"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..." - Thomas Jefferson
So, last time I wrote a movie review it was for that new James Bond movie. I didn't care for it, though some of my commenters clearly thought I was too harsh, or possibly that I lack the advanced cinematic sophistication necessary to see its true brilliance.
I will now endeavor to prove two things:
My commenters are wrong, and I in fact have the best taste in the world when it comes to movies.
I am not, in fact, an anhedonist who just hates everything.
In order to prove these things, I will now review a movie I just watched over the weekend. A movie I love.
In case you couldn't figure it out from the title of this post, the movie in question is the 1982 Scott Baio / Willie Aames classic "Zapped!"
Let me just get this out of the way at the outset: this is the best movie ever made. Period.
I first saw this movie many years ago on some cable channel, and it has stuck in my head ever since. So much so that when I discovered that Netflix didn't have it available for rental I wrote them an email demanding that they get it. Apparently they listened, because that's how I rented it this past weekend.
Peyton and Barney are fun loving high school students working on a science project with white mice. When one of the mice begins to move food toward itself with out [Sic] touching it, Barney finds he has accidently [Sic] discovered a formula for telekinetic powers. Now, how much trouble can a high school boy who can move things with just his mind get into?
How much trouble? None, actually. There are no ramifications for anything in this movie, and that's part of what makes it awesome!
That's actually a pretty lame plot summary. Peyton (Aames) is definitely fun-loving, but Barney (Baio) might be on the fence about fun.
Also, the mice are a relatively minor subplot (and aren't all white, despite what the racist summary-giver suggests). Mostly they feature in the beginning, when Barney's crazy-ass experiment involves getting them drunk and/or high on marijuana and making them go scuba diving in a fish tank. His reasons for doing this are vague, but who cares? Mice in little scuba suits are adorable!
Indeed, one mouse does become telekinetic after Coach Dexter (played by the incredibly awesome Scatman Crothers) spills some super-plant-growth-formula into the concentrated extract of marijuana and then Peyton adds beer for some reason. Scientist Barney doesn't even know about these people messing with his experiment. Bad controls!
Then things go crazy and Barney gets telekinetic too.
Now, allow me to explain the brilliance of this movie. If you were going to make a movie in which someone gets superpowers, you'd probably want to make them the anomaly in a world of normals. Everyone else would just be your average boring citizen, while super-Barney has this awesome power.
Zapped! does not do things that way, lame-ass!
Instead of Barney being a superhero in a normal world, the whole world he exists in is a big pile of crazy. Peyton is some sort of sociopath photographer guy who is mostly a bad influence on Barney, but is actually really harmless for a sociopath. Yes, he's totally self-centered and lies a lot, but he's actually pretty nice most of the time. Also, he's bizarrely popular with the ladies (mostly through the power of lies).
In fact, everyone in the entire movie is just sort of a dick the whole time. For instance, at one point Dexter turns to the principal and calls him ugly for absolutely no reason. Then he goes chasing after a barely-clothed teenage girl even though his shrew of a wife is standing right next to him. Oh, Dexter!
Another common theme you might see in a superpower movie like this would be the hero having all sorts of annoying reservations about using/abusing his power. Or else he'd just abuse his power and become some sort of tormented supervillian, or a whiny Spiderman clone.
Barney doesn't care for your movie-making conventions or questions about power and responsibility!
He gleefully abuses his power in petty and meaningless ways. Like harassing radio-controlled plane enthusiasts for no reason. Or making some guy on a carnival ride spin extra fast so he gets sick. All done with totally no remorse or ethical concerns.
I bet you can guess what happened right after this shot!
Eventually Barney does get pissed off that Peyton is using him to cheat at roulette, but even this is more because Barney's new girlfriend (not the pink girl above, a bookish moral type) wanted to mess around with him that night and got pissed because he's hanging out with the future Bibleman and abusing his powers instead of smooching her.
So does Barney do the moral thing and refuse to cheat at roulette with his goofy friend? Does he let the ball fall where it may? Just stop using his powers for evil?
Hell no! Instead of just saying "Hey dude, I'm done. Going to go kiss my frigid girlfriend instead. Later." He uses his telekinesis to wreck the fucking roulette table. Awesome!
He later goes to the prom where he reconciles with bookish girl. All is well, right? He's learned a valuable lesson about not ignoring his crush-object and not using his powers for evil, right?
Not in this world, buster!
Instead, he somehow gets hit in the head with a watermelon (I am unclear as to exactly how this happened). This sends him into a crazy telekinetic orgy of insanity in which he proceeds to strip pretty much everyone at the prom naked and send their clothes flying around. Bookish girlfriend seems to be fine with this for some reason.
I should point out that this is also the one and only scene that causes the movie to lose points. Mrs. Unicow pointed out that there was a gender equality issue here (I would have noticed this myself, but got distracted by all the boobies).
See, Barney was making everyone's clothes fly off, but the movie really only showed the dirty bits of the naked women. So I'm docking points for not showing more male genitalia.
That is the first time I've ever written that sentence.
That's about where it ends. Giant naked prom. No lessons learned, no morals. Just crazy shit for 90 minutes. It's brilliant.
Perhaps you're still a doubter. Maybe you have trouble believing that this is really the best movie of all time. Maybe you need more convincing.
I present as my final piece of evidence this dream/stoned sequence. If you can watch this and still not believe this movie is wonderful, you're a lost cause.
I hope that puts to rest any lingering suspicions that you may have that this movie is anything less than brilliant. Go watch it now or you suck.
I'm too lazy to write any real posts lately, but keep finding weird videos. Here is part of Cecil B. De Mille's 1929 film "The Godless Girl." It starts getting really good about 3 minutes in.
Why don't the godless clubs around here have a monkey handing out propaganda? Or oddly attractive 1920s women?
On November 21st some douchewad going by the name of "Richard Baker" had a letter to the editor printed in the Sentinel (Google cache here).
Here it is in its entirety, but feel free to skip to the end of it.
Local resident believes House Speaker is corrupt Editorial / Opinion Posted: 11/21/2008 07:24:17 AM EST
I wonder if many Americans are aware of what our Speaker of the House has pulled on the public?
Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco, and Star Kist Tuna's headquarters is also located in San Francisco.
Star Kist is owned by DelMonte Foods and is a major contributor to Nancy Pelosi.
Star Kist is also the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75 percent of the workforce there.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband owns $17 million worth of Del Monte stock.
In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.16 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wages.
This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an "earmark" to the final bill, adding $33 million for an "economic development credit in American Samoa."
Now remember this: Nancy Pelosi called the Bush administration "corrupt," and I guess, she, of all people should know..
Now the Big 3 car manufacturers, Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler are wanting billions to bail them out of their own stupidity, and many big cities are lining up with their hands out for money too.
When will this end with the government bailing out every one who gets in line for their piece of the pie with worthless paper dollars? Of course, the giant companies will have to have their "working seminars" at those posh resorts with the bailout money, and they will not be able to earn more in bonuses than last year, so apparently the normal bonuses of millions of dollars are OK.
I guess we haven't seen the end of this socialist gang in Washington yet, and all I can say is God Help America because we ain't seen nutthin yet.
Richard Baker, Fitchburg
Total nonsense, of course. Also mostly plagiarized from a chain email. If you like, you can go ahead and compare it to the original as seen (and debunked) on Snopes here.
Okay, so one sack of lies got by the Sentinel's ace fact-checkers! Surely that couldn't happen again, could it?
Of course it could!
In December 10th's letters to the editors we find this letter, also "written" by someone by the name of Richard Baker. Since it'll get archived soon, I'll reproduce it in full here.
Again, feel free to skip to the end...
Reader says taxpayers shouldn't pay for speaker's plane Editorial / Opinion Posted: 12/10/2008 10:49:28 AM EST
Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet that comes with the speaker's job, no, Madame Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a big fat jet with a bedroom that could get her back to California without stopping, carry her staff, family and friends.
Nancy's big fat jet costs us, the hard working American taxpayers, thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
Since she only works three days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California, cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way.
Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday nights.
Cost to us is another $60,000.
That is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5.7 million.
I think of the military families in this country doing without and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of this country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing.
Madame Pelosi wants you and I to conserve and wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires. And they want to talk about Sarah Palin's dress and what it cost.
What a direct slap in the face to the taxpayers. She can get away with it because no one in Washington has the guts to stand up to her.
Richard Baker Fitchburg
Here is the Snopes page showing you the very-similar original chain email this came from and debunking this sack of lies.
So in less than three weeks we've had two letters from this one idiot that were mostly cut-and-pasted from a chain email. Both take about 5 seconds to debunk. Both were printed in the newspaper.
Additionally, my copy of the phone book does not list a "Richard Baker" in the city of Fitchburg. That may not mean anything (lots of people aren't listed), or it may mean he's not even a real person.
Obviously, the Sentinel has absolutely no quality-control or factchecking taking place on its letters to the editor.
This is bad for them, but good for us...
It's time for a contest!
Let's see who can get the most ridiculously false and idiotic letter to the editor published in the Sentinel!
Here's how to play:
Write a letter to the editor about your topic of choice. Make sure it's really stupid, though. Think along the lines of "B. Hussein Obama can't be presdent becase he's a Secret Muslin!", but dumber. Or just copy a wingnut chain mail. Whatever. Note: Sensible, intelligent, or even well-written letters to the editor may be automatically disqualified. We're looking for crazy wingnuttery only. But it still needs to pass for a real letter! It's a careful balancing act.
Submit it to the Sentinel here. I don't recommend using your real name unless you want everyone to think you're an idiot. Don't impersonate any real people either, though. Stay under the radar.
Either email it to me, or leave it as a comment on this post, but stick the word "sentineleditorialcontest" at the top of your comment so I can hold it up in moderation until after it's in the paper. Email is probably safer, because sometimes my comment system goes wonky. This step is necessary so that people don't take credit for someone else's stupid letter. I need to see the letter before it appears in the paper.
You can swap those two steps above if you want. It would probably make sense to wait at least a few days before trying to get your craziness into the paper anyway.
Watch the letters to the editor section of the Sentinel for your letter to appear.
When it does, laugh derisively. Also, send me a follow up email or comment mentioning it, just in case I'm not paying attention.
???
Profit!
I think that's it.
Then maybe we can vote on everything that gets printed, and crown a winner. The prize will be nothing but bragging rights. Or maybe a t-shirt proclaiming your awesomeness. Who knows?
If I'm the only one who actually does this (and you can bet I will), then I'll just declare myself the winner and write "I AM AWESOME" on a t-shirt with a magic marker, which I will then wear while sitting on my couch.
But if even one other person does it, I become ineligible for the prize. Which means if you're the only one to do it you automatically win! So do it!
Let's say the contest ends on January 31st at some point in the future (I won't set a timetable or the terrorists would win!). So you have plenty of time to get in there. Maybe even two or three times if you're good.
The town of Webster isn't particularly near Fitchburg. That's probably a good thing, because it sounds like the town government has zero respect for the separation of church and state.
For instance, check out this article in the Worcester Telegram. Let's quote:
With the three wise men, Joseph and the baby Jesus gone, only the Virgin Mary remains of the Nativity scene that was displayed in front of Town Hall.
Police Chief Timothy J. Bent said police went to Town Hall last Wednesday night, shortly before midnight, after getting a report that some people were knocking over Christmas ornaments. Police discovered that only the Virgin Mary statue was left from the Nativity scene, which has been displayed for at least 20 years in front of Town Hall.
Okay, simple story so far. Some vandals absconded with everyone but Mary from a nativity scene in front of town hall.
Obviously that's not a good thing to do. But this isn't a post about how vandals are jerks. This is more about how the nativity was put up than how it was taken down.
Parks Department workers put up the Nativity scene the day after Thanksgiving, according to interim Town Administrator Joan R. Czechowski. The approximately half-life-size, heavy-gauge plastic figures were donated to the town many years ago, and Chief Bent said they are not very heavy.
Okay, that's not good. The Parks Department is definitely not supposed to put up nativity scenes in front of Town hall! That's about as blatant a violation of the separation of church and state as you can get.
In fact, it's a violation they've been warned about before!
The Nativity scene was the subject of some controversy last year when Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the town to remove it from the Town Hall lawn. Then-Town Administrator Raymond W. Houle Jr. replied in a letter that any group could put any kind of religious display on the Town Hall lawn.
Houle's a moron.
First off, a big part of the problem isn't that the scene was put up, it's that the scene is put up and owned by the town. The town of Webster pays people to put Christian symbols on town property. If you live in Webster, your tax dollars fund Christian propaganda. Lucky you!
Second, they put up only Christian symbols. No other viewpoints are represented unless someone comes along and puts them up themselves. So the town is blatantly promoting one particular religion.
Third, while it's true that nativities and the like are allowable when displayed alongside other displays, it's not just limited to religious displays. Atheists can put up displays too. (Note: Any commenters who care to remark that "atheism is a religion" will be swiftly eviscerated.)
Fourth, if all this seems like a big mess, you're right. That's why towns should just avoid the whole issue entirely and keep religion and government totally separate. If people want to put up nativities, they can do it at their own houses.
So Webster is totally disregarding both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. While simultaneously whining that someone had the gall to swipe parts of their totally unconstitutional display.
“It is upsetting,” said Mrs. Czechowski, who wondered what would make somebody take something that means so much to so manypeople.
Chief Bent said he also was upset.
[...]
Judy Williams, a hairstylist at the Rob Roy Hair Salon on Main Street, was upset about the missing figures.
“I think it’s disgusting,” she said yesterday afternoon. “I hope that’s on their conscience, I really do. There is no reason for doing it.”
Oh, I can think of a reason. Maybe someone out there cared more about the Constitution than your hurt feelings. Or maybe they were sick of the town government promoting religion. Or maybe they were just bored and drunk (this is the most likely reason).
Stealing the crappy statues was still the wrong way to go about things, but I can certainly understand the impulse to do so.
So, have the town's leaders come to their senses and realized that maybe they shouldn't be in the business of promoting Christianity? Hell no!
Last year a selectman, Mark G. Dowgiewicz, offered to donate $1,500 to pay for a manger after seeing a picture in the Telegram & Gazette of the figurines covered in snow. The manger was not on display this year. The manger was never replaced last year, but Mr. Dowgiewicz said yesterday the offer is still on the table.
He said he has contacted officials at Bay Path Regional Vocational Technical High School in Charlton to see whether students could build another manger, and had offered to pay for the work after it is done. Superintendent David P. Papagni said he would talk to the school’s vocational director about the project.
He said the school would be glad to do the work: “We thrive on things like that.”
Oh, what a great idea! Let's put public school students to work on building religious icons! Maybe we can slip it in between mid-afternoon prayers to Mecca and evening Vespers!
Look, Webster people. If you want a nativity scene, great. Put it up in front of a church, or on your lawn, or basically anywhere except for town property. Also, don't make matters even worse by having schoolkids build your religious crap. I'm sure that if they really try they can find someone willing to accept $1,500 to build a crummy manger.
Also, hey vandals, return the fucking statues. Yeah, they shouldn't be there in the first place. There are other ways to deal with it than swiping them, which will just make the poor oppressed majority-group more dedicated to putting up a nativity. Instead, how about promoting one of the world's less-popular religions alongside it? I suggest this one.
Finally, it occurs to me that I haven't had reason to drive down Main Street in Fitchburg for a few weeks. What sort of displays (if any) are up in Fitchburg?
Amanda Palmer is just awesome all-around, and this song has a tendency to get stuck in my head. I only just tonight discovered the video, which she dedicated to Sarah Palin (for reasons which may become obvious).
Everyone's favorite lovable leprechaun and sometimes mayoral candidate Ron Dionne has a letter to the editor in the most recent edition of the Fitchburg Pride!
It's a nice letter too, in which he tells Mayor Wong that she's doing great and calls some city councilors dorks (sort of). I don't really care about the content, though. I'm just happy to see him in the newspaper again.
Does this mean that 1970s Lincoln will get his wish? Maybe!
As a side note, while looking for a humorous illustration for this post, I did a google image search on "ron dionne" and discovered that I am responsible for making a picture of Mayor McCheese show up for his name.
Sentinel & Enterprise Publisher Rick Thurman is no longer at the job, less than nine months after taking leadership of the paper.
When Thurman took over as publisher in March, he was the fourth person in the job in less than two years. He replaced Chuck Owen, who held the post for five months.
Multiple sources said on Wednesday afternoon that Thurman was no longer at the paper. An assistant at the Fitchburg office said Wednesday afternoon, “We’re not commenting on that,” when asked a question about Thurman’s status.
That's pretty much all you need to know from this article.
There are some quotes from people saying nice things about Thurman, and a lot of non-quotes from people who might actually know something about his departure but aren't willing to talk.
Indeed, Thurman has been wiped off the Sentinel's company directory page. So I guess he's really gone.
This is both disappointing and expected.
Thurman seemed to be helping the paper for awhile. Hell, I even had something positive to say about it way back in March. That's almost unheard of!
For awhile it seemed that the paper was on its way to becoming something better. It had been freed from the tyranny of Chuck "angry assclown" Owen and things were looking up!
For a few months there we actually had intelligent editorials and not just the incoherent and bile-soaked eructations of Jeff McMenemy. Sure, they were mostly syndicated editorials, but they were decent syndicated editorials. Not like the crap they've been reprinting lately.
The reporting also seemed to be more sensible. It wasn't all freaking out about totally sensible money-saving plans, or breathless articles about metrosexual vampire movies. I actually had hopes that it could one day become a respectable paper, and not just the WorldNetDaily of North Central Massachusetts.
Alas, I was wrong.
It's seemed like whatever positive influence Thurman originally had has been waning in the last couple of months. Sort of like McMenemy broke out of his little cell and has been running free again.
This is good for me, because I get easy-to-write posts out of it. But it's bad for the region, and for "journalism" as a concept.
I'm not a journalist, of course. So I'm going to wildly speculate about what happened to make Thurman leave. I've come up with a few different scenarios.
Possibility 1: Since the S&E keeps losing publishers, but somehow keeps the incompetent Jeff McMenemy as its barely-literate wingnut editor, maybe McMenemy is the reason for Thurman's departure. Perhaps he either has some dirt on the big boss or has otherwise curried favor with him. So when the idealistic new publisher shows up he runs into a brick wall when trying to deal with the cancer that is his editor. He sticks around trying for awhile, but eventually comes to realize there's no way to save the paper without getting rid of the cancer, and quits out of despair when he realizes he can't do that.
I consider that to be the most likely explanation. But here are some others.
Possibility 2: The newspaper industry sucks. It's dying. The smart passengers are getting off the ship before it goes under completely.
Possibility 3: I guess maybe Thurman could have been offered a better job. But in this economy? In the soon-to-be-dead newspaper industry? Doesn't seem terribly likely. On the other hand, any job is probably better than the one he had.
Possibility 4: Rick Thurman is an illegal alien and has been deported to from whence he came! This also seems unlikely.
Those are just off the top of my head. If any readers have their own theories (or better yet, know the real reason), please don't hesitate to share.
In the meantime; thanks for trying, Rick! Things were better for like two months!
UPDATE: Hey, it's been a long time since I put up a poll! So I did! About this!
Ooh, there's a fun syndicated editorial in the Sentinel today!
It's by the execrable Star Parker, who, along with the similarly braindead Jay Ambrose, is a favorite of the S&E's editorial board when they're too lazy to write something themselves.
It asks the question Are voters moving to the left?. I bet you can guess Parker's answer already, but let's see how she gets there. It's a fun journey!
Might as well start at the beginning:
Now that Democrats have won the White House and have widened their margin of control in Congress, does this signify that American voters have moved to the left?
Many Republicans question this claim. And a new report from the Pew Research Center seems to verify that America is still a right of center as a country.
But the picture gets murky when you look at the details. And this murkiness presents a considerable challenge for Republicans who are trying to figure out where to steer their party.
See, Star, this is why Republicans generally don't bother looking at the details. It just screws everything up. You'd be much happier sticking with your first impression and making up reasons to believe it. Pretend you're Bill O'Reilly, he has this technique mastered.
Still, this "looking at the details" idea appeals to me. So let's see what's up.
Oh, here's the Pew report in question. Just in case you want reference material. I'll stick with Star's column.
First, she finds one bit of news that makes her happy!
According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000.
Yep, the report does show people self-identify in mostly the same ways they did 8 years ago. So where does it get tricky?
When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are "conservative" said yes.
And 50 percent of "conservatives" said they favor government guaranteeing health care "even if it means raising taxes."
Although 71 percent of "conservatives" said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal.
Oh no!
Apparently these self-identified "conservatives" aren't conservative in the way this conservative columnist wants them to be conservative! What jerks!
It gets worse!
[P]ro-life initiatives lost in all three states where they were on ballots -- California, South Dakota, and Colorado.
Well, obviously liberal California wouldn't go for it, but South Dakota? These "conservatives" are traitors!
So Star Parker is confused. People call themselves conservative, yet they don't believe the things that she thinks conservatives are supposed to believe? What's a girl to do?
Maybe give some bad advice to Republicans?
[I]t should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda.
Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism?
That's right, Republicans. In this time of economic we're-all-fucked-ness, you should be focusing extra hard on your dumbass social agenda that will do nothing to help anyone.
That's just common sense!
She then goes on to jabber about some other things for a bit. And ends by.. umm... telling people what to think?
When most Americans say they are conservative, they mean it. Too many, however, are forgetting that this means limited government as well as traditional values.
We need new, energetic Republican leaders to get this message across.
Okay....
Parker seems to have reached the conclusion that most Americans are being honest when they call themselves conservative, and have just forgotten what that word means. Perhaps she's right.
The part where this all turns to crap is that she wants to use it to suggest that people who call themselves "conservative" actually are conservative, in whatever way she defines that word. Which is nonsense.
If I don't know what a kangaroo is, but am convinced that I'm a kangaroo, that still doesn't make me a kangaroo!
Put more plainly, the label people choose to assign to themselves tells you nothing about what they actually think.
The Right has spent the last few decades trying (mostly successfully) to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. Why do you think we liberals have taken to calling ourselves "progressives"?
It's not because we're trying to hide our beliefs, it's just that the word "liberal" has been dragged through the mud for so long that all it conjures in the minds of most people is an image of Ted Kennedy, or maybe some corduroy-jacketed college professor with a ratty beard and a deep love of Marxist ideology.
So yeah, a lot of people aren't going to self-identify as liberals even if everything they believe makes them a liberal. There's too much baggage associated with the word. You find the same thing with people who are actually atheists but will only self-identify as agnostics or "spiritual but not religious".
They believe the same things, they just don't want the label. And who can blame them, when the label has been given a negative connotation? *
See, Star Parker got close to this truth. Somewhere deep inside that lizard-brain of hers she started to realize that just because people call themselves conservatives doesn't make it true.
But since more people call themselves conservatives than call themselves liberals, it's a nice myth to believe. So Parker chooses to believe it. After all, it allows conservative pundits to say "America is a center-right country", which keeps them employed. Never mind that it's not true.
The reality of the matter is that America is becoming a little bit more liberal every day. It's a slow process, especially since the driving principle behind conservatism is to stifle that progress, and conservatives control an awful lot of stuff in this country. But it's going to happen one way or another.
That being said, I totally support Parker's assertion that Republican leaders should firmly embrace social conservatism. I like voting for the winning side.
It's footage from 2006 and 2007 of people talking about the economic forecast. It's from a bunch of different sources, but mostly FOX News. Almost everyone is very optimistic about the economy!
It's pretty long, so if you just want a good gist of it, go to about 3:25 in.
Okay, I knew that Arthur Laffer was a moron. He's the brains behind Reaganomics, after all. I also knew that Ben Stein is virulently stupid, but I thought it was mostly limited to being totally ignorant of science. I didn't realize it extended into his actual field of expertise almost-competence, economics.
What I didn't realize is that so many "experts" were total idiots. Apparently Peter Schiff was the only exception. I also never expected that the other "experts" would be so proud of their idiocy that they'd actually laugh at and mock the one guy who had a clue. Are they all trying to be Bill Kristol?
I'm no economist, but one skill I do have is knowing who to listen to and whose dumb ideas to ignore. This is actually very easy to do.
Allow me to demonstrate via an analysis of this screencap:
Guy on the left: Some sort of bastard hellspawn from the unholy coupling of Mitt Romney and Fred from Scooby Doo. Spends most of his time laughing derisively and being insufferable. Then goes home to his pseudo-Italian villa and masturbates to pictures of starving African children because their swollen bellies get him hot.
Guy on the right: Nerdy, bookish looking type. Unremarkable-looking cross between a generic dentist and a generic accountant. Spends most of his time trying to explain why the economy is fucked up and trying to ignore the scoffing assholes. Then goes home and probably reads a book about economics or maybe baseball statistics if he wants to relax.
Who you should listen to for economic advice: the guy on the right, obviously.
See? It's easy! Now we just need to get news programs to stop putting guys like the jerk on the left on the air and we'll be all set. Any day now.
Over the last few days, you may have noticed the media talking about Christmas. This is something they do incessantly for an entire month, because it's easier than doing actual journalism.
It generally starts off on Thanksgiving, with a big lie. Namely, the claim that the day after Thanksgiving ("Black Friday") is the biggest shopping day of the year. It's not.
That's followed by the claim that today ("Cyber Monday") is the busiest online shopping day of the year. It's just another lie created by a retailer's association. But it gives media puppets something to talk about.
And really, isn't the whole point of the season to lie? There's the lie about Jesus being born on December 25, which biblical scholars know quite well is not true. And let's not ignore the massive Santa Claus lie that we foist on children for some reason. I don't honestly know why, besides tradition. I guess someone in history thought lying to little kids sounded like a fun time.
There are also all the little pseudo-lies. Pretending you actually like your coworkers enough to attend a Xmas party with them. Ditto for your family. There's the pathetic mask of forced happiness people feel obligated to put on, and the month of pretending that they actually give a shit about their fellow man. It's the season of insincerity.
But the most awesome lie of all is the whole imaginary persecution complex that is the "War on Christmas."
As ridiculously made-up as it is, the far right is nuts about this "War on Christmas." The rest of the country pretty much ignores it and goes on with their lives. Still, we'll encounter idiotic editorials like this one and whatever Jeff McMenemy has brewing.
From the stupidly-spelled Liberty Counsel, we also get this awesome Naughty or Nice list, in which they tell you where to shop based on important factors like whether or not the store yells the word "Christmas" at you repeatedly.
Look how awful these store are!
Circuit City – Web site: Winter snow scene on home page and “Beat the Holiday Rush.” No mention of Christmas.
Honey Baked Ham – Report: “HOLIDAY was written everywhere!! Nothing about CHRISTMAS. I asked and was told the usual ‘we don't want to offend anyone.’”
What assholes! How dare they not use the words the Liberty Counsel prefers? The nerve!
That "usual" statement about not offending anyone is obviously made up. The only people who actually think anyone gets offended by the word "Christmas" are the wingnuts who want to force it down everyone's throat. Nobody else really cares. The fact that there's actually a store called Honey Baked Ham is apparently true, and sort of depressing.
What exactly am I getting at with this overly-long introduction?
Easy. I am going to join the forces behind the War on Christmas, and I want everyone to join me! We will be culture warriors! The best among us might get medals, or ribbons or something!
But we'll never win this war without a plan, so here are some ideas on how best to wage War on Christmas along with me and my army of evil secularists:
Situation: Some Christmas-lover mentions his "Christmas tree." Response: You might think the correct response is to demand he call it a "Holiday tree." Wrong! The word "holiday" comes from "holy day", which is totally not in keeping with our secular War on Christmas! Instead, demand that he refer to it as his "house tree of probable Teutonic origin."
Situation: Someone says "Merry Christmas" to you. Response: If the person saying it is unaware that you're in the anti-Xmas secularist army, stick with the standard of getting offended that they used the word "Christmas" and demand that they apologize for their rude behavior. If the person saying it knows that you're a warrior for the WoC, chances are that they're saying this to try to provoke you. This makes them an enemy combatant, and you are therefore entirely justified if you stab them in the throat.
Situation: You have to go shopping, but don't want to put up with any "Christmas" nonsense. Response: Use that "Naughty or Nice" list to determine where to shop, but only shop at the places that hate Jesus. Make sure you tell the cashier that you're shopping there because you consider them an ally in the War on Christmas. Cashiers are very interested in such things.
Situation: Your Christmas-loving neighbor has just put up a big ugly nativity scene on his lawn. Response: Get him one of these:
Then send a letter to the local black churches telling them they should probably watch out for that guy.
Situation: You realize the whole War on Christmas thing is a total scam made up by people who just want to promote their own theocratic vision of America by trying to exclude any non-Christians from being involved in a seasonal celebration. Response: To hell with it. Christmas is totally a secular holiday at this point anyway. You don't have to be a Christian to celebrate it. So we've already won. Congratulations!
January:
