August 18, 2006
Sweden and Norway now On Notice
Stephen Colbert makes joke on show; breaks the internet in Hungary.
August 17, 2006
Why we love him
A lot of people wondered why Snakes on a Plane became such a huge pop culture phenomenon, especially in light of the fact that the movie, opening this weekend, is practically guaranteed to (forgive the horrible analogy) crash and burn at the box office.
As I have felt for the last few months, I think the reason is summed up entirely in about six minutes right here.
Whenever a huge actor does a crap movie, the usual response is a condemnation of their refusal to turn down any role (see Walken, Christopher) or wonderment over just how much money you actually had to pay the guy to be in the movie (see Hopper, Dennis and Kingsley, Ben). Few people understand that Samuel L. Jackson wasn't recruited for Snakes on a Plane to make the movie better. He asked to be in it.
In every interview, every article about SOAP, Jackson has done nothing but emit sheer unbridled enthusiasm about the general silliness and fun of the movie, all the while acknowledging that much of it is just how much people love the "badass" character he personally embodies. To put it very simply, this is a man who finds nothing more enjoyable than making his fans happy.
It's what makes Samuel L. Jackson one of the best people in the world, no matter how awful the movie he's in.
August 16, 2006
The Washington Post: the most important, umm... coverage.
August 15, 2006
Anarchy in the U.S.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on Monday ordered a side-by-side review of American and British counterterrorism laws as a first step toward determining whether further changes in American law are warranted.
The plot to blow up airliners bound from Britain to the United States has highlighted differences in legal policies between the two allies, with American officials suggesting that their British counterparts have greater flexibility to prevent attacks.
Newly revised British counterterrorism laws, for instance, allow the authorities to hold a suspect for 28 days without charges, where American law generally requires that a suspect held in the civilian court system be charged or released within 48 hours.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in appearances on the Sunday morning news programs that he thought bringing American laws more closely into line with Britain’s, particularly regarding the detention of terror suspects without charges, could help deter threats at home.
Mr. Gonzales echoed those remarks Monday in an appearance before a veterans group in Chicago. Asked about Britain’s 28-day policy, he said, “That may be something we want to look at,” according to an account by The Associated Press. But he also said: “Is it consistent with our Constitution? We have to look at that.”
Continuing, as always, to not let the terrorists disrupt the American way of life.
What if Time never disgraced itself?
If you've ever wondered what Andrew Sullivan thought would have happened if the 9/11 attacks never occured, here you go. Oh, and kill yourself.
This is exactly how I felt a few years back when the Washington Monthly asked all those people to speculate what a Bush re-election would be like, and among the "experts" they asked was Grover Norquist, who responded that Bush's re-election would cause- I am not making this up- the complete collapse of the Democratic Party.
I couldn't get past the doctored graphics in Andrew Sullivan's poor-man's Tim LaHaye scenario- five chemical attacks worldwide? "iGods?" Seriously?- before realizing it was another round of this shit. I think most people qualified to say what a no-9/11 scenario would realistically have been like would be the ones who say "you know what, I have no idea." Instead, we get professional wrong person Andrew Sullivan spewing worldwide multiple attacks and, of course, the necessary swipes at Michael Moore.
Kevin Drum actually made the most accurate prediction in the Monthy's story, predicting that Bush, Act II would be mostly about the various scandals. And I think the reason he was the most accurate was because he betrayed the actual intent of "what if" roundtable articles like this- getting a bunch of pundits to parrot their usual talking points wrapped in some creative new guise of something original. Instead he actually gave it some critical thought and made conclusions based on data instead of rhetoric, that hack.
Sullivan just wants to say the same shit he always does; this just makes it look slightly different. He has no clue what it would have been like if 9/11 didn't happen. You know why? He doesn't have a clue what's going on in the real world.
As with Norquist, this needs to be repeated: Andrew Sullivan is wrong. He is constantly wrong. He is constantly wrong about almost everything on a constant basis. I'm not saying anyone's perfect- hell, I fully admit I am wrong about a lot of things- but Time doesn't pay me to be wrong about everything and then credit me as a professional expert on all the things I'm constantly wrong about thus causing other magazines to ask for my expert wrong opinion on other things to be wrong about. So given that I nearly want to stab my eyes out with a rusty screwdriver everytime he writes something wrong about what's going on in the world, why would I want to hear him be wrong about things that didn't even happen?
What would have happened if the attacks didn't occur? I have no goddamn clue. Could Gore have prevented the attacks? How should I know? Christ, lousy weather in Boston that day could have prevented the attacks. There aren't enough policy experts, geologists, weathermen, political scientists, psychologists, aviators, security consultants, and zoologists (damned chaos butterflies!) on the face of the earth to form an organized concensus on what could have been. We grabbed a few of those people and they released a report a while back and they didn't have a full answer. So what does New York Magazine do? They ask Andrew Sullivan.
I have no idea what would have happened. That's my answer. And it's a quadrillion times more accurate than Sullivan's. Where's my check?
August 14, 2006
Latest comic - "Our precious vital fluids"
Does it bother anyone else that, honestly, terrorists can do pretty much whatever they want and then everyone in America gets scared to death about it? Some jackass tries to light his shoe on fire and the result is that lighters are banned. So now a team of jackasses try to mix liquids together on a plane and the entire country is engulfed in fear of something in between the plotline of the first Batman movie and that new version of crest where the flouride mixes after squeezing for maximum breath freshness or whatever.
What happens when they bring the lighters back? Now you'll have no water to throw on it. Morons.
If anything, it seems to prove two things: 1. terrorists are really, really getting good at terrorizing us, and 2. if they thought they could shove a wad of C4 up their ass to get it past secuirty they'd do it. Part of me thinks maybe working toward a world where people just don't want to blow up airplanes would solve that. A larger part of me realizes it's far more likely we're five years away from mandatory cavity searches.
Either that, or this is the greatest viral marketing campaign for Snakes on a Plane ever.
Buy some crap; as far as I know it's all still allowed on airplanes.