I’m torn as to which part of this story is funnier. The main portion of the story features a bunch of leftists hyperventilating; if I were to combine the comments of the various interest groups into a single image, it would be Rick Perry handing out guns, bought with secret corporate contributions, to the men of Texas and telling them to shoot their women when they are unclean according to the laws of Leviticus. If that’s not funny enough, though, the story ends with Ed Koch pointing out that his litmus test for who to support for the presidency is whether a candidate believes in evolution. Never mind that Perry hasn’t said he doesn’t believe in evolution; it’s the irrelevancy that gets me. Imagine a creationist announcing that he won’t vote for a candidate who does believe in evolution, and I suspect the humor will get to you.
At any rate, Politico does a better-than-expected job of getting a small amount of truth into this story. Like the caption for the picture pointing out that ”The epidemic of liberal angst isn’t just a matter of specific Rick Perry policies.” No, it’s a matter of identity politics for the self-identified intellectuals. And where the story points out that the number of executions has actually decreased under Perry. The story would have been more truthful if it had pointed out that the number of executions has almost nothing to do with the governor (he doesn’t pass the sentences or schedule the executions, and he couldn’t stop them if he wanted to), but that level of truth might have overwhelmed the humor value of the story.
Added: Also worth checking out for unsupported Perryphobia is this Dana Milbank column in which he brands Perry a “theocrat” because Perry has strongly held religious beliefs. Missing from the column is, as best I can tell, any example of Perry attempting to use law to enforce religion, which would seem to be essential to theocracy. The title of the column is “Perry is no libertarian,” but as best I can tell there’s only one comment in the column that is inconsistent with being a libertarian (the bit about the pledge of allegience, but that quote has the ring of being taken out of context). Milbank seems to be working off the assumption that libertarians don’t abide by morality, advocate that others abide by morality, or believe in a religion. Libertarians can do all of those things, they just don’t want to use force to coerce others into doing those things. The article might more correctly be titled, “Perry is no libertine.”
Apollo posted this at 11:25 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Kulturkampf
9 Comments »
Sady Doyle’s review of George R. R. Martin’s fantasy epic, A Song of Ice and Fire — whose first volume, Game of Thrones, was recently adapted for television by HBO — is a classic example of literary criticism done badly: i.e., it says little about the work being reviewed and much about the reviewer.
Doyle’s thrust is that Martin is a raging sexist whose female characters are imprisoned by male conceptions of the proper role for women while being under the constant threat of gang rape, all for our entertainment; in short, J.R.R. Tolkien with Joe Francis’s aesthetics. Martin’s fans (male) fans devour the misogyny and mayhem with neither examination nor scruple.
To be sure, the people of Martin’s Westeros do have traditional gender roles for women. These women are, moreover, the victims of a nearly endless series physical and sexual assaults, which Doyle summarizes at length. The summaries are – in fairness to Doyle – quite funny in how they undercut Martin’s penchant for melodrama. For instance, her summary of Lady Catelyn Stark, a very serious and important character in the series, begins:
Meet Catelyn! She’s a dutiful, obedient wife and mother. Also, her husband is the hero. She will, therefore, be a sympathetic figure. Catelyn’s an all-around swell gal, and seems pretty sharp and competent, too, except when she is (a) getting all hysterical and non-functional because [of] HER CHILDREN, (b) stupidly kidnapping members of the royal family on a whim because HER CHILDREN, and (c) being a total bitchface to Ned’s illegitimate son because he is not HER CHILDREN.
Taken out of context like this, one can make a seemingly-persuasive case that Martin has issues with women. But as Alyssa Rosenberg argues at ThinkProgress, this analysis fails because it assumes 1) that Martin’s description of such a society is an implicit endorsement of it, 2) that his readers are incapable of rudimentary moral examination, and 3) that there is no literary value for writing about characters struggling against (or within) their society’s expectations, to say nothing of their own identities.
It fails for another reason as well, one Rosenberg either missed or left out entirely: that any society with strict gender roles for women is fated to have reciprocally restrictive ones for men. Indeed, armed with a perspective equally myopic to Doyle’s, male characters fare no better than the women (spoilers ahead): Read the rest of this entry »
Tom posted this at 7:49 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 as Belles Lettres, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Nerdom
1 Comment »
Look, Lucas. I took it when you put giant CG lizards in the middle of EVERYTHING in your Star Wars Reissues. I have learned to live with Han Shooting First (although why you would want to ruin the greatest character in cinema history is beyond me.) I have even learned to suppress my bile knowing that you replaced Anakin at the end of Return of the Jedi with a complete douchenozzle.
This is a BRIDGE TOO FAR (btw Lucas, David Lean knew how to make epics, you make crap):
Lucas had promised that fans would have a few new details here and there to notice in his newly remastered HD versions of his classic trilogy — and now the first details are leaking out. And fans are not happy. Some of the fans have gotten hold of the Blu-ray footage, and they’re dissecting it at TheForce.net, the Blu-Ray.com forums and the DVDTalk forums. And a couple of changes to the soundtrack have already become apparent, at least if some recent leaks are to be believed.
Most notably, “Vader now screams NOOOOOOOO when he throws the Emperor” in Return of the Jedi. And it sounds, quite frankly, kind of silly. Check out an mp3 of the new sound effect.
Kids, please look away from the blog.
FUCK YOU, LUCAS.
Jamie posted this at 5:44 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 as Film Rants
2 Comments »
Dick Cheney’s book is bringing out all the characters we knew and loved from 2000-2008. Here’s Colin Powell, who is declining to endorse Obama’s reelction so early in the campaign.
Powell, the nation’s first African-American secretary of state, praised Obama’s leadership style in 2008 in endorsing him, saying shortly before the election that Obama “has a definite way of doing business that will serve us well.” He also said at the time that he didn’t think the GOP vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, was “ready” to be president.
Leave aside the judgment of whether Obama’s “way of doing business” has, in fact, served us well; I guess anyone can misjudge character during an election cycle (and, let’s face it, it’s hard to argue that John McCain’s “way of doing business” was obviously better in 2008.
No, this reminds me of how all the Respectable Types in 2008 knew that the defining issue of the election was, “Is Sarah Palin ready to be President?” Three years later, I think we can all look back and thank God above that we didn’t elect a vice president who uses divisive rhetoric, is a laughing stock whenever speaking in public, has a difficult time discussing matters with people of different opinions, hasn’t the slightest understanding of economics, fails to garner respect among our enemies, is so stupid as to not to know left from right, is used by the president as an identity politics tool to pander to middle-class rubes who are too dumb to understand reality, constantly needs media allies to cover up gaffes, or just generally makes a mess of things whenever speaking.
Yes, I’m glad so many Respectable Types saved us in 2008 from having a Vice President who wasn’t ready to be President. I anxiously await Colin Powell’s endorsement for 2012.
Apollo posted this at 5:40 PM CDT on Sunday, August 28th, 2011 as CHANGE!, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
No Comments »
So I read this hilarious David Brooks column. Without saying as much, Brooks seems utterly horrified at Rick Perry. Personally, I don’t care what David Brooks thinks; the Republicans could nominate David Brooks and he’d still find an excuse to write a preening column endorsing Obama one week before the election.
But he concludes with a thought, variations of which I’ve seen a few times:
The second line of attack [for Romney] is to shift what the campaign is about. If voters think Nancy Pelosi is the biggest threat to their children’s prosperity, they will hire Perry. If they think competition from Chinese and Indian workers is the biggest threat, they will hire Romney. He’s just more credible as someone who can manage economic problems, build human capital and nurture an innovation-based global economy.
Huh? Why would he seem more credible at that? Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for ten years, during which it has grown by 4.3 million people (20%); in the last 10 years (only 4 of which involved Mitt Romney), Massachusetts grew by about 200,000 people (3.1%). Texas gained 4 congressional seats; Massachusetts lost 1 (last time Massachusetts gained a seat? 1910). Under Rick Perry, Texas has gone from worse than Massachusetts in unemployment, to about the same (all while absorbing a new population of 4.3 million; it has taken Massachusetts since 1890 to add 4.3 million residents to its population). Go here and poke around; in 2000, per capita GDP in Texas was 81.8% that of Massachusetts, and in 2010 it’s 83% (in 1990, it was 84%, so Texas lossed ground to Massachusetts during the 90s, then gained on Massachusetts during the Perry years, 4 of which overlapped with the Romney years).
I don’t want to turn this into bash Massachusetts time; plainly that’s not my intention. By any number of measurement it’s a nicer place than Texas (divorce rate, illegitimacy, literacy, personal income, summer weather). But Brooks (and some others I’ve seen but ignored) specifically asked who is more credible at “manag[ing] economic problems, build[ing] human capital[,] and nurtur[ing] an innovation-based … economy.” Perry has done just that in Texas; during the current downturn, the strength of the Texas economy that Perry has presided over has caused the state to really stand out. Romney was governor of Massachusetts for four years, during which … well, I guess it was a fine enough state to live in, but I don’t remember stories about the booming Massachusetts economy, or Massachusetts doing markedly better than other states, or Massachusetts being the place to move,the sorts of stories we’ve seen about Texas for most of the last decade.
So looking at their track records, why would Brooks so flippantly assert that Romney’s “just more credible” on this front? Beats me. My presumption is that there is a subset of respectable Republicanish types who view any believing Christian from south of Mason & Dixon as nothing more than a backwoods culture warrior. I’m already seeing Perry being painted in this way, but I don’t get the impression that’s how he’s running his campaign (notice Jonah’s article doesn’t really show any examples of Perry picking these fights). He’s got a genuinely excellent record of achievement in public office to run on – better than any Republican nominee’s since, at least, Reagan – and I’d prefer to see the northeastern snoots at least pretend to address that before blowing him off as some bumpkin who’s unfit to carry Mitt Romney’s sandals.
Apollo posted this at 10:22 PM CDT on Friday, August 26th, 2011 as Deep in the Heart of Texas, Is It 2012 Yet?, Journalism, Wicked Crazy Massachusetts
1 Comment »
In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I have not worked for an intelligence agency and that my interest in the subject is that of an amateur. Since I live in DC, I’ve met a few veterans of intelligence agencies and some current employees of them, though we (obviously) don’t talk shop. My thoughts are therefore worth rather little, but since you’re getting them for free, you’re getting what you pay for.
Advocatus Diaboli has asked, “What is wrong with Western Intelligence services?” He has answered his own question thus: “The playbook of intelligence is outdated and no amount of revision, short of an almost total rewrite, can fix it. The culprit is technological progress, as is often the case.”
Advocatus Diaboli (henceforth AD) argues that we’re getting swamped under with data and that signals intelligence (SIGINT) is becoming useless and our playbook is dated. He’s partially right. SIGINT is indeed problematic, but the correct playbook is older and more difficult to use than AD seems to realize. That playbook was found difficult, and Western Intelligence agencies attempted to abridge it with SIGINT. To understand what the playbook calls for, and why it’s a miserably hard slog, we need to ask a few questions about intelligence and what we’re trying to do with it.
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM INFORMATION?
“Information” is just the facts. That the Japanese fleet was moving towards Pearl Harbor was a fact that the U.S. Government knew about before December 7, 1941. (Indeed, that’s why the aircraft carriers stationed there had been moved safely out of the way and weren’t damaged.)
“Intelligence” is an interpretation of the facts. The Office of Naval Intelligence expected sabotage to come first and expected that Japan would declare war before actually launching an attack. They had the right information and the wrong intelligence.
HOW DOES THIS TIE INTO TODAY’S INTELLIGENCE WARS?
The information we need is out there. Unfortunately, the relevant information was also out there in 1941. For intelligence agencies, the first step towards heading off a fiasco is to see the world through their enemies’ eyes. G.K. Chesterton summarized this in The Man Who Was Thursday:
“The work of the philosophical policeman,” replied the man in blue, “is at once bolder and more subtle than that of the ordinary detective. The ordinary detective goes to pot-houses to arrest thieves; we go to artistic tea-parties to detect pessimists. The ordinary detective discovers from a ledger or a diary that a crime has been committed. We discover from a book of sonnets that a crime will be committed. We have to trace the origin of those dreadful thoughts that drive men on at last to intellectual fanaticism and intellectual crime.”
It comes down to a seemingly paradoxical phrase, Applied Philosophy. People attempt to desanguinate philosophy when they push it as angels dancing on pins, but philosophy comes back in a sanguinary way when grenade pins are pulled. Understanding someone else’s philosophy is a difficult thing, particularly for people who don’t have much of one themselves. But that is precisely what the old intelligence playbook called for: seeing ourselves through our enemies’ eyes. That was difficult, and SIGINT was an attempted short cut that worked.
During World War II and the Cold War, much of the militarily important data was sent electronically by both sides, so cracking passwords and deciphering codes could substitute for outthinking the Japanese and Germans and later the Soviets. But the sheer volume of data is making this dicey. There will be a place for SIGINT, but only if we know what we’re looking for. Which is where Chesterton’s insight comes in.
In Chesterton’s day, the terrorists were the anarchists, who assassinated (among others) President William McKinley and Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The key to preventing their crimes, which eventually lead to wars, was to understand them and head them off. He published The Man Who Was Thursday over a century ago, and the intelligence playbook hasn’t changed much since then. AD is right that our abridgement isn’t working any more. But we don’t need a new playbook; we need, so to speak, to go old school.
Hubbard posted this at 2:42 PM CDT on Thursday, August 25th, 2011 as Walking the Cat Backwards
No Comments »
Proposition: If bombing Libya was to “protect U.S. national security interests,” something the president has the inherent authority to do, there is no regime in the world – friend or foe – that is protected from our president, whoever he might be.
Second Proposition: While Yoo says that “One can argue over the costs, or about the benefits of any individual intervention,” one will always be called names by John Yoo if one argues over the costs and benefits of any individual intervention. Because if he will call you an “isolationist” for not wanting to intervene in a civil war against a cooperative tyrant, there is no foreign conflict in which one can oppose intervention without being an “isolationist.”
Third Proposition: If I can fit into Yoo’s definition of an “isolationist,” at least three-quarters of the American people are “isolationists.” I’m such an “isolationist,” I was supporting the Iraq war before it started and through its darkest months, and supported the Iraq and Afghanistan surges (and believed the fatal flaw in the latter was the president’s call for a timed withdrawal). I hung a 6′ x 6′ sign on my 8th floor dorm window in Februrary 2003 that read simply “WAR NOW.” Indeed, I’m not sure one could be more interventionist than me while still being able to draw lines between places where we should and shouldn’t intervene. Yet Yoo thinks I’m an “isolationist.”
Fourth Proposition: After reviewing the prior three propositions, it’s time to reduce our military budget. The easiest way to prevent future presidents from going egomaniacal in their foreign interventions, and also to reduce our deficit at the same time, is to give future presidents fewer military resources.
Apollo posted this at 8:42 PM CDT on Monday, August 22nd, 2011 as Politics, To the Shores of Tripoli
3 Comments »
This seems to have the makings of a genuine cluster. We will make far worse allies to the rebels than they anticipate, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see us abruptly turn on them if they start with the slaughter and the mayhem.
There will be [at least] three categories of losers at the end of this – whenever the end comes. 1. The losing side (Gadaffi or the rebels); 2. the Libyan people; 3. Western taxpayers, whose wealth has been used to rain missiles on the Libyan people. Had we not gotten involved, loser 3 wouldn’t even be involved, and loser 2 would have been spared a half year (at least) of civil war.
Apollo posted this at 11:08 PM CDT on Thursday, August 18th, 2011 as To the Shores of Tripoli
2 Comments »
It’s like no one reads Science Fiction anymore.
If you need me I’ll be underground with John Connor, Apollo and Starbuck.
Jamie posted this at 3:10 PM CDT on Thursday, August 18th, 2011 as Toaster Update
No Comments »
Of course they’re on his side, but this story makes me wonder how much. I noted a few of days ago that the Obama people were starting to lie about what Rick Perry said about secession. The story I linked above shows they’re continuing this tactic:
“The statements that Perry makes are remarkable in that just two years ago, the governor of Texas openly talked about leading Texas out of the United States of America, and now this campaign has caused him to profess his love to the United States,” Gibbs said during an appearance on MSNBC.
I presumed these lies would continue uncorrected until Perry had to make a statement or something. But there, in an AP story, appears the following:
Perry never advocated Texas actually would break away from the United States at a tea party rally in 2009, but he did suggest that Texans might get so fed up they’d want to secede at some point.
Holy smokes. Journalists correcting the open and scurrilous lies of the Obama reelection effort, and so early in the campaign. I do not believe Obama can count on the same level of media cheerleading he got last time, and I don’t think he will know how to handle that situation.
P.S. If you believe Robert Gibbs capable of sincerity, it would be ironic to see him making the flippant accusation, ““Any day now Rick Perry will probably ask to see the president’s birth certificate.” It would be ironic, because the Obama people said the birth certificate thing was a baseless, made-up smear, and here’s Robert Gibbs using it as a baseless, made-up smear against others; as far as I know, Perry’s never said peep about the matter.
Prediction: Before this is over we will hear Democrats openly stating that they regret that Obama caved to Trump on the birth certificate. The president sprang the trap too early – had he held on to it until, say, September, he could have gotten a lot more Republicans to say goofy things about it.
9/18 Update: The people at PolitiFact rate the White House’s secession meme as “False.” I’m not a fan of PolitiFact, and, judging by their past work, would have expected them to find some glint of truth in the allegation. Bully for them, and a bad omen for the president.
Apollo posted this at 6:53 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Journalism, Running with the antelope, Scorched Earth
No Comments »
Better question: Does this actually surprise anyone? There are exactly two types of people in this country: 1. The type who see an edited video of a thrice elected governor of the second largest state referring to the first black president as a “black cloud” hanging over the country and presume that the video has been dishonestly edited and interpreted; and 2. The type who watch MSNBC. I suspect there are more of the former than the latter.
I’ll answer my original question now: Because no one with both talent and integrity would show their face on that channel.
Apollo posted this at 12:13 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Journalism, Scorched Earth
No Comments »
Following on our earlier discussion, Pauper alumnus Conor took some time to dig into Perry’s book, Fed-up!, today:
Here’s what I’ve found after further digging: if you care about federalism, Perry isn’t to be trusted. That is the only conclusion to draw after reviewing his lengthy, impassioned treatment of the subject in Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Its passages, juxtaposed with Perry’s recent actions, represent a betrayal of principle far more stark than I realized before reading the book. Its account of why federalism matters is anything but legalistic. And a man who intended to stand behind its contents would never support a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriage in all states, imposing a traditional definition even on places like New York, where a duly elected legislature has already passed gay marriage.
The passages he cites makes it clear that, as of last year (if not last month) Perry preferred a federalist system that allowed different states to define marriage however they pleased. This cannot be squared with an endorsement of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which defines marriage as monogamous and heterosexual both at the state and at the federal level. From the 2004 version:
Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
There are only two possibilities:
- Perry lied, either in his book or in his recent statements;
- Perry has no flipping idea what the FMA is.
Though I’m fairly cynical when it comes to politicians — it’s a cynical business after all — there’s a non-zero chance that Perry is confusing terms. More specifically, his recent statements on the matter have called for a “Federal Marriage Amendment” in terms that sound more like a constitutional amendment version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Despite the similar names, the two are completely different: the FMA strips citizens of the right to define marriage in their own state; the latter would protect them from being bound by the decisions of citizens of other states. In short, the FMA is an affront to the values of Fed-Up; a DOMA Amendment would embody it.
Taking a closer look at Perry’s exchange with Tony Perkins, it’s amazing how confused the conversation is. I’ve highlighted FMA-like statements in red, DOMA-like ones in blue, and ambiguous ones in black:
TONY PERKINS: You said that, “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said that marriage can be between two people of the same sex and you know what that is New York and that is their business and that is fine with me, that is their call. If you believe in the tenth amendment, stay out of their business”.
GOV. PERRY: Let me just, I probably needed to add a few words after “that’s fine with me” its fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me, my stance had not changed. I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
TONY PERKINS: Governor, we are about out of time but I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think I hear what you are saying. The support given what’s happening across the nation, the fear of the courts, the administration’s failure to defend the defense of marriage act.
The only and thin line of protection for those states that have defined marriage, that have been historically been defined between a man and a woman. The support of a marriage amendment is a pro-state’s rights position, because it will defend the rights of states to define marriage as it has been.
GOV. PERRY: Yes sir, and I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment. That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. It respects the rights of the state by requiring three quarters of a states vote to ratify. It’s really strong medicine but is again our founding fathers had such great wisdom and their wisdom is just as clear and profound today as it was back in the late eighteenth century.
Honestly, I can’t tell what to make of this conversation; seriously, I’ve no idea. But whatever it is, Perry needs to clarify his position immediately so he can concentrate on more pressing matters.
Fingers crossed, Rick.
Tom posted this at 2:05 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 16th, 2011 as Kulturkampf, Politics and the English Language, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
2 Comments »
…this story should assuage them. The New York Times devoted 1300 words on the front page to try to explain the administration’s strategy on the economy, and I can sum up the story with 4: “They ain’t got one.”
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
“Bigger ideas,” like futzing with the tax code to provide some temporary incentives? That‘s their big idea? Also, they want to launch the umpteenth effort to keep people living in houses they can’t afford. Fantastic.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House director of communications, said that there was no internal debate. “The president’s first priority is to work with Republicans and Democrats to grow the economy, create jobs and reduce the deficit, but if the Republican House continues its ‘my way or the highway’ approach, he will make sure the public knows who is standing in the way and why.”
So they’ll engage in some snivelling and complaining that the other party has principles. Sounds like a winner!
Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes, housing policy and other issues.
Yes, if I were them I would also conclude that the best thing that could be done for the economy would be to give me my way on everything. Though if I were them, then they would just question my patriotism for having such a thought.
Mr. Obama plans to spend time this weekend considering his options, advisers said. The White House expects to unveil new job-creation proposals in early September.
A mere 33 months after taking office, and not even at the end of our second Recovery Summer, and they’re already going to propose a plan! Why the rush?
Republicans contend that the Obama administration has mismanaged the nation’s recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. Mr. Obama’s political advisers are struggling to define a response, aware that their prospects may rest on persuading voters that the results of the first term matter less than the contrast between their vision for the next four years and the alternative economic ideas offered by Republicans.
Obama-Biden 2012: If You Think We’re Bad, Imagine How Awful Things Would Be Under President Satan!™
“If you’re talking about a stunt, I don’t think a stunt is what the American people are looking for,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters on Wednesday.
The story then proceeds to discuss such non-stunts as (I’m not making this up) creating a “Department of Jobs” or “Department of Competitiveness” and giving tax breaks to companies that hire disabled veterans.
I’ll spare you the rest, because it’s just meaningless blather that seems disconnected from reality (evidently the White House believes “paying down the debt” will be popular; what substances would the government need to legalize in order to get people high enough to believe that talking about reducing the annual deficit from 13 to 12 digits was “paying down the debt”?). Their plan boils down to the president trying to convince people of things, and we all know how well that’s worked out for them in the past. The unstated message of the story: Curtain-makers should start previewing fabrics to the Republican candidates.
Apollo posted this at 3:04 PM CDT on Monday, August 15th, 2011 as An Insult to Drunken Sailors, Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods
No Comments »
Below is a picture that caused my blood to boil:
Yes, your eyes don’t deceive you. That is George Lucas on the set of one movie that took a dump on my childhood, wearing a t-shirt celebrating a horrible thing he did to another great movie from my childhood, which he sells for a profit on his website.
Screw you, Mr. Lucas. Screw you very much.
Jamie posted this at 12:03 PM CDT on Monday, August 15th, 2011 as Film Rants, Nerdom
2 Comments »
Every time I see her give an extended interview, like here, I come away thinking better of her. Of course, every time I see David Gregory do an extended interview I want to see his hair catch on fire. I suspect I’d think better of Kim Jong-Il after watching him be subjected to a half hour of David Gregory’s personal obsession with proving that he’s smarter than you.
Apollo posted this at 11:32 AM CDT on Sunday, August 14th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?, Journalism
No Comments »