Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Why Aren't you Watching the Fucking Movie yet?


1,440 Viewers Is a horrible number for youtube.com.  It's not Respectable.  This video below has 1,058,410


So Apparently people would rather watch a monkey sniffing poop on his finger than watch the movie.  So What's the deal?  Have we not had enough butt sniffing in the movie?  There is an editing option where I can insert a monkey sniffing his ass in the middle of Ted's speech.  I'll do it.  What if I insert a wounded baby dolphin struggling for it's last breath?  Because THAT VIDEO has two hundred more views than we have on this movie.  That means two hundred more people would rather see a baby dolphin die than this amazing video




Come on people.  Granted The Camera work is better on the baby dolphin video.  But C'mon people.
Just watch the fucking movie.






Tuesday, March 29, 2011

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.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

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?

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

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.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

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

Saturday, March 12, 2011

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.