Cary Grant stars in variety of famous and classic films, but this might be his most popular. Grant plays a man who is mistaken as another man and forcibly sucked into an odd and confusing situation in which he has no one to trust and no one to talk to. It's hard to talk about this film without giving anything away, but one thing is for sure: there is a chase across Mount Rushmore. Hitchcock had wanted to incorporate that idea into one of his films for quite sometime, but had no opportunity until North By Northwest came along. It's a very entertaining, interesting and suspenseful film to watch even today, nearly half a century after it's release.
4 stars
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Movie Review: Batman
The original Batman is Tim Burton's third film, after Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. Burton almost exclusively uses composer Danny Elfman in his films. Batman is, in my opinion, some of Elfman's best work and fits perfectly in line with the film. The story of the film tells us how Bruce Wayne got to be how he is and what made him crazy. Afterall, he does live a secret life, has no friends, lives alone in a mansion, doesn't sleep and is obsessed with bats. Not to mention he dresses up like them and flies around. It was one dark night in a city ally in which a gangster attacked and killed Wayne's parents. Years later this gangster will become the Joker (played by Jack Nicolson). Batman finds out that the Joker was the man responsible for his parents' deaths and goes out for revenge. Good movie, but the sequel gets even better.
3 3/4
3 3/4
Monday, June 20, 2005
Don't Swallow Deep Throat
The new revelations concerning the Watergate affair have sparked a new interest in the situation. The day after Mark-Felt came out of the closet, demand for renting the film All the President's Men increased two-fold and soon publishers were introducing a new mass-market paperback of the book. All this interest was sparked when Felt publicly announced that he was the instrumental source in the investigation, previously only known as "Deep Throat." Until recently, nobody know who exactly "Deep Throat" was, all we knew was that he helped put Woodward and Bernstien on the right trail during their investigation.
Some background on the strange source name that is "Deep Throat": During the 70s the infamous porno film, Deep Throat, was released into theatres all across America. The film is most famous for possibly being the first adult film to be accepted by mainstream society. Just before Felt admitted he was the source in the Watergate scandal, a documentary actually came out about the porno film and the public's reaction to it. Today we have the number two FBI man from the Nixon years coming out and telling us that he was the special source. My guess for why Felt didn't come out publically for so long was simple. Who wants to admit that they named themselves after a movie portraying a woman with a clitoris in her throat? That's probably the worst psuedo-name anyone could ever pick.
But why does this new information matter or effect the American public? I really couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is that the mainstream media is having a field day reminding us how objective they are and reminicing of the startling things they are willing to uncover for our benifit. Unfortunately it was only one paper that even investigated the Watergate break-in, and that paper, the Washington Post, hasn't released any major investigative news in over thirty years.
When you actually put your mind to use and think about the original "groundbreaking" Watergate investigation by the Post, it really isn't that impressive. For one thing, government sponsered break-ins and wire-taps are completely legal by today's standards under the PATRIOT act. They don't even need a warrant.
Secondly, the "investigation" still hasn't even been fully executed to this day. All we know is that Nixon's thugs broke into the Democratic National Commitee headquarters in the Watergate hotel, took some photos and adjusted some bugging equiptment they had already installed. Nobody has came out and asked "Well what the hell were they up to?" Obviously the act was some form of sabotage against the Democratic Party, but we aren't supposed to know any details about what the whole plan was. In fact, I've never heard any media source even ask that question. We are supposed to remember it as a dark day in American history in which an arbitrary burglary was done by the Nixon administration and that, luckily, we have an objective media institution that will tell us when the government commits such henious crimes.
But seriously, if this is the best the media can investigate I think I'll pass. Almost any illegal act done by the government during that time period would have been more important to tell the public. What would would the people think if the Post released this story headline: "NIXON USES FBI TO KILL OPPOSING PARTY LEADER." That could be considered objective journalism. And it happened too. Chicago's Black Panther Party was just as legitimate of a Party as the Democrats were, but for some reason, the press didn't mind when the FBI illegally broke into a leading member's home (Fred Hampton) and didn't "burglarize" the place, but sprayed bullets everywhere, killing Hamton and wounding others. It's not even like this was an isolated incident. Other legitamite Partys have been sabatoged such as Socialist and Communist Partys that have been wire-tapped by the government as well under a secret and illegal government program called COINTELPRO.
These are all legal government parties that have been illegally sabotaged by those in power, but our "objective" media did't find an issue the public needed to know about. Government officials breaking into the DNC headquarters is something that should be reported, but there are government violations of law of this calibur that can be reported each day (not once every three decades) if journalists had real balls. The new Deep Throat "story" is simply something for the us to suck on while the media institutions lie back and relax knowing that you don't have to feed much to the American people to make them happy.
Some background on the strange source name that is "Deep Throat": During the 70s the infamous porno film, Deep Throat, was released into theatres all across America. The film is most famous for possibly being the first adult film to be accepted by mainstream society. Just before Felt admitted he was the source in the Watergate scandal, a documentary actually came out about the porno film and the public's reaction to it. Today we have the number two FBI man from the Nixon years coming out and telling us that he was the special source. My guess for why Felt didn't come out publically for so long was simple. Who wants to admit that they named themselves after a movie portraying a woman with a clitoris in her throat? That's probably the worst psuedo-name anyone could ever pick.
But why does this new information matter or effect the American public? I really couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is that the mainstream media is having a field day reminding us how objective they are and reminicing of the startling things they are willing to uncover for our benifit. Unfortunately it was only one paper that even investigated the Watergate break-in, and that paper, the Washington Post, hasn't released any major investigative news in over thirty years.
When you actually put your mind to use and think about the original "groundbreaking" Watergate investigation by the Post, it really isn't that impressive. For one thing, government sponsered break-ins and wire-taps are completely legal by today's standards under the PATRIOT act. They don't even need a warrant.
Secondly, the "investigation" still hasn't even been fully executed to this day. All we know is that Nixon's thugs broke into the Democratic National Commitee headquarters in the Watergate hotel, took some photos and adjusted some bugging equiptment they had already installed. Nobody has came out and asked "Well what the hell were they up to?" Obviously the act was some form of sabotage against the Democratic Party, but we aren't supposed to know any details about what the whole plan was. In fact, I've never heard any media source even ask that question. We are supposed to remember it as a dark day in American history in which an arbitrary burglary was done by the Nixon administration and that, luckily, we have an objective media institution that will tell us when the government commits such henious crimes.
But seriously, if this is the best the media can investigate I think I'll pass. Almost any illegal act done by the government during that time period would have been more important to tell the public. What would would the people think if the Post released this story headline: "NIXON USES FBI TO KILL OPPOSING PARTY LEADER." That could be considered objective journalism. And it happened too. Chicago's Black Panther Party was just as legitimate of a Party as the Democrats were, but for some reason, the press didn't mind when the FBI illegally broke into a leading member's home (Fred Hampton) and didn't "burglarize" the place, but sprayed bullets everywhere, killing Hamton and wounding others. It's not even like this was an isolated incident. Other legitamite Partys have been sabatoged such as Socialist and Communist Partys that have been wire-tapped by the government as well under a secret and illegal government program called COINTELPRO.
These are all legal government parties that have been illegally sabotaged by those in power, but our "objective" media did't find an issue the public needed to know about. Government officials breaking into the DNC headquarters is something that should be reported, but there are government violations of law of this calibur that can be reported each day (not once every three decades) if journalists had real balls. The new Deep Throat "story" is simply something for the us to suck on while the media institutions lie back and relax knowing that you don't have to feed much to the American people to make them happy.
Friday, June 17, 2005
My Will
When I die, I want the following to take place:
BURIAL: My grave will be a giant hole in the ground big enough to fit my body. The hole will have metal walls inside of it and a glass or glass/plastic roofing which will be equal to the ground. People may walk up to my grave and see through the glass into the small underground box in which my body will lay. If enough money is available, I would like my limbs to be strung together like a puppet at the bones. In front of my tomb will be a button to press. On pressing the button, my body will start dancing due to the puppet srtings attached to the bones being pulled mechanically. Viewers will see this at night as well, as the metal tomb has lights in it that activate upon pressing the button. The bones will be connected at their joints so even as a skeleton my whole body can still dance.
FUNERAL: The four nearest homeless people from the time and place of the funeral will be hired as a musical singing quartet. They will be paid fifty dollars each if they agree to come up with an original song pertaining to a theme of "life goes on." They will have fifteen to thirty minutes to make up the song at which poin they will sing it for the audience of mourners. No hard drug users or prostitutes should be hired, even if they are within the five bum radius.
GRAVESTONE: I want a really cool looking gravestone. A creepy one. Like something Tim Burton might make. If I am famous and respected when I die, and I die before Tim Burton dies: have Tim Burton make the gravestone personally for me. If Burton doesn't know who I am at my time of death, have a gravestone made modeled after his style. Also use the type of skulls that were put on really old creepy gravestones. I'll find a good picture of what I'm talkin about sometime soon. A permenant vase should also be put into the ground near the headstone.
EPITAPH: It shall read "BELOVED CUNT" until I think of something better.
BURIAL: My grave will be a giant hole in the ground big enough to fit my body. The hole will have metal walls inside of it and a glass or glass/plastic roofing which will be equal to the ground. People may walk up to my grave and see through the glass into the small underground box in which my body will lay. If enough money is available, I would like my limbs to be strung together like a puppet at the bones. In front of my tomb will be a button to press. On pressing the button, my body will start dancing due to the puppet srtings attached to the bones being pulled mechanically. Viewers will see this at night as well, as the metal tomb has lights in it that activate upon pressing the button. The bones will be connected at their joints so even as a skeleton my whole body can still dance.
FUNERAL: The four nearest homeless people from the time and place of the funeral will be hired as a musical singing quartet. They will be paid fifty dollars each if they agree to come up with an original song pertaining to a theme of "life goes on." They will have fifteen to thirty minutes to make up the song at which poin they will sing it for the audience of mourners. No hard drug users or prostitutes should be hired, even if they are within the five bum radius.
GRAVESTONE: I want a really cool looking gravestone. A creepy one. Like something Tim Burton might make. If I am famous and respected when I die, and I die before Tim Burton dies: have Tim Burton make the gravestone personally for me. If Burton doesn't know who I am at my time of death, have a gravestone made modeled after his style. Also use the type of skulls that were put on really old creepy gravestones. I'll find a good picture of what I'm talkin about sometime soon. A permenant vase should also be put into the ground near the headstone.
EPITAPH: It shall read "BELOVED CUNT" until I think of something better.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Omitted Information: Hiroshima
Hiroshima Did Not “End The War Sooner”
One great American lie, that lives on even today, is that dropping the A-Bomb actually saved lives by ending the war. The theory behind this is that the only other possible action would have been to continue the war with Japan indefinitely, adding countless lives to the body count; more lives than the A-Bomb itself would take. The problem with this optimistic outlook on the past is this – The Japanese military had already been extinguished by 1945.
In the months before the dropping of the bomb, it had been noted by U.S. officials that the Japanese military had been extinguished. Dire resources were no longer available and the Navy and Airforce had been utterly destroyed1. In fact, the Japanese had not been gearing up for more violence, but asking for peace.
A cable sent on May 5th, intercepted and decoded by U.S. intelligence had clearly spells out the desire to end the fighting:
Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large
sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with
disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms
were hard.2
Truman’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimpson, was not fearful of the innocent lives that would be lost in the oncoming slaughter, but of the possibility that Japan’s Airforce would be so “bombed out” by the time the new weapon was ready that it “would not have a fair background to show it’s strength.”3 To further illustrate the American military’s callous indifference of peace through negotiation we must look no further than the later memoirs of Stimpson himself, which states “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".4
Given the state of the Japanese military compared to that of the U.S., plus the known information of Japan’s willingness to end war, it is fair to say that further war could have been easily avoided diplomatically. Unfortunately for the one-hundred thousand plus Japanese citizens killed by the bombs5, the U.S. would not settle for anything less than Japan’s unconditional surrender.6 Even in excepting the extreme nature of this form of “diplomacy”, the idea of perceiving this “final warning” as a diplomatic one is absurd: Truman authorized the dropping of the bomb the day before the terms were issued. 7
Why, then, was the bomb dropped? Why were all those lives taken arbitrarily? There was, in fact, a reason behind the dropping of the atom bomb. America was now emerging as the world’s super power. Stalin was a major enemy. What better way to demonstrate your strength then by showing off your new state of the art weapon, many years in the making. Dropping a 15 kiloton atomic bomb over a defenseless city is a sure-fire way of showing the world, especially the communists, who is in charge.8
1. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air
attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, US planes could
fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.
William Blum, Hiroshima: Last Act of WWII or First Act of the Cold War?, 1995 citing: Stewart Udall, The Myths of August (New York, 1994), pp.73, 75; Martin S. Quigley, Peace Without Hiroshima (Lanham, MD, 1991), pp.105-6; Charles L. Mee, Jr., Meeting at Potsdam (New York, 1975), p.76
2. Tim Weiner, "US Spied on its World War II Allies," New York Times, August 11, 1993, p.9
Also refer to the Potsdam meeting in which Japan instructed Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato to keep meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Molotov to impress the Russians "with the sincerity of our desire to end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure and maintain our national existence and honor." Before the meeting, Sato was instructed to request the Russia’s help in mediation with the United States. A radio message to Sato from Japan, intercepted by the U.S., read "His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible." “Should, however, the United States and Great Britain insist on unconditional surrender, Japan would be forced to fight to the bitter end."
See Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations (US Senate), June 25, 1951, p.3113; Mee, p.23; Los Angeles Times, January 9, 1995, p.5
3. Udall, p.76
4. Stimson, p.629
5. Nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, on August 6 and 9, 1945. The bombs killed 64,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki. Thousands more died afterwards from the short and long-term effects of exposure.
Chris Hedges, What Every Person Should Know About War, 2003, pp. 58
6. "Tokyo rocks under the weight of our bombs...I want the entire world to know that this direction must and will remain - unchanged and unhampered, Our demand has been and it remains - unconditional surrender."
- President Truman, in his initial address to Congress, 16 April 1945.
7. Mee, p.239
8. Referring to the immediate aftermath of Nagasaki, Stimson wrote of what came to be known as "atomic diplomacy":
In the State Department there developed a tendency to think of the bomb as a diplomatic weapon. Outraged by constant evidence of Russian perfidy, some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to carry the bomb for a while as their ace-in-the-hole. ... American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.
- Secretary of State, Henry Stimpson speaking of what would be known as “atomic diplomacy.”
"The psychological effect on Stalin [of the bombs] was twofold; The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians."
- Historian Charles L. Mee, Jr.
Mee, p.239
One great American lie, that lives on even today, is that dropping the A-Bomb actually saved lives by ending the war. The theory behind this is that the only other possible action would have been to continue the war with Japan indefinitely, adding countless lives to the body count; more lives than the A-Bomb itself would take. The problem with this optimistic outlook on the past is this – The Japanese military had already been extinguished by 1945.
In the months before the dropping of the bomb, it had been noted by U.S. officials that the Japanese military had been extinguished. Dire resources were no longer available and the Navy and Airforce had been utterly destroyed1. In fact, the Japanese had not been gearing up for more violence, but asking for peace.
A cable sent on May 5th, intercepted and decoded by U.S. intelligence had clearly spells out the desire to end the fighting:
Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large
sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with
disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms
were hard.2
Truman’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimpson, was not fearful of the innocent lives that would be lost in the oncoming slaughter, but of the possibility that Japan’s Airforce would be so “bombed out” by the time the new weapon was ready that it “would not have a fair background to show it’s strength.”3 To further illustrate the American military’s callous indifference of peace through negotiation we must look no further than the later memoirs of Stimpson himself, which states “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".4
Given the state of the Japanese military compared to that of the U.S., plus the known information of Japan’s willingness to end war, it is fair to say that further war could have been easily avoided diplomatically. Unfortunately for the one-hundred thousand plus Japanese citizens killed by the bombs5, the U.S. would not settle for anything less than Japan’s unconditional surrender.6 Even in excepting the extreme nature of this form of “diplomacy”, the idea of perceiving this “final warning” as a diplomatic one is absurd: Truman authorized the dropping of the bomb the day before the terms were issued. 7
Why, then, was the bomb dropped? Why were all those lives taken arbitrarily? There was, in fact, a reason behind the dropping of the atom bomb. America was now emerging as the world’s super power. Stalin was a major enemy. What better way to demonstrate your strength then by showing off your new state of the art weapon, many years in the making. Dropping a 15 kiloton atomic bomb over a defenseless city is a sure-fire way of showing the world, especially the communists, who is in charge.8
1. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air
attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, US planes could
fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.
William Blum, Hiroshima: Last Act of WWII or First Act of the Cold War?, 1995 citing: Stewart Udall, The Myths of August (New York, 1994), pp.73, 75; Martin S. Quigley, Peace Without Hiroshima (Lanham, MD, 1991), pp.105-6; Charles L. Mee, Jr., Meeting at Potsdam (New York, 1975), p.76
2. Tim Weiner, "US Spied on its World War II Allies," New York Times, August 11, 1993, p.9
Also refer to the Potsdam meeting in which Japan instructed Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato to keep meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Molotov to impress the Russians "with the sincerity of our desire to end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure and maintain our national existence and honor." Before the meeting, Sato was instructed to request the Russia’s help in mediation with the United States. A radio message to Sato from Japan, intercepted by the U.S., read "His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible." “Should, however, the United States and Great Britain insist on unconditional surrender, Japan would be forced to fight to the bitter end."
See Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations (US Senate), June 25, 1951, p.3113; Mee, p.23; Los Angeles Times, January 9, 1995, p.5
3. Udall, p.76
4. Stimson, p.629
5. Nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, on August 6 and 9, 1945. The bombs killed 64,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki. Thousands more died afterwards from the short and long-term effects of exposure.
Chris Hedges, What Every Person Should Know About War, 2003, pp. 58
6. "Tokyo rocks under the weight of our bombs...I want the entire world to know that this direction must and will remain - unchanged and unhampered, Our demand has been and it remains - unconditional surrender."
- President Truman, in his initial address to Congress, 16 April 1945.
7. Mee, p.239
8. Referring to the immediate aftermath of Nagasaki, Stimson wrote of what came to be known as "atomic diplomacy":
In the State Department there developed a tendency to think of the bomb as a diplomatic weapon. Outraged by constant evidence of Russian perfidy, some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to carry the bomb for a while as their ace-in-the-hole. ... American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.
- Secretary of State, Henry Stimpson speaking of what would be known as “atomic diplomacy.”
"The psychological effect on Stalin [of the bombs] was twofold; The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians."
- Historian Charles L. Mee, Jr.
Mee, p.239
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Movie Review: Edward Scissor Hands
Tim Burton has a particular theme that he likes to use in his films: a creepy, yet genuinly innocent person is misunderstood by society and not seen for who they really are just because of a the way they look. This is the central idea of Burton's short films Vincent and Frankenweenie to Edward Scissor Hands and the more recent Nightmare Before Christmas. In the story, Edward was the result of an inventor (played by Vincent Price himself) who never finished his creation. Why the inventor gave him scissors as hands instead of hands in the first place, we'll never know. Edward lives alone his whole life following the inventor's death living secluded in a dark castle towering over sunshine suburbia. He is introduced into society when a door to door saleslady comes across him and insists that he come live with them. It is soon discovered that Edward has amazing abilities with tree-sculpting, ice-sculpting and hair cuts. Yet, as a victim of circumstance, he is still looked down upon no matter how hard he tries. This is a visually intriguing movie complete with a creative plot topped off with a spectacular score we would expect from Danny Elfman.
3 3/4
3 3/4
Movie Review: Dick Tracy
Warren Beatty stars as Tracy on the persuit of the gangster Big Boy (Al Pachino). It's interesting how similar Pachino's character is in Dick Tracy to his character in the Godfather. In both films he plays gangsters making their way to the top of the gang and making alliances with other gangsters to control the city. I like the villans in Dick Tracy because they are more true to real criminals in life than the criminals of other comic strips such as Superman. In Dick Tracy, villans actually have a reason for being evil and aren't evil just because they have a chip on their shoulder or they want revenge from one inncident in their life. The villans in this film are like the villans of every day life. They are the elite who control the city with alliances in high places doing anything for profit. In an even more realistic situation, these villans could afford to control the police as well. In fact, Pachino tries to bribe Tracy, but he refuses, of course. But, hey, it's a movie and the hero is free from all corruption. I wish we had a Dick Tracy in real life.
The film was entertaining, but felt somewhat lackluster. Kind of the same idea as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but not as well executed.
3 stars
The film was entertaining, but felt somewhat lackluster. Kind of the same idea as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but not as well executed.
3 stars
Friday, June 10, 2005
A letter to a neo fascist skin
I came across this idiot's myspace profile and HAD to show the cat what was up. Although, if he has the beleifs he has now, theres not much chance of him understanding the ridiculous of his beleifs in the future. Patriotism can strangle rational thought amazingly well. This goes for every nation through all of history. This kid's profile can be viewed here. My message I sent him is posted below.
---------------------------
"I also don't care much for anarchy.It's another form of communism."
---i dont really understand what that means... anarchism is a very loosly defined ideology adverse to the idea of government, or current govrenments. ANARCHY, on the other hand, simply means chaos and every man for himself.
"I used to actually be an anarchist a few years back"
---I hardly believe you were ever an anarchist, given your seemingly misunderstood concept of anarchism and the left in general. Do you even know who Daniel Guerin or Emma Goldman are? Alexander Berkman?
"but I believe Capitalism is the most fair and best and most practical PROGRESSIVE form of economics and government."
---look up the word Anarchy. you are against it, but you embrace free-trade capitalism. do you realize such an economic system is in itself anarchy? survival of the "fittest"? "every man for himself"? the opposite of anarchy is a strong government (which conservatives strongly oppose). the opposite of anarchy is truely a command economy which provides for it's people no matter if they are the "fittest" or not.
"The right-wing school of thought is generally learning from the past and trying not to make the same mistakes we have commited previously.So I stand for that. Even if some of my friends don't. One day I hope the U.S. gov't will wipe out the REDS in Cuba. Communism has ruined one of the most beautiful countries."
---Im not in favor of Castro either, but you can hardly blame the country's shape on HIM. if you had a decent knowledge on the history of the country you'd know that an even more backwards and repressive society existed before the revolution under the brutal Batista government. my question is how can communism "ruin" something that was horrible and repressive to begin with? Cuba isn't an admirable government, but people have better living standards than they did under the Batistas. strange that you are Cubano and you don't know these things.
my absolute favorite part of your little speech was "fight eachother and the police state wins".... which is actually from a Dead Kennedys song about violent right-wing punks. in the song, realize it or not, jello is talking about kids like you. heres the context of the song:
*Ten guys jump one, what a man / You fight each other, the police state wins / Stab your backs when you trash our halls / Trash a bank if you’ve got real balls / You still think swastikas look cool / The real Nazis run your schools / They’re coaches, businessmen and cops / If a real fourth reich you’ll be the first to go / (Chorus) / You’ll be the first to go / You’ll be the first to go / You’ll be the first to go / Unless you think…*
back to your quotes:
"Huge muttin music fan, singer, entrepreneur, right-wing think tank, beer lover, AMERICAN.I have a machine gun I wanna use when WWIII breaks out and civil defense becomes necessary........Enemies both foreign and domestic."
--- Now lets compare what you said about yourself to the song you quoted... you're an "entrepreneur".. doesn't look like you'll be trashing any banks any time soon... or rebelling against business men, who are in fact, the real fascists. if you have any history of corporations and nazism/fascism you'd already know how intertwined the two are. You have a machine gun all ready to fight when the government wants you too.... "both foreign and domestic." The fourth riech is getting read to enlist for the third world war... Looks like YOU will be the first to go.
---------------------------
"I also don't care much for anarchy.It's another form of communism."
---i dont really understand what that means... anarchism is a very loosly defined ideology adverse to the idea of government, or current govrenments. ANARCHY, on the other hand, simply means chaos and every man for himself.
"I used to actually be an anarchist a few years back"
---I hardly believe you were ever an anarchist, given your seemingly misunderstood concept of anarchism and the left in general. Do you even know who Daniel Guerin or Emma Goldman are? Alexander Berkman?
"but I believe Capitalism is the most fair and best and most practical PROGRESSIVE form of economics and government."
---look up the word Anarchy. you are against it, but you embrace free-trade capitalism. do you realize such an economic system is in itself anarchy? survival of the "fittest"? "every man for himself"? the opposite of anarchy is a strong government (which conservatives strongly oppose). the opposite of anarchy is truely a command economy which provides for it's people no matter if they are the "fittest" or not.
"The right-wing school of thought is generally learning from the past and trying not to make the same mistakes we have commited previously.So I stand for that. Even if some of my friends don't. One day I hope the U.S. gov't will wipe out the REDS in Cuba. Communism has ruined one of the most beautiful countries."
---Im not in favor of Castro either, but you can hardly blame the country's shape on HIM. if you had a decent knowledge on the history of the country you'd know that an even more backwards and repressive society existed before the revolution under the brutal Batista government. my question is how can communism "ruin" something that was horrible and repressive to begin with? Cuba isn't an admirable government, but people have better living standards than they did under the Batistas. strange that you are Cubano and you don't know these things.
my absolute favorite part of your little speech was "fight eachother and the police state wins".... which is actually from a Dead Kennedys song about violent right-wing punks. in the song, realize it or not, jello is talking about kids like you. heres the context of the song:
*Ten guys jump one, what a man / You fight each other, the police state wins / Stab your backs when you trash our halls / Trash a bank if you’ve got real balls / You still think swastikas look cool / The real Nazis run your schools / They’re coaches, businessmen and cops / If a real fourth reich you’ll be the first to go / (Chorus) / You’ll be the first to go / You’ll be the first to go / You’ll be the first to go / Unless you think…*
back to your quotes:
"Huge muttin music fan, singer, entrepreneur, right-wing think tank, beer lover, AMERICAN.I have a machine gun I wanna use when WWIII breaks out and civil defense becomes necessary........Enemies both foreign and domestic."
--- Now lets compare what you said about yourself to the song you quoted... you're an "entrepreneur".. doesn't look like you'll be trashing any banks any time soon... or rebelling against business men, who are in fact, the real fascists. if you have any history of corporations and nazism/fascism you'd already know how intertwined the two are. You have a machine gun all ready to fight when the government wants you too.... "both foreign and domestic." The fourth riech is getting read to enlist for the third world war... Looks like YOU will be the first to go.
Movie Review: Team America
I was dissappointed when I watched this film. I thought it would be much more political than it was. In fact, the plot loosely intertwines political satire with random jokes which don't have political relevance. It seems like the story was thrown together to make a silly situation that mocks both sides of the political spectrum, but aside from the loose story outline, all the jokes aren't political. It's more of a film that makes fun of common movie cliches and cheesiness in films than it is a political satire. There are a lot of one liners that sound like they came from a cheesy hollywood flick. Also, the music and montage scenes make fun of cliches in movies. The songs in the background are pretty funny in this film, and once again, the humor doesn't really come from politics. There is a song about a montage during a montage scene. There is a song about Kim Jong Il is lonely. There is a love song that simply explains how "pearl harbor" was a bad movie. However, there is one song called "America, Fuck Yeah!" that is derived from the many people in America that express how much the U.S.A. "rocks." The puppets were interesting, but aside from that, I didn't think it was that great of a movie. It had some funny parts, but it was overall dissapointing.
3 stars
3 stars
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Movie Reivew: Waiting For Guffman
Christopher Guest: Great in Spinal Tap!.... not so great in Waiting For Guffman. In the film (which Guest directed and co-wrote) he stars as the effiminate drama coach that is destined to put the town of Blair on the map. He whips together a team of non-actors in an effort to make a show that will fulfill his dream of going to Broadway. That's pretty much the size of the plot. It's a lackluster mockumentary that will leave you feeling like you have wasted almost two hours of your life away. David Cross cameos as a nerdy cropcircle researcher that swears that an alien spaceship has come to the town and that the small cropcircle he studies each day is too eerie to be explained by science. That two minute segment of the film is about as good as it gets... which doesn't say all that much on account of the segment not being all that funny. I just like the presense of Cross in movies. Even if his part isn't that funny, just him being there kind of makes it funny. Skip this movie.
2 stars
2 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)