Friday, February 27, 2009

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:




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.
  1. People agree his message.
  1. He "came from the sea" (code for Hawaii, apparently)
  1. 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.
  1. Obama is an effective speaker.
  1. 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.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

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.

Monday, February 23, 2009

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.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

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.

Friday, February 20, 2009

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.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

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.