Catholic movie star does not get down with jerking off.
Today in Blind Items
January 19, 2012 by at 10:03 am
A nod to Kierkegaard and Walker Percy: existentialist tomfoolery, political satire, literary homage, word mongering, a year-round summer reading club, Dylanesque music bits, apocalyptic marianism, poetry, fiction, meta-porn, a prisoner work-release program.
Søren Kierkegaard
Walker Percy
Bob Dylan
Literature & History
Letters from an American
Beau of the Fifth Column
This American Life
The Writer’s Almanac
San Diego Reader
The Stranger
The Inlander
Adoremus
Charlotte was Both
The Onion
From Empty Hands
Ellen Finnigan
America
Commonweal
First Things
National Review
The New Republic
All Manner of Thing
Gerasene Writers Conference
Scrutinies
DarwinCatholic
Catholic and Enjoying It
Bad Catholic
Universalis
Is My Phylactery Showing?
Quotidian Quintilian
En pocas palabras
William Wilson, Guitarist Extraordinaire
Signposts in a Strange Land
Ben Hatke
Daniel Mitsui
Dappled Things
The Fine Delight
Gene Luen Yang
Wiseblood Books
© Copyright 2020 Korrektiv Press. · All Rights Reserved · Admin
I don’t think blindness is the net result of “loping the mule.” I think the practitioner develops a pig’s trotter for a hand or so I heard.
😉
Um, with or without hair?
JOB
I am not sure. I found the reference in an old manuscript. The vellum was quite cracked and hard to read. It was referencing some lost Aristotelian text. On the hand, it might have been the Summa.
I think the critical point is that there is no sub-text here.
Well, I’ll file the whole controversy in that box with Shrodinger’s Cat until you we know if said paw is hirsute or glabrous.
JOB
Look. I know we’re supposed to be arch about this topic AND that I am the person who posted about the serial sperm donor. But really.
What I don’t understand is why Mark Wahlberg did not knock the interviewer’s f’ing block off when asked about what HuffPo describes as “his own personal intimacy.” You are Mark Wahlberg. It’s kind of your thing.
Yes, I was emboldened by your donor post. No, I will not make a habit of this sort of thing (snigger). But it’s kind of amazing, don’t you think? That a movie star would put it out there this way? I think he’s giving a witness, maybe?
I don’t know. I feel sort of the same as I do when people list 1,001 Clever Catholic Comebacks to the question “Don’t you know how that happens?” re: pregnancy.
I guess we can treat that as an opportunity for witness. Or we can just adopt a tone and say “Why do you ask?” or, Maggie Smith-faced, “I beg your pardon?” There is something to be said for not accommodating buffoons.
But Mark Wahlberg is the opposite of Dame Maggie Smith. They guy broke through by dropping trou for Calvin Klein. To suddenly get all reticent would be odd for a straight-tawkin blue collar guy. It’s part and parcel of his rejection of the party-boy lifestyle.
This is true. I was trying to outline two options: the Wahlberg method, by which you witness to the outlandishness of the very question by bringing the pain, and the DMS method, by which your icy demeanor makes the questioner regret his very existence. Or you can do what Wahlberg actually did. That works, too, I guess
But how difficult would it be to simply looking the interviewer in the face, holding his crotch and saying, “This belongs to my wife now. Take it up with her!”? Same ‘tude, but you get to put a bit across on natural law and all that, too.
He just got off that talk show with the Brit who replaced Larry King talking about how going to Mass, daily prayer, how important his faith is, blah blah blah. Well, where does taking one for the team fit in there, bub?
Instead, he sounds snitty. Trapped between a sacred rock and a secular hard place. (I’m slackjawed as I just now consider all the entendres, unintended as they are, in that statement.)
JOB
Piers Morgan?
I’m guessing this is all pretty new to him – it seems like there’s a lot of news items recently about him, discussing his faith, and I know he has a new movie to promote. I have always liked Mark Wahlberg and his brother, too, who was really good on “Boomtown” several years ago on NBC. I’m sympathetic to the idea that just because a person is reforming in his personal life it doesn’t mean he wants to become the poster child for the Faith.
Who’s looking for poster child? How ’bout just *avoiding* scandal – in this case, among the faithful? Big diff, right?
Or are we to take his “personally I’m opposed but…” with a grain of salt?
JOB
And besides, how was my alternative somehow turning him into a Scott Hahn?
JOB
And yes, that’s it: Piers Morgan.
(I don’t own a TV. But gee – maybe I can’t claim that as an excuse anymore…)
JOB
No, I guess I was more thinking of Jim Caviezel, who is the poster child for poster children, actors-wise. I like Jim Caviezel a lot and he’s a very articulate witness for the faith. Wahlberg seems to have a more storied past, to put it mildly, and to me, I can just imagine him thinking “I didn’t think they were going to ask me about all this when I said I went to Mass.” It puts a lot of pressure on a guy to be going through a conversion experience in the spotlight like that.
Sorry. You’re right. I think I’m giving him more credit than he deserves.
Well, at least he now he knows.
Someone should get him a catechism for his birthday or something…
Does anyone have his address?
JOB
I’m pretty sure he reads our blog, aren’t you?
No. He’s more of a Creative Minority Report kind of guy. I can sense it.
And besides, as an Eagle fan, he would be turned off by my stridency for all things NY Football Gigantic.
JOB
I think you’re trying to tell me something.
I’ll be pretentious too. ‘Vautrin est plus grand?’
Churchill,
I don’t know. Did Wahlberg ever play in a movie version of Balzac?