That is a good one. I especially like the way Eric Holder's hair was accurately rendered.
Sunny is my assistant. She reads the e-mails to this site because she wants to. It is not part of her job duties and anytime she wants to stop, she can. I mention that because one of you is pissing me off. Today Sunny told me about an e-mail back and forth. I told her to stop being polite and stop responding.
Mr. X has accused Wally and Cedric of all sort of things because of "THIS JUST IN! BARRY'S FANACTICAL CULT!" and "Barry and his whores." Sunny has repeatedly attempted to explain the posts -- which need no explanation -- and Mr. X just plays dumb (or truly is).
Wally and Cedric can write whatever they want and I will support them. I know them, I know their writing.
In the two posts in question (a joint-post), they are taking on the attacks of Dinesh Dszoa (if that's not spelled correctly, I don't care, I don't read him, neither do they). DD wrote a piece -- an opinion piece -- for Forbes. The result was the usual crap whenever Barack Obama is considered to be less than perfect.
Mr. X then wanted to weigh in.
Mr. X misses the point.
I'm going to explain it once and only once.
I'm going to do so as someone who is a therapist and knows what's allowed and what isn't in the field of psychology.
DD used Barack Obama Sr.'s goals and plans to analyze Barack Junior. Whether you agree he was correct or not to have done so, that is what he did.
He is not a psychologist.
But Justin A. Frank is. Frank chose to write Bush On The Couch and was treated like a lefty savior as a result. He, for example, became a Huffington Post blogger and BuzzFlash and all the usual crap sites lauded him.
Frank is a psychologist and, as such, he is damn well aware that our professional ethics forbid our putting anyone 'on the couch' in writing that we haven't (a) analyzed in person and (b) gotten a written release from. In other words, Justin Frank committed a huge no-no and was applauded for it. (Not by me. I refused to read the book and don't know anyone in my field who did. We were appalled by the book because it was so highly unethical.) (For any who don't know, I loathe George W. Bush. I hated him then, I hate him now. I will never forgive him for his crimes. That's not what this is about, this is about ethics.)
Frank went on to 'see' the world in such a manner that he became, for many of us, a huge embarrassment to the field. For example, in October of 2008, he was writing that Americans were 'afraid' but they didn't know it. Uh, actually, he can't put the country on the couch. That's (a). But if a large number of people were afraid, they would know they were afraid.
Fear, you see, is a basic emotion. Very few people have a problem recognizing fear. Fear is a survival instinct in the species. So to claim that large number of Americans were afraid but did not know they were afraid . . . That called into question not only his ethics but his actual intelligence and training.
So to be upset by this Dinesh D'Souza (that is the spelling, I just looked up his bio to be sure he wasn't a psychologist)? He's a political commentator from the right.
Disagree with him all you want (I certainly did in the 80s which is the last time I ever let Dinesh have any effect on my life -- I've ignored him ever since) but face the fact that what he did was not some great crime or even something so out of bounds. It's not at all different from all the applause Frank's unethical book received.
To Mr. X: I have told Sunny that she shouldn't bother reading you anymore.
Moving over to Christine Pelosi. She has an awful post at Politico. I have noted many, many of her awful posts.
She has two posts today; however, and one is actually good. This is the good one. What's the difference? In the good one, she's speaking for herself -- about what she knows and thinks. If Christine Pelosi did that more often (in the bad one, she's suddenly delivering two paragraphs of dialogue for Barack -- unless Christine was also a community organizer in Chicago), she would have an opinion worth sharing.
I'm not joking. In the good post, she is funny and bright and someone you'd want to have a coffee with. She really should do posts like that more often. Her other 'voice' is extremely off putting and never persuasive.
"TV: It Takes Two" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
When we returned to that after the first episode aired, the first question was, "You're not going to write about this?" Actually, that may not have been a question. It may have been an order: "You're not going to write about this!" Of course we are. To weigh in on the show without doing so would be providing a half-assed review not to mention concealing from the readers some things they should probably know.
We were immediately hit with, "Well we're fixing things."
We hope they are. We really do. But we're aware this isn't 1970. Are the producers? CBS offered Mary Tyler Moore her own sitcom and the promise that they would air 24 episodes of it. (After viewing the pilot -- or, rather, after test scores on the pilot, CBS attempted to back out of the deal.) TV shows rarely get that kind of commitment these days. More importantly, MTM worked to make sure the pilot of The Mary Tyler Moore Show was perfect before it was filmed. This idea that you can put a show on the air and then start fixing the problem? In what world?
And though the viewers will most likely note how off the lead actress is and how that performance harms the entire show, the reality is that an actor needs input and guidance and if Gugu Mbatha-Raw had gotten any, her performance wouldn't be so bad. (She's not a bad actress at all. She's just playing this part wrong.) And that doesn't fall back on her, that falls on the show runner. And failure to grasp that a romantic comedy depends upon two actors meshing their styles also falls on the show runner because, as Marvin Gaye and Kim Weston noted so long ago, "It Takes Two." Undercovers only has one.
I love this piece by Ava and C.I. for numerous reasons but mainly because they noted their disagreement with the show and how, when asked for input, they gave it and got a stereotypical insult about being feminists so they washed their hands of the show. Then it aired last week and, golly, Ava and C.I.'s points? All correct. They usually are. Ava's getting a reputation in the industry for that and C.I.'s long been a go-to for friends trying to fix their TV shows.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):