- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
"L'amour Viole" (it's a cinematic reference)[already revised]
“You see, today, Hillary Clinton brought up the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy, ostensibly as a justification for her staying in the race this long. She apparently said this before the editorial board of a newspaper in South Dakota. It was disgraceful. Her words were something to the effect that, Robert (Bobby) Kennedy was assasinated in "June" that year. In other words:shit happens; and it can happen very late in the race. She needs to withdraw from the race immediately. The obvious implications of her statements are that Obama could be assassinated before the nomination is finalized at the August convention. This is shocking and beats all the disgraceful things she has already said and done in this campaign. This is indefensible. Once again she has messed with something that is sacred (and taboo) in American politics; and just like her Martin Luther King/ Lyndon B. Johnson remarks: she will pay a big price. Politically speaking: this woman is mortally wounded. She has finally assasinated herself. Desperation and hunger for power can do that.” Rock Hackshaw on Room 8
HRC: People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa. From Senator Hillary Clinton’s interview with the Sioux City Argus-Leader's Editorial Board
It’s time to salute Rock Hackshaw, who will be joining me in Denver this August as part of the “Room’s 8” roadshow version of “Beavis and Butthead”. When Rock started out on “Room 8”, he was, right or wrong, a specialist in deviation from the Conventional Wisdom. Conventional Wisdom is neither invariably right or invariably wrong; but it is often a shorthand subsitutue for real thought. Without Conventional Wisdom, we might be playing tennis without a net, but Conventional Wisdom often simplifies the truth to the point where it is transformed into a different creature, acting not as it should as a foundation for discussion, but as a barrier to it. As such, attacking the Conventional Wisdom is arguably a worthy endeavor, even when it is right and the attack is wrong. Even when Rock Hackshaw’s been wrong (often), he’s torn down those barriers and given a steroid boost to lively disputation. But, for months I’ve suspected that Rock’s real ambition was not to explode Conventional Wisdom, but to make it himself. Well, to some extent, he’s now achieved that dubious distinction. Where once Rock was a Lone Wolf, he is now the Leader of the Pack. When Rock emailed me his column on the campaign’s latest gaffe controversy, I was in shock. Could Hillary Clinton have really implied that she is staying in the race because Barack Obama could be assassinated before the nomination is finalized at the August convention? I immediately attempted to find out, and learned, unsurprisingly, that her words in full context did not bear out this interpretation. I was ready to unload upon Rock like a ton of bricks. But then, I discovered something shocking: Rock was not a lone voice in the wilderness, he was the embodiment of the Conventional Wisdom. Everyone agreed with Rock’s interpretation. In fact, Rock’s comments were far more defensible than most, since it was clear he’d never actually read or heard Senator Clinton’s statement (or am I being too charitable?). No such excuse was available to Keith Olbermann and dozens of others. The Wolf Pack reported the story as follows: “Today in response to a question about why she’s staying in the presidential race, Senator Hillary Clinton said ‘We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.’” Well as they say, hard cases make for bad law, and incomplete quotations make for bad journalism. This reminds me of the campaign where Mo Udall’s opponent ran a commericial where Mo explained “I am a Socialist because…”, when in actuality he was saying “They say I am a Socialist because…” before he went on to refute the allegation. Normally, when a public figure says they were quoted out of context, they are lying. When Louis Farrakhan called Judaism a gutter religion, there really wasn’t any context that could explain it. “Well, in my childhood memories, the gutter was a fun place; it was where we played ‘curve ball’ and ‘Johnny on a Pony’—those in Philly call it ‘buck buck’, it had great resonance upon my formative years, much as Judaism has had such resonance upon Islam, in other words, getting to it’s very gut…hence the term ‘gutter’ religion”. But sometimes, words are really taken out of context. Read the Senator’s remarks. Before the mention of Kennedy, she says it’s unprecedented in history to end the nomination fight now, and that doing so make no sense historically, citing (not quite accurately) the example of her husband not wrapping up the nomination until June. After the mention of Kennedy, she says that calls for her to concede defeat are an historical curiosity to her. Pertinent historical fact perhaps unknown to many articulating the Conventional Wisdom: The night Robert Kennedy died, he had just won a come from behind victory against Gene McCarthy in the California primary. With more contests to go, including New York’s, the nomination was still unsettled and looked likely to go to the convention floor. Or, as she stated more artfully in March, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual." I apologize for my insensitivity to the taboo of a candidate mentioning the Bobby Kennedy assassination in the same week it's been recalled in about 187,000 newspaper articles in recognition of both the upcoming 40th anniversary of RFK's death (already immortalized on the cover of the June "Vanity Fair") and the news of his brother's mortal illness. However, it’s clear that Senator Clinton mentioned the events of June 1968 in the context of an argument not that lightning could strike, but that the ball game wasn’t over. I remember many times in my youth watching the Throneberry/Stengel era Mets playing out every last lousy game until the ninth inning, not because they harbored the hope that the opposition team might die, but because they were under the mistaken impression that the game wasn’t over. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Hillary Clinton, it's that she plays by the old rules; trapped in a corner, down to her king and a couple of loyal pawns (Terry McAuliffe among them), she’s not going to forfeit. It’s 20-3 in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and two strikes, and Hillary is still trying to knock one out of the park so that the game can go into extra innings, and Bill can stop arguing with the umpire and get back on the mound and throw a few spitballs, until eventually they scratch together a victory by stealing home. Yes, I do believe that Hillary is hoping for, thinks herself worthy of, and actually expects, some form of divine intervention on her behalf. I do not believe she is praying for an Obama assassination, but I also think that, like any good Calvinist, she believes that that is ultimately the Lord’s choice and not hers. However, I do not think she would cite that as a reason for her staying in the race. There’s a simple reason for that. If perchance there was an assassination, or some other disaster which removed Barack Obama from contention, no one would then say “Sorry Hillary, but you can’t be the nominee, you’ve already quit the race”. Under such a circumstance, she would almost certainly be the front runner. And, in fact, in such a turn of events, she would probably be a far more likely nominee if she had already quit the race and publicly buried the hatchet. To believe otherwise would be absurd. By that sort of logic, if actuarial tables suddenly caught up with John McCain tommorow, the Republicans would have no choice but to hand the nomination to the one other person still left in the race: Ron Paul. Rock is right about a few things. This is just like the MLK/LBJ imbroglio; right down to the Obama campaign calling another completely inoffensive factual statement “unfortunate” (which I guess is true; the remarks have certainly been unfortunate for Hillary). In both cases, Hillary Clinton stated an indisputable historical fact. In the first case, that it took the carefully rehearsed (see the telephone transcripts) good cop/bad cop act of LBJ and MLK to pass the Civil Rights Laws. In this case, that it is not historically anomolous for presidential nomination fights to go into June. Of course, while it’s clearly not anaomolous, it is probably anachronistic. A lot has changed since 1968. Which brings us to the other point Rock is right about: Hillary really should get out of this race. However, phony controversies like this do not make a graceful exit any easier. I suppose, in a way, the actual truth about Hillary's remarks, or anything else, is not that important. About ten years ago, I was in love. We began and ended everyday on the phone to each other, and talked several times during each day. Our lives revolved around each other. But something was missing. In frustration, one afternoon she yelled, "you are the most demanding person I've ever gone out with!" I responded, "We're going out? Thanks for letting me know; it's been six months and we've not yet been to bed, but I'm still here. I'm not the most demanding person you've ever gone out with; I'm the least demanding person you've ever gone out with!" "You may be factually correct", she answered, "but if I feel differently, what does it matter?" Of course, she was right. "I suppose, in a way the actual truth aboutr Hillary's remarks, or anything else, is not that important." Perception is vastly more important than reality, and Clinton and her handlers know it. That's why she quickly apologized and backpedaled rather than attempt to explain, no matter how eloquently, issues like context and history. Congrats on your selection as a NYS Blogger for the DNC, Gatemouth!  "Perception is vastly more important than reality" That was exactly the point of the girlfriend anecdote. this site, having followed a link to Hackshaw's blog entry. After having some time to explore the site, I see that there is much that interests me, I'm enjoying reading the entries. I would concur with much of what you say, what I find most objectionable to Hackshaw's entry is his bias that colours his judgement and sense of decency. As you pointed out, it is pack mentality, it isn't about the truth, it is about the kill. What I find truly distressing, as Americans should, is this deference to the press, this abdication of reason and rational thought to those members of the press who are not qualified to choose the President of the United States - they have neither the knowledge or the good judgement needed to do so, which their behavior during the Gore/Bush election so dismally displayed. We've taken to wiping our boots on the backs of our trouser legs, tugging on our forelocks and saying in agreement, "yes, m'Lord Keith," as he pontificates and lays down the law on what candidates are allowed to say or not say, what is taboo for them to discuss and what he will permit. (And Olbermann is but one example.) Where is our pride and self respect and dignity? Have we really lost our skepticism of the press so much that they now tell us what to think and say? Clinton is correct, historically, the season lasted from the day of announcement of a candidacy to the convention where the nominee was chosen. Historically, the democratic party after balloting chose the nominee, it was never intended for the public at large to choose a nominee for either party, that was and is, the responsibility of the party members, it's the very reason why we have parties. I abhor the acquiesence in the phrase, "perception is everything". Perception is nothing - it is fleeting, it can be manipulated, it favours deception over truth and it is disastrous in its consequences. The major reason why we were led into this tragic war is the perception the press had that the American people would turn on them if they dissented from the administration's goal of continual war. They were afraid that they would be perceived by the public as unpatriotic, of failing to support the troops or even that they were traitors. So they joined the pack and anyone who did not was banished to fend for himself - they turned on themselves making it even easier to manipulate them. It isn't up to the press to tell Clinton when and if she should leave this race - they don't have the moral authority to do so, and they really don't have the moral authority to manufacture incidents to force her to leave. After the last eight years, why would anyone think they do? I would also concur with much of what you say, and your complement to our site has made my day and probably Hackshaw's as well. Make sure to tell your friends about us, and click my name on the left side and access my earlier blog entries--More fun and laughter for all. After that, if you can take, look at Rock's stuff; much of it is infuriating, but it is also quite educational. Then imagine the fun the Rock and I will have together in Denver. Just a wild guess, but ..is your brother named Bob, and were you valedictorian for the class of 76?
Shame on R8. I asked your Roomie about his credentials as a psychotherapist, which he clearly stated in his column, and it was zapped. Just because you guys are going to the Convention, does R8 think there's no longer any need to be truthful? I AM a psychotherapist and there are licensing credentials attached to the title. All the news that R8 determines is fit to print? Wow. I didn't zap your comment--that would like be Mr. Tsabar, who is not attending the convention. I didn't read your comment, so I don't know if it was offensive, but if it is as described I can't see how it would be. Feel free to post anything you want here--I'll ask Gur not to delete it You know how it is--my colleague Rockwell is the one with the star on his door. I'm the comic relief. They obviously are concerned he might walk off the set and they'll have to read about the whole incident in Louella Parson's column. But, live by this rule of thimb--never question Rock's credentials on Rock's blog.
You are on spot! I honestly just asked what I posted above.... and it didn't have any editorializing attached. I've noticed how thin skinned he is, and since this IS a blog, one would think that a blogger would be prepared for attacks, and certainly for questions about his cites. Perhaps the blog-master (is there such a word?) does not want to ruffle his feathers about anything. Doesn't sound like a smart move to me. BTW - having read your posts from the beginning, I find them most entertaining and knowledgeable, and don't think of you as comic relief. My two favorties were you and Maurice Gumbs. He's stopped, and you had for awhile. I'm glad you're back. Gur swears to me that he didn't delete a thing, and I must take him at his word, while Ben probably has bigger fish to fry Ejoying me and Gumbs is sort of like eating tofu with stuffed derma, but i guess that's why there's both country and western.
Well, I'm a vegetarian with a thing for potato chips, so i guess my duality is deeply embedded. I'm going to try to post my query to Rock again and see what happens. I'll copy it, so that if it does get zapped I'll let you read it.
You have juice, because miraculously my post was not zapped this time.
I enjoyed reading your post, BevD, even though I disagree with some of your points. BevD wrote: "I abhor the acquiesence in the phrase, "perception is everything". Perception is nothing - it is fleeting, it can be manipulated, it favours deception over truth and it is disastrous in its consequences." I agree. But...that's the way the world works. You don't like it, and I respect that. Continued agitation by people who share your (intellectual and somewhat idealistic) viewpoints, people who think critically and question authority, stand a good chance of creating positive changes over time. But me...I simply work within the system that currently exists. In my view, manipluation of public perception is oftentimes a very successful strategy. BevD wrote: "The major reason why we were led into this tragic war is the perception the press had that the American people would turn on them if they dissented from the administration's goal of continual war." Really? And the Bush Administration's manipulation, deception and political opportunism had nothing to do with it? What exactly does the press need to fear from the American people? If the press feared anything, it feared crossing a Bush administration it relied upon for its news stories, not the American people. BevD wrote: "It isn't up to the press to tell Clinton when and if she should leave this race - they don't have the moral authority to do so, and they really don't have the moral authority to manufacture incidents to force her to leave." Moral authority? Come on...the press does not possess moral authority. The press is both controlled and affected by corporate and business interests. It's not driven by morality but by the bottom line. What the press does have is a disproportinately large influence on public perception and opinion. And I agree that many Americans allow the media to control public discourse and affect public opinion. But there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it...  Just in case the perception is that I have the ability to zap comments that are negative towards me, let me inform you all that I have no such powers. I submit my columns for my editors, they post them and all I can do is go in and edit the pieces, or edit my comments to the thread. I have always asked the editors to leave all the ridiculous attacks up for posterity (including solid critique); they choose not to do this (not me). I don't give a flying fig about these attacks beyond the fact that I do think they reduce the level of discourse on this site, and also since some have been vicious lies of a personal nature, bordering on libel, slander and defamation of my character. That's why I have argued repeatedly for my ideas on how to overcome all this. That's why I am selective in responding at times. Still, I respond to over 95% of the questions/ comments on my threads. It is obvious that I get the most comments here (by far). So let's try to check our perceptions to see if they align with the objective reality or objective truths. I do aim for honesty and accuracy in my columns. When I post rumors: I say so. When I am dealing with innuendo or speculation- in my "Vines" columns especially: I say that also. Gatemouth has sure aided this perception: that I am so thin-skinned that no one can critique me; but the reverse is really the truth. I engage my thread, and that's why they are usually the most active and entertaining threads (for years). I choose to ignore even Gatemouth and Wonk (and others)sometimes; with good reason. They often try to ridicule me. Why else would you do column after column with me as the subject? I try to ascertain when they are serious and when they are not. This isn't always easy to figure out.
he never gets as many comments as rock
and the comments he does get are about rock
lol I will issue the same challenge to you, that I issue from time to time here: will you please list the LIES that I am telling. Give us columns, paragraphs, lines, times and dates: PLEASE. TYVM. I await your response. (However, I do suspect that you will -like everyone else so challenged- do what is easiest to do: dissappear or not respond). Many have tried for years to sabotage my reputation here; my hope is that someday someone will give me the real reason why this continues: beyond the fact that I am black. This is so sad.
Rock, you have not responded to my question about your credentials as a professional in psychotherapy. That's all I ask(ed) and am not attacking you. As a licensed psycotherapist, I am wondering what your credentials are. That's it. Go to my column and you will see that I responded to your question. You also asked the same thing in that thread. What is your real objective here? One minute you are "BevD", another minute you are "anonymous". One minute you are on my thread, amother minute you are on Gatemouth's thread? What is your mission here (whoever you are)? One minute tou are saying that you are new to this site and only got to it by googling my name/ column or something or the other; then next minute you are talking about Maurice Gumbs-who hasn't written a column here in more than a year and a half or so. Unless you explain all this and make sense I will have to ignore you.
I have read this site since its inception. Maurice Gumbs and Gatemouth are the bloggers I enjoyed the most. There was always some whimsical aspect attached to their posts. The whimsey was always couched in hard truths. I miss Gumbs' writing. I'm happy that Gatemouth is on a roll. You seem to want to attack me and I don't know why. I just queried about your status as a Psychotherapist. Nothing more, nothing less. Counter-transference? That is the explanation you say you want. Unfortunately, I'm a tad concerned that you have not been as forthcoming as you claim, and that troubles me. I do hope my assumption, based on your unwillingness to back up your claim of being a Psychotherapist, is inaccurate. If so, I would humbly apologize to you, sir. I think Bev D and anon arwe two different folks and you may be confusing their attributes.
I choose to ignore you because you obvioulsy have some diabolical agenda as it relates to me. BTW you don't have to be only or just a "psychotheraphist" to work in the area of psychotheraphy; there are supporting staffers and professionals in any program, institution, academic or research entity in this area. FINALLY: go look at everything I have written in response to you, then explain to me why you would deliberately lie and suggest that I claimed to be a "psychotheraphist". I said I worked in the area of psychotheraphy (this is a fact; and I said it more than once). I could have immediately said that I was such and such: I didn't. I never told you in what capacity or what was my professional title and such when I worked in this area. AGAIN (for the second time today): give me line, verse, paragraph, column, thread, day, night, etc; when I made the claims you affix to me. This is so darn predictable and sad.
"Gatemouth has sure aided this perception: that I am so thin-skinned that no one can critique me"
When did I ever do that? Give me line, verse, paragraph, column, thread, day, night, etc; when I made the claims you affix to me. Oh yeah, I did do that, didn't I. Don't take it personally, Rock. As hard as it may sometimes be to believe, this is an argument over ideas. No need to get so angry. It's only the future of the free world that's at stake, not something important, like who gets to probate wills in Kings County. TO GATE-Let me give you a heads up: I am calling you out on HRC's assassination remarks. Tommorrow my column will throw down the gauntlet. Put on your thinking cap/lol.
When you're in the corner and have no money to go out from that, you would have to receive the home loans. Because that will help you definitely. I take bank loan every time I need and feel OK just because of that. Cafe Valentino
You may be a certified fans pertaining to developer replica Gucci Outlet? The many prior on your most popular Gucci Sunglasses Hut! Before you buy another lovely aspect, bring to mind your needlework that features located any carrier sector lively along with pretty pleased around the world. Take into account the music legacy thereby model developments behind the particular flourishing designer designation which might be LV 1 . along with the it provides great motivation for that developing copy ladies purse endeavor Gucci Outlet Online. Prior to choosing from the huge selection of replica totes online, picture this: how does the popular Hermes Birkin, Hermes Outlet happen? What made these high-end designs such an essential part of manner history? Exactly why do so many handbag lovers choose this brand? Here’s a short account regarding Gucci’s history, as well as why the style house may be reproduced thus passionately in the Gucci Hobo Bags imitations industry watches online It's actually a nice and helpful piece of information. I'm satisfied that you just shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
From Amazon.com:
Directed by a woman, Yannick Bellon, in France at a time when both simulated sex and raising the social consciousness about issues like rape were acceptable trends in film making, Rape of Love became a "one of a kind" film.<>
First, because of the explicitness of its rape scene, where a pretty, young French nurse, Nathalie Nell in her cinematic debut, is abducted, taken to a remote rural farm shed, stripped nude, and gang raped by four men she does not know. The rape scene is long, starting with her being accosted at a local bistro, through her forced abduction along a deserted road, to her futile attempts to fight off her attackers and later to escape into the woods. (Ms. Bellon is very droll with this last touch, a standard scene in cinematic rape, done with a new twist; not to excite the viewer with more running female nudity but to emphasize the terror and desperation of the victim as she strive to escape her fate.) The rape scene is so realistic that it sets a standard that no other film has been able to match; it is either viscerally erotic or brutal and horrifying, depending on the viewers frame of mind. Because it is so believable and so well acted, without any hint of the cloying, PC compromises that mar every almost every other rape scene from any other movie, it is actually both at once, both erotic and horrible. Without being pornographic, it vividly depicts its beautiful victim being violated in every orifice, literally raped into submission and so cowed that it is days before she even considers going to the police.<>