Skip to main content

well that was fun while it lasted...

i suppose i knew that this was going to happen, but it does seem like every time i get to like a television show, it either jumps the shark [an expression that always sounds like something you dare a drunk teenaged boy to do] or gets canceled. and so it is with "the republicans".

to be honest, since they moved the show away from the "debate" format and started getting rid of some of the more entertaining characters, it's gotten a little stale. i mean, i know that you always need the central character to be a sort of "straight man" so that the audience can identify, but the character of stiff rich guy mitt just doesn't seem that human.

i originally didn't see much of a future for the uptight, repressed rick santorum character, because he was just so outrageous, ill-informed and objectionable that, even in the beginning-of-season crowd, it seemed impossible that he could get taken seriously. but the writers really brought him to life after that first big shindig in iowa and compared to robo-romney, a man who once compared homosexuality to bestiality seemed like the genuine one.

far from seeming unbelievable, santo almost got a little too real, telegraphing one of my all-time favourite bits from mel brooks...

original
santo

... you know what, rick? i believe you. i once told dom "don't get your knickers in a knot", which was how i found out that that expression is not widely known in french canada and sounds a lot like something else when you don't enunciate properly. it's just that when i stumble like that, dom takes my vodka smoothies away and tells me to get some sleep. when you stumble like that, people think you're playing to your audience. which should tell you something about what we think of your audience.

yes, things are over for santo, which basically ruins the whole "republicans" show, because the gingrich character just didn't turn out to be as interesting and funny as he looked at first. but the fact is, mitt romney and the republican campaign of 2012 has been marked by santorum and that mark cannot simply be wiped away.

the entire story has become about romney's lack of appeal with "real" republicans compared to santo's. and "real" republicans are apparently those who appreciate a good ni-joke. although they might try to hide it by nominating the guy who looks like he rolled off an assembly line he then shut down and moved to india, you've made a stand for the core of the republican party: people who fear homosexuals, the educated, women [or at least their womanly parts], muslims, union workers, hispanics and the poor.

so bravo, santo, as you ride off into the distance. thanks to your candidacy, we all know a little bit more about who the republicans really are.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

making faces :: fall for all, part 2 [a seasonal colour analysis experiment]

well, installment one was the easy part: coming up with autumn looks for the autumn seasons. now we move into seasonal colour types that aren't as well-aligned with the typical autumn palette. first up, we deal with the winter seasons: dark, true and bright.

in colour analysis, each "parent" season- spring, summer, autumn, winter- overlap with each other season in one colour dimension- hue [warm/ cool], value [light/ dark] and chroma [saturated/ muted]. autumn is warm, dark and muted [relatively speaking], whereas winter is cool, dark and saturated. so you can see that the points of crossover in palettes, the places where you can emphasize autumn's attributes, is in the darker shades.

it's unsurprising that as fall transitions into winter, you get the darkest shades of all. we've seen the warmer equivalent in the dark autumn look from last time, so from there, as with all neutral seasons, we move from the warmer to the cooler cognate...


white trash

yes, my lovelies, i have returned from the dead, at least for the time it takes me to write this post. this is not just another piece of observational drivel about how i haven't been taking care of the blog lately, although i clearly haven't. on that front, though, the principal cause of my absence has actually been due to me trying to get another, somewhat related project, off the ground. unfortunately, that project has met with some frustrating delays which means that anyone who follows this blog [perhaps there are still a few of you who haven't entirely given up] would understandably be left with the impression that i'd simply forsaken more like space to marvel at the complexity of my own belly button lint. [it's possible you had that impression even before i disappeared.]

ok, enough with that. i have a subject i wanted to discuss with you, in the sense that i will want and encourage you to respond with questions, concerns and criticism in the comments or by em…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…