Advice To Drivers Everywhere

So, today I went to one of the bowels of driving hell TWICE. It's a parking garage near two movie theatres, and since I saw two movies with two different people today, I had the pleasure of navigating through the garage that is Satan's asshole on two separate occasions. Both times it was pretty crowded. Both times, people drove like assholes.

I get that it's a really unpleasant situation for everyone: we're all in a structure, looking desperate for an open space, secretly hating all other people also looking for a space. But there has to be a certain amount of etiquette in such situations, dammit! Let's review the typical offenders:

1. The Slow-Mo-Stalker

This is probably the most common asshole in a parking garage. This person sees a potential space (as in, they see people walking FROM anywhere TO anywhere) and their speed drops to near-standstill as they try to discern where these space-occupiers are headed. This makes it impossible for the stream of cars behind them to get pretty much anywhere else, as there are typically cars coming down in the other lane, and we're all really not looking for an accident in lieu of a space. I can sort of understand doing this in a parking garage where there's never ANY spaces up top, but that is not the case here; I've NEVER been to this garage and found myself seriously unable to park there. So, to you creepy Slow-Mo-Stalkers, please ask yourselves if it's really worth it to piss off a whole line of drivers (some of whom are probably packing heat) just so you can park on level 3 instead of level 4.

2. The Speed Racer

This is almost the opposite problem of the Slow-Mo-Stalker. These are the people who are desperate to leave the garage, and, in doing so, decide that the safety and sanity of the other drivers in the garage are totally unimportant. They speed down the lanes, often ignoring that there's an OPPOSITE TRAFFIC lane, and take turns at the speed of light, rarely, if ever, using their signals. For some reason, these people think that the speed limit inside parking garages (as well as parking lots) is the same as it is out on the road; it is not. There are people doing all sorts of crazy things like parking their cars and pulling out of parking spaces, not to mention pedestrians strolling their way to and from their vehicles (and don't get me started on the people who walk in the middle of lanes to get to and from their cars. I hate these people with a passion and I sort of hope they get hit by a car someday-- just enough to cause a minor injury). Speed racers terrify me. These people obviously think they are hugely important and they NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE PARKING GARAGE, NOW!!! Which only makes me think that they know something we don't know... like they've planted a bomb and need to make it out of the garage in 1.5 minutes or else they die with us.

3. The Spineless Gentleman

I call this one a gentleman because the attitude is very much a "No no no, by all means, after YOU" approach that is often very commendable, but is entirely inappropriate in a busy parking garage situation. Allow me to elaborate: these are the people who never assert themselves when they NEED to in order to allow their line of cars to move forward in the slightest. As with many parking garages, this garage had its two outermost sections turn into its middle section in order to steadily climb up the structure, which meant that if you were approaching the middle on the right-hand side of it, you needed to turn left after the corner to go up the ramp. Combine that with traffic coming down the middle ramp, wishing to turn both right and left, as well as the traffic from the OTHER side of the structure that is making a right-hand turn to go up the middle ramp. That puts the left-turning line of cars in a really shitty spot. You can't wait for the absolute right of way because you will never get it. You have to MAKE people give you the right of way. The only way to do that is to assert yourself. The Spineless Gentleman doesn't want to be rude or make a wrong move; he/she will wait patiently at the turn for five minutes while effectively completely gridlocking the entire line of cars behind him/her, and probably causing quite a number of people to be blocked into their parking spots due to the unmoving stream of cars in the way.

4. The Quick Droppers

These people may or may not take part in much of the driving inside the parking garage, but they do cause quite a disturbance, and it's terribly jarring when they pull their move: they stop their car somewhere near the beginning of the journey through hell to let people out of the car. There are appropriate places for doing such things, and none of them involve the entrance or first ramp to a parking garage. We are going there to park. We do not expect your car to stop unless there is an open spot. Since we haven't even entered the vicinity at this point, I know there's no way you're trying to park anytime soon. So, when you make a turn into a parking garage, and I make my left-hand turn right behind you (which needs to happen at a good time or else it will be another 5 minutes before I have the opportunity again), I do NOT expect to have to slam on my breaks because you decide that this is the perfect spot to drop off your hussy of a girlfriend. And then, the little tramp had the audacity to run right in front of my car. Wait, did I say run? I meant saunter unapologetically. Again, there are some people I'd like to see get hit by a car. Just a little.

I think that mostly covers the basics. But I write this entry tonight because, out of all my years of driving, I experienced something tonight that enraged me to such a point that I did something I have always thought of doing but have never actually done: I wrote an angry note and put it in someone's windshield. Allow me to set it up for you:

As we're making our way through the parking garage there is a single car in front of me. We have to turn a corner to the right to continue up the next lane of spaces. To the left, I see an open spot that extends into the on-coming traffic of the lane past the corner (as in, if you were coming down that lane, you'd be heading basically straight into that space. I know this because when I was leaving the garage, I was coming down that lane and I pulled directly into the space next to the offender's car). I look at the car in front of me, and he turned on his right blinker. "OK," I thought, "he clearly doesn't feel comfortable parking here and he wants to pass up this spot. Fine by me, I shall park here, instead." I start to head into the spot when I look to my right and, lo and behold, I see the guy's reverse lights on and he honks at me as he's backing up. It turns out that the "I'm turning right" signal meant he was turning right for two seconds so that he could be an asshole and BACK INTO A SPACE THAT WAS ON THE LEFT IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY PARKING GARAGE. Now, if I hadn't seen the right blinker on, I would have assumed he was passing it up. I would have watched him to see what he was doing next. But, since turn signals are typically used to let people know that you are actually making a goddamn turn, I didn't think I HAD to watch out for this guy. Oh, how wrong I was.

I was so angry that I actually lowered my window to yell at him, though I don't know if he heard me (but I'm sure plenty of other people in the garage did). I screamed out something along the lines of "Don't turn your fucking turn signal on if you're going to do that, you asshole!" and then I made my right turn up the lane to find an empty space within clear view of the fucker. I got out of my car, slammed the door shut, and looked back to his car, only to see that his lights were still on and he was still in his car. I gave him the finger and, fuming, went on my way to the escalator doors. I'm so glad that I saw a movie with a bunch of really satisfying killings tonight, because I wanted to shoot someone.

When we returned to the car after about 3 hours (it was a long film), I asked my companion whether or not I should leave a note for the asshole in question, if his car was still there. She said that he probably was not still around; as luck would have it, she was wrong. There sat his car, in all its back-in glory, poorly parked in the very spot that should have been mine (really, it wasn't about which spot I had, as I'm happy enough to go all the way up the garage; it's that the spot should have been mine simply because he was such an asshole). I sat for a moment to stew it over, and decided to go ahead and write a note, figuring that by the time I was done the driver would have returned and I could never follow through with my brilliant, albeit sinister, plan. Again, luck was on my side. Not only was there no sign of the driver, but few people were present, and there were no cars parked around the offending vehicle. To ensure a safe and swift getaway, I pulled out of my parking spot and easily coasted into one flanking the car in question. I immediately jumped out of my car, lifted one windshield wiper, and affixed my plus-sized sticky note to his windshield:

Pro-tip: Do not drive like an asshole while in a parking garage (or anywhere else)!

Let that be a lesson to you all. I always carry sticky notes and writing utensils with me. Always.

P.S. A review for Public Enemies is up at the other blog. I'm hoping to catch up on my movies, as I've actually been watching A LOT lately.

Deranking Amazon

Clearly I am behind the times, as I do not pay attention to Twitter and didn't notice the most popular search term in yesterday's Twitterverse, so this news probably isn't news to most of you. However, I just read about it, and I am so shocked and disgusted that I am staging a boycott of Amazon.com until they issue a full apology and are more transparent about their deranking system.

Amazon.com had deranked books containing lesbian/gay/bi/transgendered content because they are "adult". I didn't say LGBT erotica, mind you. ANY book that someone has complained about that has that subject matter in it is no longer popping up in "popular search terms" searches and top seller lists, as well as the "if you liked ____, you might like ____" suggestions, all of which helps to sell books, which is what Amazon is supposed to do. As one blogger pointed out, when doing a search for the term "homosexual," the first book that pops up is "A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.” Because that's not at all offensive. Another blogger writes "Amazon has deranked Annie Proulx, E.M. Forster, but not American Psycho. Mein Kampf and books about dog fighting are ranked and can be searched from the front page, but not books about gay love or books with erotic content." Yeah, I guess protecting customers from understanding gay people really IS more dangerous than turning them onto the preachings of Hitler.

Amazon has issued an apology for this "glitch" in their system. And that would be fine and all... if they didn't have books that go so far as to display nudity in a heterosexual context escaping their deranking glitch, and it hadn't been happening gradually over a week, if not more. They even deranked "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette, which won the 1992 National Book Award. When author Mark Probst was informed of his book being deranked a few days ago, Amazon responded with this lovely explanation (prior to the "glitch" excuse that managed to even keep the novel "Brokeback Mountain" from popping up in related searches):

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.

Best regards,

Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage

Someone compiled a list of affected works here.

I don't buy the glitch. Call me a cynic, but that is way too convenient. I believe it's either something that Amazon does automatically when a book is tagged as being "adult" by their users (and I would bet, if this is the case, that it was done by the religious right), and they blindly apply the deranking system. Either that or there are people at Amazon who actually do think that anything discussing sexuality in any way that is not heterosexual is somehow "more adult". Either way, I am disgusted that this happened, and even more disgusted that they have yet to fully remedy this situation. I expect there to be a better response than "It's a glitch, we're trying to fix it" once this all ends. That is, of course, assuming they fix this revolting display of discrimination and censorship.

Until then, I shall adopt the new definition of "Amazon rank," as defined by Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, while boycotting Amazon. I encourage all of you who buy from there to do the same.

P.S. Why, exactly, is this less of a news story than Obama's new dog? Seriously, this country and our press piss me off so much sometimes.

Edited to add: More food for thought here. This is an interesting look at the books that were de-ranked and the categories they were listed under according to the publisher and Amazon. According to this posting, "It appears that all the content that was filtered out had either 'gay', 'lesbian', 'transgender', 'erotic' or 'sex' metadata categories. Playboy Centerfold books were categorized as “nude” and “erotic photography”, both categories that apparently weren’t included in the filter." And as for how long this has been happening, it appears that is has been going on since at least February. Here is author Craig Seymour's timeline of events when dealing with Amazon and its deranking of his book due to it's adult label.

I would like to further add that while I realize it seems like I am saying Amazon is full of bigots, I'm mostly talking about their response to the feedback about such books being deranked and their lack of effort in putting out an official statement or remedying the situation. That it had happened in the past and they issued a similar policy statement to two authors about why their books had been deranked is incredibly problematic, and the list of categories that seem to have a blanket-ban put on them is disturbing, as well. I'm not saying someone at Amazon hates gay people and did this in order to spread the hate; I think it's entirely possible that some people at Amazon made this decision in order to keep "offensive" material hidden. The notion that these categories could be seen as "offensive" and in need of censorship is also problematic, and smacks of idiocy rather than hatred. Here is a link that I think reflects my mindset pretty well.

And another thought is that this could be a result of trolling, which is potentially plausible (that is, the massive ban) but is still the fault of Amazon for having a system that allows censorship based on a system that is clearly easy to exploit.

UPDATE: By Tuesday, the day after I wrote this rant (not making a correlation, just giving a time line) Amazon has said this was "a ham-fisted cataloging error," and they say they are working to fix it. I am in the same boat as the people who are waiting to hear more about what they have to say about this situation. It's still really unclear. How it was possible for such a cataloging error to have occurred needs to be explained. And, as people who have worked for large corporations such as AOL have noted, this doesn't read as a technical glitch and I really do think that the "error" was more of a human kind rather than some programming issue.

I think one of the best points of view is being expressed by Christopher Rice in an interview over at Queerty. Essentially he said that a company like Amazon, a giant online megastore that has definitely hurt small book stores (and most homosexual-oriented bookstores are small), needed to have better PR about this and still does.

I mean you know, we already lost A Different Light in [West Hollywood, CA], several weeks ago and in no small part because of internet giants like Amazon. So, they need to stop acting like a drunken elephant and starting like a gentle giant. They need to recognize their influence and their size and they need to behave accordingly. I think there needed to be a much better P.R. campaign around this and there still needs to be greater clarity in their response.

Also, he begs the question of if this really was just a cataloging error, why did it all come to head this weekend? I mean, it HAD been happening before this. It's just that suddenly it all hit on Sunday (Easter Sunday, no less, which has definitely fueled some rumours of Amazon's intentions). I am glad they recognized the error and are working to fix it, but I need to see how far the fixing goes, and I think they need to be more open about this "adult content" policy, as well as this error that could allow for such a thing to happen.

So, not full-on ragefest anymore, but I'm still simmering. I really, really don't like the censorship aspect that was brought up during this whole ordeal. I mean, please, for the love of God, get rid of Ron Jeremy's autobiography if you're going to censor things.

Back into the swing of things...

Hey all (and by "all", I mean the 7 or so people following my blog),

Sorry about the lack of posts. My life decided to kick me in the ass recently, and I just haven't been able to focus on this stuff. But don't you worry your pretty little heads; I'll be ranting again soon!

P.S. Watchmen review here.

Reasons Why I Lose Faith In People, #379

I am sometimes amazed at the stupidity of people. I really shouldn't be. I should know better. But every so often I kinda forget about how intolerable a lot of people are in this world, until I stumble upon something like this.

Let me break it down for you.

President Barack Obama went to a basketball game and, while watching the game, drank a beer. This is apparently enough to spark outrage amongst some Americans who feel that he shouldn't be acting in such a way. Yes, people are pissed off that the President of the United States of America drank a fucking beer at a basketball game.

Let's forget that Churchill drank like he needed alcohol to live. But to say that just because Obama is the President that he shouldn't be allowed to drink a beer is absurd. Some woman actually called into the radio show hosting the discussion about this "scandal" and claimed that since being President is a 24/7 job, he shouldn't drink because he is drinking on the job. This means that he should never accept any wine, champagne or anything of the sort when having dinner, even with other leaders or dignitaries. This also means that Obama shouldn't sleep on the job, does it not? How psychotic are the people in this country?!

Another woman was angry because Obama was enjoying himself during a crisis. What crisis was happening at that very moment? Oh, just the economic crisis that is pervasive throughout our every waking moments. So, until this is fixed, Obama is not allowed to enjoy himself AT ALL, EVER, because it's just unfair. Brilliant logic. I mean, I know that being President is a 24/7 job and all, but he's a goddamn human being, people! Get over yourselves and let him do something like support the local NBA team! Besides, Obama's endorsement of beer might up beer sales! And then he's HELPING the economy!

This is a short rant because, thankfully, it seems like a small story and I'm not finding huge amounts of people fuming about Obama's beer-drinking scandal. I also don't know if I can actually conjure up anything else to say about this because it is so disgustingly stupid and obnoxious that I almost want to drink away the pain of ever having read it.

And this is another reason why I lose faith in people.

Twits Using Twitter

Before I start, I recognize that since I am not really doing daily blogging, and I'm not focusing on things that happen on the day of my post, that much of what I say is probably going to be considered "old news". That being said, I don't care. Rant, ho!

Last Tuesday, President Obama addressed a join session of Congress. The purpose was to address particular issues, talk about plans to fix them, and how Obama plans to move forward in his Presidency. I am not ashamed to admit that I did not watch his speech. It was largely focused on the economy, and I honestly have no idea how one would fix this situation, so I cannot really weigh in on his plans. All I can say is that I think if bailout money is given that the spending of said money needs to be strictly and unequivocally monitored. No exceptions. Anyway, I didn't watch it, but I don't feel bad about that partially because I am not a member of Congress, nor do I hold any position that requires me to understand the ins and outs of how these things work. Those are things that I expect from, say, my Congresspeople. And that is why I would expect them to be sitting there with their best listening faces on, being as attentive as can be.

Apparently, I thought more highly of our Congresspeople than I should. Numerous members of Congress sat with their heads down, looking at their mobile devices. Fair enough if that happens a few times, especially for important emails. I would NEVER expect to see members of Congress, people that the citizens elected to help run our country, fucking TWITTERING during Obama's speech (and yes, I am well aware of the fact that they call it "tweeting", but I say fuck them, because that is almost as dumb as the word "twitter", but not quite). Apparently Twitter has taken over Congress, as there is even an entire Twitter site dedicated to hosting the twitterings of our Congresspeople.

Let me first address the idea of Congresspeople (and also news anchors) using Twitter. My first response is simply this: Why? Seriously, why are you doing this? What could possibly be accomplished by using Twitter? I thought that Twitter was mostly for self-absorbed teenagers who honestly thought that people needed to know every single thing they did on any given day. But haven't the bases been covered for news shows with forums and blogs? Did they really need to put themselves on Twitter? Are people that desperate for immediate attention? And Congresspeople; what the hell are you doing that requires Twitter? I don't want you to be preoccupied with juvenile antics like this. I want you to do your goddamn jobs. Yeah, it's nice to know that you're doing things like going to a lunch to discuss economic issues, but that's hardly news. You're expected to do these things. You are a member of Congress, for Christ's sake! I'm not going to feel more secure about your activities just because you're telling me you're en route to a meeting. Couldn't you be using that time to call someone important? Email someone? Talk to your family members? This isn't transparency; it's idiocy. It makes you all look foolish. Senator Thomas Allen Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, is twittering links to "Pleasure Beach Pics", which sounds more scandalous than it should. So this is what you are doing during the workday, Coburn? Dreaming about beaches? Thanks for sharing that with me. It was really necessary and helps build confidence in you as a Senator. Good work. You should take the rest of the day off.

Now, back to where this rant started: President Obama's speech. I can't imagine having the balls to even glance at my blackberry while sitting as a member of Congress while being addressed by the President, let alone responding. I'm sure that if I were in that position, it wouldn't seem like as big of a deal. But that is a far cry from twittering throughout the entire damn speech. Who raised you people? How fucking rude can you be? And for WHAT PURPOSE?! Allow me to enlighten you all as to some of what was SO IMPORTANT for all of the citizens at home to read from their Congresspeople during Obama's speech:

"One doesn't want to sound snarky, but it is nice not to see Cheney up there."
-Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)

"Capt Sully is here -- awesome!"
-Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.)

"Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren't going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour."
-Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) (with a message appearing soon after saying "Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer," which brings up OTHER problems)

Those were quotes pulled from that Twitter site that were featured in a Washington Post article. The article also shows how few people were actively following a number of twittering Congresspeople at about 9:50 PM--looking at three member of Congress a-twitter, less than 50 people were following, combined. It also frightens me to think that some of our Congresspeople do not have sole control of their accounts on Twitter, and that a staff member could easily write whatever insulting message he/she wishes from the voice of a Senator or Representative. I'm sorry, but if that happens to you, then it is still your goddamn fault. I don't care if you didn't type the words yourself; your staff should NEVER be able to do something like that. EVER.

So, why are they twittering? What's the point? The article mentions that some Congresspeople did a decent play-by-play of the points mentioned, but I would much prefer to read reactions from members of our Congress that were well thought-out AFTER all of the information has been laid for them, rather than reading their knee-jerk partisan reactions to hot-topic issues. But with the slew of comments that are no more insightful than a note passed during a 9th grade study hall period, one has to wonder if these people are really just totally bored by their jobs. None of this makes me feel better about our government. None of it makes me have faith in the people who are running the country. In fact, this, to me, marks the beginning of the end of days. When our leaders start acting like bored high school kids--especially while being addressed in an important speech about the future of our country, how certain issues are to be handled and policies are to be created-- constantly sending inane text messages, all I can do is expect the worst. We're in a goddamn crisis right now. Get your fucking heads in the right places and stop wasting ANY amount of time, no matter how small, on this juvenile system that you probably think will help your popularity with the youth of America. I am a part of that youth. I want you to set a fucking example, not just for me, but for all the kids in high school who will one day be in charge of things. It's stuff like this that makes me fear for the future.

Edit: And it just keeps getting worse. Twitter founder Evan Williams was asked to go to the White House for a meeting about the economy, while his site makes no money in the states (it sells some ads in Japan, apparently).

Ridiculous Comparisons and Giving Them Credence

This is what Godwin's Law is all about. Obscenely disproportionate comparisons that people think, for some reason, totally make sense, and they do everything in their power to prove that the comparison is golden even though no one in their right mind agrees.

Allow me to direct you to this ridic little gem that the geniuses at The Daily Show put together:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Unusual Suspect

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

If you cannot view that video, let me break it down for you: Reverend Daniel W. Blair and Pastor James David Manning are both afraid of Barack Obama. Why? Well, for starters, Blair thinks Obama is clearly "exhibiting signs of the Anti-Christ". Pastor Manning thinks this is absurd, because clearly Obama is not the Anti-Christ; he's the next Hitler. I shit you not, folks. This is really what these two men believe, and they are spreading word about their theories. First of all, I think it's somewhat hilarious that both men have some sort of clergy title. As if religion needs more nut jobs out there. But, what angers me is their "logic", or lack thereof.

The Daily KOS breaks down the main points of each argument rather well, so I am going to steal that bit from there (my paraphrasing would probably be about the same).

Why Obama is the Anti-Christ

1. People "worship" him.

2. People agree his message.

3. He "came from the sea" (code for Hawaii, apparently)

4. He is swift like a leopard, has the feet of a bear, and has the mouth of a lion

Let's examine these points. I agree that there is a certain amount of Obama-worship that has been going on since the man popped up in the Senate, and it makes me kinda uncomfortable. But hell, look at The Beatles. Even John Lennon said they were bigger than Jesus, and that's because they were to a lot of people. Honestly, I think Jesus needs to have his ego deflated just a tad. He can't always be number one. OK, so there's that, the fact that people follow his message, which is seriously a dumb thing to say when you're talking about policy and change. What, we're not supposed to support people in politics?? Then there's the "came from the sea" thing, which, again, makes no sense. Perhaps he doesn't understand where Obama was born, or what Hawaii is. Someone should buy the man a plane ticket. And lastly, my favourite of all his points, is the whole physical description of what the Anti-Christ looks like. Let's say I bought into all of the other points, for the argument's sake. HOW does that last point make any amount of sense? Someone also buy the man some glasses... or perhaps a straightjacket, as he is clearly out of his fucking mind. Also, he's calling Obama a leopard-bear-lion. Is that supposed to be racist?

Why Obama is the next Hitler (Godwin, it's time to weep)

1. America is in dire economic straits, just like Germany was in the 1930's.

2. Obama is an effective speaker.

3. Obama is a bisexual. When pressed for comment, Manning said he had "no empirical proof" of this.

I didn't really know to laugh or cry at this point in the segment, because I didn't think I would hear anything that was more retarded than Blair's crazy religious rhetoric. I was so very wrong. Again, let's cover each point. Yes, America is in dire economic straits. Sure, Germany was having it's fair share of issues in the 1930's, too. That hardly makes us EXACTLY alike, or even alike enough to be the basis of a comparison. Next, Obama as a speaker. Again, this is where I kinda side with the guy for a brief moment (with the very edge of my pinkie toe, and that's it. Then I run away, screaming, and collapse in a sobbing heap on the floor of my shower while scrubbing at my toe, my intermittent cried of "IT WILL NEVER BE CLEAN" echoing against the shower walls.). It's the whole Obama-worship thing that creeps me out, still. It's like people will practically crush each other to death in order to be within a mile of him when he's speaking. It's a bit terrifying, I admit, but it's Obama-mania, and I believe The Beatles did it first. And now, onto my favourite point: Obama is a bisexual. Bisexual, like bicycle, but "rolling on both ends, of the sexual spectrum". Oh yes, kiddies, that feeling you're feeling is that of horror mixed with the joy of a thousand unicorns jumping over rainbows. It is so deliciously absurd that there's almost no way to comment about it. I want to make a joke about it, but I can't because it is already so fucking funny. Alright, so now that I've laughed until I have vomited, let's examine this assessment. Obama is bisexual, just like Hitler. Oh wait, I almost forgot. Obama is also a PIMP. So, Obama is a bisexual pimp, just like Hitler. Now, a quick google search indicates that there might be a smidge of truth to the assertion that Hitler was bisexual (though I see nothing that indicates he was a pimp). However, I haven't seen anything that is conclusive. Please do correct me if I am wrong about that. I admit that I don't do a lot of Hitler research because, as mentioned in my first blog entry, I am a Jew and that shit kinda creeps me the fuck out. Anyway, so maybe Hitler was bisexual. But Obama? The fact that this Manning character admits to having no proof already indicates how crazy he really is. What the hell is he basing this assertion off of? His stellar gaydar? Does that even work with bisexuals? I don't really know, my Jewdar has never really worked and my gaydar has been on the fritz. I'm afraid of adding more -dars.

It's fair enough if these guys don't like Obama's policies, or just hate the guy because it makes them feel pretty. But making these obscenely outrageous comparisons to not only instill fear in the people idiotic enough to believe them but also cast Obama in this supreme evil light is offensive and intolerable. I'm especially disgusted with the Obama/Hitler comparison. Those three points are the basis of the comparison? I think that Obama's policies are incredibly different from Hitler's in the way that they do not involve racial extermination, genocide, concentration camps, saving the "pure race", or invading and taking over our neighbouring countries. Those are big fucking differences. I just read a transcript of his interview on Hannity and Colmes (which, by the way, is the biggest joke in editorial television. Colmes is a puppet, and Hannity is the one running things. It is in no way balanced, which is what the show, as well as all of Fox News, claims to be), and it was appalling what the man said about Obama, and even about the black community. These people bring such ire into my heart that I can barely even rant about all the things that are wrong with the statements made. But, I digress, yet again.

The next part of this is might seem hypocritical in a lot of ways, but it is also something that The Daily Show touched upon in their video: the notion of giving these people credence. I know that it makes for excellent television, to have such reactionary and blatantly insane people spewing their bullshit all over the place, but to host these people on shows that reach millions of viewers is irresponsible and absurd. Regardless of how much the hosts argue with these guys, there will be no swaying them. They are maniacal. They are too far gone. And all these news shows are doing is helping to spread their spiked Kool-Aid throughout the land.

I refused to link to Blain's blog, or any site that either of these men directly contribute to because I don't want to help them in any way. Yes, talking about them might cause some of you to google them and read more about their views, but people are lazy and I am hoping most of you won't care enough to give them those extra hits on their webpages. Additionally, I am a newcomer on the blogging scene and I have very few readers, so my sins of writing about this are not so great. The Daily Show gets a pass because they make fun of these guys so well, and also make fun of the real news shows for letting these guys have airtime. The Daily Show is comedy first, news second, so using these guys on the show is brilliant because, let's face it, they are comedy GOLD. But sensationalism in news always attracts a crowd, and these people will always get airtime because of it. The sad thing is that they think it empowers them, and in some ways it does. We need more people to strip them of their self-righteousness if they are going to be allowed on these shows. The Daily Show is pretty merciless in portraying these guys as outright whackjobs. Because that is what these guys are, and they should be treated as such, not as distinguished guests on a show that is meant to encourage (or at least pretend to encourage) serious political discourse.

Hedwig and the Angry Inch, plus a pre-rant

I have written up my review of Hedwig and the Angry over at my other blog. It's a rock musical. There's drag. Just go read the review and watch the damn movie.

I really should be asleep right now, but here's my teeny tiny little preamble for the rant that will probably come within the next 24 hours: people seriously need to learn how to make decent comparisons. It's like how people always Godwin arguments. The only times such extreme comparisons should be made is when the situation itself is similarly extreme. I mean, it's like saying a VW bug is exactly like a tank because they are both vehicles. Perspective, people. Please go get some.

More on this later.

Oscars and The Maltese Falcon

I wrote up my review for The Maltese Falcon here. It is an excellent film, and I want you all to see it. Go check out my review for more information.

Speaking of great film, let's talk OSCARS a bit. I was underwhelmed by Hugh Jackman's performance last night. I expected Mr. Tony to be singing and dancing all over that stage, but all I got from him were two musical numbers, one of which was pretty weak (though conceptually cute and adorable). I didn't need him to explain to me how films were made, either. I felt like he was almost useless up there. Sure, he's absolutely lovable, and I thought he was endearing, but I literally forgot there was a host for most of the night. And his one moment for making me actually happy he was hosting was totally ruined by the addition of Beyonce to the musical number. I need to say this: ENOUGH WITH BEYONCE. Seriously. Not only is she mediocre, at best, but she's overused. She was tacky and brought the whole number down. I wanted to see Christina Aguilera up there, instead. She has a superb voice, and she has that classic style down pat. She would have elevated that performance, and probably wouldn't have moved around the stage in Beyonce's patented seizure-esque style. And then, we had the kids from High School Musical (the couple I refered to as "Zac Efron and that hussy from High School Musical"). High School musical should not be represented at the Oscars. I thought the Oscars were meant to celebrate outstanding achievements in film. Then again, I guess I could be considered a hypocrite as I loved Judd Apatow's short. However, I think there's something to be said for comedy at the Oscars, whereas I don't think that trashy kid flicks need to be shoved in our faces in a desperate attempt for the Academy to attract the younger demographic (someone shoot whomever decided to let that guy from Twilight onto the stage, please).

Other than that, I liked the format change. I liked how they had five previous winners of each actor category saying wonderful things about each nominee for the same category. It was really touching and heartfelt. I preferred seeing each person's face as they were being spoken about rather than seeing them try to act humble during the "view these clips" bits and the extreme close-ups on their faces so as to capture the losers' bitter resentment. It was sweet in some ways, not so great in others. I think Steve Martin and Tina Fey should host next year's Oscars. They are an amazing comedic team. I adored them. Ben Stiller and the Seth Rogan/James Franco team tied for second. Also, I need to give a shout-out to Queen Latifah, who was wonderful (as always), and who gave such a beautiful performance during the "In Memory Of" segment.

Overall, it was nice but it wasn't grand. I think Jon Stewart did a better job as a host, but a lot of people got sour due to his brand of humour. Hugh Jackman could have been great if he were actually PRESENT during the ceremony. Oh, but here's the overall thing for me: Slumdog Millionaire rules, Danny Boyle is adorable, Sean Penn won because of Proposition 8, and Penelope Cruz needs to be my new best friend. Thank you, and goodnight.

Oscars 2009

I have posted about my top 6 Oscar picks over on my other blog. I'm looking forward to watching the show, but I am avoiding the pre-Oscar orgyfest of fashion chat. Honestly, the economy is in the toilet, and the last thing I want to hear about is which overpriced designer made Angelina Jolie's dress. These people represent such a small percentage of Americans who can actually afford to waste money on a new ball gown every year. I am lucky enough to have a single ball gown that I have worn three times in my life. It is timeless and gorgeous. I would never replace it. And I can guarantee you that it cost a small fraction of what the dresses on the red carpet cost. I know, I know-- some of them are just "borrowing" the dresses. But you have to be of a certain class of people to get away with "borrowing" a dress from a superfamous designer. And the dresses are borrowed so as to gain publicity for the designers... but who can afford their clothing right now?

It's not like I love looking at the pre-show fashionfest any other time, but now that we're in such an economic sinkhole, I like it even less. I just felt the need to ramble about that a little bit. I will be honest, though; I do love me some fashion disasters. Let's hear it for another Bjork appearance, please?

For a play-by-play of what I was thinking while watching the Oscars, I kinda improvised my own live blogging at my other blog. Check it out.

Belated Introduction

I suppose I should set this place up a bit before I write more of the same.

This will be a place for rantfests, movie reviews, and TV show chats. A place for whatever I want to talk about on a given day. A place that hosts things potentially edgy. You might not agree with all of my views. And that's fine by me. But this is a place for my views. Comment on them if you'd like, but I don't intend to write your views in my posts.

Also, I think I am going to use my other blog, http://cantankerouspanda.wordpress.com/, strictly for film/TV show reviews. I will probably still post those reviews here, but I figured I'd streamline them elsewhere.

Steve Harvey and Al Sharpton are RACISTS

Anyone who lives in America knows what kind of ridiculous economic crisis we are facing. A lot of Americans think that these "stimulus packages" are a huge waste of money, and will only make things worse. As with any political discourse, there are plenty of satirical jokes and comics made about the economy and such stimulus packages. I ask you all to take a gander at this gem from the New York Post:

What do you see? Do you see an implication that the people who wrote the stimulus package are as wild and crazy as that runaway chimp that got shot last week? That the brains behind this supposed answer to our economic woes are just of the same ilk as the rest of the monkeys running D.C.? Do you see that in this comic? Because that's what I see.

If you saw it like I did, apparently we are SO WRONG, and probably racists.

According to such brilliant minds as the ever-charming Reverend Al Sharpton, and the culturally-important Steve Harvey, this comic is all about racism. It is showing white cops shooting a black man. Yes, a black man. Specifically, President Barack Obama. And it is so blatant that we would be fools not to see that. Because, according to Rev. Sharpton and Mr. Harvey, this comic is about Obama's stimulus package and the fact that black people are often derogatorily referred to as monkeys. Now I know there's a case for this in history, sure, but this is a stretch. I have to be afraid of comparing people to monkeys, now? Oh, wait, not PEOPLE-- BLACK people. White people can be compared to monkeys, but if there's even a hint that the person in question of being ape-like is black, then it's racist. I read this comic with the racism context, and I still failed to see how one would look at it and automatically think the artist was being racist. I mean, unless you were racist yourself. Honestly, if the first thing you think about when you see that picture is, "This is a clear representation of racism, because obviously the monkey is meant to be a derogatory way of depicting our black president," then I believe that you are already there. I have seen countless images of President Bush as a monkey. Not drawings of a monkey with the implications that it is Bush, but monkeys with faces that are meant to look like a caricature of President Bush, which makes it much more blatant and offensive. But those are totally acceptable because he is white.

I will concede that it might have been insensitive to not pick up on the fact that people might offended by it. I do think the backlash is overkill. How are we meant to move forward? What is equality? I can't call stupid actions "ape-like" for fear of people projecting racism onto my statement? I can't say "monkey see, monkey do" about a black person for fear that Al Sharpton hears about it and calls me a racist? Where is this equality? Fair enough if you think the artist should issue an apology, but calling him a racist is, to me, too far. It's one thing to be intentionally racist. It's another to make a poor judgment call. That's all I think this is.

I know that there's still a TON of oppression (and, as a Jew, I know oppression), but I am so tired of the ridiculous politically-correct guidelines that have been established due to oversensitivity. I cannot possibly see the black community as "equal" if they do not see themselves as "equal". There are too many rules to follow. The "N word" is a great example. I can't even type the word for fear of backlash, yet I listen to it used left and right in rap songs, by black people on the street, etc. I hear "we're taking it back" as an excuse. It's ownership of the word. A way to take it from this racial slur and make it into something that is no longer offensive to that community. Except, it's exclusive. Only black people can say it. Otherwise, it's racism. I hate to break it to those people, but it's still racism. You're telling me that I'm not allowed to use a word you are using simply because of my skin colour. You use it in front of me. You sell your music to me, where you use the word freely, but if you hear me using that word while singing along to a rap song on the street, I will be in a world of trouble. Where is the logic in this? I don't owe anything to you. I have no reparations to pay. My ancestors were slaves, too. My people are still oppressed. But, I am white. Therefore, the rules still apply to me, because of my skin colour, and I must pay dues to the black community while one of their leaders refers to New York City as "hymietown" (old reference, I know, but I can't believe Jesse Jackson is still taken seriously on racial issues after that).

I just took a long pause in typing this because pretty much my entire family told me that they don't think I should post this. They think I will have a huge backlash. They think it's not a good way to start my blog. I have to ask why? Why do I have to be concerned about writing a blog discussing how I think the black community is overreacting about this comic? About the fact that I don't see it as racist because, honestly, my mind didn't make that connection? Will I be called a racist for this? Oh, probably. And that's what's so infuriating to me. I can't even talk about how these cries of racism are out of control without be called a racist myself.

Back to the issue of equality, it's a complicated issue. How am I supposed to relate to black people when I feel that there are different rules when relating to them? I mean, I have to be on guard just in case I say something offensive. Don't compare anything they say or do to monkeys, got it. But how far do I take that? Now I'm nervous about mentioning that ANYTHING is like a monkey. Will they think I am saying that with racial connotations? Well, shit, I just mean a person is literally acting like a monkey!!! WHAT DO I DO?! If a black person called me a monkey, I would hardly think it had anything to do with racism. Why does it have to be racism when the reverse occurs?

I can't feel like black people are equal when I have to relate to them differently than I would anyone else. I think these PC rules help to perpetuate racism and inequality. I'm not saying that we should all be running around using the "N word", because that IS a racial slur, and no matter how many rappers try to take it back and make it their own, it will always be a racial slur. I hate bigotry and I try hard not to offend people. But it's these scenarios that make me feel like we're moving backward instead of forward. Can't people just say "That really looks bad, you should remove it" instead of calling the guy a racist? Do we have to take things to such an extreme, involve so much hatred and animosity, and drive us further apart?

I need to bring this to a close. I don't want more racism or bigotry, but I think people need to stop being too sensitive about this stuff. Honestly, I think this went too far. I'm not saying that I can't comprehend why people would see it as offensive, but I don't think that this guy was actually trying to be racist. I think the monkey comparison was how most people use the term "monkey": to mock the intelligence of others. I don't read this as a view of a racist, and I really wish we could all take a step back and calm down before we start condemning others for their actions.