JIMBO GOES TO THE MOVIES: “Zero Dark Thirty” Review

Alternate Title: “How Half-Drowning Detainees and a Lamborghini Helped Kill Osama Bin Laden”

I went into “Zero Dark Thirty” with some pretty lofty expectations, and as she did with “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow pretty much kicked every form of cinematic ass imaginable with her latest release. The film is only slightly controversial, with members of the CIA and Congress claiming that the flick is a wheelbarrow of lies and exaggerations, while conservative pundits (read: the ramblings of madmen) accuse the film of being pro-Obama agitprop of the highest caliber. Granted, the film is probably more malarkey than historical fact, but I think you can say the exact same thing about every other supposed “historical drama”, too. Consider the new Lincoln biopic, for one: dude, everybody knows vampires didn’t even make it to the U.S. until The Spanish-American War!

As for the film itself, it’s pretty much the greatest movie James Cameron has never made. Don’t let the Oscar-bait hubbub convince you this is Merchant-Ivory fare, because at heart, the film is much, MUCH more in line with “Terminator 2” than “The King’s Speech.” In fact, the film, in at least some ways, is almost a parallel for “Aliens,” with a kick-ass yet fairly stoic female lead being enmeshed into a circle of technologically-adept grunts, fighting a mysterious, underground enemy while simultaneously weaving herself in and out of bureaucratic collusion. Of course, one of the movies has the dude from “Mad About You” being eaten by eight foot tall lizard people, but beyond the aesthetics, we’re pretty much dealing with the exact same plot here.

The film begins with some actual telephone calls recorded from inside the WTC on 9/11, so literally a MINUTE into the film, you’re already sweating and feeling uncomfortable and kinda’ sick at your stomach. After that, we’re whisked away to some black site out in the middle of god know’s where, and watch a couple of CIA operatives waterboard this one dude that may or may not know who Osama Bin Laden’s courier is. From there, we’re introduced to the main character of the film, which just so happens to be Celia Foote from “The Help.” A lot of people are saying that she put on a tour de force performance in the film - and yeah, she probably did - but the only thing I could really pay attention to was just how pouty her lips were. We’re talking Angelina Jolie levels, really, and if you pay real close attention, you can actually observe how most of her upper lip is actually the same color as her flesh as opposed to your normal lip hue. It’s a little hard to describe in words, but as soon as you see it, you’ll know what I’m talking about - and for the rest of the movie, it’s just going to distract the hell out of you. I promise.

So, the CIA spends a good four years stuffing dudes into four foot-by-four foot boxes and forcing hairy dudes to drink orange stuff through a funnel, and then, 7-7 happens, and everybody gets all morose and hopeless again, but Celia just ain’t giving up and continues to relentlessly pursue this one dude that’s allegedly bin Laden’s delivery boy, because she reckons that if they peg him, finding the al-Qaeda big cheese really wouldn’t be that hard to locate.

And, we get more terrorist attacks. There’s a particularly unnerving scene in a hotel that gets rocked, and there is an INSANELY intense scene dramatizing the 2009 Camp Chapman attack that might just go down in history as one of the most nerve-shredding moments in film history. With her BFF done-in by a suicide bomb, Celia decides that it is time to REALLY clamp down on her lead, and eventually comes to find out that the dude that they thought was bin Laden’s delivery boy was in fact the brother of bin Laden’s ACTUAL messenger, and that for the last nine years, the CIA has been in hot pursuit of a dude that’s been dead for almost an entire decade.

Now we get to the part of the movie that I would LOVE to see some heavy duty historical research on: according to the film - which, itself, seems to be based on several different accounts of the Kill-Bin-Laden campaign - the CIA was able to locate OBL’s delivery boy by procuring the telephone number of the delivery boy’s mother in Pakistan. It’s not really an unusual premise, but it’s more or less how the film said the deal went down that has me shaking my head in simultaneous awe and bewilderment: the CIA, allegedly, picked up the tab for some rich Kuwaiti dude’s Lamborghini, and THAT was the key turning point that lead to the assassination of the world’s most wanted fugitive.

From there, it becomes the procedural movie to end all procedural movies, as Jessica Chastain and her un-lip-colored lips keep pushing the CIA to pursue this lead, eventually to the point where they not only find the supposed OBL delivery-boy, but even find an Abottobad compound with a mysterious tenant that may or may not be old Blowy-Up-Stuff hisself.

How this thing hasn't been turned into a commemorative Lego set, I'll never understand...

We get some more “down with the bureaucracy” subplot, and eventually, Barack Obama gives the green light for the raid, and everybody flies out to Area 51 to get a look at some experimental helicopters and then…it is ON.

Folks, the last 45 minutes of this movie absolutely SEALED it for me (and uh, no pun intended, of course.)You think you’ve seen some awesome action scenes in movies before? Forget it, because the actual raid sequence in “Zero Dark Thirty” puts just about everything you’ve seen at the Multiplex over the last 25 years to shame. Yeah, yeah, we all know how it ends, but with that in mind, it just seems to make the sequence all that more harrowing and intense. Granted, some of the helicopter CGI looks a little crappy, but beyond that? It’s a dénouement that, in my opinion, outdoes everything in Nolan’s Bat-Trilogy COMBINED times twenty.

The finale is also pretty fantastic, ending on one of the most morally ambiguous notes you could imagine. In a way, I guess you could say that the final sequence - involving a young woman, wondering what she will do now that the main target of the “War on Terror” has been eliminated - is kind of a metaphor for the U.S. as a geopolitical titan. We’ve spent so much money and wreaked so much havoc to “avenge” the 3,000 killed on 9/11 that now that the “revenge” mission is complete, what sort of ideological and moral value do we have anymore? Alike the main character in the film, all we can do is cry, reflect, and wonder what the hell’s next. (Take your pick, folks: Iran, Syria, Russia, China…they’re all wonderful choices!)

I guess there are two ways of looking at the film, and depending on which lens you go with, you’ll net two totally divergent outcomes. First off, if you’re just catching the flick for its popcorn value, than you will assuredly get your money’s worth. Not only is it an outstanding, intellectual action-flick, it’s also one of the most riveting movies to come out in 2012. Very rarely do you get mainstream flicks that are both fantastic works of cinema - with outstanding acting, direction and a literate plot - AND tremendous movie going experiences - you know, with loud exploding sounds and hyper-tense “OH SHIT” moments and the like - and with “Zero Dark Thirty,” you’re getting the best of both worlds.

Now, as a 100 percent reliable, historical drama, though…well, I wouldn’t exactly suggest taking this shit as the gospel. While several of the characters in the film are pretty obvious stand-ins, a majority of the characters appear to be composite figures, and actually ID-ing who several of the more prominent characters - including the central figure of the film - are as actual people seems to be next to impossible. You get some fact, but for the most part, the flick is all dramatization, with artistic licenses doled out to seemingly everybody involved in its production.

I guess you don’t really need me to tell you this, but the film is freaking fantastic and you probably need to see it. As far as I am concerned, it’s definitely one of the best films of 2012, a flick easily on par with stuff I utterly adored like “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai” and “Samsara.” I probably enjoyed “The Hurt Locker” a little bit more, but the scope of this film is a whole lot wider and as such, makes the film all that more impressive to take in. Considering the gargantuan amount of terrain the film covers - really, ten plus years, over the course of three different presidential reigns - the film could have easily collapsed under its own ambitions, but to Bigelow’s credit, the film remains captivating from start to finish - no small feat for a film that flirts with a running time of almost three hours.

How good is “Zero Dark Thirty?” Well, I can’t predict the future, but I can tell you this: if we ever get a movie about the “War on Terror” that’s better than this one, we ought to drop to our knees and thank the movie gods for giving it to us…

Read More

Why Was Obama Re-elected?

The reason why the incumbent succeeded has nothing to do with red and blue issues, but rather, the growing gap between “Green” and “Grey” America

As soon as Mitt Romney conceded that fateful Tuesday evening, GOP strategists across America scrambled to pinpoint excuses as to why the Republican candidate failed to unseat incumbent Barack Obama. And in hindsight - glorious, glorious hindsight - they managed to figure out what the rest of the planet had deduced several months earlier.

Now, I’m no political scientist, but maybe, just maybe, Mitt Romney saying that a good half of the country “didn’t matter” was detrimental to his campaign. I think it wasn’t until AFTER the election that Republican campaigners realized that not only was “47 percent” a pretty big number, but for the most part, a majority of those within said population had the ability, the capacity, and - much to the surprise of conservatives - the motivation to roll out of their public housing and cast a ballot come Election Day. And by golly, all of those welfare-users and food-stampers and non-tax-payers decided to vote for the guy that, shockingly, didn’t call them a bunch of “welfare-users,” “food-stampers” and “non-tax-payers.”

Looking at the statistics, it’s pretty much apparent why Romney lost. You see, the Romney campaign used this old strategy called the “Well, Whitey Will Vote For Me!” approach, and as turns out, heterosexual, happily wed-with-children, land-owning males, preferably middle-aged, AREN’T the only inhabitants of these United States.

Looking at the empirical data, a majority of Caucasian males may have voted for the Mittster, but apparently, Charlie Caucasian ain’t the election-deciding, state-swinging, hegemonic force of nature he used to be.

So, who ended up voting for the other guy, you may ask? Well, I guess it’s not surprising that a good nine out of ten African-Americans cast their vote for the now two-term President, but clearly, it had to have been a SHOCK to the GOP strategists that the Hispanic vote went to Obama - a guy that’s tried to assemble an immigration reform package for the last four years - as opposed to a dude who represented a party that’s been trying to literally throw them out of the country since 1986. Along those same lines, most Asian voters sided with Obama - since, apparently, those same immigration measures would benefit them and their MIT-ready by the eighth grade children. In a year that’s seen numerous Republican candidates try to expound upon the moral latitudes of rape, maybe it shouldn’t have been all that surprising that a majority of women - across pretty much all racial and ethnic demographics - choose Obama over Romney.

Clearly, a number of racial, ethnic and gender issues all played mighty big parts in why Romney lost, but if you really want to dissect why the Republicans took a dump and died at the ballot box, you’re going to have to look at something a little less understated by analysts and pundits.

In essence? You’re going to have to figure out if candidates are “Green” or “Grey,” not “Blue” or “Red.”

You may be wondering what the heck I’m talking about here, so give me ample time to elucidate.

When I say “green,” I’m not referring to Ralph Nader’s horribly orchestrated lampoon of a political party, nor am I referencing a bunch of bean sprout eating environmentalist nut-jobs. In this sense, I’m actually talking about the members of rural America - i.e., those that do not live in large urban accumulations - as a totalized voting bloc.

You see, the inhabitants of rural America - you know, the half of the country that doesn’t live in metropolises or urban spill over sites - tend to have different value sets than those that live in urban and quasi-urban environments (and there will be much more on that demographics later on, dear reader.)

By and large, rural Americans - and to some extent, a sizable portion of those that live in suburban areas - are dependable Republican voters. For the most part, rural and suburban folks are Caucasian, some flavor of Christian (more times than not, evangelical ones on top of that), and heterosexual (or at least, that’s what they tell their wives before embarking upon those mysterious “all weekend fly fishing trips,” anyway.) The socioeconomics run the gamut from very, very wealthy to very, very poor, but for the most part, the “values” of these people are identical: owning a home (and private property) is good, being married is really good, and having children is super-mega-duper good.

As far as age ranges go, it’s an across-the-board deal here, but for the most part, it’s a population that’s skewed a bit towards older individuals. As a peoples, their concerns are mostly centered on individualistic needs - that is, what is good for me and my family is great, and everything else is practically irrelevant (or socialistic, your pick.)

Now, the other half of the country is comprised of “Grey” people, and despite the nomenclature, I’m not talking about decrepitly old and sickly people or “traditional” alien beings. These are the people that live in urban environments, urbanized communities or in the outskirts of major metropolitan areas.

“Grey” voters are people that, almost always, tend to vote Democratically. Here, the racial and ethnic demographics are much more varied than they are in the rural environs - in fact, in most major urban environments, Caucasians aren’t just minority constituents, but frequently only a few percentage points of the entire demographical pie as a subset. Religious affiliation here is also much, much more diverse than it is amongst “Green” voters, and while large numbers within the “Grey” base label themselves as non-religious, even the religiously-inclined “Grey” voters are quick to downplay the importance of religion as a sociopolitical influence. In other words, even if they do believe in some higher power, they DON’T want the forces of religion commingling with the forces of politics in any fashion - a far cry from the beliefs of most “Green” voters, who not only make religiously-motivated issues major campaign matters, but tend to vote exclusively for politicians that share - or at least, claim to share - the same religious convictions as they do.

Clearly, not everybody in urban accumulations are gay, but for the most part, the environments are a little more receptive of homosexual individuals. By and large, a majority of “Grey” individuals believe that gay people should have the right to marry, while most people out there in “Green America” are deeply, deeply opposed to the idea. As with the “Greens,” the socioeconomics of the “Greys” runs from cartoonishly rich to cartoonishly poor, but their lifestyle convictions are almost diametrical to what the rural folks embrace: just about everybody rents property as opposed to owning their living and working space, a sizable portion of the population is unmarried, and compared to the Greens, such individuals are less likely to have children.

You’ll find the young and the old amongst “Grey America,” but for the most part, it’s a population that tends to skew towards younger individuals. For the most part, “Greys” favor collectivistic measures as opposed to individualistic ones…primarily because they live in habitats that require greater needs for environmental safeguards, transportation access and smoother management of scarcer resources.

The big variable here, of course, are those that live in the suburbs. You always hear politicians talking about the value of “middle class” workers, and that’s for good reason - because these people - for lack of a better term, let’s call them “the Browns” - are the population that usually swing votes from “Green” interests to “Grey” interests. As far as gauging which “America” the “Browns” pledge allegiance to, generally, I would say that the lean closer towards “Greener” interests - after all, these folks are more likely to have families and mortgages and all of that stuff, too - but since so many of these people have ties to urban environments (typically, through working connections), they’re also a population that’s more likely to sense the collectivistic needs of the “Grey” voter base.

In this election, I would say that it was most likely “minority” pockets of “Grey” individuals within the “Brown” demographic that effectively swung the election in favor of Barack Obama. If I had to take a swing at why so many “Browns” voted “Grey” instead of “Green,” I would say that it probably has to do with the fact that “minority” populations within the suburbs, and even some rural areas, decided to vote for the collectivistic progression of their own kind as opposed to individualistic interests. There are a lot of women, Asians, gays, young adults out in the “Browns” and the “Greens,” and this election, they’ve been galvanized to vote in favor of Obama due to their own special interest needs. Suburban Asians may want lower taxes, but they also want laxer immigration requirements and permanent workers visas for their families. Suburban women may want lower caps for the deficit in some instances, but they also want access to health facilities and affordable medicine. Suburban gays may enjoy seeing tighter budgeting on the federal level, but they would also like the ability to adopt children and partake of the same civil unions that everybody else in their neighborhood does, too. A lot of young people would like to see more job creation in the private market, but they would also like to be able to afford to attend college, as well.

Since the days of Richie Nixon, the G.O.P. has prided itself on being the party of “Green America,” but over the last forty years, gargantuan demographical and cultural changes have decreased the electoral value of the nation’s hinterlands monumentally. The “Green Values” supported by Republicans are becoming less and less relevant to an ever-increasing number of “Grey” voters - whether or not those voters live within “Grey” environments or are “Green” and “Brown” inhabitants with decisively “Grey” values and mentalities.

While it’s probably a tad too early to claim that this year’s election results indicate a total paradigm shift in national values, it’s probably a little unwise to simply write off the results as coincidental, too. The stark reality is that “Grey America” is becoming a larger and larger piece of the U.S. as a whole, and unless Republicans pull a complete 180 and find ways to accommodate the social and economic needs of the “new majority” through thoroughly un-Republican policy reform, this year’s results may prove an ominous harbinger for the fate of the Grand Ol’ Party.

Obama’s re-election tells us something very simple - and very revelatory - about the future of politics in these United States. If the Republicans don’t shift their focus away from “Greens” to “Greys,” not only is it guaranteed that we won’t see another conservative in the White House for at least two decades…it might just spell the death of “Republicanism” as a national ideology altogether.

Read More

Why Voting Doesn't Matter

Five reasons why participating in “representative democracy” is total B.S. 

Next week, millions - perhaps more than 100 million - people will or already have cast their votes to determine the next President of the United States. By writing about the 2012 election, I know I’m automatically dating myself, but at the end of the day, this spiel is more or less about the entire process of electoral politics more than it is one - ultimately, pointless - presidential contest.

The “moral good” of voting is bashed into our heads as soon as we’re old enough to know what “democracy” is. Of course, it’s kind of a moot point, seeing as how we here in the U.S. of A live in a representative, constitutional republic as opposed to a “true” democratic state, but the message remains unmistakable: it’s your DUTY as a citizen to vote, and if you refuse to cast a ballot, you’re personally responsible for the detrimental social costs that unfurl over the next four years.

Evidently, that little principle has never seemed that logical to me. So, what your saying is, if I open the door for a guy to ransack my neighbor’s home, I’m somehow LESS CULPABLE if I were to stand next to a tree, not doing anything at all? I’m not exactly what you would call ‘le philosophe,’ but that shit don’t make any sense to me, from a rationalistic standpoint.

Since I’ve been able to vote, I’ve done so just twice - one, so I could vote for a quasi-deranged Democrat candidate for governor during the 2006 Georgia primaries, and the second just so I had a convenient excuse to skip half a day of work later in the fall. As for how or what I voted for that fateful day in November, I really can’t tell you…primarily because I just Christmas tree-d my way through the electoral process, mashing buttons on the electronic display like I was playing “Donkey Konga” or something. I’ve never voted in a U.S. Presidential contest, and as the Almighty as my witness, I promise each and everyone of you reading this that I never will, either.

A lot of people wonder why I refuse to participate in the “electoral process.” In fact, it’s been asked of me so dadgum much that I decided that I pretty much NEEDED to write an article about why I know - not “think,” “feel” or “believe” - voting is pointless, stupid, arbitrary, fruitless and, at the end of the day - far more detrimental to the social quality of the nation than non-voting ever has been or ever will be, times about 3.3 trillion.

Open wide, America, because the truth train is a-comin’ to derail all of this overly-hyped voting hullabaloo nonsense in 3,2, and 1...

REASON NUMBER ONE: 

The whole “one man, one vote” shtick is an utter load of it 

When people ask me why I don’t vote, my answer, up to this point, has been pretty brief. “Because my vote doesn’t matter,” I generally told them. At that point, they would give me these impassioned pleas as to why it’s my responsibility as a citizen to engage in participatory politics, at which point I always wanted  - but never had the huevos con chorizo - to tell them the following:

“Listen here, sir/madam/transgendered person, what you’re telling me is that my vote - my single, individual vote as ONE human being - somehow makes a difference in this giant raffle contest you call an ‘election.’ Well, if that’s the case, than how come our elections are decided based on THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE as opposed to a popular vote?”

For those of you unfamiliar with what the electoral college is (mostly, Floridians), it’s this elaborate, B.C.S-like tiebreaking system we use here in the States that gives state electorates certain point values based on individual populations. Therefore, in the electoral college, really big states like California and New York and Texas are worth nine zillion points while worthless shitholes like Wyoming and the Dakotas are worth negative three or something. It’s an utterly unfair and antiquated system - it goes all the way back to the late 1700s, for crying aloud - and it not only devalues my vote as an individual stakeholder, but TOTALLY ELIMINATES it. So even if the dude I vote for gets more TOTAL votes than the other dude, if the other dude “wins” just the right proportion of states, he can completely overcome that whole “populism” bullshit and find himself el Presidente even though a MAJORITY of the country voted for the guy that didn’t “win.”

Well, it gets worse, because not only is there a national electorate, there’s also a state electorate, which means your individual votes DOESN'T COUNT two different times before it ultimately gets discarded and funneled out of the electoral process altogether. So yeah, your vote DOES matter…just as long as you live in a county or parish where everybody votes for the same guy that you vote for, and everybody in the state votes for the same guy that you vote for, and enough other states vote for the same guy you vote for. So much for “individuality,” huh?

REASON NUMBER TWO:

You aren't getting representatives of your interests either way

There aren't a whole lot of politicians I generally admire, so of course, one of the few that I do is a dead Canadian-Scotsman that may or may not have been a proponent of eugenics in his youth. If you’ve never heard of Tommy Douglas, he was this guy that was the Premier of Saskatchewan, and he’s pretty much responsible for creating Canada’s universal health care system. He was probably one of the best orators of the later half of the 20th century, and his iconic “Mouseland” speech remains one of the most amazing, awe-inspiring things I’ve ever heard spill forth from a politician’s mouth.

As Douglas so brilliantly put it, as voters, we’re generally nothing more than a bunch of mice “given” the choice of voting between two cats to slaughter us. Call me crazy, but I think it’s just a little suspect that in a nation where almost half of the population lives on less than $50,000 annually, the two guys running for president this year are dudes that made, respectively, $11 million and $200 million-plus last FY. I’m not sure what the official stats are - and if anybody can give me evidence to the contrary, feel free to notify me here - but I can’t think of a SINGLE member of the U.S. political system - presidents, cabinet members, representatives, senators, state reps, federal judges, etc. - that make LESS than that $50,000 threshold. Now, am I being cynical when I say that I doubt all of these “elected” figures have the best interests of half the U.S. population at heart, or am I just being too damn truthful about the nature of class-stratification in the “political” process?

If you’re part of that “lower” dyad of the U.S. population (which I certainly am,) then why should I believe that all of these dudes with suspiciously speckless suits and well-manicured nails gives one iota of a damn about my concerns and worries as a citizen? Is it ignorant of me to assume that these political people will pay more heed and attention to the multi-million dollar conglomerates and special interests groups and bankers and committees that bankrolled their campaigns than half-starved, multicultural trash such as I?

If this was a TRUE representative democracy, at least one of the guys up there would be someone representing people from my socioeconomic bracket, not some Ivy-leaguer that comes from Old World money and hobnobs with celebrities and sells $300 a plate dinners at banquets that cost $12,000 to attend. If we’re not “given” the choice of voting for a “man of the people,” than we should we waste our time voting for two shades of people that don’t give a shit about us?

REASON NUMBER THREE:

All in all, your life remains pretty much the same no matter which party is in office

Every four years, you are bound to run into someone that’s going to bark into your ear that this year’s election - way more than any election in history - is going to forever alter the way we live our lives. And it’s true. Here’s a look at every single Presidential election outcome in my lifetime, and how the end results have completely changed my day-to-day life:

BUSH DEFEATS DUKAKIS - NOTHING HAPPENS.

CLINTON DEFEATS BUSH - NOTHING HAPPENS.

CLINTON DEFEATS DOLE - NOTHING HAPPENS.

BUSH DEFEATS GORE - NOTHING HAPPENS.

BUSH DEFEATS KERRY - NOTHING HAPPENS.

OBAMA DEFEATS MCCAIN - NOTHING HAPPENS.

In 24 years, six presidential races and, ultimately, four different American presidents - 12 years under Republicans and 12 years under Democrats - my day-to-day life, as in my individual patterns as a human being - haven’t really changed all that significantly from 1988 until 2008. In fact, a strong argument can be made here that the outcome of the federal elections have had virtually ZERO bearings on my life altogether.

But what about POLICY, some of you are madly screaming at the top of your lungs? While it is true that certain federal policies have altered the world in which I commingle - NAFTA, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the PATRIOT Act, etc. - none of these have impacted my habitual life directly. Yeah, NAFTA may have paved the way for U.S. companies to ship jobs overseas and Gramm-Leach-Bliley may have given bankers the ability to leap over federal oversight and the PATRIOT Act may have theoretically clamped down on some of our civil liberties, but as far as any of those PERSONALLY influencing, altering or changing the way I carry on, day-to-day? I’m pretty much doing the same things now that I was doing four, eight and 12 years ago. Oh, and before I forget - all three of the afore-mentioned policies were multi-branch arrangements, and not EXCLUSIVE executive actions, too.

If you really want to get into the thick of things, I could make the argument that it’s really the head of the Federal Reserve (if anybody, I would say that Alan Greenspan is probably the only lone human being - and I use that term very loosely - in the U.S. that deserves individual credit for getting the culture-destroying “Great Recession” in high gear) and the Supreme Court judges that have had the greatest impact on my daily doings, and what do you know, we’re not allowed to vote for any of those positions, either.

And while one can certainly argue that the socioeconomic repercussions of federal legislation from twenty years ago can still be felt today (and it can), how has it changed our daily life as peoples? We still wake up, drink coffee, watch shitty TV shows, yell at newspapers for perceived biases, shop at grocery stores, rent shitty movies based on shitty box art, eat out at overpriced ethnic-themed restaurants, drive around aimlessly on the weekends and go to bed every Sunday night, kinda’ wishing that the apocalypse would begin before your alarm clock goes off. Prey tell, what civil liberties have we DIRECTLY LOST as peoples, across the board, over the last two decades? If being felt up at the airport is the worst we’ve got, than goddamn, we really do live in the greatest country on earth, huh?

REASON NUMBER FOUR: 

There are far, far better ways to elicit social change other than the political process

I’m going to list a couple of names, and I want you to tell me what they all have in common: Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Samuel Gompers, Malcolm X and Rachel Carson. If you said they’re all pretty important people - all of whom instigated mass social movements - you’d be right. And if you also said, “hey, none of those people ever held office,” you, good sir, would be double-right.

One of the amazingly negative things I’ve observed about the political process is that it’s goaded people into believing that the ONLY way to bring about positive social and civic change is through voting. Take a good, long gander at both the “Tea Party Movement” and the “Occupy-Whatever” crowd, and you’ll see flip sides of the same ideological problem.

You know, there are ways to approach - and perhaps, even remedy - politicized issues WITHOUT solving them via political involvement. I’d say that MLK has probably had a greater, more far-reaching influence on American society than ANY president of the last 60 years, and a lot of the institutionalized - sometimes, even federalized - practices we have today stem not from some Washington fatcat, but this one dude from Atlanta that really liked to march around a lot. As far as workers rights go, there isn’t ANY president that’s done as much for the nation’s blue collar laborers than Gompers or Chavez, and neither of them were voted into existence, either. Pretty much our entire national templates for looking at urbanism and ethnic marginalization stem from what Malcolm X preached, while the entire environmental movement in the U.S. can be traced back to Mrs. Carson’s “Silent Spring” - a simple, ink-on-paper book, not some far-reaching governmental policy program.

Not only is it apparent that positive social changes can be instigated WITHOUT getting into standard politics, but for the most part, NON-POLITICAL remedies seem to be the most effective AND far-reaching means of achieving said social change. With that in mind, why would ANY of us want to waste our time on something that’s been proven time and time again to be something less than a “best practice?”

REASON NUMBER FIVE: 

It ultimately de-powers us as individuals

My last reason for not voting is the most abstract, but philosophically, the most important. If I honestly, truly believe that longstanding social ills can be resolved by placing my faith in some Mandaen figure, then what does that say about my personal belief as an individual?

For so long, we’ve had it hammered into our skulls that the ONLY way to achieve social progress or civic improvement is through the process of voting - that is, picking sides based on some loose, arbitrary “convictions” regarding staggeringly complex social issues - that, at the end of the day, the unintended(?) side-effect is that we feel completely and utterly powerless as individuals. Before long, it becomes our universal excuse. “Well, if OUR SIDE was in power, then everything would be all right.” Well, I’ve seen what it’s like when BOTH sides are in power for virtually identical periods of time, and let me tell you folks - they don’t change nothing for nobody.

I would be an utter moron if I said federal politics didn’t have a certain impact on us as peoples, but all things taken into consideration, I think the overall influence of said politics on our daily lives - and most certainly, what we’re capable of achieving as individual people - is grossly overrated. If all you’ve got is “eff the government for making me pay a fifth of my income to them,” then you ought to be jumping for joy that the federales have so LITTLE personal involvement in your day-to-day life.

If Obama gets re-elected, your day-to-day life isn’t going to change, and if Romney gets elected, nothing about your daily activities will be altered. Yeah, they may make a few promises about economics and healthcare, but those are ultimately apolitical elements that are beholden to mathematical powers far too abstract and uncontrollable for any politician to straighten out. No man in the Oval Office can control how the Stock Market plays out, the same way you or I can’t dictate what the weather’s going to be like tomorrow. Yeah, the elected officials may make a few pushes for health care overhaul - but when it’s all said and done, it’s still going to be you - and you, alone - that determines where you end up when you’re past 65. The government isn’t going to ask you to save your money, or take care of your body, or plan and invest wisely - it’s a personal decision that has INFINITELY more impact on your day-in, day-out existence than any federal mandate or policy revision in history. But yeah, when was the last time you saw the words “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” plastered in size 64-font on the front page of the New York Times?

At the end of the day, it’s the personal choices we make on a daily basis - do we take out that loan, do we use our credit card for this, do we spend that disposable income or save it - that have the REAL long-term impact on who we are and where we’re heading.

You can vote people to lead the country, but you’ll never be able to “vote” someone in to lead your own life. And if you honestly think pushing a “check here” button on a flat screen every four years is your “greatest responsibility” as an individual, I really think it’s time for you to reassess what the term means, amigo.

Read More

LIVE Play-by-Play from the First Obama/Romney Debate

Missed the first debate of the 2012 Presidential season? Here's a verbatim transcript of what was said...in REAL-SPEAK. 

08:49 PM EDT - We’re ten minutes away from the kickoff of the first debate of the 2012 Presidential cycle. For those of you wondering at home, I’m using the New York Times feed for tonight’s hootenanny, proving once and for all that I am free from cable news network biases.

08:56 PM EDT - Not that it really matters, but according to the almighty Goog, Romney has a one inch height advantage over Barack Obama. No word on who has the greater reach, though.

09:02 PM EDT - On second thought, the New York Times feed blows. Time to switch to C-SPAN!

09:03 PM EDT - Aw man, I thought Obama was going to come out spider-walking like Jon Jones…

09:05 PM EDT - Obama: “We’re were going, we don’t need roads. Or taxes.”

09:07 PM EDT - Romney: “Poor people are poor, but the only way we can help them is by not helping them financially.”

09:09 PM EDT - Obama: “Education is important and stuff. Especially that math and science stuff, and whatever it is that they teach at community colleges.”

09:10 PM EDT - Obama: “My opponent wants to suck 8 trillion dollars out of the economy. Just like his mama.”

09:12 PM EDT - Romney: “The Middle class is STARVING! They can only afford to buy half as much caviar as they used to.”

09:13 PM EDT - Romney: “As we all know, private gas is the best kind of gas. And if you’re re-elected, all of those poor West Virginians will have no dank, dark shafts to fall into and get cancer anymore.”

09:15 PM EDT - Obama: “FIVE TRILLION, MAN. FIVE TRILLION. And come on, like the military actually wants more money for stuff.”

09:16 PM EDT - Romney: “I wouldn’t support my own tax plan. Oh, shi…”

09:17 PM EDT - Romney: “My children are liars.”

09:19 PM EDT - Obama: “I lowered taxes for small business <makes flashing motion with hands> eighteen times.”

09:20 PM EDT - Obama: “Donald Trump is not a small business, primarily because Donald Trump is a human being, and not an edified, institutional system that generates revenue based on wealth creation. Or hell, maybe he is. I don’t really know anymore.”

09:22 PM EDT - Romney: “If elected, I’ll make sure your Radio Shacks in St. Louis stay open, and hard.”

09:24 PM EDT - Obama: “SEVEN TRILLION. Was I saying five trillion earlier? Well, I meant seven trillion.”

09:25 PM EDT - Romney: “My plan has never been tried before in history. Well, tried while I’m president, anyway.”

09:26 PM EDT - Romney: “Solving the federal deficit is simple: we shouldn’t be in a federal deficit. Not having a federal deficit would surely keep us from having a federal deficit. And also, eff PBS.”

09:29 PM EDT - Obama: “Dude, we got drones now. What’s the point in having an air force, anyway?”

09:30 PM EDT - Obama: “You know, if the upper class actually paid taxes, we might be able to chip away at this whole federal deficit thing. Maybe.”

09:31 PM EDT - Romney: “Do I support ‘Simpson Bowls?’ Hell yeah, I love Bart and Homer!”

09:33 PM EDT - Romney: “Taxation kills jobs. My plan is to take them all to China and Indonesia, where they will be safe form being murdered by American taxes.”

09:34 PM EDT - Romney: “Spain sucks.”

09:36 PM EDT - Obama: “So, I met this one chick in Vegas last week…”

09:38 PM EDT - Romney: “Education. Children. Healthcare. Let me start by talking about the oil companies’ reputations first…”

09:40 PM EDT - Romney: “As the noble Confederacy taught us, states are what make America great, not the totality of the nation as a construct.”

09:41 PM EDT - Obama: “Independence can only be obtained when you rely upon the government to use other peoples’ money to pay your medical bills.”

09:43 PM EDT - Romney: “Old, worthless people? Yeah, you ain’t got nothing to worry about.”

09:44 PM EDT - Romney: “And let’s not forget about your controversial ‘death panel initiative,’ either!”

09:46 PM EDT - Obama: “And you know I’m down with AARP, like AC is down with OJ.”

09:48 PM EDT - Romney: “I’d rather have a private plan. Then again, I’ve got an extra $13 million to kick around, so take of that what you will.”

09:50 PM EDT - Romney: <grabs microphone> “Lemme tell you something, Mean Gene…”

09:51 PM EDT - Romney: “We need regulation. But not HIS kinda’ regulation, if you know what I mean.”

09:52 PM EDT - Romney: “Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed…sorta’.”

09:53 PM EDT - Obama: “So, yeah, a lot of the crap we have going on nowadays is a direct result of poor, individual decision making. Therefore, it’s time to get all sorts of New Deal up in this bitch.”

09:55 PM EDT - Romney: “I don’t know what a qualified mortgage is. I paid off mine with the change in my pocket.”

09:57 PM EDT - Romney: “Expensive things hurt families. And believe you me, my family is HURTING right now.”

09:59 PM EDT - Obama: “Dude, let’s just face it. Dying is a whole lot easier these days than filling out an intake form, anyway.”

10:00 PM EDT - Obama: “Where did I learn it? I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, DAD!”

10:03 PM EDT - Romney: “ So, yeah, that means the next President better have some really long arms, then.”

10:06 PM EDT - Romney: “Under my plan, preexisting conditions are covered. With a band-aid, because that’s all I’m going to give you.”

10:08 PM EDT - Romney: “Federal government should not take over healthcare. By golly, that’s what states are for.”

10:09 PM EDT - Obama: “Nice plan you have there, buddy. You know, the one that’s all invisible and shit.”

10:14 PM EDT - Obama: “And that’s while he was STILL fighting all of those damn vampires, too.”

10:15 PM EDT - Obama: “I was talking to this dude in Europe the other day, and he was telling me about this ‘education’ thing…”

10:16 PM EDT - Romney: “It’s the government’s obligation to protect vague, ill-defined abstract concepts.”

10:17 PM EDT - Romney: “I’m telling you, trickle down economics are going to work this time, for sure.”

10:18 PM EDT - Obama: “Budgets reflect choices. And we’re all out of choices.”

10:20 PM EDT - Obama: “Because community colleges are the veritable heart of this nation, right?”

10:23 PM EDT - Romney: “Well, there’s no way private sectors could improve with government funding.”

10:24 PM EDT - Romney: “On day one, I’m going to sit down, and talk to some Democrats. As long as there’s nothing good on, anyway.”

10:27 PM EDT - Obama: “Sometimes, you have got to say ‘no.’ And that works in both English and Spanish, so it’s like, double-effective.”

10:29 PM EDT - Obama: “This election season, let’s not forget America’s most valuable natural resource; grit. Although, truthfully, I prefer oatmeal.”

10:30 PM EDT - Romney: “Obama will squeeze the middle class, while I will create a million, billion jobs using money that rich people will surely not spend on themselves and their respective interests.”

10:31 PM EDT - Jim Lehrer: “Well, that’s all the time we have for tonight, folks. And excuse me, I think I’ll go dunk my head into a trough of whiskey real quick, and drown away the sorrows of this evening…”

Read More

JIMBO GOES TO THE MOVIES: “Madea’s Witness Protection”

Tyler Perry returns with his umpteenth “Madea” movie…and it’s pretty much everything you’d expect it to be (for better, AND WORSE)

I caught “Madea’s Witness Protection” last weekend, and my immediate reaction after watching the movie was “you know, there’s a pretty good chance I’m actually black.”

A lot of critics have said that Tyler Perry’s movies pander to a largely African American audience, but as far as I’m concerned, the Madea character could be a stand-in for at least 10 or 12 different people in my family. There are certain scenes in the film - hell, even some lines of dialogue - that are practically verbatim transcripts of things that have occurred to me at family get-togethers or cookouts. In that, it’s not so much a peculiar feeling I have that the characters of Madea and Uncle Joe remind me of my relatives, as much as it is this sinking feeling that the characters ARE my relatives.

The giant-assed breakfasts. The perpetual (and mostly empty) threats of violence lobbed seemingly every other sentence. The absolutely staggering number of references to the word “ass” the seem to encase the entire screenplay like bubble wrap. Granted, I have spent almost the entirety of my life in Perry’s stomping grounds of Atlanta , but still; if what’s onscreen is crude stereotyping, then me and my entire extended network of kin are indeed the epitome of made-for-Caucasian-consumption “black entertainment,” too.

There’s a scene in the film where one of Perry’s alter egos believes that his houseguest, played by Eugene Levy, may or may not be his illegitimate lovechild. He starts counting down a list of the old standards: since Levy’s character can’t swim, has a thing for large posteriors and kind of dances a little when he pees (which is definitely a new revelation to me), he assumes that he’s most likely an African-American. It was around that point that I began seriously mulling the possibility that my racial composition is at least half-not white…and since I haven’t actually seen a picture of my supposed biological father over the course of my 26 years on Earth, I’d say that it’s fair game to suspect that all of my Afro-tendencies (the Miles Davis adulation, the fact that I’ve seen every “Shaft” movie twice, that I kind of dance a little when I pee, etc.) are perhaps more than just circumstantial.

Of course, “Madea’s Witness Protection” is a relatively sucky movie, no matter how you slice it. But you know, just because something “sucks” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “bad.” In fact, I probably enjoyed this movie as a sucky cinematic product more than I did “good” flicks like “Prometheus” and Fincher’s “Dragon Tattoo” by a considerable margin. The thing is, it’s oh-so apparent that Perry is bored with the franchise, and that the entire idea of the character has run its course. I heard the movie was shot in just three months, and it shows: this thing is so formulaic and by-the-numbers that you can almost see the “fold here” flaps on the silver screen.

The “Madea” format plays itself, really. Whereas most of Perry’s earlier films were more or less family melodramas with the Madea character providing comedic relief as buffers in between melancholy plot twists, there’s something of a greater emphasis on the character in this flick. Of course, the movie is still LOADED with family melodrama, centering on a New York family that’s slowly falling apart after a Ponzi scheme and one of Madea’s nephews, who ends up jeopardizing his father’s church after investing in the company that the New York family was a part of. The odds, I know.

Looking for a plot synopsis here? Well, Eugene Levy is a sensitive, reserved accountant that serves as the head of a charity in the northeast. He goes into work one weekend, and is informed that his charity was actually a front for some mafia laundering, so he ends ups traveling to the deep south to avoid getting whacked. And take a wild guess who he ends up staying with. Seriously, you will never, EVER figure this one out. I mean it.

From there, this thing turns into subplot city. You have Eugene Levy working with an attorney (also played by Perry) to exonerate himself from wrongdoing, but while he’s doing that, he’s neglecting his family. His second wife (played by a particularly wooden Denise Richards) is having difficulties finding acceptance from Levy’s daughter from a previous marriage, while their son struggles with the fact that he a.) sucks at baseball and b.) is fat. And from that, we have Lil’ Romeo as one of Madea’s relatives, who made some horrible investments in Levy’s company to help finance his dad’s church, so…well, I guess you can figure out where things go from there.

The big variable in all of this, of course, is Madea, who helps the struggling family grow closer together using some good, old-fashioned Southern techniques - like telling the daughter that her entire family died to make her realize just how important they are to her and assuming a fake identity to funnel money out of a New York bank to save her nephew’s chapel. You know, the basic stuff, really.

The acting in this movie is particularly awful, with only Perry’s characters showing any signs of blood flowing through their veins. Honestly, I can’t recall the last time I saw a screenplay with this many shortcuts taken by the writer - everything is so forced, and characters react and suddenly alter their behavior so quickly that nothing seems even remotely human about the cast. And speaking of the cast, dear lord, the number of wash-ups on display. Tom Arnold, the dad from “American Pie,” that chick from “Starship Troopers,” the mom from “Everybody Loves Raymond.” Really, we’re just one Lou Bega song away from this being empirically a movie set in 1999.

Of course, everything works itself out in the end. The church gets saved, and Eugene manages to avoid a trip to Club Fed and remedy his family woes in the process. Of course, this means Madea and Joe have to continue living off an EBT card (don’t jump to conclusions, that’s actually mentioned in the plot several times) but as we all know - senior citizens living barely above the poverty line is F-U-N-N-Y.

Really, you know what you’re getting into here, and any real review for it would be completely superfluous. Is “Madea’s Witness Protection” a bad movie? Yes, yes it is. Is it really predictable and uninspired? Most definitely. Is it just a little offensive and way too quick to capitalize on humor stemming out of racial tensions? Of course. But is it a funny movie? Well, it got a couple of laughs out of me, so who cares about all of those other complaints?

There’s not a whole lot of passion or fury to Perry’s latest, and there is absolutely nothing here that you wouldn’t expect or haven’t already suspected. It’s a generic offering, with all of the usual detractions, and with it, all of the super-familiar things you enjoyed about the last nine or eight Perry movies, too.

Clearly, “Madea,” as a cinematic offering, just plain sucks. But hey, at least it sucks in a way you can enjoy it, unlike so many other movies this summer…

MY SCORE: C-

Read More

The 2012 State of the Union Address

Translating Obama's Speech Into "Real Talk"

As part of some stupid constitutional thingy, every year, us Americans have our prime time television programs interrupted by a completely needless "status" report by the President the last Tuesday of every January. It's totally pointless and probably a violation of our civil liberties, but since I just got my Sega Genesis repaired, I really haven't felt the need nor the desire to look it up on Google.

Even worse, I had to watch this spectacle of absurd proportions for a class assignment, which I thought was prohibited by the Geneva Convention, but apparently, I guess not. 

Admittedly, I've never been a big fan of hot air and/or political rhetoric, so I didn't really go into this one feeling too optimistic. Then, I went on the YouTube, and noticed that there was an ENHANCED version of the 2012 State of the Union Address online for everybody to enjoy. (Oh, and if you are currently Stevie Wonder right now, that video is positioned at the very top of the screen.)

For the most part, I wasn't too enthused by this special edition of the Address. For one, I really didn't like the fact that Greedo fired first before Charlie Rangel shot him with his lazer blaster, but the director's commentary, I must say, was easily Criterion-worthy. 

We're all busy people, and we're all people disinterested in political poppycock. Therefore, as a service to the whole of humanity, I've decided to sit through the entire State of the Union Address and translate all of that Obama-Talk into common American English. Granted, he may not have said the stuff I transcribed, but odds are, it was either what he was thinking about or what his utterances really entailed for us, the proud citizens of Planet America. 

So, here's what you do: start the video, and stop it every time you get to one of the time stamps I have listed below to uncover what Obama's real sentiments are. You can thank me for saving you a squandered hour later on.

00:01:00 - - “Hey, you know who’s kind of awesome? The troops. Yeah, try and boo that shit, Holmes.”

00:01:30 - - “Speaking of which, remember when I killed Osama? That was some cool shit, wasn’t it? I mean, it really didn’t end Islamic extremism abroad or anything, but still.”

00:02:30 - - “Y’know, things would be a lot easier around here if we were more like the troops. Well, except for the part about getting paid $9 an hour. That part would probably suck.”

00:03:00 - - “I bet things would be a lot easier if we were less dependent on other people for stuff.”

00:04:00 - - “You know, because of the G.I. Bill, a lot of people got to go to college and get all educated and whatnot and become productive members of the middle class. Just sayin’ man.” 

00:05:30 - - “Let’s talk about outsourcing and globalization real quick. Long story short, it’s killing us. G’night, folks!”

00:06:30 - - “…but seriously, have you people ever THOUGHT that deregulation could be the center of all this recession shit?” 

00:07:30 - - “On the bright side, though, we’ve got jobs a-coming. Granted, you’ll have to provide your own mops and shovels, but still…” 

00:09:15 - - [Takes drag from Marlboro Red] “…but, I’ve got an idea, if you’re willing to listen.” 

00:10:16 - - “Look, man, I’m telling you, American cars is where it’s at…if by “at,” you really mean all those GM plants in Mexico.” 

00:11:00 - - “Yeah, that’s right, I said ‘Detroit was a success’, and yes, I have seen ‘Robocop’…”

00:11:32 - - “So today, I propose we centralize our efforts towards turning America into a wholly “safety-lock” economy.” 

00:13:13 - - “Dude! I just thought of something! How about we start taxing domestic multinationals? Shit, how come nobody’s thought of that before?” 

00:14:47 - - [Stretches and yawns] “Boy, my arms sure are tired. Must be from all of that exporting and shit we’ve been doing lately.” 

President Obama, seen here enjoying an invisible cup of water.

00:16:00 - - “Hey, speaking of some dirty mofos, how about them Chinese people, am I right?” 

00:17:00 - - “So as long as you’re willing to dedicate your life to programming soulless robots, you will HAVE A JOB in my America.”

00:17:46 - - “Dude…wouldn’t it be so hot if they just kissed right then?” 

00:18:57 - - “Because the way I see it, the job market is kind of like Pac-Man…” 

00:20:17 - - “You know that one teacher in ‘Stand and Deliver?’ I wish we could clone him and shit…”

00:21:48 - - “So yeah, we should just let all those retards sit around in high school, failing over and over again, and THEN let them out on the streets when they turn 18. RECESSION SOLVED.” 

00:23:38 - - “And if you colleges can’t control tuition inflation…” [Cracks knuckles] “…we gonna’ have us some problems.” 

00:24:10 - - “All right, so you know how earlier, I was talking about how there were all these openings in the science and tech sectors? Well, as it turns out, illegal immigrants are usually pretty good at that kind of stuff, so I got an idea…”

00:25:50 - - “And I totally think women should get equal pay. Right after they’re done cooking supper, of course.”

00:26:42 - - “Which is why I’m all about supporting small-time businesses, like Apple.”

00:27:10 - - “Look, man, we’ve GOTTA’ get that Death Star up before China does.”

00:28:47 - - “…and with this new information at hand, I have no other choice but to invade Canada.”

00:30:00 - - “So even if it did kill Weird Al Yankovich’s parents, I’m still a big fan of natural gas.”

00:31:10 - - “Now, I’m not necessarily saying that the government should have the right to force consumer products manufacturers to dabble in cold fusion research on the side, but...”

00:33:00 - - “I just hope we don’t get attacked while all of our fighter jets are still plugged in, though.”

00:35:05 - - “I propose construction plans for Mega-City One and Mega-City Two begin by the end of the year.”

00:36:01 - - “Because homeowners, unlike all of those damned construction workers, didn’t deserve such suffering. Wait…that last part didn’t come out the way I meant it…”

00:38:00 - - “So I was on the Internet last night, and I heard from this one guy that you can actually make companies abide by the same laws everybody else does. But then, my World of Warcraft connection got timed out, so I never found out what the hell he was talking about.”

The Obama family celebrates with Muammar Gaddifi, just weeks before the foreign leader was disposed by insurgent forces.

 00:38:38 - - “Well, that’s the last time I let Gallagher write my public speeches…”

00:40:42 - - “So under my watch, we will NEVER do all that stuff I just did three years ago.” 

00:41:16 - - “Meet Richard Cordray, or as he will henceforth be known, Batman.”

00:43:25 - - “And with that extra $40 a paycheck, Americans can finally have what they’ve been dreaming of since the recession began: the ability to purchase two Nintendo 3DS games a month.”

00:44:22 - - “Surely, she would agree with me: eff that guy that’s given her steady employment and respectable pay for the last 40 years of her life.” 

00:45:35 - - “Yes, yes, my proposed changes are sure to be quite controversial within the McDuck circles…”

00:46:10 - - “Not to be a stickler or anything, but technically, guys, it really should be the 98 percent…”

00:47:02 - - “Granted, I’ve never personally experienced any of that stuff, but it sounds like it’s got to suck pretty hard, though.”

00:47:34 - - “Yep, that ought to put all those rumors about me supporting Communism out to pasture…”

 

00:48:38 - - “Well, besides us, of course.”

00:49:09 - - “By the way, I never officially acknowledged the presence of my special guest of honor this evening, so please, everyone, give a warm round of applause to Mr. ‘Hacksaw’ Jim Duggan.”

00:50:29 - - “…and if it isn’t, your breadsticks will be on the house.”

00:51:35 - - “Furthermore, I was also a big fan of his logs as a child.”

00:52:37 - - “Which, uh, isn’t the same thing as a centralized government. Um, I think.”

00:54:11 - - “Because, as we all remember, George W.’s plan to do the exact same with Iraq was a monumental success in every aspect.”

00:55:53 - - “So what I’ve got here is the Truman Doctrine. Now, with this here red marker, we’re just going to make a few slight changes to it. First off, let’s see if we can find a way to make “Communism” sort of look like “Militant, Centralized Islam” real quick…”

00:57:00 - - “…but I don’t mean that in an ominous, foreboding way though. Nope…not at all.”

Footage from the Obama Administration after party, where attendees allegedly watched Robert Gates "kick ass" on Rayman Origins until 3 in the morning.

00:58:06 - - “Now, I’ve heard there’s a certain country that shall remain nameless – let’s call it “Shina” – that’s been talking some serious shit beyond our backs, bros.”

00:59:40 - - “However, due to budgetary cutbacks, we only afford them half their uniforms from here on out.”

01:01:06 - - “I mean, who wouldn’t feel safe with emotionally, physically and psychologically scarred officers guarding our city streets?”

01:02:25 - - “…hey, did I tell all you about that time I KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN? You know, that 9/11 guy? That guy we’ve been trying to find for ten years? You know, that guy I found? Well…I did.”

01:04:53 - - “So remember: healing America’s economy is a lot like organizing a covert, military invasion with the goal of assassinating a strategic figurehead…”
 

Round of applause. Fade out. And now, we're coming to you LIVE from the office of some guy from Indiana nobody cares about. For about a millisecond, I sort of thought about watching the Republican rebuttal, but since the TV Guide Channel was showing an hour block of "Designing Women" at the same time, I think we all know who won that battle.  

...and with that, the 2012 State of the Union Address (as well as about 250 plus years of American Exceptionalism) officially concludes.

Read More

A Rant Against The Radical Health Food Agenda

Is the "Health-Conscious" Movement An Infringement Of Our Civil Liberties? 

Meet the end of Democracy. 

 

One of the movements that has really irritated me over the last decade or so has been this supposed “organic food revolution.” The whole-food, health-conscious mentality has been battered into our skulls for so long now that I feel like I’m committing a felony every time I eat a handful of non-vegan, non-hydrogenated potato chips. And you know what? I’m sick of having these leafy-green, health-obsessed food fascists tell me what I can do with my body.

For me, the final straw came a couple of weeks back, when I tried to locate a vending machine at school so I could procure my normal breakfast of two brown sugar and cinnamon toaster pastries and a stick of wintergreen chewing gum. Much to my horror, however, the vending machine that has practically kept me upright over the last few years had been replaced by a new, high-tech vending machine that only offers “healthy alternatives” to snacking.

As an upwardly mobile young person, I just do not have the time to sit down and eat three meals in one day. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have the time to ingest two normal sized meals if I tried. Thus, to obtain the precious 2,000 daily calories I need for mere continuation, I have to seize as much caloric content as I can at whichever junctures such opportunities present themselves.

These “health-conscious” vending machines present two gargantuan problems for on-the-go types like me. For starters, a lot of these supposedly health-savvy foodstuffs just don’t have the caloric firepower I need to get through a day of even moderate activity. Despite all of the demonizing starches, sugars and fats have gone through since the 1970s, the simple, suspiciously understated reality is that we need things like oils and salt to simply exist as human beings. Because there are so many bipedal walruses running around campus, I suppose the administration had no option but to opt for such machines, but to the detriment of guys like me. Since all of these “cane sodas” and “organic, non-greasy” potato chips have fewer calories than the comestibles I’m used to putting down, that means to procure the same amount of energy I once did, I would have to purchase twice (and sometimes, three times) as much food as I used to. 

Pictured: National Socialism in action.

And this provides a natural segue into why I think natural foods are the biggest sham this side of Milli Vanila’s vocals. Not only are these foods of lesser caloric content, they are also of far higher monetary cost. The most expensive item in the old vending machines was about a dollar, and the costliest item in these “health-conscious” machines are about three times as much. Also note that the most inexpensive item in the “health-conscious” vending machine is just a few cents shy of being the same price as the most expensive item in the old, supposedly “junk-filled” vending machines. Now, I know I am being really kooky here, but do you think that maybe, just maybe, the push for all of these health-savvy foods isn’t to make us healthier, but to get us to spend more money on lesser amounts of the same kind of food we’ve been eating for years?

Yeah, I know. . .that’s the talk of madmen, I suppose. The question we arrive to now is whether or not all of that “healthy” vending produce is really any healthier for you than the mass-marketed junk food we were eating a couple of months back. And after doing some expert analysis, it turns out there really isn’t much of a difference to be found between “organic foods” and the processed goop we’ve been chowing down on forthe totality of our lives.

So at the end of the day, not only are those “all natural” fruit cups nowhere near as affordable and filling as those spongy chocolate snack cakes you used to enjoy, those stupid “health-conscious” foods may have even more sugars and starches in them than the factory-made goo you can scoop up at the Family Dollar for about one fourth of the price. 

 In the negative-utopia future, THIS is the extent of what   "Freedom of Choice  " entails.

I understand why the Michelle Obamas of this world are so adamantly opposed to the fast food-high caloric content Complex, but doesn’t the right to free expression also entail the right to consumption, too? To me, the vendetta against vending machine produce and junk food is eerily similar to the war waged against obscenity in print and electronic media - according to some experts that may or may not really be experts on anything, certain products MUST be verboten because they threaten the general welfare of the public. The same way all of those guacamole-heads up on Capitol Hill wanted violent video games “banned” back in the early 90s, we’re seeing a gaggle of special-interest folks serve up the exact same song and dance about what we’re eating. Since some people have the “apparent” physical inability to stop cramming Oreos down their throat holes, these lobbyists want to make it so that nobody can have access to trans-fats, or foodstuffs soaked in delicious, delicious hydrogenated oils. This “whole-food” nonsense is really an imposition on the rights of every freedom-loving person in the United States: just because other people are fat means that you can’t have certain, chemical-laden foods either.

Imagine, if you will, that exact argument, only involving a more polemic matter like abortion, or gun-control, or the right to healthcare access. There would be discourse out the yin-yang in this country, but when our rights to dine are under assault, nobody raises a whisper.

I reckon I know a violation of my civil liberties when I see them, and this push towards all-healthy food is a clear-cut example of our freedoms being imperiled by radicals, fundamentalists and out-right yahoos.

When it comes to junk food, colas and other forms of high calorie foods, I reckon I’m going to stay adamantly pro-choice, no matter how controversial the stance. After all, it is my body, and my right as a citizen, isn’t it? 

 

Read More