in which Richard Cohen makes a thinly-veiled dirge to his increasing inability to sex up young women

so let me just say that as soon as i FINALLY put the finishing touches on the update i am for-real, i-swear wrapping up for 11.16, i’ll put some kind of emergency “HOLY SHIT IT’S FINISHED” link at the top of the page. i mean, it’s not going to be GOOD when all is said and done, but it will at least be finished and i’ll be able to die unhappy. for right now, however, we’ll have to settle for running with a moderately more current update in which we examine the creepy behavior of the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. he’s talking about Skyfall… or Daniel Craig… or something vaguely related to it for some reason…

Richard Cohen
Richard Cohen: his creepy face is helping to take this article to a whole new level

James Bond and the new sex appeal

so, to be honest, i really don’t understand this concept based on the title alone, because a) i have always operated under the premise that James Bond was supposed to be a sex symbol and b) on first glance, there’s nothing “new” about the current Bond’s sex appeal: he’s a good-looking secret agent who fucks all the ladies WELL and murders all the evil guys. this is pretty much the formula we’ve been running with since the beginning of James Bond, if i am not mistaken. but, okay, let’s indulge this conceit and climb into the article:

“In the new James Bond movie, “Skyfall,” Daniel Craig takes off his shirt and examines his wounds. There appear to be two of them — small holes on his skin from bullets fired at the beginning of the movie. He touches his wounds and winces. So do I. Bond is in pain from his wounds. I am in pain from all the hours he has spent in the gym.”

so i am GUESSING this is going in the direction of “i find the good looks of Daniel Craig distressing for some reason,” unless i am supposed to believe that Richard Cohen has some kind of weird Gamera-Asagi bond with Daniel Craig that results in him being injured whenever Craig is injured. in fact, that IS what i now choose to believe. throw that more reasonable assumption right out the damn window for this new train of pure ridiculousness!

“This Bond ripples with muscles. Craig is 44, but neither gravity nor age has done its evil work on him. Nothing about him looks natural, relaxed — a man in the prime of his life and enjoying it. Instead, I see a man chasing youth on a treadmill, performing sets and reps, a clean and press, a weighted knee raise, an incline pushup and, finally, something called an incline pec fly (don’t ask). I take these terms from the Daniel Craig Workout, which you can do, too, if your agent and publicist so insist. Otherwise, I recommend a book.”

at this point, i guess i have to go back to my “Richard Cohen’s jealous rage” theory, which DOES make more sense than anything involving Gamera, but there appear to be two major flaws in Cohen’s reasoning already:

01. that’s there’s something WRONG with a 44-year-old man running on a treadmill, lifting weights and doing other exercises to stay in shape. look, 44 years of age is NOT the prime of your life and you CAN enjoy keeping yourself fit. that’s how you fight the gravity and age! i understand if the average guy doesn’t have the means or time for that level of workout, but let’s not act like it’s INCONCEIVABLE;
02. that Daniel Craig’s workout for the movies doesn’t involve steroids in the way that the workout of every single actor who makes action movies where his shirt comes off does.

“”Skyfall” is a lot of fun — don’t get me wrong — but it still says something about our culture that, in the autumn of my years, I do not like.”

you’re right, Cohen, let’s pause to briefly note whether or not the movie we’re talking about is any good. that can’t be of more than minimal importance.

“To appreciate what I mean, contrast this new Bond to Roger O. Thornhill, the charmingly hapless advertising man played by Cary Grant in “North by Northwest.” Like Bond, Thornhill pulls off some amazing physical feats — his mad frantic escape from the crop duster, the traverse of Mount Rushmore — and like Bond he wears an expensive suit.”

this is a WEIRD comparison for a couple of reasons:

01. North By Northwest is a 1959 film, whereas the first real James Bond film came out in 1962. so wouldn’t a more accurate reflection of the difference between culture then and culture now be to, i don’t know, COMPARE JAMES BONDS?
02. James Bond is an action star, first and foremost; i don’t know what exactly you call Thornhill, but i know you don’t call him an action star.

“Unlike Bond, though, when he takes it off we do not see some marbleized man, an ersatz creation of some trainer, but a fit man, effortlessly athletic and just as effortlessly sophisticated. Of course, he knows his martinis, but he also knows how to send out a suit for swift hotel cleaning. He is a man of the world. He is, in short, a man of a certain age — 55 at the time, to be more or less exact.”

and using the COMPLETELY arbitrary age of 55 is important, you see, because Bond has never been 55. when they began to portray Bond, Connery was 32, Lazenby was 30, Moore was 46 (and remember, he was deemed TOO OLD to play Bond when Connery got the job), Dalton 41 or 43 (i don’t know why Wikipedia thinks his age is considered debatable, but here we are) and Brosnan 42. so while they’ve been trending older with Bond (although more to chase long-wanted actors, i suspect).

i also don’t understand the major distinction between “an ersatz creation of some trainer” and “a fit man, effortlessly athletic,” since BOTH of these would seem to be the unreal example of manhood that Cohen is finding unfair, so the only thing i can think of is that he couldn’t really argue Cary Grant wasn’t good-looking and in shape, so he has to pretend that Cary Grant somehow has the looks and physique of an average man.

“In “North by Northwest” and other movies, Grant — for all his good looks — represented the triumph of the sexual meritocracy — a sex appeal won by experience and savoir-faire, not delts and pecs and other such things that any kid can have. He was not alone in this. Gary Cooper in “High Noon” wins Grace Kelly by strength of character, not muscles. He was about 50, and Kelly was a mere 23.”

i suppose if it wasn’t clear by now, Cohen’s major complaint in this piece is that much younger women don’t want to have sex with him, to which i can only say it sounds like much younger women are the wise ones in this whole discussion. he’s right that Gary Cooper was about 51 when he was in High Noon, but somehow i suspect he’s STILL not the spitting image of the average man, as well as having my doubts about Grace Kelly being all over him if there wasn’t a paycheck involved. still, look at this level of delusion that finds someone continuing to argue that CARY FUCKING GRANT was a sexual icon because of his “savoir-faire” and not the dazzling looks. i have never heard my sibling remark on all the “experience” you can see on Cary Grant.

“Maybe the best example of the unmuscled hero is Humphrey Bogart in “Casablanca.” Bogart was 15 years older than Ingrid Bergman and it did not matter at all.”

because apparently what Bogart brings to the table is nothing more than “being old” and “having an unimpressive physique?”

“He had the experience, the confidence, the internal strength that can only come with age. As he did with Mary Astor in “The Maltese Falcon”— “I don’t care who loves who, I won’t play the sap for you” — he gives up the love of his life because age and wisdom have given him character. These older men seduce; they are not seduced. They make love. They do not score.”

…jesus christ, Cohen, just buy one of those magazines where the girls ain’t got no clothes on and take care of business, man.

seriously, though, here’s the thing: Cohen is making a long-winded argument that he, not the robust muscles of Daniel Craig, possesses what used to make the loins of young women open freely. except if this is true, shouldn’t he be sexually satisfied and thus NOT writing this bullshit in a major newspaper. and if he’s not –and i presume this is the actual case– then doesn’t that shoot his theory down? is the purpose of Hollywood to make movies that allow 50-plus-year-old men to more easily bang 20-year-olds? what about the ART, man?

“The new Bond is a zeitgeisty sort of character. “There has been a striking change in attitudes toward male body image in the past 30 years,” Harrison Pope, a Harvard psychiatry professor, recently told the New York Times. He said the portrayal of men in what amounts to the Bond image is now “dramatically more prevalent in society than it was a generation ago.””

it is at this point that i will remind everyone that 50 years ago, a 32-year-old man with a trim physique played James Bond.

“That same Times story reported that 40 percent of middle and high school boys work out with the purpose of “increasing muscle mass.” Many of them also use protein supplements.”

but since we’re talking about the change in the onscreen image of men in their 40s and 50s, what the hell does the fact that kids in middle-school want to increase their muscle mass have to do with that?

“This is all very sad news. Every rippling muscle is a book not read, a movie not seen or a conversation not held. That’s why Sean Connery was my kind of Bond. He was 53 when he made his last Bond film, “Never Say Never Again.” Women loved him because he was sophisticated and he could handle a maitre d’ as well as a commie assassin. Western civilization was saved not on account of his pecs but on account of his cleverness and experience.”

of course, as i JUST SAID, he was also 32 when he made his first Bond film and, let’s be honest, he had pecs of note at the time. the “53 when he made his last Bond film” line is a scam, considering that Connery was essentially Bond for nine years –1962-1971, or ages 32-41– and then was lured out of retirement at age 53 to make that one non-Eon film Never Say Never Again at age 53. so you can see how a) ages 32-41 is clearly more indicative of what Connery brought to the table as Bond and b) Cohen’s argument dwells entirely in a realm of bullshit.

at this point, i don’t think he’s every actually watched a Bond movie; instead, i suspect all he does is look at photos of actors with their shirts off and get FURIOUS.

“I know the movie market skews young and kids want action, and I take it as a good thing that Daniel Craig’s Bond is older, world weary, and, in sports lingo, has slowed a step.”

…which is weird because you’ve been arguing that Bond USED to be slowed a step, but now has this crazy unrealistic physique that’s ruined everything you know about life, Cohen. i’ll leave the fact that ACTION MOVIES tend to contain ACTION aside for now- wait, no, i won’t! kids want action in their action movies; the realm of old men who look awful and do nothing is not action movies.

and i won’t dignify the ending of this piece where Cohen compares himself to Bond by comparing their drinks by quoting it. i will not do this. in summation, Cohen, if you want to have sexual intercourse with some much-younger women, stop expecting Hollywood to do the legwork for you. instead, i recommend you use the method older, sadder men have used since the dawn of time: cash money.

and in unrelated news:

Astra Constable

at this point, i don’t think papercraft Travis Bickle is jealous as much as he is pleased to see that i am 50% of the way towards my collection of Taxi Driver guns. which is not creepy at all. not at all.

your token 2012 holiday placeholder: Thanksgiving edition

in keeping with the absolutely GLACIAL pace of updates this holiday season (oh holidays, how i hate you so much), we’re going to take this week off (and leave a placeholder for an in-progress but oh-so-incomplete 11.16 update) in order to bake a lot of pies (because you know how we do) and whatever else you’re supposed to do on the holidays aside from “drink” and “have regrets.” allow me to leave you with the default video i run with this time of year.

happy holidays! or whatever.

presidential election 2012 part ii: after the deluge … of conservative emotions

so recently, we had this election and Obama won, which is good for him in the sense that, hey, he’s still the president and that’s pretty cool, they tell me, but also bad for him in the sense that i cannot imagine the stress of the job is good for ANYONE. i like to imagine that, for example(s), before their respective elections to the presidency, Richard Nixon was a pleasant human being and Lyndon Johnson was an attractive man: obviously, these are impossible fictions, but, you know, they’re impossible fictions that possibly contain comedic value.

anyway, i don’t really want to dwell on Obama’s reelection because then we might get into a serious discussion of “what this means for America” and “am i somehow going to be able to manage to give a damn about the concept of participatory democracy in the future for reasons that aren’t necessarily related to the presidential election” and blah blah blah. what i ACTUALLY want to focus on are the absolutely insane reactions to this election from Republicans (or conservatives, at least).

Donald Trump + Victoria Jackson = DREAM COUPLE
Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson: a match made in FUCKING INSANE HEAVEN

Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson melt down on Twitter

now, to be fair, this is not exactly watching the most stable individuals suddenly lose it; furthermore, i should admit that i believe Twitter was developed by top scientists to make celebrities and politicians post stupid shit on the internet. still, we’re talking about some fairly high-level insanity here. let’s start with Victoria Jackson, who i guess was a comedic actress for a short period of time before transforming into a conservative Christian with access to the internet:

Victoria Jackson @vicjackshow: “I can’t stop crying. America died.”

i suppose this isn’t THAT insane of a reaction if you’re incredibly disappointed in the election results because you think Obama’s going to be bad for the nation, but here’s what i don’t understand: these conservatives LOVE to talk on and on about how exceptional America is and how anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this is a traitor (or worse, a LIBERAL), so i have to ask this why i should believe such an exceptional country can be KILLED by the reelection of Obama. yeah, i know, it’s weird of me of all people to criticize someone’s hyperbole, but i doubt she’s exaggerating for effect.

Victoria Jackson @vicjackshow: “The Democrat Party voted God out and replaced Him with Romans 1. In the Good vs. Evil battle…today…Evil won. Thanks a lot Christians, for not showing up. You disgust me.”

observation: somehow, i suspect the people who are excited to vote against Obama for religious reasons ARE the guys who showed up and voted in solid numbers (at least for however many of them there are)… so pray tell, why are the voters who you’re theoretically in lock-step with the ones that disgust you? shouldn’t you be disgusted by all the sinful non-Christians out there who voted for Barack “Lord of Darkness” Obama so that they’d keep getting government funding for their black magic rituals?

okay, so, at the very least, it appears that Jackson does not have sound arguments in her favor. next up, Donald Trump:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”

okay, first off, if the world is laughing at us, i have to believe a large percentage of the reason is the fact that a lot of Americans take Trump seriously when he talks about politics or business or anything else. second, look, despite the fact that i love to make the Obama=Romney argument, mainly to make people who love or the other of those guys GO CRAZY, i get the fact that one might have strong feelings about the victory/defeat of their candidate. however, a “great and disgusting injustice?” a “sham and a travesty?” these are the kinds of things you need to support with something BEYOND “well, the guy i voted for didn’t win.” case in point: you know how we always claim that Putin doesn’t preside over fair and democratic elections? please note that such claims are typically supported with SOME real evidence.

also, call me nuts, but the fact that we all voted and some guy won the election makes this a democracy. i’m really not sure what Trump thinks a democracy is, but i am actually curious to hear what it entails, aside from “Romney is the president because … uh … RRR TRUMP SAYS SO!”

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “More votes equals a loss…revolution!”

jesus fucking christ, Trump, could you be any more pathetic about this? look, on both extreme ends of the political spectrum, you have a) people who are crying “revolution” as the only viable solution to the current status of American society/politics/cooking/whatever and b) people pointing out that their opposite numbers calling for revolution are stupid, ignorant traitors to America. and i am SURE that Trump has been one of those guys… although, in fairness, since he seems to change his political stripes as is convenient, maybe he’s always been the revolution shouter and never the criticizer of those calling for revolution.

furthermore, i’d really like to watch Donald Trump get a rifle and a flak jacket and attempt to take his “revolution” into his own hands so that i could watch a police office shoot him to death on television. but then i think we all know that Trump is a big talker who never backs up what he says.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before.”

now, this is the kind of thing i expect to hear from the kids of my generation and younger, who think everything currently occurring is the BEST EVER or the WORST EVER: there’s nothing like the youth of America to completely lack historical perspective. that said, i suppose Donald Trump is insufficiently mature to qualify him to join this team of stupid fucking kids. again, not to make a redundant point, but what exactly is the support for this claim of “America is in the worst trouble EVER?” please allow me to make a short list of times when i imagine America was in WORSE “serious and unprecedented” trouble:

–the Civil War
–World War II
–pretty much every year prior to 2012

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “Our nation is a once great nation divided!”

to this, i can only muster up an “…and?” look, let’s point out that everyone likes to talk about the partisanship that dominates Congress and/or the country, but no one has ever addressed that by simply yelling “our nation is a once great nation divided” over something as petty as not liking the results of an election.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

i do appreciate him allowing me to make this point: the people who rage against the electoral college can be accurately described as “people whose preferred candidate lost the most recent presidential election in a manner they feel can be blamed on the electoral college.” seriously, Republicans hate it now, but were fine with it in 2000; Democrats are cool with it now, but raged against the (electoral) machine in 2000. sure, there are probably a couple of people on either side who have a long-standing beef with said college of electorals, but i doubt they’re the ones stoking the engine of INTERNET OUTRAGE on this topic.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “House of Representatives shouldn’t give anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.”

…which in turns leads me to believe that Donald Trump thinks Obamacare costs him money, and that this is the SOLE reason he opposes Obama. and you know what? that’s perfectly fine and he’s entitled to vote and support politicians because of that. however, it would be nice if he could express that without claiming America is being destroyed by this election, and thus it’s revolution time.

but look, Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson are fundamentally semi-famous idiots best known at this point. what about the people who are actually considered to be more serious political figures? well…

Jenny Beth Martin
oh, American conservatives, how i sometimes feel you don’t understand anything at all

“Following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Barack Obama, conservative leaders wasted no time Wednesday offering pointed criticism of the Republican Party and its pick for president. A coalition of social conservatives and tea party activists gathered in Washington to decry what they described as Romney’s failure to represent conservatives on a national level.”

so this can go one of two ways: 1) conservatives are disappointed because Obama won, and that’s worse for them because OBAMA, or 2) conservatives are upset because they believe the reason Romney lost was that he was NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

“”We wanted someone who would fight for us. What we got was a weak, moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, said in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington. “The presidential loss is unequivocally on them,” she added.”

…and it looks like we’re going with option #02. see, this is what confuses me: a candidate that Martin considers to be very liberal (Obama) beat a candidate she considers to be moderate (Romney), and her solution to this is that the GOP should have run someone more conservative (oh, let’s say Santorum). but if the majority of voters went liberal, how the fuck does a MORE conservative candidate do any better? and if you think voters went liberal because of “gifts” or whatever else, how does a more conservative candidate counter that in any way?

i also love the notion that a conservative Tea Party member bears no responsibility for Romney’s loss, despite pushing him toward the positions you wanted during the primary. tell you what, let’s leave the presidency aside: Tea Party candidates have now lost 5 of 5 Senate elections in this election and the last. i have a feeling that those seats –the losses of which should be stated to be “unequivocally on people like Jenny Beth Martin”– would have come in handy to her GOP side these days.

“Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, argued that Romney failed to pass the ideological test, saying he ran as a “Democrat-light” and adjusted his positions to campaign as a moderate during the general election. “At the end of the day, conservatives were left out in the cold. It should have been a landslide for Romney, had he embraced a truly conservative agenda,” Bozell said. “But Romney’s a moderate and his campaign embarked on a bizarre…defense from the outset.””

now, i will throw Bozell a bone and agree that Romney IS essentially a moderate and this fact forced him into some weirdly defensive positions. what Bozell doesn’t say, however, is that a lot of this defense was due to Romney abandoning moderate positions for more conservative positions AT THE BEHEST OF PEOPLE LIKE BOZELL, allowing Obama to force Romney to defend changing his positions. see, here’s the thing: if Obama is for universal health care and Romney WAS for universal health care, Obama can’t attack Romney for having the same position he does… but he CAN attack him for the flip-flop, something forced by Bozell.

so, okay, this means Bozell wanted a sincere conservative who never NEEDED to adjust his positions. fair enough. but THAT means the issue wasn’t “embracing a truly conservative agenda,” but rather, always having possessed a truly conservative agenda. and again, what about an electorate that chose the more liberal candidate would have delivered an election to a turbo-conservative in a LANDSLIDE?

“On social issues, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony List, blasted the candidate for not making abortion a central part of the 2012 dialogue. “He took all the right stances,” she said. “The problem was not communicating on the national stage with Obama what his actual positions were.””

dear Marjorie Dannenfelser: this makes no fucking sense. you wanted Romney to communicate his actual positions? i recall him REPEATEDLY talking about his campaign being pro-life and the Democrats beating him up for it. REPEATEDLY. unless you wanted Romney to adopt a public position of “i will personally kill all the fucking abortionists in America ON DAY ONE OF MY PRESIDENCY,” i don’t see what more conservative of a position Romney could have publicly taken. and if he had… how would this have helped him win the election?

“The group endorsed Romney after he unofficially became the nominee in April when former Sen. Rick Santorum dropped out of the race. Dannenfelser said they were “happy to endorse him when the time came” but expressed frustration when she said “we assumed, that given who he was, he would make (abortion) more of a national issue.””

okay, look, call me a moderate, call me a RINO, whatever, but here’s the thing: making abortion “more of a national issue” would not have gotten Romney elected. period. please, please, give me some evidence it would, you fucking crazy broad.

“All the activists at the press conference agreed that Tuesday’s election signaled a need for the GOP to re-institute more conservative “fundamentals.” While some argue the Republican Party’s failure to retake the Senate or make gains in the House suggests the tea party is losing steam, the group of individuals Wednesday argued the opposite. Given this week’s results, they said, conservatives will be even more motivated to reform the party. Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of, ended the press conference with one final prediction. “Tea partiers will take over the Republican Party within four years,” he said.”

now, i have ripped Viguerie before Bruce McCullough style; oddly enough, that was back in 2009 when Viguerie was bitching about RINOs following a disappointing election. i will throw out that, at the time, Viguerie was calling Newt Gingrich a RINO. i will point out that he’s been pushing for more Tea Party, more conservative fundamentals, more blaming RINOs/moderates for failure ever since then, and yet all he has to show for it is loses in the Senate and another term for Barack Obama. Tea Party guys will take over the Republican Party within four years? why hasn’t it happened already? but hell, assuming that it does happen? enjoy President Biden or President Clinton II or President OMG LIBERAL, Viguerie.

presidential election 2012 part i: the prelude to this all ending soon, we hope

one of the fundamental points that i have been absolutely harping on for some years now is that it’s really, really enough with these incredibly long, never-ending turbo-election cycles. IT IS ENOUGH. when the Irishman can joke four days prior to election 2012 that we’re “only four days away from campaign 2016” and the best one can manage is more of a sigh than a laugh because, let’s face it, that’s fucking true, it’s pretty telling. frankly, my feelings can be summed up with the following video:

i may have to vote Gary Johnson in honor of this kid.

seriously, though, i don’t know if i am just getting older and more jaded or what –i mean, i would like to presume my grouchy opinion towards the election is based on SOMETHING approaching “legitimate criticism”– but a campaign that never seems to end is REALLY killing the desire for participation in representative democracy that once existed within me (and maybe still does on good days, or when some candidate is talking reckless about my gun rights). the Republican primary dragged on and on… and then the general election dragged on and on… and in the end, if i don’t live in a battleground state, it’s not like my vote REALLY matters. and yet i had to suffer through all that. sure, it gave us some colorful moments when i was TOTALLY flipping out about Donald Trump or whoever else was being the asshole of the week, but somehow i feel that there are enough dumbasses in America for me to manage to find people to rip on without there being a presidential election going on.

perhaps this is the best way to describe how presidential elections make me feel: during season six of the Sopranos (season six, part one, if you want to be TECHNICAL about it, and no, this is not going to be some internet defense of those season(s) as great, so don’t worry), there was an episode, “Luxury Lounge,” which you may remember as a combination of “the one where Lauren Bacall gets punched in the face” and “the one where Artie Bucco gets a lot of screen time.” it’s a solid episode, all things considered, especially anything related to Little Carmine and/or Hollywood, but we’re going to be focusing on Artie Bucco here.

Artie Bucco: prone to making poor life decisions

as a character, Artie’s all kinds of flawed; he spends a lot of this episode in a shameful mid-life crisis, at least when he’s not crying or trying to kill himself. he’s not exactly my role model. that said, there’s a part of this episode where he’s lamenting the fact that, “life’s not fair, right, i know, but somehow i believed my dad’s crap about honest work: you’ll see, it pays off in the end. what a joke.” honestly, this is the way i feel about most everything, even if that seems COMPLETELY unrelated to the election. when i was a kid, i was always told that you voted, as it was your civic responsibility and because it MATTERED. it’s important, it’s something people died to enable the rest of us to do, it’s something that people around the world can’t do, or maybe won’t ever do. but still… i’m watching guys spend 2-3 years of a four-year term campaigning for the next term. and i’m watching guys who have two-year terms spend their two years running for the next term. this is the honest work of politics that means something?

if you watch the Sopranos, you know Artie brings a LOT of shit on himself with the way he acts, so i can only presume that ultimately my apathy or negative feelings or whatever else is in play are my own fault; obviously there are issues (well, maybe issue, singular) that i actually DO care about that should keep me involved in the civic responsibility of voting. but still… if i watch the debates, i get to watch two millionaires who i cannot fathom actually give a shit about me (specifically me, not some royal “me” that represents AMERICA) at all say pretty much the same goddamn thing the other guy is saying, and while they’re talking about what they want to DO, i know they’re just saying whatever they need to say to get elected. this is something i am supposed to embrace?

so, anyway, this is rambling and clearly one of those things that makes total sense to you, the writer/speaker, but not to anyone listening, and most importantly of all, NONE OF THIS IS FUNNY (we’re going to do the joke thing next time). and it’s not like shortening the damn primaries and/or election is going to magically make me think that someone actually gives a damn about my existence in the world of politics, so i don’t know what i am even advocating here. mostly i am just tired of the whole mess.

luckily, however, post-election, people said and did some sincere nonsense, and THAT in turn will allow for actual joke-making. so sorry about this update, single reader of this site who has to be aware that i am churning out some absolute DUDS here from time to time. we’ll see what happens next week.