I want to make something clear to everybody right up front. I don't give a shit if liberal Democrats are sincere in their calls for more civil political speech. I still wouldn't like the direction in which they're trying to take the country, so I would still give them hell even if they did in all sincerity adopt a tone that was all sweetness and light. Let's just say they are still in my cross-hairs. I mean that figuratively, of course, as anybody who isn't intellectually brain-dead or emotionally retarded could figure out without me telling them. But hey, leftards, if you want to take it literally, knock yourselves out, preferably by walking into the middle of on-coming traffic.
Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.
Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.
Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.
H/T Weasel Zippers
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Oh, Domino!
Courtney has an interesting post on GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD that goes a long way towards explaining the confusion that underscores US Mid-East policy as expounded by Professor Stephen M. Walt. I would personally describe Walt's assessment as a kind of intellectual brain fart. Unfortunately, it seems the professor is not so much a brilliant observer of history as he is just another one of many suffering from the mass delusion of their own intellectual superiority.
True enough, his credentials would seem to be impeccable.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, where he served as academic dean from 2002-2006. He previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, where he served as master of the social science collegiate division and deputy dean of social sciences.
He has been a resident associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also been a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
But what else am I to make of a Professor at one of our most prestigious universities who decries America's relationships in the Middle East as based on The Domino Theory.
As many of you are aware (or maybe you're not) the Domino Theory was devised during the Eisenhower Administration as a means of supporting America's anti-communist Cold War policies. It advanced the belief that if any significant nation fell to communism, then all others in the region would quickly succumb, like a line of falling dominoes. As you might suspect, the Professor asserts that our Middle East policy of present is a continuation of the same theme. His proof that it is a "bad idea"?
Various scholars examined the domino theory in detail and found little historical or contemporary evidence to support it.
Uh, okay then, two points-
One, regardless of the validity of the Domino Theory as applied in the past to the communist threat of the Cold War era, recent developments in Tunisia have borne out the theory in regards to the proliferation of the effect in Egypt, as well as Yemen. Who knows where it will go from there? The Middle East is more of a tenderbox than ever and Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, is clutching tenuously onto what is left of his power by his bare knuckles. His son and wife have already fled the country. The former President of Tunisia has similarly fled his nation after abdicating his position in the face of growing unrest and violent disruptions. If they fall completely, and Yemen, what happens then to Jordan? What about Saudi Arabia? Even Syria could conceivably face disruptions. Turkey has already lurched towards Islamist control. And make no mistake about it, Islamist factions are chiefly responsible for the current upheaval, and stand as of now potentially to profit from it the most. The Dominoes might not be falling yet, but they are certainly teetering dangerously close to doing so.
But even if that were not the case, by far the greater proof of the viability of the Domino Theory is to be found in the far distant past, when that ship first set sail-in the seventh century AD. Once Mecca fell to the forces of Mohamed it wasn't long before the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula submitted to the coercion of the Islamic hordes. And from there, it was on to Asia, and Africa. And Europe, where the advance was finally stopped. At least for the time being.
All things being equal, it seems to me like the history of the spread and expansion of Islam is a textbook case in proof of the Domino Theory. The history of Islam IS the Domino Theory, dammit.
But what do I know, its not like I have a Master's Degree or something.
Friday, January 28, 2011
British Baby Doll Commercial
I wish they'd market this doll over here with this commercial, just for the lulz.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sarah Palin Responds To Obama's State Of The Union
Sarah Palin's response to Obama's SOTU speech is on Facebook, and she damn well knocks it out of the ballpark. "Winning The Future", the title of the speech, is more accurately assessed by its acronym-WTF!-than by the speech's content, according to Palin.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU
Let me see if I got this straight.
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Jesse "The Full Body" Ventura Has A Groping Hang-Up
Ever since Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and wrestling commentator, and the former Governor of the state of Minnesota, had a titanium hip replacement, he can't go through airport security without setting off alarms. He has been subject to extra scrutiny on numerous occasions. At times, he has had wand scans, at other times subjected to a full body scanner, and at other times-notably one day in November-he has been subjected to intense physical pat downs that involved TSA agents groping his genitals. When he was informed that due to the reaction his titanium implants had on airport security alarms he would always be subjected to either pat-downs or full body scanners, he filed a lawsuit against the TSA, naming Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants.
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
You Just Don't Know What To Believe Anymore
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th, 1865. On that same date, he issued a pardon to a young boy who had been a Union soldier, charged with desertion.
Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.
Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.
But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.
This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.
The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.
If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?
It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.
Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.
Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.
But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.
This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.
The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.
If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?
It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Even A Douch Like Olbermann Deserves Better Than This
I've withheld comment about the recent firing of Keith Olbermann by MSNBC for no other reason than I quite literally didn't know what the hell to make of it. A lot of people are assuming that it had something to do with the recently approved sell of NBC to cable giant Comcast. I myself said as much to several different people, and it does seem to make sense at first glance, but something here doesn't pass the smell test. For that matter, it fails the test of any of the known senses.
There is usually, I don't know, I guess you might call it a grace period, you know? You give a person notice, usually two weeks, or at least one. You don't just call somebody in to the office and unceremoniously fire him outright. But in this case, that seems to be exactly what happened. Assuming this is an accurate account, its wrong to do anybody that way, even an insufferable douchebag like Olbermann. Unless of course there's some compelling reason that we don't know about. If someone is guilty of sexual harassment, or some other kind, or he has been deemed a hazard to those around him. Or maybe if something has turned up in his private and/or his professional life that is so profoundly disturbing you come to realize this person could turn out to be a distinct liability to your company's reputation.
Love him or hate him, Olbermann almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of MSNBC. While they never came close to approaching the ratings of Fox News, they did pull ahead of CNN, and Olbie deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. Nor do I begrudge the need for a news network with a decidedly liberal slant. Come on, let's face it, MSNBC does deserve credit for being openly progressive, just as Fox News makes no bones that as a matter of editorial policy, they slant to the right. They at least aren't hypocrites about it, and neither is MSNBC, unlike big brother NBC which tries to portray itself as objective and fair, but, like most other members of the mainstream media, is clearly anything but.
Those of us who have more or less followed the train wreck that was the MSNBC career of Keith Olbermann are aware of his problems. We know of the controversies, the open feud with Fox's O'Reilly, the insane off-the-wall rants, and finally his recent suspension for contributing to three political campaigns of Democratic candidates without permission from his network bosses.
This was in my opinion nothing more than an artifice intended to allow Olbermann a cooling off period following the recent election. The man obviously bore watching during this period. Who knew what he was liable to say or do?
By the way, one of the three candidates Olbermann contributed to was Gabrielle Giffords. When Olbermann made a recent comment about the need to tone down the rhetoric, and included himself in the list of those who needed to be more circumspect in their remarks, I think he was honestly blaming himself for what happened to Giffords, and to the other victims. He may have honestly thought that there was at least a slight chance that he might have inspired Loughner to carry out his monstrous act, maybe to spite Olbermann, the well-known Giffords supporter.
Olbermann seems to have such an exaggerated sense of his own importance not only to his own self, but to those within the sound of his voice, it doesn't take much to ascertain that he would entertain such notions. But more to the point, there has been a great deal of circumspection in the offices of MSNBC, like the other news networks, some of whom have seemingly gone to ridiculous extents to avoid giving the impression of encouraging hateful rhetoric by engaging in it themselves.
So did Olbermann say something, or do something, on the air or in the studios, that drew attention to him as someone who might be in danger of going completely off the rails and saying or doing something that might be explosive, let's say in a figurative sense? I don't know, and we likely never will know. But did his recent lambasting of Joe Liebermann, just a night or two before Olbermann's final broadcast, provide what amounted to the final straw in the face of some new MSNBC policy regarding hateful rhetoric aimed at public officials in the wake of the Tucson tragedy? Again, we may never know for sure. What we do know is that Olbermann, for all his talk about toning down the rhetoric, seemed to be showing signs of already coming slightly unglued.
But the longer we go without a clear definitive reason, the more speculation will run rampant, at least for a while. For example, you have to wonder if it might actually be due to some internal matter or conflict at MSNBC. Or maybe something in Olbermann's personal life that might have come to light, and might yet explode into the public sphere.
Whatever is wrong, Olbermann isn't talking about it, not even on his usually busy Twitter page. I tweeted him and asked him if it was a live boy or a dead girl, and I wasn't completely kidding. But as of now, the last tweet precedes his firing by maybe a couple of hours, and there is nothing there that provides any clues as to what happened or why. At the top of the page is a notation that a baseball oriented page will debut there on February 14th. Other than that, nothing but a deafening silence.
Owing to the recent mob bust in New York and elsewhere, is it possible that some information about Olbermann has come to light, or is about to? No, I'm not kidding, at all. Olbermann always fancied himself a modern day Edward R. Murrow, and he was willing to look into the most bizarre source on the planet in any attempt to bolster his credentials as a worthy heir to the Murrow legacy. In some cases, he made himself look foolish doing so. In fact, some of his "credible sources" were so laughable it would have been enough to have him fired from any other network. But as long as they seemed to bolster his preconceived notions and supported his own apparent agenda, he would accept such sources as would be laughable even taken at face value. Here's one example of a report that became Countdown's number one story of the day.
On September 7th, Olbermann reported on an Indiana University study that found parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children and quoted a Dr. Hosung Lee saying the report "explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in the class or the best athlete... even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their 40-yard dash."
The source Olbermann used in citing a supposed study from Indiana University was The Hoosier Gazette, a satirical website that is similar in content to the Weekly World News.
The point here, in so many words, is that owing to Olbermann's history of using sources that are not legitimate, he might have become a target of unscrupulous persons. There could even be a chance Olbermann was on the verge of walking blindly into a potential lawsuit and maybe dragging MSNBC along with him.
Now he's gone, and I want to make it clear, I am not happy about it. I enjoyed watching the bizarre Countdown with Keith Olbermann what times I did on rare occasions. It had its share of entertainment value, and also sheer outrage. But perhaps most importantly, Olbermann served a vital function to the right, more than he ever did for the left. He made it all too clear just what the liberal American progressive left was all about, stripped of its thin veneer of cordiality and what they seem to consider reason. He made it all too clear that there was precious little difference between mainstream Democrats like Harry Reid, and their more nutcase fringe allies of convenience, running the gamut from the SEIU to ACORN, all the way from the NAACP to the New Black Panther Party, from NOW to Code Pink. These are people who are willing to tear the country apart in order to rebuild it according to their vision, all the while laughably proclaiming their patriotic devotion to their Mr. Magoo version of the Constitution that contains elements and precedents no one but them could ever conceive at the closest examination, or would want to.
Olbermann served as a poster boy for what the liberal progressive American left was all about, and he was available five nights a week from eight o'clock until nine, in all his nutty, bizarre, liberal progressive glory. Who knows, really, how many votes he gained for Republicans in the last election? It's almost like he was a plant, a kind of Manchurian Journalist, if you will. Remember this screed against then Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown?
Maybe we'll get real lucky and, sometime before the 2012 election, Obama will go batshit insane enough to name Olbermann his White House Press Secretary.
Could we really be that lucky?
There is usually, I don't know, I guess you might call it a grace period, you know? You give a person notice, usually two weeks, or at least one. You don't just call somebody in to the office and unceremoniously fire him outright. But in this case, that seems to be exactly what happened. Assuming this is an accurate account, its wrong to do anybody that way, even an insufferable douchebag like Olbermann. Unless of course there's some compelling reason that we don't know about. If someone is guilty of sexual harassment, or some other kind, or he has been deemed a hazard to those around him. Or maybe if something has turned up in his private and/or his professional life that is so profoundly disturbing you come to realize this person could turn out to be a distinct liability to your company's reputation.
Love him or hate him, Olbermann almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of MSNBC. While they never came close to approaching the ratings of Fox News, they did pull ahead of CNN, and Olbie deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. Nor do I begrudge the need for a news network with a decidedly liberal slant. Come on, let's face it, MSNBC does deserve credit for being openly progressive, just as Fox News makes no bones that as a matter of editorial policy, they slant to the right. They at least aren't hypocrites about it, and neither is MSNBC, unlike big brother NBC which tries to portray itself as objective and fair, but, like most other members of the mainstream media, is clearly anything but.
Those of us who have more or less followed the train wreck that was the MSNBC career of Keith Olbermann are aware of his problems. We know of the controversies, the open feud with Fox's O'Reilly, the insane off-the-wall rants, and finally his recent suspension for contributing to three political campaigns of Democratic candidates without permission from his network bosses.
This was in my opinion nothing more than an artifice intended to allow Olbermann a cooling off period following the recent election. The man obviously bore watching during this period. Who knew what he was liable to say or do?
By the way, one of the three candidates Olbermann contributed to was Gabrielle Giffords. When Olbermann made a recent comment about the need to tone down the rhetoric, and included himself in the list of those who needed to be more circumspect in their remarks, I think he was honestly blaming himself for what happened to Giffords, and to the other victims. He may have honestly thought that there was at least a slight chance that he might have inspired Loughner to carry out his monstrous act, maybe to spite Olbermann, the well-known Giffords supporter.
Olbermann seems to have such an exaggerated sense of his own importance not only to his own self, but to those within the sound of his voice, it doesn't take much to ascertain that he would entertain such notions. But more to the point, there has been a great deal of circumspection in the offices of MSNBC, like the other news networks, some of whom have seemingly gone to ridiculous extents to avoid giving the impression of encouraging hateful rhetoric by engaging in it themselves.
So did Olbermann say something, or do something, on the air or in the studios, that drew attention to him as someone who might be in danger of going completely off the rails and saying or doing something that might be explosive, let's say in a figurative sense? I don't know, and we likely never will know. But did his recent lambasting of Joe Liebermann, just a night or two before Olbermann's final broadcast, provide what amounted to the final straw in the face of some new MSNBC policy regarding hateful rhetoric aimed at public officials in the wake of the Tucson tragedy? Again, we may never know for sure. What we do know is that Olbermann, for all his talk about toning down the rhetoric, seemed to be showing signs of already coming slightly unglued.
But the longer we go without a clear definitive reason, the more speculation will run rampant, at least for a while. For example, you have to wonder if it might actually be due to some internal matter or conflict at MSNBC. Or maybe something in Olbermann's personal life that might have come to light, and might yet explode into the public sphere.
Whatever is wrong, Olbermann isn't talking about it, not even on his usually busy Twitter page. I tweeted him and asked him if it was a live boy or a dead girl, and I wasn't completely kidding. But as of now, the last tweet precedes his firing by maybe a couple of hours, and there is nothing there that provides any clues as to what happened or why. At the top of the page is a notation that a baseball oriented page will debut there on February 14th. Other than that, nothing but a deafening silence.
Owing to the recent mob bust in New York and elsewhere, is it possible that some information about Olbermann has come to light, or is about to? No, I'm not kidding, at all. Olbermann always fancied himself a modern day Edward R. Murrow, and he was willing to look into the most bizarre source on the planet in any attempt to bolster his credentials as a worthy heir to the Murrow legacy. In some cases, he made himself look foolish doing so. In fact, some of his "credible sources" were so laughable it would have been enough to have him fired from any other network. But as long as they seemed to bolster his preconceived notions and supported his own apparent agenda, he would accept such sources as would be laughable even taken at face value. Here's one example of a report that became Countdown's number one story of the day.
On September 7th, Olbermann reported on an Indiana University study that found parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children and quoted a Dr. Hosung Lee saying the report "explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in the class or the best athlete... even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their 40-yard dash."
The source Olbermann used in citing a supposed study from Indiana University was The Hoosier Gazette, a satirical website that is similar in content to the Weekly World News.
The point here, in so many words, is that owing to Olbermann's history of using sources that are not legitimate, he might have become a target of unscrupulous persons. There could even be a chance Olbermann was on the verge of walking blindly into a potential lawsuit and maybe dragging MSNBC along with him.
Now he's gone, and I want to make it clear, I am not happy about it. I enjoyed watching the bizarre Countdown with Keith Olbermann what times I did on rare occasions. It had its share of entertainment value, and also sheer outrage. But perhaps most importantly, Olbermann served a vital function to the right, more than he ever did for the left. He made it all too clear just what the liberal American progressive left was all about, stripped of its thin veneer of cordiality and what they seem to consider reason. He made it all too clear that there was precious little difference between mainstream Democrats like Harry Reid, and their more nutcase fringe allies of convenience, running the gamut from the SEIU to ACORN, all the way from the NAACP to the New Black Panther Party, from NOW to Code Pink. These are people who are willing to tear the country apart in order to rebuild it according to their vision, all the while laughably proclaiming their patriotic devotion to their Mr. Magoo version of the Constitution that contains elements and precedents no one but them could ever conceive at the closest examination, or would want to.
Olbermann served as a poster boy for what the liberal progressive American left was all about, and he was available five nights a week from eight o'clock until nine, in all his nutty, bizarre, liberal progressive glory. Who knows, really, how many votes he gained for Republicans in the last election? It's almost like he was a plant, a kind of Manchurian Journalist, if you will. Remember this screed against then Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown?
Maybe we'll get real lucky and, sometime before the 2012 election, Obama will go batshit insane enough to name Olbermann his White House Press Secretary.
Could we really be that lucky?
Renegade Eye-Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You
Few people know that my communist buddy Marvin, better known to my readers and on his own blog as Renegade Eye, is actually a long time professional wrestling promoter. Most of those who do know it probably learned it from his FBI dossier. In the picture above, Marvin, the bald headed guy with glasses, looks like he might have had a body slam coming his way.
Marvin has led a long, eventful life and has now recently announced on his Facebook page that he is in the process of writing a movie script based on his life story, but is wondering who might play him on film.
What do you all think? Let's help Marvin out here. Submit your votes for the actor you think might make the best Renegade Eye, aka Marvin Joel Rubin.
I'll get the ball rolling by suggesting Patrick Stewart.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Steampunk Palin
Nope, your eyes are not deceiving you. Sarah Palin is now a comic book superhero known as Steampunk Palin. In this comic book, someone tries to blow her up during a speaking engagement in which she is advocating moving from dependence on oil and nuclear energy to steam power. When she revives, she finds that she is now a cyborg, outfitted with a steam-powered cybernetic costume. Obama was also present at the attack, and is now also a cyborg named Robama.
Here, Obama and Palin become allies, as Palin decides she has to stop the evil oil and nuclear energy cartel, as well as the Russians who stand poised to invade Alaska.
And the villain who is behind this evil plot (whatever the fucking hell it is), who goes by the moniker Professor Greenhouse? Al Gore.
The book also contains fifteen pages of Palin pinups. It's sure to be a collectors item, though I'm not really sure why. This is actually an offering in the new Steampunk literary genre of comics, which is based on a futuristic world that has moved beyond electric and fossil fuels.
H/T Belchspeak
Friday, January 21, 2011
Have You Pursued Your Happiness Today?
This is a good one, right here. Representative John Lewis declares that since the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not yet been repealed, it gives the government the right to force you to purchase health insurance. It is not unconstitutional at all. But that's not the end of it. Guess what? You as an American citizen have the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness, according to the Preamble to the Constitution. But, if you fail to do so, the government has the right to force you to pursue said happiness by law. Therefore, by forcing you to purchase health insurance the government is merely making sure you pursue your dreams of happiness. Yeah, chew on that one for awhile.
I want you fucking Democrats to do me a big favor. The next time you get it in your heads you want to send an alleged hero to Washington, you might want to find one that hasn't at some point in his past HAD HIS FUCKING HEAD BUSTED OPEN!!!
H/T-The Colossus Of Rhodey
I want you fucking Democrats to do me a big favor. The next time you get it in your heads you want to send an alleged hero to Washington, you might want to find one that hasn't at some point in his past HAD HIS FUCKING HEAD BUSTED OPEN!!!
H/T-The Colossus Of Rhodey
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Hamburglar Was Not Availiable For Comment
If you live in Philadelphia, be on the lookout for a silver Mercedes much like the one below. The owner of a car like this one is involved in a heinous crime near the intersection of second and Callowhill Streets.
Two men got out of said vehicle and according to witnesses began to fight. At some point one man shot the other, who is now in critical condition at Hahnemann University Hospital. The shooter quickly sped away in the Mercedes and is being sought by police. No description is given of either the perpetrator or the victim, so I guess we're supposed to assume they are black.
The reason for the violence? They were fighting over-French fries.
I don't know what fast food restaurant those fries were purchased at, but their advertising department should jump all over this one.
A fucking Mercedes?
H/T-Wyatt Earp
Two men got out of said vehicle and according to witnesses began to fight. At some point one man shot the other, who is now in critical condition at Hahnemann University Hospital. The shooter quickly sped away in the Mercedes and is being sought by police. No description is given of either the perpetrator or the victim, so I guess we're supposed to assume they are black.
The reason for the violence? They were fighting over-French fries.
I don't know what fast food restaurant those fries were purchased at, but their advertising department should jump all over this one.
A fucking Mercedes?
H/T-Wyatt Earp
WTF Moments In Black History
Yesterday, at the annual Martin Luther King Day observance held by the NAACP at the statehouse of Columbia, South Carolina, George Washington was clearly not welcome. Therefore, in order not to offend any of the attendees, the big bronze statue of The Father Of Our Country was hidden behind a box, so no one would see him.
But I'm supposed to be worried about the Tea Party having too much influence over American policies.
In. Fucking. Credible.
Oh well, at least I know now not to send any donations to the NAACP.
Oh, but wait a minute, I wasn't going to do that anyway, so-never mind.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Proof Jim Morrison Is Still ALive
Rod Blagojevich offers proof positive that MORRISON IS STILL ALIVE!
Monday, January 17, 2011
Happy Benjamin Franklin Day
He was arguably the greatest American of all time. Throughout his long and eventful life, he engaged in a variety of endeavors. Statesman, diplomat, journalist, publisher, businessman, entrepreneur, scientist, and inventor. He might have been the penultimate American, warts and all. If Washington was the father of our country, Franklin might well be considered the attending physician at its birth, the priest who sanctified it, friend and counselor, devoted old uncle, and godfather-all rolled into one.
He dedicated his life to the concept of the new nation he helped found, but after all, it was in his own best self-interest to do so, as he would be the first to heartily admit. That shared self-interest, he realized, insured the greatest likelihood of long term success. But also he recognized the potential for failure. It was he who when questioned as to what kind of nation he and the founders had forged, answered the old woman with the refrain "a republic, madame, if you can keep it."
His was probably the greatest influence behind the concept of respect for private enterprise, and of the need for as little government intrusion in the market as possible. He also devoted himself to the establishment of the volunteer fire department. His concern for fire safety likely inspired him to invent the Franklin Stove. He discovered, or rather proved, the fluid nature of electricity with his groundbreaking experiments
He was a Deist rumored to be a member of the Hellfire Club, and a Rosicrucian, and probably had as much of an influence on the concept of freedom of religion as he did freedom of the press.
In these and in so many other ways, the DNA of Benjamin Franklin is the DNA of the nation, and its core, long term, most cherished values are reflected in him.
And today, January 17th, is his birthday. Bet you didn't know that did you? Strangely, I myself just learned it today.
Now This Is My Kind Of Political Discourse
Newly elected Governor of Maine Paul LePage had a bit of a spat with the local chapter of the NAACP when he refused to appear at a prison event for black inmates. LePage said he wouldn't appear unless the event was open to all inmates of all races. They refused to meet his conditions, and so he simply declined their invitation. That should have been all of it, but of course the NAACP moaned and bitched. LePage was questioned about it on a local radio station. Following is how he explained it.
"They are a special interest. End of story...and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests.
He also told them to kiss his butt. Now that's the way all Republican politicians should act, and talk.
Well, I would have preferred that he tell them to kiss his ASS, but you know what they say-baby steps.
"They are a special interest. End of story...and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests.
He also told them to kiss his butt. Now that's the way all Republican politicians should act, and talk.
Well, I would have preferred that he tell them to kiss his ASS, but you know what they say-baby steps.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Municipal Bond Market-Possibly The Next Great Financial Casualty
My word, I hope I don't come across as negative or ever not so civil, but if you buy Municipal Bonds, you might first want to look at this chart that shows that market crashing straight down the crapper.
Then you need to realize that, if you still decide to invest any money at all in Municipal Bonds, you are probably a fucking idiot. But if you are so cock-sure Obama and the Democrats will heal our nation, you will probably buy them anyway, and prove my point. After all, if you do lose your shirt, that would obviously be the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Just do me a big favor, if you would be so kind. If you do lose all your money and assets and eventually see through the haze that it is in fact Democratic malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence that has caused our largest cities to fail-like our states, and our country-and that by extension they are the reason you have lost everything, kindly don't seek revenge by shooting one of them.
I do so hate to have to put on airs.
Then you need to realize that, if you still decide to invest any money at all in Municipal Bonds, you are probably a fucking idiot. But if you are so cock-sure Obama and the Democrats will heal our nation, you will probably buy them anyway, and prove my point. After all, if you do lose your shirt, that would obviously be the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Just do me a big favor, if you would be so kind. If you do lose all your money and assets and eventually see through the haze that it is in fact Democratic malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence that has caused our largest cities to fail-like our states, and our country-and that by extension they are the reason you have lost everything, kindly don't seek revenge by shooting one of them.
I do so hate to have to put on airs.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Green Hornet
You can't just please some people. I know, I'm one of them. But I know it, which is why I very seldom go to the movies. For me, this amounts to a better than fifty-mile round trip, for one thing. Then there's the price. Next comes the depression, annoyance, and sometimes outright anger when a film isn't as good as the trailers imply.
For this reason, I didn't go to see Iron Man I or II. I finally got a chance to see Iron Man I on cable a few nights ago, and I was underwhelmed, to put it kindly. Sure, there were a few good moments, but still-pretty much a forgettable exercise.
I'll have to admit though, I would give serious thought to seeing The Green Hornet.
Here you have Seth Rogan playing the Hornet/Brit Reid, and going to the trouble of losing thirty pounds to play the role. Also, he co-wrote the movie. In other words, Seth Rogan is living a comic-book nerd's dream, writing the script for a superhero movie, and playing the lead role. Unfortunately, many comics fans are not happy about Rogan playing the role, and are adamant in their protests, as you will ascertain in this and other reviews, and in the myriads of negative comments.
Rogan, an overweight comedian, is just not right for the role, they say. And, despite the fact that he is serious enough about the role to lose thirty pounds, he also does not take the part seriously enough, which I see as a positive, frankly. Its not that the film isn't serious enough. It's just not somber or too serious. It's just not that kind of movie. In fact, the film is billed as an action-comedy.
The Green Hornet's main enemy is not the film's villain, then, so much as it is the legion of comics fans who have launched the most diabolical plot of all. They are staying away from the movie, in droves. It opened with a disappointing take of eleven million dollars gross.
That's really too bad. Also-well, I started to say childish, but after all, these are comic book fans we're talking about, so that would be about like calling Islamic terrorists ill-tempered, wouldn't it?
I think the problem here is, Seth Rogan is having good-natured fun at comic fans expense, and they aren't happy about it. They're pissed without even being aware of why they're pissed.
Here's the story. Brit Reid is a slacker playboy type who, when his millionaire publisher father dies, inherits the family business. He wants to make something of himself, live up to the responsibility his father left him, even though he clearly hated the old man. At the same time, he doesn't really want to grow up, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, like most comic book geeks, he really doesn't see it, period.
Yes, Brit Reid in this film is the penultimate comic book nerd. Brit Reid's father was so disgusted with him that, as a child, he snapped the head off his Superman action figure. So now, he and Kato, the old man's mechanic, chauffeur, and all-around gopher, who also hated the elder Mr Reid, decide in a drunken stupor to remove the head off his memorial statue. They inadvertently foil a mugging, for which they are then blamed, and at this point, Reid is inspired to finally make something out of his life-he would become a masked crime fighter with a secret identity. So he has it both ways. He has a position of responsibility, but also lives an exciting, glamorous life as a crime fighter in a way to indulge his sense of adventure and excitement-his inner comic book nerd.
But it goes deeper than that. See, Brit Reid would probably be as good a crime fighter as your ordinary, everyday comic book geek-
Look, there on the sofa! Fatter than a breakfast buffet. Strong enough to resist motivation. Able to leap through two hundred cable channels without getting off the couch for a solid month. It's BOY-MAN! and his trusty sidekick JACKDICK!
But luckily for Brit, he has a lot more going for him than some weird little kid with tight, flaming red short shorts and girlishly sexy legs. He has Kato, who can kick your fucking ass. The unique thing about Kato was always that, on a bad day for him and a good day for the Hornet, he kicked twice as much ass as the Hornet. On a good day, the Hornet was superfluous. Plus, Kato is the one who built and maintains the Black Beauty, which is one bad motherfucking ride.
So why does the Hornet get the billing? Well, because its his show, literally and figuratively. It's his idea, but even more importantly, its his money. He pays the bills. He does something in this film that was never done in any of the other incarnations. He gets jealous of Kato because he gets it in his head that his lady-love, played by Cameron Diaz, is smitten with Kato. But this comic geek insecurity on Brit's part passes in time, and we are left with the distinct impression that Brit Reid and Kato make one hell of a team. They are, you might say, one hell of a dynamic duo, if you know what I mean. But of course, being a comic book geek at heart, Brit doesn't. But let's just say, the fact that Diaz's character isn't all that well drawn out could very well be part of the plot. The comic book geek hero should always get the girl. First he has to know what to do with her if he does get her. But since he doesn't, he won't, and she will just stay a distant ideal. You know, something that is good for his-er, self-image?
This movie is supposed to be funny. It is obviously a Bromantic Comedy as much as a kick-ass, superhero action flick. Comic geek fans should take it for what it is and stop being so self-conscious. The Black Beauty if anything is probably worth the price of admission, though admittedly, the relative restraint used with the car might be the one serious flaw of the film. But then again, what comic geek superhero would take too many unnecessary chances with that kind of ride?
The movie also contains, toward the end, a salute to the old sixties television series. I won't describe it here in detail, but its a recycled plot device which will be immediately recognizable to connoisseurs of the old sixties series with Van Williams and Bruce Lee.
So fuck it, comic geeks, go see the movie, relax, laugh at yourselves, and-well, you know, grow up? Let's face it, the concept of a guy that dresses in a costume, hides his true identity, and becomes a superhero, is the concept of a guy that can't be wrapped too tight. I mean, some of them are wrapped so tight you can see their bulging, throbbing comic book cocks, but hey, that's just proving my point, isn't it? And that point is, its all right for a comic book superhero movie to laugh at the concept every now and then.
For this reason, I didn't go to see Iron Man I or II. I finally got a chance to see Iron Man I on cable a few nights ago, and I was underwhelmed, to put it kindly. Sure, there were a few good moments, but still-pretty much a forgettable exercise.
I'll have to admit though, I would give serious thought to seeing The Green Hornet.
Here you have Seth Rogan playing the Hornet/Brit Reid, and going to the trouble of losing thirty pounds to play the role. Also, he co-wrote the movie. In other words, Seth Rogan is living a comic-book nerd's dream, writing the script for a superhero movie, and playing the lead role. Unfortunately, many comics fans are not happy about Rogan playing the role, and are adamant in their protests, as you will ascertain in this and other reviews, and in the myriads of negative comments.
Rogan, an overweight comedian, is just not right for the role, they say. And, despite the fact that he is serious enough about the role to lose thirty pounds, he also does not take the part seriously enough, which I see as a positive, frankly. Its not that the film isn't serious enough. It's just not somber or too serious. It's just not that kind of movie. In fact, the film is billed as an action-comedy.
The Green Hornet's main enemy is not the film's villain, then, so much as it is the legion of comics fans who have launched the most diabolical plot of all. They are staying away from the movie, in droves. It opened with a disappointing take of eleven million dollars gross.
That's really too bad. Also-well, I started to say childish, but after all, these are comic book fans we're talking about, so that would be about like calling Islamic terrorists ill-tempered, wouldn't it?
I think the problem here is, Seth Rogan is having good-natured fun at comic fans expense, and they aren't happy about it. They're pissed without even being aware of why they're pissed.
Here's the story. Brit Reid is a slacker playboy type who, when his millionaire publisher father dies, inherits the family business. He wants to make something of himself, live up to the responsibility his father left him, even though he clearly hated the old man. At the same time, he doesn't really want to grow up, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, like most comic book geeks, he really doesn't see it, period.
Yes, Brit Reid in this film is the penultimate comic book nerd. Brit Reid's father was so disgusted with him that, as a child, he snapped the head off his Superman action figure. So now, he and Kato, the old man's mechanic, chauffeur, and all-around gopher, who also hated the elder Mr Reid, decide in a drunken stupor to remove the head off his memorial statue. They inadvertently foil a mugging, for which they are then blamed, and at this point, Reid is inspired to finally make something out of his life-he would become a masked crime fighter with a secret identity. So he has it both ways. He has a position of responsibility, but also lives an exciting, glamorous life as a crime fighter in a way to indulge his sense of adventure and excitement-his inner comic book nerd.
But it goes deeper than that. See, Brit Reid would probably be as good a crime fighter as your ordinary, everyday comic book geek-
Look, there on the sofa! Fatter than a breakfast buffet. Strong enough to resist motivation. Able to leap through two hundred cable channels without getting off the couch for a solid month. It's BOY-MAN! and his trusty sidekick JACKDICK!
But luckily for Brit, he has a lot more going for him than some weird little kid with tight, flaming red short shorts and girlishly sexy legs. He has Kato, who can kick your fucking ass. The unique thing about Kato was always that, on a bad day for him and a good day for the Hornet, he kicked twice as much ass as the Hornet. On a good day, the Hornet was superfluous. Plus, Kato is the one who built and maintains the Black Beauty, which is one bad motherfucking ride.
So why does the Hornet get the billing? Well, because its his show, literally and figuratively. It's his idea, but even more importantly, its his money. He pays the bills. He does something in this film that was never done in any of the other incarnations. He gets jealous of Kato because he gets it in his head that his lady-love, played by Cameron Diaz, is smitten with Kato. But this comic geek insecurity on Brit's part passes in time, and we are left with the distinct impression that Brit Reid and Kato make one hell of a team. They are, you might say, one hell of a dynamic duo, if you know what I mean. But of course, being a comic book geek at heart, Brit doesn't. But let's just say, the fact that Diaz's character isn't all that well drawn out could very well be part of the plot. The comic book geek hero should always get the girl. First he has to know what to do with her if he does get her. But since he doesn't, he won't, and she will just stay a distant ideal. You know, something that is good for his-er, self-image?
This movie is supposed to be funny. It is obviously a Bromantic Comedy as much as a kick-ass, superhero action flick. Comic geek fans should take it for what it is and stop being so self-conscious. The Black Beauty if anything is probably worth the price of admission, though admittedly, the relative restraint used with the car might be the one serious flaw of the film. But then again, what comic geek superhero would take too many unnecessary chances with that kind of ride?
The movie also contains, toward the end, a salute to the old sixties television series. I won't describe it here in detail, but its a recycled plot device which will be immediately recognizable to connoisseurs of the old sixties series with Van Williams and Bruce Lee.
So fuck it, comic geeks, go see the movie, relax, laugh at yourselves, and-well, you know, grow up? Let's face it, the concept of a guy that dresses in a costume, hides his true identity, and becomes a superhero, is the concept of a guy that can't be wrapped too tight. I mean, some of them are wrapped so tight you can see their bulging, throbbing comic book cocks, but hey, that's just proving my point, isn't it? And that point is, its all right for a comic book superhero movie to laugh at the concept every now and then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)