A Bowl of Stupid

Taking advantage of my brief sojourn into the lands of shopping malls and air conditioned movie theatres, I opted to go to Plaza Singapura the other day to see Robert Redford's latest movie, Lions For Lambs.

I'll leave the more sublime dissection of this glorified ABC After School Special to the professionals.

However, having seen the movie in a 'non-domestic' setting (i.e., outside the U.S.), there are several things about the movie I picked up on that I may not have had I seen it back in the States. I do at least want to mention them.

Of the movie itself, I will say this — despite addressing one of the most polarizing issues in the last 25 years (America's psychopathic, and seemingly unending, rampage throughout East Asia), and boasting the talents of some of Hollywood's best actors — this has got to be one of the most BORING movies I've seen since The English Patient (which means something, considering I too was one of the several hapless victims of 'The Horse Whisperer').

The point I realized there was a problem is when I found myself trying to learn to read Chinese by matching up the sub-titles (standard for all international films shown in Singapore) with the dialogue on the screen. (That didn't go so well, by the way. Unlike Wayne Campbell, I'm having no luck learning Mandarin.)

It really is unfortunate, because the film - at scattered, albeit brief, moments along the way - says everything either that I've said or heard others say in the past 5 years about the Bush Administration, the Mainstream Media, the War in Iraq, and the 'War on Terror' (oh, and how's that 'War on Drugs going, by the way?).

Unfortunately, most of these insightful flashes (positive or negative, depending on your view) are either obfuscated by horrible duologue, marred by formulaic acting, and reduced to parody by script recitation — all of which were seemingly retrieved via a daring rescue of the scraps from the cutting room floor of Star Wars III.

Shit, I never thought I'd say this, but Mannequin Skywalker gave a more nuanced performance than did Meryl Streep in this film.

More disquieting is that the movie is, quite simply, a means by which the studio seemingly berates today's political, media, and social machinery that treats the general public as a bunch of sophomoric high-school students — while at the same time, by and through the preachy, long-winded, convoluted, self-righteous, boring-ass tone of the movie, treats them just as poorly.

Simply put, Lions For Lambs, in my opinion, ironically (unintentionally, in all likelihood) does the same thing of which it complains — talking down to its audience, the general public.

I mean, really … where the fuck does Robert Redford get off telling us about the political, military, and socio-economic ramifications of what's taken place over the past 5 years. And where was he 5 years ago anyway, when it mattered? Making some fucking horse movie?

C'mon, get a grip.

I saw it on the faces of the Singaporean folks as we walked out of the film. They were chuckling to each other, as if to say: 'It's about fucking time. But it's not like you're telling us something the entire world doesn't already know. Really, cuz if you think it's such big news, at least make it more entertaining.'

I agree. As such, I would ask that the next time Robert Redford makes a movie, remind me to bring along an 'English to Chinese' dictionary — at least then I'll have something to keep me occupied.

Share This

After resting and taking a few laps in the pool on Monday, I woke up today by visiting some of my regular online sources for news and entertainment — at which time, I was treated to even more good news.

First and foremost, I saw that finally, FINALLY, saner heads are prevailing down at Gitmo, where on Monday, military judges dismissed charges Monday against 2 Guantanamo detainees. In particular, the courts ruled that, in direct contradiction to the ever illogical position of the Bush Administration, the detainees are "not subject to this commission" under legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush last year. Thank fucking god. Maybe this signals the first of many steps for the U.S. government to regain whats left of its dignity.

Second, I saw that there is indeed still hope that the upcoming Transformers live action movie may indeed be worth seeing (shit, I knew there was a reason I put them at the top of my MySpace friends list). If the rest of the movie has effects like this stuff, I may even be able to cleanse my mind of the crappy-CGI cryfest that was Spiderman 3.

And finally, there seems to be hope — finally — that we can all live longer, healthier lives with this great new "skin" tightening product (if the advert itself doesn't completely offend you).

Share This

There's not been much commotion about it, but yesterday, 1 May 2007, marks the four (4) year anniversary of President Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln — just beyond sight of the coastline at San Diego, California.

To date, the total number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense is 3355, and Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated to be between 62,770 and 68,796.

Just to put those losses into perspective, and not to take anything away from the other innocent losses of life, but last week this country mourned (rightfully, mind you) over the deaths of 33 innocent students from Virginia Tech.

Now try to imagine that entire student body murdered.

Mission accomplished, you say? And just what mission was that?

Shit, he's gotta be using an old Jedi mind trick - there's no other plausible explanation.

P.S. For the record, I am left to assume that comments like this (as well as the godless Bible commentary and "colorful" language from my immediately preceding posts) are why, as I have been informed by friends of mine, my blog is now being banned from military installations here in South Florida. My MSG would be proud.

UPDATE: On a tangentially related subject, I found it ironic this story also came out last night about how the U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums. And while I think it's asinine to restrict access to public blogs and such (especially one as blatantly stupid as mine - hell, it's in the fucking title, for Christ's sake), in this case, I agree with Army Brass in large part. Although I'm libertarian/anti-censorship in general, that's the military, folks. There is the distinct possibility that someone may inadvertently disclose sensitive information - which could result in the loss of lives. That's a whole 'nother game.

Share This

I really don't know where to begin with this one. I really don't.

While driving home the other night with a friend, we were listening to the preeminent hp-hop/rap song of all time — Rapper's Delight by the "Sugerhill Gang." I hadn't listened to it in a while, and I had forgotten just how damn good that song is.

That got me thinking about about why, for all the other music I've discussed on this site, I haven't posted about any good hip-hop/rap music that's been released lately. Not just decent hip-hop, but that same amazing, driving hip-hop that started the industry.

The thought slipped my mind until today, when I saw this article over at The Seminal about how "Hip Hop Isn’t Dying, It Just Sucks."

The author of that article makes some very good points, many of which I unconsciously have been thinking since about …. oh, June 1992.

He pointed out how the rap scene right now is chaotic, without any unity or artistic purpose; it’s just people trying to get rich.

He pointed out how hip hop, as a musical art-form, just isn’t living up to musical standards; how it’s just plain bad.

I agree with him on those, and many of his other points. However, the author also notes:

It takes a lot to “kill” a genre of music. People have been writing about the end of rock and rap since the day they were created. I’m not saying hip hop is dying or dead.

With this I disagree. Rap and hip-hop music is dead. Period. End of story.

And do you want to know just how I know this? Just watch this clip. It's one of the most disturbing videos you'll ever see next to Hayden Christensen's zombie-like portrayal of Darth Vader in Star Wars, or a commercial for fat-free mayonnaise.

Oh. My. God. Yes, rap is dead. As a doornail.

If you know someone who doesn't already hate the Bush Administration, show them this video. That should do the trick.

Share This

I know exactly what you mean. I've been saying the same thing for years about American Idol.

(Image courtesy Modal Minority)

Share This

They've really gotta be shitting me. I mean, really.

First, during Sean Hannity’s March 23 radio show, former New York Mayor (and New York U.S. Attorney) Rudolph Giuliani fielded phone calls from listeners. One caller asked Giuliani to clarify his stance on gun control, to which he replied, “I support the First Amendment right to carry and bear arms.”

Okay, for any others also not paying attention during "Con Law I" class, the two Constitutional Amendments at issue are as follows:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Riiight. Thanks Rudy, and you're running for President of just what, exactly?

As if that wasn't comical enough, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As aptly noted by the Washington Post:

The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear of implicating herself in a crime.

At least she cited the correct Amendment. It could have been worse - she could have sought refuge under the Eighteenth Amendment, but then she wouldn't have the luxury of getting liquored-up after being granted immunity.

Finally, as if the above stories weren't sufficient justification for lobotomizing all lawyers (myself included), there's this story of the Justice Department's continued efforts to mangle the U.S. justice system. In addition to the now well-publicized political firings of said U.S. attorneys, the Justice Department sought to insert a provision into the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act that would allow the AG the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

Thankfully, Congress passed a bill yesterday stripping the Justice Department and the AG of that power, which would effectively have given the President and his legal lackeys the power to hire and fire, at will, the highest law enforcement officials in the country - depending on which of Congresses laws they seek to enforce.

Well, I guess it could be worse. A woman could cut off your penis while you're sleeping and toss it out the window of a moving car.

N.B. As you can see, for some reason I'm stuck on a Fight Club/Super Friends theme this week. Sorry about that. I'm hoping it passes before I develop a taste for lobster bisque and crime-fighting.

(Via The Daily Dish)

Share This

During yesterday's hearings on global warming, James Inhofe, the former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was questioning Vice President Al Gore, who had been invited to testify before the Committee concerning various elements of global warming discussed in his Oscar-award winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

As he apparently did not like the answers he was getting, Inhofe attempted to "shut down" the Vice President, claiming that he didn't want to hear the answers because he thought the responses would take "too much time."

Watch this clip of Inhofe getting slapped down by Senator Barbara Boxer, who now chairs the committee. In particular, pay attention to the look of utter contempt on his face at the end of the clip as he tries to "laugh off" the whole situation.

Now that is a better reason to reconnect my cable TV than any other mindless blather the networks and cable channels hurl out each day like so much projectile vomit.

It's like an idea for a new Mastercard commercial:

• Buying an election = Billions of dollars in soft money contributions.
• Conducting an unnecessary war to repay tenfold the evil old cronies at Haliburton, Exxon, and elsewhere who helped buy your seat of power. = 24,100 U.S. troops wounded in action, 3000 U.S. troops killed in action, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in ensuing civil war.
• Losing mid-term Congressional elections after having fucked up the country worse than a five (5) year old with downs syndrome and then getting your ass handed to you on a platter on live TV = PRICELESS.

Share This

Dick Cheney:
(n) Current Vice President of the United States under George W Bush. Most probably the main influence behind George Bush's cunning plan to exploit the memory of September 11th and start a war with a conveniently oil-rich nation in order to distract the American public from the shitty job they were doing at home. See also pure evil.

According to Editor & Publisher, a new Gallup poll reveals that 66% of Americans disapprove of the job Dick Cheney is doing as vice president. That is down six points from a year ago, and is the lowest approval score Gallup has measured for Cheney.

In addition to favorably rating the Vice President, the other 34% of the respondents also approved of the sacrificing of vestal virgin in an effort to help the war effort in Iraq, as well as adding apple-and-cinnamon swirls to their daily cocktails of human blood.

Share This

Truth or Fiction? At This Point, It's Really Just Too Close To Call.

Featured News of The Apocalypse:

More News of The Apocalypse:

Share This

Via The Onion:

Bush Cuts Off Diplomatic Relations With Congress
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush announced Monday that his administration will permanently sever ties with the democratically controlled United States Congress, ending a nearly 220-year-old alliance between the two governmental branches.

Read the full story here.

Share This

Yesterday, I wrote concerning a story written by Andrew Sullivan about how the Argentinian government had refused to hold high-level meetings with U.S. attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales, because of "its deep felt and firm policy of opposition to torture."

In response to my initial post, Mr. Shark raised the very real issue of Argentina's own despotic past, stating:

"Argentinians against torture, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. How easily they forget their juntas."

Shark brought up a very good point. However, in response, I noted my disagreement with his feigned (i.e., ironic) humour with the situation, noting that:

I think that’s (ostensibly, at least) the main reason they’re taking the stance they are against Gonzales and the Bush Administration. In remembering the results of their own torturous despots of only 20-30 years ago, the Argentinians are arguably in a better position to call out George Bush for what he really is - a torturer and a fascist.

Now, another follow-up from Mr. Sullivan, this time citing to another article from the Buenos Aires newspaper, Pagina/12, which is much more revealing.

One of Sullivan's Spanish speaking readers translated the pertinent parts of the article, noting that the article avoids explicitly stating why Gonzales did not get high-level talks, opting instead to show how it was a clear deviation from diplomatic protocol by outlining how Gonzales' rank in the US government was not afforded corresponding diplomatic recognition by Argentinian government representatives.

More interestingly, the Pagina/12 article goes on to discuss the talks that Gonzales did have with the Ministers of Justice and the Interior, Alberto Iribarne and Anibal Fernandez respectively. In those meetings, Gonzales brought up the war on terror and America's gratitude to Argentina for its cooperation. The article says that both ministers had been instructed to bring up the issue of "what's permitted and what's prohibited" in America's war on terror.

Then comes this paragraph:

Iribarne explained to him that the methods used by the Argentine dictatorship three decades ago led to state terrorism, which the current government rejected. Fernandez said that Argentina's cooperation had a limit: he mentioned explicitly Gonzales' famous memos and explained to him the government's disagreement with their substance. He added that the Argentine government is part of the International Crimes Tribunal and supports the application of the statute of Rome, which it created, and the Geneva Conventions.

This seems to bolster my argument regarding the underlying reasons why the Argentinians have voiced their disapproval with "interrogation techniques" (ahem) authorized and used by the Bush Administration.

Oh, and for anyone who still doubts Gonzales's role in the Administration's torture scheme, or for that matter, whether or not the Administration actively authorized the use of torture, there's this astonishing final tidbit:

In response to the aforementioned issues raised by the Argentinian Minister of Justice, Gonzales responded that his memos had not been written with public dissemination in mind. Remarkable.

Gonzales essentially admitted that he authorized the use of torture. The only mistake he made was that the American public somehow found out what he had authorized. Think of what we have discovered about the torture policies of these people. Now imagine what we don't yet know.

(Nod to The Daily Dish)

Share This

I found it interesting that the Argentinian government has refused to hold high-level meetings with U.S. attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales.

The reason?

According to published reports, the Argentinian government refused to meet with him because of "its deep felt and firm policy of opposition to torture." (emphasis supplied)

While I apologize for generalizing, what I find interesting are the different viewpoints held by those in the Latino/Hispanic community. Argentinians, who have a long and bitter history with governments that disappear and torture people, see Gonzales for who he is and and what he represents. To the contrary, a majority of Cubans in South Florida still vocally support Gonzales and the Bush Administration.

Apparently, Cubans don't have that same history with governments that disappear and torture people. Err, wait a minute …

(Via The Daily Dish)

UPDATE: For anyone interested, the underlying point of this post was to exemplify the apparent willingness by many to accept, and even support, the lesser of two evils. The means should not, and do not, justify the ends. Freedom should, and can, come through means other than by choosing one torturous despotic regime over another.

Share This

What Really Happened:

(via The Daily Dish)

Share This

I am an essentially an isolationist. I noted this during my discussion with Mr. Shark in the comment section of my post from yesterday about anonymous U.S. military officials on Sunday accusing the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq.

In my comments, I also noted my underlying belief that any significant activity in which the U.S. engages outside of its borders should be based on higher global values with a greater priority than economic, political, and/or religious goals. Excluded from this equation would be the U.S.'s initial involvement in Iraq, the White House's present instigation of another undeclared war on Iran, and engaging with North Korea on a variety of non-diplomatic levels.

My argument stops with, and is unfortunately exemplified by, the situation that has been developing at an alarming speed during the past month in Zimbabwe. I have no commentary and no jokes. Just surprise at the speed of that government's meltdown, and awe at the level of disregard the world has shown towards the situation.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with what is happening in Zimbabwe, I strongly suggest that you read this summary from Jeff Weintraub, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, entitled "Zimbabwe Meltdown Continues."

Share This

The latest A.P. reports out of Baghdad quote anonymous U.S. military officials on Sunday accusing the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

As reported by A.P.:

The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

It included a power-point slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

Well, I guess the good news is that the White House only needs to change one letter on all the fraudulent information they made up about Iraq four (4) years ago. That's sure to save the White House some paper, at least.

UPDATE: For anyone interested in this subject, I suggest you read this article from Time, entitled "Is Iran to Blame? Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'a Don't Agree", as well as the latest headline from Yahoo, predictably entitled "Iran rejects U.S. charges on arming Iraq."

If you're interested in reading something a bit less coherent, you can also tune in to my discussion with Mr. Shark in the comment section of this post (my comments being incoherent, not his). The man shark brings up some interesting points.

Share This

I love this idea! If the measure passes, I'm moving to Washington State immediately! That way, I'll never again have to come up with ridiculous excuses for ending a relationship out of commitment-phobia. Instead, if I play my cards right, I'll be able to automatically "exit" after 3 years (even with my next wife).

Associated Press, February 05, 2007 10:05 PM EST

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

In a separate press statement, The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance announced they recently replaced their current executive director with this man:


Mr. Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius.

Share This