Big Hollywood is a fairly new entertainment blog whose stated purpose is to offer a right-wing perspective on what is generally considered a liberal industry. I hadn’t paid any attention to it until recently, when I stumbled across Alexander Marlow’s review of “The Hurt Locker” and was gobsmacked — not because it’s negative, but because it’s negative for illogical reasons.

After explaining what an epigraph is so he can use the word “epigraph” without confusing anyone, Marlow writes this:

If you are to the right of Bill Clinton, all you need to know about “The Hurt Locker” is its epigraph: “War is a drug.”

Incredibly, the mainstream media is trying to position “The Hurt Locker” as politically neutral. The mainstream media are dense. “War is a drug.” Drugs are bad. Thus, war is bad. This is a left-wing film. End of story. Witness the first five seconds of the movie and read the epigraph; if you still have the audacity to trumpet its neutrality, you should be committed to an insane asylum or the newsroom at MSNBC.

Do you see the logical flaw there? The complete quote that serves as the film’s epigraph is this: “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” The point is that war, like drugs, can be addictive. The quote does NOT say that drugs are bad, nor has the film at this point said that war is bad. That’s all Marlow. Most people would agree with him about drugs, sure — but it’s not what the epigraph says. By his own reasoning, Marlow could just as easily have written:

“War is a drug.” Drugs are illegal. Thus, war is illegal.

Or:

“War is a drug.” Drugs are expensive. Thus, war is expensive.

Both of which are also true, at least in some cases, and both of which ALSO aren’t what the author of the quote was talking about.

It may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but Marlow is the one who stakes his whole case on this. After all, the film starting with the statement “war is a drug” is “all you need to know” about it. So we should probably interpret the statement “war is a drug” accurately, shouldn’t we?

Continue reading…

For fun, sometimes I like to read the letters to the editor published in the Deseret News (in Salt Lake City) and the Daily Herald (in Provo, Utah). These papers have a lot of readers who are uptight, self-righteous, and/or insane, and like most uptight, self-righteous, and/or insane people, they are eager to broadcast it. Here are a few letters from recent days.

Deseret News, May 31:

I’m sure I won’t be the only reader responding to your article on profanity. I couldn’t believe the first sentence about “beating the crap out of …”

Perhaps you don’t think this word qualifies as profanity. That is inexcusable. Especially considering the subject of the article. If this word was used to shock those who read the piece, it is no different than screenwriters who put such words into movie and television scripts.

Barbara A. Lyman
American Fork

Barb employs two of the hallmarks of the self-righteous letter. First, she says she’s sure she won’t be the only one to complain — in other words, “Surely my opinion is widely held! Surely I am not in the fringe!” Then she says that if you don’t think “crap” is profanity, that’s “inexcusable” — in other words, “If you disagree with me, YOU are the wrong one, because this is a black-and-white issue with a clear-cut right answer, and I’m right.”

Continue reading…

I wrote a little piece of satire. Tell me what you think.

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.

Hilarious, right? Except wait — I didn’t write it. Blogger and pundit John Hinderaker wrote it, and not as satire. He was being completely serious.

What? Bush never gets sloppy when he speaks publicly? He almost never makes verbal blunders?! I’m living in a cuckoo clock! I thought even Bush’s supporters acknowledged that yeah, he ain’t the most eloquent speaker, heh heh. Part of his folksy charm and all that. Collecting examples of Bush’s mangling of the English language and general gaffes is a cottage industry. (Here’s a fun list of them!)

I understand supporting an unpopular leader until the bitter end, no matter what. But you’re supposed to do it by accentuating the leader’s positive aspects, not by pretending the negative ones — particularly the most famous ones — don’t exist. I mean, when people stick up for Bill Clinton, they focus on America’s strong economy and general prosperity during his administration. They don’t say, “It’s too bad more politicians don’t follow in Clinton’s footsteps by being morally upright family men who never cheat on their wives!”

The specific reason Hinderaker brought it up is a stretch, too. He was responding to an incident last week where president-elect Obama spoke with Polish president Lech Kaczynski on the telephone. Afterward, Kaczynski reported that Obama had told him the missile-defense project would continue. Obama’s people responded that actually, Kaczynski had raised the issue but Obama had made no commitment one way or the other on it. Hinderaker assumes that Obama spoke ambiguously to the Polish leader, not choosing his words carefully, and hence the confusion. There are several other equally plausible explanations, but Hinderaker disregards them. From there he goes to Obama being a poor speaker in general and not nearly as polished and eloquent as Bush. Whisky tango foxtrot?

Five years ago, a Utah senator suggested amending the U.S. Constitution so that instead of requiring presidents to have been born in America, foreign-born naturalized citizens could be eligible too. The idea never got much traction, but it did create a brief controversy in Utah, where it brought the foreigner-haters out of the woodworks.

I wrote a column about it. I made the point that simply letting foreign-born naturalized citizens be eligible for the presidency doesn’t mean one would ever actually get elected. I wrote:

“Do you honestly think anyone with an Arabic name or ethnic look about him could ever be elected president in this country? Please.”

And now, only two election cycles later, we have elected as president a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

I’ve never been happier to be wrong!

It’s interesting to note how many other elements of that five-year-old column came into play this year. I mentioned that one of the objections some people had to foreign-born U.S. citizens running for president was that a Muslim terrorist could come to America, become a citizen, win the White House, and destroy us all! Which actually sounds like some of the crackpot ranting you heard a lot of in the earlier stages of Obama’s campaign.

I’m glad that in the end, all the nonsense didn’t matter. I think most of the people who didn’t vote for Obama made that choice based on perfectly valid reasons such as not liking his tax plan or preferring a candidate with more political experience. My general feeling is that the ignorant voters — the ones who couldn’t get past his name, or his race, or some other molehill that they made into a mountain — were relatively few.

There is reason to be upbeat even if you didn’t want an Obama presidency. Obama has unquestionably inspired more enthusiasm and optimism, particularly among young people, than any candidate in recent memory. And as any political, business, or military leader can tell you, positive morale among the rank and file can make all the difference in the world between an operation that slugs along inefficiently and one that hums with energy and vitality.

Obama has been elected by a constituency that is genuinely passionate about him — and, by extension, about America and her potential. People who were once apathetic or cynical about government have found a reason to be interested and hopeful. Increased hopefulness and positive thinking is good for the country, regardless of who inspired it.

I don’t think they will follow Obama blindly. The honeymoon will end, the daily grind will settle in, and even Obama’s supporters will find they don’t agree with him on every subject. The point is that we love our president. We’re proud of him. We like what he stands for. We like the idea of him representing America to the world. It’s been a long time since we’ve been able to say that about our leader.

Just this once, I’m going to ask that there not be any thread-crapping in the comments below. If you didn’t support Obama and are grieving over his election, please keep it to yourself in this thread. Let’s let the rest of us enjoy it.

The only thing worse than a stupid person is a stupid person who thinks she’s smart. This woman, a crazy-eyed Virginia voter who is basing her vote on whoever “has the most faith in the Lord” (and that’s just the tip of the iceberg), has a smug, self-righteous look on her piggy face that makes me want to slap her.

[UPDATE: The video has been removed from YouTube. It was from a PBS segment, and you can watch it here. This woman comes on at about 8:30, but start at 6:10 to see her husband discuss his own views much more rationally.]

A transcript:

PBS: What’s the most important issue for you in this election?
TRACY KERLEE: The one that has the most faith in the Lord.
PBS: That’s make-or-break for you.
TRACY KERLEE: That should be make-and-break for everybody.
PBS: And when you hear people saying, “Well, we understand your faith, but what if you’re gonna vote against your husband’s interests as an American worker?”
TRACY KERLEE: The Lord will take care of us. That’s the way I look at things.
…
TRACY KERLEE: I can’t imagine having a president of the United States named “President Obama.” I really have a problem with that. And I am not the only one.
PBS: Because that means what to you?
TRACY KERLEE: His background. A mother that was a atheist. Oh! That really gets to me. A father that was a Muslim. That should get to EVERYONE.
PBS: And when Barack Obama and his wife Michelle say, “But we’re faith-based, we’re Christians”?
TRACY KERLEE: The church they were members of? That’s not the Christianity I know. That’s not the Christianity that’s in the Bible.
PBS: And so for you, you are firmly decided.
TRACY KERLEE: Definitely.
PBS: And what do you say to your husband, who is still on the fence?
TRACY KERLEE: I will pray for him. He knows what the right decision is.

There’s some political silliness in this week’s “Snide Remarks.”

And speaking of political silliness, below are Sarah Palin’s two “Saturday Night Live” appearances from this weekend, once in the opening sketch and once in “Weekend Update.” The show didn’t really require her to do much (which is smart, since she’s not an actress or a comedian), but what she did do, she did well. Good for her. (The show earned its highest ratings since 1994, so good for “SNL,” too.)

This week’s “Snide Remarks,” including the audio version, is here.
The audio version (i.e., the podcast) is also here.
Subscribe to the podcast’s feed with this URL.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned it before, but political humor can be tricky. Comedy is entirely subjective anyway, and introducing politics into it just makes it more likely that one person will laugh while another doesn’t find it funny (or, in some rare and tragic cases, even realize you were trying to be funny).

No one feels the brunt of the rancorous political season worse than the candidates themselves, and that’s why it’s happy-making to watch these clips from last night’s annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City. In election years, the two presidential candidates traditionally are invited to speak at this event, and it’s become a sort of “roast,” where they can crack wise at one another’s expense all in the spirit of good fun.

McCain’s segment is broken into two parts, followed by Obama’s in one. It does my heart good to see them not only making some very good, very clever jokes (they had speechwriters, of course), but to also see them laughing at each other’s jabs. It looks like honest laughter, too, not the fake kind you do because you have to. Like I’ve always said, a good joke is a good joke, regardless of who the target is.

And they’re both funny! They make fun of themselves, of their public images, and each other. Why can’t McCain be this loose and energized in general? His routine here is snappy, animated and smooth. Obama is more deadpan and doesn’t have quite as polished a delivery as McCain. As for the overall quality of the jokes themselves, I’ll call it a draw.

Here are the videos, after the jump.

Continue reading…

Here is what the state of Alaska’s legislative commission found regarding Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, whom she allegedly fired because of his reluctance to dismiss a state trooper that Palin wanted gone for personal reasons:

- Palin did not violate any law in firing Monegan. As governor, she had the right to fire a cabinet member for pretty much any reason she wanted.

- Palin DID, however, act unethically, and she abused her power as governor.

That’s two separate findings. Did she break the law? No. Did she abuse her power and act unethically? Yes.

Now here’s Palin’s reaction to the report:

“I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.”

No, dummy. You were cleared of any legal wrongdoing, but NOT of unethical activity. Yes on one, no on the other.

REPORT: Sarah Palin acted unethically.
PALIN: I’m very pleased that the report has cleared me of acting unethically!
REPORT: Did you even read me?
PALIN: I’m so glad the report supports me! I love the report!
REPORT: I don’t support you.
PALIN: See? So much love and support.
REPORT: I don’t even know why I bother with you.
PALIN: Maverick! (winks)

It would be one thing if she said she disagrees with the report. But to say that the report says the OPPOSITE of what the report actually says — who does she think she’s fooling? As Rachel Maddow, MSNBC commentator and part-time K.D. Lang impersonator, says in this clip, that’s not a difference of interpretation. That’s just a lie.

In the comments below: people posting examples of other politicians stating the very opposite of what is true, because that makes it OK when Palin does it.

This weekend, as I was skimming through something I’d TiVoed back in April, a commercial caught my eye. Oregon’s three leading Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senator’s seat were having a debate, and the local news was pimping it as the lead story that night. What caught my attention was the fact that the candidate standing at the middle podium was substantially shorter than the other two. That made me pause my fast-forwarding. Then I saw that this shorter candidate ALSO had a hook in place of his left hand.

Why did no one tell me that one of Oregon’s senatorial candidates was a dwarf with a hook for a hand?!

His name is Steve Novick. He narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to Jeff Merkley, who now faces the Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for Oregon’s senate seat. I didn’t follow this primary very closely, and I never watch TV news (or even TV commercials, thanks to TiVo), so while I knew the name Steve Novick, I had NO IDEA he was a hook-handed dwarf.

Why was this not mentioned in every news story about the election? How could I have read (or at least skimmed) so many newspaper articles about the campaign and still never know that Steve Novick is 4′9″ and has a steel hook where his left hand should be? I probably would have voted for him on that basis alone!

Apparently Novick himself has made joking references to his unusual physicality, which is cool. All I’m saying is, he needs to do it more often. Get the word out! Let people know that a vote for Steve Novick is a vote for a tiny man who is partly made of metal!

Right to the point: The reason the talk shows and “Saturday Night Live” haven’t made fun of Obama much isn’t that they’re all liberals who can’t stand to make jokes about their guy. It’s that Obama hasn’t given them much to grab on to.

Bill Clinton was a gift to comedians: overweight, Southern, and promiscuous. It didn’t matter that the writers and performers generally supported him politically. A joke is a joke, and Clinton gave them plenty of material. Likewise, you had Al Gore the stiff robot, followed by Al Gore the environmental crusader. There’s always been Ted Kennedy the fat drunk. Meanwhile, plenty of Republican politicians have gone unscathed simply because they weren’t colorful enough to make fun of.

Most of the political humor on these shows isn’t really about politics. It’s about personalities and appearances. Think back to Dana Carvey’s legendary portrayal of George Bush on “SNL.” Did it have anything to do with the president’s policies? Nope. In fact, all there really was to it was a repetition of some of his catchphrases and a vaguely accurate impersonation of his voice. They were lucky they had Carvey, who could latch on to those things and run with them.

Obama is more problematic. As far as his speech goes, he says “uh” a lot, but that’s not much to go on. His voice and delivery are not marked by a particular accent or style. “SNL” has Fred Armisen playing him, but he’s not very good at it yet. He hasn’t found his “wouldn’t be prudent” or “not gonna do it,” to name Carvey’s main Bush-impersonating tools.

Continue reading…