This Week in Baseball

Been a while since I posted anything like this. Not really sure what to do with it. Give me strength... er, no, forget that.

So, OK. I haven't followed baseball very much since moving to Japan. But through the 80's and into the mid-90's I was a serious baseball follower (Expos and Jays!). A bit later, my interest briefly spiked when the Red Sox finally won The World Series; their crushing defeat of the Yankees on the way to The Series was something for the ages.

When the Toronto Blue Jays won their first of back-to-back championships in 1992,  I was among the millions of Canadians glued to their TV sets. But what none of us knew (or even suspected) was that the team the Blue Jays beat--the Atlanta Braves, were nothing less than Satan's minions unleashed upon the earth. [VIA]

Now, I've been known to go a bit crazy when my favorite teams lose (Boston, Canada, both in hockey), but according to the author of the linked article, his beloved Pittsburgh Pirates lost to the evil Braves because Ted Turner and Jane Fonda were communists who had enough money to buy a better team (!), and because Jimmy Carter (!) er, something...

Funny how the "Commies" always win because they have more money... (Like the "gay" Giants [ha! I just made myself laugh!] from San Francisco beat the "manly" Texas Rangers a few years back. Say, a fellow could probably do OK by betting against teams American wingnuts like...)

A couple of golden turds from the toilet:

[On October 14, 1992] the Atlanta Braves defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates in Game Seven of the 1992 National League Championship Series, allowing the Braves to advance to the World Series, where they lost to the Toronto Blue Jays, thus ceding America's Pastime to the Canadians.

"The Canadians." Wow. More "Commie" than Ted, Jane, and Jimmy! Doubleplusgood! How many Canadians on that championship Blue Jays team? None. (If someone were to call pretty much any pre-70's American-based NHL team "the Canadians," well, that would be another story...)

[The Braves] had gazillions [of dollars] because of their owner, Ted Turner, a wealthy cable TV maven [...] who--in the ultimate insult--was an extreme leftist who openly expressed his contempt for the free-market system, for traditional American ideals, for belief in God, and, generally, for the very principles that permitted his riches.

 Look, I'm no fan of Ted Turner. But really, what kind of stupid do you have to be in order not to see that he is as American as apple pie? This needs to be explained? Jesus fucking Christ. The only difference between Ted Turner and, say, Donald Trump, is that Ted has a brain, actually worked for his money, and has much better taste in women. (The cynic in me says that Jane Fonda is/was, probably the ultimate "trophy wife.") Isn't it strange that "leftists" are more "successful" than "rightists"?

Why do you guys keep losing...?

Veterans of the Culture Wars

Have you ever seen the title of something and quickly realized that there was no point in looking beyond it, because nothing could possibly top the title--either for sheer awesomeness or sheer stupidity, or sheer awesome stupidity?

I give you Robin Hood and Ayn Rand.

Click the link and read if you like. I didn't bother.

Bag of Gas

[Canada is] a lovely little country. I do recommend that you get free speech. It's a lot of fun.
--Ann Coulter, this week in Calgary

Seldom do we hear about an American conservative with a sense of irony. Really, Ann, you could have called us all a bunch of "faggots" if you'd liked, if that's your idea of "fun" and "free speech." It may well be technically against the law in Canada to go around calling people names. Being a country of "crazy liberals," however, you can rest assured that the Canadian court system would take your disadvantaged background (i.e. being American) into consideration. Canada's pretty tolerant that way, especially to people from developing countries like yours. We feel sorry for you, Ann. We pity you and your shitty health care system and your even shittier internet connections and your still shittier conception of "free speech." And when you're not looking, we laugh at you and make jokes. We wouldn't want to hurt your feelings. Discretion, after all, is the better part of "free speech."

Liars

I meant to comment on this last week, but I've been huddled in the cold the whole time, standing in a line of five thousand people in the middle of a forest on the side of a mountain, eating worms and whatever else I can find for sustenance as the crowd jostles and jockeys for position in line for the last three tablets of aspirin in Japan.

My headache is killing me, but in Japan this is the reality of the health care system. Every once in a while somebody in the line flips out because they can't take it any more. Like clockwork a soldier emerges from the trees and shoots the complainer on the spot. This is good news for the patient ones nearby. For a couple of days they stop grubbing for worms.

I don't complain, and not just because I don't want to be shot. I come from Canada. There's a hellhole if there ever was one. I fucking escaped Canada, dig? In Canada there is no aspirin. I'd never even heard of that shit until I came to Japan. A pill for a headache? Get the fuck outta here! Hell, Canada doesn't even have running water, never mind high-tech shit like toilets.

Shit, I've gotta go. The chubby American who said he'd loan me his iPhone for ten minutes if he could talk to my little girl is coming back. I don't see my daughter, though...

The Stupidest Thing I've Read Today

So there's this article listing the Top 10 Most Overrated Directors of All Time over at Big Hollywood, and it's written by Ben Shapiro, hero of the Culture Wars (and last seen in these pages whining about "Hollywood's Left Wing Agenda").

Let's get right to it, shall we? (Don't worry, this is only the "lowlights".)

Shapiro says of Ridley Scott (#10):
"Blade Runner is a bizarre and massively overpraised mess."
"Thelma and Louise is liberal tripe..."
"Alien is slow."
And you know, it's not like an intelligent movie-goer hasn't heard this sort of thing about these movies before.  What makes Shapiro's analysis stand out from others is it's complete and utter... lack of analysis. And even when he's right ("GI Jane is hysterically terrible.") he hilariously mistakes Viggo Mortenson for Orlando Bloom.

Lack of analysis characterizes pretty much the whole piece, actually. The movies of David Lean (#8) are all too long for Shapiro, "they're all less than masterpieces." That's all he has to say. In fact, he might just as well have written up a list of whatever and said "I don't like or understand this stuff, therefore it sucks." Conservatism in a nutshell. Big Hollywood should just have a continuous splash screen with those words. It's not like anything they say is any sort of elaboration on anything being said or done anywhere.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah. Shapiro also goes after some easier targets: Darren Aronofsky (#7), David Lynch (#5), and Quentin Tarantino (#4). Aronofsky's PI is

a jumble of nonsense that starts nowhere and goes nowhere.  It may be the worst film ever made.  Watching it made me want to rip out my own retinas, then replace them through surgery, then rip them out again.

David Lynch is

one of those annoyingly “deep” directors we’re all supposed to puzzle over. Forget it. There’s nothing worth puzzling.

And Quentin Tarantino "doesn't know how to tell a story." Again, nothing in the way of example or analysis. I happen to like all three of these directors, but you don't have to be on the highschool debating team to come up with something resembling criticism against targets as obvious as these three.

Talking about Martin Scorcese's (#2) The Departed, Shapiro writes something so utterly bizarre that it bears repeating here:

Nobody cares what happens to Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed (in fact, in one screening I saw, people cheered when he got it in the head).

Mr. Shapiro, um, I think you may be a bit confused. Are you sure you're not talking about Matt Damon's character? You did watch the movie didn't you? DiCaprio's character was pretty clearly and unambiguously a good guy. Or did you happen to attend a special screening for Irish gangsters? What the fuck are you talking about? You're full of shit. That's my analysis, and you've supplied a good example.

By the time Shapiro tells us (and really, that's all he's doing--telling us) that Alfred Hitchcock is the #1 overrated director, it's no longer possible to be surprised.

A Comedy of Terrors

The biggest laugh I'm likely to have this week: 10 Horror Movies For Conservatives To Watch This Halloween:

Halloween is almost upon us and you're probably thinking, "Gee, wouldn't it be great to kick back on the couch and rent a few conservative horror flicks for the big night?"

Er, yeah... So what, exactly, counts as a "conservative" horror movie? Roger and Me? Reds? (And perhaps more importantly, is there a list of "liberal" horror movies anywhere?). Let's have a look at this treasure trove of conservative horrors, and see what insights into the conservative Id we can glean (and laugh at)...

Cloverfield apparently qualifies as a "conservative" horror movie because ordinary people reacted well and the military fought bravely. And it was scary and well done. Right. Moving along...

The Dead Zone is deemed a "conservative" horror movie because..., well, the writer doesn't actually say. I'd probably disqualify it, though, because there's a scene where the hero has sex with a married woman who isn't his wife. Sounds like a stinking liberal commie fascist to me...

Now this is funny: The Exorcist is a "conservative" horror movie because it features

self-sacrificing priests who are fighting spiritually against true evil. That's very rare for Hollywood, where members of the clergy are habitually treated as drunkards, hypocrites, perverts, and villains.

Somebody should tell these guys about art imitating life and all that stuff...

And while they're learning about mimesis, perhaps somebody could explain irony to them as well. Because apparently The Mist (2007), another "conservative" horror flick, is about "how quickly human beings can become primitive again when they're isolated, alone, and in danger." I tell ya, the jokes write themselves around here...

I won't go through the whole list, but here's a nice little gem: The Tripper (2006) will please "conservative" horror movie goers with the "sweet, sweet joy of watching a guy in a Ronald Reagan mask taking an ax to dirty, drug addled hippies throughout the movie." Take the whole family!

I'm certain that others must have thought of this before me, but it seems like the modern "conservative" is, in many ways, the ultimate post-modernist. I mean, with the way they politicize every fucking mundane detail in life, their penchant for ignoring primary texts and relying on interpretations of them, all that crap. They'd make Foucault and Derrida proud...

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

So let's see if I've got this straight. Conservative Americans think it's OK to pray in school and force their contemptible beliefs on children; but if the president wants to talk to schoolchildren, it's "indoctrination"? And the rest of the country simply has to eat this steaming mound of shit?

For crying out loud, America. Will you take your fucking country back, or what? You become more pathetic with each passing day. Where is your spine?

[With sincere apologies to my many sane American friends.]

Monkey Business

Last month I posted this bit of snark about Ben Stein.

Then the other day I came across this: Pitchman Ben Stein Gets Economist Ben Stein Fired.

I love it when I'm right (it happens so rarely!).

What's Your Credibility Score?

Screen grab of (I assume) a random ad from my start page:


"Economist and financial writer"... Not exactly the whole story.

The Rolling Stones-Monkey ManAlt. Link

Revolution

This seems strangely appropriate today...

If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Truly, words to live by...

News from the Old Country

Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox's late-night show Red Eye, after apparently insulting damn near everyone in Canada with a "lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous" portrayal of the Canadian military, and in particular its activities in Afghanistan, felt compelled to issue an apology. Well, actually, it seems the apology only came after Canada's Minister of Defence contacted Fox and demanded one.

Here's a clip of the "offending" segment, and I encourage readers to try and get through 30 or 60 seconds before stopping...



If you're anything like me, you probably found that clip offensive too. Not, however, because it mocked Canadians and the Canadian military, but because it's about the lamest, most puerile, un-funny piece of shit you've likely seen in a while. Christ on a fucking stick, if all these clowns can offer up is lame stereotypes from 30 years ago, then they should be apologizing to Americans (whom one would assume are the intended audience). What's offensive is that these fifth-rate shitheads couldn't even haul their heads out of their own asses long enough to check a fucking newspaper to see if anything they said had any remote connection to the real world. [Hint to other would-be comedians: it's only funny if there's some chance, however remote, that what you're saying could be true. Simply making stuff up requires a subtlety and nuance that nobody at Fox is capable of. At this rate, I'd say that in about 10 years anything commonly recognized as "comedy" will be associated exclusively with "the Left."]

Personally, I'd have been quite happy if the Canadian government had just ignored this. Being offended by the content of this clip is like getting upset after seeing some monkeys whacking off in their cage at the zoo...

--------------------

According to this CBC story, Canadians are among the most optimistic people in the world about their financial future. Actually, I have no idea what this is about. Possibly this?

--------------------

Good grief. Was Canada's health care the problem in Natasha Richardson's death?

Assuming Richardson initially declined medical care here [in the U.S.--R] as well, once she did present to caregivers that she was suffering from a possible head trauma, she would've been immediately transported by air, weather permitting, and arrived in Denver in less than an hour. If this weren't possible, in both resorts she would've been seen within 15 minutes at a local facility with CT scanning and someone who could perform temporary drainage until transfer to a neurosurgeon was possible. If she were conscious at 4 p.m., she most likely would have been diagnosed and treated about that time, receiving care unavailable in the local Canadian hospital. She might still have died or suffered brain damage but her chances of surviving would have been much greater in the U.S.

Sigh... I most certainly mean no disrespect to Natasha Richardson in the following, but...

I've read nothing to make me believe that she didn't receive medical care at least as good as I (a Canadian citizen) would have received in similar circumstances. And I seriously question whether I, a hypothetical not-rich visitor to the United States would receive the kind of medical care described above. In fact I question whether most Americans would receive that kind of care, as theoretically possible as it may be.

In more general terms, I sure would like to live forever, but shit happens, and I'm not going to be the guy crying because I'm on the waiting list for a heart transplant or something. That, to my mind, is not what a "health care system" is about.

--------------------

Today's weather forecast for Halifax: partly cloudy, and a bit on the cool side at -3C.

Are You Really that Stupid?

As each post-Obama-election day passes it becomes increasingly clear that the American "right" consists of nothing more than a bunch of whiners and sissies. Big Hollywood is probably the best example of what I'm talking about. How the right can drone on about a "free market" while crying about Hollywood making money on (allegedly) "leftist" movies is quite beyond me.

And really, it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time to read something like this:

Nowhere is Hollywood bias more blatant than at awards shows. The nominations and prizes provide a remarkable window into the political leanings of the industry. The snub of Clint Eastwood for Best Actor in “Gran Torino” is symptomatic of that overwhelming bias.

Now, as anyone who's been watching movies since anytime before, say, yesterday, knows, Clint Eastwood has been nominated eleven times for Academy Awards (he's won best director and best picture twice, as well as a lifetime achievement award--that's five Academy Awards).

What really pisses me off, however, about the above-linked piece-of-shit-posing-as-political-commentary, is the attempt to whore-out, as it were, a true American icon like Clint Eastwood (and by "true" I mean real, not some bullshit facsimile).

I don't give two flying fucks what Clint Eastwood's actual political leanings are. In fact, since I only "know" Clint Eastwood through his movies, I have no idea how he votes. I have no idea what Eastwood thinks of abortion, of the stimulus package, and a whole bunch of other shit (well, OK, I'm pretty sure he likes jazz).

I'm a huge, and I mean fucking gigantic, fan of Clint Eastwood's body of work. Unforgiven is an existential masterpiece by my reckoning ("It ain't got nothin' to do with deservin'..." Damn!).

Apparently I'm the only guy on the planet who had no idea that Clint Eastwood was/is a political conservative. How can that be? I'll tell you how that can be, in case it isn't so obvious to you. I know Clint Eastwood through his art. He's a fucking artist, not some shill for a bunch of Christ-bothering, knuckle-dragging, racist, sexist, ultimately fucking stupid bunch of losers who wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and bit them on their sorry asses.

From the Land of "Resonating Cigars"

More wingnuttery this week from the culture warriors over at Big Hollywood. Check it out: Lt. Starbuck … Lost In Castration, by none other than Dirk Benedict (the original "Starbuck" himself!). (It's kinda funny, really. This article was actually published at Benedict's own website at least a couple of years ago. He's had a whine on for a while, I guess...)

Anyway, witness:

[...] a television show based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction.

And here I thought the original show was based on milking as much from the success of Star Wars as it could get away with (or not)...

One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of “Battlestar Galactica” everything is female driven [...] the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not about to take it any more.

Benedict has a good point here, although I'm somewhat surprised that he'd bring it up. Nobody today would dispute the fact that the new Starbuck's got a much bigger set of balls than the old one...

Starbuck would become “Stardoe." [...] I'm not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it “resonates” more. Perhaps that’s the point. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is this...

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars.

What the fuck? Resonating cigars? Venus and Mars? Whoa, dude! Seriously, is he talking about "just a cigar"? If so, then who gives a shit? And if he's talking about a "Freudian cigar," well, it seems that I'm a lot more certain than Dirk is about who can light mine...

There's more, of course. There's always more. But I'd better stop now. All this Freudian stuff has got me rhyming "Venus and Mars" in my head with "penis and arse." Say, you don't suppose...

Hollywood's Left Wing Agenda...

If the title of this post isn't enough to make you spew beer (or your latte) all over your keyboard in wonder-struck hilarity, maybe you should head over to Big Hollywood for some real guffaws.

See, for example, The Top 5 Conservative Characters on "Lost", and wonder to yourself, is this a joke? There are people out there who give a shit about how characters in a fucking TV show might vote? Really? Sadly, yes.

There's much more, of course, but I won't bore you with the sorry details. You can check it out for yourself and come to to your own conclusions. You should probably also check out this post at Kung Fu Monkey [Note: Link fixed 1/22] if you want to get some sense of how things really work in Hollywood.

I'm going to go off on a tangent for a moment or two. Clearly these conservative idiots have no understanding of what constitutes "drama." Don't get me wrong. It's not necessary to have read Aristotle's Poetics to have an intuitive idea of dramatic concepts like "recognition" and "reversal" (for example). In fact, just reading the terms is probably enough to evoke a pretty good theory of what they mean from anybody who's actually watched any sort of dramatic presentation. It gets a bit thornier with concepts like "plot" and "character," and this is where these conservative "critics" show themselves for the un-cultured assholes that they really are.

(Aristotle, by the way, laid out the template for pretty much everything we recognize as "drama" even today. However he, wrongly I think, assigned more importance to "plot" than to "character". A great strength of "Lost," for example, is its meticulous attention to both. I would also include the newer version of "Battlestar Galactica" in any list of good TV shows. I remember very clearly watching the movie Reservoir Dogs at around the same time I was studying Greek drama and the Poetics. I was completely fucking floored. It's one of my favorite movies of all-time. It's a bloody Greek tragedy!)

I remember a few years ago somebody tried to do a hack job on The English Patient by comparing it with Casablanca, the basic beef being that the main character in the more recent movie tells the Nazis what they want to know in a desperate attempt to save his lover, whereas Bogie sacrifices his personal interest in order to fight the Nazis (well, something like that--I'm working from memory). I think both movies are great, and I think both movies are "true" (in an artistic sense--they both speak to some human truth). I think a typical TV-watching, movie-going person has absolutely no fucking problem whatsoever with the moral and ethical dilemmas posed in a good dramatic presentation. Only a fucking retard would walk out of The English Patient thinking to himself, "What a fucking sissy commie wimp, talking to the Nazis for a piece of tail." Nor would anyone leave Casablanca thinking "Man, that Rick is a fucking loser, I would have so nailed her ass."

Now that I'm going, I'm reminded also of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and Virgil's Aneid. And really, this brings us directly to what the Big Hollywood site would like to see: propaganda. They would like to see productions that glorify their view of the world, their achievements (whatever conservatism's achievements might possibly be...), their worldview. But wait...

Homer and Virgil? What the fuck am I talking about? I'll tell you what the fuck I'm talking about, and I'll tell you because I've had the benefit of a liberal arts education and because I've read this stuff and it's secondary literature, and because I'm not just making funny noises out of my asshole.

Homer (it's very questionable whether "Homer" was a single individual, but that's irrelevant for the purpose at hand) told stories. He told stories that he'd had passed down to him, and he likely embellished those stories with things he thought might be interesting to those listening. Homer is especially famous for telling the story of The Trojan War and the story of Odysseus and his voyage home after the war. You know that (I hope). Homer told (well, actually, he sang) his stories in bars and pubs and such for food and drink. Homer was an artist.

Virgil was an artist, too. (I don't want to diminish the importance and sheer skill of Virgil in the following. He had a tough boss, though.) Virgil had the (arguably) good fortune to be in the employ of Augustus Caesar. Virgil was basically instructed to write a poem glorifying (and justifying) the origins of the Roman Empire. He did a damned good job (although he plagiarized Homer almost unforgivably). Such a good job that, a couple of thousand years later, most people don't recognize it as an early piece of propaganda. (Let the evil comments begin!) Apocryphally (i.e. I read it somewhere, but I'm getting too drunk to verify it), Virgil, on his deathbed, instructed that the Aneid be destroyed.

As I think I've suggested above, most people can distinguish between "art" (something that, somehow, imparts some human truth) and propaganda (something that attempts to tell you the "correct" way to do or think about something.). The mere idea that somebody, somewhere, thinks I should be watching this or that material is, in and of itself, extremely offensive.

"Lost" is not a "conservative" show, you incompetent fucking idiot.

[UPDATE: See also alicublog and Sadly, No!.]

But, I'm Canadian...

Today I received an email from Americans for Limited Government ("a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties").

It is my distinct pleasure, as the president of Americans for Limited Government, to invite you today to become a key member of the exciting new conservative“bloggers central," NetRightNation.

Gee, guys, thanks for the invite and all, but I'm Canadian (yeah, I know, you've got one or two well-known "Canadians" on your, um, "team"). But really, I probably enjoy more "free market reforms, private property rights, and core American liberties" here in Japan. And that's saying a fucking lot, believe me.

Wondering Aloud

It's funny how nobody at the Stormfront site is comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. I mean, if anyone could recognize "the next Hitler" it would be those guys, right? Do you suppose they voted for Obama? Just sayin'...

None Shall Pass

Reading stuff like this:

The conservative in me hopes that Obama sees the wisdom in governing as a centrist, if not a center-right, president.
Conservatives believe that we have the right solutions to the problems that face all Americans, and that it would be better for the country if Democrats adopted the right policies, even if it helped their party politically.
--Jonah Goldberg, New York Post

And this:

He [Obama] may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
--Robert Novak, Chicago Sun Times

Reminded me of this:



"The Black Knight always triumphs!" Heh.

Stupid Wingnut Tricks

I know, I'm posting too much crap these days that's related to American politics. I should probably change channels. Not yet, though...

In this video clip Sarah Palin, who's giving a speech somewhere, responds to a heckler with the following:

Bless your heart sir, my son is in Iraq fighting for your right to protest.

Palin's audience, of course, let's out a cheer. But really, how stupid do you have to be to fall for such an utterly fluffy (and completely false) bit of rhetoric?

I'm wondering when someone in the McCain campaign is going to drag out the old "silent majority" meme...

Wingnutopedia; This Is a Joke, Right?

Although I'd heard about Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") before, it wasn't until yesterday that I steeled myself and actually went over for a look. In case you haven't heard of it, Conservapedia is basically a wingnut version of Wikipedia. Yes, that's right: It's not bad enough that the personal prejudices and general stupidity of ordinary people/writers clouds and distorts "the facts" by accident, but God-bothering, evolution-denying, fag-hating, racist, knuckle-dragging, dimwitted, wingnut conservatives want to channel the forces of prejudice and stupidity and do it intentionally. It might actually be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Let me illustrate with a relatively innocuous example.

Here is the opening sentence from Barack Obama's Wikipedia entry:

Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 general election.

Pretty straight-forward, right? Now compare that with the first sentence from Conservapedia's Obama entry:

Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly born in Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party for president.

"Allegedly" born in Honolulu? Give me a break. Moving right along, we have the first sentence of Wikipedia's entry for John McCain:

John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election.

Again, nothing to raise the eyebrows, but compare that with the first sentence of McCain's entry in Conservapedia:

John Sidney McCain III (born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936), is the Republican nominee for President in 2008, prominent maverick politician and Vietnam War hero, and is the senior Senator of Arizona.

Are you gagging yet?

Two-faced, Fork-tongued Fucks

I sincerely hope a lot of Americans watch Jon Stewart...