More Stranger Things!

More Stranger Things!

Like Stranger Things? Well, check out my novel "Glyphics"!

The world's greatest novel! (Excluding 50 Shades.)

Unnecessary movie sequel!

https://youtu.be/-ziu6JzJTZ0

Grab life by the pussy! (Endorsement for 2016 Presidential campaign.)

It is all out there. Donald Trump's popularity among women is now about as high as mine was in college. The man vowed that if given the Republican nomination, he would be the "most politically correct" candidate. We never saw that. Giving him the nomination has only made him worse--worse on every possible level. The man's known sins were already out there. But making him the nominee has only brought to surface more since, including the "bus tape" with Access Hollywood's Billy Bush.

VP candidate Mike Pence's brain seems to have been broken by this tape. The breaking point was Trump saying he likes attractive women--how is this different from Bill Clinton? Unlike Bill Clinton--who kept denying everything--Trump was advocating sexual harassment. And that is too much. (Meanwhile, it was not a long time ago. I still have underwear from 2005. Elastic is still great.) Republicans are packing up for 2020. Billy Bush has ruined another life.

Some women are more attractive than other women. Of all the things that have been undoing Trump's bizarre presidential campaign that pointing this out would be what ends it is deeply ironic. Alicia Machado was a beauty queen; she was not supposed to be gaining weight that year. Because, like I said, she was literally a beauty queen. It's 90 percent bikini contest. In the entertainment industry, you're selling an image of a woman, not an actual woman. (Selling an actual woman would be white slavery.) Clinton nailed the anti-Latino and the anti-women checkboxes by bringing her up--let's not kid ourselves as to what she was doing during the debates. Live with that, feminazis.

Donald Trump was never going to win. He'd failed on every barometer in which we measure Presidential candidates except for being a rich white guy. Still, Trump's defense for his past and current statements includes claiming his golf buddy Bill Clinton has said worst things about women. Let's stop and consider that: His defense is that he plays golf with men who are more terrible than he is. (Also, Trump's accusers aren't even that hot, so why would he sexually harass them? Trump's defense for sexual harassment includes more sexual harassment.) This is a little incredible.... Because women love it when you try to tie them to their husbands' worst behavior. Really it's like Trump has never spoken to a woman.

Trump isn't entirely wrong. Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harassment multiple times--and he did commit sexual harassment by receiving "sex" from that intern--and he is now our greatest living President. FDR had affairs. JFK banged an intern. Thomas Jefferson RAPED A SLAVE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has apparently always been faithful to Michelle, and his presidential successes include a healthcare program that most Americans don't want and congratulating Caitlyn Jenner on calling himself a woman. Perhaps we should not gauge a man's intelligence or leadership ability based on whether he's made women uncomfortable.

Trump's success has been based on, well, family money.... Then luck.... Then by seizing business opportunities when he discovers them. You're not going to get laid standing in a corner waiting for it. Nice guys finish last. You must grab life by the pussy. When you don't grab life by the pussy, you end up a 34-year-old blogger who still lives with his mother--like this guy I knew from high school.

You shouldn't not vote for Trump because he likes attractive women. You shouldn't not vote for Trump because of the rumors of sexual harrasement--some decades old. You should not not vote for Trump because he used the term "nasty woman." You should not vote for Trump because he's unqualified for the most important job in the world. Trump makes George W. Bush look like an elder statesman, bring class and dignity wherever he went. Trump has shown himself to be a pathological liar--and a man who's mental state has led to major newspapers endorsing a Democrat for the first time. Some people do not belong in the boardroom. Whether we want to hire this person, we should just ignore gender and acknowledge that a person cannot do this job. This is not discrimination. This is common sense.

If women want to exist in the political realm, they have to accept these petty personal attacks--especially once they dare to attack a man's personal appearance. Trump's hair is ridiculous--we all see it--but Rosie O'Donnell was wrong to point that out. If you want to dish it out, you should also be able to take it. Although the Trump campaign lowered the bar, the Clinton campaign and their surrogates have descended into the level of high school girls' locker room experience, saying what Trump has said about women--stripped of the statements' contexts. Nasty women, indeed.

Hillary, like a true feminist, has never allowed a single man to tell her what to think. First she takes a poll of a thousand Americans, then she decides what she believes. Let it be known that a woman isn't about to win the presidency; a man is about to lose the presidency. Billie Jean King did not beat Bobby Riggs because she was objectively the world's greatest tennis player; she beat him because she was a young athlete at the top of her game, and he was a middle-aged borderline alcoholic who stopped training. King won; the female species did not. Hillary will be one of our worst Presidents. You can take bets on that. Still, it is better to have a slug beholden to the American people than a delusional with a clear-eyed vision of how he would run things.

Apple and Pixel Co-Founder Steve Jobs had what was semi-comically referred to as a "reality-distortion field." He would make an inaccurate or implausible statement so much that not only did he believe it to be true, but his belief would alter reality around him. Impossible deadlines were made. All because the boss made shit up. However Jobs actually posted results. Jobs ran successful businesses. Jobs was a billionaire. And, most importantly, Jobs never attempted to enter politics, where responsible journalists would question his bizarre behavior.

While talking about reality-distortion fields, Trump and his surrogates are claiming that the election will be rigged. As if Democrats have been behind attempts to shutdown early voting, pass voter ID laws, limit the number of polling places. In 2003, a top executive for the company that made a lions share of voting machines, Warden O'Dell, penned a letter pledging his commitment “to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President [Bush].”  (I'm not even making this up; the board chairman and chief executive of Diebold announced that they were going to help give the election to Bush in 2004. Coincidence? Probably.) Republicans controlled the presidency in 20 of the 28 years between 1980-2008. If Democrats could rig elections, why did Al Gore lose by a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000? Why did the presidency of Bush the Sequel even happen? Liberals just aren't that great at rigging elections. The exact opposite is true: If Trump wins, it will be proof that the polls are rigged. There's no indication that Trump will win. His victory will mean that math, as a concept, is wrong. I'm going to go with the likelihood that math is still correct and the Trump campaign staff are updating their CVs while rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

(Who should you vote for? It's up to you. I'm personally looking at Cobra Commander. He'll actually build that wall and bring in colorful characters into government.)

Fuck yeah! Batman!

Source: Nukethefridge.com

Sweet statutory! (Quickie)

Photo credit: Life &Style magazine

I was going to talk about the floodings in the South, but Justin Bieber just deleted his Instagram account after his Beliebers began harassing the girl whom he "likes." So I knew what I had to address.

Transporting a minor across state lines for illicit purposes is illegal. (Even with parental permission, which I assume she had, because Lionel Richie is the worst father ever. Seriously, his first daughter was a druggie.) And if Bieber isn't having sex with her right now, he will probably have sex with her in the next few weeks. Justin Bieber has become "that guy," though we all suspected that he would.

Meanwhile Selena's reaction is pretty damn weird. Her taunts seem to imply she isn't over that Canadian imp.

Because I am bored, here's a spec I wrote for "Gotham": Carroll

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4j5BZRs8exBdk04bFVONlhPZ1U/view

In show business, to show what you can write, you might write a spec for an existing show. I began this spec, called "Carroll," of the TV show Gotham back in spring 2015. Unfortunately I didn't finish it until May of 2016, having tabled it for awhile, so now it's a bit dated. It would've been the second season premiere of the Fox show. I see that the producers will be introducing the Mad Hatter in their own way in season 3, and will also feature a grown-up Ivy. (Apparently Ivy is going to age more than five years in a episode in this forthcoming season, so she will be a sexy coed with the brain of a 13-year-old. And that's not creepy at all!) Pity Clare Foley, though. Imagine being told at 14 that not only do you longer do you work here, but we'll be paying your replacement more than you!

I ended up drawing inspiration from the movie Room, but it's basically a typical story of a grown-up man-child named Jervis Tetch who abducts a young Poison Ivy, so he'll have a friend! Meanwhile, Bruce's investigation into his parents' deaths lead him to Wayne Enterprise's Applied Sciences Division.

Well, I hope you all enjoy it. And if any of you know of a position in a writer's room somewhere...hit me up! My bookies want to be paid!

This will be an episode of Law & Order: SVU.

I say Brock Turner is a rapist because he has been convicted of rape. There has been a rape trial, and the judge or jury came away with the conclusion that the accused committed rape. I'm not repeating the accusation of rape or saying Brock Turner is a rapist because I have a political agenda. (Brock Turner probably didn't perform genital-on-genital contact, so he's not a rapist in the traditional sense. Still "rapist," I agree.)

Blood has been spilled. However the character of the man who spilled it is relevant. The probation officer (a woman) suggested a light sentence. Judge Aaron Persky gave Turner six months (also he will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, meaning his traumas will also last for the rest of his life). The affluenza judge, Jean Hudson Boyd, was far worse. Whereas the male judge acknowledged that serious crime occurred, the female judge implied that it wasn't that bad. Addiction is a disease, and the accused was still a young man. Boyd left the judiciary; Persky might be forced. I might not agree with the leniency of Turner's sentence, but I understand why Persky made his decision.

What happened happen. The rapist's father can't change what happened. He was never in any position to help that woman--because he was not there, for one thing. All that is left for him to do is to protect his own kid. That's not misogyny. That's love.

We all have blindspots for the people we love. You can't control what other adults do. If any parent could control their kid's sex life, every father would superglue his daughter's legs together freshman year. If he were your son, you would rip that lying bitch a new one. You would claim she led your kid on. Maybe she's going it for money, or to get attention. And if her son did rape a woman, a caring mother would say, it probably wasn't that bad. Despite Brock Turner basically being the villain of a Law & Order: SVU episode, his father did something similar, and he became the worst man in the world.

Meanwhile, the victim--who still refuses to come forward and publically air her grievances--wrote an eloquent letter (she goes to Stanford, too) that went viral that apparently encapsulated a lot of rape victims' sentiments on their experiences. Rape shield laws are important part of sex crimes investigations and trials, but now the Internet allows people to call other people "rapist" without specifying which adults whom they allegedly raped. The victim became the best person in the world. We don't know anything about her--but she's the best person in the world. Because she was raped, and she gone through a trial, and she wrote a letter. She's now a hero.

I actually disagree that this about race so much as class. (OJ got away with it because he was rich and likable. He played the sports well.) Would a black star athlete at an elite university have been treated any differently? I will not say he would have. Liberals compare this rapist to older black men with lengthy criminal records and say this is proof of a racial disparity in our justice system. Well...no.

If a Stanford janitor had raped this woman, we wouldn't be hearing about it from the media or feminists. The woman would not have been given this level of exposure. She would be more anonymous, and he would spend years in jails.

Fact of the matter is this was his first rape. (I had my first beer in college.) He otherwise didn't have a criminal record. He was not much of a "threat to the community." The system offered him mercy, and the feminists were outraged. Liberals must choose between mandatory minimums and mercy. Welcome to Republicanism, feminists. Or we can accept that some people deserve the opportunity to do better tomorrow more than others. Some people you can finally give up on. Too much blood has been spilled.

(Edit: Apparently, Turner was a teenage boy who molested an inebriated woman near a dumpster; he didn't rape a girl after dragging her to the dumpster. Morally, we can refer to Turner as a rapist. As a practical matter, Turner didn't rape anyone.)

HorrOrlando

Very few people approved of what the folks at Pulse were doing with their personal lives, but they were all God's children, as flawed as any of His others. Extra-judicious killing is wrong. To my leftwing friends: A soldier is someone who tries to avoid civilian causalities, terrorists prefer civilian causalities. They seek out soft targets, and might plant secondary bombs to murder first responders. (Oh, and to my rightwing friends, "homicide bomber" is not a thing. It is redundant. There are only suicide bombers and bombers.)

Rightwingers want this to be an act of terrorism; leftwingers want this to be a hate crime. (See what these bathroom bills are doing to America?) In 2002, a different Muslim shot-up the terminal at LAX. America has so many mass-shootings that their motives blend together. An entirely different Muslim shot-up Ft. Hood--with rightwingers calling it Islamic terrorism and leftwingers calling it a workplace shooting. A Native American Nazi boy shot up his community. Hate crimes used to be simpler than this. Of course, we all know who did this: a scumbag.

Donald Trump, who a few days prior to this shooting addressed the NRA where he proudly boasted how much his family loves guns. He sent out a self-congratulating tweet, and he pushed for more control on Muslim migrants. Of course, the shooter was an American. He was a native-born American. He could've ran for office--any office, with the only limiter being his relatively youthful age. Again Trump has espoused a view that is not merely racist, which is an opinion, but factually wrong.

You have to think ISIS is going to regret taking credit for this attack. ISIS seems intent on taking credit for attacks in which the terrorist group didn't participate in, which makes them oddly far worse than al-Qaeda. A lot of Americans were killed, and that's good enough for the group. Still, the shooter apparently did a lot of research on the local homosexual culture. I mean, a lot of research.

Banning AR-15s are like banning trans folks from choosing which restroom that they want to use. (Assault weapons are used in less than 2% of murders in America; Americans have a better chance of being assaulted by a trans person than murdered with an assault weapon.) These are symbolic measures meant to appease voters, and shouldn't be taken seriously as a threat to anyone's Constitutional rights, whether real or imaginary. They are meant to make the voters feel more comfortable--same reason why I don't sniff white women on the elevator. Social conservatives want to tell trans folks: no. No, we will not have men in the ladies' room. This is wrong. The police agencies of North Carolina don't care to enforce this law--and they have said they're not interested in enforcing it. It's the equivalent of jaywalking, where you have to be particularly blazon about it to be cited. Bathroom bills will not mean that trans men will have to go out back; bathroom bills will force trans men to complete their business and leave without having to make conversation with the women there. Assault weapon bans will allow murderers to use ANY OTHER GUN AVAILABLE to murder. Social liberals want to show that they are making efforts to end murder. Just as the feds are interfering with the locals' desire to regulate, locals will try to interfere with the fed's right to regulate.

The inescapable fact is that American Muslims have a better chance of being murdered by someone in the LBGT community, then a gay American has of being murdered by a Muslim. Women get murdered by their husbands. Children get murdered by their families. Honor killings and Sharia aren't a problem in our nation. The knock-out game isn't a thing.

Banning assault weapons would not protect a poor black kid or a poor Latino--or any kid in the rough side of town, regardless of race or political ideology. You can't pocket an assault rifle; you can't throw it away when you're done with it. The ban would not have plausibly affected the shooting in Orlando. You have a constitutional right to own a gun, not fly in an airplane. However it has been more than ten years since 9/11, it is time to re-evaluate how many freedoms people suspected of being terrorists should have. In the words of comedian Lewis Black: "It's a watchlist! We are watching the terrorists buy guns!"

A long essay that I wrote related to serial murder.

A short review. C'mon! It's 99 cents!

The tiny baby carrot...

Many leftists are now comparing Trump to a fascist leader such as Hitler. I don't believe that is a fair comparison. Hitler was a veteran.

The chief problem with the fascism comparison of the rise of Trump is that 2016 America is nothing like Interwar era Germany. Germany was racked by hyperinflation having been forced unjustly to pay reparations for World War I. The American economy is strong, and we don't require a strongman. A spineless woman like Hillary Clinton would do. Hitler was an ideologue; Trump is an opportunist. Hitler wanted to change the world; Trump just wants to be seen as important. Trump has long positioned himself in the nexus between culture, entertainment and government, which was why he supported the Clintons when they were all winning.

I am reminded of that episode of The Simpsons where Ralph Wiggum is nominated for President as an act of defiance against the American political system and media, and he ends up being embraced as a bold thinker by the clueless media and public. Trump is a political outsider, we are told, and that makes him specially suited for the Presidency.

The reason that Trump supporters give for their support of him is that he's a political outsider. However outside things are on the outside for a reason. When you step in dog shit, you leave your shoe outside your house. You leave that shit-stained shoe on the outside of your home not because the shoe has no value but because you do not want to bring that shit-stained shoe into your home. The Republican Party should consider this before their convention. (Democrats have had their duds, too, but you Republicans are responsible for Trump. You can't blame Trump on Democrats!)

Trump is a common Joe because he's wearing a baseball cap on top of a thousand dollar suit. The man has turned his name into something synonymous with "luxury"; he literally covers everything in gold--you cannot have it both ways--it doesn't work that way! The only thing common about Trump is his boorish behavior, whether it's doxing other Republicans or mocking the disabled or talking about how large his penis is--while, in reality, it has to look like a tiny baby carrot. (Somewhere Bill Clinton is like: "Aw, man, now we can talk about this on the campaign trail?") Trump has such little respect for his supporters that he says he could commit murder and they will still support him. My personal theory is that since Trump's supporters think all politicians are liars anyway, it's okay for him to lie too. However he's not thinking outside the box; he's fabricating reality.

Our 17th President and national disgrace Andrew Johnson was famous for arguing with hecklers during his speeches, too. But Andrew Johnson was often drunk, and Donald Trump is sober. "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said this to his supporters in regards to any protestors who might be in the crowd. When pressed by whether this comment was appropriate, Trump responded by claiming that a tomato thrown could hurt someone. No, stop, Donald Trump. You cannot be seriously injured if someone throws a tomato at you. Trump would rather someone get injured than for him to suffer an embarrassment.

Trump should be allowed to speak so freely as to humiliate himself. The media should report his comments--in their original context--and not attempt to spin it by telling their viewers what Trump really means. No, the media (CNN, Fox, etc.) should report what Trump actually said. Donald Trump is an educated man, and he says what he means because he's a straight-shooter. Mexico is sending rapists and murderers to America. More nations should have nuclear weapons. Eliminate the Department of Environment.

Meanwhile, regardless of their racial make-up or political leanings, some of the most avid Trump protestors clearly aren't American. In America, you do not lose your right to speak freely even if you have hate in your heart. Obstructing traffic is a public safety concern and will backfire (just ask Chris Christie), as moderates see what assholes you are--while Trump can produce evidence of how brilliant he is that these troublemakers are trying to stop his message. There are no safe zones in the real world, and no one wants to hear about micro-aggressions.

In 1968 Chicago, the Democrats rioted "just because" they couldn't decide who would be their party's candidate. The Democratic Party was torn between multiple candidates, some of whom were idealists/outsiders, and they suffered an incredible defeat in November. In 2016, Democrats will be saddled with the Hillster, yes, but Republicans will have to choose between what the lion's share of their membership want or be saddled with a candidate who cannot win.

Yes, in this comparison, Hillary Clinton is now Richard Nixon. Because she's not too bad. She might be Richard Nixon, but we know she's stable enough for the office of the presidency. She's not mentally or emotionally unstable, and her supporters are a silent majority of Americans. At least her scandals won't be weird scandals. When George W. Bush molested Angela Merkel's shoulders or when he failed to escape a reporter's questions by leaving a press conference prematurely (or Lewinskygate, for the lefties)--those were weird scandals. Those were minor scandals, but not the kind of scandals that we expect the President of the United States to become engulfed in because such behavior is beneath the Office of the Presidency. We should always remember that, despite having the handicap of being Richard Nixon, Nixon won two presidential elections.

Trump is talking down to his supporters. He's consciously putting on a show to create a fun atmosphere for himself and his supporters. He is one of the few politicians who is openly two-faced, and Trump has said so much: "When I'm president, I'm a different person. I can be the most politically correct person you've ever seen." Still, this is like the weirdest job interview ever: Yeah, I'm an asshole now; but if you give me the job, I'll stop being such an asshole. You know this isn't how a winning job interview goes, Donald Trump. This is compounded by everything he gets wrong about living in a constitutional republic. His foreign policy plans include war crimes (such as killing the families of terrorists). His ideas such as building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it is magical thinking--as would banning Muslim immigrants. Additionally illegal immigrants would still be able to walk into America as tourists and never leave, and Muslim terrorists would start to lie about being Muslims rather than just lying about being terrorists.

Speaking of magical thinking, the policy ideas of Bernie Sanders are not much better. That Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist" is pretty bad; that Sanders was so ignorant as to praise Fidel Castro (in the '80s...in Florida) publically is what disqualifies him for the presidency. The President cannot legalize weed. The President cannot pardon student loan debt. As terrible as Trump might be, I do believe Trump is better at handling money than Sanders. Trump's understanding of economics is not Martian. Capitalism is not perfect; now invent something better, humans.

Hillary has been in cover-up mode since her teen years; the Republicans have long made it known that they will come after her for whatever reason. Now it's Benghazi and the email scandal; previously it was for the MURDER of Vince Foster. Clinton is a strategic liar--but Trump is a pathological liar. He lies about things that could be easily Googled and disproven, like American Muslims celebrating 9/11 or Barack Obama not being born in America. He misremembers some things, but cannot acknowledge fault, so he stands by his fictions. Then he blames the media.

As bad as Hillary might be, there is not a scenario in the discernible or theoretical universe where Trump can win more women's votes than her. Trump is you ladies' handsy uncle, isn't he? He has money, but you'd rather not spend more time around him than you have to. Cruz pointed out how much more attractive Trump's wife is than Trump, so Trump retaliated by posting an unflattering photo of Cruz's wife. Trump is married to a sexy young woman, and American women hate that. When you see them together, you can tell how rich he is--it's like Anna Nicole Smith and the very old, decrepit man she married. They just should not be photographed together, least Trump loses what common man cred he might have. Women hate to see an old guy with a sexy young woman, because either their own husbands left them for sexy young women or they are fearful that they will be traded in for younger models. (Pun alert! Trump's wife is a former model.)

Oh, and Bernie Sanders isn't going to happen, people. As you Sanderites grow older, you'll realize that in life, you "take your lumps." You take your lumps so you can dish them out later in life. That Sanders is tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt gives me pause to hype his economic brilliance. He's an old guy with credit card debt. As terrible as Trump might be, at least he knows how to handle money. And have we ruled out that Sanders isn't just running for President so he can live in a nice house?

There are a number of ways to pay for college. There are federal and state grants, your parents and rich childless family members, the US military, strip or do other temp work, start businesses. Or, you know, you can get a job. Nope. They want the government to pick up the tab. The ghost of Ronald Reagan is saying: Fuck you.

In America, university is a four year vacation, and it is hard to visual a scenario where you get paid to be on vacation. If you want to do it, you go into debt like previous generations. If college were free, it wouldn't be valuable--or less valuable. How is it fair for a poor American who probably never attended university to be forced to pay for a suburban kid's education? Why should anyone have to pay for someone else's $100,000 philosophy degree? I'm an older Millennial, and I had to pay for my college education, and I am not waiting for the government to send me a reimbursement check. (However there is a "DONATE" button on this blog. PayPal me something, folks.) I made an adult decision to attend college. I had to pay for my fuckin' education, so you younger millennials have to pay for your own fuckin' educations too. I was fucked over, so I will fuck over the next generation!

And the President can't legalize weed. If you Bernie supporters would smoke less weed and get off fuckin' Facebook, you would know this. The President can no more legalize weed than he could forgive student loan debt. (Trump- and Sander-backers are thinking of the power of kings or possibly emperors.) Loans are assets, and the government can't seize assets without due process. This is literally in the Constitution. Even if the President tells the attorney general to stop enforcing the unreasonable federal laws against pot, there will still be fifty states banning ownership of large quantities of marijuana. In 2016, nearly all drug convictions are done on the local level. Our prisons are full of potheads who also rape and potheads who also murder. Potheads who rob liquor stores to get more pot, not booze. You only go to jail for pot when you sell a lot of it. Again, Sanders is lying.

This will be a fun summer, at least.

Elizabeth Banks does make a fetching Repulsa...

From People.com

Nic Cage, being awesome.

Grumpy Old Men

Star Wars: Rogue One, because Disney needs more money.

Nuke the Fridge Link.

The Garfield Spider-Man looked cooler. Only time that will be said.

They needed to make his eyes emote. I get it. But it's especially goofy right now.

Jennifer Lawrence doing something disgusting...

Wearing a bikini? Ew. No, her body is definitely not a problem. Credit TMZ

#OscarsSoWhite...and pretty gay.

 

In the 1960s, the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences was rightly criticized for giving awards to bland movies like Around the World in 80 Days, in repudiation of what was actually going on in the streets of America. These were the movies that the founders of the industry wanted to see and harkened back to the Golden Era of Hollywood extravaganzas. We are now witnessing history repeating itself and a backlash to the backlash. Back then the Academy was made up of old white guys who didn't think much of what was happening on the streets. Now we have old rebels still rebelling except there is no longer anything to rebel against--and they are the old white guys who fancy themselves as the gatekeepers to art in film. They just think they're "stickin' it to the Man" or "sockin'" it to various folks. But you can trust people over 30; that's not really that old and they might have good ideas.


 The Oscars are becoming something closer to the AARP's "movies for adults" awards than the Teen Choice Awards. Yes, adults have a better understanding of the world; however kids' ideas are so often more fun. That is the great contradiction of the world that we live in and the nature of art itself. Art is subjective; however, the Academy has supported and we all surrendered to the idea that they know what the best art is in the world of film. (There are plenty of rival awards shows--especially the Golden Globes and SAG awards--that also offer a perspective into which movies are the best, and these other awards shows act as feeders into the Oscar race.) They are tainted by their own biases, and their own socio-political agendas, which are tied to being white, over-educated liberals living in Los Angeles or New York. You will never see the Ronald Reagan biopic be nominated for anything. You will never see a movie about a heroic Catholic priest, or a courageous logging company standing up to environmentalists. In 2004, The Passion of the Christ received zero nominations on the acting/directing/writing/picture side, and there were no black people involved. Whereas Christians were in awe of the Lord and Savior's final days, who died for our sins, Jews saw it as torture porn. Far from being anti-Christian, the Academy voters didn't see why Passion was an important movie.


 When you look at all the Oscar best picture nominees in our lifetimes, the same patterns emerge as to who and what gets nominated. These movies are "Oscar-bait," as are many of the performers. There's a courageous white liberal fighting the system. They're often pro-gay rights, pro-reproductive rights. Many of the heroes are atheists or Jewish. These movies are not so much bad or wrong as unoriginal--you can be right and still annoying. Then the Academy hires a hip host (Letterman, Stewart, Rock, the Franco-Hathaway abortion) to try to sell these gold-plated turds to the kids. Chris Rock is hosting again, and this will be the most awkward Oscars' ceremony ever.


 The last time Rock hosted, in 2005, he ran videoclips asking black people on the streets what they thought of the nominees, and recorded their confusion as to what these movies even were. He also did a bit where he pointed out that most people didn't know who Jude Law was. The joke was that Law came out of nowhere and became the IT Boy of Hollywood--and most of the attendees got his point: The film industry took an attractive, talented white man and decided he was the most important actor alive. This was followed by presenter Sean Penn giving a graven defense of Law. An important lesson was learned by Hollywood that night: Sean Penn doesn't get humor.


 We should always remember that the Academy has it's favorites, like doting older relatives or school teachers. You know some people get nominated because they remind voters of their grandkids--looking at you, Brie Larson. Some actresses are a throwback to the beauties of days back and they get nominated because they are likable. Jennifer Lawrence is a tomato! She's a sparkplug with gams that go all the way up there!... Nice tits! Meanwhile people who alienate the members will never recover. Mel Gibson created one of the most successful movies of 2004; his career nonetheless took a dive because he's batshit crazy and it stopped being amusing.


 Sylvester Stallone was nominated because he's been doing this for forty years. He has friends in the Academy. Michael T. Jordan and Ryan Coogler are still untested properties. (Oh, and the Fantastic Four reboot sucked--I know it's not your fault, Jordan. But it sucked.) Meanwhile a "Alone Yet Not Alone" got nominated last year. What's "Alone Yet Not Alone"? It's a song written by Bruce Broughton. Who's Bruce Broughton? He was the President of the Academy. He literally called up nominating members and told them to nominate his song. Which they did. (The nomination would ultimately be rescinded for being too damn obvious!)


 Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual thoughts, and there's certainly nothing illegal about two adults having sexual contact in a private setting. These are movies that black people and Americans in general do not want to see. (A lot of men don't want to watch Nicholas Sparks movies, and it's not because watching heterosexual white people kiss disgusts us.) Hollywood has failed America. Not by allowing gays to marry or serve in the armed force but in making movies about cowboys who sodomize each other. The battle for gay rights has led to a surplus of terrible Oscar-bait movies. This year the most obvious Oscar-bait movie is probably Freeheld, featuring two attractive lesbians who want to get married so the younger one can receive the other's pension...before she dies of cancer. As a cherry on the top is Steve Carrell as the flamboyant gay attorney fighting the system. Freeheld did not get any nominations, not because it was bad, but because so many other white liberal movies got nominated. It was truly a space issue.


The problem with conservatism is that they will always lose. The problem with progressivism/liberalism, is that the day that the battle is over will be the day in which they become obsolete. The fight is over; you turn your swords into ploughs. But some soldiers don't want to become farmers. Watching Sidney Poitier movies doesn't work anymore. You can't make an advocacy film after the issue has been settled--that just doesn't make sense.


 Michael Bay understands this quit well, and he abandons ideology. He fills his movies with shots of teen girls' asses (we will have to address that in another blog post) and the American flag. Bay knows what Americans want to see: Giant CGI robots talking about honor, integrity and sacrifice. These are values that America and Hollywood should be about. Americans generally don't want to see these weird indie movies full of foreigners where you have to see a dingdong. We don't want to see a movie where men are wearing dresses unless it's a comedy.


 When George Clooney extolled Hollywood for giving Hattie McDaniel an Oscar, he neglected to mention that she was given the award for playing a happy slave. She was given an award by white liberals for playing a slave--a literal slave. Morgan Freeman (chauffer), Jaime Foxx (R&B musician), Lupita Nyong'o (slave), Denzel Washington (slave, dirty cop), Halle Berry (wife of a convict), Mo'Nique ("Welfare queen"), Cuba Gooding Jr. (athlete), Forrest Whittaker (African dictator), Terrence Howard (pimp who aspires to be a rapper). What's the solution to this? I have none--I know it sounds like I'm about to offer a solution to this, but I'm not. I'm literally just pointing this out. I'll let you figure out what this means.


 It would be easy to call this racism. But it's actually stranger than racism. It's the mutant love child of racism and anti-racism. All the black winners were surely thankful for the pay bump that the award provided them, but something so liberating can come at the expense of honor. It's enjoying colored music but not letting black patrons in the club. McDaniel was invited at the table but had to sit at a segregated table. She was not invited to the after parties. White liberals, like white conservatives, like blacks in the abstract. They like that black people exist, but they don't really want them around too much. If they speak to enough black people, they will grow uncomfortable with their views on gay rights and transgenderism, and illegal immigration...and corporeal punishment...maybe Jews/Muslims. Clooney--for all his Hollywood coolness--gets so much of his own industry's history completely wrong. Real life is messy, and sometimes there are no bad guys, just people with wildly different opinions.


 When talking about who got stiffed this year, the same few names keep coming up: Will Smith, Spike Lee, Michael T. Jordan, cool British black guy whose name that I can never remember. Dozens of white women were shut out of the Oscars, especially older white women. That there is some agreement as to who got stiffed adds value to the argument that the system was rigged, but it also detracts from the idea that there was any coordination to shut out black actors. As so many activists are pointing out, there is a dearth of good roles for black actors.


 Far more insidious than shutting out black actors was the decision that of the four(!) slots for best songs. The song choice includes a classical orchestral piece and a Lady Gaga song. The Academy only needed to nominate one piece to retain credibility: "See You Again" by Wiz Kalifha. This is also a non-controversial choice since literally everyone (white/black, men/women) under the age of 40 likes it. (To be fair, both Eminem and 360 Mafia received Oscars for best song, so it's not entirely a matter of racism or anti-populism.)


 In the future, to be fairer, the Academy should expel more gay guys. It is the only way to insure fairness. (Note: As I was writing this, the Academy did alter its rules to prevent older but inactive Academy members from voting.)

 

Buy my art because I have a bookie! He's going to break my thumbs!

Classy art for y'all!