To the genuine victims of Harvey Weinstein, let me start off by saing: "It wasn't your fault."

Everyone does disgraceful things to advance their careers. ("Art is good. Artists tend to be scumbags. But art is good!" as I like to tell myself.) So much of show business is based on personal relationships, fluid work hours/locations and a great deal of nudity. These things lead to nepotism and lax professional work environments. When President Bill Clinton was caught receiving oral sex in the Oval Office, it was so many in Hollywood who said "so what?" In show business, it is not uncommon for men to have sex with female--and sometimes male--subordinates. What Clinton participated in was not just a morality issue but also a sex crime. Hollywood has never really addressed that, rather changing the subject to illustrate Republican/conservative hypocrisies on sex.


The question of why this is all coming out now can be condensed to: Weinstein is an old lion. Past his prime, he's now too weak to defend himself against his adversaries. He is the last of the Hollywood gatekeepers, the old time studioheads who decided which movies would get made and who would have careers in filmmaking. Kids can now create their own passion projects, independent of Project Greenlight. The technologically modern idea of public shaming on a global scale has taken hold, and three decades of bad karma and masturbating into potted plants have come back to haunt him. It could not have happened to a nicer guy. So what was once an open secret became a public scandal, as countless women (and some men) must now disclose what they know and when they knew it. Not in 2000 years have so many Jews publically denied knowing one of their champions. Weinstein is like Jesus if Jesus had asked women to watch him shower. In a few months, Hollywood liberals will discover Roman Polanski raped a girl.


Donald Trump is being blamed for the issue of toxic male culture. (Why couldn't Hillary have become President? She would've stepped into her time machine and stopped that sex offender from sex offending and making her political career possible, thus triggering a paradox that...would've destroyed the observable universe!) The difference is that Weinstein paid millions to make these charges go away while Trump often refused to settle, refusing to acknowledge his sex crimes ever happened. The difference is there's audio of Trump joking about grabbing women by the pussy and audio of Weinstein attempting to do it. Weinstein's accusers outnumber Trump's by at least a factor of ten, many of whom are wealty and famous in their own right--and not all accusers are equals.




Let's not mince words: Weinstein was able to do what he did because he was making money. Money for Miramax. Money for Disney. Money for the Weinstein Company. If these companies paid out a million to settle claims in a given year, he would've made fifty times that for these companies.


The problem should be that Weinstein was using Miramax and later the Weinstein Company as a slush to pay off his inappropriate behavior. Art is a business here, and there is still some decorum in conducting one's self in a business setting. It should not be about how attractive he is or was.




It is my understanding that Weinstein was never exactly a ladies' man. (His pick-up move involved asking women if they wanted to watch him shower; far from ingenious, this was pathetic. Weinstein's MO was pathetic.) Like Bill Clinton, Weinstein was not popular with girls in school. Whereas Clinton had intelligence and charisma, Weinstein had intelligence and  bluster. Cruelty got him to the top. So many of them behind the scenes of Hollywood--whether directors or producers or unemployed screenwriters--were weird kids growing up. They weren't the popular boys surrounded by legions of friends. This leaves a void in an older man's life, as he is guided by the same raw instincts but previously had no ability to satisfy them. You "use what you got" in this world, and Weinstein had power as a producer and a studio head.


At the root of these claims are typically Weinstein's attempts to get laid. Kate Beckinsale recounts her coming into the exec's hotel room (when she was 17!) and he clumsily attempted to seduce her. The actress recalled that it “did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him.” Since Beckinsale opened this door, let's all agree that more women would've watched him shower if he looked like Brad Pitt. (By the way, how weird was it that Weinstein kept trying to bang Pitt's girlfriends?) So much of it having been harassment was not an issue of female professionalism--many of these women have had sex with their costars or coworkers--but the issue was that Weinstein wasn't hot. If he had been, it wouldn't have been sexual harassment so much as sexual fulfillment. Hollywood has long fought for the private sex lives of consenting adults--often while employing the most liberal uses of the terms "consenting" and "adult." The ladies wouldn't have been complaining if they were attracted to him; the scandal would be much smaller. Instead we have the image of real-world Jabba the Hut trying to find a girl to put on the gold bikini.




In defense of Harvey Weinstein, he probably didn't ruin that many careers. These women told him to go fuck himself--or stop fucking himself in front of them--and he moved on to the next woman. That he had Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow blacklisted in the 90s stretches credibility. The work dried up for Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette because they turned 30. They got old. Too old for teenage boys to whack off to them without thinking about their mothers. Megan Fox will soon be her generation's Mira Sorvino. Not Weinstein's fault, specifically. More of an issue of how time works.




Hollywood and Weinstein specifically contributed to a series of anti-Christian movies, espousing the hypocrisies of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general (Dogma, Doubt, Priest, Bob Roberts). Hollywood calls Trump a Nazi, while giving an Oscar to an actual Nazi. (I'm not kidding. Google Leni Riefenstahl.) The real perverts are Christian men, especially white Republicans. Gay men aren't freaks who like to touch boys; Catholic priests are freaks who like to touch boys. "SEE!?! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY!!! Vote for gay marriage." Vice-President and conservative Christian Mike Pence gets mocked for not wanting to be alone with a female, and Weinstein gets mocked for enjoying his private meetings with female coworkers. Hollywood can't have it both ways. Hollywood, like all of the American workforce, has to choose at what point do things appear inappropriate.




 Meanwhile, so many mainstream artists have been living elbow deep in sexual perversion. They gave an Oscar to Roman Polanski, a well-known child rapist. Weinstein bundled millions to popular liberal candidates, including the Clintons and Obama. Donald Trump can breath a sigh of relief.

The Steve Scalise attempted assassination...

This was the one thing to take people's attention away from the Congressional Russian investigation of the Trump administration. Now only if government officials had the authority to take guns away from people--nah, never mind.


The shooter was apparently a small business owner targeting Republican Congressmen. Really, it's like if someone had tried to assassinate Nancy Pelosi with gay porn.


Shockingly, the attempted assassin had formerly felt the Bern, and was an active Bernie Sanders supporter. Again, the insane gunman was NOT a supporter of Donald Trump. We are all surprised. If this were a Trump supporter, leftwingers would be all over it. That this nut was a Sanders supporters, the left will say we shouldn't act too hasty in assigning judgement. Time will tell how bad things get with a Republican controlled Congress. This ended up being closer to a suicide by cop as an act of terrorism.


Citizen engagement is a wonderful thing. Still, perhaps we all need to calm the hell down with the "fascism" allegations, and better articulate what we are resisting.

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.

#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.)

 

I will stand with Ahmed Mohamed...as long as it's not really a bomb, I mean.

I am reminded of one of the earliest episodes of the American-version of The Office, where Michael Scott see a Sikh IT guy in the parking lot of Dunder Mifflin, heading for the building, and immediately freaks out because...terrorists!

It was in a pencil case, wasn't it? If it were attached to a propane tank or a pressure cooker, this would make a lot more sense to confuse it with a bomb. (Propane tanks routinely explode. I saw that in movies.) Expel the kid. If it were an airport, detain that whole family. In an airport, it is not the appropriate place to bring your mystery electronics.

This Ahmed fellow isn't even a particularly intimidating kid, so you can't Michael Brown him. The boy is about 90 pounds soaking wet. He has no history of anti-Americanism or any apparent disciplinary problems. Respectfully, the bespeckled guy is clearly a nerd of some kind. He did not ask for trouble; trouble came to him. Because he was an Arab, so many Texans thought "bomb," not "science project."

Plus since it was Texas, any idiot could buy or steal a firearm, and kill considerably more people than a bomb. Texas has more guns and more murder than just about any other state in the union. There is no connection. It's a total mystery why Texas has so many murders and so many legal gunowners. Have we checked the water?

Those who are attempting to ignore the racism and deprive Muslims of appearing discriminated against, point out the numerous cases where kids have gotten in trouble for pointing objects at people as if they were guns and gotten suspended/expelled. However, pointing a chicken finger at someone and saying "bang," does constitute a death threat. However, nearly all the other cases involved students with a history of disciplinary problems. However, very few were cuffed--these cases were handled administratively. Ahmed literally did not encourage people to believe this was a bomb. This was not a bomb-effigy. People saw an Arab kid with a clock and assumed he was up to no good. This is Trayvon Martin standing on a street, not threatening anyone. Rather than blaming a hoodie, they're blaming the clock.

Some of you are trying to blame CAIR for this. Americans can't possibly be this stupid, so many conservatives feel. Rightwing Americans are really geniuses, and this was a scheme of the Muslims to make Americans look foolish. Well, if this were a CAIR test, Americans failed. Americans now look exactly as racist as Muslim extremists say we are. CAIR, for all its faults, is not responsible for your stupidity, no.

When shit like this happens, the terrorists have won. They did not turn anyone into a Muslim, but they showed the world how ass-backwards non-Muslims can be. Like the Iraq war, civilized Christian men are just not too smart. We start with a biased view, then we work backwards to prove our bias. This is the ultimate stupidity because it does not aspire for betterment.

Now conservatives are enraged that Obama is inviting the boy to the White House--never mind that Obama is now trying to smooth things over, which would benefit all of us. Americans are not racist, and we don't hate Muslims. (Yeah, we kinda are--and we kinda do--but that's not good politics.) So, shut up, conservatives. We can't ignore racism and hope it goes away. Racism would still there; we would just be ignoring it.

Bristol Palin tweeted a snarky joke regarding this incident and Obama's attempt to cover-up the damage done by the state of Texas. Bristol Palin. As if a poorly designed science project were the worst mistake a teen could make. (To clarify, Bristol Palin has two illegitimate children with two different men and she's under 25--talkin' about that.) If anything Ahmed was trying to do the right thing, and Bristol has probably done a lot of wrong things. Plus Bristol is too damn old to be fighting with high schoolers. Her time has come and gone.

Doggone it!

A few years back, my father shot an apparently vicious dog, which was attacking another dog. (He's dead now, if it makes you PETA-freaks feel better. My dad's dead.) I often think about this one incident and what it says about him and myself. But ultimately, this leads to an unavoidable conclusion: It was just a dog. In some parts of the world, dogs are food. My father, for all his flaws, never shot a person or a primate or a dolphin--any creature higher than a dog. Dogs, despite their apparent intelligence, are not particularly high on the evolutionary scale. Beating them is not the same as assaulting a human; it just makes you a world-class douche.

Sarah Palin recently tweeted a pic of her mentally challenged son, Trig, using a dog as a stepladder. It is not so much disturbing that a mentally challenged kid accidentally caused a dog discomfort so much as that his mother transmitted the photo as a source of pride. Sarah Palin--a former governor and current Fox News correspondent--is supposed to be really smart.

It is not evil to kill an animal for food or cloths, but it still doesn't deserve to be turned into a floorcovering to demonstrate how little taste that your family has. Trophy hunting is sickening. Such a gaudy display of slaughter makes a mockery of God wanting humanity to practice responsible stewardship of the environment. The grizzly is one of the most potent land creatures that has ever lived. God did not make grizzlies so the Palin kids can have sex on it. (Drill, baby, drill!) Further, Palin's past reference to herself as a "mama grizzly" makes no sense, seeing how she proudly kills grizzlies.

Palin is, in one regard, a woman from a different time. A Republican such as Theodore Roosevelt supported conservation not because there was a natural order to the world and that humanity had no right to eradicate a species, but so future generations would have something to kill. Hunting has long been a sport of the ruling class, having their other needs met, there's nothing left but to pretend to rough it. I don't have a blanket opposition to hunting; the steak that I had at Sizzler last week wasn't a product of cow suicide.... Hope it was cow.

Palin, meanwhile, has defended herself with her proxy defense: Lamestream media hypocrisy. She pointed out that talk show host and liberal darling Ellen DeGeneres recently posted a pic of her using a dog as a footstool--from 40 years ago. (The dog is long dead, and I presume the animal lover DeGeneres didn't kill it.)

I must rack my mind over the differences, and here's the one that I can come up with: Americans like Ellen; we hate Palin. Ellen does not compartmentize people--when she looks out at a crowd of Americans, she sees Americans. When Palin sees a crowd, she immediately divides people based on them being "real Americans" and non-conservatives such as members of the liberal media elite, who ruined her political ambitions by asking her such "gotcha" questions as: Which newspapers do you read? Ellen supports rejecting the meanness of society; Palin basks in it--except for when such cruelty and moral judgments are directed against her own family. Sarah Palin wallows in human prejudices like a pig of intolerance. I am not a lesbian and I certainly am not a liberal, so I can safely say: You're a bitch, Sarah Palin. Jesus--who is obligated to love everyone--must be deeply conflicted about you, Sarah Palin.

Most of all, the photo confirms what so many of us knew about Sarah Palin: She hates animals. She shoots wolves (which are closely related to dogs) from a helicopter. She loves nature so much as she can profit off it, and she hates God's creatures. The same could be said about Marion Barry's crack use and Bill Clinton's numerous sex scandals, and anything George W. Bush ever said or says or will say in the future. Palin is thus right in claiming that the media are picking on her--she has just refused to alter her behavior to become a more decent human being.

Both terrorists and artists tend to be assholes. (Je suis...I got a D in French.)

Bill Maher declared this was an Islamic terrorist attack in the hours afterward, before the corpses were cold and the suspects were named. A few years back, a tasteful depiction of Muhammed was censored on an episode of South Park, with the overarching theme being a satirical jab at artists for kowtowing to the Islamic extremists who are literally the only people who demand that Muhammed is never shown. (Christians, meanwhile, have a complicated issue as to whether Jesus/God could or should be depicted in graphic form.) A few years prior to this, Muhammed was depicted on the Comedy Central show as a superhero in the legion of religious figures turned superheroes. No one noticed.

Really being offended at a depiction of Muhammed is not the strangest thing that Islamic terrorist do, is it? They sincerely believe that THEY are being attacked and are merely resisting. They believe that killing women and children will make Muslims look better the world over. The people whom Muslim religious fanatics are most liable to kill are Muslims, followed by non-Muslim aid workers and journalists. They are so divorced from reality that they make American Christian fanatics seem downright sane.

This terrorist attack has had the unintended side effect of rightwingers declaring a moratorium on Franco-phobic jokes. (How badass was that raid, by the way? They shot the terrorists. Good for them! I have a mental image of them afterwards shooting their automatic guns into the air, yelling: "U-S-A!") Real politics involve the notion that the "enemy of the enemy is my friend"--and the French, who are normally terrible, are now confronted with the threat of Islamic extremism. This existential threat to human civilization is worse than liking Jerry Lewis, who was never that good.... Muslim terrorists: worse.

Occasionally funny short person Bill Maher is not so much concerned about life but about bashing religion--any religion, I believe. Rightwing Christians are agreeing with him because he is agreeing with them: Islam is not a religion of peace. Politics make strange bedfellows. Of course, the modern state of Islam is an excellent promotional material for atheism. Islamic society at one time led the world in civility--including women's rights. For whatever reason, Muslims the world over had grown stupider across the centuries. Christians suffered their dark ages, and now these are theirs--unfortunately, the rise of Western thought has coincided with the decline of Islamic thought. Most of the world's Muslims are illiterate; they cannot read the Koran. And when non-Muslims tell Muslims what are in their religious scriptures, it is understandably greeting with suspicions. And, face it: It's not our book. They are literally just making up Islam as they go along. Meanwhile most Western Muslims are literate, and the educated Muslims are most often the ones to stage Islamic terrorist attacks. This should make us give pause--but it won't.

As a fellow artist, I have to say: I'll write whatever I damn well please. As an intelligent person, I have to say: No, I won't be drawing a picture of Muhammed. Because, in the words of Stan from South Park when asked if he thought the elderly should be allowed to drive: No, I don't hate the elderly; I just don't want to die. I think a lot of artists feel the same, criticizing a backwards religious ideology from the safety of the crowds. There is now a rush to depict the prophet Muhammed MORE after this terrorist attack. Saying "fuck you" to random people is a hallmark of democracy. However, attempting to make a stand on principle even if this principle is not worth standing for makes you a douche--you're drawing Muhammed to make the Islamic extremists livid, not because you have anything intelligent to say about the prophet Muhammed. So do as you will, artists, but I will not think you brilliant or brave.

There's an unfortunate racial angle to this, too: Europe has an immigration problem. The Mexicans aren't performing suicide attacks to appease the Virgin of Guadlupe. (Don't start, Mexicans. Wouldn't be cool.) Europe is situated near North Africa and the Middle East. They have generous welfare programs, and enough technological development and freedom of expression to allow people to do whatever they want. It's like the French have created a perfect environment to start mass murder. What has previously stopped them was a lack of guns--and, I suspect, butter-rich diets. It's hard to murder when you're full of butter. You just feel good and the saturated fat slows you down. Europe will now have to clamp down on immigration, which might further alienate the Muslims already there, which will be a problem to be sorted out at some later day.

Americans should be thankful that terrorists have never learned that they could just buy a bunch of guns and begin killing Americans--there is no need to construct bombs or poison the air. In real life, a good gun will not protect you from a bad guy with a gun who shoots you in the back. (He's a bad guy; that's what bad guys do.) It is an egregious error to believe that your enemies are as noble as yourself.

Muslims in developed countries, meanwhile are so often complete hypocrites. They hang out at Western universities. They receive social benefits--such as unemployment, transportation and free primary schooling--they get laid and drunk. Then they decide that the West is evil and no other Muslim should benefit from the advantages that they have received. Many of these homegrown terrorists are converts to Islam. They do not wish to practice the religion--whether Islam or atheism--so much as are seeking a pretense to be obnoxious (which is something Maher should consider) to non-believers. We should welcome Muslims in our society. Their religion is no more stupid or violent than any other religion.

When addressing the notion that Islam--an old religion of over a billion adherents--is a death cult, I am reminded of an (okay) unrealistic scene in The Dark Knight, where the Joker has rigged two ferries full of people--one with convicts, the other with civilians--with explosives and gives them a countdown to kill each other, to prove that humanity is fundamentally bad. The minutes tick by, and nothing happens. As the debate rages on, the ferry captain of the good boat realizes: "We're still here." That brings me comfort.

But Maher is still an asshole, right? He's an asshole.

Who's to blame for ISIS?

BUSH STARTED THE WAR THAT DESTABILIZED IRAQ! This isn't even ancient history! This is RECENT HISTORY! I still have magazines talking about the rush to war--DATING FROM 2003!!! (No, my apartment isn't very clean.) We should make Bush President again, just to impeach him for THE MASSIVE WAR THAT HE STARTED!!! Is this possible? Can we do this, Constitutionally speaking?

The police that Bush trained (after dismissing Iraq's ACTUAL SOLDIERS) promptly surrendered the weapons that Bush gave them when confronted by a heavily armed invasion force. Now ISIS has American arms that we gave to the Iraqis so they can shoot more Iraqis. BRILLIANT!

You know what? Before Bush, there was a guy who kept Iraq sable and (yes) a terrible place to live. There was a guy--whose name escapes me, something to do with a hole--and Bush had him killed. Bush threw a match on a pile of garbage, and the only thing worse than a pile of garbage is a flaming pile of garbage. (Bush also fired the firefighters--the Iraq army--for reasons unknown.) The flaming pile of garbage will destroy everything that its embers come into contact with. And now future Presidents will have to deal with these fires of genocidal freedom, peace and prosperity.

Why Hillary shouldn't win.

Freshman year of college, I had a poli-sci professor, who was generally a leftist. He did not like Gray Davis, but the Republicans would always bring out a rightwing nutjob to challenge the Democrat, and sometimes the rightwing nutjob wins (like Pete Wilson). In his words, he would end up "holding his nose" and voting for Gray Davis. A year after that statement, Arnold Schwarzenegger would run his insurgent campaign, seizing power, and proceed to make California significantly worse.

Hillary has experience, and with that experience, is a long history of dumbass mistakes. During the run-up for the invasion of Iraq, Hillary had her profile in courage moment--but she just went with the political attitudes of so many Americans at the time, believing that she will be rewarded at some later time. Her later heroic defense of the tragedy in Benghazi--chastising Republicans for trying to politicize an Islamic terrorist attack halfway around the world--is a positive, but does not remove the smear of what she actually did: Her early support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It is hypocritical to criticize Republican congressmen for Iraq and not Democrats who worked with Republicans to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq. Whereas the Republicans were acting on their stupid political principles, the Democratic minority were aiming for national security brownie points and supporting the Republicans' stupid ideas because they wished to protect their political careers. Whether or not the views that you stand are wrong, stand for something. This was John Kerry's mistake in 2004, and Mitt Romney's mistake in 2012. Saying "my bad" does not constitute contrition. When you fuck-up in a job, you don't apply for a better job at the same company! The appropriate thing to do is to place oneself in self-imposed exile as penance. It is hypocritical to excuse a woman's stupidity because she is a woman--you sacrifice your feminist street cred when you lower the bar to accommodate a woman's intellectual capabilities.

There is also a visceral reason for my hesitation to support Hillary: Hillary clearly cried during her 2008 campaign--there is news footage of her sitting alongside daughter Chelsea, crying. She was crying. She whined about the favorable press Obama received throughout the 2008 campaign, while ignoring why Obama wasn't placed under the media microscope that Hillary was: Obama didn't have the scandals that Hillary and her husband had; the Obamas were both new and still perceived as honest. Our opinions of her were formed, for better and worse. Obama couldn't sell himself as experienced, and she couldn't sell herself as exciting.

You cannot cry if another 9/11 happens. There's no crying in the presidency. Crying makes me, personally, uncomfortable. When America is attacked, we do not cry but we kick our enemies in the balls. "These colors don't run," bitch. (For the record, I'm not calling any specific female a bitch; I'm calling whomever might attack America in the future "bitch.")

I will not support Hillary during the California primary in spring 2016. Yes, I will probably vote for a man, but that is only be because most candidates are male; our first female President should not be Hillary Clinton. She opened doors for women, but we cannot ignore that she does not want to be treated any differently because she is a woman.

The Republican candidate will support bringing back workhouses. They will think birthcontrol is turning away when you cum. They will continue to confuse science with superstition. And they will do so while being utterly confused as to what murder has to do with firearms. If 2012 primaries are any indication, the Republicans will trip over themselves to out-crazy each other--and Democrats will do something similar--before centering themselves during the general election.

Hillary Clinton isn't tall. She has a history of lying. She has a cackle like a witch who just ate a bunch of kids. She has gained weight, and it's noticeable. She lacks political integrity. She is an opportunist. I hate your pants suits. However, Hillary Clinton is sane.

So I guess I might have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November 2016. She will count this as a victory.

How great is it that Repubs are rallying to support Vladimar Putin?

Maybe the giant crying bear at the Sochi closing events was a cry for help?

First George W. Bush looked into Putin's soul and declared he was a good guy. America can trust him. Now that Putin is showing himself as the real-life Bond villain that he is, Republicans are in the awkward position of having to ally themselves with a man who does very bad things against Americans to illustrate their opposition to the Democratic President. (They also became concerned about Islamic terrorists' civil rights and the national debt around 2009.) Obama's attempts to prevent the US from being entangled in another foreign conflict--or "leading from behind"--are thus a sign of his weakness, not a sign of PAYING ATTENTION.

Maybe Obama should send 100,000 America troops into a foreign country, then stay there for ten years (after first disbanding the local army--we don't need those guys, right?), losing hundreds of billions due to incompetence and graft while American infrastructure collapses? Oops. Been done!

You know what's great about "leading from behind"? You don't get shot. Obama is attempting to prevent Americans from getting shot, as near as I can tell. Republicans are living in a weird, 1984-style society where the shutdown was a good idea and America should invade other countries with no thought as to how it will effect either our short-term or long-term foreign policy. Sending drones into Pakistan is terrible--send some troops in there, right? The drone strikes are endangering our relationship with Islamic allies--unlike declaring war unilaterally, which is just common sense.

Oh, and why are we even listening to Dick Cheney or Con Rice on this matter? It feels like they should fade away, and never offer any additional wisdom on global political events again. Feels like they should be working harder to redeem their legacy, not reminding us all that they still exist. Try to become irrelevant, neocons--that's something you should be aiming for!

If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. When you're a fuckin' dumbass, stand aside and let someone with some grasp of recent American history to take the wheel, even if it means "leading from behind."

The Loud Music Trial, Justice Largely Served

There's now handwringing from civil rights activists because he wasn't convicted in the death of Jordan Davis. There seems further confusion as to how a jury could convict him of attempted murder of three men but not the actual murder of the fourth. (It was a mistrial on this count.) Really it's not that confusing.

 

The difference is that the white guy will be going to jail for a very long time, and the number of rightwingers hailing this Negro slayer as a hero are substantially smaller. There is wide concession that this guy is a dumbass who should be in jail. The difference was that Zimmerman was involved in a physical altercation while this was name-calling and perhaps idle threats between the parties. The difference is that this white man was shooting and multiple unarmed men while they were trying to escape the hostile situation. (Oh, and the black men turned down their rape music upon the white man's request. Even in comparison to Zimmerman, this white man wanted the situation to escalate.) After shooting at a bunch of black guys, he did not wait for the police to arrive--rather he went to a hotel and ordered out for pizza. Local place.

 

If the races were reversed, and just the races, the Negro Dunn would be having his armed swabbed for a needle for murdering that unarmed white boy--and attempting to murder three other white guys, whose fun night out was violently disturbed by a black man's madness.

 

That said, it is within the realm of possibility that Dunn did see a gun--and that was why no conviction was reached in that case. (In another rare case, the prosecution over-prosecuted a white person in connection to the murder of a black man. A manslaughter conviction was more achievable.) He had been in a verbal confrontation with four young guys, and he lived in a state where any idiot or escaped mental patient can buy and carry a gun--including himself. It might've been a gun--or a cellphone or a finger. There is nothing in Dunn's history that would suggest he fantasized about shooting a black man. He had no previous connection to Davis. He was not trying to rob Davis--nor did he take anything from Davis.

 

This young man's parents family want their son's name cleared. They want an acknowledgement that he was murdered, and he'd done nothing to provoke the shooting. This is not necessarily possible in a liberal democracy, where we are suppose to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. The solution, perhaps, is to give more young black men the benefit of the doubt, not remove that benefit from schlubby white guys.

 

Whatever darkness inhabiting Dunn's heart that led him to want to try to kill those men, the rest of us will never know.

Forget Bridgegate. Is Chris Christie still stuck in high school?

In an interview, Christie both mentioned he was exercising when he heard the news that one of his assistants and oldest friends has proof that he knowingly closed a bridge in political retaliation. He went on to point out he was a high school athlete and an overachiever in high school. Really it feels like Christie just wants us all to remember he used to be athletic. Okay, good. We're all happy for you, Christie. It still feels like cheating that he got gastric bypass rather than devoting the rest of his life to diet and exercising. This demonstrates just a different kind of weakness on the New Jersey governor's part beyond his original weakness of gluttony.

His ridiculous defense, including spreading rumors about the guy citing his high school social studies teacher's innuendo about dishonesty.

But, really, he's now the guy who keeps thinking about high school. He's the governor. Can't he move on? He is literally the most successful graduating member OF HIS CLASS! Okay, you won...soon you'll lose--but you won in high school!

Hey, Republicans, get to work!

GET TO WORK!... GET TO WORK! President Obama has no control over whether Congress is open or closed, these being separate branches of government.

Republicans had their opportunity to make their mark on Obamacare in 2009, but they preferred obstruction--as they have obstructed for another three years. They took the issue to the Court, and the notoriously liberal Roberts Court literally said that it was Constitutional.

Is Obamacare good policy? Is it bad policy? Time will tell. So far the health exchanges are so terrible that people are rushing to sign-up for them. The Teabagger explanation is that most of those people are visiting the sites are politicians and their staff and journalists, which is a conspiracy theory that is actually beneath the Speaker. The more plausible explanation is that Americans are fearful that they need to sign-up for Obamacare ASAP or face some sever sanction such as kneecap forfeiture. The government, showing its usual foresight, didn't anticipate that everyone who didn't have health insurance would sign up for it all at once--rather there plan was probably for the 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance would evenly sign up over a period of several months, and the system was overwhelmed.

Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. At this point, Republicans are causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble, and are not exercising any principles whatsoever. This is not rebellion or patriotism but douchebaggery at is finest. It is such when done by liberals who burn the flag to show their contempt for the legislative process, and it it certainly the situation when done by Republicans whose master plan is to deny Obama a routine raising of the debt-ceiling to force a few billion in cuts and to hold off the inevitable for another year. In economic terms, this is a bad investment. In the words of Seth Meyers, Republicans have lost the game and have taken the ball into the woods.