Hey, it is not ME. I don't make this stuff up. I have even had to admit--to my shame--that I am more a feminist than almost every leftist out there. I supported BOTH Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton--ultimately refusing to vote for Palin only because of the MALE on the ticket.
Yes, there is evidently an international poll out there that finds amazing support for the idea that the primary role of a woman should be as a wife and mother.
Let us be up front here. Is there ANY woman out there stupid enough to adopt the role of wife and mother, as her primary function in life, because Skip--or Laura Ingram, who does not live that role--thinks that is the proper role of women? Don't be silly. NOBODY thinks that way. Nobody should think that way.
Yet Laura Ingram's radio program this morning--which I never listen to, which might explain why I may have misspelled her name--devoted HOURS to the question of this international poll, and the proper role of women. Further, there was considerable support for the idea that women's place really is "in the home". I could never make this up. It is a LIE, by the way, that feminists are okay with women making that choice. You can't say that and then measure "progress" by success that women have in in the workplace (as "feminists" do).
My position is not that women "should" regard their "place" as in the home. Nor--unlike the arrogant "feminists"--is my position that women should NOT regard their place as in the home. I don't think it is my place to say what will be better for WOMEN.
My position is that SOCIETY and CHILDREN would be better off if most women regarded their main function as making a home for their husbands and children. Yes, this is basically the position that EVERYONE--in the working world--needs a wife, including women. But can women really afford to put themselves at the mercy of men that way? My daughters---lawyers both--would answer "NO" to that question. But are women in general happier in the same role as men? I don't know the answer to tat, and I don't think most women do either.
Yes, I know. Most women these days may not have much choice. But that is part of the problem. If it is accepted that the role of women is to make a home, that does not keep them from working out of necessity. However, if women are EXPECTED to work, or most women do work, that makes it very hard for women to adopt the traditional role. The world is then set up so that most women are FORCED to work. Women may actually have more real choices when it is accepted that most women will be "taken care of" by a man than when it is expected that most women will work. It is NEVER true---always an illusion--that women will be able to choose whatever they want. The world just does not work that way. Society's expectations ALWAYS influence the options you really have, except to the extent you are one of those rare persons who makes his or her own rules.
Do we NEED a class of persons--women?--who regard their main responsibility as "making a home" and "raising the children". I have almost no doubt on this point., We DO need such a class of persons. But will women, as a class, be happier fitting themselves into that role than in moving toward the feminist model (which, as stated, really DEVALUES the "traditional" role, whatever "feminists" may say)? U di bit know whether women, as a class, would be happier if society embraced the traditional role (as society really now does not).
What is clear to me is that--at least in the United States--the role of women will NOT be determined by what I think it should be. Nor will it be determined by what the NOW type feminists think it should be. It will be determined, woman by woman, by what each WOMAN thinks will make her happy. Yes, that may be influenced by society's expectations, and even by opinions of persons such as myself influencing what a each woman thinks will make her happy. But, over time, that "woman-by-woman decision making will move society one way or another. The idea that women, or men, can have infinite choices--in the real world--is both an illusion and a delusion. Society--look up the meaning of the term--inevitably constrains choices. A society cannot measure "progress" by who many powerful (in a male sense) women there are, and then say that housewives" have equal value. The world just does not work that way. Sure, there can be a wider choice than in very restricted societies, but the "choice" is ALWAYS constrained. Among other things, it is easier for husbands to support wives if most women do not work--or at least don't "compete" with the men trying to support their wives.
This poll, and the rather large response to the question on the Laura Ingram radio show, indicates to me that the questuib of the role of women is not "setttled--especially worldwide, but not even in this country. As I have stated, it basically comes down--at least in this country--to what women THINK will make them "happy". And that can change.
Yes, there is no doubt that women CAN be happy as wives and mothers. There may be--and is, as far as I am concerned--some question about whether most women can be happy in a society where men and women have the SAME role. That is because men and women are objectively DIFFERENT. But there are obviously a large variety of roles in which most women can find some happiness--meaning that it is unlikely this "question" will ever be "settled".
I just hope the uncontrolled social experiment we are performing on our children--not only with the changing role of women, but things like sexual mores, marriage and overall morals--does not kill us in the end. As stated, I don't know what is best for WOMEN. But for society at large, I believe it important that SOMEBODY perform the traditional woman's role. If not women, then who?
P.S. Did I really say that women might have MORE real choices in a "traditional" society? Yes, I did. That is not true, of course, in a severely regimented society. But if you look at American movies of the 20th Century--even such movies as the early serials--women were OFTEN shown in "non-traditional" roles. Sure, a woman was not generally going to be a race car driver, a jockey ("National Velvet" aside) or a firefighter. But how many womn really WANT to be those things. But a determined woman could step outside the traditional role. Meanwhile, perfectly ordinary women could be housewives, with no pressure upon them to work other than economic necessity. They were not EXPECTED to work, even if it meant the family did not have as much money. My other, for example, was a registered nurse, but she could be a housewife when she wanted to be without stigma. That choice is fast disappearing for women, EXCEPT those women with truly well off husbands. Have women really gained in this trade off? I wonder.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sandra Bullock: The Best of Times, and the Worst of Tijmes
For Sandra Bullock, it has been the best of times; and it has been the worst of times (to paraphrase the opening of "A Tale of Two Cities").
Forget the first woman director winning an Oscar. After all, women--especially feminist women--saw no value in having the first woman Vice President (Sarah Palin), and little value in having the first woman President (Hillary Clinton being in position to accomplish that if the left had not abandoned her for Obama). Obviously not important.
However, Sandra Bullock accomplished a truly significant "first"--evidently for either a man or a woman (although I am not sure about whether a male actor has done it in the "actor" category). Yes, it was an amazing feat.
Sandra Bullock, as you probably know, won the "best actress" Oscar for best performance by an Oscar. What you may not know is that Sandra Bullock also won the WORST ACTRESS "Razzie" for WORST performance by an actress in a leading role last year (for "All About Steve"). This was an unprecedented "double win" for an actress. Meryl Streep has never done it. Katerine Hepburn never did it.
What RANGE for an actress. It can't be easy to give two such widely different performances in one year.
Yes, "All About Steve" was yet more proof that Hollywood no longer knows how to make a good "romantic comedy". I recently saw "When in Rome", which was BETTER than most Hollywood romantic comedies in recent years, and it was not very good (63 out of 100--barely worth seeing). "When in Rome" was only as mildly good as it was because it was a throwback to the past--without most of the gross crudity of modern Hollywood "humor". Unfortunately, Hollywood has pretty much lost the knack for great comedy. Look at "The Lady Eve" and see how far Hollywood has fallen, or look at almost any Cary Grant romantic comedy. Hollywood no longer even knows how to make "While You Were Sleeping".
Still, Sandra Bullock showed class. She not only showed up in person to accept her Oscar. She showed up in person to accept her Razzie. You have to admire a woman like that, even if my daughter says she seemed pretty out of sorts with her husband (Jesse James) when my daughter was a waitress/hostes at an Hawaiian restaurant where Bullock had dinner some five years ago.
We all know that ALL wives habitually get irritated with their husbands. They are (the husbands) MALES, after all.
Forget the first woman director winning an Oscar. After all, women--especially feminist women--saw no value in having the first woman Vice President (Sarah Palin), and little value in having the first woman President (Hillary Clinton being in position to accomplish that if the left had not abandoned her for Obama). Obviously not important.
However, Sandra Bullock accomplished a truly significant "first"--evidently for either a man or a woman (although I am not sure about whether a male actor has done it in the "actor" category). Yes, it was an amazing feat.
Sandra Bullock, as you probably know, won the "best actress" Oscar for best performance by an Oscar. What you may not know is that Sandra Bullock also won the WORST ACTRESS "Razzie" for WORST performance by an actress in a leading role last year (for "All About Steve"). This was an unprecedented "double win" for an actress. Meryl Streep has never done it. Katerine Hepburn never did it.
What RANGE for an actress. It can't be easy to give two such widely different performances in one year.
Yes, "All About Steve" was yet more proof that Hollywood no longer knows how to make a good "romantic comedy". I recently saw "When in Rome", which was BETTER than most Hollywood romantic comedies in recent years, and it was not very good (63 out of 100--barely worth seeing). "When in Rome" was only as mildly good as it was because it was a throwback to the past--without most of the gross crudity of modern Hollywood "humor". Unfortunately, Hollywood has pretty much lost the knack for great comedy. Look at "The Lady Eve" and see how far Hollywood has fallen, or look at almost any Cary Grant romantic comedy. Hollywood no longer even knows how to make "While You Were Sleeping".
Still, Sandra Bullock showed class. She not only showed up in person to accept her Oscar. She showed up in person to accept her Razzie. You have to admire a woman like that, even if my daughter says she seemed pretty out of sorts with her husband (Jesse James) when my daughter was a waitress/hostes at an Hawaiian restaurant where Bullock had dinner some five years ago.
We all know that ALL wives habitually get irritated with their husbands. They are (the husbands) MALES, after all.
Monday, March 8, 2010
John McCain: McCain's Wife and Daughter Support Gay Rights Advocates--And That Is Not Even Why You Should Vote Against Him
"McCain's Wife, Daughter Support Gay Rights Advocates."
That was the MSNBC/Newsvine "story with an agenda" several weeks ago. What was the agenda? Oh, come on. You know this one. Even though it is DEMOCRATS conducting Soviet Gulag type PURGES of "moderates" from their ranks (see today's story on Eric Massa, and his allegations of how he was treated by the White House and Nancy Peolosi because of his position on health care legislation), the industrial grade hypocrites of the mainstream media like to concentrate on "divisions" within the Republican Party. The mainstream media mantra is to view with HORROR a supposed "right wing" attempt to takeover the Republican Party--while ignoring that the LEFT WING has taken over the Democratic Party, and is purging all dissent.
Even though the mainstream media portrayed John McCain as "right wing" during the campaign--hypocritical partisans that they are--they still want to use McCain as a "moderate" being purged (or at least attempted to be purged) from the Republican Party. McCain is in a primary in Arizona, challenged by a man who calls himself more conservative. MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, want to ENCOURAGE "conservatives" to "right" with "moderates" i the Republican Party, because MSNBC thinks that is good for leftist Democrats. That is a main motivation behind the above quoted headline. The other motivation is that the mainstream media is PUSHING the issue of homosexual marriage, and "gay rights".
Does it matter what McCain's wife and daughter think? Nope. Not a bit. It does not matter on whether McCain should be defeated (as he should be), OR on the merits of homosexual marriage. McCain's wife and daughter are merely tow people, with no more credibility on this "issue" than any other two people. You cannot believe in the emancipation of women and say otherwise. McCain can neither be "blamed" for the views of his wife and daughter, nor give credence to their views just because they are his wife and daughter.
Homosexual marriage is simply a TERRIBLE idea--conflicting with the entire THOUSANDS of years of human history before the 21st Century. "Sexual orientation" is merely a POLITICAL term with no objective meaning other than HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. Doubt me? Don't. What about the "sexual orientation" of pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality, necrophilia, and many other sexual "perversions". Indeed, there is MORE support in human history for both polygamy and incest than for homosexual marriage (as distinct from tolerance of homosexual conduct). There is absolutely no way to justify sanctioning homosexual marriage without sanctioning polygamy, and even incest. You are intellectually dishonest if you fail to recognize this. The goal here, of course, is societal APPROVAL of homosexual conduct as no different from heterosexual conduct--fully as sanctioned for society. This is NOT the same as "tolerance", and there is no reason for society to accept this political power play to force us to ignore reality, and all of those thousands of years of human history.
You can see I oppose "gay rights" (depending, of course, on what "right" you are talking about--as homosexuals are human beings entitled to the same rights as adulterers and any other human beings, whether they engage in questionable sexual conduct or not). But I would not vote against John McCain because of his wife and daughter.
Nope. I would vote against John McCain because of JOHN MCCAIN. And I would vote against him if I lived in Arizona. One of my brothers does live in Arizona, and WILL vote against McCain--even in the general election, if McCain makes it that far.
It is McCain who is as responsible as any other man for the continuing, ridiculous battle over the "issue" of homosexual marriage. It is MCCAIN--not his wife and daughter--who kept a Constitutional Amendment from being passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Yes. I do "blame" McCain for that, but even that is not why I would vote against McCain in Arizona.
I would vote against McCain in Arizona because McCain has devoted his political life to TRASHING conservatives, and conservative ideas. Even in his recent campaign, McCain was more enthusiastic in attacking conservatives than in attacking Obama--not personally, but even as to Obama's positions and qualifications to be President. I refuse to vote for a man like that. I did not do so for President, and I would not do so for the Senate in Arizona.
No, it is not just immigration, either, although McCain is totally wrong on that issue. It is not just "global warming", although McCain is totally wrong on that issue (except that McCain has at least opposed Obama's destructive "Cap and Trade" bill, after failing to make that an issue in the campaign). It is not just ANWR, although the McCain failure to make drilling and nuclear power an issue has virtually enbable Obama to (FRAUDULENTLY) "steal" the idea of encouraging both nuclear power and drilling. It is not even McCain's perverse insistence upon waterboarding as "torture"--when he could oppose it without that kind of stupid vehemence.
You can almost see why I would NEVER vote for McCain for any office. But it is not just his positions on issue after issue. As stated, what I cannot forgive is the way McCain has CATERED to the mainstream media attempt to discredit conservatives. As far as I can see, McCain's wife and daughter are merely following in McCain's footsteps, without being as enthusiastic about it as McCain himself. For DECADES, McCain has been the person the media goes to when the mainstream media wants to get a quote trashing a conservative.
NO man deserved it more than when the mainstream media turned on McCain in the recent election. Yet, even then, McCain was more willing to trash conservatives than Obama. Even after Obama's electioin, McCain has pretty much been that way--at least until this primary campaign.
John McCain should get the vote of NO conservative in Arizona--for any election, whether in the primary or general election.
That was the MSNBC/Newsvine "story with an agenda" several weeks ago. What was the agenda? Oh, come on. You know this one. Even though it is DEMOCRATS conducting Soviet Gulag type PURGES of "moderates" from their ranks (see today's story on Eric Massa, and his allegations of how he was treated by the White House and Nancy Peolosi because of his position on health care legislation), the industrial grade hypocrites of the mainstream media like to concentrate on "divisions" within the Republican Party. The mainstream media mantra is to view with HORROR a supposed "right wing" attempt to takeover the Republican Party--while ignoring that the LEFT WING has taken over the Democratic Party, and is purging all dissent.
Even though the mainstream media portrayed John McCain as "right wing" during the campaign--hypocritical partisans that they are--they still want to use McCain as a "moderate" being purged (or at least attempted to be purged) from the Republican Party. McCain is in a primary in Arizona, challenged by a man who calls himself more conservative. MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, want to ENCOURAGE "conservatives" to "right" with "moderates" i the Republican Party, because MSNBC thinks that is good for leftist Democrats. That is a main motivation behind the above quoted headline. The other motivation is that the mainstream media is PUSHING the issue of homosexual marriage, and "gay rights".
Does it matter what McCain's wife and daughter think? Nope. Not a bit. It does not matter on whether McCain should be defeated (as he should be), OR on the merits of homosexual marriage. McCain's wife and daughter are merely tow people, with no more credibility on this "issue" than any other two people. You cannot believe in the emancipation of women and say otherwise. McCain can neither be "blamed" for the views of his wife and daughter, nor give credence to their views just because they are his wife and daughter.
Homosexual marriage is simply a TERRIBLE idea--conflicting with the entire THOUSANDS of years of human history before the 21st Century. "Sexual orientation" is merely a POLITICAL term with no objective meaning other than HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. Doubt me? Don't. What about the "sexual orientation" of pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality, necrophilia, and many other sexual "perversions". Indeed, there is MORE support in human history for both polygamy and incest than for homosexual marriage (as distinct from tolerance of homosexual conduct). There is absolutely no way to justify sanctioning homosexual marriage without sanctioning polygamy, and even incest. You are intellectually dishonest if you fail to recognize this. The goal here, of course, is societal APPROVAL of homosexual conduct as no different from heterosexual conduct--fully as sanctioned for society. This is NOT the same as "tolerance", and there is no reason for society to accept this political power play to force us to ignore reality, and all of those thousands of years of human history.
You can see I oppose "gay rights" (depending, of course, on what "right" you are talking about--as homosexuals are human beings entitled to the same rights as adulterers and any other human beings, whether they engage in questionable sexual conduct or not). But I would not vote against John McCain because of his wife and daughter.
Nope. I would vote against John McCain because of JOHN MCCAIN. And I would vote against him if I lived in Arizona. One of my brothers does live in Arizona, and WILL vote against McCain--even in the general election, if McCain makes it that far.
It is McCain who is as responsible as any other man for the continuing, ridiculous battle over the "issue" of homosexual marriage. It is MCCAIN--not his wife and daughter--who kept a Constitutional Amendment from being passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Yes. I do "blame" McCain for that, but even that is not why I would vote against McCain in Arizona.
I would vote against McCain in Arizona because McCain has devoted his political life to TRASHING conservatives, and conservative ideas. Even in his recent campaign, McCain was more enthusiastic in attacking conservatives than in attacking Obama--not personally, but even as to Obama's positions and qualifications to be President. I refuse to vote for a man like that. I did not do so for President, and I would not do so for the Senate in Arizona.
No, it is not just immigration, either, although McCain is totally wrong on that issue. It is not just "global warming", although McCain is totally wrong on that issue (except that McCain has at least opposed Obama's destructive "Cap and Trade" bill, after failing to make that an issue in the campaign). It is not just ANWR, although the McCain failure to make drilling and nuclear power an issue has virtually enbable Obama to (FRAUDULENTLY) "steal" the idea of encouraging both nuclear power and drilling. It is not even McCain's perverse insistence upon waterboarding as "torture"--when he could oppose it without that kind of stupid vehemence.
You can almost see why I would NEVER vote for McCain for any office. But it is not just his positions on issue after issue. As stated, what I cannot forgive is the way McCain has CATERED to the mainstream media attempt to discredit conservatives. As far as I can see, McCain's wife and daughter are merely following in McCain's footsteps, without being as enthusiastic about it as McCain himself. For DECADES, McCain has been the person the media goes to when the mainstream media wants to get a quote trashing a conservative.
NO man deserved it more than when the mainstream media turned on McCain in the recent election. Yet, even then, McCain was more willing to trash conservatives than Obama. Even after Obama's electioin, McCain has pretty much been that way--at least until this primary campaign.
John McCain should get the vote of NO conservative in Arizona--for any election, whether in the primary or general election.
Texas, Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Conservative, Anti-Washington Tide Rolls On
You may have heard that Governor Rick Perry defeated Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson BADLY in the Republican primary for governor of Texas.
Is this because Rick Perry is such a great "conservative". Not on your life. One of my nightmares is that Perry--ambitious as I know him to be--will run for President. Like George W. Bush before him Perry has been okay as governor of Texas, but would be a disaster as President. He has hardly distinguished himself as a principled advocate of conservative causes. You only have to go to his Executive Order requiring young girls in public schools to have the HPV virus vaccine to know that Perry is not really a principled conservative. Yes, he also was somewhat two-faced on the Obama "stimulus" money, and was--I believe--very glad to get it to avoid any hard decisions on the Texas budget. Both groups supporting Perry and groups supporting Hutchinson were able to run attack ads against the other as not a "real" conservative. Perry supporting ads were right about Hutchinson, and Hutchinson supporting ads were right about Perry.
Yes, Hutchinson has been an okay Senator, but hardly--as Perry--a principled conservative. I think people of Texas saw no reason she should not stay where she was. But there was something more fundamental going on, as conservative commentators have pointed out.
Hutchinson is clearly part of the WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT. Even if you can attack Perry's conservative credentials--correctly recognizing that he is an OPPORTUNIST who becomes "conservative" mainly in Texas elections--he is not tainted with Washington. That was a decisive advantage for Perry.
Voters in Texas, and the country, no longer have ANY trust in Washington politicians--for good reason. That is especially true of Democrats--as the party "in charge"--but it is true of Republicans who are part of the Washington establishment as well. There was no way for Hutchinson to avoid that label, and so she had no chance in Texas.
Yes. Perry lucked out because Texas has done well--comparatively--in the recession. In my opinion, that has more to do with Texas being a conservative state than with Perry. Still, Perry did not mess it up--at least not badly. The Texas governor does not even have that much power, which is why many people were surprised that Hutchinson wanted the job. Nevertheless, it is true that the Texas result is another example of a conservative tide sweeping the country. There is absolutely no doubt it was an ANTI-WASHINGTON vote--whatever else it was. No Republican should doubt that. People are ready to vote against the Republican "establishment" in Washington almost as much as they are ready to vote against the Democratic establishment. Republican politicians who like their own power, rather than having any real conservative principles, had better take warning. Otherwise, their days are numbered. John McCain, this means YOU (although it is really too late for McCain, whether he survives the primary in Arizona or not).
Is this because Rick Perry is such a great "conservative". Not on your life. One of my nightmares is that Perry--ambitious as I know him to be--will run for President. Like George W. Bush before him Perry has been okay as governor of Texas, but would be a disaster as President. He has hardly distinguished himself as a principled advocate of conservative causes. You only have to go to his Executive Order requiring young girls in public schools to have the HPV virus vaccine to know that Perry is not really a principled conservative. Yes, he also was somewhat two-faced on the Obama "stimulus" money, and was--I believe--very glad to get it to avoid any hard decisions on the Texas budget. Both groups supporting Perry and groups supporting Hutchinson were able to run attack ads against the other as not a "real" conservative. Perry supporting ads were right about Hutchinson, and Hutchinson supporting ads were right about Perry.
Yes, Hutchinson has been an okay Senator, but hardly--as Perry--a principled conservative. I think people of Texas saw no reason she should not stay where she was. But there was something more fundamental going on, as conservative commentators have pointed out.
Hutchinson is clearly part of the WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT. Even if you can attack Perry's conservative credentials--correctly recognizing that he is an OPPORTUNIST who becomes "conservative" mainly in Texas elections--he is not tainted with Washington. That was a decisive advantage for Perry.
Voters in Texas, and the country, no longer have ANY trust in Washington politicians--for good reason. That is especially true of Democrats--as the party "in charge"--but it is true of Republicans who are part of the Washington establishment as well. There was no way for Hutchinson to avoid that label, and so she had no chance in Texas.
Yes. Perry lucked out because Texas has done well--comparatively--in the recession. In my opinion, that has more to do with Texas being a conservative state than with Perry. Still, Perry did not mess it up--at least not badly. The Texas governor does not even have that much power, which is why many people were surprised that Hutchinson wanted the job. Nevertheless, it is true that the Texas result is another example of a conservative tide sweeping the country. There is absolutely no doubt it was an ANTI-WASHINGTON vote--whatever else it was. No Republican should doubt that. People are ready to vote against the Republican "establishment" in Washington almost as much as they are ready to vote against the Democratic establishment. Republican politicians who like their own power, rather than having any real conservative principles, had better take warning. Otherwise, their days are numbered. John McCain, this means YOU (although it is really too late for McCain, whether he survives the primary in Arizona or not).
Sunday, March 7, 2010
"Airplane": Before Jerry Zucker Helped Ruin NBC, as NBC Became the Darth Vader--"Spaceballs" Version--of Tv Networks
Yes, Friday night I saw "Airplane" again on Turner Classic Movies. It is still so much funnier than modern movies (intentionally anyway). This is not because it is so intelligent a movie. It is SILLY, and could be blamed for partially creating the genre of gross, silly movies that afflict modern Hollywood.
But "Airplane" (rating 100 out of 100) is so FUNNY. The jokes come at you so fast you can't even keep track of them, including jokes in the background and in the closing credits--one AFTER the closing credits.
""Give me ham on five, and hold the Mayo" (referring to a phone call from a man named Ham on one line, while the Mayo clinic is on the other line).
Kareem Abdul Jabbar, as "Roger Murdock", co-pilot, being hauled unconscious out of his seat--showing the btttom part of his LAKER'S UNIFORM.
Yes, some of the jokes are lame, and even offensive (would get me in "trouble" on Newsvine):
a0 year old girl to 10 year old boy: I like my coffee black, like my men."
Doesn't matter. The movie is FUNNY. As I could never read/see another Gothic story with a straight face, after reading Jane Austen's send up of the Gothic novel, I could never see another disaster movie--after "Airplane"--without almost laughing.
Another thing. Notice how we have become a nation of PRIGS. In "Airplane", you still had SMOKING on airplanes (admittedly probably a bad idea). Now the anti-smoking Nazis won't even give you the choice to smoke is a BAR. Nor was that a joke. "Crash Landing" (another, straight disaster movie shown that night) showed SMOKING passengers as well. Now Philadelphia is putting a major TAX on soda pop with the express intention of making people NOT DRINK IT. I repeat: When did we become a nation of officious PRIGS?
Yes, "Airplane" shows that Jerry Zucker once had actual talent, before he became part of the disaster movie known as "NBC" (including, of course, MSNBC). Once, Jerry Zucker knew what he was doing. Once, NBC was not an evil, terrible network (especially when MSNBC is included).
But "Airplane" (rating 100 out of 100) is so FUNNY. The jokes come at you so fast you can't even keep track of them, including jokes in the background and in the closing credits--one AFTER the closing credits.
""Give me ham on five, and hold the Mayo" (referring to a phone call from a man named Ham on one line, while the Mayo clinic is on the other line).
Kareem Abdul Jabbar, as "Roger Murdock", co-pilot, being hauled unconscious out of his seat--showing the btttom part of his LAKER'S UNIFORM.
Yes, some of the jokes are lame, and even offensive (would get me in "trouble" on Newsvine):
a0 year old girl to 10 year old boy: I like my coffee black, like my men."
Doesn't matter. The movie is FUNNY. As I could never read/see another Gothic story with a straight face, after reading Jane Austen's send up of the Gothic novel, I could never see another disaster movie--after "Airplane"--without almost laughing.
Another thing. Notice how we have become a nation of PRIGS. In "Airplane", you still had SMOKING on airplanes (admittedly probably a bad idea). Now the anti-smoking Nazis won't even give you the choice to smoke is a BAR. Nor was that a joke. "Crash Landing" (another, straight disaster movie shown that night) showed SMOKING passengers as well. Now Philadelphia is putting a major TAX on soda pop with the express intention of making people NOT DRINK IT. I repeat: When did we become a nation of officious PRIGS?
Yes, "Airplane" shows that Jerry Zucker once had actual talent, before he became part of the disaster movie known as "NBC" (including, of course, MSNBC). Once, Jerry Zucker knew what he was doing. Once, NBC was not an evil, terrible network (especially when MSNBC is included).
Oscars: Hollywood Fraud and Confempt for Its Audience
The title does not directly deal with the decline of Hollywood and movies। I watch Turner Classic Movies--not because the politically correct people in charge of that channel are such great people, but because Hollywood used to make actual GOOD movies. It does not do that anymore, except occasionally by accident. Where you once had "To Kill a Mockingbird", you now have any number of politically correct movies that are nothing but heavy handed propaganda or leftist talking points told as dully as possible. That is when the movie is not simply gross, or nothing but a series of impressive special effects (which my family unanimously assures me is true of "Avatar").
Worst of all, Hollywood (people and movies) is now DULL. Special effects do not excitement make. "Gunga Din" was MUCh more exciting than ANY movie made this year.
But, as stated, that is not exactly the fraud the title speaks of। No. The FRAUD is the most cynical marketing ploy ever--saying a LOT in view of the history of Hollywood. We are talking here about the incredible decision to nominate TEN movies for best picture, when it is unlikely there is ONE movie in 2009 actually worthy of the award.
What makes ploy especially cynical is that the last year more than 5 movies were nominated was 2939--the BEST year in Hollywood history। In 1939, there were at least 20 movies who would--at least SHOULD--win best picture if they had been made in 2009. Yes, that is true even if they were made in black and white. You almost could not make this up. In almost its WORST year, Hollywood chooses to nominate more pictures for best picture than in its BEST year--inviting comparison with that year.
That is the fraud: this cynical attempt to suggest that there are now MORE pictures worthy of an Oscar nomination, instead of FEWER।
No, there is no excuse for this. Among other things, this further shows the CONTEMPT of Hollywood for its audience. Can TEN best picture nominees do anything but make the Oscar telecast LONGER, and more BORING? Not a chance.
Yes, I did listen to the opening of tonight's Oscar telecast। BORING. I should know. I tell everyone that I ASPIRE to a boring, dull life. EVERYONE agree s I succeed on every level. Thus, I know whereof I speak.
There is a funny irony here. I got in "trouble" (lol--more about that in later articles) for my article on whether California is worth saving. I even denied, at the end, that my attitude toward California had anything to do with my ex-wife now living in San Jose. Did you hear that LAME joke about James Cameron giving his ex-wife a Toyota, and the similar joke about HER? Many of the other jokes were in similar bad taste. And some people thought I was in BAD TASTE
P.S. Yes, I know. Tom Hanks was right (at the end of the interminable Oscars last night--perhaps the most boring event in the history of television--which I only had on in the background, paying quarter-attention). 2943 was really the last year there were 10 nominees for best picture. However, I am also right. That is still the Golden Age of Hollywood, and it hardly makes things better to compare last night's winner with "Casablanca", than to compare it with "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz." Yes, I am confident at leat 8 of the nominees of 1943--maybe all ten--would have deserved "best picture" last night. To return to 10 "best picture" nominees at a time when Hollywood is so weak--still invoking memories of the Golden Age highlighted by 1939--is an act of desperation. It was an act of inspiration for me to have an article on "Airplane" right after my article on the Oscars. You will remember--as you should have seen "Airplane"--that one of the standing jokes was that the "hero" kept telling war stories to the person sitting next to him--always ending with a variation of "Am I oring you.." to his seatmate. That seatmate is shown either having committed suicide or in the process of committing suicide--BORED TO DEATH. If you watched ALL of the Oscars last night, with attention, there is o reason to address any of this to you. You are not with us anymore. "Airplane" was right. It is possible to be BORED TO DEATH.
Worst of all, Hollywood (people and movies) is now DULL. Special effects do not excitement make. "Gunga Din" was MUCh more exciting than ANY movie made this year.
But, as stated, that is not exactly the fraud the title speaks of। No. The FRAUD is the most cynical marketing ploy ever--saying a LOT in view of the history of Hollywood. We are talking here about the incredible decision to nominate TEN movies for best picture, when it is unlikely there is ONE movie in 2009 actually worthy of the award.
What makes ploy especially cynical is that the last year more than 5 movies were nominated was 2939--the BEST year in Hollywood history। In 1939, there were at least 20 movies who would--at least SHOULD--win best picture if they had been made in 2009. Yes, that is true even if they were made in black and white. You almost could not make this up. In almost its WORST year, Hollywood chooses to nominate more pictures for best picture than in its BEST year--inviting comparison with that year.
That is the fraud: this cynical attempt to suggest that there are now MORE pictures worthy of an Oscar nomination, instead of FEWER।
No, there is no excuse for this. Among other things, this further shows the CONTEMPT of Hollywood for its audience. Can TEN best picture nominees do anything but make the Oscar telecast LONGER, and more BORING? Not a chance.
Yes, I did listen to the opening of tonight's Oscar telecast। BORING. I should know. I tell everyone that I ASPIRE to a boring, dull life. EVERYONE agree s I succeed on every level. Thus, I know whereof I speak.
There is a funny irony here. I got in "trouble" (lol--more about that in later articles) for my article on whether California is worth saving. I even denied, at the end, that my attitude toward California had anything to do with my ex-wife now living in San Jose. Did you hear that LAME joke about James Cameron giving his ex-wife a Toyota, and the similar joke about HER? Many of the other jokes were in similar bad taste. And some people thought I was in BAD TASTE
P.S. Yes, I know. Tom Hanks was right (at the end of the interminable Oscars last night--perhaps the most boring event in the history of television--which I only had on in the background, paying quarter-attention). 2943 was really the last year there were 10 nominees for best picture. However, I am also right. That is still the Golden Age of Hollywood, and it hardly makes things better to compare last night's winner with "Casablanca", than to compare it with "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz." Yes, I am confident at leat 8 of the nominees of 1943--maybe all ten--would have deserved "best picture" last night. To return to 10 "best picture" nominees at a time when Hollywood is so weak--still invoking memories of the Golden Age highlighted by 1939--is an act of desperation. It was an act of inspiration for me to have an article on "Airplane" right after my article on the Oscars. You will remember--as you should have seen "Airplane"--that one of the standing jokes was that the "hero" kept telling war stories to the person sitting next to him--always ending with a variation of "Am I oring you.." to his seatmate. That seatmate is shown either having committed suicide or in the process of committing suicide--BORED TO DEATH. If you watched ALL of the Oscars last night, with attention, there is o reason to address any of this to you. You are not with us anymore. "Airplane" was right. It is possible to be BORED TO DEATH.
Obama, Bush and Bush's Third Term: Bernanke, Geitner, Paulson and Goldman Sachs Ruin teh Country under BOTH Obama and Bush
Read the previous two articles. Did you question what I said: that the Obama economic policies are only a continuation of the Bush economic policies of Bush's second term, only worse? Don't question it. The evidence is concluseive.
We must start back in early 2006--well before the economic "crisis" of 20008. What happened then? Ben Bernanke was appointed head of the Federal Reserve and Henry Paulson was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Both would be SUPPORTED by Obama and the Democrats--then and later. Paulson was--before being appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Bush--the LEFT LEANING head of Goldman Sachs. Before Paulson, John Corzine (the defeated DEMOCRATIC governor of New Jersey) had been CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was evidently a politically connected Wall Street firm with major influence in both parties. There is no way to characterize the people of Goldman Sachs as "conservative". Former Goldman Sachs employees are very influential under Obama, and are close to the new Treasury Secretary, Geitner. Paulson was known as a "moderate" (liberal) Republican--to the extent he was really a Republican at all, intead of just labeling himself that to give Goldman Sachs influence in both parties (as well as to become Secretary of the Treasury under Bush).
You don't have to take my word for the above. No less a leftist than Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his recent movie condemning "Capitalism". Now Moore is hardly a credible source, but on this he was right--even a stopped clock being right twice a day. Since early 2006, if not before, Goldman Sachs has--at least arguably--been controlling the economic policy of this country. In fact, the bailout of AIG was mainly a bailout of Goldman Sachs, which received some 13 BILLION dollars of the money paid to bail out AIG--without any obligation to pay that money back, because it was not considered a direct bailout of Goldman Sachs (although it was). This represented one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history, since Paulson--with Bernanke--was the major architect of the AIG bailout, and also former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yet, Obama and the Democrats--willing to look so carefully at Haliburton, ow which Cheney was a former CEO--made no peep about Paulson. That is because they knew Paulson was "one of them", and that Paulson was pursuing the very type of Big Government policies they favored. Goldman Sachs, under Paulson, had been a major Wall Street player in the kind of "go-go" financial risk taking that--along with Big Government policy--had led to the financial "crisis" in the first place.
And it all took place, after early 2007--on the "watch" of Bernanke and Paulson. Paulson was the worst failure in the history of world finance--as I have labeled him before. That is because he not only failed to take any steps to prevent the economic meltdown after 2006, but because he had PARTICIPATED--as CEO of Goldman Sachs--in the very Wall Street/financial excesses that led, along with government policy, to that financial meltdown. Paulson SHOULD have known better than anyone what needed to be done in 2006. He had no clue, as he had no clue how to handle the "crisis" he helped create in 2008 (panicking, with all of those massive bailouts, and even changing the nature of the bailouts AFTER that farce of a debate in Congress all about "toxic assets").
Ben Bernanke was the second worst failure in the history of world finance. What did Bernanke do, as head of the Federal Reserve from the beginning of 2006, to anticipate/head off the financial/bank "crisis of 2008? NOTHING (effective). Absolutely nothing. Yet, the signs were there. People like me were saying that the housing "bubble was about to burst, and in fact beginning to burst. Bernanke did NOTHING. A complete failure. Yet, Wall Street still loves him--mainly because he let Wall Street/Goldman Salchs dictate government economic policies. See why I often refer to Wall Street people--along with economists, financial analysts, and financial people of all kinds--as the Stupidest People on Earth?
Thus, at the end of Bush's second term, you had economic policy being determined by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, by Paulson, and by Bernanke. Paulson and Bernanke were supported by the Democrats, and OPPOSED by conservative Republicans in their socialistic panic.
What did Obama do about the economy? Well, he continued the same policies, only worse. But he also appointed Timothy Geitner as Secretary of the Treasury. Who was Timothy Geitner? He was head of the New York Fed--under Bernanke--being the part of the Fed MOST connected to the financial meltdown. Yes, Geitner, even more than Bernanke, should have known what was happening, and did NOTHING to prevent the financial meltdown. No wonder it is looking like Geitner will dpreive Paulson and Bernanke of their titles: worst and second worst failures in the history of world finance, respectively. (The New York division of the Federal Reserve, FYI, supervises the MONEY CENTER banks, and is right there with Wall Street and all of the big financial institutions that ended up being the center of the "crisis", which is why the AIG meeting was held there).
Yes, Geitner was intimately involved with Goldman Sachs. It is the New York Fed that let a representative of Goldman Sachs sit in on a major meeting as to what to do about AIG--Goldman Sachs being the ONLY private company allowed to have a representative at that meeting. Obama and Geitner would bring more Goldman Sachs people into the Obama administration. Was not Paulson well connected with Bernanke and Geitner before the "crisis" in 2008? Sure, he was. It is no surprise that Geitner and Bernanke have continued the same policies of Paulson and Bernanke. How could they not, when those had really been the polcies of the TRIO of Paulson, Bernanke and Beitner prior to the "crisis" in the fall of 2008.
Can you have any doubt that the FAILED Bush/Democrat (remember the "stimulus" in the spring/summer of 2008/) economic polices have continued into Obama's first term (Bush's third term), basically under the SAME PEOPLE. The only difference is that Obama and the Democrats have made it worse by even MORE SPENDING--meaning a debt and deficit out of control. WHY should you believe these people should be able to "fix" our economy, when they are the very SAME people who were unable to stop the financial meltdown in the first place. In fact, they are the same people who had no clue it--the financial meltdown--was coming, until it was upon us. Yes, Obama--in Congress and as head of the Democratic party in the election year--was one of those people who had no clue as to what to do.
Q.E.D. Can you really have any doubt that Obama is now in the midst of Bush's third term, but worse?
P.S. You say Bush was the problem, and not Bernanke (still there), Paulson (policies still in place, although he is not), and Geitner (promoted for failure)? Just how big a hypocrite are you? Bush--according to the left--was not able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I give him more credit for intelligence thatn that, but I am not so delusional as to think Bush was running economic policy. His major fault was that he had NO conservative principles to oppose the massive government bailouts urged by Paulson and Bernanke, as they panicked. Yes, Bush is ultimately "responsible", as the man in charge--as is true of Obama. But Bush's failure was to put these people in charge, and to to down this Big Government path. That is also Obama's failure--made worse because Obama is a committed leftist, rather than just an establishment Republican Big Government guy like Bush.
We must start back in early 2006--well before the economic "crisis" of 20008. What happened then? Ben Bernanke was appointed head of the Federal Reserve and Henry Paulson was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Both would be SUPPORTED by Obama and the Democrats--then and later. Paulson was--before being appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Bush--the LEFT LEANING head of Goldman Sachs. Before Paulson, John Corzine (the defeated DEMOCRATIC governor of New Jersey) had been CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was evidently a politically connected Wall Street firm with major influence in both parties. There is no way to characterize the people of Goldman Sachs as "conservative". Former Goldman Sachs employees are very influential under Obama, and are close to the new Treasury Secretary, Geitner. Paulson was known as a "moderate" (liberal) Republican--to the extent he was really a Republican at all, intead of just labeling himself that to give Goldman Sachs influence in both parties (as well as to become Secretary of the Treasury under Bush).
You don't have to take my word for the above. No less a leftist than Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his recent movie condemning "Capitalism". Now Moore is hardly a credible source, but on this he was right--even a stopped clock being right twice a day. Since early 2006, if not before, Goldman Sachs has--at least arguably--been controlling the economic policy of this country. In fact, the bailout of AIG was mainly a bailout of Goldman Sachs, which received some 13 BILLION dollars of the money paid to bail out AIG--without any obligation to pay that money back, because it was not considered a direct bailout of Goldman Sachs (although it was). This represented one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history, since Paulson--with Bernanke--was the major architect of the AIG bailout, and also former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yet, Obama and the Democrats--willing to look so carefully at Haliburton, ow which Cheney was a former CEO--made no peep about Paulson. That is because they knew Paulson was "one of them", and that Paulson was pursuing the very type of Big Government policies they favored. Goldman Sachs, under Paulson, had been a major Wall Street player in the kind of "go-go" financial risk taking that--along with Big Government policy--had led to the financial "crisis" in the first place.
And it all took place, after early 2007--on the "watch" of Bernanke and Paulson. Paulson was the worst failure in the history of world finance--as I have labeled him before. That is because he not only failed to take any steps to prevent the economic meltdown after 2006, but because he had PARTICIPATED--as CEO of Goldman Sachs--in the very Wall Street/financial excesses that led, along with government policy, to that financial meltdown. Paulson SHOULD have known better than anyone what needed to be done in 2006. He had no clue, as he had no clue how to handle the "crisis" he helped create in 2008 (panicking, with all of those massive bailouts, and even changing the nature of the bailouts AFTER that farce of a debate in Congress all about "toxic assets").
Ben Bernanke was the second worst failure in the history of world finance. What did Bernanke do, as head of the Federal Reserve from the beginning of 2006, to anticipate/head off the financial/bank "crisis of 2008? NOTHING (effective). Absolutely nothing. Yet, the signs were there. People like me were saying that the housing "bubble was about to burst, and in fact beginning to burst. Bernanke did NOTHING. A complete failure. Yet, Wall Street still loves him--mainly because he let Wall Street/Goldman Salchs dictate government economic policies. See why I often refer to Wall Street people--along with economists, financial analysts, and financial people of all kinds--as the Stupidest People on Earth?
Thus, at the end of Bush's second term, you had economic policy being determined by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, by Paulson, and by Bernanke. Paulson and Bernanke were supported by the Democrats, and OPPOSED by conservative Republicans in their socialistic panic.
What did Obama do about the economy? Well, he continued the same policies, only worse. But he also appointed Timothy Geitner as Secretary of the Treasury. Who was Timothy Geitner? He was head of the New York Fed--under Bernanke--being the part of the Fed MOST connected to the financial meltdown. Yes, Geitner, even more than Bernanke, should have known what was happening, and did NOTHING to prevent the financial meltdown. No wonder it is looking like Geitner will dpreive Paulson and Bernanke of their titles: worst and second worst failures in the history of world finance, respectively. (The New York division of the Federal Reserve, FYI, supervises the MONEY CENTER banks, and is right there with Wall Street and all of the big financial institutions that ended up being the center of the "crisis", which is why the AIG meeting was held there).
Yes, Geitner was intimately involved with Goldman Sachs. It is the New York Fed that let a representative of Goldman Sachs sit in on a major meeting as to what to do about AIG--Goldman Sachs being the ONLY private company allowed to have a representative at that meeting. Obama and Geitner would bring more Goldman Sachs people into the Obama administration. Was not Paulson well connected with Bernanke and Geitner before the "crisis" in 2008? Sure, he was. It is no surprise that Geitner and Bernanke have continued the same policies of Paulson and Bernanke. How could they not, when those had really been the polcies of the TRIO of Paulson, Bernanke and Beitner prior to the "crisis" in the fall of 2008.
Can you have any doubt that the FAILED Bush/Democrat (remember the "stimulus" in the spring/summer of 2008/) economic polices have continued into Obama's first term (Bush's third term), basically under the SAME PEOPLE. The only difference is that Obama and the Democrats have made it worse by even MORE SPENDING--meaning a debt and deficit out of control. WHY should you believe these people should be able to "fix" our economy, when they are the very SAME people who were unable to stop the financial meltdown in the first place. In fact, they are the same people who had no clue it--the financial meltdown--was coming, until it was upon us. Yes, Obama--in Congress and as head of the Democratic party in the election year--was one of those people who had no clue as to what to do.
Q.E.D. Can you really have any doubt that Obama is now in the midst of Bush's third term, but worse?
P.S. You say Bush was the problem, and not Bernanke (still there), Paulson (policies still in place, although he is not), and Geitner (promoted for failure)? Just how big a hypocrite are you? Bush--according to the left--was not able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I give him more credit for intelligence thatn that, but I am not so delusional as to think Bush was running economic policy. His major fault was that he had NO conservative principles to oppose the massive government bailouts urged by Paulson and Bernanke, as they panicked. Yes, Bush is ultimately "responsible", as the man in charge--as is true of Obama. But Bush's failure was to put these people in charge, and to to down this Big Government path. That is also Obama's failure--made worse because Obama is a committed leftist, rather than just an establishment Republican Big Government guy like Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)