My Channel

Thursday, January 30, 2014

State of the Union best Criticism Comes from ... Jon Stewart?

C'mon righties, let's get on the ball! We should be able to resonate better with our comebacks. Why do we have to outsource the funny to the left all the time?

The State of The Union -- My Thoughts

Photobombed by his own VP.
Well I know all of you readers (all seven of you) are waiting with baited breath on my thoughts on the SOTU. Well I gotta admit it was... aw hell I didn't watch it. And I didn't need to. I can sum it up in one word: Disjointed.

Obamacare is awesome. We need to fix health care. My economic policies are awesome. We need to fix income inequality. Women need to stop being treated like a Mad Men episode. Don't like at how women on my staff are paid.

It's typical Obama behavior. Nothing is his fault, all his ideas are awesome and things that are wrong are because of mean old Republicans. It had zero truth and even the dems were pretty disappointed in it. The thing I liked the most was that he unknowingly indicted his own track record. What else could he do? This has been 5 years of abject failure. Even in trying to deflect blame he ends up owning it. Obamacare is a disaster, economy is still a disaster, and this man really has no idea what he's doing. You'd think he'd learn a little bit from the failures, hell even Clinton had the sense to pivot a bit after '94 but not Obama. He's truly dense and I hate to say it but possibly a little on the dim side. 

Maybe it's just sheer stubbornness but then being wantonly bull-headed in the face of a train wreck can't really be called intelligent, can it? 

Also I noticed that John Boehner's tanning bed apparently has a "dark leather chair" setting cause he blends with the one he's sitting on.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Obama: This Due Process and Rule of Law Thing? I'm Not Feeling it.

Welcome to the Obama regime. It is a regime now, not just a funny euphemism we use to over-exaggerate what we think of him. 
President Obama, in the first of potentially many executive actions tied to his State of the Union address, will unilaterally increase the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, in an effort to build momentum for a minimum wage hike for all Americans.  
The executive order, which had been pushed by progressive Democratic lawmakers, applies to all contractors performing services for the federal government and would affect more than 2 million employees, according to an administration official.
Of course I went over the minimum wage hike and why it's such a bad idea. But try telling that to all the short term thinkers out there. The utter audacity of this banana republic asshole to simply decide is getting out of hand.
The president will then use Tuesday night's address to press Congress to pass a Democratic plan to increase the overall federal wage to $10.10 over three years, then indexing it to inflation, while also raising the minimum wage for tipped workers, the official said. 
Boy oh boy talk about a self-fulfilling program. You keep hiking wages which in turn raises prices. That's inflation. So inflation goes up which causes wages to automatically increase. Which causes prices to go up to compensate. More inflation. This is a death spiral to our economy folks. This pissant has no clue what he is doing.  None.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Global Warming Continues to Freeze our Collective Asses Off

Or something. Science!
"There's really nothing abnormal about the air that's coming into the area," he said. "It's just been a very persistent pattern" of cold air. 
Blair said it's an amplified pattern of the jet stream, with cold air filtering in behind a large trough of low pressure. Simplifying, he explained: "Troughs are typically associated with unstable or unsettled weather, and, at this time of the year, much colder air." 
Frigid temperatures are expected to hold into Tuesday. If Chicago makes it to 60 hours below zero, it will be the longest stretch since 1983 — when it was below zero for 98 hours — and the third longest in 80 years. 
Chicago Public Schools called off Monday's classes for its nearly 400,000 students, as did suburban districts. Earlier this month, when it was below zero for 36 straight hours, CPS closed for two days.
Funny enough, there is no real mention of climate change or global warming. If even NBC is giving up on trying to tie warming to freezing cold, maybe it's time to give us back our light bulbs and dump the reformulated gasoline and maybe... just maybe... start growing corn just for food.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

So.. what's racist again?

I have a long and abiding love for movies and am fairly steeped in pop culture iconography. I was struck by the reaction of two different blockbusters (well supposed to be blockbusters) this summer: Man of Steel and The Lone Ranger. Why? Because of the political backlash to the casting. Specifically Johnny Depp (a white guy) being cast as Tonto and Lawrence Fishburne (a black guy) as Perry White. There was backlash against both. Now I don't have specific example but my impression is that there is marked inconsistency in the reaction to these castings.
Racist/Not Racist
Not Racist/Racist
The same people I heard loathing the Johnny Depp casting were also telling people to lighten up (ironically) about the Lawrence Fishburne. And the same people really upset about changing the Perry White character were defending the Tonto change. Or both. Or neither. What the hell?

So I am trying to understand what's right and what's wrong here. Only thing I'm sure about is the answer isn't so black and white. (See what I did there?) 

First off I have a very color blind mentality. So in most cases, I don't believe any character's skin color should define him as a person. That being said, could you really tell the story of Roots with an all white cast? Of course not. But is Perry White (last name notwithstanding) really defined by his skin color? I don't think so. 

But you say, he was originally conceived as a white guy, are we going to change Superman to a black guy? Well there actually was a a story of a racially diverse Justice League in a different universe where a black Superman was in charge. He was not the exact same character just changed to black, he was unique with his own back-story as I recall. The problem was the story came off as pandering to make white writers feel better about themselves. 

And that's really the crux of the problem I think. I don't have a problem with different actors of different races playing characters outside their race IF they are the best guy (or gal) for the job. But there is also a ridiculousness that comes from the pandering that looks like change for politically correct sake, and that's where I part company from the casting changes. 

So for these two castings, I really didn't have an issue with either of them. I like Fishburne and I think he lent a lot of credibility to the part. As I said, I don't believe Perry was really defined by being white. 

Tonto is a somewhat different matter as we are talking a place and time that the American Indian was a distinct culture and race (and still is but obviously more so at that time.) But Depp is a pretty eclectic actor and really... does anyone believe that there weren't a hundred talks about it and a pretty deep concern about offending the Native Americans of today? Do you really think they weren't aware that there might be some backlash? This thing was 200 million dollars or more. What actor are you going to take a chance on, an unknown or a proven money maker like Depp? Especially considering that the movie even with Depp was STILL a huge flop. Without his name on the poster, it wouldn't have gotten half of the people in the door that it did.

Also recall that Gore Verbinski, the director, had a long and successful history with Depp between Rango and the first three pirates movies. To attribute simple racism to their motives is just simple minded. 

There's probably also history to consider as long standing icons such as most superheroes are almost always white with minorities really not breaking through until the 70's.  So when the race of these long standing characters are changed, I think sometimes whites feel a little threatened that their heritage and much beloved stories are being taken away. I don't think that's such a wrong argument as it's the same one that was used against Depp playing Tonto. 

The flip side says that so many of these characters are so white and that minorities were so underrepresented they feel like they have no part in so much of pop-culture today. Also a valid argument but if casting a white actor for a minority character is wrong, why isn't the reverse true? 

Then there is the idea of pushing the envelope a little. Why not play with tried and true tropes a bit? The Man of Steel movie didn't make the other Superman movies go away (though I wished it would have maybe blipped Superman IV out of existence). Changing perceptions and playing with the characters is a way of making them fresh. I do however think that simply changing the skin color is a lazy and superficial way to do it. If you really want to push the envelope, make a story about black KKK members. Or an all white slave cast. Really show the idiocy and ravages of racism instead of pandering to politically correct cocktail parties attendees. 

Here's the double-edged sword questions: If Perry White is not defined by his skin color, what difference does it make who he's played by? If Fishburne was the best actor for the part, let him play it. BUT if his skin color play no part in the story, why bother to change it other than to create controversy? What does it add to the story being told? 

Both are valid questions. And honestly, I have no answer on this one. I think that being offended by one while lauding the other is crass hypocrisy, no matter which way you go. All I do know is I still long for the day when no one gives a shit. 

Friday, January 24, 2014

I am getting sooooo lazy....

Not me. Not far off either.
So a couple of posts ago I ranted a little bit about how whiny we are as a civilization. Now I'd be remiss if I didn't take myself into account. And I came face to face with my insane laziness this week.

See every so often I'll want to watch a particular movie. I'll have a hankering for some Star Trek, for example. If I don't find it on Netflix streaming, I won't watch it. EVEN THOUGH I FUCKING OWN IT.

It's on the shelf. I can see it. IT'S RIGHT THERE! Lazy. Lazy. But boy do I make up the excuses. After all that DVD shelf is thousands of millimeters away. I have to set the TV to Video 1 or Component 3 or HDMI who gives a fuck. Then pick the right audio which means I have to find the remote for the receiver. Oh shit, the DVD case has those damn flip locks on the side? Forget it.

I'm certain I'm not the only one with this kind sad sloth in their daily lives. We are a superpower. Doesn't seem possible, does it? Something tells me if the draft comes up again, we're fucked.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

And Another Retailer's Health Care Coverage Bites the Dust

A while back I noted Walgreen's and Home Depot were dropping coverage. We can add Target to that list to their part time employees.
Another major American company has announced it will no longer offer health coverage to some of its employees because of Obamacare. “After careful consideration of the impact to our stores’ part-time team members and to Target,” the retail giant announced it will end coverage for its part-time workers starting April 1.
Looks like the April fools are the ones who voted for Obama. Help me out here, wasn't the whole point of Obamacare to get MORE people covered? For every Liberal action, there is a complete opposite result. It's science!

Monday, January 20, 2014

Martin Luther King day and revisiting the "White People Problem"

So a couple of days ago I took to task the idea from Margaret Wright that white people need to change. I posited that white people have and did change given the fact that white people exhibit very little racism these days as compared to 50-100 years ago. My point was that blacks had very little political power. Then I got this tweet:
Which was not my point in the slightest. So now I have to explain the difference between social and cultural influence and political power. Those of you with common sense understand these differences. But I gotta explain it to those who hear racial dog whistles constantly.

So let's take the Civil Rights act of 1964. In Congress there were 4 black members of the House and none in the Senate. They were Adam Clayton Powell Jr, Charlie Diggs, Robert N.C. Nix, Sr., and Augustus Hawkins. None in the Senate. There are 535 members of Congress, even then. 4 is not enough to pass the bill, for those of you who can do math.

Now, Martin Luther King did exert a tremendous amount of social pressure and influence. It is this changing of hearts and minds that he and others like him created the allowed for the passage of the civil rights act. But make no mistake, blacks as part of the population were a minority who were being suppressed by whites, especially in the south. King's accomplishments cannot be overstated.

The left likes to act as if whites, especially conservative whites, are pretty much the same as they were in 1950 and that's not only false, it is complete insulting to the radical sea change that MLK created. It is pissing on the man's legacy and I am sorry I have to explain this to people. White people have changed and the racism today is not even a tiny percentage of a fraction that was prevalent back in the day.

If George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is the symbol of some sort of racial struggle today, if people want to compare that to the lynchings and segregation of yesteryear, they are not only misguided, they are dismissing all the accomplishments of a great man.

My daughter and son are of mixed race. I adopted them. When I'm out in public with my children, I don't get so much as a raised eyebrow or even a first glance. No one cares. Thirty years ago, people would have thought it was something special. Sixty years ago it would have gotten me ostracized and hundred years ago, it might have gotten me killed. Let's remember what he created and let not minimize all those who bought into the movement, white and black, that lets me adopt my children without any thought anymore to race.

Except by leftists who can't get past skin color no matter how hard they try.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

All Movie Posters are the same now.

Here's something I'm ashamed to admit I haven't really noticed. Pretty good watch.

I would think I would've noticed something like this what with my near obsessive love of movies in general but the only laziness I noticed was with Star Wars. For instance, compare these two:
Pure Awesomeness
to this:
My Daddy got me photoshop!

But I really hadn't realized how widespread the laziness had gotten. Star Wars mystifies me even more since we already had awesome posters and cover art and we had to take extra time to make crap. 

Friday, January 17, 2014

So Academic White People have Figured out the Problem: White People. Maybe they'll kill themselves and stop writing papers.

Margaret Wright specifically.
How could anyone argue that Huck Finn is the Great American Novel? That racist propaganda? Repeatedly banned ever since it was written for all manner of “inappropriate” actions, attitudes, and name-calling? Yet it is precisely the novel’s tale of racism and its history of censorship that make it a Great American Novel contender. A land defined and challenged by racism, America struggles with how to understand and move beyond its history. Censor it? Deny it? Rewrite it? Ignore it? Twain confronts American history head-on and tells us this: White people are the problem. 
Hemingway was right when he said, “All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn.” Hemingway was wrong when he continued, “If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating.” For if we stop where Hemingway instructs, we may read the actual wish of many whites – that someone else would take their “black problem” or their “Indian problem” or their “immigrant problem” away – but we miss Twain’s most important critique: White men like Tom Sawyer will forever manipulate the Huck Finns of the world.
I don't think that's what Twain was saying. Maybe that racism is the problem makes more sense. But Margaret trades in one form of racism for another. People are the problem for the color of their skin. Also, I'm not certain but it reads as if she thinks Huck is black.  Whatever, the point is that being white is not a problem. Acting like a self-important douchebag is.
If the Great American Novel both perceptively reflects its time and challenges Americans to do better, Huck Finn deserves the title. Rendering trenchant critiques on every manifestation of whiteness, Twain reminds us that solving racism requires whites to change.
Oh ok. Let me let you in on something Maggie, blacks had no real power to enact change in this country. Protest and march, sure. But little real political power. It was whites who did change their attitudes. Few are racist today and I would dare say in 2014, there are more anti-whites than anti-blacks. The civil-rights laws and anti-slavery laws were passed by whites. White fundamentally changed the country, whites came to the realization that we were wrong for so long and made real change to become far more color blind than ever before.

Except for leftists like you who only see skin color.

We are the most spoiled, whiny, civilization to ever grace the planet.

So I see this today:
So I head over to the link and see a self-involved guy with his self-involved wife who happen to be in their 12th minute, make bazillions of dollars, have their own reality show, and pretty much want for nothing, doing a photo shoot for GQ. This photo shoot shows her belly and is somewhat risque, I guess. I wouldn't say NSFW. Whatever, more "look at me" bullshit. Now I don't begrudge them this, it's their life and do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone. But then this quote:
Props to Decker and James for embracing their pregnancy. 
It would have been easy for James to stay in hiding and take the traditional “look at the weight she lost” pictures. Instead, she is willing to expose her body, and open herself up to scrutiny, by posing for pictures in GQ Magazine. 
When you consider how much negative attention some athletes garner, these photographs beat mug shots any day.
And I realize I am sick to death of false courage. The courage she shows in taking a few pictures in her underwear while pregnant and getting well-paid for it! Why, how do they escape the life-threatening reaction of apathy by everyone in the country?

This is considered brave by the media. Courageous. So amazing. The self-involvement in the media with the self-involved celebutants of the nation has gone viral. And by viral I mean it's making normal people sick. Let's look at the oh-so-courageous celebs speaking out about vital issues of importance these days:

Robert Redford is upset that they had no campaign to get his film nominated for an Oscar. Not enough to pony up his own money, mind you. Oscar is all political these days. It's a dire problem.

Beyonce (net worth: 847 kabazillion dollars) is very upset about gender inequality. This black woman in the United States somehow managed to overcome both of those apparent liabilities and become probably the most famous singer currently working. I'm not sure how she continues with the onslaught of racists and misogynists out there. The worst part about her outrage is how little effort she actually puts into understanding it. It's all because of men that women make less. That's her entire simple-minded thesis. Hey Beyonce? Go eff yourself.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson apparently is a raging homophobe who must be stopped at all costs for his thinking that girl parts are more attractive than boy parts. That's hate on an all new level you know. Yes I know he said some other stuff. So the hell what? How does a guy who basically looks and acts the part of a hick, then spouts some views that play into that affect anything anywhere? If you really got mad at that, if that's your BIG ISSUE of the day, you have zero problems. He thinks gays are god haters or something. Who cares?

There's a reason the term "1st world problems" has entered the lexicon. We can't handle anything anymore. We can't handle people saying things that make us uncomfortable. We can't handle nativity scenes at the school. We can't handle wealth. We can't handle big gulps. We can't handle traffic jams. We can't handle anything!

A hundred or so years ago, a vast majority of this country and the world were still growing and/or killing it's own food. We now stand in front of a microwave impatiently looking at our watches. There needs to be some sort of reset on expectations again. A realization that we don't have any fucking problems. Burma has problems. Iranians have problems. Haitians, Cubans, and a myriad of other places have real problems.

If your tv says something you don't like, then turn it the fuck off. If you are rich and famous, then stop complaining, stop whoring yourself out and actually do something positive with your fame. Showing how you have positive body image doesn't fucking count. Write a large check to those that actually do real good. Salvation Army perhaps. But please, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

My Non-Fight with @EBischoff and Why We keep Losing to Democrats

So Eric Bischoff made a good comment on Twitter today which got featured on Twitchy. I went to his twitter page and saw he was making good comments on the Native Americans.

Absolutely correct. In an attempt to join the conversation (as I fancy myself as far more clever than I probably am,) I tweeted:
My point being that most of the democrats really do believe they are doing good and as Rush likes to point out, always want to be judged by their intentions. I'm also a big believer in the axiom "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." Democrats have arrogance and stupidity in spades. There certainly are malicious, power-hungry democrats (and I would at this point count Obama among them) but most lower ranking officials and low information voters are simply that: well-meaning but arrogant and stupid. Of course, this can't all be put into 140 characters.

Eric however took exception at even the hint of an excuse towards progressives and lashed out at me thusly:
Now after looking over Eric's general tweets, I think he and I see eye to eye on most issues. But the reactive nature of twitter and the "Us against Them" mentality has so permeated politics that now we can't even agree with each other correctly. Democrats have speech police, democrats have litmus tests and DEMOCRATS are the intolerant haters of the other side. If we react like them, we will never get anywhere as the media is already stacked against us. We have to take higher roads. They will revel in our in-fighting. That in-fighting has now given us John McCain and Mitt Romney.. two vanilla candidates that really wouldn't call out a progressive or say anything mean to the other side. (McCain however will rip his own side. We can see how that's turning out.)

We all know we will have minor disagreements about details. We can't get too bogged down on that or President Hillary will be laughing all the way to the White House.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Remember the IRS targeting Tea Parties Scandal? Neither Does Holder, the FBI, Obama......

Of course you are.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't plan to file criminal charges over the Internal Revenue Service’s heightened scrutiny of conservative groups, according to law-enforcement officials, a move that likely will only intensify debate over the politically charged scandal. 
The officials said investigators didn't find the kind of political bias or “enemy hunting” that would amount to a violation of criminal law. Instead, what emerged during the probe was evidence of a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules about tax-exemption applications it didn't understand, according to the law-enforcement officials… 
By its very nature, the investigation has been freighted with political suspicions. Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who has represented about a dozen groups that faced such questions by the IRS, said the FBI has yet to contact any of her clients about the issue. 
“As far as I can tell, nobody has actually done an investigation. This has been a big, bureaucratic, former-Soviet-Union-type investigation, which means that there was no investigation,” she said. “This is a deplorable abuse of the public trust, but I am not surprised.”
 What's the old saying about the fox guarding the hen house? Whatever. There is no way Eric Holder would do anything about this and this reporting isn't going to change that. So this investigation goes dark.

Obamcare's Newest Challenge: Getting S**t Unf**ked.

Brilliant. I actually do a lot of work in my real world job with Accenture and they are a pretty solid organization. So I think the ad, while parody, is accurate. Unfortunately the best thing that could happen to conservatives is that sh*t stays f**cked. Also while Accenture is good, they have no idea what they are in for. No one f**cks sh*t up like the government.

Monday, January 13, 2014

So Is Obama's Platform Just a Big Middle Finger to the US Citizenry at This Point?

Let me understand this, Obama decides that a guy who defended a cop killer is the best guy to pick for Civil Rights division of the DOJ? I suppose there could be a case for a guy like this but really, this guy he defended is a cop killer. He defended him by choice. "Tragic loss of Faulkner" Debo says of the murder of the cop. Really? Tragedy is a terrible thing that just happened. Murder is an evil act. Do you not know the difference? Wait, he's a leftist. Of course he doesn't know the difference.

I understand that someone has to defend the bad guy. But do you have to go to rallies supporting him?

I mean why is the left always supporting the shittiest among us? This asshole is who you hang your hat on? Good luck with that. I'm hopeful that this is one more nail in the leftist ideological coffin.

A Game that will Change Your Perceptions


It's all about "forced perspective." Something that looks small because it's in the distance or big because it's very close. Changing the perspective can create interesting puzzles. I was lamenting the lack of originality, well I'm more than happy to identify it when I run across it.

Friday, January 10, 2014

There is no such thing as "Trickle-down Economics!"

The only plausible trickle-down theory

From Thomas Sowell:
New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people "on the far right" who "continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics." According to Mayor de Blasio, "They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else." 
If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender. 
While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them. 
Mayor de Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called "an economic philosophy" which "says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." 
Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.
We as conservatives have tried to defend the idea of trickle down economics but the truth is we've been manipulated into trying to defend something that doesn't really exist. Sowell's point is that the high taxes we push hurt the economy. By reducing the amount of money we take from people, particularly the high-income earners, the left has successfully misrepresented that as "giving more to the rich."

Giving something to someone involves a net gain to that person. I have 100 dollars. You give me 5 dollars, I now have 105 dollars. That's giving something to someone. When government taxes 20 dollars from my 100 dollars, I have 80 dollars. Let's say they decide to reduce the tax rate to 10 dollars so instead of 80 dollars, I have 90 dollars. Did they "give" me anything or just decide not to take as much? What we say is that since I have a bit more left after the government took theirs, I can spur more economic activity. The left has twisted this idea into something they call "trickle down economics" whereby I am given more by the government--in their definition-- because they didn't take as much as they would have.

And we fell for it. The idea is sound but the trickle-down theory is non-existent. A buzzword they defined and successfully got us to try to defend. We should be turning it back on them: Why do you insist on taking more from people, especially when all you do is waste it? It's always about not giving the govenment more, it's ALWAYS about the left losing money and losing power.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Reality and Fantasy and Why I am So Bored

So Han and I carpool together most mornings being that we work about 60+ miles away from our respective homes. With an hour or so to kill, we tend to get into lengthy conversations. Both of us have a passion for pop-culture entertainment and movies in particular. I was lamenting that looking at the upcoming release schedule, very little was getting me excited. Most everything that comes out is some sort of adaptation of something that came before, be it a comic book movie, a sequel, a remake or whatever. It is rare to be original.

Is this anything new? I'm not certain but I look at my childhood and I see such iconic characters being created from Captain Kirk and the various imagery from Star Trek, to Star Wars, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, John McClane, TRON, Alien, Predator, Superman (Christopher Reeve), and probably many others I'm forgetting. Lots of TV too has stuck with us as well. What's iconic these days? Jack Sparrow perhaps but really, what will resonate decades later the way Star Wars did?

There is so much being thrown at us these days, I have to wonder if perhaps the talent pool is being spread too thin. For every Breaking Bad, there are 20 Honey BooBoos. And that brings us to the reality tv boom.

If you're like me, you hate reality tv. But why? It's fake, it's not really "reality." Well neither is film. No movie is real either. So why do we accept the movies but not reality tv? Many, many people love reality tv and accept what they see. I believe that movies (not all movies, but most movies) come from a place of sincerity. The emotions on the screen are real to the characters but faked by the actors. But a reality is created within the framework of the movie that reflects the emotions of those who wrote it. This is called art.

Reality TV's character's emotions are in fact real. (Again, not all but) I believe most people on a reality tv show are really feeling what they are showing on the screen. But the situation they willingly put themselves in is crass exploitation. There is nothing sincere about the situation but because the emotions are real, people fall for it as reality. I find the manipulation offensive. It's also incredibly fucking cheap.

Sports are the original reality tv show as the situation (a football game) is not real but a situation set up by owners for the players to compete in. Winning and losing creates real emotions in the athletes, as opposed to a movie about a football game where none of the actors really care about winning the game. Sports is well defined and the activity is not a life decision like the Bachelor or MTV's "16 and Pregnant."

Now a sports movie is telling a story and the characters in that movie do feel emotions in the reality of the story. In actual reality, the audience feels the emotions of the characters. That's what art is supposed to do, generate an emotion. The actors don't really feel the thrill of victory, the characters do and then we do by watching the story unfold.

Reality TV is us being voyeurs to other people's lives. People who put out their emotions for everyone to see, things that should be private and mean something more than entertainment for the masses. This is the dictionary definition of pornography.

The Bachelor puts 25 ladies in a room to fight over one man and we get to watch every bit of the courtship in contrived settings. Some ladies are picked by the producers to create drama. Some are really hoping to find love. This is not for our entertainment and yet there it is, for all of us to peek in on and giggle.

Again, the emotions of these people are REAL, but the situation is manufactured and it appears that it is supposed to tell a story like real art does. But we don't interpret anything, we just are peeping Tom's into their lives. People confuse the emotions they are seeing on the screen with actual drama with sincere writing, characters, and plotting. I hope that people will wise up but I doubt it.

So I look into the future and I see a dearth of talent and movie studios with no guts to take chances on stories that need the big budget but have no preconceptions or familiarity. Avengers, Iron Man, Star Trek, all properties we know about. But creating something new and iconic? The writers are all spread out amongst 2,376 tv shows and internet videos. The studios seem to latch on to proven winners and all we get retreads in the theaters and reality garbage on TV. It's depressing.

And I am so bored.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Candace Cameron Bure Creates Controversy... because it says so in the story

Oppression, apparently.
Not because I can actually find any controversy. According to the Wonderwall, Candace Cameron Bure has a marriage that seems to work for her and she's happy with it.
In her book, the former child star wrote, "My husband is a natural-born leader. I quickly learned that I had to find a way of honoring his take-charge personality and not get frustrated about his desire to have the final decision on just about everything. I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work."
So I guess this is controversial even though the only stories I could find was people reporting what she said and telling us how it was controversial. No one seemed to call her out on it but the story is consistently reported as her "defending" her views. Because obviously. She's a nut and she knows she's outside the mainstream and needs to defend her life. She has to justify it because eyebrow raising reporters writing the story were displeased.

But I can't find outrage. She isn't saying what people SHOULD do, she's saying what SHE does. That's it. It needs no defense. There is no controversy in her choice of life. It is reporters who are telling us there is a controversy. That she "defended" her choice because WE ALL KNOW that it's indefensible. I looked up and down google and could find this story reported ad nauseam with the same tone: Weirdo Candace Cameron Bure has become a weak minded mormon who only does whatever her wife beating husband tells her to do. She's a 50's throwback or something. Take this quote to start the story:
In Candace Cameron Bure's household, her husband is the one in charge.
Is that what she said? Does it mean she gets nothing and is a slave? Perez Hilton believes so.
 The actress has been married for 17 years to hockey player Val Bure and she's kept her love alive because she "submits" to his will. 
She insists: "I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work." 
Sooooo you just always listen to what your husband says? That's the key to a happy marriage?!?!
Well yeah Perez. But she also has a husband that listens to what she says. She has a 17 year marriage still going strong. She's happy. But not the way Perez and the rest of the left approve of. So she must be ostracized, ridiculed and missrepresented. No surprise there. She is doing movies, she's doing interviews, she appears to be outspoken, she wrote a book... where is the submissiveness interfering with her life exactly? Where is her husband keeping her from doing anything she wants to do?

She has a strong core set of values, strong beliefs and they sustain her. Take Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears, and the rest of the train wrecks that are working their way towards cautionary tale. What right does anyone have to look down on Cameron-Bure exactly? For having a good, strong life?

Maybe the leftists need to get one.

Monday, January 6, 2014

#Chiefs break my heart... again.

Man oh man. The Chiefs can be summed up thusly: As soon as I start to buy in, as soon as I start to believe, they will figure out how to lose and break my heart in the most painful way possible. That's called being a Chiefs fan.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Happy New Year! *Cough cough cough*

Well on Saturday I started to get a tickle in my throat and by Monday I had 101 degree fever. Consider also that my normal temp is not the boilerplate 98.6 but rather a cool 97.8, getting up to 99 degrees is like most people getting to a hundred. So when I break a hundred degree fever, needless to say I'm not dancing to the tune "Hot Blooded." I'm a delirious wreck. Fortunately I was able to get to the clinic before Jan 1 so I got to use my insurance one last time as Blue Cross and my employer intended. I've resolved to never get sick again. I also plan to live forever but one step at a time.

Han posted his first post and damn it's a good one. I love me a good burn to another arrogant liberal gasbag. Let him know he's doing good. As for this year, I hope to break this blog out to the conservative mainstream and hopefully add two more voices to enact some change in this country. Whatever we can do change some minds out there, we will continue no matter what. Thanks to all of you (ok both of you) regular readers and please comment or issue feedback. I do plan to renovate the page a bit and I will probably get a real domain name. Keep reading and here's to the total collapse of liberalism in 2014!