Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Whoopi Goldberg is nuts nuts!

Whoopi Goldberg is barking mad. Yesterday she said that what Roman Polanski did in 1977 wasn't 'rape rape'.

He gave her qualudes, he gave her champagne. She said no.


I have no clue what the difference is between 'rape' plain and simple, and 'rape rape'.
In many Asian languages words are reduplicated for a diminuative or abstracting change of meaning, or to cutesify them. Ms. Goldberg is not Asian. We can only guess at the exact meaning of her daft locution. Rape rape.

By sneeringly calling it rape rape, she pooh-poohs the severity of the act act.

She's a crack crack pot pot.,0,4549479.column

Q: Did you resist at that time?
A: A little bit, but not really because . . .
Q: Because what?
A: Because I was afraid of him.
That's Roman Polanski's 13-year-old victim testifying before a grand jury about how the famous director forced himself on her at Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home in March of 1977.
End quote quote.

Roman Polanski first got the girl drunk. Then he gave her half a qualude. Then he undressed her. Then, despite her telling him not to, she didn't want to, please stop, he inserted himself in her. Upon finding out that she wasn't on the pill (in what demented universe are THIRTEEN YEAR OLDS standardly on the pill?), he withdrew and stuck it in her anus. That is when she 'resisted a little bit but not really because she was afraid of him'.

Remember, she was thirteen years old, under the influence of both alcohol and qualude, and alone with a forceful adult man who did not take no for an answer.

Roman Polanski should be castrated - he really can't be trusted with a penis.
Whoopi Goldberg should be committed - she's certifiably loopy.

And all those Hollywood stars, movie people, and European intellectuals who support Roman Polanski and are outraged at his arrest need to shut the F up, and their careers ought to be ruined. Because they are pigs and apologists for rape and child-molestation. It's sick.
Sick sick, sick sick sick, sick-sick sick sick.


Saturday, September 26, 2009

Alice Walker - Cannibal goddes

There are authors whose books we must read, because they are deep and meaningful and important, and contain a beautiful glorious truth.
Not real thruth, you understand, but deep meaningful important truth.

Truth that is far better than real truth. New improved truth.

Amy Tan, of course. One of the genuine one-shot wonders of the Chinese-American community, whose next book is even more insufferable than the last.
Frank Chin, a Chinese-American playwright who is deeply resentful of the successes of Chinese-American female authors, must also be read - he too represents 'new improved truth'.

Giant purple emasculatrix

One of the greatest inventors of deep meaningful important truth is Alice Walker.
Like Amy Tan, pretty much a one-shot pony.
The Color Purple is a must-read classic, heavens you haven't developed your mind and your soul if you have.... NOT.... READ.... THE COLOR PURPLE!!!!

Insert multicolored exclamation marks here, and break out the emotionally supportive champagne. It is so very deep and meaningful you should cry. Or kill yourself, if you are a white male, but of course you aren't. For at least the several hours that it takes to read The Color Purple, you are the beauteous copper-hued earth-mother, big of breast, timeless and ancient.
Not white. Not male. Not guilty.

And also, almost certainly, not Jewish. Coz if you are Jewish, Ms. Alice Walker sincerely wishes you to understand that you are the paradigm of whiteness and maleness.
And very very guilty.

Let us explore, shall we?
Alice Walker is suggesting, not exactly alleging, but musing on the notion that Teva and Naot are using Palestinian prison labor to make sandals for export.
This is pure bigotry, and it's being promoted by a woman who for at least a couple of generations of American feminists and activists has been promoted as a deeply spiritual person, a secular saint, a champion of the oppressed. Children are dying in Sderot, and Walker can't be bothered to care. She's chosen sides in a war she hardly understands, and allied herself with people who care nothing for either Israeli or Palestinian lives. "
End quote.
"Well, because I really love people, "
End quote.
Yet another idiot toured Gaza, declared the results of the war horrible, and blamed Israel. This one, though—well, she’s toeing the Hamas propaganda line quite closely.
End quote.
All that said, it’s time for examples that shine light upon Walker’s state of mind: "True to my inner Goddess of the Three Directions ... I [do not] agree with everything Obama stands for…[because] there is not one person I wish to see suffer, no matter what they have done to me or to anyone else; though I understand quite well the place of suffering, often, in human growth."
What is that except an example of pompous, shallow Leftist nonsense spewed with the clarity of the noonday sun.
End quote:
Alice Walker, it seems, is a woman who cannot love her own daughter or grandson, yet loves the whole American people, despite their inability to write a sentence, despite them being "racist and sexist and greedy above all".
End quote.
"It is Mr Obama's statement that, when he is President, he (the US) will pursue al-Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan, find Osama bin Laden and "kill" him. Though I understand that Mr Obama wishes to show himself as "strong", even "tough", this is problematic on ethical, moral, and practical levels. "
End quote.

That ought to do it. A sampling from left, right, center, and outerspace.
I love it when we're all on the same page.

The problem with Alice Walker is her cloud-cuckoo-land way of thinking, which is made the more unpalatable by her staggeringly bad writing. The combination of tendentious drivel, new-age codswallop, and self-important meaningfulness fair about makes one puke.

Must-read authors like Ms. Walker will ultimately be responsible for wholesale despoilation, murder, and the burning of books. In reaction, or because of the trauma to the mind that their crap creates.
After reading her latest painful essay, I want to go out there and wallop a Palestinian in revenge.


Thursday, September 24, 2009

Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly

Transcription of the Israeli Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.

We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?
Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?
The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.
We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.

We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations,
Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.
And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.
Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein.
And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.
In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.

Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.
Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city - in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem. We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.
We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.
The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.



Do please take note of which nations walked out on Ahmedinejad's speech, and who stayed to give him his hearing.

Did any of the Arabs walk out?

Also please note who in our own country defends Ahmedinejad, and demands that he and his despicable goons be given the respect due to other nations.

I would offer that among his defenders are Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area Women in Black, the International Solidarity Movement, Paul Larudee, Richard Becker, Donna and Darleen Wallach, and every single member of the Students for Justice in Palestine.
In addition to Medea Benjamin, and no doubt Alice Walker.

When the history of this era gets written, the support given to evil ideologies by evil citizens of this country will be a black blot, and the memories of people such as Paul Larudee, Richard Becker, Donna and Darleen Wallach, Medea Benjamin, and (no doubt) Alice Walker, will be considered loathsome.


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Lolita - not enough sex, far too much Humbert

How dull, and how predictable. The ending of this book. Why did Nabokov have to end this with a morality tale? Humbert Humbert speaks of his motivations and realizations, and acknowledges that having depraved sex with a teenager was wrong wrong wrong!

He merits horrible punishment, he says, and advises Lolita to make the best of it with her husband. Dreadfully moral. Too good to be true. It makes a lie out of the man.

Again, Nabokov plays with mirrors. Humbert is sick within, Lolita's husband is damaged without. Humbert is a deviant, Quilty is depraved, Lolita is damaged, and her husband is relatively none of the above. I suppose exaggerating these differences makes them all somehow balance each other, just like all the coincidents and corollaries elsewhere in the book filled out a broader picture. The glib trickery of a febrile mind.

Still, it ends with Quilty dead, Humbert dying in the slammer. Poetic justice, huh!
He suggested, in chapter THIRTY SIX, that he deserves THIRTY FIVE years in jail. Dude, we've already been there! Thirty five chapters of your self-indulgent pedophile ramblings across America and across the pages and our patience!

"Light of my life, fire of my loins" - Hah! My donkey!!!

Couldn't you at least have admitted that you enjoyed every wet moment? That your visual tastes in girl-flesh made the fact that she was not a very interesting or romantic girl more than worth it? That the heat from her spare young body warmed those brittle old bones more than had you burned in the fires of hell? That the touch of her feet, the fuzz on her skin, the silk of her cheeks thrilled you more than anything else?
Dwell on it man! Don't sicken us with your guilty remorse!

The sex descriptions were not nearly as exciting as the visuals. The perversion of this book is in the lack of climax. It left me flushed but unfulfilled.

Sad to think that the greatest book of 1955 was, in some regard, barely more than the private scribbles of a frustrated teenage boy.
I want more.


Saturday, September 19, 2009

Sexfreaks and bores: Humbert Humbert returns to Ramsdale

Professor Humbert found Lolita again, but she is more lost to him then when she was a child. She has grown up, he really hasn't. He flees from her weeping.

The hunt for the evil Quilty is on!

Well, at least this nutball is finally facing reality. Lolita's rejecting him, now that she is married, is forcing him to confront not only his own aesthetic paedophilia (forgive the spelling, Herr Nabokov would approve), but also the fact that Clare Quilty is no worse then he himself is. He had thought his own perversion quite exquisite and refeeeeened, Quilty merely a deviant and child-like child-rapist.
But he sees now that he has, by his exploitation of Lolita, deprived her of her childhood, no matter how willingly she jumped his middle-aged bones.

Humbert has revisited Ramsdale, scene of his many happy hours resisting the repulsive blandishments of Charlotte while envisioning eventualities with Dolores.

He is now heading to Pavor Manor. With his gun in his hand (good place for it).

Oh great - he's gonna whack his penile rival with a penis substitute.
The penis symbols just mount and mount, coming faster and faster.
Something's gotta explode.

And I still haven't flung this convoluted book away from me. so I guess we'll find out in the next post how the tale of a middle aged sex troll, a child-molesting playwright, a teenage concubine, and several other sexually crippled characters ends.
Oh yes, I already know it ends with a bullet. But the degenerate lives of white people just enchant me. They are so creative when they're depraved.


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Goldstone report legitimizes terrorist activity

The following text is written in a language that many Europeans, most Muslims, and the vast majority of Berkeley residents will not understand.
Plain English. [Classes are available, by the way.]
Which is the best garb for truth, though completely impenetrable to those who habitually lie - like the pro-Palestinian Europeans, Arabs, and residents of Berkeley.

Statement by President Shimon Peres: "Goldstone Commission Report is a Mockery of History"
[Communicated by the Office of the Spokesperson of the President of Israel]

The Goldstone Commission report is a mockery of history. It fails to distinguish between the aggressor and a state exercising its right for self defense.

War itself is a crime. The aggressor is the criminal. The side exercising self-defense has no other alternative.

The Hamas terrorist organization has opened war and perpetrated other horrible crimes. For years, Hamas carried out attacks against the children of Israel, sending suicide bombers into city centers, injuring and killing civilians. They fired over 12,000 rockets and mortar shells at towns and villages with one clear aim - to kill innocent civilians.

The report legitimizes terrorist activity, the pursuit of murder and death. The report disregards the duty and right of self defense, held by every sovereign state as enshrined in the UN Charter.

Israel withdrew all of its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip, opened the border crossings and actively supported its reconstruction. The Israeli presence in Gaza was terminated.

But after Israel completed its redeployment from Gaza, a murderous and illegitimate terror group violently revolted against the legitimate Fatah leadership, overthrowing it by force.

Hamas operatives murdered Fatah leaders, at times throwing them from rooftops in broad daylight.

While Hamas continued firing, Israel employed, time and time again, the diplomatic channels, including many appeals to the UN – in an attempt to bring about a cessation of rocket fire.

Israel redeployed and terminated its presence in Gaza. Hamas responded with incessant rocket fire aimed at killing children, women and innocent civilians. Instead of building Gaza and caring for the welfare of its citizens, Hamas built tunnels to attack Israel, cruelly using children and innocent Palestinians to hide terrorists and ammunition.

Hamas terrorists built rocket launching pads and storage facilities near schools, in mosques and kindergartens. They booby-trapped urban neighborhoods and used Palestinian children as human-shields in order to hide terrorists and war materiel.

The State of Israel was forced to defend itself. It acted out of obligation to its citizens, like any sister state in the family of nations would.

Israel has been criticized for its actions against Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon and Hamas attacks from the Gaza Strip, as well as for building the security barrier in the West Bank to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country.

This criticism did not stop the rockets from hitting the South and the North, nor did it stop terrorists from blowing themselves up in our central cities. IDF operations enabled economic prosperity in the West Bank, relieved southern Lebanese citizens from the terror of Hezbollah and have enabled Gazans to have normal lives again.

Those in pursuit of peace have justice on their side. Those who monger war will forever be criminals.

Members of the commission would have never compiled such a report if their children resided in Sderot and suffered the terrorism of daily rocket fire.


Members of the commission would never live in Sderot in the first place.
Far too many Israelis there.
Pro-Palestinian Europeans, Arabs, and residents of Berkeley would rather not associate with such people.
It would upset their apple carts.


Monday, September 14, 2009

Oh no! Lolita has absconded!

Not with the crown jewels, but with Clare Quilty! The evil maniac "saved" her from her sickbed, leaving poor Humbert alone. And, as it turns out, frustrated.

So frustrated that he obsessively revisits the scnes of his crimes, hoping for clues. But of course there are none. After a period of intense and wildly loopy crisis, he has taken up with a woman who is mentally as childish as Lolita was physically, and together they drink like fish.
The two of them live in the hotels where he remembers fondling and worse Lolita, in bouts of intoxicating despair.

He is unmoored, Rita is unstable. This cannot endure.
It doesn't.

Rita and Humbert now no longer live together. But they seem closer now that they're apart.

Sofar, I don't think that Nabokov had a good sex life himself. His portrayals of women veer towards the either mentally featureless, or the physically undeveloped. Did he leave a lost love in Russia? Did he ever really connect with women? Was he an alcholic or very Greek?
Was that butterfly madness a substitute for the freshness that he sought?

And what's with all the ridiculous coincidences that are now cropping up? Are those replacements for the bad puns and convoluted word plays and theme-mirrors that earlier larded the text?
Tune in next time to find out whether Humbert's old-maidenly madness is catching, or whether this frustrated maiden will fling this dense book away from her with furious force.


Saturday, September 12, 2009

Thank you so much for mentioning me with Richard Becker's little wangy

Oh no! I have been linked by an elderly man! Is this the beginning of a tumultuous loss of innocence? Depravity beyond several very wild dreams???????????

Or words to that effect.

Atboth mentioned my three Lolita posts in a link-dump on Friday.

Three quotes:

"I am thrilled to bits that a thirteen-year old is reading Nabokov. Perhaps it isn't healthy, but I shan't say anything. I started reading Nabokov when I was thirteen, and knew all about the nictitating grasses by the time I was fifteen."

We all know how you turned out.

"Vladimir Nabokov is food for developing minds, nourishment for the soul."

Rich and fatty.

"Just avoid the depressing second half of Ada - it isn't nearly so sprightly and joyous as the first half, in which Van and Ada first mutually frustrate, then obsessively conjugate."

I am SO not going there.

You mentioned my posts after talking about Snooky's underwear and Grant's thing for Richard Becker's penis. Thrilling company, but, um, disturbing? I'm sure that panties are a metafor of something, deeply symbolic, but Grant and his penis-envy are NOT entirely normal.

I myself have utterly NO INTEREST in Richard Becker's small penis. I'm sure in it's own way it is quite charming. But I'm not curious. I've seen photos of Richard Becker. I'm just not into fossilized old poops. Yes, I like some things that are small and cute. But absolutely not if they're attached to dried-up ancient cheeses.

Grant, if you read this blog, please remember that.


Thursday, September 10, 2009

Charlotte Haze and her dishy daughter

He should've seen that coming - Lolita will undoubtedly grow up to be physically like her mom. At twelve she's already showing signs of a dulling of the curves due to plumpness. No, that only looks like baby fat.

Charlotte Haze almost raped poor Humbert earlier on in the book, but his innocent little Lolita, the unspoiled little angel, proved more "vestigal" virgin than 'vestal'.
She had it on with a lump at camp.

Nabokov doesn't really make clear why Lolita "seduced" Humbert. Perhaps she simply wanted to get it over with, but more likely she though of it as a way of getting her hooks into the man. He proves a willing victim. Overkill. The merest of hooks would've been more than enough.

She's cunning. Knowing in one sense, but she doesn't really know. She is simply showing off her superficial awareness of a new party trick to an appreciative adult.

Of course, Charlotte's only hook for Humbert was her daughter, and though enormously strong, it wasn't enough. Charlotte never caught Humbert, he simply swam into the boat. She lost her grip, lost her life, and Humbert was still hooked.

They drive all over the country in Charlotte's car, heading further west. There's something twisted about using the dead mother's vehicle as the device that binds them together in perpetual shuddering motion. Especially as this is the second time they have done so - a journey to recapture her lost innocence, his lost enchantment.

She was never innocent (just rather ignorant), and he exchanges his glib cynical attitude for paranoia and disillusionment.
Things will happen soon. I sense an impeding gloom called Clare Quilty.


Monday, September 7, 2009

Nabokov and Lolita - Nymphets in the bellfry

One third of the way in. So far, this is very European. Professor Humbert plays his old-world intellectual cards for all they're worth, the black widow, Mrs. Haze, oohs and melts and drips all over him, and Dolly Haze just flashes her sweaty adolescent attributes with studied innocence.

Humbert describes the appeal of the innocent-seeming girl in wildly over the top terms, almost as if he's writing filthy poetry. When Lolita speaks, it's dull and flat, like someone who hides everything inside of her, even though Humbert is the one who has to keep everything secret. Mrs. Haze is efusively dull, vibrantly boring.

Humbert sees curves where there aren't any, Charlotte Haze couldn't find anything curved on her own plump body if it came up and bit her in the guts.

I wonder if the name 'Beardsley School for Girls' is a deliberate reference to Aubrey Beardsley, whose ink-drawings are decadent and obscene, and often show prepubescent naked girls - except when they are filled with delicious big breasted harlots. Or odd sexless pudgy man-boys.
He was a man of Catholic sensibilities, so I'm sure he would've loved to have done the illustrated or manga version of Lolita.


Friday, September 4, 2009


Stuff about Michael Jackson has been on television for the last two months, reaching a crescendo yesterday when they finally buried him.

The news has been full of that man who kindapped a ten year old and raped her for eighteen years. Two solid weeks of sordidity.

So this past week, the local public televion station broadcast the 1962 version of Lolita, starring James Mason, Shelley Winters, Peter Sellers and Sue Lyon.

Perhaps after all the bad press, they decided that society needed a refresher course on how pedophilia is really supposed to be done. Or maybe they simply wanted to show the classy upscale version. Tweedy intellectuals seduce teenagers so much better, yes?


Humbert! Humbert! Humbert! Humbert! Humbert! Humbert! Humbert!

Sue Lyon does NOT look like a twelve year old. Not unless bovine growth hormone was all over the dairy industry back in the sixties.
Humbert Humbert dithers and waffles, no guts whatsoever. Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) is an extremely irritating man, you wish Humbert would just shoot him at the beginning, but nO!!!!!! he just allows the idiot to talk and talk and talk! Shelley Winters is a cow.
Lolita is a chip-eating coke drinking round bottomed slut. And there is no sex in the movie.

It's not very realistic.

But it is very entertaining.
I'm gonna read the book next.


Tuesday, September 1, 2009

It smelled like shrimp!

Or maybe lobster. I like lobster and shrimp, so I was alright with the aroma that came in from the Bay. Fishy.

Somedays the air is moist with 'fishy'.

On Stockton Street between Pacific and Washington it is ALWAYS moist with 'fishy'. There are several stores there with live seafood and gawking tourists (those are NOT for sale, you can have them free!), and several more which specialize in dried intensified hoisien flavors, such things as gon pui (dried scallop 乾貝), ho si (dried oyster 蠔豉 or 蚝豉), ha mei (dried shrimp 蝦米). And many others.

These are all delicious added to food.

*** 蠔豉 * 乾貝 * 蝦米 ***

Dried shrimp are used for their sweet and savory flavor, not at all the same as fresh shrimp. Mostly in soups and braised dishes, as well as dimsum.
Both dried scallop and dried oyster are often used in rice soup and slow cooked dishes. Especially some vegetable dishes where a touch of 'fishy' is necessary. What you do is soak them in a little warm water till softened, then add them before closing the lid.

The best qualities can be expensive, but the difference is enormous. So it is worth it to buy top notch 'fishy'.
Ask the merchant if you are curious.