No Moore

Some guy wrote into Time magazine about James Poniewozik's piece denouncing James O'Keefe's hit job on NPR. The man said James (I refuse to type his last name ever again) had previously drooled adoringly over Michael Moore, and wondered why the left never criticized Moore for the same tactics.

This man is absolutely right. James O'Keefe is just a mini-Moore with a different agenda. Michael Moore's whole mendacious oevre is celebrated by a lot of the left, to the detriment of all. It's not hard for people to find out all the frauds this man has pulled off in his movies. I used to love Michael Moore until in college the Sundance channel did me the great favor of showing the movie Manufacturing Dissent. It's a movie made by two Canadian liberals about all deceptions in Michael Moore's movies and life. It shows, ultimately, that Michael Moore's unnecassary lies don't just hurt the lefts causes, they hurt documentary films in general. Who won't be skeptical of every documentary, after learning the most famous documentarian is just a charlatan fantasist?

The movie also shows that, while Michael Moore goes around denouncing the corporate greed and excess everywhere in his dirty little baseball hat costume, he sleeps in beautiful hotels while his crew sleeps in grime. On the Colbert Report last night he says the elite is taking from "us," as he deftly lumped himself in with the middle class. And I will be forever grateful that Stephen Colbert replied, "Your baseball cap doesn't fool anyone." Michael Moore is not one of "us" and I resent him trying to be the face of the middle class. This man is not Cesar Chavez. Every time I see him, I grow more convinced that he is a mountebank. He is a toad. The champion of the left can not be a man who has to keep a 24/7 operation running, devoted to defending himself from accusations of misinformation and prevarication. There is no other figure with as little credibility on the left except maybe David Brock. I have no use for liars who agree with me.

Stop trotting out Michael Moore. He said if people didn't rise up after seeing Capitalism: A Love Story, he would quit making movies. I would love this to be the one honest thing he's ever said.

Wonders Never Cease

Every day I plug Christopher Hitchens name into Google News to see what Hitch is up to. (This week, dying seems to occupy most of his time.) When I do it, at the bottom of the page there is a section titled "News archive results for christopher hitchens." The first headline is "Nation Columnist Christopher Hitchens Fingers Clinton Aide." Yowza! Sounds like Hitch and Clinton have more in common than he would care to admit.

The tolerant branch of peace

Whenever Sufism comes up in an article it is always stressed that it is the "tolerant" branch of the religion of peace. I have never heard the word Sufism not prefaced with the word "tolerant." Apparently it's tolerance is part of what really makes it stick out. It seems almost unthinkingly applied. It's a cliche. The "mystical, tolerant Sufis." How tolerant are they, really? Just tolerant compared to all the other Muslims? What do these other Muslims think about the monopoly on tolerance Sufis seem to have? And does "tolerance" in this case, just mean "won't kill you?" 

I don't know the answers to these questions. I see no reason to accept or reject that Sufis are, on the whole, tolerant. But the constant repition of the "tolerant Sufi" trope leads me to believe that there is a tacit admission that the rest of Islam is not all that tolerant. Why else are they always distinguished in this way?

The Nonevent that Shook the World!

I got my free issue of Time again. Under a section titled "10 Ideas that will Change the World" is this earth shaking idea: You will continue to not meet an alien. Well.....that's not really an idea that's going to change the world, is it? That's like saying "My idea that will change the world is you will continue to not be attacked by a jackalope." Something that I didn't think was going to happen continuing to not happen isn't going to change my world. My aunt thinks she saw an alien spacecraft, so it might change her world. But I don't think you can convince her she didn't see an alien spacecraft. Once people jump to a crazy conclusion, they usually don't want to jump back.

It's a good article, but it's a bit out of place.

America: Forever Worshiping the Dead

You know who I'm sick of hearing about: the Founding Fathers. Every political argument in the world begins and ends with "the Founding Fathers intended." You know what? Fuck the Founding Fathers. Fuck 'em with a shovel handle. They're dead. They don't get to influence modern day policy. I don't let dead people do my thinking for me. This country spends a frustrating amount of time ventriloquizing for dead people.

Here is a partial list of dead people I'd like to see fuck off:

Jesus
Martin Luther King Jr.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
The Prophet Muhammad
JFK
RFK
Ted Kennedy
Ghandi
John Madison
Ben Franklin
Ronald Reagan
Mother Theresa
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Ike Eisenhower
John Adams
George Orwell
William Buckley
George Carlin
Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Lenin
Franco
Charles Darwin
Harry Truman
L. Ron Hubbard
John Lennon
Hunter S. Thompson
Sid Vicious
Walter Kronkite
Ed Murrows
Bob Hope
Clark Gable
Tupak
Elvis Presley
and Rock Hudson

Blood Liable

I believe there is a thing called Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome. And George Bush Derangement Syndrome. I believe these things exist because I suffer from both of them. And I have only a mild case; a full-blown case of George Bush Derangement Syndrome expresses  itself  in symptoms like 9/11 truth movements and claiming George Bush put a lot of evil thought into the invasion of Iraq when it could just as easily be argued that he didn't put any thought into it at all.

Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome is even more pernicious, I think, because she's a talking head. Therefore, she doesn't get blamed for what she does so much as what she says. And she says a lot of stupid shit. And when she says something stupid and someone else does something stupid, the fevered derangement in the liberal mind begins.

I read an article in Rolling Stone by Tim Dickinson where Palin Derangement Syndrome met the worst mental disorder currently rampant in the liberal mindscape: Liberal Islam Delusion. This is the delusion that violent jihad is not really motivated by Islam. Some believe it is a distortion of Islam. Some believe it is a misinterpretation of Islam. Some believe it is taken out of context. Some say that whatever was written last supercedes the nasty bits. It's a lot like argueing about the best way to create a flirkton. People can argue all day long that we shouldn't use puppy bones to make a flirkton, but the other people say the flirkton won't work otherwise and the flirkton is the only way to bring about world peace. This arguement would go on for ages because there is no such thing as a flirkton. And we have spent years indulging these idiots and saying it's perfectly normal to believe there is. Nobody can win an arguement over things that don't exist. There are no facts to gather. Anything anybody says about the flirkton is objectively false. The same thing goes for God. You can say God says "don't kill," I can say God says "kill lot's," we are both wrong because God didn't say a fucking thing. And the only way we can convince people that they shouldn't kill people in the name of God is when we convince them there is no God to kill for. And that is not going to  happen with liberal Muslims. Liberal Muslims are not the answer. They are philisophical enablers. They are part of the problem.

But a liberal who would shit on a Christian every day of the week get's very weak-kneed with loving emotion when an Imam is around. There is a very condescending love for Muslims. They're brown, they're exotic, they're untouched by crass America, they're pure. Liberals look at Muslims almost like they are the Navi from Avatar. And, like the Navi, their way of life is sacrosanct. And anything that impugns their way of life is imperialist, and racist. It is a very strange thing to watch.

These two things: Palin Derangement and Muslim worship went haywire when two massacres happened, and in the Tim Dickinson article the two haywires connected in a very unappealing fashion.

When Nidal Hasan killed 13 people, society speculated, as they always do, about the motive. Liberals urged everyone to not immediately jump to the conclusion that he did this because of Islam. Conservatives (and a lot of us atheists) concluded that Islam was the likely reason. The liberal restraint was the most ethical and reasonable response until the facts came in.

Then Jared Lee Loughner went on his shooting spree; grievously wounding Tea Party target Gabrielle Giffords. She hardly had time to bleed before Sarah Palin was being burned in effigy. Far from urging restraint, the conservatives denied she had anything to do with it.

Tim Dickinson says "In short, Palin and the right were eager to blame Al Qaeda's rhetoric for Fort Hood, yet they reject any such culpability when someone attempts to assasinate a congresswoman" who Palin called a target and put a bullseye over.

Here's the thing: there is a direct line between Nidal Hasan and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and violent jihadist beliefs. There is not even an indirect line between Jarad Loughner and Palin. So, however premature, the conservatives were right in both cases. And long after the facts came in, the liberals refuse to admit it. They still want to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a psychologically damaged individual who was fascinated with apolitical conspiracies. And Tim Dickinson call's Sarah Palin a "self-serving hypocrite" when she defends herself against the charge.

Blaming somebody for blood they did not shed is "blood libel." It is not only an appropriate term, it is the MOST appropriate term. And Palin Derangement Syndrome was activated again when she used it in her defense.

I do not consider my self completely free of Palin Derangement Syndrome because the very sound of her voice makes me want to slit my wrists, but I have enough self-control not embarrass myself in this way. And lack of shame is another symptom of Palin Derangement Syndrome. They should not feel shame on behalf of Sarah Palin, but on behalf of fellow liberals. Because when you react this stupidly to things, you hurt the fight for causes that I believe in. And you hurt respect for the truth.

Propellerhead

Did anybody ever actually wear propeller hats? They must have. This company claims they've been selling them since 1976. Not only that but custom-making them. Who are the spazzes who want a personal touch on their propeller hat. The company has a list of their top 10 best-sellers (however that's defined) and I am horrified to discover that they are all adult-sized. Where are these proppeller-headed adults? I'm guessing they are hipsters or irony-mongers. I'd like to find someone who isn't wearing it in an ironic manner. Someone who would say "I don't know, I saw a hat with a propeller on it and thought it couldn't hurt." So if that person is out there, make yourself known.

Time out

I complained about the overwhelming amount of Michaels writing for Time magazine not to long ago, and suggested a Kermit or a Casper to sort of dilute the Michael-ness of it all. Not even meeting me halfway Time has unveiled it's brand-new regular columnist: Mike Murphy. Mike!

I'm not stupid, Time magazine, I am well aware that Mike is short for Michael. This bias for Michaels and variants thereof is extremely odd. I've never seen such a high concentration of Michaels. It is becoming increasingly clear that a Dylan or a Gavin would have no chance at Time magazine. Because the next Michael will be right around the corner, pushing them out.

Time, I think your Michael-crazed hiring policy is starting to be self-destructive. Mike Murphy is a Republican "strategist" or "consultant." In other words, a professional liar. Why do I want to hear from a professional liar? The correct answer is: I do not. Was Mike Murphy really the only choice out there, Time? Was he the only one willing to come on staff? Or was he just another Michael to add to your collection!? I'm on to you Time! And as long as you keep coming free to my home, I'll keep my eye on you.

Ruskies!

Somebody has stumbled upon my blog agaaaaaiin! And, as is my policy, I will reveal their search keywords because I always find them amusing out of context.

 In this case the person was from Russia and he/she plugged into Russias' favorite search engine, Yandex, the following: "the article shows the cult." I know, sounds a lot like Buffalo Bill, right?

Is it possible that my pig-cult is considered "the" cult in Russia? Well, judging by this video, I would say absolutely!

Now, wait a minute

There is a website called Pandagon where I thought I was going to see up-to-date information on panda's but instead I found a really angry post about a guy named Miguel. The author is Amanda Marcotte, and she doesn't appear to know Miguel any better than I do. Apperently dead level in our knowledge of Miguel, Amanda has somehow managed to form extremely intense feelings of rage towards him. It appears to stem from two passages from a book that he posted, in which a woman is beaten by her beau and also doesn't have sex with her friend who likes her. Miguel posted these excerpts in a manner that says, "Hey, what's wrong with this guy. He doesn't hit you." Amanda read these passages, went berserk and seems to have yet to recover.

She says Miguel's reaction to the woman getting beaten is, "Damn, there's one more woman whose pussy I'm not penetrating, woe is me." She implies that Miguel feels absolutely no sympathy for the woman, he is a self-absorbed narcissist, and that he is an asshole. Then she reads the rest of his post! HA HA HA HA! Thank God he didn't post something from Lolita or she might have contacted the FBI.

Here's the thing: She might be right about Miguel. I don't know. As of yet Miguel has barely written any words of his own. But isn't it possible that Miguel could feel sorry that this woman is being beaten and hope she gets help, and also would like to have sex with her? And isn't it possible that, feeling these two things, he only expressed one of them? What evidence does she have that he doesn't care about the woman? He hasn't even commented on the passage yet (and he really never does)!

So, here we have a woman with a fairly large following branding a man she has never heard of a misogynist based on two excerpts from a book he did not write. I implore her to have a higher standard of evidence than this. I am perfectly capable of feeling sympathy and sexual attraction towards all sorts of people. I didn't realize until this exact moment that I am alone in this. Sometimes I feel sympathy towards someone, and hungry for donuts. I really am something special! And here is something really wild: I hated George Bush but I felt sympathy with his dyslexic speaking style. Can you believe it? I felt two different things at once! And I only ever expressed my hatred. From this, I made the mistake that others also can feel two different things. But Amanda appears to think they don't. Amanda appears to think that if someone says something, that's all they're thinking. One of us has jumped to a very stupid conclusion.

The man in the story appears to be in love with the woman. I assume this would be true whether she was getting beaten or not. Obviously he would be frustrated that she doesn't feel the same; and I feel frustrated for him. Miguel seems to as well. I don't understand why these are such hateful thoughts. I have liked people who don't like me. LOT'S of people. Really, an unhealthy amount of people. It's frustrating. They aren't feelings people want to feel. But, feelings being feelings, there they are. So I will go on record ( knowing full well no one is reading this) as saying that I don't think Miguel is wrong for feeling sympathy for a man who is in love with an abuse victim (even if the man does seem like a jackass). And even though I disagree with Miguel, I find no evidence that he is a "megadouche" "asshole." On the other hand, in this case, Amanda Marcotte seems like a hasty, judgemental cunt!  :)

Another Review!!!

We have recieved another review for Jack's Living Dead Girl. This movie is spreading like a wildfire, in that it destroys lives and dreams wherever it goes. I will say, this weeks review goes light on any real critiques and is heavy on ad hominem abuse. But I'm a fair man, I'll let our critics be heard. Here it is:

What about Bob?

I don't know how else to say this: There are too many people named Michael writing for Time magazine. There is Michael Scherer, Michael Crowley, Michael Elliot, Michael Schuman, Michael Duffy, Michael Grunwald. There should not be more than 2 Michaels per issue. Where are they getting all these Michaels? They have acquired a Fareed and a Barton, which is certainly on the right track. I would like to see a Kermit and a Casper replace two of the Michaels and I will be well on my way to sorting these people out.

The Arrival = Not Winning

Don't get me wrong, I like Hot Shots: Part Deux as much as the next guy but can't we be done with Charlie Sheen at long last. Lot's of people can party with hot women without threatening and beating and shooting them. As far as I know, Hugh Hefner has yet to shoot a single woman. And his threats of violence just bring peals of laughter from whoever they're directed at.

It seems to me it doesn't take a lot to make Charlie Sheen angry and confused. He has a history of jumping to really stupid and hysterical conclusions. "This Asian movie is gross: must be a snuff film." "The Twin Towers HAD to have been brought down by our government." "Where are my shoes? I guess I'll strangle a hooker to death and leave her in a swamp."

And he appears to have an ever-expanding ego, meaning once he jumps to a stupid conclusion, he won't jump back off because he is never wrong. So, when a frightened porn star insists she had nothing to do with his missing watch, she is obviously lying because "special" Charlie is incapable of misplacing such things. Thus, the porn star must pay. This will eventually lead to the hooker in the swamp. In fact, if I were you people I would start going in shifts to the swamp and just wait for him to arrive. It should be any day now.

In contrast, if you want to watch a movie starring people who don't think they are right about anything, you should watch Jack's Living Dead Girl.