Annie Dice Clay?

6 comments March 4th, 2007at 04:30pm Posted by Eli

LGM may have inadvertently hit upon something:

Project Runway is mildly upset today that no one else appreciates the deconstructive, feminist comic genius of Andrew “Dice” Clay. Having taken my past critics somewhat to heart on the ethics of driving up Althouse’s site traffic, I’m not going to link to her — but here she is, quoting herself on what she evidently wrote about the Diceman last year:

The first time I saw Andrew Dice Clay, I took him to be a brilliant critic of masculinity. Then everybody just got mad at him and made him go away.

And ever since, the world has been punished immensely for this senseless cultural assault. Had Clay not been wrongly dismissed as a talentless, monotonous hack — instead of the billiant satirist of manly foibles, cleverly disguised as cheap jokes about analingus and yeast infections — his career might not have been unfustly cut short by Ford Fairlane. Now he’s trying to make a comeback, Althouse tells us, but it appears the world is still unprepared for [his] comic stylings.

So, let’s see… Ann Althouse, a “nonpartisan,” “feminist” law professor who writes like an epically obtuse sixth-grade Republican shill, laments that no-one appreciates how funny it is when someone dons the persona of an unevolved right-wing moron.

Is she trying to tell us something?

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Republicans,Wankers

6 Comments

  • 1. Mary  |  March 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Snort!

    I remeber her more from her ramblings when Judge Taylor rendered the wiretap decision. Althouse, together with Orin Kerr, who also teaches law (pick my jaw up from off the floor), rambled on and on about how the Judge should have rendered her decision based on:

    Arguments Never Made To The Court.

    I think Glenn Greenwald eventually undertook the 114th task of Hercules (making that stables thing look pretty ez) and explained to the law profs the broad overview of how a Motion for Summary Judgment works. I was too busy dodging their eructed erudition to hang around for their later, combined response of: “oh, legal stuff – we missed that” moments.

    If only I had realized that Ann was just killing time until someone had the insight to recognize her continuing performance art spectacle, I probably would have recommended the Louvre over Bedlam.

  • 2. Eli  |  March 4th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    It seems so obvious now, doesn’t it.

  • 3. charley  |  March 4th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    So, let’s see… Ann Althouse, a “nonpartisan,” “feminist” law professor who writes like an epically obtuse sixth-grade Republican shill, laments that no-one appreciates how funny it is when someone dons the persona of an unevolved right-wing moron.

    you’re the funny one.

  • 4. Glenn  |  March 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am

    If you follow that line of reasoning, then you abandon all systems of merit and judgment. Criticism becomes pointless and thus obsolete. I remember the Dice Man, and he wasn’t a commentative comedian. He was simply crude and obscene. That was his point.

    Of course, he may have paved the way for Jackass. Is that a worthy accomplishment?

  • 5. Eli  |  March 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Well, Dice’s excuse was always that he was simply *parodying* that kind of persona, but the problem with parodying really obnoxious people is that it’s really difficult to get across that line between parody and simple imitation. This is why I have trouble finding parody trolls or parody right-wingers particularly amusing.

  • 6. charley  |  March 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    yeah, but what’s ann’s excuse?

    and it can be done. for example, altmouse.


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

March 2007
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *