Charlie Sheen's managers are two of the producers of the Saw films

I'm sorry, I'm sure this makes me a bad person, but the truth is I'm enjoying the Sheen meltdown just so much more since I realized that. Now it makes sense. This whole thing is just karmic payback for Saw 3D sucking so bad and so loud.

Especially since one of the manager/producers in question is the one generally blamed by obssessive fans like me for killing the series-rightly or wrongly; I don't want to get into that and you don't want me to either.

(That manager is also the one about whom Sheen allegedly made anti-semitic comments. Which I in no way condone, of course. Fucking up my most-loved recent film franchise is one thing, but I see no reason to bring a man's ancestry or culture into it).

So it's come to this

Oh, fuck

Robert Reich on why Barack Obama is going to lose the election in 2012:

Shortly after the Democrats' "shellacking" last November, I phoned a friend in the White House who had served in the Clinton administration. "It's 1994 all over again," he said. "Now we move to the center."

As someone mentions in the comments on HuffPo: That's great--as long as he remembers that "the center" is somewhere to the left of where he is now.

...many in the Obama White House have concluded that the president should follow Clinton's campaign script -- distancing himself from congressional Democrats, embracing further deficit reduction, and seeking guidance from big business. If it worked for Clinton, it must work for Obama -- or so it's supposed.

If you remember, this is exactly what I was afraid of.

Say, in case you've been wondering what Keith Olbermann thinks about the doings in Wisconsin...

...when you accomplish all this by parliamentary trick – after your national party has spent two years and more decrying Congressional reconciliation – when you deny the minority the right to participate in the outcome whether by compromise or protest, you cut through the cacophony of political-speak in this country and you transmit your sneering indifference towards democracy to ordinary citizens who do not normally pay attention.

...the Republicans have overplayed their hand in a way that seems startling even for them, and they shall inherit the proverbial wind.

.

I'm sure Steve Ditko and Stan Lee will be glad to hear that

Julie Taymor has been removed as director of the troubled Spider-Man musical. I have nothing to say about that, not having seen it. However, this paragraph in an NYT article (linked above) on the subject did catch my eye:

“Julie’s an extremely sensitive person, and she has always felt like a mother to her plays, a mother to her characters,” Jeffrey Horowitz, a friend and artistic director of New York’s Theater for a New Audience, said Wednesday. “This is like a mother being taken away from her family. She loves that family. She wants that family.”

Mr. Horowitz, repeat 3,000 times:

They're not her characters.

They're not her characters.

Geena Davis is wrong.

Davis, the actress perhaps best known for "Thelma & Louise" and the failed TV series "Commander in Chief" in which she played the president of the US) gave a speech last month in which she criticized the stereotyping of female characters in films and television.

"Gender stereotypes remain deeply entrenched in today's entertainment and there has been no significant progress over the last 20 years," Davis was quoted as saying at the gala held at UN Headquarters by the Agence France Presse.

I wasn't sure if I agreed with that, so I went to look at a list of popular films of 20 years ago, in order to compare them with those of today. What I found saddened and surprised me. Turns out, it's not merely that there's been no progress.

There's actually been a decline in the presentation of non-stereotyped female characters in films and television over the past 20 years. Check this out. In 1991, these were some of the most popular films of the year:

"Silence of the Lambs," with Jodie Foster as the FBI trainee matching wits with Dr. Lecter.

"Terminator 2: Judgment Day," with Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, one hell of a female role model as far as I can see (as was Lena Headey, in the same role, in the much-missed-at-least-by-me TV version).

Then there's Disney's "Beauty and the Beast," in which care was taken to make Belle more than just the beauty of the title, but well-read and outspoken as well.

This brings me to “The Addams Family." Well, that whole movie is about people who behave in ways which the mass of their culture find unusual or odd (and don't care that they do).

The women certainly aren't left out of this. Morticia (Angelica Huston) may be, as she defines herself in the sequel, "...just like any modern woman trying to have it all. Loving husband, a family..." But the way in which she tries to have it all is, shall we say, outside the realm of what is considered normal.

And Wednesday Addams (Christina Ricci) is a deeply weird child; I mean that in a good way.

So that's movies. And who were women television watchers finding on their sets 20 years ago?

Women like Roseanne, Clair Huxtable, Murphy Brown, Jessica Fletcher, The Golden Girls, Lisa Simpson. Even the female students on "Head of the Class" (who were, by virtue of the show's premise, by definition exceptional young women).

Powerful woman characters all--whose shows may or may not have ever explicitly invoked feminism--I'm honestly not sure--but were feminist all the same. And check out that demographic spread!

Before I go on, I wanna go back to Davis' speech for a second.

"What message are we sending to girls if there are so few female characters. If the characters are devalued, stereotyped, sidelined or simply not there at all," Davis said.

Remember that, as I move onto looking at the most popular films of today: Now I have to admit upfront that I haven't seen any of the current top five. If you have, and I'm wrong about what I'm about to say, please write in.

But I see a lot there that evidently either have no female leads, or limit them to girlfriend/romantic interest/wife parts. "...devalued, stereotyped, sidelined or simply not there at all."

As for popular contemporary TV?

I see shows that are willing to showcase talented women...but only if they sing. Not if they are committed to an ideal, even if that ideal is their own intelligence. I see shows with admittedly popular female characters...that nevertheless are subservient to men in their jobs. I see a show whose whole premise, as I understand it, was about two men raising a child without a woman. I see a show about "Desperate Housewives." I see the show "IJust Wanna Man!" excuse me, "The Bachelor."

But mostly, I see I see shows with women who are mostly young, white; white-collar, and successful. As compared to the variety in the 90-91 batch cited above (with the possible exception of "Mike & Molly").

(Even "House," which I think used to have some pretty good images for women, has either driven those women away or drained them of their strength.)

So what's the answer?

Darned if I know. I just know...it saddens and surprises me.

Let skeptics among you be reminded, Kimmel is Sarah Silverman's ex-boyfriend.

Who are we to say he couldn't really attract hotties if he didn't have a TV show with his name in the title?



But ok, so maybe this isn't that funny.

Not that I can blame them, in this case

Have a look at this Toronto Star piece on Arizona and Utah's race to be the first states to designate Official guns.

What’s next? Will crime-ridden Louisiana adopt the MAC-10 machine pistol, firing 1,000 rounds a minute? And how about Sarah Palin’s beloved Alaska, with its 1,500-pound coastal brown bears? The Marine Corps M72A7 anti-tank rocket, perhaps?

You know, I'm not sure, but I think the Canadlians just might be mocking us.

Stay well, Roger. We need you.

Roger Ebert reviews Hall Pass, a movie I had no intention of seeing, and have no intention of seeing, but may be worth existing just for inspiring his review:

It is perhaps hard-wired into men that their eyes should be constantly on the prowl. Maybe it's an evolutionary trait, and our species has developed it to encourage the sowing of human seed in many fields. Women, by contrast, have evolved to be sure their mates gaze in admiration at them alone and nobody else. There's a famous story by Irwin Shaw, “The Girls in Their Summer Dresses,” about an estranged couple who decide to make up. They go for a stroll down Fifth Avenue, but break up all over again because the man can't prevent his eyes from straying. He loves his mate — yes, he really does — but you see the girls are so pretty in their summer dresses.

WTF else do you know who makes literary references in the middle of a review of a movie by the same makers as the Goodbye Girl remake?

The plot of the movie is meh. It involves the lads and their posse being cycled through several unsuccessful and quasi-slapstick situations showing their cluelessness, immaturity and how women easily see straight through them. Meanwhile, the wives and their posses have a great time on a getaway retreat. Women seem to get along perfectly well when set free from men, but men seem uncomfortable without women. It probably all involves which gender has the greater need to be reassured.

God bless you, Tennessee.

I take back everything I ever said about you. No really, I do. I know, you think I'm being ironic because of that whole Tennessee Stage Company/my play, "The Girl in the Boat" thing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

I take it all back: You know, about Tennessee being insane and all. I have decided to take this step because I've realized how much I should really appreciate you. You're always there for me whenever I want illustration of how republicans are, by definition, big flaming hypocrites.

Case in point:

Tennessee Jumps on the Anti-Sharia Bandwagon

While a number of other states have filed legislation seeking to keep Sharia out of the courts, Tennessee is going one giant step further by attempting to outlaw it entirely.

(emphasis mine-BV)

Senate Bill 1028, introduced by State Sen. Bill Ketron, gives the state Attorney General authority to designate "Sharia organizations," defined as "two (2) or more persons conspiring to support, or acting in concert in support of, sharia or in furtherance of the imposition of sharia within any state or territory of the United States."

Hm. That seems un....something. Oh darn, what is it, it's on the tip of my tongue...oh yes: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." (again, emphasis mine)

The bill states its intent is not to outlaw free religion, or the practice of Islam. It claims that Sharia presents a real threat to Tennessee.

Trust me on this one: I pose a more real threat to Tennessee.

Tennessee is just the latest in a string of states to consider anti-Sharia legislation. But unlike in some other states, where the language in the legislation avoids explicitly mentioning Sharia by name, Tennessee's bill goes so far as to call Sharia "treasonous" and incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (Once again...ok, you get it).

This may be the part of this I most dearly love. They've devised an excuse to violate the Constitution on the grounds that this thing they've invented is incompatible with the Constitution. Beautiful.

Tennessee....I really just have to just stand back in awe. Thank you, Tennessee. For the love...for the laughter...For the Boys.

There's an AP story going around today about "Obama's Shifting Stance on gay marriage."

A couple things I feel compelled to comment upon.

You likely know how I feel about the overarching issue. In a few words: Full legal rights. Now. This is a position that has the dual advantages of being one, right, and two, growing in popularity.

Opinion polls show a steady rise in Americans' embrace of gay rights, and young voters solidly back positions their grandparents opposed, including gay marriage.

But as ever, I am left speechless (well, almost) by the statements of the anti-gay marriage politicians...although I suppose the larger point is that there are fewer of them:

Five or so years ago, Obama's decision might have touched off fierce Republican criticisms. But reaction Wednesday was comparatively sparse and muted from mainstream GOP groups and individuals.

Still:

One exception was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an evangelical minister who is considering a second try for the presidency.

"I think it was an absolutely boneheaded political move, and I think it was a boneheaded policy move," Huckabee said in an interview. He said Obama seems to say, "I don't answer to the voters."

Read the very first quoted paragraph in this post again, and then read that Huckabee quote again. See the first problem? Second problem is, last time I looked, we don't elect politicians to do exactly what the majority wants on every issue.

We can discuss whether that's good or bad, but we don't. We choose who we think is the best person (ideally), and if we don't like how they do the job, we fire them. That's how they answer to us. Not by being passive instruments of our will.

Incidentally, here are a couple of things in which Mike Huckabee believes with which a majority of Americans disagree:

Evolution. Huckabee doesn't believe in it. As of last year only 40% of us agree with him.

The Bible. Huckabee believes it is literally true. Not only is that belief shared by only one-third of us, but more of us could name the ingredients in a Big Mac than could name all 10 commandments. (Personally, I couldn't do either. I'm a Buddhism-influenced person, and I prefer Burger King).

I'm sure if Huckabee were to be elected president (a scary but unlikely thought) we could count on him to set policies which "answered to the voters" on those issues, aren't you?

The AP piece continues:

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Obama cares little about the Constitution...

Except for the 12 years he spent teaching and lecturing about it, of course.

Again: Though surely we can disagree about how he interprets it, to just blithely assert that he doesn't care about it? The President?

This is the sort of thing that makes me think Republicans show up to a battle of wits half-prepared.

This is turning out to be a more popular feature than I imagined.

That's right kids, it's time once again for another episode of...

"Who's searching for me now?"

Tonight's contestant comes to us from an IP Address for something called Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) in Brooklyn, New York, here in the great USA. To my knowledge, I do not know anyone in Brooklyn, New York.

But whoever this is, he, she or undecided (and with some of my friends past and present it's hard to tell) found this blog by Googling my name; stayed around for almost eight minutes and did at least some searching of my posts from the last few years, finally leaving after looking at this open letter to Elizabeth Hurley .

Do you suppose it was Miss Hurley, her cleavage, or my usual sort of useless witty remarks that drove them away?

Good ole "man on dog," always associating himself and his party with honor...

This just needs to go viral as widely and as fast as possible.

One for the '80s electronica lovers out there

It was John Hughes & Molly Ringwald's birthday recently, and I should've taken note, (among other reasons) because their movie Pretty in Pink brought me OMD.



Who remain one of my favorite groups; I love this song from their recent reunion LP. The video's really fun, too; full of "souvenirs"...how many can you spot?

On the positive side, this makes me think about Michelle Obama's breasts. On the negative side, it also makes me think about...

...In her latest comments, Bachmann slammed First Lady Michelle Obama's move as part of her physical fitness campaigns, plus decisions by the Obama administration proper, to promote breastfeeding.

"I've given birth to five babies, and I've breastfed every single one of these babies," Bachmann said. "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies..."

Proof yet again that conservatives should never try to be funny

It's just not their métier.

Andrew Breitbart, at it again?

The conservative blogger – who is at the center of a lawsuit over a video his site posted depicting a government official as racist – now has a cartoon on his Big Government site portraying First Lady Michelle Obama as a plump, hamburger-scarfing glutton.

In the cartoon, posted over the weekend, the First Lady is sitting at a dinner table with President Obama.

"I've stepped up my efforts to control America's eating habits by telling restaurants to lower portion sizes and fat content," a double-chinned Michelle Obama says, referring to her anti-obesity campaign, which celebrated its one-year anniversary last week.

I've seen one or two people comparing this to the hay that was made from Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, in the '80s. Thing is, people who made fun of that did so because they felt it was an overly simplistic slogan that didn't take into account the realities of addiction as a sickness. IIRC, that was usually made clear by the comedians who made fun of it..

Cartoonists James Hudnall and Batton Lash' motive, however...well we have to consult the article linked above to know that because otherwise there's no way we would, based on the work. But they say they're making fun of the First Lady's anti-obesity campaign because

"We find the 'do as I say, not as I do' approach of the Obamas hypocritical and ripe for ridicule. The First Lady seeks to enforce healthy eating on the nation, while indulging on snacks in public appearances," said Lash, pointing to the recent White House Superbowl menu, which included deep-dish pizza and buffalo wings.

I suppose there might be a case to make for that. But I also feel that the cartoon is both unfunny, which may be a matter of personal reaction, but at least as importantly doesn't make that case. I defy anyone to tell me that's what they got out of that cartoon, like it or not.

Also I think Lash, sadly, apparently misunderstands the difference between enforcing and encouraging. So far as I know, no police are raiding homes because children reported their parents for eating hamburgers and pizza.

Unlike what happened in the Reagan '80s with one or two stoner parents. I'm just saying is all.

What the hell kind of a sick, fucked-up list of movie dragons doesn't include...

Toothless Fish Plz by *BellaNique on deviantART


...or the dragon in Dragonslayer?



This kind.

Rebel, Rebel

Shirley Sherrod is suing Andrew Breitbart. And while I wish her luck, part of me feels in a perverse way that we ought to thank him, as well, for reminding us of how the Obama White House, which just loves to piss on its progressive base, well, when a dirty right-wing flack like Brietbart says jump, they say how high?

I'm sorry, on your what?

Heidi Montag: I Blew Millions On Music Career

Sometimes, it is about how you say it

...social scientists at Tufts University's School of Arts and Sciences have found that outrage talk is endemic among commentators of all political stripes, but measurably worse on the political right.

Hands up, the first person who's surprised. But wait a minute.

Granted that these folks are scientists and I'm not, the example they give of "outrage talk" from both the left seems to me to be at least flawed, and maybe even totally incompatible with the example from the right

Those examples are

"Whether it’s MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann spitting out his coffee because of some conservative transgression or radio host Michael Savage venomously impugning the character of immigrants, cable television, talk radio and blogs overflow with outrage rhetoric, and even mainstream newspaper columns are not above the fray," they said.

Well, as I say...wait a minute. Keith Olbermann spitting out his coffee (it's called a Spit Take, o bright sparks of Tufts Uni) is by definition an attempt at a comedic reaction. We can discuss whether or not it succeeds as comedy in any given case, but a person who uses the spit take is at least trying to be funny. I would argue they're not even being satirical, but (more importantly) they're certainly not spewing venom. Just coffee, I guess.

But Savage, on the other hand...well, take a look at the most recent handful of quotes as tracked by Media Matters, just as some examples. Forget whether or not you agree with what he's saying, that's not my point (and if you're reading my blog, there's like a one percent chance that you do, anyway). Look at how he's trying to say what he's saying. Is he even trying to make a joke? Forget failing/succeeding, is he even trying?

My point is not that Keith Olbermann has never said anything that went over the top, rhetoric-wise. He has and he's been quick to admit it. My point is, rather than spotlighting the finding that the right is considerably meaner than anything on the left, these scientists appear to have thought they had to tie their own hands by assuring us of their finding, "Oh, but the left is mean too!"

Well, no wonder that's their finding...if they're counting a spit take in the same category as Michael Savage saying that immigrants expect free education, that they are to blame for the bedbug epidemic (and that leprosy, tuberculosis & cholera will follow in their wake). And yes, both of those are real.

It's that old demon bugaboo false equivalence, and unfortunately, it is very, very...President Obama. I do not think we will ever rise above this tragically dark cloud until we accept the truth that when we are talking about vitriol, we are talking, overwhelmingly, about the right.

This is not to say that no one on the left ever has their little slips of frustration, either (including me). But with the right, I think, it isn't little slips. It's their everyday mode of discourse, 24/7.

But of course, I'm not a scientist.