Hurricane Poontang

Some midday feminist humor… Maragret Cho explains why Bush was really afraid to grant women broader access to emergency contraception.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

18 Comments

  1. aniri
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    So true…so funny…so sad.

  2. chanticorae
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    god, i love margaret.

  3. Posted January 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Margaret made me spew my soda.
    Again.

  4. Chickensh*tEagle
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Morning-after pills with your dinner check?
    Check out the deleted part of the restaurant scene in the Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life DVD: “Will you be having intercourse tonight?”

  5. loganberry
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    I had to watch it twice because I was distracted by her awesome shirt…
    Love her.

  6. loganberry
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    I had to watch it twice because I was distracted by her awesome shirt…
    Love her.

  7. scribble
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    I keep thinking that a crucial point has been missed. To fill in the blanks:
    … it will set off a fuck wave that will never include him, and women will be out on the streets humping even fire hydrants …

  8. Posted January 30, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    i don’t know what made me laugh more…”fuckwave” or “pussy cyclone”
    holy crap i was crying…

  9. macfrugal
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    What’s funny about this? It’s true.

  10. Posted January 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    I think I’ll name my first-born Margaret.

  11. Posted January 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Well this would be hilarious (indeed is hilarious) if she hadn’t felt the need to add in the arab-trill during Hurricane Poontang. I found it a tad inappropriate/disrespectful, even though she was sticking up for their bodily integrity and human rights.

  12. macfrugal
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I saw Margaret Cho at some benefit last year. Can’t say I enjoyed the show. I agree with her; I just don’t find her comedy very funny. The whole “asian mother impersonations” are especially grating.

  13. SociologicalMom
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    macfrugal, I completely agree with you. For the most part I like her politics but (with the exception of the word “fuckwave”) I’ve never actually found her comedy funny.

  14. UltraMagnus
    Posted January 30, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    I love every minute of her raunchy, no holds bar comedy. And I was one of the three people who actually watched All American Girl when it was on the air (loved the episode of when her mom and dad opened the porn section of their video store).
    I got to see her perform this when she came to L.A. and it was great fun. And I don’t understand why people are offended at her making fun of her mom, pretty much every single ethnic (and even non) comedian makes fun of their parents at some point, some with accents (Godfred comes to mind, his father is African and he pulled out the African accent) and some not but it’s a staple of comedy. Margaret just happens to be Korean, so her mom is Korean.

  15. Marshall Lucky
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 3:53 am | Permalink

    Lisa Lampanelli is WAY funnier. Check out the last two minutes of this clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIvDu9j2rEI

  16. Gretchen
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    I kinda felt like that too, atheistwoman.

  17. firelili
    Posted February 5, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    i love m.cho! But, I dislike the faux-feminist preoccupation with muslim women’s *clothing* as sexually oppressive.

  18. Carmen Govani
    Posted September 5, 2009 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    We do not have a well-developed language to explore and describe the senses, let alone in relation to the city. This restricts our capacity to experience fully, as only when we have words can we build on primary sensations. Without suitable descriptors, it is difficult to create and work with a rich associational palette around a sensation.
    Often we have to turn to literature to seek linguistic inspiration. Sights are better articulated because in general we have a rich vocabulary around physical appearance. Sounds too are easier to describe because language (itself a system of sounds as well as visual signs) can be used to approximate them: The whoosh of a car going past or the buzz of a bee (although, as noted, there are cultural discrepancies here). Smell and taste, however, seem to evade easy encapsulation.
    We rely more on metaphor and associations with other senses, dangers and pleasures here, hence terms such as ‘comfort food’ or ‘the smell of death’ and the use of adjectives like ‘sharp’, ‘warm’ and ‘bursting’. Or else, we describe smells and tastes with reference to the source of the stimuli: ‘fishy’, ‘musky’, ‘salty’.

182 queries. 1.225 seconds