roar­ing Twen­ties”; and three, the clown­ish “Soupy Sales Show.”

I real­ized years later that I had heard the future in my sister’s cheeky teas­ing out of the pop-culture influ­ences in one won­der­fully, unashamedly pre­pos­ter­ous episode of “Star Trek.” Today, my 22-year-old daugh­ter talks that way about everything.

If you want to relate “Star Trek” to the new world of Hope and Change, well, you take that shit down to the com­ments, because in this bar, we take our big-explodey-movie fun straight.

Related: Hank Stuever on the Trou­ble with Quib­bles, or how fan­boys ‘n’ girls ruin every­thing. Or try to.

A final bit of blog­gage: My poor sub­urb made it to the front page of Sun­day Styles. Of course, it could have been bet­ter news — Grosse Pointe Blues.

60 responses to
“Hallelujah.”

  1. jcburns said on May 11th, 2009 at 3:15 am

    My take­away on sequels, espe­cially of the sci­ence fic­tion kind, is: I want to go back there, to that very place that an old 60s series inhab­ited, cheese and all. If it’s a remake of Lost in Space, the damn Jupiter 2 bet­ter be the pre­cise pie-plate of old, and the robot bet­ter look and sound like, well, the robot, down to the last rec­tan­gu­lar col­ored but­ton on front. And yet, these movie pro­duc­tion design­ers feel they have to earn their keep through bom­bas­tic reinvention…make those nacelles big­ger, make the uni­forms brighter or beige-r or more flat­ter­ing to the physiques of the aging actors.
    But when, in an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the cast was lit­er­ally trans­ported into an episode of the 60s Star Trek, they played it straight, and the exact-replica pro­duc­tion design and the vivid, brought-to-you-in-living-color cin­e­matog­ra­phy was just a treat. They brought me back to that place, and I enjoyed every moment of the emo­tional replay.
    That said, what’s the point of going back if you’re too young to have gone there in the first place? I enjoyed, for the most part, this re-invention of Star Trek, and I was pretty much will­ing for them to go any­where with the details, as long as they could redis­cover the 40 year old inter­play between the prin­ci­pal characters.

    And so they did.

  2. beb said on May 11th, 2009 at 8:17 am

    We were sur­prised how long the new Star Trek movie was. it didn’t seem that long but it was 2 1/2 hours later when we creak­ingly got to our feet, feel­ing like we’d been on a roller coast all that time. Enter­tain­ing and exhausting!

    It was a good movie, very enter­tain­ing, and the char­ac­ters were very much on tar­get, except.… Scotty was this genius who had been exiled for show­ing up his supe­rior. Uhura could hear a “mouth breather” under her room-mates bed. Chekhov could cal­cu­late how to lock a trans­porter onto a falling body and the entire future would col­lapse into ruin unless James T. Kirk were sit­ting in that Captain’s Seat. There’s a word for writ­ing like that — Mary-Sue. A term coined among early Trekkies for fan writ­ing that was exa­ciously pre­cious. Rod­den­berry didn’t cre­ate a show about a crew of super-geniuses but a show about ordi­nary peo­ple, well trained in their jobs and ris­ing to the occa­sion. Over time the show and the char­ac­ters have been mythal­ized and Abrams has fallen into that same think­ing. He can get away with it this time but next time, when he has to top him­self, it won’t be so easy. It’s hard to top your­self when you’ve already hit the ceiling.

  3. Julie Robinson said on May 11th, 2009 at 8:44 am

    Let me stip­u­late that I was never a Trekkie or a sci­ence fic­tion fan, nor do I usu­ally like big-explodey-movies. It’s rom-coms and musi­cals all the way for me. But I thought the new Star Trek was great fun and got most of the char­ac­ters very right. And Spock attract­ing the sexy girl no less.

    Thanks, Jeff TMMO, for the link to your artist friend under the slab of wax. It’s worth the time to poke around his site. I was haunted by the image of Guan­tanamo made from the shred­ded Con­sti­tu­tion. Pow­er­ful and right to the point.

  4. beb said on May 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Steu­ver won­ders why Hol­ly­wood remakes so many old TV shows or movies. The answer is that it’s a pre-sold audi­ence they can milk for mil­lions. But then you have to won­der why, if they’re try­ing to milk the nos­tal­gia of fans, they felt com­pelled to re-imagine the fran­chise. For that you have to go back to Mel Brooks’ “His­tory of the World– part one” where he shows us the first art critic. Obvi­ously you’re not The Direc­tor of the project unless you can piss on what has come before.

    Steu­ver assumes direc­tors have only two choices, slav­ish fol­low­ing of canon which leads to death or blow­ing up the orig­i­nal and mak­ing some­thing kind of like what the orig­i­nal was like. Fol­low­ing canon doesn’t lead to stag­na­tion else no TV series would last past the first episode. The first Star Trek movie (directed by Rod­den­berry, if I recall cor­rectly) failed because Rod­den­berry for­got to tell an excit­ing story. STII suc­ceeded wildly because it had a great story that built on while being faith­ful to canon. The later movies, think­ing they had to top the pre­vous sim­ply had less and less cred­i­ble story to tell.

    Respect­ing the fran­chise isn’t what kills movies, it’s bad writ­ing, everytime.

  5. James said on May 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am

    I really enjoyed the new Trek movie, which I saw with John (that’d be “JC” to y’all).

    That said, set nerdi­ness to stun:

    (oh… SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    Ok… so Chekov could lock onto 2 bod­ies falling at ter­mi­nal veloc­ity toward a quickly devel­op­ing planet-sized mas­sive grav­ity well, but when another char­ac­ter falls into a devel­op­ing sink­hole dur­ing a more stan­dard trans­porta­tion, he loses the lock??

    Seri­ously?

    (end nerdi­ness)

    So… it was a lit­tle incon­sis­tent. It was still fun.

  6. nancy said on May 11th, 2009 at 9:11 am

    SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

    James, my head didn’t explode until the Spock-meets-Spock scene, but that was near the end, so no big loss.

  7. James said on May 11th, 2009 at 9:59 am

    I always won­der about those time para­doxes… like… when one meets one­self, do you keep inter­rupt­ing your­self because you already had this con­ver­sa­tion (when you were your younger self)? Do you give them insider trad­ing info (“Get out of the mar­ket by early 2008, and by the way… start rent­ing rather than buying…”)?

    The mind, indeed, boggles.

  8. coozledad said on May 11th, 2009 at 10:03 am

    James: Or “You’re not going to believe this, punk, but one day it’s going to cost you $25.00 just to get a hard-on.”

  9. nancy said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Hey, all:

    I just spammed another com­ment from Dwight, after a cer­tain amount of soul-searching that took about 12 sec­onds. I don’t mind dis­agree­ment, but I do mind aggres­sive trolling, so screw him. This is just FYI for transparency.

  10. brian stouder said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am

    For the record, I think we all trust Nance implic­itly — in all her judgements.

    Henry Ford II may have been wrong about Lee Iacocca, but was onto some­thing in his belief that you ‘Never com­plain; never explain’ — especially when it comes to trolls!

  11. Sue said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am

    Thank you, Nancy. Thank you.

  12. LA Mary said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am

    I have a friend who spends his week­ends giv­ing hair­cuts to the home­less in Santa Mon­ica. A cou­ple of years ago he was talk­ing to a home­less woman who was a lit­tle dif­fer­ent from the usual group. She said she had been Leonard Cohen’s man­ager, and that he had accused her of steal­ing all his money, and that she had spent every dime she had on lawyers. Of course my friend googled her name (which I don’t remem­ber) when he got home, and she wasn’t lying.

  13. beb said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:25 am

    But the Spock v Spock con­ver­sa­tion never hap­pened before. From the moment Kirk was born in space instead of in Iowa noth­ing in the movie matches any­thing in the pre­vi­ous sto­ries. This isn’t a story about a loop in time but a fis­sure between the old real­ity and the new real­ity.
    But really, we shouldn’t be doing Spoil­ers this early in the movie’s release. Let’s save the big ones for a week from now, ‘kay?

  14. Laurie said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Leonard’s stuff, whether I’m start­ing at a moody North­ern land­scape or not, makes me want to open a vein. All due props to his poetry from a for­mer lit­er­a­ture major – a girl who spent plenty of time in late ado­les­cence singing a moony ver­sion of “Suzanne” with gui­tar, badly. I must have thought it would make guys inter­ested in com­ing down to my place by the river. They could read my address by the moon.

  15. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Dwight can start a blog, and post entries to his heart’s con­tent — i’ll bet you’d even give him one more com­ment link opp for us to book­mark, if we like, for old time’s sake.

    I won’t miss read­ing the words “Mitch Albom Fan.”

    The Grosse Pointe story would have got­ten my atten­tion for a Sun­day after­noon read on wood pulp even with­out the quasi-connection here, and online i might very well have missed it. But what exactly was the take­away? They’re all rich, unless they’re broke? It needed a few quotes from some­one who shops at estate sales for the real poignancy mixed with opportunity.

    It was an oddly incon­se­quen­tial story for some­thing that read as if they’d spent a week there; if that was the result of flights in a mid­dle seat both ways on two sequen­tial days, i’d say a good work­man­like effort …

  16. whitebeard said on May 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Thank you for spam­ming Dwight, even trolling has its limits.

  17. James said on May 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Beb: Where in the ST canon does it say where Kirk was born? I know he was from Iowa, but he still coulda been born elsewhere.

    (Sorry… I keep hear­ing my responses in the voice of the Comic Book guy from the Simpsons…)

  18. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor.

    I’ll prob­a­bly see the new ver­sion of “Star Trek,” but it will have to go mighty far to be more enter­tain­ing than the clas­sic “Sat­ur­day Night Live” send-up with Elliott Gould as an NBC exec who shows up on set to can­cel the series. John Belushi is Kirk and Chevy Chase is Spock, who keeps try­ing unsuc­cess­fully to use his “Vul­can nerve pinch” to sub­due Gould. It’s a comic masterpiece.

  19. Julie Robinson said on May 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    No spoiler if I say there was one tee-hee moment in the movie; when the ship is hit every­one lunges over in uni­son and you can tell that the set did not move at all. Shades of every bad space show ever made. I started to gig­gle but the DH hushed me in def­er­ence to the true believ­ers behind us. And Chekov’s accent was even more stereo­typ­i­cal than on TV.

  20. ROgirl said on May 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  21. brian stouder said on May 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    You guys can talk about a reprise of a 40-year old “Wag­ontrain to the stars” if you want to — but my “Hal­lelu­jah” moment this past week­end was on C-SPAN:

    http://​voices​.wash​ing​ton​post​.com/​t​h​e​f​i​x​/​c​h​e​a​t​-​s​h​e​e​t​/​0​5​1​1​0​9​w​h​i​t​e​-​h​o​u​s​e​-​c​h​e​a​t​-​s​h​e​e​t​.​h​t​m​l​?​h​p​i​d​=​t​opnews

    In pol­i­tics, as in life, there is a fine line between stu­pid and clever — to para­phrase the great philoso­pher (and lead vocal­ist of Spinal Tap) David St. Hubbins.

    The ques­tion per­co­lat­ing in Wash­ing­ton as a new week starts is whether come­dian Wanda Sykes’s shots at con­ser­v­a­tive radio talk show host Rush Lim­baugh at the White House Cor­re­spon­dents Din­ner were the for­mer, the lat­ter or some­where in between.
    Sykes, who pro­vided the comic relief at the annual gath­er­ing of politi­cians and the reporters who cover them, had already skew­ered Pres­i­dent Obama before turn­ing her atten­tion to Lim­baugh. She sug­gested Limbaugh’s much-repeated insis­tence that he hoped Obama would fail in office was equiv­a­lent to “trea­son” before adding: “Maybe Rush Lim­baugh was the 20th hijacker but he was so strung out on Oxy­con­tin he missed his flight.… I hope his kid­neys fail.” “Too much?” Sykes asked, when the lines drew a mix­ture of laugh­ter and boos.

    That was the ques­tion debated through­out Wash­ing­ton on Sun­day — whether Sykes had crossed an imag­i­nary line with her attacks on Lim­baugh, turn­ing a fun night into a harder-edged par­ti­san affair.

    I say “Hell no” and Hal­lelu­jah, indeed!

  22. Dexter said on May 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    A few years ago I posted on a blog how much I loved Cohen, and named a few songs. A woman from Kansas City, sixty-some years old, posted back that she was shocked, as in all her years she had never heard of a man who appre­ci­ated Leonard Cohen. I ques­tioned my mas­culin­ity for about ten sec­onds before tak­ing the atti­tude she must have never dis­cussed Leonard with any men before.
    Ya gotta love Leonard Cohen, if for noth­ing else , the fact that he and Janis Joplin broke a bed in the Chelsea Hotel.

  23. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Brian,

    Few peo­ple deserve scorn and mock­ery more than El Rushbo, but I thought Wanda Sykes went over the line. It’s rarely funny to wish that some­one dies. Worse, that rather lame effort takes away from some of the more bril­liant bits she fired off, par­tic­u­larly her riff on the always lam­poon­able Sarah Palin.

    Of course, if the big tub of goo would like to get into it with Wanda Sykes, it might be awfully funny. She’d prob­a­bly kick his abun­dant ass in any kind of war of words.

  24. brian stouder said on May 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    She was much bet­ter than Imus a decade ago; she had the virtue of actu­ally being funny!

    Any­way — the for­mat is tailor-made for wince-worthy moments…I sup­pose there’s a rea­son it stays on C-SPAN and not, say, Com­edy Central

  25. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Oh man, Imus is one of those guys whose suc­cess is a com­plete mys­tery to me. What a bore. Yet all the big media and polit­i­cal stars must come by and kiss his ring.

    If they could get Wanda Sykes this year, maybe Chris Rock next year?

    Any­one out there lis­ten to Rush today? I’m sure his ego for­bids him from let­ting this kind of ver­bal assault pass with­out com­ment. And why not? When the for­mer vice-president says he prefers you to Colin Pow­ell as a sym­bol of the GOP, you are not going to let some come­dian mock your ugly ass.

  26. alex said on May 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    James, there’s a town in Iowa — I for­get the name — but I once had to write a fluff piece about it for a travel pub­li­ca­tion. They actu­ally have a replica of the Star­ship Enter­prise in the town square and an annual trekkie fest that draws quite a large atten­dance. In one of those early TV episodes the town was named as Kirk’s birthplace.

    Edit: That’s River­side, Iowa. I just looked it up. And no they didn’t send me there with an expense account. They had me pil­fer from other pub­lished sources but rewrite in such a way that it couldn’t be discovered.

    Re Sykes: Her Lim­baugh mate­r­ial could have been more clever, but there was noth­ing she said that was even one-tenth as offen­sive as any­thing Lim­baugh utters on any given day.

  27. LA Mary said on May 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Back to Leonard Cohen: Bird on a Wire is a very fine song. I’ve had it stuck in my head since I first read this entry this morning.

  28. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Alex,

    Agree with you there, man, though like most big, fat, bul­lies, he doesn’t much like it when oth­ers push back.

    Apparently,Rush spent much of the show fluff­ing Dick Cheney by answer­ing a ques­tion posed on a polit­i­cal blog. To wit, why is Cheney out there yakking it up all the time when he has the approval rat­ings of the swine flu and the GOP is des­per­ately try­ing to rein­vent itself? Big Pharma says it’s because Dick just loves his coun­try so much and hates to see what Pres­i­dent Obama is doing to it.

  29. Danny said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    I don’t know much about Leonard Cohen (not really a fan), but the one fact that’s been jump­ing out at me is that he got with Janis Joplin.

    Ummm, wow. Obvi­ously, she’s an icon, but that is just very dif­fi­cult to think about. ‘Nuff said.

  30. Joe Kobiela said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    For peo­ple who claim NOT to lis­ten to Rush, Ya’ll seem to ALWAYS know what he is say­ing, I liked today’s piece on Nancy P. If a lib­eral lies and no one question’s it, is it still a lie? Refer­ring to her claim­ing she knew noth­ing about using water board­ing, when she and the rest of con­gress were briefed about it.
    Oh well, just back from vis­it­ing Mickey down in Orlando this past week­end. Took the wife for moth­ers day.Rode the air­lines down. No reces­sion at Dis­ney. set three record high temps while we were there. These 60’s feel cold.
    Missed you all,
    even Gas Man.
    Pilot Joe

  31. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Hey Joe,

    This is one lib­eral who thinks any Demo­c­rat who signed off on tor­ture ought to face the same pun­ish­ment as any Repub­li­can. The chips should be allowed to fall where they may on this issue. We are Amer­ica. We do not tor­ture. Any­one from either party who allowed this stain on our nation to pro­ceed should be dri­ven from office.

    BTW, of course Nancy Pelosi lies. She’s a politi­cian. Ditto for Reid, Boehner, McConnell and, yeah, prob­a­bly Obama, too.

  32. Kirk said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Pilot Joe is cor­rect. I’m often amazed at how worked up peo­ple get about the drug-addled blob. Life is too short to pay any heed to radio come­di­ans, espe­cially that bag of shit.

  33. Sue said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Joe, here’s what that flam­ing lib­eral Glenn Green­wald said about Nancy P & co. just last Fri­day:
    “As many of us have long pointed out, the extent to which Demo­c­ra­tic lead­ers in Con­gress were com­plicit in Bush law­break­ing — includ­ing tor­ture — is a major issue that needs res­o­lu­tion, and is almost cer­tainly a key rea­son why there have been no inves­ti­ga­tions thus far.“
    The word is com­plicit. No excuses about “being briefed”, or any cute lan­guage that might soften the idea that our elected lead­ers of both par­ties went along with some­thing they should not have, or accepted infor­ma­tion at face value that they should have ques­tioned. I repeat: the word is com­plicit.
    Lib­er­als as you define them are quite pos­si­bly lying. They are being ques­tioned about it, and they have been since assum­ing power and cav­ing over and over on things that mat­tered. I’m not sure you’ll find many Pelosi-Reid apol­o­gists among those of us who’ve been pay­ing atten­tion the last few years.

  34. brian stouder said on May 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Hey Pilot Joe — I thought of you this morn­ing. The young folks and I were just get­ting into the car at about 7:15, when I heard a smoothly rum­bling engine noise, and looked up to see a very low-flying air­plane; it was a yel­low single-engine crop duster, and she was lower than 800 feet — and in a very sharp turn, almost right over­head; exe­cut­ing a 180 degree turn from north­bound to southbound.

    http://​www​.jour​nal​gazette​.net/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​0​9​0​5​1​1​/​L​O​C​A​L​/​9​0​5​119958

    But this was espe­cially strik­ing — and a lit­tle fright­en­ing — because we lit­er­ally live in the shadow of chan­nel 15’s 900′ TV tower — and the plane was fly­ing within the space between the tower and the guy wires that sup­port that tower. I sup­pose the lower he or she flew, the more space there was between the wires and the tower — but Good God!! I think I saw a pre­view of how I might sud­denly die.

  35. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    An emer­gency med­ical heli­copter car­ry­ing an infant and full crew crashed in flames in the sub­urbs of Chicago last year after strik­ing the guy wires of a radio tower. All aboard were killed. The par­ents of the infant have filed suit against the heli­copter com­pany, alleg­ing pilot error after the NTSB deter­mined all the warn­ing lights, etc. on the tower were in work­ing order.

    It was a ter­ri­ble tragedy. The pro­files of the crew mem­bers aboard under­lined their com­mit­ment to using their fly­ing skills to help oth­ers reach crit­i­cal med­ical care in a timely man­ner. And, of course, the par­ents lost a child they believed was on its way to a life-saving intervention.

  36. Dexter said on May 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    I go out of my way to avoid that fuck­ing Lim­baugh. I am the man who destroys any radio his hatred has con­t­a­m­i­nated.
    I don’t read what he is say­ing, and I don’t par­tic­i­pate in dis­cus­sions on what I have missed. Why bother? Fuhged­d­a­boud­dhim, I say. This is as far as it gets.
    I only type this to say he is not impor­tant . He is a noth­ing. He makes 50 mil a year because he ral­lies the hate-troops and they buy what he sells. Go ahead, have at it…I choose my own battles.

  37. Cosmo Panzini said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Leonard Cohen? Feh.

  38. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Dex­ter,

    You offer some sage advice. My only response is that while Lim­baugh SHOULD be regarded as a con­ser­v­a­tive ENTERTAINER, he is far too often taken seri­ously by large swaths of Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tives as a con­ser­v­a­tive THINKER. Every sin­gle Repub­li­can who has crit­i­cized him has come crawl­ing back to kiss his feet. That’s more than a clown. That’s a polit­i­cal power broker.

  39. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Sheesh, now God is bat­tling Lucifer over beauty pageant con­tes­tants. Here’s the lovely Miss Cal­i­for­nia, Car­rie Pre­jean, talk­ing with Doc­tor James Dobson:

    Three weeks after becom­ing a hero to con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians with her answer to a gay mar­riage ques­tion at the Miss USA pageant, Car­rie Pre­jean hits the big kahuna of Chris­t­ian radio this week, appear­ing today and tomor­row on James Dobson’s daily Focus on the Fam­ily program.

    In the most intrigu­ing part of today’s inter­view, Pre­jean describes the bat­tle between God and Satan as she was for­mu­lat­ing her response to Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s thorny ques­tion. I haven’t heard her describe those moments in such starkly reli­gious terms before. Here’s the transcript:

    Dob­son: It sounded, Car­rie, like your first reac­tion was to hedge, to say “Well, this is a free coun­try” and then some­thing took over.

    Prej ean: It really was a switch.

    Dob­son: And you did one of the most coura­geous things I’ve seen any­body your age or any­body else do. What was going on in your mind?

    Pre­jean: I started off by say­ing I want to win this pageant so bad, I’ve worked so hard, I wanted to sound polit­i­cally cor­rect but still stay true to my val­ues. But I just knew at that moment that God was just telling me “Car­rie, how bad do you want this? Are you will­ing to com­pro­mise your beliefs for a one year crown of Miss USA.” And I just knew right there … And I said you know what and the switch went off. And I said, “A mar­riage should be between a man and a woman and that’s how it should be. ”

    .… And I knew there was no way I was going to win Miss USA. No way.

    Dob­son: So you put it on the line, that’s what I mean when I said you’re coura­geous because this was the goal of your life to that point. And yet you gave it up. And yet the Lord is using you all over this country.

    Pre­jean: And we are all faced with that at times. And just by me being here, I want to encour­age other peo­ple that when you’re faced with an issue which you know in your heart what to say, but you’re faced with some­one ask­ing it, don’t ever com­pro­mise that just for pleas­ing them. Your goal should be to please God, not to please man .…

    Dob­son: Why did you give the answer you did with regard to the affir­ma­tion of marriage?

    Pre­jean: … I felt as though Satan was try­ing to tempt me in ask­ing me this ques­tion. And then God was in my head and in my heart say­ing, “Do not com­pro­mise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these peo­ple … you need to wit­ness to them and you need to show that you’re not will­ing to com­pro­mise that for this title of Miss USA.”

    And I knew right here that it wasn’t about win­ning. It was about being true to my convictions.

  40. coozledad said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Satan: “I’ll see your con­vic­tions and raise you a pair of plas­tic tits. You still in?”

  41. jeff borden said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    What plas­tic sur­geons have joined, let no man put asunder.

  42. Sue said on May 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    I love you people.

  43. LA Mary said on May 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    I think she’s blam­ing Satan for those top­less pho­tos in her past as well. Com­pletely under­stand­able. Why else would an ambiti­tious young woman with a nice bum and tits pose for top­less shots or enter beauty con­tests? Satan. There’s your prob­lem right there.

  44. alex said on May 11th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Asun­der, no indeed. They were made for gen­tle grop­ing lest she get Jenny Jones Syn­drome. And she does need her lit­tle mon­ey­mak­ers once the God ‘n’ Guns gravy train finds a new spokesmodel will­ing to take it up the caboose.

  45. JPK said on May 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    I don’t know much about Leonard Cohen (not really a fan), but the one fact that’s been jump­ing out at me is that he got with Janis Joplin.

    So did Bill Ben­nett, at least accord­ing to vaguely sourced Inter­net rumors. Try get­ting that one out of your head.

  46. Rana said on May 11th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    And Chekov’s accent was even more stereo­typ­i­cal than on TV.

    I still have fond mem­o­ries of the day we had to make up dia­logue in Russ­ian class, and my friend (whose Russian-class name was Pavel, no less) asked Где ваши ядерные лодки?* in his best Chekov­ian accent.

    *Where are your nuclear vessels?

  47. Danny said on May 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Hilar­i­ous, Rana.

    JPK.. No doubt!

    Regard­ing Car­rie Pre­jean, I’ve been fol­low­ing this pretty closely in the local papers. After all, she’s a local girl and she goes to a local church that is asso­ci­ated with the one I attend. But the last few lines of this fea­ture edi­to­r­ial (May 3, 2009) by Michael Stetz caught my attention.

    In a strange side note, Miss Cal­i­for­nia Pageant co-director Keith Lewis said Pre­jean had breast implants before the Miss USA pageant. The orga­ni­za­tion helped pay for them.

    Big deal, you say?

    Well, I can’t help but won­der what else is fake.

    Stetz is a home­boy of mine from B’more and we’ve cor­re­sponded a bit over the last cou­ple of years (quite pleas­antly, I might add), but when I read that, I thought two things.

    1. Keith Lewis seems very invested in mak­ing Car­rie Pre­jean look bad.

    2. So does Michael Stetz.

    Very cheap shot. And they’re not alone.

  48. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 11th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Surely some­one Detroit-wise has *some­thing* to say about the Grosse Pointe arti­cle with the oblig­a­tory snark about silent e’s doing all the work?

  49. coozledad said on May 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    No one’s try­ing to make Car­rie look bad. It’s a done deal. Some douches envi­sion a world of female fuck-robots . She’s yours. Nobody’s deny­ing that.

  50. Danny said on May 11th, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    No one’s try­ing to make Car­rie look bad…

    Um, right. Maybe in your lit­tle fan­tasy world that state­ment makes sense. Mean­while, back in real­ity, every­one knows that’s just not true.

    Your post devolves from intel­lec­tual dis­hon­esty to foul to absurd. Awe­some, dude.

  51. Dexter said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:40 am

    I have prob­a­bly seen all the orig­i­nal Star Trek TV shows but not when they first were shown…I was five years late , and caught them on re-runs when they were on in the after­noons and I was flat-sick with mono.
    I moved on and “lost inter­est in child­ish things” as I was instructed in church.
    Now, I ain’t being prudish…I still fol­low sports, which some find child­ish and “stu­pid”, but “Star Wars” and the “Star Trek” movie fran­chise and all the stuff asso­ci­ated with them never grabbed me, although a friend insisted I see Lucas’s “Star Wars”, so I did, and to me it was just a car­toon, so no, I didn’t “get it.“
    I pre­ferred the “buddy movies” of the 1970’s, and the great films from that time, the Scorcese films, and films like “Chi­na­town”, “Scare­crow”, “Dog Day After­noon”, “The God­fa­ther”, “Taxi Driver”…that was my genre … not space sci­ence fic­tion.
    So what, you say?
    I say this : I heard caller after caller on an XM sta­tion say that the new “Star Trek” is the best movie they have ever seen. Most of these callers were around 24 – 30 years old, and some were not fran­chise addicts (nuts) they said this film is so good they bumped it to #1 all-time.
    So now I am going to see it this week­end, and I last went to a movie in 1998.

  52. CrazyCatLady said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am

    Did any­one ever notice that the fat­ter and older Lim­baugh gets, the meaner he gets, the more hate­ful, the fat­ter the lies/misinformation he spouts? He may have $400 Mil­lion dol­lars, but he has no wife, no chil­dren, and 3 ex-wives to sup­port. I kind of feel sorry for the lonely old bas­tard. Oh, who the hell am I kid­ding… NOT!!!!! He can rot.

  53. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 12th, 2009 at 7:16 am

    Dex­ter, let me put it this way — it’s much bet­ter than “The Phan­tom Men­ace” was. Great­est of all time? That’ll set you up for major unnec­es­sary disappointment.

    A fun, wild ride with plenty of excel­lent char­ac­ter stud­ies (even the red shirt gets a bit of dia­logue and post-inevitability reac­tion from a lead char­ac­ter). Best movie evah? Not by a few light years, but finest star­ship cheese­cake shot ever, no doubt (thanks to Saturn’s back­drop and Titan’s outer atmosphere).

  54. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 12th, 2009 at 7:59 am

    Not to pile on Detroit’s mis­eries, but look out for the Black­hawks — the Wirtz Curse may well be crumbling!

  55. coozledad said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:36 am

    I earned a right to intel­lec­tual dis­hon­esty. After all, I come from a long line of white rub­bish that Roo­sevelt finally scooped up out of the ruins of the Civil War, fed, clothed and housed,and gave them run­ning water and elec­tric­ity so they could get back up on their feet and blame the fact that every­thing they touch turns to shit on blacks, Jews, gays, the devil, what the fuck ever.
    I keep telling my wife that Roo­sevelt should have let the depres­sion run its course in the south, and inter­vened only when the native Lenin­ists had hung every fake aris­to­crat and mill owner from the hand­ful of tele­phone poles that would have existed.
    I am with Tom Hilton on this one. The fact that Grant and Sher­man didn’t have nuclear weapons is a strong argu­ment in favor of the neb­u­lous­ness of God.

  56. ROgirl said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:55 am

    Dick Cheney and Rush are the most vis­i­ble faces and voices of the Repub­li­can party these days. Sneer­ing, bloated, cheap shot artists par excellence.

  57. MichaelG said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:58 am

    Can’t help but notice the con­trast between the two beauty queens who have been much in the news lately: The for­mer Miss North Dakota and the cur­rent Miss Cal­i­for­nia. And with ref­er­ence to the lat­ter, nobody can make her look bad. Only she can make her­self look bad. And doing a good job of it. Who can out­awk­ward that sentance?

  58. brian stouder said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:59 am

    Just for the record, Coo­zled­wight, the South doesn’t have any­thing like a monop­oly on igno­rance or racism.

    Many of Meade’s tired troops had to march directly from the God-awful killing-fields at Get­tys­burg to New York City, to put down the ter­ri­ble riots there, which were nom­i­nally anti-draft, but which very quickly turned into lots of Irish­men and other whites hunt­ing down and lynch­ing every black Amer­i­can they could get their hands on (lit­er­ally hung from the light poles)

  59. coozledad said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Brian: I’m just an entertainer.

  60. LA Mary said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:02 am

    After choos­ing Joan Rivers as the win­ner of Celebrity Appren­tice last week­end, Don­ald Trump now decides if Car­rie Pre­jean can keep her title and her tits.