why does chris mathews shout "HA!" when he laughs?

[Clintonista2]

Anybody else notice that? lol.

[leftchick]

1. his inner Pee Wee?

:)

[MADem]

2. HA!!! is fun to say....and it's almost an abbreviation of "AH HA!!!" nt

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

3. Because he's a gobshite....

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Because "HA HA" would make his head explode. n/t

[PCIntern]

5. Because...

as a sociopath, he is not capable of normal humor-response, and only knows contextually when something is ironic, and thus, 'funny', He exclaims HA! b/c he knows that he needs to acknowledge the existence of the 'joke', but does not really respond.

We know this b/c there was that time that he was commenting on the hoors in the DC hotel lobby...the nature of the statement was most peculiar IIRC, and weird - almost asexual.

He's one strange duck.

[peekaloo]

6. It's similar to

when normal people break wind before defecating.

}(

[Jacobin]

7. Turrettes?

[Echo In Light]

8. And this matters to who...?

[PCIntern]

10. to us.

that's to whom it matters.

I don't apologize for watching TV and for commenting upon these folk.

sorry...not really.

[Echo In Light]

11. Apparently so. Good luck with that

[PCIntern]

12. Pretty sarcastic...

one of the functions of these boards is for those of us who post to help educate each other on the nature of the politicians, the electorate, and the press. the fact that some of us are intrigued by these people who appear on screens nightly is nothing to apologize for and the actions and words of these people may explain much about the response of the electorate.

Your logic extends to the entire nature of these boards...one can theoretically denigrate any part of them.

thanks for the input...

[Echo In Light]

13. If you've read any random sampling of my posts you'd find plenty on media control

Understanding how that system serves to deter and subvert open democracy is vital. Media pundits, in my estimation, are usually not worth such examination. Just sayin'

[PCIntern]

15. OK

So you're sayin' that media control is important and worth commenting upon, but those who sit in the chair and pontificate and respond to events are not worth analyzing? That folks like Sevareid, Murrow, Brinkley, McGee, Cronkite, and even Brokaw and Rather don't really enter the equation?

really...that's a somewhat novel way of approaching study of the media. I'll stop over at The Annenberg School and discuss that with the faculty sometime.

[Echo In Light]

17. Wow, and you accuse me of sarcasm?

But yes, you're correct: pundits aren't worth analyzing. Especially if the substance is on the level of the topic of this thread. Who owns the media says everything one needs to know about how the pundits spin, obfuscate, and sell unreality movie scripts to the collective consciousness. What they say and ultimately endorse should be a given, a no brainer. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Try some of these...

http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/index.php

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Media_Bias.html

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm

Good doc films on media ownership and control/managed "news;"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SV_mvc4zKw

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=124&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[PCIntern]

19. Well, one good turn deserves another...

you can complain, and rightfully so, about the control of the media by the dark side of the Force. And you can cite sources and this is great for those of us who want to explore the foundations.

But for the rest of America, what they see is all they get...and what my point is, is that by watching the media employees/propagandists, you can attempt to discern the underlying message and/or intent.

since the powers that be don't want the feces of the President captured for analysis for obvious reasons, perhaps it is not beneath sensibility to explore the personal appearance/behavior of the anchors/pundits.

[Echo In Light]

20. "..the dark side of the Force?" No. It's simply called fascism: centralized corporate/state power

The problem with watching media pundits as a means of - as you've alluded to - learning about how system is biased is that it relies on a rightist/statist tactic of suggesting that pundits and mainline journalists actually have any say-so determining what is reported on, how, and why. ...because they don't; they follow orders from their editors. So when I source material, I try to use info that illustrates the bigger picture of ownership and top-down control of our airwaves which we've passively surrendered to vested interests who most certainly don't have humanity's best interests in mind.

[PCIntern]

22. ...and you're absolutely right to do so...

and what has made it so evident to those listening carefully that corporate fascism is on the rise is that the 'folks' on the air are clearly spouting the propaganda of their masters. That being said, there are some of us who wish to study the liars carefully...all of this info goes into the 'big box' of the collective unconscious of the masses and can serve, in many cases, to undermine their performances. this may slow, but not stop, the process.

Rush's drug use grotesquely undermined his 'favorability' ratings...don't think for one minute that the effectiveness of his commentary/reporting (HA!) was not compromised in many sectors by his dependence on Rx drugs, and his lying in an attempt to cover his fat ass.

My contention is that day-to-day observance of these people has merit and is responsible for the rise of Keith, who is by far the best of the worst, as we used to say.

[Echo In Light]

23. Well sure...but again, if you know how/why the system is rigged...

I agree that an increasingly angry electorate was a likely variable in the "rise of Keith," although I'm inclined to believe his corporate masters simply decided to allow him {instruct him?} to go ahead and fulfill the role of a quasi-dissenting view via mainline "news" as the media giants are in a tailspin over their loss of viewer/readership as greater numbers go online and seek alternative outlets.

[Bucky]

9. Sometimes people make fun of the way I laugh. It hurts my feelings.

[annabanana]

14. Oral equivalent of explosive diarrhea. . . . .n/t

[mmonk]

16. I do the same thing. I probably ought to stop.

[dorkulon]

18. "Unable to laugh like a normal human"

http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Its like sneezing. If he laughs hard, snot will come out of his nose.

So instead of guffaws from deep within, we get suppressed little "Ha"s.

[bunkerbuster1]

24. Sounds like a CACKLE to me.

Ok, it actually sounds like an overpaid idiot's phony laugh. Whatever.

[Buzz Clik]

25. It would make no sense if he yelled, "Sweet Jesus!" or "Fire!"