Archive for March, 2010
Mystery of the Day: What is Kevin Smith's "political horror film" Red State about?
Kevin Smith is best known for being denied passage on Southwest Airlines because they said he was too fat. We swear that's not a joke.
Here’s a project we’ve been tracking for a while, because the concept of a “political horror” film really intrigues us: Kevin Smith has been given the green light to shoot “Red State”, which is billed as “political horror” based on the Reverend Fred Phelps.
“Political Horror” is a new genre…unless you see “The Omen” as a political movie as much as a horror one, the way we do. The last scene of “The Omen” has the anti-christ holding hands with the President and First Lady, about to be adopted into the White House, setting course in the eternal sea of politics.
We’re not fans of Kevin Smith by any means. There are moments in Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back that are inspired and funny, but we enjoy watching his movies the way we enjoy most Broadway musicals — as little clips shown here and there at Sidetracks on Showtunes or comedy nights. Smith should direct short skits and digital shorts, not movies.
As for Fred Phelps, most people conveniently forget he’s a Democrat.
We’ve seen the man in person, screaming at gay guys to get AIDS and telling people he doesn’t even know how much he hates them. Honestly, there aren’t even words to tell you how despicable watching that was. “Stomach-turning” doesn’t come close; “repulsive” doesn’t do it justice. It is the LEFT, not the RIGHT, that wishes AIDS on gay people it doesn’t like. We can testify to that from personal experience. The worst, to this day, that any Republican in any red state has ever done to us is say, “Boys, you ain’t right, and I’m gonna pray for y’all”.
But, that would be a pretty boring horror movie…nice people who think we’re broken and keep praying God will fix us, whether we want to be “fixed” or not. We think it’s naive of them to do this — but very sweet — and know those prayers aren’t coming from a place of hate, no matter how much they can’t understand our affections for Jake Gyllenhaal.
Fred Phelps has always reminded us of the crazy preacher in Poltergeist II or some kind of a scarecrow monster from a bad B-movie.
He is chilling to watch in person.
We wonder exactly what Smith’s movie will be about…and how it’s “political horror”.
Chances are, it will have a bunch of Liberals traveling through the South, stumbling upon Phelps’ hate cult, and falling victim to all manner of horrors.
It’s a shame Republicans don’t make movies, too, because the current administration sure feels like a needless remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where America seems to have gone insane, with Leftists replacing everyone in government who once upon a time acted with common sense.
Have you heard anything about the movie “Red State”?
If you were making a “political horror movie”, what would be in it?
Question: How on Earth do Leftists think they can jam Cap & Tax through next?
We’d love to hear from you on what you think Leftists will do with Cap & Tax next — that absurd push to tank Western economies, like our own, based on the rantings of the discredited Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Do you think Leftists will really mount this effort?
If they do, what about the Climategate scandal and everything else the UK press has revealed about the deliberate, duplicitous, criminal fraud committed by true believers in Al Gore’s apocalyptic cult? The American MSM has completely ignored every story that reveals the extent of the fraud committed in the name of AGW.
But, will that MSM news blackout be able to hold if Leftists really do push for Cap & Tax legislation?
Can you think of a plausible way for them to do this in the eight months between now and when Democrats lose the House and maybe the Senate too in November?
If not Cap & Tax, what other madness do you think Leftists will focus on instead of job creation and the things this nation actually needs?
Terror for small franchises: Sunday's actions by Leftists will cost $75,000+ a year in many cases
Here’s a comment we received on another thread about Obamacare’s crippling burden on small businesses. This example involves McDonald’s, which is made up primarily of mom and pop owned franchises. People think “McDonald’s” and picture the megacorporation, not realizing “McDonald’s” is, in fact, just a massive collection of franchises owner-operated across this country. Those franchisees are constantly put over the barrel by corporate over something…forced remodelings, forced marketing materials, forced upgrades.
Now, the federal government is going to cost these franchisees a fortune too, according to what one reader sent in:
In our daily email at work today from the trust department (I work at a bank), the advisor remarked that apparently on McDonalds recent earnings call, they had stated that it will now cost an additional $75,000+ to run a franchise. Massive company, but “70 percent of McDonald’s restaurants around the world are owned and operated by independent local businesspeople” (from their website).
Imagine how many layoffs and/or cut hours are going to result from that
If McDonald’s franchisees, which we assume will suffer a lower cost because of their connection to the megacorporation, are faced with $75,000 bills because of what happened on Sunday in Washington, how much will the average small business owner be saddled with in new taxes, fees, and penalties for Obamacare?
Who are the 20 Leftists Sarah Palin is targeting and how can we help her?
American Artemis, practicing what she's going to do to Leftists this fall
Who are the 20 Leftists Sarah Palin’s put a bounty on come November?
Let’s put them on our lists of Leftists we need to identify all major Donors for, and help the Governor take them down by drying up their fundraising efforts.
Add Louise Slaughter, Bart Stupak, and Nancy Pelosi to whomever Palin’s taking down.
What do Steny Hoyer and John Lewis do while out on their dates?
Steny Hoyer and John Lewis are Washington D.C.’s new power couple.
Spotted lovingly holding hands on a brisk walk across the Capitol grounds on Sunday, the sparkling pair have been delighting residents of the capital with their frequent appearances in restaurants, clubs, coffee shops, art galleries, and the Tidal Basin, enthused as the pair are to spot the first of the cherry blossoms.
“Lookit, John, I think I see one!”
“Oooh, Steny, you’re sharp! I knew you’d spot the first cherry blossom, you’re so good at spotting things.”
“Well, I’m glad I spotted you, that’s for sure.”
“Oh, Steny. You’re so romantic!”
“Kiss me, kiss me John, and let’s show everyone in Washington that hand-holding’s not all that we love to do.”
“Good thing there’s no tax on kisses, or we’d both be in the poor house, Steny.”
“Oh, John, don’t be silly. We’re Democrats in Congress. We never pass any taxes that apply to us, so we can tax other people’s kisses, my little peanut butter cup, but we’ll just exempt ourselves, just as we’ve exempted ourselves and our staff from that monstrous bill we passed on Sunday.”
“I remember passing that. It was fun. You and I had a nice walk before that, and I told everyone who saw us you were my boo. Then I told voters to suck it, and you whispered all kinds of dirty jokes in my ear and I made laffy sounds as we walked. That was a fun day.”
“It sure was, John. I love your laffy sounds. I love you. Now, all this kissing and hand holding has worked up an appetite for me. How about Komi for a decadent multi-course degustation extravaganza? I know how much you love to splash around water in their bathrooms, with those fancy faucets that have those gold knobs. We’ll just bill taxpayers for dinner and the mess you’ll make and say it’s “official business”, since we’re both Congressmen.”
“Two Congressemen IN LOVE. That’s us, boo. That’s us to a “t”. I sure love playing in those sinks. Can I bring my rubber ducky?”
“Only if you let me bring all the kisses I plan on giving you.”
“It’s a deal Steny. It’s a deal!”.
The More We See, the Less We Like
h/t chrissy the hyphenated
Dear HillBuzz,
Obama is enjoying what Rasmussen calls a “modest bounce” in his approval ratings from the health care legislation. It’s making him slightly less unpopular, at least for the time being. Rasmussen says it’s mainly Democrats who are pleased with the passage of the health care plan moving from Approve to Strongly Approve. I don’t think it’ll last. After portions of the bill passed in the House and Senate, we heard O’droolers suddenly rumbling about specific elements. Conversations along the lines of, “WTF?” followed by one of us saying, “We’ve been telling you this stuff was in there since LAST SUMMER!” And seriously … how far into La La Leftie Koolaid Land does someone have to be to NOT get mad when they find out the IRS is going to get bigger, do more audits, and have the power to withhold refunds if some bean counter doesn’t like your insurance policy?
My suspicion is that the people who cause these bumps are the “low information” types who don’t pay much attention. Something like SOTU (State of the Union address) or signing big legislation makes them tell pollsters, “Obama did something, bully for him.” What matters is how long the bump lasts and where it goes afterwards. E.g., his post SOTU bump was unusually short and the post bump number was LOWER than the pre bump number had been. To me that said the people who paid attention to the speech itself, not just the headlines about the speech, did NOT like what they heard. I’m guessing we’re going to see the same thing with the healthcare bump, because whooeee are Americans MAD! Only 41% of Likely Voters support the healthcare plan TODAY … and I’m suspicious that a lot of these people don’t actually know what’s in it. Not that the legislators who voted on it know either, seeing as they don’t READ the laws they vote on. And sixty-four percent (64%) are saying Congress is doing a poor job. As details about what’s in the bill leak out, I expect the first to drop and the second to rise. Even more interesting … last weekend, Obama’s approval numbers dropped LOWER among Adult Americans than they were among Likely Voters!
Usually we find Likely Voters polling more conservative, Adult Americans polling more liberal and Registered Voters polling in between the two. But Obama’s poll numbers for March 19-20) were the OPPOSITE and it was by A LOT — SEVEN points! TOTAL DISAPPROVE Rasmussen (Likely Voters) had him at 44%. CNN (Adult Americans) had him at 51%. And check this out. I compared his highest and lowest TOTAL APPROVE numbers at Rasmussen and CNN (actual numbers below in SOURCES). Among Likely Voters, he has fallen 22 points since his highest point (inauguration). But among Adult Americans, he has fallen 30 points! And this is with a steady steam of nauseatingly positive media coverage!
————— SOURCES:
CNN poll: Majority disapprove of Obama for first time – March 22, 2010 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-majority-disapprove-of-obama-for-first-time/?fbid=9bFcKVFNEMG
Obama Administration Presidential Tracking Poll – March 23, 2010 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Obama’s highest and lowest “Total Approve” numbers: 65% to 43% (Rasmussen Jan 21, 2009 to March 20-21, 2010) 76% to 46% (CNN early Feb 2009 to Mar 20-21, 2010)
Hugs,
Chrissy
Wednesday Open Thread: March 24th, 2010
What’s on your minds this Wednesday?
And on the frabjou day, the Lightbringer delivered unto us a unicorn
h/t seapea
America’s most dangerous drag queen has delivered unto us a unicorn at last.
Another Alexi Giannoulias Dead Man Walking Story
Here’s another story in the Tribune about efforts underway behind the scenes to force Alexi Giannoulias to abandon his Senate candidacy, since his whole family seems sure to go down with Broadway Bank’s failure. The assumption is that once the feds take over the bank, all of the Giannouliases’ crime connections will come to light, and the public will know the full extent of everything the Giannoulias Family did for the mob in Chicago.
The Tribune is largely written by interns and kindergarteners these days, so take it for what it is worth, but here’s the gist of what it says:
(1) Giannoulias is going to be dumped as the Senate candidate — which we’ve believed for some time will happen.
(2) Lisa Madigan will turn down a chance to run for the Senate — honestly, we don’t know enough about the Madigans to say whether that is true or not. She’s ambitious, but for whatever reason never seems to want to make any of the power moves people forever insist she’s plotting. Maybe she just loves the attention all this speculation gives her and all she wants is to be Attorney General. Or, maybe she wants Bill Brady to beat Pat Quinn for Governor in the fall, so that she can run for Governor herself in 4 years and that’s the only ambition she has. But, if she wanted the Senate nomination, her father the villainous Mike Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House, would surely give it to her.
(3) The article says yet again that Rahm Emanuel could be the Senate pick — which we think is ridiculous. Giannoulias is not going to enjoy being pushed to the side, so if we were him, we’d do everything we could to tear down whomever replaced us. People in Illinois don’t like Emanuel to begin with, and Republicans especially can’t stand him…so there’s an awful lot about Emanuel that would come out in any campaign. It would not be like running for his Congressional seat. The stakes are much, much higher. Screaming at people naked in the showers is not the full extent of Emanuel’s nude adventures with men.
(4) Bill Daley, the imperial mayor’s brother, is the other candidate the Tribune thinks would take Giannoulias’ place. There’s no love for the Daley family in this state. Daley is a nice enough man, but he’s a buffoon a large part of the time. Good luck with that one, we say.
(5) David Hoffman is put down by the Tribune, even though we know for a fact his campaign staff from the primary has not found other jobs and is waiting to work for him again, for SOMETHING. The Tribune notes how shrill and childish Hoffman comes off in interviews, and we have to say we agree with that characterization. He is certainly someone we like on paper, and we like the people working for him, but there’s a reason we ourselves didn’t volunteer for his campaign. After we met him at an event, we realized what an ass he is in person. He’d probably make a great Senator, but life’s much too short to spend what little free time we have campaigning for an ass. Maybe he’ll get that under control someday. We hope so. If he was nicer to people, maybe he would have won the primary against Giannoulias in the first place.
(6) It’s a major slam against the lackluster Mark Kirk campaign that the Tribune thinks either Emanuel or Daley would mop the floor with Kirk in November, once either of them took Giannoulias’ place. Just think about that for a minute. The Tribune is saying Kirk’s campaign would lose to someone who has such a late start, coming in at the last minute after the Democrat candidate was forced out of the race under great scandal. And Kirk STILL can’t win, after all of that. This says a lot more about Kirk than it does about either Emanuel or Daley. His campaign is terrible. He lies to voters every single day about his Cap & Tax vote and what made him do that, not to mention how he’d vote in the future. He’s rude in person, and he uses his reserve service in the National Guard to deflect any question he doesn’t want to answer. Ask him something about Cap & Tax and he’ll start talking about what the food in Afghanistan is like instead. Try it. You’ll see. It’s shameless. He is a true caricature of a speaking out of both sides of his mouth, never telling the truth, shameless liar of a politician.
But, he’s still better than Giannoulias. He’s better than Rahm Emanuel too…better than Lisa Madigan.
Better than Hoffman or Daley?
We’re not so sure about that. At least we’d know where Hoffman and Daley honestly stand on issues…and neither of them pulls the “instead of answering your question, I’ll talk about being int he reserves” garbage.
We still bet all of this will be resolved by Easter, and Giannoulias will be forced to resign the nomination.
Just more political theater here in Illinois.
Supreme Court Watch: Precedent established in New Deal for Court to strike down overreach of government
Here’s an interesting piece in the Chicago Tribune, of all places, bringing up the excellent point that the Supreme Court in the 1930s struck down parts of the New Deal that overreached and extended too far the powers of the federal government over the states.
It’s been a long time since Sister Mary Howard’s sophomore year AP American History class and our appearances on the Academic Challenge quiz show, when we memorized all the New Deal programs and court challenges, so off the tops of our heads we don’t remember which parts of Roosevelt’s agenda the SCOTUS struck down.
Anyone up to a little research help, please fill in those blanks in this thread, so we can all be edumacated on this, since we’re sure to hear about these cases a great deal in the months ahead.
The argument the Left keeps putting forward is fatally flawed: they insist the government forces people to buy car insurance, but that applies only to people who drive cars. None of us here own cars. Only two of us have drivers’ licenses. We don’t buy car insurance because we don’t feel we need it and make informed choices in life to avoid ever requiring such insurance.
That’s exactly how we feel about health insurance.
We won’t ever buy it because we don’t feel we need it. That’s us speaking on a personal level, about our own lives. Those of us who’ve worked in big fancy corporations had insurance at different times in our lives, and frankly what we paid into those programs never seemed worth it in terms of the medical care we received. We’re all in our early 30s. We’re single guys with no dependents. Unless there’s some sort of miracle and the laws of anatomy and biology change one day, none of us, gold-star gays, are ever going to have children. So, scrying into our futures as best we can, there’s nothing that’s going to make us want to shell out $100 or so a month, or more, for something we would very rarely use.
A quick survey amongst us reveals each of us has been to Europe more times in his adult life than he’s been to see a doctor.
When those of us who’ve had insurance tried to use their benefits, they went to doctors for physicals to be told they were 100% healthy and had no problems.
Now, we realize how lucky we are that’s true — but do you see how health insurance feels like a giant waste to us, in our situations, when those physicals cost $500 or whatever, only to be told nothing was wrong and that it was, essentially, a waste of time for us to go to those appointments.
The same is true for whenever we get colds or the flu once or twice a year. We know people who go to the doctor to get antibiotics or cipro when they are sick, instead of just staying their butts home, drinking orange juice and giner ale, and eating chicken soup and jello. How much money are those people wasting going to a doctor to have him or her tell them “you have a cold, it will run its course in a few days, but here’s an expensive prescription anyway”.
Antibiotics, in our opinions, are incredibly overprescribed.
We’d love to hear from people in the medical profession, or parents out there, to learn what you think about this. We’re just offering our own take, as single guys who just suck it up and deal with colds when we get them, without rushing to a doctor’s office.
To us, medical care is only needed when something is so wrong we can’t fix it ourselves. But, to be honest, some of us here have given themselves stitches instead of going to an emergency room, because they had the basic first aid and rudimentary emergency training and kits needed to do something like that. We don’t believe for an instant the average citizen out there would use fishing line, medical scissors, and a bottle of Absolut to stitch up their own leg, so we’re the exception and not the rule on that one.
Doing things like that ourselves saved us hundreds of dollars, though.
Not having insurance all these years when we’d use very little medical care save us an absolute FORTUNE when we think about it.
But, on a level higher than all of this, we keep coming back to the simple fact that the government has no right to tell any of us what to buy. Unlike the auto insurance example Leftists are putting out there, this mandate would apply to everyone just because they are alive – a condition none of us chose, unlike the status of being active motorists. We don’t want to have to pay car insurance, so we just don’t drive. We don’t want to buy health insurance, so we just limit our risks and take care of our medical needs on our own. If we ever found ourselves in a place in our lives when we realized we couldn’t handle things medically flying solo like this (like if any of us ever had a kid or a partner, and they depended on us, so us getting sick would have a major impact on someone else) then we’d buy health insurance, the same way we’d buy auto insurance if ever we were in a place in our lives where we had to drive cars all the time.
The government should not make decisions like this for us, and we don’t believe the government is Constitutionally empowered to do something like this.
We need to look into what parts of the New Deal were struck down and why, because we don’t remember from AP History anything Roosevelt pushed that’s as intrusive and unconstitutional as the current president’s desire to force every American to buy a product against his or her will.
No matter what happens, we’re not going to buy insurance. We aren’t going to pay any fines for not buying insurance either. We’re going to call the Left’s bluff on all this, because we don’t believe for a minute they can get away with doing the things they claim they can do.
We think the SCOTUS will call their bluff too, and there’s going to be a blizzard of litigation to make that happen.
