Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Well Appointed Condos?

I stumbled onto this guy's (Jordan Scopa) blog. Never heard of him. I am confident to say that he is a horrible writer. I wouldn't post anything on this, except that I have a bleg: can anyone figure out what the hell he is talking about here:
Such films are meant to keep hedonists and amoralists happy in their well-appointed condos in New York, Los Angeles, and the like.
(Emphasis mine.) What is a well-appointed condo? Seriously, I have no idea.
And that statement could clearly win one of Andrew's "Malkin" Awards.

On another note, how many hours do you think went into these sentences:
Last night, I watched Clint Eastwood's film, Million Dollar Baby. I do not desire to write a review for this film, as I feel it deserves far more than what a review can offer. Instead, I will write words inspired by the film and infused with its essence.
OK, the first sentence is good structure --- that is how you write. The next two are such wordy pieces of crap I don't even know what to say about them. . . . Keep trying.

And if you waste your time reading the "review," you'll find out he has nothing to say. Wow. The crap that is found on the internets these days.

"I do not desire to write a review for this film"? How about: I do not intend to review the film. Much simpler.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Captain's Quarters on the Aviator: OCD is Weird

Ed Morrisey on The Aviator:
"Mostly, I was bothered by the overwhelming focus on Hughes' obsessive-compulsive disorder rather than the accomplishments in his life. Hints appear in almost every scene, and at one point I wanted to say, 'I GET IT! HE HAS OCD!' It's the kind of thing that actors salivate to portray, and Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job doing so. However, OCD wasn't the be-all and end-all of Howard Hughes, and Scorsese misses the forest for the trees"
Translation: Mental illness is icky, and I wish Scorcese would have glossed over this aspect of Hughes' character.

Ed, unfortunately for the mentally ill, "hints" of their mental illness appear in almost all of the "scenes" of their lives. Scorcese did an excellent job of telling the story of a portion of Hughes' life, and in the process he showed how those with mental illness are afflicted by their disease. Sorry that was icky for you Ed.

And the movie hardly portrayed Hughes' illness as "the be-all and end-all" of Hughes' life. Quite the contrary: Ed seems to have missed the point of the film. Rather, one of the over-arching themes of the movie was the fact that Hughes' illness, obsessive-compulsive disorder, was the source of not only his greatest weaknesses, but of his greatest achievements, and caused him to obsess over his projects until he had perfected them. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with Hughes' life would know that "hints" of OCD did pervade almost every aspect of his life. Scorcese brilliantly shows how mental illnesses can be a double-edged sword.

Perhaps Ed was upset that My Left Footconcentrated so much on the lead characters' disability rather than on his achievements. (One can imagine Ed's review: OK, I get it, he can only use his left foot.) But of course this analogy would only confuse those with Ed's worldview; for them, mental illness is a character-flaw and not a true disability. People with mental disabilities who overcome them should be celebrated in the same way people with physical disabilities who overcome them should be celebrated.

Ed also manages to get in a lick at Michael Moore in his "review." Funny how the wingnuts can always mention Moore in any review of a movie . . . .

I'm also surprised he didn't make some point about whatever political affiliation Alan Alda's character (a Senator) had in real life.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Guess the Bloggers

August has a good post on the whole Zephyr Teachout debacle. In the midst of the post he has this to say:
In the three years I've been blogging I've seen college professors knowingly lie. I've seen gay men sell out their very soul for the sake of pretending that their President doesn't consider them an abomination. I've seen brilliant women with the most clever minds for pop culture force themselves to act stupid for the sake of convincing themselves of the infallibility of recent foreign policy. The right-wing blogosphere has removed itself from any realm of rational discourse and instead established only one principle: win the argument.
OK, let's play a game, who is August referring to?

"I've seen college professors knowingly lie."

Too easy. There are so many examples it's not even worth guessing, but I assume he is talking about the King of Professor-Bloggers, and the King of all Liars, Glenn Reynolds (also king of shit-blogging).

"I've seen gay men sell out their very soul for the sake of pretending that their President doesn't consider them an abomination."

Now, the obvious answer would be Andrew "king of libel" Sullivan. But I don't think that is who August is referring to. Rather, I think he is referring to Gay Patriot --- a complete apologist for Bush who has picked up where Sully left off (after Sully nominally stopped supporting Shrub). Gay Patriot sucks W's cock so much more intensely than W --- going so far as to apologize and defend consistently W's brazen anti-gay bigotry.

"I've seen brilliant women with the most clever minds for pop culture force themselves to act stupid for the sake of convincing themselves of the infallibility of recent foreign policy."

OK, this has to be Ann Althouse. Ann is a complete apologist for W. I think she wants Laura's job.

So August, am I correct? I really want to know.

Sullivan on Kos: Never Miss an Opportunity to Libel

Sully on Kos:

I agree with Hugh Hewitt about both Armstrong Williams and DailyKos. But there's a big distinction. Kos clearly disclosed his payola from the Dean campaign. Williams never told anyone he was on the take from the Education Department. That makes a huge difference. Maybe Kos should have made more of a deal about it, but that's a quibble, not a major concern. (I'm leaving out any conflicts of interest that we don't yet know about. Maybe Kos is worse - but we can't know that right now. . . .
What a slimeball Sully is. Uses this as a way to simply libel Kos.

Here's me on Sully:
There is no difference between the relationship I have with my girlfriend, and the relationship between Sully and his boyfriend. Both are relationships between consenting adults, and should not be the subject of government regulation or be used to score political points. I'm leaving out any child molestation we don't yet know about. Maybe Sully is different, maybe he fucks 12-year-old boys in the ass giving them the HIV, but we can't know that right now. . . .
How's it feel Sully?

Now shut the fuck up.

You have nothing to add to this conversation.

Go back to fucking Jonah Goldberg in the ass.

Quote of the Week

Jesse Taylor in response to some Hugh Hackitt's comments on the Falafel Hour: "[I]f Instapundit is a journalist, Mr. Moviefone should be winning a Pulitzer any day now."

Nice.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

More on Simon

This is why he should run the party. He nails it --- understands the right-wing noise machine's BS attempt at equivalence between Jerome and Kos. Nails.

Could you imagine Terry MacAullife (sp?) even knowing about this. Dean isn't even as on top of this whole thing like Simon is.

Zephyr Teachout Should Be BlackBalled

This was an inexcusable smear job.

Any candidate that hires Zephyr Teachout will never get my vote. Period. She has proven herself to have no ethics at all. We don't need that kind of person on our team. She can go start doing internet outreach for Jeb's 2008 campaign. She'd work well with Karl Rove.

Frankly, a lot has been written about her motives, but I cannot help but think that she was motivated by trying to get traffic to her blog.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chair

Although I think Dean would be a fine choice and would not be bitter should he win, I am officially endorsing Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chair. (My endorsement should all but end this race.)

Thomas Schaller explains the reasons why Simon will be able to lead the Dems out of the wilderness much better than I ever could. His first reason is the most compelling as far as I am concerned, and is reason enough for why he, rather than Dean, is the best candidate:
Rosenberg is a strategist-tactician. It is fine for the chair to be an elected official when the party controls the White House, because the strategies and tactics are derived from the Oval Office and the chair's job is to serve as the president's consigliere to the Party. But in today's political-electoral climate, the Democrats need a self-starter who also knows how to plan, articulate, strategize, and operationalize. Few elected officials (other than the Big Dog himself) have found the time, while busily pursuing their own public careers, to master these skills. Simon has.
As Instaclown would say, read the whole thing.
And although I still consider myself an independent, I plan to register Democrat for the foreseeable future, as I believe the Republicans under Shrub's leadership have become complete radicals, and anyone who considers himself liberal, moderate, or even conservative has no choice but to root for the Dems (at least on the national level).

Predictions: Ezra, Kevin, and Publius will all come around to endorse Simon (even though Publius has officially endorsed Dean, he admits to having an open mind still).

Anyways, support Simon.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Insight into the Right

Via Totten's comments, we have a unique insight into the people, like instaclown, who believe that all is going fine and dandy in Iraq:
Let's see: we've eliminated Saddam's government, freed about as many people as lived in WWII Germany, stopped the massacres by the Ba'ath, stopped the Oil-for-Food scam, we're about to have real elections (about three years faster than we did in occupied Europe or Japan), the Iraqis seem determined to actually vote, we've blocked major lines of communications for the Islamists (look at a map, see what recoloring Iraq does), Libya rolled over (exposing AQ Khan), and we've done it with about as many casualties as we had in training accidents before D-Day.
Hardly any of this is true.
  • There are about 25 million people who have been "freed" in Iraq; around 65 million in pre-war Germany were "freed" (or more accurately, at least in the case of Germany, SUBDUED). About a 150 percent off there.
  • Stopped the massacres by the Ba'ath. Well, objectively true, but the most conservative estimates of dead Iraqis in the last two years or so is about 20,000 (the highest numbers have been around 100,000) --- 20,000 in two years is at least as many dead as a good killing-spree in the same period by Saddam, and probably a lot more.
  • Stopped the "oil-for-food scam" -- translation: I get my news from Instapundit. Also, now we have the oil-to-halliburten scam (sorry Totsky, but I see nothing egregious in pointing out an absurd conflict-of-interest).
  • Germany and Japan have national elections in 1949 --- about three or four years after we occupy those nations. Here, God-willing, Iraqis hold a national vote about two years after we begin our occupation --- thus, it's closer to one or two years faster (and this assumes that real national elections actually take place --- the chances of that happenning are now approaching zero).
  • Libya rolling over --- puh-leeze. And in any event, Libya has not been doing jack since Reagan bombed them in '86 (Syria, Iran, and North Korea, have hardly rolled over, and there is much more to worry about from them than from that clown Khadafi).
  • Finally, the "with about as many casualties as we had in training accidents before D-Day" argument is so insulting to those who have died that it is hardly even worth responding to. But if you must, see this post from that crazy liberal blog, the Volokh Consiracy, for why such arguments are absolutely meaningless, misleading, and idiotic.
So, just about everything this guy says is based on bullshit he obviously hears in the Instapundit-and-friends Noise Machine.

Sad. Very sad.

Totten: Shameless

Michael Totten quotes to us approvingly from a Hack Central Station article which explains to us why the Iraq war was a correct allocation of our limited resources in the War on Terror:
It may once have been correct to claim that Iraq was not strategically significant. But neither were the fields at Waterloo, Gettysburg or Stalingrad until the contending armies met in those places. By accident or political design, insignificant places become enduring historical names.
Totten expands on why this is analysis is right on:
If the US had invaded, say, Bolivia - Osama bin Laden would have completely ignored it. And those who would have claimed invading Bolivia had nothing to do with the Terror War would have been correct.
OK, let's put to the side for a moment the assisine and completely unsupportable assumption that Bin Laden --- who has shown a viscious sophistication in his ability to twist any sort of foreign engagement by the United States into another example of his message that the US is an imperialist, global hegemon bent on destroying the umma --- would have ignored us if we had invaded Bolivia. . . . Totten has now resorted to the absolute stupidest justification for the war in Iraq, and what appears to be the latest. For the newcomers to the debate over whether to invade Iraq, let's review the prior justifications and what happened to them:
  1. Weapons of Mass Destruction --- On the basis of columns and a book written by Judith Miller (of that bastion of the liberal media, the New York Times), the Bushies assure us that Iraq has massive stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and that Iraq has been making headway in plans to restart its nuclear program over twenty years after Israel justifiably bombed the shit out of Iraq's nuclear reactor and made its nuclear scientists disappear. TRUTH: Far from a slam-dunk, it turns out that Saddam had destroyed his stockpiles of bio- and chem- weapons years ago, and that he was no closer to building a nuclear bomb than was my cat. Wingnuts like Totten continue to argue that Saddam had such weapons for at least a year, but finally have to admit that no such weapons existed when two different Bush-administration appointed commissioners appointed to investigate whether Saddam had such weapons inform us of the obvious.
  2. Al-Qaeda connections --- Laughable. Cheney tells us of this one on several occasions --- going even further than just Al-Qaeda connections, and implying, based on a mythic meeting between Muhammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence, that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks. TRUTH: Turns out the connections were pretty much non-existent.
  3. Toppling a Horrible Dictator. Spread democracy, etc., etc. Speaks for itself. TRUTH: Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator but this cannot be a jus belli as the United States would basically have to attack about fifty or sixty countries. North Korean regime --- just as bad. Iranian regime --- just as bad. Libyan regime --- just as bad (as Totsky knows). China --- arguably as bad. Pakistan --- probably as bad. etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, now that all of the above have been toppled, Totsky comes out to endorse the most ridiculous justification yet --- because Osama cares about Iraq (or more precisely, pretends to care about Iraq), it shows that we were right to invade Iraq. WTF??!? I mean that just makes no sense.

Osama cares about Iraq because he has been able to use it for his propaganda war, and, no doubt, has been able to recruit more and more jihadists based on our unforgiveable blunders there (Abu-Ghraib anyone?---torture or not, it was a blunder). By Totten's newest-endorsed rationale, invading any Muslim country would be justifiable because Osama "would [not] have ignored it." This logic is so self-evidently absurd that no further comment is necessary.

Shit, by Totten's newest adopted and invented rationale, invading Jordan, our ally, would have been a justifiable use of our limited resources in the war on terror because Osama would not have ignored it.

Michael Totten, I ask you this: Do you have no shame sir?

Answer me this: Could you ever admit that maybe, just maybe, this whole fucking war was a mistake instead of inventing new rationales for it every few months?

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Derb: Obsessed With Homos

Can anyone serious question that Derb has some serious homosexual tendencies? Sullivan has already pointed out extensively this guy's obsession with guy-guy assfucking. See the latest here. Is the guy enamored with this stuff or what?

The guy is known for his expertise in two things: The Riemann Hypothesis and buggery. I'd love to see someone analyze the relationship between the two.

By the way, as a straight male who has lived his whole life in Los Angeles, I've never once encountered a homo who was intent on "converting" me or whatever. But maybe I'm not as good-looking as Derb. . . .

And I have no fucking clue whether Lincoln was gay, and could care less.

Instaidiot: More Shit Blogging

King of the Shit-bloggers is at it again. As everyone else has already gone through this, let me just say, in true instahack-style, more here, here, and here.

As Instaclown's idol would say: "First-class asshole."

Indeed.