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 Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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!