They shouldn't have called him Uncle Sam. They should have called him Uncle Chester, because then we could call him Chester the Molester, which is what our government does to its citizens every April 15th. I just finished my taxes and as usual, I'm debating joining some terrorist organization just to get even with dear old Uncle Sam. As I flip through the want ads in Jihad Monthly, I figured I'd ask a few poll questions.
Senator Barbara Boxer is shown shortly before demanding that one of the peasants go get her a bottle of prune juice. I admit to finding Her High and Mightiness a guilty pleasure for me. If Carly Fiorina had defeated Boxer at the polls, we wouldn't be treated to our daily dose of Boxer stupidity. Her latest attack on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-TN) over the Small Business Innovation Research Bill is just another example of her royal ignorance.
Based on a story by M. Night Shyamalan, Devil is a supernatural thriller involving five people stuck in an elevator. What’s worse, one of them is the devil, and he’s come to torment the rest and take their souls. This sounds like an intense, psychological, claustrophobic thriller. And it actually isn't a bad movie. But I just can’t recommend it because it provides a great example of how some movies can be less than the sum of their parts.
The film also has good values and continues a trend where Hollywood is becoming surprisingly respectful of religion. For example, the first character to recognize what might be going on is a deeply religious security guard. And while the other guard tells him he's crazy (a perfectly natural response) he doesn't go out of his way to bash religion. The detective (Chris Messina) also doesn't believe at first, but quickly comes around when the facts start pointing to a supernatural event. Moreover, the story itself centers around themes of redemption and forgiveness, and treats both in a positive light. Indeed, according to the film, seeking redemption or offering forgiveness can save you from the devil.
Finally, we come to my biggest complaint. The devil is one of the most intriguing characters you can jam into a film, and if you’re going to use the devil, then you better have something interesting to say about him. Yet, this movie doesn’t really have much to say in that regard. Indeed, the devil could just as easily have been a serial killer or a vampire without the movie missing a beat. Moreover, the devil comes across as kind of pathetic. For example, why does the devil need to hide his identity? Is he afraid the cops will bust him? And why even bother with this whole affair. These people are rotten and should be in hell a few minutes after their deaths anyway, so why come to earth just to make them fear for their lives for a few minutes beforehand? And why come personally? Does this seem like a good use of the devil’s time to waste a whole day in an elevator killing four people?
Shown is the very sexy Tesla roadster. It is apparently stranded off Cape Cod for lack of an extension cord long enough to plug in and recharge. But damn, it looks so good. In fact I think it's the sexiest little car I've seen since before I wrapped my red Porsche 924 turbo around a welcoming oak tree 25 years ago.
Crypto-communist and former Green Czar Van Jones certainly hasn't gone into hiding since sneaking out the back door of the Obama administration's White House. He's been busy having war councils with the SEIU, practicing his Maoist rhetoric, cozying up to Frances Fox Piven (of "top down, bottom up, inside-out" politics fame), and posting revolutionary diatribes on the Huffington Post. He was in particularly good form recently at the HuffPo.
Nothing exposes politicians more than moments of crisis, especially crises they themselves create. All indications are the Democrats intend to shut down the government in the hopes of benefiting from exploiting the fallout. Why do I think that? Here are five reasons:Agencies that dispense federal benefits, provide inpatient or outpatient medical care, ensure food safety, manage air traffic, protect the borders and coastlines, guard prisoners, conduct criminal investigations or law enforcement, oversee power distribution, oversee banks, deliver the mail, provide earthquake assistance to Japan, Justice Department groups that combat gun violence or drug crime, and medical research at NIH. Also, Social Security payments will go out and Medicare claims will be processed.Yet, somehow, military pay will be delayed? Are you serious?!! Why single out the very people Obama has sent into harms way in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and everywhere else? Because they traditionally vote Republican, that’s why. That’s also why the Democrats try to sabotage military absentee ballots.
ConclusionSo I ask you: is Obama serious about solving this issue or is he playing vindictive cronyism with the shutdown? Are the Democrats serious about negotiating a resolution or are they exploiting this issue to cause chaos for the Republicans and raise money for themselves? Who is being an adult here and who is cynically putting the country at risk and abusing the very people who make this country work?
I guess we should hit this topic since everyone is still talking about it, loathe though I am to even mention it. Charlie Sheen is an almost perfect example of what is wrong with celebrity culture.
By 2008, the Republican Party all but killed itself with big spending, blatant influence pedaling and foreign-adventuring. Obama had a chance to drive a stake through the heart of this un-Republican Party, but he missed. Then, with amazing speed, the Democratic arrogance, missteps and total lunacies breathed life back into the Republicorpse. Now Obama and the Obamacrats are the ones staring at the inside of a coffin. Here are three reason why they aren’t getting out any time soon.On Monday, Obama announced that he would run for a second term. Good luck. Incumbents tend to get a share of the vote roughly equal to their job approval ratings, especially when that approval rating remains consistent over time. Obama’s job approval rating has consistently hovered around 46% for about a year. This is signaling a huge disaster for Obama. And here’s why his popularity is so low:Obama’s Unrivalled Unpopularity
● A full 68% think he’s too liberal (the kiss of death in America).It’s going to be nearly impossible for Obama to rise again when people don’t like the way he handles foreign or domestic policy, when they think he’s a poor leader, when they think he’s too liberal and when they think he’s unethical. What can he possibly do to fix that?
● Only 44% think he’s a good leader.
● Only 37% approve of his (mis)handling of national security.
● Only 34% approve of his (mis)handling of the economy.
● Only 29% think he’s ethical.
What makes Obama’s unpopularity all the more solid is that it’s been earned through a series of bad policies and missteps that continue today and which will continue well into the future. Consider this:Obama’s Policies Continue To Offend
● Obama’s big “achievement” is ObamaCare. The Democrats told themselves the public would warm to ObamaCare once they understood it. They haven’t: 58% want it repealed, only 39% want to keep it. Moreover, (1) 57% of voters know that ObamaCare will increase the deficit while only 17% stupidly expect it to reduce the deficit, (2) only 37% think ObamaCare is good for the country, and (3) 52% think it will make the quality of health care worse. So Obama’s biggest claim to fame is something that almost six in ten voters think is bad for the country, bad for medicine, and want repealed. I can’t image a worse claim to fame, except maybe being the guy who told Hitler “gee, you should try politics.”It’s no wonder that 69% of voters remain angry at the federal government. Obama’s policies fly in the face of the public’s concerns, beliefs and desires, and unless he completely abandons them and reverses direction, his support will continue to fall. And forget about the public giving the Democrats another majority any time soon.
● After decades of blasting Reagan for “deficit spending,” the Democrats showed what true deficit spending really means, as their binge turned our deficit into a genuine national security issue. The public is in open revolt over this, with 57% of Americans wanting deep cuts even if it means a government shutdown. Yet, 58% believe Obama will try to increase spending. And with the Democrats now pathologically opposing every proposed Republican cut, the public’s view will only harden.
● Yesterday, we talked about inflation. The stock market thinks it’s coming, as does Wal-Mart’s CEO, who fears the public will be quite upset by what is coming in this next year. The current inflation is the direct result of high fuel costs because we don’t exploit the resources we have and because we are burning corn to make ethanol.
So what do you do about that? Well, 55% of Americans want to see the US produce more domestic oil, only 24% oppose that. And 67% support offshore drilling. Another 55% favor drilling in ANWAR. But Obama opposes all of this and has banned offshore drilling along the East Coast and in the Gulf, he refuses to discuss ANWAR, he opposes clean coal, he’s given no support to natural gas, etc. In fact, all he’s done is favor fantasy solar energy and push for more ethanol. Stupid is as stupid does.
● One of the most telling statistics shows that under Obama, the public’s view of its own financial health has been in steady decline. When Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, 43% of Americans said their personal finances were good or excellent. By the time Obama won the White House, this fell to 38%. Between then and now, this number has steadily fallen until it hit a new low of 30% this month. That’s not a number that will get you re-elected.
Finally, I’ve written before how conservative the public really is (check out this chart). This never translated into anything for the Republicans because they haven’t been conservative themselves. But with the advent of the Tea Party, the public’s conservatism is starting to assert itself.The Very Wrong Message
Goldstone lied, people died. I like the sound of that. But you won't hear that from the left or our friends in the Caliphate. South African Judge Richard Goldstone is the United Nations Human Rights Council member who wrote the outrageous "Goldstone Report" regarding Gaza and Israel starting with events in 2008. The pack of lies and anti-Israel propaganda was used by antisemites worldwide to damn Israel for defending itself.
It’s time for a rant. The government tells us there’s no inflation worth mentioning. The MSM, which couldn’t stop talking about gas prices under Bush, reports this mindlessly and somehow doesn't notice that massive inflation is everywhere. And companies are trying to hide the fact they've been shrinking their products. Grrrr.
What the Democrats and Republicans are fighting over right now are additional cuts to the 2011 budget. Hence the shutdown threats. But the real action happens Tuesday morning, when Paul Ryan will release the Republican budget for 2012. This is going to be impressive. Not only does the budget look to cut more than $4 trillion over ten years, but it’s doing it the right way and it has the chance to permanently change the way Washington works.● Whereas Obama proposes freezing spending at its current insanely high levels, Ryan’s budget would return spending levels to 2008 (before the stimulus and the bailouts) and then would cut an additional $400 billion over 10 years. This results in more than $4 trillion in savings over ten years.Naturally, the Democrats are howling, but it's not even worth repeating what they're saying. It's the same old same old about "the rich." Yeah, whatever. If the Democrats ever return to good faith policy making, then perhaps we'll care what they think. Instead, let's focus on what Ryan is trying to achieve.
● Ryan is proposing a statutory cap on discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy! We don’t know the percentage yet, but Ryan said it would return the government to its “historic size.” This is infinitely better than a balanced budget amendment because this ties the government’s ability to spend to how well it makes the economy grow. If this comes to pass, the Democrats would actually be shooting themselves in the foot every time they raised taxes or imposed regulation.
● Ryan is proposing pro-growth tax changes including lowering tax rates to boost economic production. I’ve discussed this before as the best way to stimulate the economy.
● Ryan is proposing broadening the tax base so that more people pay taxes. This is a huge and important change Republicans need to make. I’ve discussed this before as well. This needs to be done to reduce the number of people who get a free ride out of the government and thus think nothing of raising taxes.
● The budget addresses the Medicare crisis by creating a “premium support system,” i.e. vouchers to get private insurance. This makes a world of sense since private insurance is providing care at about 1/3 the cost at which Medicare is providing care. This could result in HUGE savings. Moreover, Ryan is being politically savvy enough to keep everyone above 55 years of age in the current system (for now), which will head off the standard untrue charges that the Republicans are trying to toss seniors out of Medicare. He’s also talking about means testing seniors in terms of how much of the cost of the private insurance will be subsidized. These are excellent changes.
● Ryan plans to switch Medicaid to a block grant system, where the states would have the freedom to design their own plans. This isn’t CommentaramaCare, but still should lower costs by increasing freedom within the system to innovate.
In case you're wondering, I've decided to save time when discussing immoderate Muslims who murder because of real or imagined insults to the religion of peace. Hence, Koran Obeyers Ordering Killing In Every Society (KOOKIES). The KOOKIES first showed up in 2006 after a Danish newspaper published unflattering cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Unfortunately for the murdered infidels, no KOOKIES would ever have known about the insult without local help.
Here we go. Obamacare isn’t even in place and already the left has discovered a horrible, horrible flaw: doctors aren't slaves. As long as doctors have the freedom to choose to forgo the glorious adventure of Obamacare and engage in private practice on their own terms, the system will fail. Why? Because greedy doctors don’t want to work for free. And if they won’t work for free, then Obamacare will bleed doctors until it collapses. What’s a good Marxist to do? How about stopping doctors from escaping the system?● Whined AARP policy director John Rother: “What we are looking at is the prospect of a more explicitly tiered system where people with money have a different kind of insurance relationship than most of the middle class, and where Medicare is no longer as universal as we would like it to be.” Right, because choice sucks and because we can’t have unequal pigs. (Don't forget, AARP gets rich pimping Medicare-related insurance.)What you have here is the ideal system. Doctors are happy. Patients love the plan. It’s cheaper care. It’s better care. So the liberal response is: we must kill it before it exposes the horror that is government-managed health care! That's pretty despicable.
● Squealed Glenn Hackbarth, chairman of MedPac (a commission that studied this issue for Medicare): “My worst fear . . . is that this is a harbinger of our approaching a tipping point. There's too much money [for doctors to pass up concierge medicine].” Right, it couldn’t be that Medicare doesn’t pay doctors enough to be doctors, it must be those evil rich people stealing doctors away. Let’s take away their right to protect themselves from our idiocies.
● Fellow MedPac comrade Robert Berenson called concierge medicine a “canary in the coal mine” and said “the lesson is, if we don't attend to what is now a relatively small phenomenon, it's going to blow up.” Yes comrades, stamp out this capitalist horror now before it exposes the insanity of our new system.
Californians continue on the blind path to fiscal ruin. The Republican minority in the state legislature has worked with the once and present Democratic Governor Jerry Brown on cutting costs. But those cuts so far have been a band-aid on an economic cancer. Having gotten these cuts, Brown then told the Republicans that it's only fair to permanize tax increases passed on a temporary basis to make up part of the previous budget shortfall. The Republicans demurred.
Yesterday, I discussed how the Obama administration considers standardized testing for school kids to be boring and punitive. For those students who were bored and frightened and have now moved into the adult world, standardized testing is also racist. Obama merely made suggestions about testing in the schools, but Attorney General Eric Holder is putting our tax money where his big mouth is to stop "racist" standardized testing for crucial public employment. In this case, a police department.
Pulp Fiction is brilliant. It’s easily one of the greatest films of all time. As proof, I could offer its massive box office totals, its continuing heavy rotation on television seventeen years after its release, or its ability to revive sagging careers. I could point out that its scenes have become iconic, its dialog has entered our lexicon, and no one has been able to mimic the film. Or I could just tell you what makes this movie so special. In a word: manipulation.1. Twisted Clichés: What Clichés?When Quentin Tarantino wrote Pulp Fiction, his intent was to take well-worn pulp fiction ideas and twist them. Hence, you have the hitman who develops a conscience, the underling who must chaperone the boss’s over-sexed wife, the returning POW who tells a boy about his lost father, and the boxer who takes a dive. These are clichés. But we don’t recognize them as clichés in Pulp Fiction because Tarantino manipulates our expectations to turn these into original-seeming stories. In other words, we all know the hitman must kill his boss or die, we never expect him to simply leave the film. We all know the boxer will put up the fight of his life against incredible odds, we never expect him to kill the other boxer with ease. . . and we never expect him to run into someone like Zed as he’s fleeing from the mobster he betrayed. By spinning these clichés off in directions we’ve never considered before, Tarantino gives us a movie based on clichés but which almost no one in the audience will recognize as containing any clichés. That's impressive.
2. Film Chronology: How Does It End Again?From there, Tarantino further spins our heads by rearranging the film’s chronology. We’ve discussed before that the human brain is perfectly suited to reassembling a series of events that are presented out of order. Thus, you know exactly what is happening when I say: peanut butter, eat, knife, bread, lunch. Storytellers know this and often indulge in minor manipulation by presenting something out of sequence, like giving a glimpse of the ending before the story begins. But no one has tried what Tarantino does here. He takes the film and divides it into seven sequences and then reassembles those out of order. In and of itself, that’s highly creative and worth recognition. But he goes further.
Tarantino exploits our expectation that the ending of a film always reveals how the story actually ends. Thus, when Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) leave the diner together at the end of the film, the audience assumes they rode off into the sunset. But that wasn’t the end, and people forget that Jules quits and Vincent gets killed in Butch’s (Bruce Willis) bathroom. Yet, this manipulation allows Tarantino to deliver a happy ending, even though the film had no happy ending. Moreover, while people assume that the conversation in the diner relates to everything that happened in the film, very little of what we saw had happened at that point. For example, Vincent had yet to take Marsellus Wallace’s wife to dinner and Marsellus (Ving Rhames) hadn’t met with Butch yet. Thus, many of the things we assume they are reflecting upon have yet to happen, and we are left wondering if Vincent’s opinions would change after those events?3. Nature of the Film: It’s a Character Study?But manipulating the film’s plot and chronology only scratches the surface of what is really going on. Would it surprise you if I told you Pulp Fiction is actually a character study?
4. Depth & Mystery From NothingTarantino also cleverly uses a series of MacGuffins to give the story depth. As we noted last week, a MacGuffin is a film term for the item around which all the action in the film is centered, i.e. it’s what everyone wants to steal. Yet, the exact nature of the item is irrelevant to the film as its sole purpose is to motivate the characters’ actions. Thus, a bar of gold could just as easily be a diamond. The audience knows this instinctively and doesn’t get too wrapped up in what the MacGuffin actually is. But Tarantino turns that on its head.
Rather than tossing out an object like a diamond or “the process” and telling the audience, “don’t worry about what it is,” Tarantino turns the MacGuffin into a genuine mystery by giving us clues as to what it might be. Consider the briefcase Marsellus sends Vincent and Jules to retrieve. This briefcase glows gold when it opens and people stare at its contents in awe. They also ask if it really is what they think it is, thereby implying something highly unusual. Yet, we never get to see it. And that creates a mystery, which gives the film depth even though the nature of the MacGuffin is entirely irrelevant to the film. Indeed, people almost immediately start speculating as to what it could be. (FYI, many speculate the briefcase contains Marsellus’s soul, which was extracted from the back of his neck. . . I kid you not.)5. Morality: Exposing What We Really BelieveFinally, we come to the most controversial manipulation: morality. Tarantino skillfully exploits two aspects of human morality. First, he realizes our morality doesn't always kick in right away, such as when we laugh at someone slipping on a banana peel. We know this is wrong, but we laugh nonetheless until we can catch ourselves. Tarantino exploits this throughout the film to get us laughing at things we shouldn't laugh at. For example, if you asked people if they would laugh at seeing a man’s head blown off in the middle of a discussion about the occurrence of a genuine miracle, they would emphatically tell you they would not laugh. Yet, everyone in the theater laughed out loud when Vincent accidentally blew Marvin’s head off in the car. The combination of the shock, the comic timing and the characters’ surprised reactions triggered the instinct within us that laughs at the banana peel incident. Some have decried this moment as immoral or as glorifying violence, but if you think about it, we’re the ones with the immoral reaction, i.e. we're the ones laughing.
ConclusionThis is what sets Pulp Fiction so far apart from other films. This film broke new ground in almost every aspect of its presentation. It sold us clichés without us ever realizing they were clichés. It sold us a character study without us realizing it. It gave us depth and mystery without ever saying a word. And it exposed a flaw within us by showing a gap between what we think we believe and what we really believe.
