Welcome to WKXP Mullows radio. All blog all the time. We're taking your calls now so please post.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, this is sick and disturbing: they are daring to slander a war hero.”

 

Who said this, and to whom was he or she referring?

 

If you would have guessed a democrat discussing the murder of John Kerry’s character during the 2004 presidential election, you’d be wrong.  It was media personality Sean Hannity discussing the democrats’ lambasting of General Petraeus. 

 

Now, I don’t disagree that the dems have been rough on the general, but Hannity was one of the witch hunters during the burning of Kerry at the stake.  Kerry, a proven war hero, who was slandered beyond belief.  And now Hannity has the gaul to be upset that democrats are “slandering a war hero?”  Are you kidding me?

 

But that’s not even what bothers me the most today.  It has to do with a caller into his syndicated radio show; a caller who said that liberals are living in a fantasy world and need to re-enter reality.

 

Hannity of course agreed, and I’d just love to know what exactly reality is.

 

President Bush spoke last night, and again reiterated his point that we have to help Iraq become a democratic state so that they can become an ally in the war on terror.

 

Does anyone else see a problem with this?  Wanting a country to be our ally isn’t the problem, but assuming that this brand new, budding state would be a helpful ally is.

 

Let’s think about this.  They’re going to be a brand new democratic society.  They’re going to be building their government, focusing on their systems, making sure everything is working out.  What are they going to be able to do to help us on the war on terror?  They’re going to have their own problems creating a new country.  That’s not an ally.  That’s just a country that doesn’t hate us.

 

But beyond that, let’s get to the much bigger problem.  Bush can compare Iraq to the original U.S. colonies as much as he wants, but they are different from us, and we can’t project our traits onto them.  The different groups that make up Iraqis hate each other.  They don’t trust each other.  They have been killing each other for thousands of years.

 

Do you think that’s just going to go away?

 

Take a look at the recent Iraqi sharing of oil – that was a great moment.  People that hate each other never want the person they hate to have money, but the shared, they came to an agreement, they worked together.  How long did that last?  It’s already falling apart.

 

Why?  Because deep in their souls they hate each other.  So what’s going to happen when Iraq is finally a democratic state?  They’re going to think, “Wow, that’s cool, we can vote now.  This is great.  Oh but wait, I still hate this guy, he still betrayed my ancestors, and I need to slit his throat.”

 

I don’t mean to peg all Iraqis as Neanderthals (not all of them kill each other, sometimes they just make another's life a living hell for being a different part of the same religion), but why do we assume everything is going to be peachy once they’re a democratic state?  Why don’t we assume that as soon as we leave – maybe six minutes later, maybe six months later – the country is going to swirl back into turmoil again?  Why don’t we assume that a group will try to overthrow the president and become a dictator?  Why don’t we assume that the thousand years of hatred and civil war will continue? 

 

We banded together to form the original 13 colonies, but they aren’t us.  They don’t think like us, they don’t see the world like us.  When are we going to realize that their views and our views are different?

 

And when is that going to be considered reality, as opposed to the fantasy that Hannity and his callers have absorbed?  

Why are people making excuses for Lady in the Water?

Deservingly, it did poorly at the box office this weekend.  And all over the radio today, I have heard people making excuses for why.

"Nobody liked it because it doesn't have a twist ending."

Since when was a twist ending necessary for a movie to be likeable? 

"But people expect a Shyamalan movie to have a twist ending, and when it doesn't, they are mad and don't like the movie."

When did we start thinking so negatively of the movie going public?  People are perfectly capable of liking a Shyamalan movie even if it doesn't have a twist ending.  Case in point: Signs does not end with a surprise, but it is Night's most successful movie behind The Sixth Sense.  And when exactly was he pegged as the guy who's movies must end in surprises?  He has made six movies that opened in theaters, and only half of them have had twists (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and The Village).  His other three - Wide Awake, Signs, and now Lady in the Water - follow the typical Hollywood formula.  Hitchcock made many movies with twist endings, but people didn't expect every one of his movies to end with a surprise, and they didn't get pissed off when a movie didn't end that way.  And people aren't pissed at Lady in the Water because it didn't end that way, either.

"Yeah, but the previews billed it as something different from what it is, so when audiences saw the real movie, they didn't like it."

Yes, that's entirely true.  The previews billed it as a good movie, and it wasn't.  People aren't so brain dead that they can't enjoy a good movie even if they were expecting something different.  Just take a look at The Break Up earning 9 figures even though it wasn't the bubbly romantic comedy the previews made it out to be.  If a movie is good, people will still like it.  The reason people aren't liking Lady in the Water is because it isn't a good movie.

The problem is that characters do things that don't make sense, and things happen that really shouldn't.  The worst excuse for this I've heard is, "Well, it's supposed to be a fairytale, and fairytales don't make sense."

It's all well and good for there not to be deep character development in Goldielocks and the Three Bears, but when a director is given $60 million to make a summer blockbuster, it better make sense.  It better have resonance.

The Disney executives called a meeting with Night long before the movie went into production.  They told him that the mythology is off, the characters are obnoxious, the story shouldn't be explained via an Asian women translating from an Asian language, the main character shouldn't have a stutter, and Night shouldn't play the second biggest male role.

He totally ignored them and took his movie to another studio to make it exactly the way he wanted it.

And the result?  The mythology is off, the characters are obnoxious, the story shouldn't have been explained via an Asian women translating from an Asian language, the main character shouldn't have had a stutter, and Night shouldn't have played the second biggest male role.

I love M. Night Shyamalan.  I have spent the day with him.  I have pictures with him.  I have signed copies of all of his movies.  I love him.  I think he's a great guy.  I love his films, too.  From Wide Away to The Village, I have loved them all.  But Lady in the Water is a bad movie.  It didn't do well at the box office because it is a bad movie. 

Stop making excuses. 

Then:
Richard Donner's Superman, which was released in 1978, begins with John William's souring musical score and blue outlined credits flying toward the viewer.  This is followed by the appearance of Marlon Brando and an explosion of the planet Krypton.  A meteorite then crash lands on Earth at the farm of Ma and Pa Kent.  As they quickly discover, an alien boy who looks like a human was inside the rock.  Superman's first rescue is of Lois Lane from a flying vehicle (a helicopter), followed by the speech, "I hope this experience hasn't put you off flying. Statistically speaking, it is still the safest way to travel."  While in a library in a tunnel under a train station, Lex Luthor hatches an evil plan to destroy half of North America (including New Jersey, where his female assistant's mother lives) and create new land to make millions as a real estate mogul.  This is explained via a speech in which he begins to quote his father, saying, "My father always told me to," and his female assistant interupts him, saying, "Get out."  Lex then laughs sarcastically and finished the quote with, "Stocks may rise and fall, utilities and transportation systems may collapse. People are no damn good, but they will always need land and they'll pay through the nose to get it."  Before ultimately foiling the plan by chasing down cracks in the Earth, Superman is negatively affected by kryptonite strewn around his neck and left to drown in water (a pool) before being rescued by a woman.  The final scene of the movie is Superman flying through space before banking right and leaving the audience with a view of the infinite blackness as the credits role.  

Now:
Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, which was released last week, begins with John William's souring musical score and blue outlined credits flying toward the viewer.  This is followed by an explosion of the planet Krypton and the voice of Marlon Brando.  A meteorite then crash lands on Earth at the farm of Ma and Pa Kent.  As the Ma quickly discovers, an alien man who looks like a human was inside the rock.  Superman's first rescue is of Lois Lane from a flying vehicle (an airplane), followed by the speech, "I hope this experience hasn't put any of you off flying. Statistically speaking, it is still the safest way to travel."  While in a library on a boat, Lex Luthor hatches an evil plan to destroy half of North America (including New Jersey) and create new land to make billions as a real estate mogul.  This is explained via a speech in which he begins to quote his father, saying, "My father always told me to," and his female assistant interupts him, saying, "Get out."  Lex then laughs sarcastically and finishes the quote with the idea that prices of gold and diamonds may change, but people, "will always need land."  Before ultimately foiling the plan by chasing down cracks in the Earth, Superman is negatively affected by kryptonite stabbed into his back and left to drown in water (an ocean) before being rescued by a woman.  The final scene of the movie is Superman flying through space before banking right and leaving the audience with a view of the infinite blackness as the credits role.  

Then and Now:
The only major difference to the plot of the two movies is that Superman Returns supposedly takes place five years after the sequel to Richard Donner's version, except that the characters are somehow younger, and seemingly don't remember anything that happened to them in the other movies.  Nonetheless, it is a new time, and they have new emotions (and in the case of Lois Lane; a new family).  

What this means is that by doing something not very original, Bryan Singer has actually done something amazingly original - he has invented the remake sequel genre.  Superman Returns is a sequel, but before that, it is a remake.  It is a remake that continues the story as a sequel.  

This really upsets me.  After multiple writers and multiple directors exhausted multiple story ideas, the new Superman is the old one.  Bryan Singer supposedly wowed the studio with his vision for a new Superman movie.  And that vision was to make the same movie, only set it 5 years later and have some characters forget the history they once had.  

Now, I'm not saying that the film is bad.  It is truly a spectacle in every sense of the word.  The tagline for the original was, "You will believe a man can fly," and this movie fully lives up to that and then some, making you reevaluate how movies can make you feel.  And the previously mentioned airplane rescue sequence, followed by Superman and Lois's silent reunion, is one of the best movie scenes of the past few years.  Plus, the cinematography and lightning creates some wonderful images that harken back to the healthy glow radiating off of all the stars in the 50's and 60's.

It's just that after 19 years and well over $200 million, as well as an apparently revolutionary idea that finally got this movie greenlit, I expected a whole lot more originality.  I expected a unique vision, not a unique retread.  Instead of something new like the idea of the startling plot twist at the end of a film [The Usual Suspects], or a the idea of a dark and brooding character driven comic saga [X-men], we have a very late sequel/remake with a Christopher Reeve look alike that doesn't emote as well as the actual Christopher Reeve, and a Kate Bosworth with dyed brown hair that doesn't have enough (or any) sass and feistiness to channel the Lois Lane we remember.  And, here's the real kicker, is this what today's audience wants to see?  The people who grew up with the original Supe will love it, but will the PG-13 crowd?  The movie is 157 minutes long and is heavy on the type of Clark Kent that says "swell" and light on superhero action.  Is that really what people familiar with Smallville want from their Superman?

I don't know.  All I can tell you is that in Superman Returns, Superman literally returns to become trapped in the same plot from thirty years ago, but with a few modern touches.  But hey, that's okay.   Call it a $200 million trial run.  Consider what Singer and company can accomplish when the amazing flying effects are used in an actual original story.  Let's just hope that next time the screenwriters remember that Clark Kent and Lois Lane have a past. 

Well, those wonderful Muslims are at it again.  And what is my reaction?  To step away from BookSay  in order to condemn them for it, of course.

First, let's talk hypocrisy:

Walid el-Salab, Student Union President at the American University in Cairo, and, might I add, the organizer of a peaceful rally against the Danish cartoons, has been quoted as saying, "The word Islam is derived from peace. You cannot just go and attack people.  But honestly, I feel that if I were to see the Danish Prime Minister, I might kill him myself without thinking."

Wow, great way to be a leader for peace.   And just for clarification, Mr. el-Salab, you do realize that the Prime Minister didn't draw any of the cartoons, right?  Why exactly should he be on your hit list?  He hasn't actually done anything against your religion laws.

Second, let's talk irony:

Remember when Americans started saying "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" instead of "French fries" and "French toast"?  Well, citizens of the Middle East are now saying "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" instead of "danish" (as in the tasty food, not the name for people from Denmark).

Seriously, that's 100% true.  Now, is that really so bad?

Well, besides the minor nuisance ofo it being slightly harder to say, "Give me a medium black coffee and a cheese Rose of the Prophet Muhammad," no, not necessarily.  Except for two things.

1) You aren't allowed to exploit the image of the great prophet, but you can exploit his name by turning his legacy into a pastry?

2) What an interesting choice to call the pastry a Rose considering the editor of the Danish paper that originally ran the offensive cartoons is named Flemming Rose.

In my opinion, having the name of the man behind these comics and the name of the prophet portrayed in these comics mentioned in the same title is soooooo much more offensive than the original offense of drawing Muhammad with a bomb on his turban, which, might I add, is a pretty clever method for depicting the truth that some Muslims use their religion as an excuse for violence.   Oh, and by the way, in response to these cartoons, some Muslims are using their religion as an excuse for violence.

Third, let's start a jihad on these protestors:

Hey, all you Muslims who are acting out against these comics.  I actually read the Koran, and nowhere in it does it state that you cannot portray an image of your prophet.  In fact, in the early days of the religion, wealthy men displayed their wealth through paintings and busts of Muhammad. 

And Muslims, while I have your attention, did you read Flemming Rose's article on why he ran the comics?  If not, you can find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html.  You should read it, because in it, he makes an absolutely fantastic point:

"We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims."

Would your argument to this be that you don't have to abide by the same rules and standards the Western world does?  Hmm, that's a really interesting point.  Well, it would be, except for another one of Rose's great points:

"Has Jyllands-Posten [the publication] insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."

If you don't have to abide by our customs, why do we have to abide by yours?

Oh, that's right, we don't.  So how about instead of pushing your beliefs on us (you know, the same thing that you hate about what we do to you), you just not look at the comics?  How about you just not view the offensive but not religiously forbidden images of your man who had some conversations with your God, who, consequently, is also our God? 

How about you just snicker to yourselves and talk about how all us infidels, all multiple billions of us, will be condemned to Hell?  I mean, really, why can't you just be content in thinking that you are right instead of demanding that we acknowledge that we are wrong, even when are beliefs don't tell us that we are?

Will your argument to this be to ask me why I don't do the same thing I am asking of you?  Well, my argument against that would be that I haven't caused any deaths.  You can call me contradictory for doing exactly what I am preaching against if you'd like, but really, all I'm asking you to do is follow your Pillars of Faith.  Namely, to do as Allah decreeds and "refrain from gossip" as well as "foster in the quality of sacrifice that rids one of selfishness, greed, and vanity."

You may be mad at us for not following Allah's will.  But you aren't either, and we aren't the ones who have to answer to Him.

At least, not according to you, since you don't acknowledge that they are the same God, even though when Muhammad told the wise man of his village that a voice spoke to him and declared himself as being the one true God, the wise man, who had traveled to the west and learned all about Judaism and Christianity, believed this voice to be that of the westerner's God.  This, then, is what he told Muhammad.  And thus, our one true God became your one true God.  Funny how that works.

But that isn't really the issue at hand.  The important matter is whether our society was wrong for printing those comics.  To end that discussion I will again reference Mr. Rose (of the magazine, not the prophet):

"This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work The Open Society and Its Enemies, insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

"I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten [the publication] has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

"I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism."

I know I promised you that Mullows was on a leave of absence while writing for BookSay  (plus he’s on timeout.  Hey, get back in the corner, young man!), but I had to pop in for a moment to mention the uproar over the Muslim comics.

Okay, extremist Muslims of the world.   Not you normal Muslims who live entirely normal lives and practice the wonderful religion of Islam the way it is supposed to be practiced, but you crazyheads who are acting out against the negative anti-Muslim comics that have been floating around.  Can you answer me a few questions?

If you are upset because comics are showing you acting violent and irrational, then why are you responding to the comics by acting violent and irrational?  

Yes, the comics are offensive and feed into negative stereotypes, so did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t then feed into the exact stereotype those comics are portraying?  Your current actions are the reason those comics exist!

How about proving those comics wrong?  How about calmly and peacefully declaring that you are offended, and that we, as an accepting culture, should accept your culture?

No, go burn stuff.  Go maim and kill.  Go do exactly what those comics portray you as doing.  Go create new images that will find their way into new comics.  That’s definitely the right move.

And news shows – instead of constantly showing us repetitive footage of these extremist Muslims acting this way, can’t you just say:

“And for an update on the Muslim world, we go to our world correspondent, Walter Cunningsmith.  Walter?”

“Thanks, Bob.  Well, the Muslims are still crazy.  And now the weather.”

Hello my dear and loyal readers,

I regret to inform you that your fellow blogger, a Mr. Mullows, has passed away.  Please come to the MindSay morgue to identify his body of comments.

No, please, it's not that serious.  Like a thinly veiled Christ alagory, I will rise again to live once more among my people.

But for now, I'll be blogging on BookSay, doing a little writing about writing for a while, and I thought I owed it to you to let you know.  If you still need a dose of my weird personality, check me out over there.  And please, if you would, put that blog name on your network so I can find you.

I'd hate to lose all my dear MindSay buddies.  And don't worry, I'll be back on this blog posting about irrelevant crazy things that I think affect this world.  This isn't the end of Mullows.  It's just the beginning of BookSay. 

So go over there.  Check it out.  Have fun.

I'll meet you there.

Sincerely,

Mullows/BookSay/Matt Ulmer/That Crazy Ass Cracka

During the endless debate of whether saying happy holidays to someone is ruining Christmas or whether wishing a Jewish person a merry Christmas will offend that person, we have totally forgotten about the most important question:

Why the hell do we have to wish people a happy Kwanzaa during this time of year?

Every network now has to say, "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, and Happy Kwanzaa to all of our listeners."

Why is Kwanzaa included there? Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday that is celebrated during the holiday season. Kwanzaa is a fabricated holiday with no religion affiliation. There are now Kwanaaneese.

"But Mullows, it's an African holiday."

WRONG.

One of my best friends was born in South Africa and lived there until he was 17. He never heard of Kwanzaa until he came here.

And have you ever met anyone that has ever celebrated it? Serously. I sure haven't.

Because here's the thing, since it's not a religious holiday, it does not get celebrated instead of Christmas or Hanukah. If a black person is Jewish, that black person is going to celebrate, as Adam Sandler put it, those eight crazy nights. And if a black person is Christian, that person is going to celebrate the birth of Christ. Therefore, why does Kwanzaa need to exist?

Well, it actually does have a purpose.

Dr. Maulana Karenga, the creator of Kwanzaa and the Chair of the Organization Us and The National Association of Kawaida Organizations, actually, honestly, wrote this, which is on the homepage of the official Kwanzaa website:

"The holiday, then will of necessity, be engaged as an ancient and living cultural tradition which reflects the best of African thought and practice in its reaffirmation of the dignity of the human person in community and culture, the well-being of family and community, the integrity of the environment and our kinship with it, and the rich resource and meaning of a people's culture."

Yes, a doctor and double chair actually wrote, "The holiday, then will of necessity, be engaged as an ancient and living cultural tradition..." as if that were an appropriate sentence.

But that's not the point. The point is the message.

According to the website, which is http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org, by the way, a man, not a faith, created Kwanzaa to:

-Reaffirm the communitarian vision and values of African culture and to contribute to its restoration among African peoples in the Diaspora, beginning with Africans in America and expanding to include the world African community.

-Introduce and reinforce the Nguzo Saba, the Seven Principles and through this, introduce and reaffirm communitarian values and practices which strengthen and celebrate family, community and culture. These seven communitarian African values are: Umoja (Unity), Kuji-chagulia (Self-determination), Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility), Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics), Nia (Purpose), Kuumba (Creativity), and Imani (Faith).

-Serve as a regular communal celebration which reaffirmed and reinforced the bonds between us as a people in the U.S., in the Diaspora and on the African continent, in a word, as a world African community. It was designed to unite and to strengthen African communities.

-Be an act of cultural self-determination, as a self-conscious statement of our own unique cultural truth as an African people. That is to say, it is an important way and expression of being African in a multicultural context.

See, now that is actually really nice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the holiday season, and should thus not be included in the happy holidays talk with Christmas and Hanukka, but it is very nice.

But here's the thing.

Actual Africans, meaning the people who live in Africa, are totally different from black Americans.

I say black Americans because, in my opinion, as a small white guy might I add, that is exactly what they are.

Yes, maybe they're great ancestors came from Africa, but the people who were born in America, and whose parents were born in America, are just Americans.

How can I possibly say this? Because that friend I mentioned from South Africa is an African-American. When he first met a black guy who called himself African-American, my friend said, "Oh, what part of Africa are you from?" The guy responded, "Huh? I'm from Chicago."

This was offensive to my friend. This guy from Chicago is not African-American. He is American. When Dr. Karenga writes that Kwanzaa is to "reflect the best of African thought and practice" is he taking into account that the way most Americans live is not anything like African thought and practice?

There isn't a holiday to "serve as a regular communal celebration which reaffirmed and reinforced the bonds between us as a people in the U.S., in the Italian country, in a word, as a world Italian community." Why? Because real Italians that hear Americans call spagetti and marinara sauce "macaroni and gravy" think they are are "stupid Americans." Real Italians don't think Americans and them are one in the same. They think that they believe and behave very, very differently from Americans, even if those Americans can consider themselves Italian-Americans.

There is no Irish holiday to celebrate how Americans with Irish ancestors are the same people as those who currently live in Ireland. Or how the Japanese guy who lives in the nice house next to you is exactly the same as the Japanese fisherman living on a houseboat in Japan. Why? Because they are nothing alike. Their cultures are totally different in every possible way. The only thing that is similar about them is that their great, great ancestors came from the same country. But now one is Japanese and one is American.

And still, all that being said, I understand a black American's desire to be familiar with his or her roots. I understand the need to feel connected to Africa. Even though the poor starving children with AIDS who are suffering in Africa probably feel no connection to you whatsoever, I understand you wanting to feel a connection to them.

And therefore, I think the principles of Kwanzaa are actually quite wonderful.

But it is not an alternative to Christmas or Hanukah. I'm sorry but it just isn't. If you are a black person and you were baptized and you regularly attend church, then you should be (and most likely are) celebrating Christmas.

So how did it happen that we have to say Happy Kwanzaa as if it were the same type of holiday as Christmas and Hanakuh, except that it was celebrated by those who practice the Kwanzni religion?

No such religion exists, and the holiday should not be treated as if it does.

The terrorists are at it again.  Those damn foreigners. 

Every year, the Foreign Press nominates celebrities for Golden Globe awards.  Now, I always thought the Golden Globes were a little off, because it seemed like every preview or commercial I saw for a movie during the months of December and January said, "Nominated for four Golden Globes!" and I'm like, "How can every movie be nominated for four Golden Globes?  Wouldn't that make for a whooole lot of of Golden Globes?"

Now I know something fishy is going on with these terrorists of foreign media.

This Friday, December 23, Stephen Spielberg's controversial new film, Munich, gets released in theaters.  It is about the aftermath of the Palestinian assassinations of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munch Olympics.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding this film, many saying that it is echoing the sentiments currently held by Americans that whenever someone attacks us we need to attack right back, and many (mostly the Jewish League of America) getting really pissed off at famously Jewish Spielberg for making a movie showing the Palestinian's side of what happened instead of showing them as horrible, evil terrorists.

Despite the controversy (or maybe because of it), there has been a lot of buzz around this movie, especially Oscar buzz, even though no one saw it until the first screenings occurred a week or so ago.

This is where I think the conspiracy comes in.

When the Golden Globe nominations were announced, I was shocked that Munich wasn't up for Best Movie - Drama.  Considering that everything I've read said it was a frontrunner to win Best Picture at the Oscars, and considering the Golden Globes have been 80% accurate in calling Oscar winners, I was very surprised. 

I would like to point out that the movie was, however, nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay.

And that's when I realized the Golden Globes were a sham.

Entertainment Weekly has reported that no screener DVDs of the film were sent to Golden Globe voters, and the movie won't be released in theaters until December 23, even though the nominations were made at the end of November.

Munich wasn't nominated for Best Movie - Drama because none of the people doing the nominating have seen it.

But then you might be asking yourself, "Self, didn't I just read that it was nominated for its direction and screenplay?"

Yes, Self, you are correct.  It was nominated for those two categories.  That means even though none of the voters saw it, they still voted for it. 

Doesn't this undermine every nomination and win in Golden Globe history?  If a movie can be nominated for an award even though no one has seen it, doesn't that minimize what it means to win said award? 

Does the Foreign Press just nominate solely based on conjecture, buzz, and word-of-mouth?  Do they see any of the movies they nominate?  Do they even watch movies? 

Plus, if it turns out they aren't taking their nominations seriously, and many if not all of the Oscar voters select nominations and wins somewhat based on the Golden Globe nominations and wins, then doesn't this fact jeopardize every Oscar win as well? 

The Oscars are one of the biggest and most glamorous and most American events in America today.  It is the second most watched event of the year behind the Super Bowl.  It is when all the most important people in the country (famous celebrities) get dolled up and glammed up and spiced up and sexed up and walk the red carpet and actually let people take their pictures and give interviews and speak their minds.  It is an important staple of American society.

Could these awful foreigners be jeopardizing its meaning and value purposely?  Are they all getting a kick out of their faulty nominations and then watch in joy as we naive Americans eat it up?  Are they secretly laughing to themselves as they subtly try to destroy what makes us us? 

Isn't this just another form of terrorism?  Trying to strip us of what we love the most? 

I say we kill them all.  Eye for an eye.  Or, in this case, blood for golden statues. 
  

If any of you sat through the three hours and seven minutes of Hollywood's latest computer animated film (with a few real human beings thrown in for good measure) - King Kong - then you have bared witness to the end of actual filmmaking as we know it.

What do I define as filmmaking? Remember in Indiana Jones when the rickety bridge falls apart and bad guys plunge to their death while Indy hangs on for dear life? To shoot that scene, a real set was built with a real bridge, actual actors were brought in to actually act, professional cameraman used real-life cameras to shoot the action (after a cinematographer and lighting designer worked their art), and little dummies were made with flailing arms and legs. Then, the filmmakers destroyed the real bridge, the dummies went falling into the water below, and Harrison Ford's stunt double grabbed onto the sides of a cliff as a camera, with true auteur Steven Spielburg behind it, captured every glorious moment.

That is how you make a movie.

King Kong is how you make a cartoon.

Consider this - When King Kong fights three T-rexes while clutching a screaming Ann Darrow like a stress ball, not a single thing in that shot is real. There were no cameras. There was no set. There were no actors. Everything was fake. Everything was made on a computer. Amazingly talented animators drew a giant ape, three giant dinosaurs, a very fake looking Naomi Watts, and a massive jungle behind them.

So Peter Jackson, Academy Award winning director of Lord of the Rings as well as mediocre crap like The Frighteners and absolute crap like Dead Alive, stood behind the animators and said, "Nah, draw that dinosaur's teeth a little bigger. Good, now draw, like, a totally awesome fight scene!"

That is what passes for filmmaking now? That is a somewhat realistic cartoon, not a movie.

The magic of moviemaking is gone. The skill of designing sets, the art of perfecting the right camera angle, the beauty of getting the lighting just right to make the face of the lead actress glow from behind, is all gone, all replaced by computers. And King Kong is, with a little help from George Lucas and his three latest Star Wars movies, is ushering in this new era.

And moviewatchers suffer the consequences, because let's face it, an actor cannot give the best performance possible if he or she is standing in the middle of a green room and a director says, "Ok, now imagine you are in a deep, dark cave, you can hardly see, and a giant bat with four eyes is flying toward you. Pretend you are frightened. Good, now pretend you are ducking the bat, ok he's coming back, now just jump, great, ok now jump again. Perfect!" People's eyes and expressions change when they are actually looking at something. When they are acting in front of a green screen, that realism just isn't there.

That great performance just isn't there.

To me, this type of moviemaking is a cheap imitation of real moviemaking. People without much talent use a green screen as a crutch. I think this is embodied perfectly in King Kong's director, Peter Jackson.

Many critics and fans are hailing Peter Jackson has a genious. Respected movie reviewer James Bernardinelli called him a wizard.

Where exactly is his talent?

If you watch the first hour of King Kong, that is to say, the one part of the movie where there actually were actors and cameras, you would have seen atrocious overacting the likes of which is typically reserved for broadway plays where the actor has to perform for viewers in the second balcony, cheesy and super corny dialogue you'd expect to see written by a kid crafting a play for a doll's tea party, and pathetic editing that amounted to a wavy camera with a cheap blur technique I don't even think a high school kid would want to use in a student film for fear that a pretentious teacher would laugh at it.

Where in that movie is the work of a genious wizard? Anything that involved actual directing is laughably bad, and every other part of the movie was drawn on computers. Typically, when a director wants a good performance out of an actor, that director has to motivate the actor to really understand the complexities of the character, and to get lost in the moment. When Naomi Watts is making King Kong laugh, the only talent involved was that of the animator perfectly fine-tuning the lines of the mammoth gorilla's flapping jaw.

But this, ladies and gentlemen, is the future of filmmaking. Creating everything on computers. In essence, making those cut scenes that run between levels of a video game to further the plot along.

Now, I have heard arguments that, "The dialogue was supposed to be really corny. The movie was supposed to be bad."

Is that seriously going to be your argument? People, this movie cost excess of $207 million to make. That's almost a quarter of a billion dollars. Do you really need to spend that much money to make a bad movie? Give me twenty bucks and a camera and I'll make a bad movie for you.

I was baffled when movie critics and award shows showered Peter Jackson with praise for the Lord of the Rings movies. Yes, the special effects were phoneminal and yes, he brought the mega popular books to life. But anyone who has studied film should have noticed the poor editing, and quirky camera angles, and the cheesy blur effects that seemed to be mimicking Miami Vice. I couldn't imagine how people with knowledge of the film business could have considered those good films.

Now I realize it's because there is a conspiracy. Either that, or Peter Jackson has brainwashed everyone. I think this because now the same overblown praise is being awarded to King Kong. Roger Ebert, one of the most famous critics in the world, wrote in his review, "This is one of the year's best films."

Roger, if dialgue and acting this bad exists in one of the year's best films, then this was a really, really bad year for films.

In my opinion, the moments when Naomi Watts and King Kong were the only characters on the screen were great. Honestly. But every other part of the movie was absolutely awful, and the first hour is the worst movie I've seen all year.

So much went wrong with this never-should-have-been-made remake.

It was as if Naomi Watts was in a totally different movie, because besides her, every other actor gives what I think amounts to collectively the worst performances of the year, and on multiple occasions the characters are given painfully long bits of dialogue that describe an entire plotpoint or someone's full backstory in one sitting, something that a first time screenwriter might concoct in a movie that would never see the light of day, or that would be seen as trite and cliched if it ever was made.

Plus, one of the major points of the plot doesn't make sense. Jack Black's character, a film director, says that he has stumbled upon a map of a mythical island that has never been discovered.  The flaw in this logic, of course, is that if the island has never been discovered, then there can't be a map of it. If a map exists, that means it has been discovered. This moment would foreshadow my feelings for the entire rest of the experience.

And the scene in which Jack Black declares his ownership of sad map is so horribly directed that I don't even want to talk about it. Peter Jackson is supposed to be one of the best directors in showbusiness right now and his inability to craft a simple scene astounds me.

Actually, while we're on the subject, let me pinpoint the exact moment I realized he couldn't really direct. This movie has some stunning action sequences. All of them are computer generated.

The one scene - the ONE scene - that required real cameramen to capture a choreographed fight sequence between real, honest to goodness human beings, was shot with the camera waving around frantically to the accompanyment of trippy, blurry images as if the audience had just smoked crack.

Why did Peter Jackson do this? Because he can't actually direct. He can only tell cartoonists to click mouse buttons and draw impressive looking dinosaurs. When it comes time to stage a real action sequence, he was lost. He had to resort to cheap tricks.

To the people who said that this movie had top-notch acting and directing, I honestly wonder what movie you were watching. I see movies like Crash, Cinderella Man, Syriana, A History of Violence, Walk the Line, War of the Worlds, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, and Millions (all movies that came out this year, the same year that Roger Ebert said King Kong was one of the best films of) and am astounded that people could consider the acting (besides Naomi Watts's performance) anything but disasterous, and the directing anything but amateurish.

Reading glowing reviews of this movie makes me physically angry.

Why am I so angry about this? Why do I care so much?

Peter Jackson is just like so many people in this world today (our president included). That is, he has way too much power and way too much money and it is totally undeserved. I realized this while watching President Bush's speech last night. To me, hearing people praise Bush for, "being really honest with us in how the war is going" when he was really anything but, is the same as calling Peter Jackson a wizard when he has less talent than some of the people I graduated from college with (who can't even get a business to loan them money for a camera while Peter Jackson gets $207 million).

I mean, come on. Peter Jackson is a multi-multi-millionaire who is respected and admired and has been given so much undeserved power that he was allowed to remake one of the most beloved movies in history (the original 1933 King Kong) for the most money ever ($207 million plus more than $75 million for marketing) with the ability to cast whoever he wanted (Jack Black as Carl Denham and Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll) as well as having final cut authority (which is why it is over three-hours-long).

Why is this man even allowed to work in Hollywood let alone have full control over the most expensive movie ever made?

I wanted to like this movie so much. I wanted Peter Jackson to prove me wrong. Instead, he revealed to me just how inept with a camera he really is.

In my opinion, King Kong, and the worshipped god of a man who made it, are pathetic.

And its existance marks the end of actual filmmaking as we know it.

I hope all you people who said you liked King Kong really, really love Pixar movies like Toy Story and The Incredibles, because that's what all movies are going to be soon thanks to the 25-foot tall gorilla that is Peter Jackson

ACT I: You Can't Handle the Truth


Press Secretary Scott McClellan (begrudingly): Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States.

President George W. Bush enters stage right.

Bush: Ladies and gentlemen, I asked my press secretary to step aside for a moment so I may address you personally. You know, mano-o-mano. You see, Scotty sort of spins things for ya. He doesn't give you the full truth. He holds back. But I ain't gotta do that. Since you gave me a mandate, I see no reason to do that. So I'm just gonna shoot from the hip. Fire from the heart. Create WMD's of honesty. And if need be, I'll drop bombs on the evildoers, or disagreers, if you will. I'll smoke the nonebelievers out of their foxholes of nonebelieving. So that being said, let's start this off. (Looks around room). Ah, you there, the little guy with the cool hairstyle. Yeah, you.

Journalist 1: Mr. President, I'm trying to figure out what qualifications Harriet Miers has to be a member of the supreme court.

Bush: Well, that isn't a question, little guy.

Journalist 1: Oh, ok. What qualifications does Harriet Miers have? Why would you try to appoint her to such a position?

Bush: It's simple, shorty. She has been a loyal friend of mine for over ten years.

Journalist 1: Yes but...

Bush: Next question. You, the heavyset fella.

Journalist 2: Me, sir?

Bush: Are you heavyset?

Journalist 2: A bit overweight, yes.

Bush: Then you.

Journalist 2: Sir, Miers is not a judge. She has no experience being a judge. Why should her very first position as a judge be as a supreme court justice? It seems to me that she didn't earn such a position. A current judge should become supreme court justice.

Bush: Fatty, I don't know what your problem is. She has experience with judges. She has been standing in front of them for years, you know, lawyering.

Journalist 2: Yes, but...

Bush: Next question. You, the hot blonde in the back.

Hot Blondie (through gritted teeth): Mr. Bush, you received a lot of criticism for hiring Michael Brown to head up FEMA when he had no experience in handling a crisis. Subsequently, when a crisis arose, he was an admitted disaster, since he had no idea how to handle a crisis. Common sense would dictate that you would refrain from hiring unqualified friends to high positions after one such unqualified friend screwed up so badly. But instead you throw it in our faces by doing the exact same thing all over again. Aren't you worried that this is going to reflect negatively on your ability to lead?

Bush: Wow, blondie, that was a lot of big words for a blonde chick. Let me see if I can answer this. You people re-elected me. By doing so, you told me that you love what I've been doing. Why would I change anything? Besides, isn't the goverment here for me to increase the well-being of all my buddies? I thought that's what being president was all about. (Looks around the room again). You, you get to ask a question.

Journalist 3: I'm going to ask a follow-up from that question. The New York Times today wrote, "Mr. Bush stepped deeper into a political thicket that had already scratched up his well-tended image of competence, the criticism that he is prone to stocking the government with cronies rather than people selected solely for their qualifications." That honestly doesn't worry you at all?

Bush (snickering): What're you gonna do? Impeach me?

Journalist 3: Well...um...we could....uh...it reflects negatively on the party and...uh....well it...you just shouldn't....it could....uh...well...

Bush: Exactly. You elected me. I am doing exactly what I promised I would when I ran. Nothing is a surprise. This is exactly what I said it would be. You elected me. So what do you have to complain about? You got what you elected. I guess you just can't handle the truth. And people say I'm an idiot. Sheesh. You know, Miers is quoted as saying I am the most brilliant man she ever met. Seriously. Isn't that all the confidence in her you need? She obviously knows a winner when she sees one. And I'm a winner. (Places an air force helmet on his head). Alright folks, this had been fun, but I've got a sunny vacation waiting for me so I'm gonna hop on Air Force One, fly over New Orleans and look down at it from a safe place, use up three oil refineries worth of gas, and then ask you all to make sure you conserve. Be good. Oh, and give Brownie a break, will ya? He's good people. God bless him and God bless the United States of America.

(Screams come from the back.)

White house staffer: Mr. Press Secretary, don't...

(Gunshot. Press Secretary Scott McClellan's lifeless body slumps to the ground.)

Curtains close.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution has been beaten to death. I know that.

So instead of going into [great] detail about the pratfalls of teaching Intelligent Design in class, or the hypocracy of teaching that but no other religion's view of how the earth was created, or the clear breach of the whole "no religion in public schools" thing, I will simply ask all you Believers out there, in all sincerity:

What proof do you have that Intelligent Design or Creationism exists? What exactly would be taught in school?

Seriously. I'm not trying to attack you here. I honestly want to know. What will the class entail? Would the teacher read that section of the Bible and then that's it, school is over? There's nothing else to learn?

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means it has facts to back it up and facts to disprove it. There are fossils. There are bones. There is evidence.

Evidence that the earth existed millions of years ago. Evidence that monkeys slowly evolved into man. Evidence that Creationism is not possible.

What evidence is there for Creationism? The only evidence I see is evidence against the theory. For one, if we all came from Adam and Eve, then why are there white people, black people, Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans, and everyone else? Where did all those races come from if every human is from the same two people? Plus, think about that concept for a second - every human is from the same two people. That means every human on Earth is inbred. You, and your sibling, and your parents, and your best friend, and your spouse, and your neighbor, and George W. Bush, and Adolf Hitler, and Unclenasty, and Tom Cruise, and Pablo Picasso, and Moses, and Harvey Weinstein, and that dude on the corner with the trash in his beard who talks to himself, and everyone else who has ever lived, are all related to you. That doesn't make you feel dirty?

But ok, people don't want Creationism taught in schools. They want Intelligent Design. And that states that sure, evolution might exist, but it is governed and controlled and planned by a higher power. I buy that. That's totally buyable.

But here's the thing - that's a belief. You believe that evolution is so complicated it must be controlled by God. You can't prove or disprove that. It's a belief. A hope. How can that be taught in school? What would the lesson plan be? What would the test exist of?

"You believe that there is a God who set evolution into motion. True or False?"

Kered wrote a great blog in which he identified the truth that there are essential characteristics which must be present in order for something to be considered science. Those characteristics are:

1 - It is guided by natural (physical or biological) law.

2 - It is testable against the empirical world.

3 - It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

4 - Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word.

5 - It is falsifiable - or, more accurately, makes predictions that can be tested by observation.


Sadly, Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria, thus it cannot be considered science. It is a belief, and, more accurately, it is a religious belief. Therefore, if you want to teach Intelligent Design in schools, create a religion class and teach all the different religious beliefs. Otherwise, if you're just teaching Intelligent Design, you've got a Catholic school. It is no longer a public school.

Because if you remember, you aren't allowed to have religion in public schools.

Thus you shouldn't be allowed to have Intelligent Design in public schools.

I'm at work, however, so I didn't do any research on the subject. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's more than just a belief. If that's the case, please prove me wrong.

Please tell me where the evidence is. Please show me that you can actually teach kids facts instead of just beliefs. Please inform me that a class on Intelligent Design would consist of more textbooks than the Bible.

Otherwise, what exactly is the argument?

I never used to believe in psychics .

That is, until I became one.

Not really, but it seems like people are just starting to realize what I've said for years.

I'll start off with a simply example. Apple. Yes, the company that makes the iPod.

They also make computers, by the way. And those computers are better quality and more stable and any PC. Just go read PC Magazine's survey on quality to see that. Apple computers break more than 40% less than any PC.

And yet, Microsoft owns over 90% of the market, because they did a better job of marketing in the very beginning.

Apples, however, remain more user friendly, more user intuitive, and, might I add, prettier. Why? Because Apples has something to prove. Microsoft owns the world, and if they make a crappy product, everyone buys it anyway. Apple has more to prove. Apple has to make the best product possible. Microsoft makes crap and then laughs at you for buying it.

I have owned a Mac for a few years and guess what the only program to ever crash on me is? Microsoft Word.

I have been saying for years that if PC owners give Apple a chance they'll realize how great their products are.

Well, now it's finally starting to happen, but not with the computer.  With the iPod.

iPod now owns over 75% of the digital music player market, because they are easy to use and they are "cool", just like every Apple computer.

When a product has a chance to shine, and isn't hidden behind the wall of the Microsoft monopoly, people realize it is a superior product.

I think Steve Jobbs, CEO of Apple and Pixar, the company behind Toy Story, The Incredibles, and every other great computer generated animated Disney film, said it best when he said, "What's really been great for us is the iPod has been a chance to apply Apple's incredibly innovative engineering in an area where we don't have a 5%-operating-system-market-share glass ceiling. And look at what's happened. That same innovation, that same engineering, that same talent applied where we don't run up against the fact that Microsoft got this monopoly, and boom! We have 75% market share."

But that doesn't quite fully portray my pyschic powers, so let's delve a little deeper.

George W. Bush - the bumbling idiot leader of the free world.

I didn't vote for him in 2000 because I saw the type of guy he was and the type of guy he could become.

A guy who would put his own interests in front of his country's. A guy who with one of the slimmest margins of victory in history would consider that as meaning the American public gave him a mandate. A guy who would find any excuse to go to war. A guy who had major ties to oil companies, and who's vice president had major ties to oil companies, and so gas prices would somehow find a way to rise out of control. A guy who disagreed with much of the core Republican political beliefs. A guy who couldn't pronounce foreign leaders names. A guy who acted homely and "like a normal American guy, just like you or me" except he was a multi-millionaire who went to Yale and lived on a super ranch. A guy who could not admit he was wrong and in the second election confessed to believing we were right to go to war and he was right in everything he did. A guy who would get one, maybe two spots to fill on the Supreme Court, which could have consequences lasting for the next thirty years and beyond.

And now oil prices are insansely high (even way before the hurricane, so don't blame that). We are at war that could last who knows how many more years. Bush gets to appoint a new Supreme Court that could very well make abortion illegal.

Did know one else see this coming? The very intelligent gamecoder wrote a great blog about how he used to be a big Bush supporter but now realizes he has no faith in any judgement Bush makes. People responding to this blog said things like, "I just wish that Bush was actually a Republican (or even a Conservative for that matter), but small government and laizes faire aren't his M.O. He seems more interested in furthering his own personal agenda than furthering the interests of the country. He's not a King after all; his interests are not equivalent to the country's interests," and, "Yet now, looking back on it with President Bush to compare him to, Clinton seems almost heroic. His errors and bad judgement seem like foibles rather than serious issues. We were willing to impeach him because he lied to us about an affair, but at least he didn't let more troops die than in the Vietnam war. So now, I'm one of those who looks back wistfully at a time when the biggest presidential concern was sexual infidelity," and, "at the beginning, I supported Bush like there was no tomorrow. During the 2000 election, I thought that he had what it took to keep this country going strong and united. Plus, I didn't really want a Speak-and-Spell for a president. But, about 2.5 years into his term, I really started growing a disliking for that man in office. I mean, REALLY. A lot of my stinging wit ( was dedicated to pointing out his problems and faults as president."

How did no one forsee him being a crappy president? People voted for him because of reasons like, "he seems like he'd be a great guy to get a beer with." But you aren't getting a beer with him. You are electing him to be the most powerful man in the world. I have the utmost respect for Doot , but she told me that she liked Bush because he mispronounced words, and that showed a weakness, and she thought that was great. For one, he is the spokesperson of American, and American cannot show a weakness, but for two, you liked him because he mispronounces words? Let's imagine for a moment that you are in charge of hiring at a company. You need to hire some lowly clerical assistant or something similar for like $20,000 a year. Say someone comes in to interview for the job and the person mispronounces words and screws up the name of the company's CEO. Would you ever even dream of hiring that person? Then why would you hire a similar person to run our country?

It doesn't take Miss Cleo to see that he isn't a great leader.

And all you people our there who will respond to me saying he is a great president because he is a great and true Christian need to wise up. Seriously.

He is the President of the United States. That means he lies and murders. Now, all presidents have to lie and murder, it comes with the territory. But then no "great and true" Christian should ever want to be president, because they would have to lie and murder. Thus, don't you dare claim that he is acting on God's will or any other crap you want to spew at me.

He was a disaster from his very first debate and he is still a disaster five years later. Why are people just now starting to realize it?

Still not convinced of my talent? Okay, here is the greatest example of my ability to see into the future, and it deals with someone with a similar mindset to Bush.

It's about sports.

Andy Reid- head coach of my favorite football team, the Philadelphia Eagles.

From the very first day he was made head coach AND general manager AND pretty much offensive coordinator since he calls all of the plays instead of the person who's job it actually is, and everyone got all excited and called him a football genius, I was saying, "Yes, he's a great strategist, but he will never win a Super Bowl."

Why did I say that? Because I saw his hard-headedness and arrogance and inflexibility. I saw that he creates a game plan and sticks to that game plan no matter what. Even if his team is losing by twenty points at the half, he will not deviate from his strategy. He will not make half-time adjustments. He does not change. The sign of a great coach is the ability to adjust. Reid does not have that ability.

I also saw a man way too throw happy. What does that mean? During games, he doesn't like to run the ball. He has since admitted he doesn't like to run. And a team that doesn't run will never win a Super Bowl.

When a team passes, the offensive line goes on the defensive. They get attacked. They are smashed into as the defensemen rush the quarterback. When a team runs, the offensive line gets to go on the offensive. They get to do the smashing. They get to run the defense over as they block for the runner. And what do they love to do? They love to run people over. It's why they play the game.

If a team throws all game, the offensive line will get tired and beat up. They need the energy and excitement that comes with a running play. Plus, if you pass the entire game, the defense doesn't need to worry about calling the right plays. They always know you're going to throw. They always know they need to prepare for a pass. They never have to worry about the threat of you running. It gives the other team an advantage. It's letting the other team win.

I saw that from day one, and I saw it as a huge downfall, but seemingly know one else did.

Funny though, everyone is bitching about last Monday's Monday Night Football game in which the Eagles didn't run like they should have. Did no one but me see this coming?

Let me explain the sorts of things Reid did in that game.

They would pass the ball. Incomplete. No gain. Then they would run the ball. They would gain 22 yards. Then they would pass the ball. Incomplete. No gain. Then they would pass the ball. Complete for 3 yards. Then they would pass the ball. Incomplete. No gain. Then they would have to punt the ball away, giving it to the other team.

But Reid is a genius? Hello, if passing isn't working but running is, YOU RUN MORE!!!!

But apparently no one else saw this coming.

Let's stick with football for our last example of my ability to see back...back to the future.

Donovan McNabb, the Eagles $150 million quarterback.

From the very first day he was drafted I started saying, "You know, he doesn't have any accuracy. He's an amazing athlete and a quick and powerful runner, but he isn't an accurate passer."

Then for the next five years he proceeded to throw the ball behind receivers or at their feet. The man is a totally average passer. His great gift is his ability to run.

Too bad Andy Reid doesn't want him to run, and has convinced him that he shouldn't. Now he beleives he should be a pocket quarterback. Never running. Just passing. But here's the problem - he can't pass!

And now, all the sudden, people are like, "Hey, whenever Donovan throws a pass it's behind his receiver. He really doesn't have that accurate an arm."

No shit. I told you that six years ago.

I'm not a head coach, but I have more brains than either of them. Here's my example. Before the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots confessed that their biggest fear was McNabb's ability to run. They could prepare for everything except that. It was the Eagle's secret weapon.

So what did the Eagles do? McNabb did not run ONE SINGLE TIME.

Here's all it takes. One of the very first plays of the game, McNabb takes off on a run. Now the Patriots are freaking out. Now they know at any moment McNabb could kick his legs into gear. Now they are scared.

Instead, McNabb never ran. The Patriots never had to worry about him. And surprise, surprise, the Patriots won.

How can I see this but genius Andy Reid can't?

Another complaint I've had of McNabb's is that he is too indecisive. A quarterback needs to drop back and release the ball as quickly as possible. But he doesn't. He sits in the pockets and looks at one guy, then another, then another, then starts to throw, then second guesses himself, then starts to throw again, then either gets sacked or finally does throw it, either behind someone or at their feet.

And yesterday, for the first time ever, I heard someone complain that he doesn't release the ball quick enough.

What team have these people been watching for the past five years?

Unless he is running, he is a mediocre quarterback.

And people are finally started to realize it.

People are finally starting to wise up.

Microsoft crashes and freezes and breaks way too often for its own good. George W. Bush is not the greatest president to ever live. Andy Reid is a hardheaded bafoon. And Donovan McNabb can't hit a target to save his life.

You know what, I can apply the same analogy to all of these things:

Imagine if you bought a car and you drive it off the lot. Six blocks later the car stalls, the tires fall off, the engine starts to smoke, every warning light goes on, the doors fall off, and the steering wheel crumbles in your hands.

You go back to the dealership and complain and they say, "I'm confused. Didn't you realize that ALL of our cars do that?" Would you ever buy that product again?

Of course you wouldn't.

So why do you keep buying a PC even though it consistently fails on you? Why did you re-elect Bush even though he consistently fails on you? And why do you call Andy Reid the best coach and Donovan McNabb the best quarterback in football even though they both consistently fail you?

Am I really the only one who sees it?

Let me start off this post by saying I used to have no problem with Snapple.  They make a fine product.  Quite a delicious drink.

But their new marketing campaign is simply immoral and I won't stand for it...which is why I'm sitting at the computer for it.

I had a very nice peach tea Snapple for lunch yesterday when I looked at the side of the cap and saw that, in big colorful letters running around the entirety of the cap, were the words, "LOOK UNDER THE CAP!  WIN INSTANTLY."

I immediately looked under the cap and saw, "Sorry, not a winner!"

What?  What do you mean not a winner?  You never once said there was a chance for me not to be a winner.  It said look under the cap.  Win instantly.  It doesn't say look under the cap for a chance to win instantly.

And, not only that, but they're excited about the fact that I'm not a winner.  They gave it an exclamation mark for emphasis.  That's pretty much the equivalent of, "Ha, ha.  You suck!"

Thinking I had a lawsuit on my hands like the people that successfully sued Blockbuster for their misinforming commercials about no more late fees, I checked on the bottle and around the cap for fine print.

That's when I saw it.  I had read it before, but completely skipped over it as not being important.

Now I realized it was vitale.  And totally immoral.

The top of the cap says, "Win yourself a favor!  Instantly.  Look under CAP!"

Why is this important?

Because underneath the cap, directly below the heartbreaking message of, "Sorry not a winner!" are the words, "Do yourself a favor, try again!"

Let me write that again - Do yourself a favor, try again!

The top of the cap says, "Win yourself a favor," and the bottom of it says, "Do yourself a favor, try again!"

I realize now that I did win.  The cap didn't lie.  I won a prize.

The prize was the right to buy another bottle of Snapple.

Are you freakin' kidding me?  That's hogwosh.  Poppycock.  Horse manure.

That's the most immoral contest/marketing campaign I have ever laid witness to (expect perhaps the TV ads for Iverson sneakers that flat out said if you wanted to play basketball like Allen Iverson all you had to do was buy those sneakers).

They couldn't give me fifty cents off my next bottle of Snapple - my next chance to win a prize?  They couldn't give me a dollar off?

No, I am the grand prize winner of the opportunity to part with more of my money, and give it to this immoral company to line their pockets with.  And those pockets will keep getting fatter because they don't have to shell out any money for actual prizes.

All they have to do is say, "Hey, you did win.  You won the right to buy a delicious new Snapple.  Aren't you lucky?"

It doesn't even say what you could win, because you can't win anything.  It's just a favor.  I guess some of the other caps might read, "Do yourself a favor, jump off a bridge," or, "take a bath with a plugged in toaster," or, "treat yourself to some quality you time, and buy another bottle of Snapple while you're at it."  Do yourself a favor?  If I had bought lemon tea would it have told me to never eat yellow snow?

This is bull. 

And hold on, after examing the bottle more closely, I realized there actually is small print.  You want to know what it says?

Tough, I'm going to tell you anyway.

It says, "No purchase necessary.  Void where prohibited.  Game ends 11/30/05.  Open to residents of the 50 United States 13 years or older."

Okay, well first of all it starts out with a lie.  No purchase necessary?  So are you saying I can rip the cap off of any Snapple in the store without buying it first?  Couldn't I then be accused of stealing?

Then it tells me void where prohibited, but right after that it says open to all 50 United States, so there aren't many places in this country where it's prohibited.  I guess those wiley Canucks can't play.  But wait, I take that back.  There are places in the US where it is prohibited.  Any state that isn't thirteen years or older, since the content writing geniuses didn't bother to put in any punctuation.  "Open to all 50 United States 13 years or older."  So if you've only been a state for twelve years, tough luck, no one in your state can play the game?  Or are those the actual states playing?  Does New Jersey grab a gigantic bottle and twist its cap off?

And wait, I skipped over my favorite part.  "Game ends 11/30/05."

What game?  What bloody game?  The incredibly exciting, fun, and worthwhile game of what meaningless favor will Snapple tell me to do now?  "Do yourself a favor, keep me refrigerated after opening."

I'll do myself a favor.  I'll never buy a bottle of Snapple again in my life.

I don't like George Bush. In fact, I pretty much dislike everything about him - everything he stands for, everything he's done, and everything he hasn't done for this country.

BUT I don't blame him for the hurricane or the damage. I laugh when he goes on the air and says, "I don't think anyone predicted that the levees would break," when we have footage of experts saying, "If we get hit with a level 4 hurricane or even a slow moving level 3, the water will break through and New Orleans will fill up like a bathtub," the saturday before the hurricane.

But I don't blame him for it happening.

I get upset when I see footage of him traveling to San Diego after the hurricane hit, or laughing and joking on Good Morning America while his fellow citizens die. I get upset when he waits five days before going to New Orleans, and even then flying overhead with a caraven of helicopters, coming on TV and saying ambiguous dribble like, "There's still a lot of work to be done," and "We'll solve this problem...because we're problem solvers" before hopping back into his caravan of helicopters and leaving, without taking anyone with him in the process.

But I don't blame him for the problem.

And I don't think we can afford to blame people while others are still dying. Our first priority is to save those people. As I said to Goddesseunomia before she vanished, when a bombsquad gets called in to disarm a bomb, their first order of business is not to conduct an investigation to find out who planted the bomb. Their first order of business is to disarm it.

But that being said, let me ask, "When will people finally start being held accountable, not just in this crisis, but in everything? Where is the responsibility in politics?"

Politicans have always hired their friends in positions they aren't qualified for. I have accepted that. It is always going to happen. But when a crisis arrises, and those unqualified people can't step up to the plate because they have no idea what they're doing, there needs to be accountability.

Do you know what FEMA is? The Federal Emergency Management Agency? The group in charge of directing federal relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? You do? Okay, good. Let's move on.

Do you know what Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, did before taking that job? He was forced to resign in the face of mounting litigation and financial disarray from the incredibly important post of...

...the Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.

Right now you might be asking yourself what this guy knows about leading us through a natural disaster. Your first instinct is the right one - absolutely nothing.

In fact, he didn't even know anything about commissioning international Arabian horses. A member of the International Arabian Horse Association wrote this about Brown after realizing he was in charge of saving the people of New Orleans, "For three years Michael Brown was hired and then fired by our IAHA, the International Arabian Horse Association. He was an unmitigated, total disaster. I was shocked when Captain Clueless put him in charge of FEMA a couple of years ago. He ruined IAHA financially so badly that we had to change the name and combine it with the Purebred registry. I am telling you this after watching the shipwreck in the Gulf. His incompetence is killing people."

Will there be any accountability when the water is cleared? When this is all over, will Bush or anyone invovled in the ridiculous hiring of this ridiculous man be held accountable for their actions? I understand that politicans always hire their friends, but this time it is killing people.

And what does President Bush say about all this?

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Yes, Brownie. You sure are.  Tens of thousands of people are dead. Thousands of people are still dying. New Orleans is still 60% under water. We haven't even begun to imagine the total damage to Mississippi and the other effected states.

But you're doing one heck of a job. Because, as one reporter noted, "I haven't heard