1144: The Blob

[Keith]

Then that means you're not listening, quite frankly, if you're still arguing your point.

[Junior]

I really can't win this battle. There's not really a battle to win, I suppose. What do I care if you write off mounds of art and scientific advancement because people do bad things? I don't really. But I got a CD out of it and soon you will, too. There's a lesson to be learned here, and that lesson is that internet fights get you free things.

[brianward81]

I have a 15 minute clip cut together from the marathon of the guests riffing about a fan saying he'd staple his balls to a table if the book reached #100 on Amazon - I laughed my ass off.

If I laugh at fat jokes for a big portion of this show, I laugh. Comedy podcast has accomplished its mission. Out of 1144 shows I think one show of fat jokes is allowed.

[VTEChnician]

Originally Posted by Junior

I really can't win this battle. There's not really a battle to win, I suppose. What do I care if you write off mounds of art and scientific advancement because people do bad things? I don't really. But I got a CD out of it and soon you will, too. There's a lesson to be learned here, and that lesson is that internet fights get you free things.

^hey keith this fucking jerkoff

[nhlegend]

Originally Posted by Junior

I really can't win this battle. There's not really a battle to win, I suppose. What do I care if you write off mounds of art and scientific advancement because people do bad things? I don't really.

Here is column from Eugene Robinson who writes for the Washington Post. I, like Eugene, enjoy Polanski's work, and agree that he is a fugitive that needs to accept whatever sentence he will be given. The article is worth a read.

Eugene Robinson: Bring Polanski to Justice - Truthdig

Posted on Sep 29, 2009

By Eugene Robinson

Editor’s note: For a different take, check out the HBO documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”

Hasn’t Roman Polanski suffered enough? Didn’t he endure all those cool, gray, rainy Paris winters? Wasn’t he forced—well, not forced, but strongly enticed—to subsist all those years on overpriced fare served up by haughty waiters in Michelin-starred restaurants? Didn’t he survive for decades having his vacation options limited, essentially, to the grim monotony of the south of France?

I’ve got a better question: Shouldn’t Polanski and his many apologists give us a break?

I’m a huge fan of Polanski’s work. “Chinatown” is one of my favorite movies of all time, “Rosemary’s Baby” is a masterpiece, and he richly deserved the Oscar he won as best director for “The Pianist.” He’s a great artist. Maybe his next film will be a prison movie.

Brilliant auteur or no, Polanski has been a fugitive from U.S. justice since 1978. And there was certainly no artistic merit in the crime he acknowledged committing: During a photo shoot at the Los Angeles home of his friend and “Chinatown” star Jack Nicholson, Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and drugs and had sex with her.

That is grotesque. In general, I agree with the European view that Americans tend to be prudish and hypocritical about sex. But a grown man drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl? That’s not remotely a close call. It’s wrong in any moral universe—and deserves harsher punishment than three decades of gilded exile.

Polanski went on the lam after pleading guilty to the crime. He had a deal with prosecutors under which he would essentially walk out of the courtroom a free man—he had spent 42 days in prison undergoing psychiatric evaluation, and the arrangement was that he would be sentenced to time served. But Polanski got wind that the judge in the case, said to be something of a publicity hound, was going to refuse to honor the plea bargain and instead impose a prison term. So the director skipped town and surfaced in France, where authorities ruled that his crime wasn’t covered by extradition treaties with the United States.

He was arrested Sunday in Zurich, where he had traveled to accept an award—and where the extradition treaty does cover his crime. Assuming that Polanski puts up a legal fight, it could be months or even years before he is sent back to the United States.

The Justice Department was right to have Polanski nabbed at the Zurich airport and should pursue the case to the end. We’ve waited this long; we can wait a little longer.

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault—in every sense, to violate—an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

That’s the sort of protagonist, a great director like Polanski must realize, who doesn’t deserve a happy ending.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Junior

I DON'T THINK HIS MOVIES ARE LESS VALUABLE THAN OTHERS BECAUSE HE DID THE VERY BAD THINGS HE DID.

Matt B thinks the exact same things you do, if i remember correctly. Also a lot of people think that Michael Jackson's music is so good that we should think about that and not about his crimes.

I get your point of view, i dont agree with it. If a person commits a crime that repels me, everything he has done in the art department even the greatest masterpieces will be tainted and rotten. And the thought of him as a kid rapist will always come before the tought of how great his art is.

I used to love the Who. After the whole child pornography thing, not so much.

Besides that. i think that your biggest mistake was phrasing your point the way you did: using keith and his bad checks as an over the top example, made everyone miss your point instead of reading it exactly. I know you were trying to do a hitting metaphor, but you just pissed off everybody.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by Keith

Hm. Maybe you should start your own show sometime.

You know what's even worse than fat jokes? Nasally voices.

[Thumbnail]

Originally Posted by spooky

You know what's even worse than fat jokes? Nasally voices.

It's a little disturbing to read your entries on the forums. It's like you never met these people, like you were never in their home, like you were never on the show. And it's not a matter of opinions, so don't hide behind the opinion defense. You can be, at times, very abrasive. What's this need? Is there anything in your life you need to work on? You are sounding more and more like a bitter old man.

I really hope you just ignore this and don't respond because that would just validate my "Spooky is being defensive because he's got unresolved issues but doesn't really know how to voice them so he just shits on people because that sounds SO much better than talking like an adult" theory.

[Junkenstein]

I dont see any bitterness in spooky's posts, he's always been a bit of a contrarian and a pain in the ass on the forums.

PLus, the "Nasally voice" joke was clearly directed at himself.

Also, Keith mentions that they still talk often. So i dont think there are any unresolved issue, or at least not any that we know of. We cannot judge their private lives by forum posts, maybe they do stuff (shudder) off air!

Also, if you read the old posts in the forums, there were posts far more incendiary than the one Spooky does. I just dont get why people concentrate on him so much, he's just a very intelligent guy who likes to criticize things even if it's unpopular. And if Keith was offended (and i dont hink he was) they will deal with it on their own.

Your're all sheep. /shrug.

[Blitzgal]

You guys missed one of the most disturbing aspects about the New Jersey woman. Keith portrayed her husband as this long suffering victim of her appetites, but that's incorrect. He's a feeder, so he encourages this and wants her as fat as possible -- they even met at a plus size dating event. She is also part of the fat fetishist porn market. She makes money by charging men subscription fees to watch her eat food (and wash!) on her website.

Also, she's already been offered a reality show.
Old Bridge woman seeking 1,000 pounds gets offers for reality show, book deal | - NJ.com

Chemda made a comment that this media attention was "making it okay." I really don't think that's why she's getting the attention. It's more of the freak show aspect that Keith touches on when he talks about Coney Island. IMO, these reality shows are all descendants of the freak show. People love to see weird ass shit.