In Which I Return from the Wilderness

Hey there, Lon-atics...Sorry for the unannounced sabbatical. I'm sure all 8 of you regular readers have been obsessively hitting refresh every three minutes for, like, weeks now. Not much that could be done, I'm afraid - it has been a fairly ludicrous August here at CBI Central. Some of it was spent balled up in the corner in the fetal position...other parts, not as much. I'm sure, in six months, there'll be a good blog post in there somewhere.

But for now, let's just cover a few things about which I didn't get a chance to opine:

(1) Joe Biden has silly hair and a history of being kind of an asshat, but old people like him

Near as I can tell, what happened was, Obama noticed that a lot of old people, even Democrats, don't really want to vote for him. Now, I'm not going to go ahead and say that this is just because he's a black guy and a lot of old people are racists...I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities. His repeated calls to criminalize pre-5 pm dinner times, for example. Or his constant efforts to get "NCIS" canceled.

Anyway, here's this guy who has run for president a bunch of times, so if there were anything REALLY BAD about him we'd know it already. And this guy's been around forever, so all the old people recognize him and forget that he's not some avuncular celebrity from a bygone era, such as George Peppard...Then, feeling comfortable again, they agree to vote for the black guy. At least, that was probably the what the Obama camp was thinking.

I personally think it's an adequate but uninspired choice, which is a shame, because a lot of Obama's other choices have been inspired. I would have preferred a few of the suggested VP's, but then again, I'd have really hated to pull a lever or punch a hole or whatever the fuck California's going to have us do for a Sam Nunn or an Evan Bayh, people who stand for 94% of what I loathe about America. (Beating McCain's tight 97%!)

(2) If you've ever expressed any solidarity with liberalism, progressivism or the Democratic Party, you're not allowed to not vote for Obama because you dislike one relatively unimportant thing about him

For real. I don't care what that one thing is. Don't like Joe Biden? Not good enough. Pissed off about his betrayal on the FISA issue? Too bad. Angry that he's backed by a certain industry or lobbying group? They all are. Upset that he once said something not-very-nice about illegal file-traders? No one cares.

This election is really important. Like, seriously really intensely important. Here are some things that matter that will be at least partially decided by the outcome of the vote this November:

- Multiple horrifyingly violent conflicts around the world
- The future direction of the US economy
- More than one Supreme Court Justice, who will make major decisions on a whole host of crucial issues relating to daily life in America

If you look at those considerations but then say, "Yeah, but his former pastor once said that God should do bad stuff to America! And he doesn't like to wear pieces of flair with the American flag on them!," this means you are stupid. Hey, I'm just trying to help you out. Maybe you didn't know you were stupid. Now you do! Congrats, buddy!

This goes quadruple for you Twitter people reading this post. I'm really tired of hearing "I can't vote for Obama...he wants to raise taxes on exceptionally rich guys!" I forgot that you hate health care, reproductive rights and wars that end eventually.

(3) Tropic Thunder was much more funny than Pineapple Express

Both movies had parts that made me laugh. But I was very underwhelmed by Pineapple Express, considering the collaborators. Like every Judd Apatow movie, it was way too long, but I was just generally disappointed by the action. The whole final 30 minutes felt pointless. The action itself isn't particularly compelling or intense, so it just feels obligatory, unsuccessfully tacked on to the end of what is otherwise an amiable-enough stoner comedy. James Franco, however, does a really nice job, and I thought Craig Robinson, Danny McBride and Ed Begley Jr. were effective.

Tropic Thunder is actually pretty poorly assembled. It's really chaotic and frenzied, and I think that, had director Ben Stiller slowed down and let some of the situations/characters develop more, the whole enterprise would have worked much better. But even in its current form, Tropic Thunder is really funny and worth seeing. Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise are, of course, the standouts, but the whole cast works together really well, and it's just so far out there, willing to do absolutely anything to get a laugh, that I just kind of gave myself over to the spirit of the enterprise and enjoyed the hell out of it. Not sure if it would hold up on repeat viewings...but who cares? It worked well once, and that was enough.

(4) I really like the new Walkmen album

You & Me is a stupid title for an album (much in the same way that She & Him is a stupid name for a musical duo), but it sounds like kind of a return to form for me. (I didn't like A Hundred Miles Off or that Nilsson tribute nearly as much as Everyone Who Pretended to Like Me is Gone.) These guys are just interesting to listen to in a way most bands are not. Wish I could be more specific than that, but long-time readers will recall I suck at describing what I like about songs. Just a weird blind spot for me.

(5) I got into a car accident

It was really stupid and all my fault. One of things that happen and it just ruins your whole week, cause you keep playing your momentary stupidity over and over in your mind, and it's too late to do anything about it.

Right after I hit the back of this lady's car, I pulled over, as did she, and I walked up to her car to make sure everyone was okay. She said, really mean, "What were you thinking?"

I get why she'd be upset. But, I mean, obviously I was thinking something totally unrelated to crashing my car into someone. If I were thinking about crashing my car, that would mean I had foreseen the accident, which would probably cause me to hit the brakes before colliding with anything. Unless I run into other people's cars intentionally, like I'm in a Cronenberg movie. But if I'm the kind of dude who's ramming into other people's cars in the hopes of having eventually having sex, Spader-style, with the ensuing stump, I'm not necessarily going to admit that when questioned.

What I'm saying is, basically, I hit her car for absolutely no good reason...but she asked me a stupid question. So, in a very real sense, we're now even.

(6) Flight attendants will soon have the World's Most Embarrassing Job

According to Fox News, a reliable source for information and perspectives about world news if ever there was one, flight attendants will be expected to monitor customer use of the in-flight wireless Internet service. And you know what that means:

If the person sitting next to you or your child is viewing explicit porn and you're not happy about it, feel free to direct your complaint to the flight attendant.

"Um, yes, pardon me Mr., um, Thompson...I hate to disturb you. Some of the other customers have complained about your loud and repetitive viewing of what appears, from this distance, to be a video entitled 'Cake Farts.' If you wouldn't mind safely stowing your laptop and genitals in their proper, upright position, we won't have to go and get the Taser. Can I get you some tomato juice, perhaps? Or a second complimentary vacuum-sealed packet containing 2.7 peanuts?"

[NOTE: I'm not linking to Cake Farts, you sick bastard. Look it up yourself.]

My Fan Site is Nicer Than My Blog

A plucky Mahalo Daily fan, the infamous Connected Geek, has built a fan site for yours truly, if you can believe such things...I can honestly say, despite having only one post, it's much prettier than this blog, which was thrown together hastily around one of the 3 basic Blogspot themes many, many years ago.

While we're on the subject of this blog's general aesthetic crapitude...I'm considering moving the site over to crushedbyinertia.com or lonharris.com, both of which I own and neglect. This, and the visual overhaul I'd like to commence along with the move, would require me to actually learn something about how the Internet works. (You know, aside from "don't click on things called goatse" and "if it's the phrase Check this out...OMG! followed by a tinyurl, it's a Rick Roll.") Which is unfortunate, cause I'm kind of squeezed for time as it is.

Thoughts? Does the fact that this page is disorganized and, let's be honest, butt ugly, seriously diminish your desire to read Crushed by Inertia? Don't worry about hurting my feelings...I've had 100,000 YouTube viewers dissect my physique, Howard Stern-style, this month, all while composing sonnets memorializing my latent homosexuality. I can take it.

Ledger Domain

As my job largely concerns news aggregation, I spent most of this afternoon compiling pages about Heath Ledger's untimely demise. It can get a bit grim around the Mahalo News section on days like today.

Anyway, I realize that, in some ways, this implicates me in the media's saturation-level focus on grim celebrity news, whether it be Heath Ledger's and Brad Renfro's deaths, Eminem's weight problem, Owen Wilson's suicide attempt or even La Lohan's trips to the police department and/or rehab. My excuse is actually identical to the archetypal "sleaze journalist." I write pages about whatever's being searched. Majority tastes dictate my focus.

A look at Google Trends right now, hours and hours after the news of Ledger's death broke, confirms that he's the main concern of Americans at this moment in time.

Among the top searches are Ledger's name, searches for "Keith Ledger" by idiots who don't know his actual name and presumably don't know how to get to any news sources to find out, his former fiancee Michelle Williams, the term "heath ledger found dead," his daughter Matilda Ledger, his film "10 Things I Hate About You," the term "michelle williams heath ledger," his film "Brokeback Mountain," Gemma Ward (a model Ledger was rumored to have dated) and "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus," the Terry Gilliam film which Ledger was in the midst of filming.

So it's not a mystery why Mahalo or anyone else is covering the story so enthusiastically. That's what the public wants, and the media only exists to inform and entertain the public. Interestingly, right now, all the cable news channels are running with the story on their front page. CNN.com, MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com clearly think that's what everyone wants to see. Unsurprisingly, FoxNews.com goes with the most melodramatic, tabloid graphic, showing people crying at a Ledger memorial:



"Tears for Heath"...Wow...

I'd also like to point out that this was featured just below the Ledger story on FoxNews.com just now:



It's an O'Reilly Factor INVESTIGATION! I actually saw a bit of this interview at work today (I watch Fox News at work! Just like Dick Cheney!) and it was hilarious and awesome. I'd love to embed it here or provide you with a direct link, but FoxNews.com has apparently not updated their technology since the late '90s, so it's only available in the next 10 minutes or so on their actual website, in a shitty little pixellated box after you watch an ad. I guess they blew the entire year's website budget on Sean Hannity's Brylcreem. The best part of the segment was when the (I swear this was his caption) "Expert on Demonology and Mystical Theology" said that he has scientific evidence of demonic possession. It's like, "did he just say that on national television? Cause...that's clearly not at all true."

But back to Heath. I was intrigued that, though obviously the Google-searching public and the cable networks felt this was Top Story material, a lot of newspaper's websites (like NYTimes.com) and even web news sites didn't feel the same way. This was the headline box on Yahoo! News just now:



Heath's not even in second place! Is this based on genuine market research, I wonder? Does Yahoo! know that it's news readers are primarily concerned with politics, then economic and business news and then celebrity gossip? Is this just an editorial decision by the staff of Yahoo! News, who personally felt that the story about Bush lying was more important than the movie star who took too many sleeping pills? I'm curious...

A Portrait of Authority

"Beat on the Braff", the second-most-trafficked post in Crushed by Inertia history, gets a lot of comments. Some are positive (towards me and thus negative to Zach Braff), some negative (- to me, + to Braff). Some I think may even BE Zach Braff.

So last night, I'm a bit tipsy, because I just got home from the Man Man show at the Troubadour. (Quick notes on the show: It was really good, because Man Man is amazing, but the place was way overcrowded and the attendees were largely smelly assholes. And I'm not using figurative language here...At one point, I had a really good look at the stage, but I had to go somewhere else because the man next to me smelled intensely awful, like the full, lidless dumpster behind the Franco-American factory eight weeks into a sanitation strike. And the crowd was moshing, during Man Man, which is just poor form, but did kind of take me back to my teenage years, desperately trying to get close enough to the stage to hear Lagwagon without being knocked over. By the way, if you're around my age and listened to Lagwagon in high school, don't click that link and see how old those dudes are now unless you want to get deeeeeeeeeeee-pressed.)

Anyway, I'm tipsy, and I find there's a new comment in the "Beat on the Braff" forum, from Anonymous:

Sir, I could not disagree with you more.

Sir? Right off the bat, he's not doing so hot with that kind of affectation. Who addresses a blog comment to "Sir," and particularly an insulting one?

I don't think Zach Braff neccesarily [sic] deserves the amount of praise and hype he's gotten, but he is talented.

I mean, how to respond to such a thing? I don't think the guy is talented. This guy does...We're at an impasse. Why not just leave it at that?

I don't know if you have any credentials to back up your assertions that he cannot direct or act, but I do.

OH NO NO NO NO NO. WHY? Why go there? Why imply that I don't have a right to an opinion? What is to be gained?

Nothing pisses me off more than the near-daily comments posted to this blog by strangers who want to insist that I don't have a right to feel things or express feelings publicly. This is the essence of living in a free society. It's the FIRST FUCKING THING they wrote in the Bill of Rights. Before OWNING A GUN, EVEN!

There's no logical reason anyone could possibly be compelled to shut me up because, let's face it, I'm reaching a few hundred people a day here...I have no impact...There's no greater geopolitical significance to my saying what I want to say.

Bill O'Reilly...now THAT'S a guy I'd love to be able to shut up, because he's genuinely poisoning our airwaves with ignorant lies and violently militaristic propaganda, spreading a message of hate and fear to millions of Americans daily. But, me? I'm a sarcastic Jew who dislikes a big Hollywood actor/director and enjoys sharing this opinion with others. The only reason this guy wants me to shut up is that he feels threatened by my opinion.

I don't know why...

Maybe, as an actor, he fears that audiences will feel liberated to dislike his work, in the same way I dislike Braff's. So he's putting himself in Braff's shoes and realizing that the sting of professional criticism may be more than he can bear.

OR perhaps his precious opinions on acting are the only things in which he can truly take pride, and as my strongly worded opinion differs from his own, he must either snuff me out or concede that he is worthless as a human being.

I suppose there are a few other possibilities. But needless to say, I don't like being told that I lack the credentials to voice an opinion. Perhaps you disagree with my assertions, and maybe you can even back up your rebuttal with evidence and win the argument, but you don't have a right to tell me I can't think what I want or make my voice heard.

Why anyone would even want to do such a thing is beyond me.

Furthermore, I think that you just want something or someone to hate. You probably spend so much time hating Zach Braff that you never objectively look at what he's done and what he's doing.

A lot of people make this argument in re: my opinion of Zach Braff. As if I had some sort of motive in hating him aside from...hating him. I just don't like the guy. Is it maybe a bit irrational, in that my dislike for his acting exceeds my dislike for the equally mediocre acting of his peers? Sure. I'll grant that.

But no one makes this argument. People instead come here and deny my authority to even make an argument in the first place, then they try to imply that my hatred of Braff is based on some irrational delusion. Like I just felt a desperate urge to hate someone one day, and his was the first face I saw, and now he's imprinted on my brain like a Mama Duck. No one behaves in this way. If I say I dislike someone, it's probably because I have seen what they do and am not a fan.

I, recently, harbored a blood hatred for Leonardo Di Caprio: upon watching Blood Diamond, I conceded that I may be mistaken. Back to the point: I don't idolize Zach Braff, but I do think he's talented, and I think he works harder than a lot of actor/directors.

Wow...a BLOOD hatred. I've never even gone that far.

But notice that this guy permits HIMSELF to hold these kinds of strong opinions (and unquestionably about superior actors to Zach Braff). I'm just not allowed. Because I lack credentials. Who actually thinks this way? Who could possibly be this smug? I mean, that isn't Bill Maher.

So, BEARING IN MIND, as I said, that I was a few beers deep at the time...I left this comment back for the guy:

Oh, last commenter, please elaborate. Tell me more of these CREDENTIALS you have for evaluating acting and directing. A degree in Advanced Academic Evaluationisticisms from the Sorbonne, perhaps? A G.E.D. from the Tuscaloosa, Alabama High School for the Performing Arts?

You know what, you goddamn waste of space? Your opinion has no more or less validity than anyone else's. That's a fucking FACT and you better start dealing with it. Your nonsensical parading around the Internet, ANONYMOUSLY claiming that you can lord your opinion over others like a weapon, kind of makes me want to throw up or hit you or both. (Maybe throw up on you whilst hitting you.)

Get off my blog.

And I meant it, by the way. Not that I want to shut this guy up...cause who really cares what he has to say...but because I hate this kind of energy on my blog, even on old posts that I could safely just ignore. If people are going to argue with me, I want a nice, solid, good-faith argument, not some sort of academic pissing contest. (The "waste of space" line may have been a bit far...but I've always liked that insult. It's kind of one of my go-to insults.)

Anyway, the guy came back and left a comment with his name. I won't reprint it here, but you can just go to original post and see for yourself if you're so inclined...

Ha! You call ME a waste of space?

Yeah, I guess that was a bit too far...

The irony is delicious. You are a pretentious, self-righteous ass, and I will not leave simply because you say so.

Bear in mind, this is the same guy who said I lacked the credentials to gauge Zach Braff's acting skills. He's calling me pretentious.

And, for the record, the credentials are a BFA in Acting from Southern Oregon University, an MFA in acting from Yale, and many years of acting experience.

In...in my face? I guess? I mean, SOU, you know...Fuck me...

Honestly, I just...I just don't know how to respond here. I mean, who takes degrees this seriously? I have a Master's Degree, too, and it was a massive waste of 2 years. That's not to say that everyone's grad school experience was the same. I know some people who got a tremendous amount out of their post-graduate education. But to imagine that a few extra years in some classroom grants you superior, elite wisdom, such that your opinion gains immediate and permanent supremacy over all others...it's insane. This man actually thinks he's the Arbiter of Taste because he has some diploma up on his wall, or because he's been in some plays or "CSI" episodes or commercials for hand soap or whatever he means by "many years of acting experience."

I would also like to point out that I think it's funny that you feel you that your opinion on acting and directing, etc, is just as valid as mine, even though you have never studied it and probably don't know what 'it' is, or what makes 'it' good and bad.

I don't know what acting is? Really? Well, I'm not positive, but isn't it a lot like pretending...only with more accuracy? (Actually, I'm sure the writer of the comment would disagree with my contention that acting is essentially artistic pretending, but that would be because he is, as I mentioned above, a titanically massive bag full of douche, and I mean that in the least misogynist way possible).

I will use the analogy of acting to fine arts such as sculpture. You would know what you like an don't like, but I would hope that you're not so rash as to walk into a fine arts museum and start calling famous sculptures "bad" because you dislike them.

Anyone else reminded of our old friend, Brian Atene?



You wouldn't, because beyond what you like or dislike, you have no credentials on which to base an objective judgment of the piece's artistic worth. Yet, in acting, you feel you do have the credentials to judge an actor's work.

Did you follow that, or was that too many words for your miniature brain?

And since you have an issue with me posting anonymously, despite the fact that I don't think my name has anything to do with this, I will include me name. You cannot bully me.

For the record, here's what I said about Zach Braff's acting:

I mean, writing/directing aside, have you see "Scrubs"? It's a half-hour mugging session. The guy does more double-takes in an episode than Wile E. Coyote. That's acting? That's a performance? Bugging out your eyes or looking winsome? I mean, I guess it's not that hard to be the best sitcom actor around. You're competing in a field where Master Craftsmen are Jim Belushi, Kevin James and Ray Romano. It's slightly more competitive than winning a footrace against 3rd graders.

Seems to me that I'm just expressing a rather straightforward opinion. I may not have an MFA, but I know what mugging looks like, and I know that Jim Belushi is considered among the top tier of sitcom actors. One more time, for the record, we're talking about sitcoms, not the Collected Works of George Bernard fucking Shaw. They let Tom Shales review TV shows every day, and I'm pretty sure that guy's not allowed to ride the bus on his own.

Anyway, I'm just really gobsmacked that anyone would feel like they have this kind of authority or expertise, that they're free to visit the blogs of strangers and INSTRUCT them about the types of posts they can make and opinions they can hold. I left him a long, harshly-phrased comment to this effect back on the original post, not so much because I care about convincing this most-likely-hopeless case, but just because I occasionally need to vent. I have hopefully now gotten it out of my system.

Suck it, Jesus!

So, I started another blog over at WordPress along with a friend (though she's yet to post anything over there.) Socialite Dog Party will deal mostly with celebrity gossip that I'm too embarrassed to discuss over here on my main blog. With all the news dives I'm doing at work, I end up hearing about almost all the big juicy gossipy stories anyway. Or at least, all the "accidental" vagina shots, which now compose 85% of all celebrity gossip, according to statistics I have just invented.

Anyway, WordPress blogs have that little "tagline" under the title. The default says "Another WordPress Blog", and I changed it to read "Suck it, Jesus," a play on Kathy Griffin's censored Emmy speech from earlier this week. See, because both of the site's bloggers are Jews and because a celebrity just said that, it's a perfect description of our blog! Unfortunately, WordPress seems to have no sense of humor, and keeps reverting to the generic tagline.

I've tried a non-blasphemous one, so if it's a mechanical/caching error, we'll find out soon enough. But if WordPress is trying to actually prevent me from titling my blog in some kind of anti-Christ fashion...well, that would be a big strike against them, blog platform-wise. (The second strike of the day, actually. I also discovered this morning that they don't have the capacity to embed MySpace TV videos. Which is just really silly...)

Quarantine: Day Four

DeathCold 2007 just keeps on rolling here in my apartment. In addition to my myriad other ailments and complaints, I've actually developed a sore neck from sleeping so much lo these past 96 hours. Heading out to the doctor at 3, so hopefully he'll have some helpful advice that doesn't include the old "drink plenty of fluids" line. I've imbibed a ton of fluids, usually orange juice, during every cold I've ever had in my entire life, and I'm not convinced it has ever done me any good at all. Not once have I chugged a liter of Tropicana and bounded out of bed eagerly greeting a new, no-longer-infected day. Usually, the citric acid burns the back of my throat, I get pulp mixed in my post-nasal drip for the rest of the day and that's about it.

I'm even running out of non-online reading material. I finished Bret Easton Ellis' "Lunar Park" yesterday and may have to swing by the bookstore on the way home from the doctor for my next selection. Four hours of essentially solitary confinement has made me fairly desperate for entertainment. I actually watched about 2 hours of the Emmy Awards last night before I couldn't take any more, so you know it's getting ugly around here.

A few questions about the Emmys last night for anyone else who watched:

- Has Robert Duvall lost his marbles? I'm not trying to be mean. The guy's a brilliant actor; I'm a fan, even though he makes approximately 22 bad films for every good one. But he made two really weird, rambling speeches last night that almost made me question his sanity. In the first speech, he went on and on about Westerns being the great American genre right before waxing nostalgic about filming his most recent Western, the three Emmy-winning Broken Trail, in Alberta, Canada. The second "speech" made even less sense, and wasn't really even for him, but was intended for the film's producers. Just strange.

- The little mini-films introducing the writing staffs for the nominated variety/comedy shows was the highlight of the entire broadcast. That seems kind of sub-optimal for the Emmy Award producers, seeing as it's, comparatively, kind of a minor award.



- I get that Frankie Valli is from Jersey, and The Sopranos are from Jersey, and Valli's even made a few appearances on the show, but what the hell was up with that "tribute" featuring the guys from "Jersey Boys"? I mean, a montage of "Goodfellas" with the Four Seasons in the background, okay, that I get. (He even gets name-checked in that film. "Who the hell do you think you are? Frankie Valli or some kind of big shot?") But Sopranos is set in the present day and the music is largely contemporary. They should have booked Journey.

- I'm no fan of the Fox network, but in the interest of fairness, can we agree that they probably censored Sally Field for saying the word "goddamn" and not because she was talking about Iraq? Sally Field always irritates me at award shows (and, more generally, in life). She's won a ton of these things at this point, it should be totally old hat to her, but she still has to do that lame, over-excited, spazzy, "Oh I didn't expect this!" act every single time. Compare her faux-jittery, discombobulated style to the composed grace and impeccable wit of Helen Mirren's speech. It's just embarrassing.

But watch the video for yourself...They let her rant (meaninglessly) about Iraq for a few moments, even getting in that hacky old line about "if moms ran the world, there'd be no war, blah blah blah..." They only cut her off when she started swearing.



It's a separate matter whether or not you should be allowed to blaspheme on television. I think you should. You're allowed to say racial and sexist slurs on television ("30 Rock" laced one hilarious episode this past season with epithets ranging from "queerburger" to "faggotron"), so why not "suck it, Jesus" or "goddamn"? But still, those are the rules and it seems to me, in this case, they were applied as fairly as possible. With so much to be genuinely outraged about these days, including AT&T's genuine censoring of Pearl Jam's anti-war sentiments, this is a distraction.

- What was up with that Tony Bennett/Christina Aguilera thing? They sang for about 4 minutes, the dancers in front of them were distracting and not particularly impressive, and he looked like he barely knew what was going on. Plus, she's very pregnant. What's she doing climbing on top of a piano?

- The thing about Lewis Black's whole persona and style of comedy is that the jokes themselves have to be really funny. If he's working with sub-par material, as he was last night, the whole yelling-ranting-psycho schtick just gets kind of desperate and irritating.

- Was it me or did Ryan Seacrest actually do an okay job? Not that I laughed at any of his jokes, but hiring Sanjaya Malakar's foil to host a big awards show seemed like a basic error in judgment to me. But he kind of pulled it off, kind of. Only improvement would have been to have Randy and Simon at the foot of the stage critiquing his performance mid-broadcast.

- "Hell's Kitchen" wasn't even nominated for Best Reality Competition Show. WTF?

- Was happy to see "30 Rock" win. It really is the best comedy on television right now.

This concludes the Pathetic Sick Bastard's Frustrated Guide to Watching the Emmys Because He's Too Nasally Congested to Sleep.

Prostitutes Don't Stick to David Vitter

Today is the third day in a row I've quarantined myself in my bedroom. I'm suffering from some odd illness - it's not quite a head cold, it's not quite the flu, I'm not sure what it is. (Believing myself no longer contagious, I did join my father and brother for a birthday celebration last night at Ye Olde King's Head in Santa Monica. Then I came home and collapsed.) All I know about my illness is that it sucks and I feel worn out all the time, even just after I wake up from 12 hours of fitful rest.

The last time I felt this way, I went to the doctor and he told me I had something called Pharyngitis, which is a fancy medical term for a sore throat. Since I'm fairly certain I had told him that I was suffering from a sore throat at the beginning of the appointment, this turned out to be a largely wasted afternoon, though I did get some nice antibiotics out of it that I wish I had held on to.

It would seem to be a perfect time to get some writing/blogging done, what with my total inability to go anywhere and do anything. I've got a script that definitely needs some attention. Unfortunately, my brain can't seem to focus in on anything - I have mental in addition to sinus congestion. What the hell? So, instead of just being locked in my room alone, I'm locked in my room alone with the most boring version of myself possible. And, let me tell you, that's pretty goddamn boring.

Yesterday, I actually watched Armed and Dangerous...that's how bad it has gotten. I've sunk that low in 3 days. Hopefully, my white blood cells can turn this thing around in the next 24 hours or so, or I'm doomed.

One thing I did want to talk about was this article about disgraced Senator David Vitter from the other day. It's just about how the specific claims made by a New Orleans prostitute don't seem to bode well for his political future.

On Tuesday, Wendy Ellis, a former New Orleans prostitute, presented her case at a Beverly Hills, Calif., news conference arranged by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt. She said Vitter was one of her clients in 1999, the year he won a seat in the U.S. House.

Vitter has denied those claims, but Flynt said Ellis recently passed a lie detector test that confirms her side of the story. Ellis was previously identified as Wendy Cortez, the name she used as a prostitute.

Nothing too shocking there. The guy liked whores and didn't feel that this should keep him from running a Family Values-themed campaign. Some people are actually still surprised by revelations like this:

"The conservative anti-gay crusader liked to hook up in bathrooms with men!"

"The Family Values candidate spent money visiting whores!"

"Newt Gingrich, immediately after divorcing his cancer-stricken, hospital-bound wife on whom he'd been cheating, ate an entire side of beef and had enough room left over for a triple-serving of Boston Cream Pie!"

You just have to remember that these individuals don't think any of the rules apply to them. None. So, when they advocate any principle, from bans on gay marriage to commemorating July 12 as National Ovaltine Awareness Day, they're just advocating it for you. You should be aware of Ovaltine. You shouldn't be allowed to be gay. They're already in the Senate, so what they do is their own business.

This sense of entitlement really does explain a whole lot. It's why Republicans get so upset when liberal bloggers call them "chickenhawks." They're not avoiding sending their kids to Iraq (or going themselves) just because it's dangerous. They're avoiding it because serving America is not what Senators and Congresspersons do. They leave that to the commoners. Their job is to sit around and decide how the rest of us should act. Duh.

I mean, just take a look at this comment at the end of the Vitter article, from Louisiana talk radio host Lee Fletcher:

"The consensus even among the folks behind the scenes is that it's not going anywhere. It's been tried and it didn't stick," Fletcher said about the allegations. "What's really helped Vitter, the people going after him are a pornographer and a prostitute. And therefore they have less credibility than anybody I can think of."

See, because David Vitter is a Senator, his word automatically overrules that of a common prostitute, even though he's being accused of, you know, having sex with prostitutes. "Find a witness to David Vitter's covert use of prostitutes who has no connection with prostitution," that's Lee Fletcher's legal motto. If that kind of stupidity doesn't tip you off that these people just consider themselves better than you, and therefore above your petty American laws, I don't know what will.

Are You There, Zach? It's Me...Lons...

The comment thread on this 2005 Crushed by Inertia post, "Beat on the Braff," is definitely one of the greatest things in which I have ever participated.

The post itself is nothing special, though it is one of the better title puns I have yet to devise. The simplicity, the cool points for referencing a Ramones song that isn't "Blitzkrieg Bop," the post-Braffian hostility...That was a good one.

Otherwise, the post itself is mundane, just me bitching about "Scrubs" being awful and Zach being considered to play Fletch in the upcoming remake (which continues to be upcoming, now possibly with significantly-less-hated-by-me John Krasinski from "The Office").

But that simple post has thus far inspired 38 comments, only 8 of which were written by me! Only one post in CBI history has generated more commentary, my list of the Top Profane Movie Quotes that was linked on Gorilla Mask, thus generating an unbeatable 91 comments. I may never top that one.

Let's peruse them together...

Anonymous said...

you might want to consider hating the game, not the player...

8:44 PM

This may have been a meatworld friend of mine, I'm not sure. It reminds me of something one of my actual friends would write.

After this, several real friends stopped by to let me know that they, too, approved of the title "Beat on the Braff." Thanks, guys.

Once a few of my friends have responded, then the magic begins.

Anonymous said...

I googled "hate Zach Braff" to find someone who agreed and am amazed you were the only one I found. Having some ideas for a few cool scenes does not make you a cinematic genius. Nat Portman's character has loads of descriptions given her (pathological liar, epileptic, skater, etc.) but is not developed within the plot in any meaningful way. I watched the Spirit Awards and almost wretched when Braff won.

9:43 AM

From this point on, a full two years ago, whenever anyone typed "hate Zach Braff" into Google, they arrived at my blog. This glorious selection bias means that almost all the remaining responses to the post include bilious, seething Braff hate. I unintentionally but awesomely created an anti-Zach Braff club, a place where those of us driven to near-insanity by loathing for this guy can get together and discuss our secret little problem.

Banjo said...

I too googled 'I hate Zach Braff' hoping to be comforted.

Thankyou for giving me a moments rest. Never in my life has a film inspired in me more resentment for its creator. I am amazed that so few seem to be able to see how insulting this film is... and that so many would just lap it up with shit eating grins on their face. 'OMG Zach Braff is a genius, because like... hello... the shins!'

For the record... So not a genius. A smug, self obsessed prick who doesn't need anyone fueling that fire is, I think, a more apt description. Trust me... I have met the guy. ...Wish I'd karate chopped his face off.

6:40 PM

Anonymous said...

also googled "I hate Zach Braff"

Ohmygawd scrubs is so bad and Graden State even worse.

11:27 AM

Anonymous said...

I, too, googled "I hate Zach Braff," having just watched the movie he made. For the record, I hate Zach Braff. I hate his face. I hate his big nose, and his big lips. I hate the way he always wears a long sleeved shirt underneath short sleeved shirts. And I hate the condescending smirk that's always on his huge ugly face.

Of course, for most other people, I would be willing to forgive them for their superficial flaws in appearance, but I mostly hate Zach Braff for what he stands for. He's got an overrated name, he's on an overrated sitcom, and he made an overrated movie about a total asshole who gets Natalie Portman. What the hell. I hate Zach Braff.

- Stephen M Davis

9:43 PM

Anonymous said...

He shits me aswell. He seemts to be a pretentious pseudo-bohemian fucktart with a thing for anorexic blondes. Filth.

5:37 AM

Anonymous said...

Chiming in on the I searched for "I hate zach braff" train. I hate everything about him. I hate scrubs. I hate Zach Braff's god damn face. I freaking wretch everytime someone praises that show. It has one god damn gimmick, which is a substitute for understanding comedy; visualize everything!

I'm conflicted, though, as a movie is coming out in which he costars with Jason Bateman, of Arrested Development (which I absolutely loved). Why? WHY?

11:47 AM

Rory said...

He's just so fucking right on, isn't he? With his carefully manicured hush-folk and twee pop record collection, his sardonic over-acting colleagues, his depiction of rain in America, fucking jesus christ makes you want to cut off his balls and shove them up his arse so that when he shits, he gets shitty balls. Regards, lovely post.

4:56 AM

I'm a particular fan of that last one. Finding each and every one of these folks has been a source of genuine joy; I love when comments come in on this post. It brightens my day. The Internet is truly a remarkable place.

Of course, not ALL 30 comments on "Beat on the Braff" are there to inform me of my proper right-on-ness. My distaste for the Braffster was not well-received in some circles.

Anonymous said...

Great another celebrity hating blog. This just proves that some people just have to much time on their hands. And being the only zach braff hating site in google, i dont think that something to be proud of XP. Why dont you guyz just got some hobbies or something? And by the way how would you act if your brand new sports car gets ruined. most likly like how your acting now, like a complete and utter dumbass.

1:36 AM

This post introduces perhaps the most persistent and baffling form of personal Internet attack. The "you obviously don't have a life" attack, in which the attacker uses the very blog post or column on which they are commenting as evidence that the author must have no social life or professional success.

The argument goes like this: the writing of a blog post takes time time, and this time could have been used to do something manly and worthy of approval such as dating eight supermodels at once. Therefore, any blogger/Internet writer must be a loser lacking the wherewithal to lead a hip, trendy, high-flying lifestyle.

I've never seen anyone really make this case convincingly. It's built on a few crucial and fallacious assumptions, most notably that writing, particularly frivolous writing designed to be amusing, is itself is a waste of time. It's also highly counter-intuitive. If you're accusing someone of spending their time on a blog post rather than living life, doesn't that imply that you feel the blog post must have taken a significant time to write? Which implies that it's well-written, or at least carefully written, no? I mean, if you read something that I wrote, and it sounds tossed-off and incomplete, you'd naturally assume that I spent very little time on it because I was rushing off to do something else. Like dating eight supermodels at the same time. So by accusing me of having "too much time on my heads," he's actually complimenting me in a roundabout way. "This blog post is so clear and astute, it sounds like you must have spent a really long time on it. Way to not have a life, no-life."

Finally, and most obviously, the critique is based on an essential hypocrisy. Anyone who's commenting on my blog probably took the time to read it first, so before they could come on there and accuse me of having no life because I wrote something frivolous, they have to concede that they also have no life, because they took the time to read something frivolous, which is an even less fruitful and engaged activity than the initial writing!

So even though this whole argument just makes the commenter sound petty and ignorant, many of them insist on making it anyway. Possibly because they are 12 years old.

There are other negative comments too, some of them very strange. Some people seem genuinely troubled by my dislike for Braff, as if strong emotions should be denied or rejected, as if a personal blog read by a few hundred people a day at most is somehow an inappropriate place to tell people how you really feel.


Anonymous said...

hey i'm a bit shocked by how you people can hate this person so much when he has never done something bad personally to you. I mean, has he killed your parents, raped you, stolen all of your money, killed little children or any of the other shit that would make a reasonable human being fill with rage? Dont get me wrong, i think his work is pretty crummy, and i pretty much despise scrubs, but why do you need to hate the person himself?

10:39 PM

Well, if someone killed little children that weren't related to me, he wouldn't have done something bad personally, and I'd still be allowed to dislike him.


Anonymous said...

Its a bit sad you rant on like this. I mean if you dont like the show. Dont watch it. If you dont like a movie. Dont watch it. And if someone fucks with your car what would you do? "Oh sorry, please continue" I mean seriously you people suck major balls.

9:10 AM

This one's just puzzling...How am I supposed to know I don't like a movie in advance? Obviously, I'm not currently watching Garden State, I watched it before I knew it was bad.

But the reason I'm writing this post tonight is because someone came to the "Beat on the Braff" page and left a series of hilarious comments I wanted to share, and I know no one goes back into the 2005 archives much any more. (I don't know why...at least 3 of the posts from that year were pure gold.)

Anonymous said...

Let me tell you why you are so ridiculously stupid to be slandering and cursing out Zach Braff. Forget for once any flaws you hate in yourself that you may see in Zach or how anything you dont like you see in Zach. He's a fucking actor. He's a person.

Think about what you're saying. You're saying you hate this man because he's made a movie that you don't like. Or that he's on a show that you don't find amusing. Are you fucking kidding me? So don't fucking watch it!
They only way you could justify disliking him on Scrubs was if you loved the show and thought he ruined it which I think is ridiculous because he makes the show.
You're all waisting your fucking energy. strength, and respectability by saying these things about an artist. So what if he's doing something or being acknowledged for something that you don't feel for. You don't fucking hate a person for that. You don't hate people for doing their job.
You hate fucking world leaders or dictators who make the decisions for their people to make life a living hell.
You hate Zach Braff? You're putting him up there with fucking sadists, rapists, and the evil? Are you insane?
How immature can you be to hate a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong to you or anyone else. Unless of course you have some psychotic thing about New Jersey, portrayals of realistic relationships in the movies, hospitals, or a fucking sense of humor.
Live your own fucking life. Don't slander some guy who's learned how to get his in this world. Get yours.

2:00 PM

Oh my GOD! Zach Braff's a person! And I've been making fun of him and saying that I hate him! Once I wished cancer on him, if you can imagine! The horror!

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Yes, I know Zach Braff is a person. I know it's not nice to wish cancer on someone, particularly if their only crime is making bad films and TV shows and generally being obnoxious.

But...who gives a shit? It's a joke. Garden State sucked, "Scrubs" sucked, this guy parades around town like he's King Shit of Fuck Mountain (this phrase on loan from "Mr. Show"), I greatly dislike him and I wrote about it on me blog. It's kind of funny. People come to the post and laugh and leave little comments if they hate him too.

To be honest, I feel silly explaining this all to you. I'm sure 99% of my non-commenting audience understood the idea all along. A quick 10 year old would get it.

I'm just fascinated and amused by this person to no end. I mean, read some of this stuff!

"You're all waisting your fucking energy. strength, and respectability by saying these things about an artist. So what if he's doing something or being acknowledged for something that you don't feel for. You don't fucking hate a person for that. You don't hate people for doing their job."

Why is this person telling me what to do? Can't I hate anyone I want?

"They only way you could justify disliking him on Scrubs was if you loved the show and thought he ruined it which I think is ridiculous because he makes the show. "

Yikes...

Here's my favorite part of Comment #1:

"How immature can you be to hate a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong to you or anyone else. Unless of course you have some psychotic thing about New Jersey, portrayals of realistic relationships in the movies, hospitals, or a fucking sense of humor."

Yes, I have a psychotic thing about New Jersey and about portrayals of realistic relationships in the movies. That's my problem, identified. Thanks, Anonymous Braff-loving weirdo!

This story, if you can imagine, gets better.

So, I read the above comment and I can't help but respond. Here's what I wrote:

Lons said...

And you, Anonymous person, who came here and DISCUSSED my blog post at length? You are not wasting energy and strength? Somehow, discussing the merits of Zach Braff is a valuable use of your time, but for me, it equals wasting my life? Explain.

Also, this? "...portrayals of realistic relationships in the movies..." Yeah, that makes you sound like an idiot. I'd refrain from saying such things about Garden State in the future if you don't want people goofing on you.

2:25 PM

Again, I like to point out to my audience when everything they say is based around an obvious contradiction. (In this case, reading and engaging with a blog post while simultaneously telling the author it was a pointless waste of time.)

And I couldn't resist taking a dig at that "realistic relationships" line. You don't read something like that every day. You have to savor it, like a fine wine.

Moments later, within 2 hours of the original blog post, I received this response.

bedjumper said...

At least he doesn't cry about the success...of...boys! Boo Hoo Zach Braff. I think you're just upset because you have not done anything in your life remotely good enough for losers to scorn about online. The guy (anonymous) is so right.

3:50 PM

Okay, now, it's obvious to me that bedjumper is Anonymous. This post is two years old and I've had under 150 people visit my blog today. (I can also check what sites are linking to me, and today it's mostly searches for "albino porn" like it is every day, with no evidence of a lot of people getting here via "Zach Braff" inquiries).

So the chances to two individuals coming to that specific post within 2 hours of one another, agreeing with one another and mutually feeling the impulse to comment (significantly rare) is almost nil. Seriously. It's nearly impossible these are two different people. This person used a sock puppet on Crushed by Inertia. It may be the greatest day in the history of this blog. Plus, I think he implied that I'm gay, which always earns a commenter extra points in my book.

BUT IT GETS EVEN BETTER!

I responded again:

Lons said...

Bedjumper...sock puppet much?

Or is it just a coincidence that some Anonymous doofus came here to goof on me and then you showed up an hour later, in a two year old post's comments section mind you, to defend his or her honor...

Seriously...watch about 1,000 more films, stop being a bullying douchebag, don't pretend to be other people so you can defend yourself in random blog comment sections and you'll start to feel better. I promise.

Okay, I kind of come off like a condescending asshole in that one. It's not my finest hour.

But before I could even finish with this comment and post it, BEDJUMPER CAME BACK to magically transform into yet another fake commenter. Now I'm being asked to believe that THREE individuals have come to the blog within two hours, to this specific 2 year old post, felt similarly and were inspired to leave comments!

M.H. Segal said...

The guys just defending Braff dude. You attacked some guy, let him pick up a sword. Its not like hes making an entire blog for antiantiBraffs.

3:54 PM

M. H. Segal. Perhaps this is the guy's real name and it's a reverse sock-puppet? He showed up to comment anonymously, then returned with a fake moniker, then came back AGAIN to use his real name? That'd be kind of trippy, sure to throw someone off your scent.

Seriously, I can't believe I'm being lectured by a person who feels the need to back up their own opinion by impersonating Internet characters. It's a new low of patheticism, and I'm just happy to be a small part of it.

But if this is a fake name...M.H. Segal...I'm thinking it might be Zach Braff himself.

Now, now, hear me out. Who else would be so concerned with defending Zach's honor at this point, when pretty much every other blogger spends at least 1/3 of his or her day mocking the guy? He's already become pretty much a national joke. When I wrote the first anti-Braff post, I felt all alone in the world. Now, hating him is already becoming passe; he's already due for a hipster revival at some point soon, when we'll all be required to loudly praise his genius and recognize Garden State as a lost classic, criminally underappreciated in its own time.

What I'm saying is that I'm no longer unique in hating Braff, and the only reason anyone could get this upset at the suggestion that someone doesn't like him, upset enough to return to the same old post THRICE to leave comments, would be that...they are him!

So, Zach, if it's you. Welcome. Try not to take it all too personally, I guess...And don't bother asking if we're doing the Braffies this year. I think it's off for good.

And Now, the Saddest Search of the Week

Someone came to the blog today having performed this Google Search. And I quote:

"looking for sex in ducktown tn"

Is it as bad as all that? (Don't worry...It only links to me because I reviewed the reprehensible Johnny Knoxville film Daltry Calhoun, which coincidentally was set in Ducktown.)

Live From Baghdad

This is a great idea. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

The Gun Toting Liberal’s Alexander Paul Melonas is now pursuing the Iraq embed opportunity and has written the DOD to begin the vetting process.

Long story short. Lame right-wing blog Red State announced that they were sending a blogger to Iraq, making it sound as if they had been personally invited by the Department of Defense to do so. Of course, they had not. Instead, they had spent several months lobbying the government to permit them to go report from Iraq.

So, okay...typical scumbag rightard maneuever. But...having said that...I think we can all agree this was an excellent idea. Most Americans, and I definitely include myself here, lack even a basic understanding of all the various, complex factors at play in this Iraq mess we've created. This is one of the major reasons I was against Bush's venture in the first place. Americans, and especially their president, don't know shit about the rest of the world. At all. So we probably shouldn't invade it, because we'll just get lost and refuse to ask any of the locals for directions.

I'm not sure if there's a remedy for this. How do you reverse so many generations of willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism? Like it or not, asshattery is part of our national character, like deep-friend Oreos or Sanjaya Malakar. Without it, we are nothing.

But it's still a good idea for more bloggers to actually go see what's going on for themselves and then report back. Even if it has to be one of the guys from...ugh...Red State, which is currently running this post on its front page:

Back in September 2004, when John Kerry and his Magic Hat were on the campaign trail he floated the idea that George Bush would reinstitute a draft if reelected.

Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

This, obviously, was meant to terrify the key collegiate pencil-necked pseudo-male demographic into submissive urination and voting for him.

Irony is a cruel mistress. Jack Murtha has come out in favor of a draft. Let the debate begin.

Yeah...John Kerry said that George Bush was a crazy warmonger whose excesses would eventually require a draft to carry out. And now Jack Murtha is arguing that the only fair way to conduct all of King George's wars would be to...have a draft. How...um...ironic? Do you think?

According to Red State, I guess, the point is that John Kerry threatened voters with a draft and another guy from his own party has now suggested a draft. This situation only appears ironic if you (1) ignore all context, (2) take Murtha's suggestion at face value and (3) hit yourself over the head with a ballpeen hammer until you forget the meaning of the word "irony."

But, heck, let's send 'em to Iraq anyway. Maybe it'll build some character. And I fully support the Gun Toting Liberal's sojourn as well. Obviously, we wish these brave citizen journalists all the best on their travels and a safe return, regardless of their political persuasion. In fact, I'd love to go myself, if I wasn't manacled to a Mystery Job in Santa Monica and a condemn-worthy apartment in beautiful downtown Palms.

If It Bends, It's Funny. If It Breaks, It's Not Funny.

The other day, I posted a clip from Fox News' new "comedy" program "Red Eye," in which several unfunny conservatives talk over news footage. Since then, the blog of host Greg Gutfeld has disapprovingly linked here, insinuating that my criticism of the show derives from my political viewpoint rather than my honest appraisal of the humor.

Remember: If you don't agree with it, it's not funny!

See, blogger Jim Treacher is here implying that I don't like the show because I disagreed with its viewpoint. If he had read my blog post (and I believe he did because he left a comment there), he would know that I did not take issue with the content of the clip. Only the lack of any kind of humor. In fact, the clip was mocking something I have made fun of myself on this very blog! Namely, Joe Biden's dumb, possibly racist remark about Barack Obama.

So, Greg and Jim, I disliked your show because you didn't tell a single joke that worked. Really, the clip seemed to feature very few intentional jokes. One guy does a lame riff playing on Biden's choice of the word "clean," the chick makes a bizarre and out of place reference to affirmative action and that's pretty much it. Or did I miss a bunch of subtle witticisms and inside references that only your conservative fans would get?

How could Greg and Jim not realize that the show isn't funny? They can certainly appreciate humor, right? Greg's the former editor of Maxim UK, so you know he knows quality comic material, am I right? Their blog also links to Neil Hamburger, so at least they have some sense of what's funny.

I think possibly this may bring us to the real barrier for conservative comics, and honestly, for some left-wing comedians as well. Staunchly ideological, partisan kind of thinkers are rarely as funny as those who can see both sides of an issue. I don't always agree with moderates, but they're more funny. Great satire can be designed to convince an audience, but the best jokes are usually focused solely on being jokes as opposed to expressing a political viewpoint.

This isn't a hard and fast rule. Plenty of great comedians are strongly ideological. Richard Pryor and George Carlin come immediately to mind (though bear in mind that their politics are most often reflected in their personas, not so much their specific jokes).

"The Daily Show" is a perfect example. Yes, the show has a lefty ideological bent, more or less. But they frequently skewer Democrats and liberals. In fact, I'd say almost every episode features at least one joke at the expense of someone on the left wing. Considering that conservatives have run the government for pretty much the entirety of Stewart's tenure on the show as well determines the content to some extent.

Now compare that to "Red Eye." The show would never go after a conservative, and if it did, it would do so in an intentionally light, jovial manner, as compared to the sharp barbs reserved for Gutfeld's ideological opponents. When it's obvious that your jokes are designed to ridicule one specific group relentlessly as a way to propagandize, audiences will quickly lose interest in your phony shenanigans.

"Chappelle Show" is another great example. Certainly, the show was very political and outspoken. But it also was not specifically about one party over another or one brand of American politics. Dave Chappelle looks at political issues through a personal lens. He's not about mocking Republican Senators. He's about mocking white people. He's not trying to espouse on the benefits of affirmative action. He's just trying to show that racism still exists, no matter what Tony Snow has to say.

In short, he has interesting opinions worth expressing, and he does so in a unique and clever way. If Gutfeld could manage that, he'd have a funny show, and I PROMISE YOU, I would not be afraid to admit that. I disagree with almost everything Sam Kinison had to say, about everything, ever, ditto Howard Stern, but I think both of those guys are fucking hilarious.

(As I said before, I don't limit this phenomenon to the right-wing. There are lefties who strike me as overly partisan and ideological, such as Margaret Cho and Al Franken. I'm sorry, I liked him on "Saturday Night Live" and all that, but he's totally not at all funny. Because he's about convincing you of the rightness of his political position, which is not the right attitude for successful comedy. It's not irreverent enough. Fortunately, guys like Stephen Colbert and Lewis Black totally get it.)

It's not that hard to figure out, really, which is what makes this Doug Giles column from Townhall so fascinatingly wrong-headed. (Link via World-O-Crap.)

I know I’m not supposed to say this as a conservative and as a Christian, but Steve Colbert, John Stewart, David Letterman, Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappelle and Bill Maher are funny hombres. Even though I radically and fundamentally disagree with most of their content, funny is as funny does. They’re like farts. Most folks don’t really like farts, but farts are funny. Period. Especially, when it’s yours and it’s silent.

Well, I appreciate his honesty, but I can't believe he included Carlos Mencia on that list. Yuck. Ned Holness is not at all a "funny hombre." It's also kind of odd to praise these guys in one sentence and then turn around and compare them to farts. I mean, David Letterman never sold himself as a political leader. He's a professional comedian, and Doug clearly finds him amusing. Isn't that enough to not be deemed a "fart," just because he disagrees with you on some fundamental issues about running the country?

Look, as far as comedy goes, Mr. and Mrs. Conservative, you must bow and kiss the Left’s ring. They slay us. You can count on one hand how many conservatives are making a semi-distinct blip on the comedic scene. Who do we have? Dennis Miller, Brad Stine, Julie Gorin, and ________ . I had to google “conservative comics” just to add a third person to that list.

(1) Who the fuck is Brad Stine?

(2) Dennis Miller has sucked ever since he converted to conservatism. And even a bit before that. If he's the best your side has to offer, you guys are less funny than Ingmar Bergman reading The Bell Jar at a memorial service for the victims of United 93 on top of the Wailing Wall the day after the annual Dead Puppies and Onions Festival backed up by Itzhak Perlman playing his score from Schindler's List on the world's smallest violin. Babe.

Why can’t conservatives get their comedic act together? The liberals, on a 24/7 basis, are tossing us soft balls that we should be driving out of the park in a humorous, prime time, way.

Exactly. You'll never come up with something funny if you go in with that attitude. "I've got to find something some liberal has done to make fun of!" It's lame and predictable. First, find something FUNNY. If you need to do political comedy, then find something political that's FUNNY. Then talk about that, and your ideology should come through naturally. If you have any talent as a comic.

It’s so easy it’s stupid. All we have to do is just read the crap that the left does, out loud, and it’s hilarious. We don’t even have to be that imaginative and try to develop quips, as they provide an endless supply of ammunition. We couldn’t make up the stuff they do even if we wanted to—no one on the planet is that creative.

Am I crazy or does Doug contradict himself here? First, he says that conservatives aren't funny. Then he says that all conservatives need to do to be funny is say the things liberals do out loud. Obviously they already do that. So he DOES already think they're funny.

From Hollywood to the Hill, the Left and those who lean that way, do more psychotic stuff than my one-eyed uncle Joe does on a three day weekend binge when he’s all liquored up. They are a MadTV, SNL and HBO Special waiting to happen. There has to be some conservative capital lying around that can be earmarked to gather no holds barred comedians to paper shred these little darlings on TV and in film.

Care to give us a single example of something wacky a liberal has done that no one makes jokes about? I mean, when liberals do funny things, people make fun of them. How many Bill Clinton jokes were flying around during the late '90s. It was all Jay Leno talked about for, like, 5 years.

So why don’t conservatives crank out comedians? Here’s why I think our comedic contributions are weak.

Oooh, I can't wait. Because Doug knows comedy, folks. He's seen every episode of "Mind of Mencia"!

1. Conservatives, obviously, don’t think comedy is important. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report don’t have The Factor numbers. Thus, they don’t seem to be as important as O’Reilly, or Rush or Hannity in an immediate sense. And they’re not. However, Steve and John do have the ear of millions of 18-35 year olds, who will, uh . . . hello, be at the wheel driving this nation a few short years from now. That’s kinda significant.

Conservatives don't think comedy is important? Guh? Are they robots?

His point, I guess, is that conservatives don't bother to be funny because they don't think it's a good way to get votes. But liberals aren't doing comedy because they want people to vote for John Edwards. They're doing comedy because it's funny, and they want to be funny and make people laugh. You know, laughter? It's that think humans do?

2. We spit out lame comedians. When it comes to conservatives and Christians doing comedy, like soup in a bad restaurant, their brains are better left unstirred.

What the fuck does this mean?

The reason why? Well, I think they’re too nice. They don’t really set the hook. They don’t really deliver the dig. For some reason, the laughmeisters of the Right are PC addled.

Wait, what? I thought we of the Left were the ones who were too "PC"? Now the right-wingers aren't funny because they're too politically correct? You mean, like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter? Jonah Goldberg calling us fascists and Dinesh D'Souza blaming us for 9/11, they're holding back? They're too nice? Constrained by political correctness? (I'd pick on some right-wing comedians, but there aren't any. But these guys never say anything correct or sensible about world affairs, so I figure they count as entertainers).

3. We’re too serious. With our War with whacked out Islam and our ideological battle with the Secularists who whiz on traditional American values, the conservative can become a sober and somber person, which is understandable.

That doesn’t mean we can’t laugh, or more specifically, mock our enemies.

You know what Doug does better than pretty much any other rightard I've ever read? Answers his own questions. He doesn't realize he's doing it! He sets up rhetorical questions and then answers them unintentionally. It's actually kind of brilliant. See, here, he's saying "I guess maybe we're too serious to be funny." Then right away, he turns around and says "We should make jokes in order to mock our enemies."

But humor isn't about picking on one's enemies. That's what bullies do, and bullies are only funny to themselves. Humor is about recognition. It's inherently sympathetic. We laugh because we relate. So if you're all about pointing out the flaws of a group you have deemed "the enemy," your "comedy" is going to be mean-spirited and bilious, which is only funny to other mean-spirited, bilious people. Which pretty much explains "Red Eye" and the whole of contemporary conservative comedy today.

Even Stephen Colbert, the sharpest satirist of the right-wing working today, comes at the satire from a standpoint of AFFECTION. He calls Bill O'Reilly "Papa Bear." He frequently has right-wing guests on his show, and he goofs on them, but in a warm and engaging way, not as a jerk. This is a far more artful form of ridicule. He makes his targets look like blind partisans whereas he manages to remain above the fray. The South Park guys frequently employ the same technique. Stan and Kyle remain the straightlaced, sober ones, reacting to the madness all around them. Gutfeld doesn't come off like the standard-bearer of reasoned discourse in that clip from "Red Eye." More like the coked-up lunatic.

Nowadays, we won’t dare do cartoons about Osama and his ilk lest we tick them off. Are you kidding me? We’re trying to kill the terrorists, right? Let me see if I get this correct: we can kill them, but we can’t insult them with cartoons or sitcoms?

Oh, Doug Doug Doug Doug Dougie...

Let me set this straight for you. The cartoon controversy was about offending Muslims, not terrorists. I don't think anyone really cares if they offend terrorists (though I'm not sure who you actually mean when you say that vague, essentially defunct word.) I personally am with you on the cartoon thing. Though I didn't find the cartoons amusing, and probably wouldn't have wanted to run them if I owned a newspaper, I don't think a paper should allow angry fundamentalists to determine its content. As I would if it were an offensive cartoon of Christ or Buddha or whomever, I support the paper's right to publish anything they damn well please.

But conflating those who protested the cartoons with terrorists? Racist, my friend. Straight-up racist.

One of the reasons why some young people no likey conservatives is because no one is making them look at the Left and then laugh their butts off at them. It seems shallow, but that’s reality. I believe we need to change this by going Monty Python nuts. I’m willing to give it a try. My wife says I’m pretty funny, especially during sex. I’m not quite sure what she means, though.

Sad...Just sad...

A Rit of Fealous Jage

It seems I'm not the only one with a new job in New Media. One of my favorite bloggers, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, will be running the blog on John Edwards' website.

(I'm pretty sure that the rule for apostrophes would make this Edwards's website, not Edwards' website. You're only supposed to use the s' form if the initial word is itself plural. As in "The villagers' huts were made of wood." When it's just a word ending in s, you do the s's. As in "The hostess's impeccable taste ensured that it would be a successful dinner party." But that s's just looks wrong to me, even though it implies a correct pronunciation, so I always inadvertedly fix it. I now realize that it has been less than a year, and I have already spent way too much time tutoring the SAT Verbal.)

Anyway, I had two reactions to hearing this news. Firstly, I was upset, because Amanda would certainly spend a lot more time working on the Edwards campaign, about which I care very little, while simultaneously devoting less time to her blog, about which I care a great deal. To me, blogs inform on two different levels. 98% or so of the time I spend reading blogs, I'm finding things out.

For example, reading another one of my favorite blogs, Sadly No!, today, I learned that there's an idiot who calls himself Confederate Yankee (I might have already known that), who thinks it might be a good idea to "out" the actual identity of AP source Jamil Hussein. I'm not sure what he's hoping to accomplish by this, and it's telling that he feels the need to pretend to struggle with the decision openly (because he knows it's wrong).

I don't mean this as a knock on Sadly No!, which may be the single most hilarious blog in the history of the Intra-T00bz. But that's generally the kind of thing I read about there. Morons making very open, public asses of themselves.

It's "finding out" kind of information. "Hey, there's all these right-wing nutters out there pumping one another up for eternal war against the dirty heathen browns. Isn't that weird?"

But I would actually learn things reading Pandagon. Amanda turned me on to good books (including a great bit of feminist film theory called "Men, Women and Chainsaws," which I frequently disagreed with but nonetheless but found extremely interesting) and generally expanded my view of contemporary feminist thought. Over the past year or two, I've become gradually more interested and immersed in cultural studies and film theory, and I owe part of that to reading Pandagon frequently. So I'm sorry to see her involvement with the enterprise take a backseat to her new job on a campaign. I've never met her, and actually I haven't even seen a photo, but it does feel in some ways like losing a friend. Or at least a friendly acquaintance.

After these brief feelings of disappointment subsided, I started to ponder the unexpected nature of this union. I'm surprised that John Edwards, a candidate for President, wanted to bring on to his team a blogger as outspoken and occasionally radical as Marcotte. I think she's a dynamite writer and I agree with her almost all the time, but she's not similar to Edwards in either approach or ideology. Certainly, he must have considered that Marcotte has written provocative posts in the past, and that these could be brought up and used against him now that they have been professionally associated. Edwards' decision makes me think more highly of him - he's a good judge of talent and character, a risk-taker and obviously more Net savvy than most politicians - but it also surprises me. Perhaps this indicates a sea change in his style of politics, that he's realized the stakes and has committed himself to a more forceful, direct and frank campaign this time around. I would find that refreshing, but I'm dubious.

Even more surprising than Edwards' decision to align with Amanda is Amanda's decision to align with Edwards. That's not to say I'm ANTI-Edwards, necessarily. I voted for him for Vice-President once already. Hell, I actually made phone calls to strangers in swing states in '04 in support of Edwards' candidacy. And I'd vote for him for President in '08 if he's the Democratic candidate. Granted, that's not saying a whole lot; the Republicans could nominate ME for President in '08 and I still wouldn't vote for them. The GOP is dead to me.

Still, Edwards has several opinions with which I disgaree,. When asked if he supports gay marriage in New Hampshire last month, he danced around the question before admitting that he was all mixed up and befuddled on the subject. From, naturally, Pandagon:

Edwards indicated that this issue was the “single hardest social issue” for him and that he had engaged in a lot of “personal struggles” over this issue. He believes that same-sex partners in committed relationships should have civil rights and should be afforded the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. He struggled with the question of “how we achieve this?.whether it is through civil unions or partnerships.” He indicated that he is certainly for all of the non-discrimination and equal benefits provisions.

However, he said that it was a “jump for me to get to gay marriage? I am not there yet.” He said that this was a “great conflict for him” and that he continues to struggle with the question internally. He ended by alluding to the fact that his daughter (and most in her generation) support marriage equality. (The crowd applauded after this last statement).

Ugh. I hate this phony bullshit politician thing of pretending to struggle with a big social issue. You're a politician! It's your job to make up your mind about complex issues and pursue an agenda. It's not as if this is a question that has suddenly sprung up overnight. Edwards isn't being asked his thoughts on Kevin Federline's forthcoming Superbowl commercial. He's had at least a few years to, you know, mull it over and come up with a decision.

Personally, I think it's obvious. Gay people get all the same rights as straight people, even if you think they're like totally eww gross because they periodically insert foreign objects into their anuses in what is commonly considered by non-gays to be an unwholesome manner. (Anus's?) So, if straight people can get married...guess what? I know, I know, the 14th Amendment's a total bitch. But what can you do?

But if Edwards disagrees and thinks that the gays should have to pretend they like girls so as to not offend his delicate sensibilities, he should come out and say so. Kerry tried to do this all the time when he was running for President. Remember his whole abortion dance, where he said he was pro-choice but, as a good Catholic, he still thought abortion was wrong and he really agreed with all the religious people who wanted to ban it? What an idiot...

Also, Edwards throws in that obnoxious "but my daughter's for it!" line, which I guess he thinks is going to soften his comments for staunch liberals like myself. Like, "hey, maybe I'm jus' an old fuddy-duddy and I can't get with the times, but you kids are alright! You're where it's at!" Obnoxious. It tells me that he secretly knows better - gays will eventually be granted full civil rights once people my age and younger are running the show - but that he's afraid to say it because the homophobes and bigots will turn on him. The last thing we need in a candidate is a weeny triangulator who's afraid to say what he thinks for fear of alienating the Church Lady. That's what we tried last time, and we lost to George fucking W. I Can't Fucking Put Three Words Together Sensibly Bush.

I mean, can you believe Bush won a re-election campaign against Kerry/Edwards? How horrible did Kerry have to be to fuck up that election? Granting George Bush an extension on his power is like granting Inspector Clouseau double-0 status.


He has a License to Spill

Forgive me for both the pun and digression.

I was talking about my problems with John Edwards. Far more significant than his waffle on gay marriage was his position on War with Iraq. He eventually came to his senses and now staunchly opposes Bush's horrifyingly immoral escalation, but only after voting for the initial Presidential authorization to invade. We don't need people with quality hindsight (although, granted, it would be better than Dick Cheney, who can't even own up to mistakes he made four years ago). If I could figure out back in '03 that we shouldn't go to war, the John Edwards should have been able to figure it out as well. How can we trust him to make the right decision next time?

As if to prove my point, Edwards gave a speech via satellite to a hawish group in Israel which indicates he could be pursuaded to back War with Iran!

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I'm going to have to ask you to go ahead and stop running for President now, mm-kay? You're scaring everybody.

Honestly, I'm very very surprised Amanda's 100% behind this guy, enough to move to Chapel Hill, NC and bust her ass on his behalf. Maybe she knows something we don't? Or maybe the money's just really super? Either way, I'll now have to actually lower myself to reading John Edwards' blog. Yeah, that's right, Edwards' blog. Because Edwards's blog looks stupid.