2004 Election Analysis | College Football Ratings | College Basketball Ratings | Archive | Atom Feed

Cocoon of Fear

Official Battlestar Galactica Blog


Other interesting stuff

Ace of Spades HQ
American Copywriter
Atrios
Becker/Posner
Thomas P.M. Barnett
ColdHeartedTruth
College Football Ranking Comparison
College Basketball Ranking Comparison
Conservative Perspective
Country Store
DailyKos
Daly Thoughts
Everything I Know is Wrong
Editorial Cartoons
Freaking News
Christopher Hitchens
In the Loop
Iraq the Model
The Knight Shift
This Liberal
The Longhorn Mafia
NCRepublicans.com
NEWSBUSTERS
The North Lot
The Onion
The Prejudicial Effect
Protein Wisdom
Random John
Reactuate
RealClearPolitics
Red State
Riding Sun
Tar Heels

My Ecosystem Details













Pajamas Media

North Carolina Bloggers















Saturday, December 25, 2004
HOLLYWOOD: THE REAL "GRINCHES"

I'm sitting here, with the wife and kids, being subjected to the festering sore of a movie that is the Ron Howard/Jim Carrey version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."

Without a doubt, this is the worst Christmas movie of all time...worse than "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"...worse than "Jingle all the Way"...in fact it's worse than all twenty-four hours of the twenty-four hour "Jingle All the Way" marathon on FX.

This movie is the worst because it is terrible on many levels, small and large. First off, it is loud, noisy and deliberately disjointed in the way that too many written by committee Hollywood "blockbusters" are produced.

And, like most of those Christmas blockbusters it hypocritically condemns commercialism while spawning a marketing bonanza of toys, greeting cards and plastic shot glasses.

However, what sets it apart, and below, other failed big budget Christmas movies, like "Scrooged," is the way it completely and totally inverts and perverts the whole point of one of the most beloved Christmas stories of all time, be it the original book by Dr. Suess or cartoon by Chuck Jones.

In the original story, which we should all know, "every Who down in Whoville loved Christmas a lot." And, as the ending makes abundantly clear, the Whos love Christmas for spiritual reasons: for love, for family, for all the reasons we want people to appreciate the holiday.

The Grinch, however, hates Christmas for reasons that boil down to his heart being "two sizes too small."

Ultimately, however, after stealing the toys, the decorations, the food, etc., the Grinch sees that the Whos care more about holding hands and singing the praises of the day than they do about the trappings of the day. In short, his contact with the devout Whos, and the example they set, makes the Grinch realize how empty his life is.

And, in the end, the Grinch himself converts to the Who way of thinking.

Of course, modern day Hollywood could have none of that.

So they had to reverse the whole point of the original story.

In the Howard/Carrey film, the Whos are a bunch of pious hypocrites, more concerned with toys and noise that the true meaning of the season. The Grinch, meanwhile, was the victim of their prejudice because he was different, making him hate the holidays.

Ultimately, the poor, picked upon, Grinch by an act of, basically, terrorism (stealing half the town and blowing things up by crashing his flying vehicle into the city) makes the Whos realize what a bunch of selfish, uncaring, SOB's that religious people can be.

Then, with the Whos realizing the error of their ways, and celebrating diversity by embracing the Grinch and his "alternate" views, our furry green hero can successfully re-enter the more enlightened society.

In short, the producers of the film made a Christmas film that is nothing more than a cinematic attack on Christianity.

Talk about trying to "steal" Christmas. By turning a Christmas classic into an attack on the "reason for the season," these studio executives show they are really the ones who have hearts--and brains--that are at least "two sizes too small."


filed by Hank 3:12 PM
|
Friday, December 24, 2004
GOTTA LOVE CAPITALISM

The Associated Press reports on a Portland, Oregon, man who rents live Christmas trees to people who don't want to have to kill a tree:

The Original Living Christmas Tree Company founded by John Fogel, 39, has rented out more than 400 Christmas trees this holiday season, starting at $55 for a 7-foot Douglas fir.

The trees are taken out of the ground, roots and all, put into pots, and delivered to families in the Portland area. Soon after New Year's, Fogel and his crew pick up the trees and deliver them to parks, school districts and other groups who pay around $10 to have the trees planted on their property.

A quick check on prices reveals that it doesn't cost much more in some instances to buy an artificial tree that someone could use year after year for the price of this one-shot tree.

Obviously, however, some people prefer the "real thing," especially one that is still alive, and Fogel is apparently filling the need.

Proving that, once again, the free market solves problems just fine.


filed by Hank 11:26 AM
|
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
BLOG WHIPPING
James Lileks is
especially good today, talking about the latest fad - complaining that the Christmas is being taken out of the "Holiday Season." He notes that in the "Season," Hannukah and Kwanzaa remain. But Christmas is gone, well, from some places. James Walcott, the self-important liberal columnist (but that's redundant) took issue with Lileks' complaints because he heard some folks say "Merry Christmas" in his upper west side neighborhood, and we are all supposed to know what that is - and what it means - because NYC is the center of the universe, and if you live there, the whole universe, the rest of the country be damned in all of its redness. Upper West Side, Upper East Side, who cares, its all an overcrowded hell hole that needs its good restaurants to take people's minds off of their bad decision to live where you can't find real dirt because the whole damn city is paved. But they have government to provide them dirt. They call it Central Park. If you have to get your dirt, leaves and nature from government, I guess it stands to reason to believe that Idahoans need government to tell them what to do with their "land," so they don't run out of real dirt like they did in The City. (I just imagine liberal city-dwellers thinking of "land" as something requiring quotation marks).

Anyway, Lileks administers a righteous bloggacious beating to Walcott. The kind of beating you can only get because of this new technology. It just wouldn't have worked in next month's issue of Vanity Fair or whatever.

And after you've read Lileks, check out Cox & Forkum. Sure, it sounds like some clichéd Jeremy-Diggler "acting technique," but its worksafe and their cartoons are fantastic. Probably the best cartoonists working today. Of course, they aren't syndicated, because the only way conservative cartoonists get jobs at newspapers is by slipping through the cracks. (Hey, Mr. Bradlee, turns out that cartoonist we hired is, well, different.) Anyway, Cox & Forkum imagine Michael Moore going after Santa. Funny stuff. Scroll down and see their dead on take on the "United Nations" (something conservatives should put in quotation marks).

And for more time wasting, do some browsing of the photofraud training grounds over at at Worth1000. I bet these guys could have Dan Rather reporting on martians landing at the White House, if they wanted.

And one more thing. Surely, James Lileks must know that Chris Columbus wasn't Iberian, but Italian (or Genoese). I suspect he'll get email.

filed by Winston 1:29 PM
|
HOPE AT CHRISTMASTIME
The New York Times columnist
David Brooks sees a lot of hope in the Middle East, allegedly f'd up by President Bush's liberating war in Iraq.
How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?

How did we get to this moment of odd unity in Israel, with Labor joining Likud to push a withdrawal from Gaza and some northern territories? How did we get to this moment when Ariel Sharon has record approval ratings, when it is common to run across Israelis who once reviled Sharon as a bully but who now find themselves supporting him as an agent of peace?
In that old Vulcan proverb, if only Nixon could go to China, then maybe only General Sharon can give birth to a democratic Palestinian state.

Things could turn out remarkably well or horribly bad, but we are in a better position now than we have been in years, even if many partisans want to be wilfully blind to that fact.

filed by Winston 9:34 AM
|
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
NEW YORK ELECTORS VOTE FOR WRONG GUY
They cast their
31 electoral votes for "John L. Kerry". Who's that?

And one Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards for President.

filed by Winston 10:23 AM
|

School drops sex-ed class; Parents riled by abstinence-only theme

ITHACA--According to the Ithaca Journal , "the Lansing Board of Education has barred an abstinence-only presentation from its middle school."

According to the article, opponents of the program "argued that a focus on marriage could upset children from nontraditional families."

The opponents also argued that "the organization's Christian affiliation was inappropriate for a public school." The program is organized by the Ithaca Pregnancy Center, "which is sponsored by more than two dozen area churches."

Apparently, some parents find the program's "waiting for marriage" theme to be "devisive."

"It should be taught as a health choice, not a moral choice" in the public school, said Marlaine Darfler, mother of a Lansing High School sophomore. She said she would prefer a program that focuses on teaching eighth graders ways to say no to sex.

However, the Journal reports, "the organization uses skits -- such as people passing around a half-eaten piece of chocolate or drinking out of the same glass of water -- that are intended to be funny while also driving home messages about the health risks of sexual activity."

According to the article, the program is taken to as many as 10 public schools a semester, "normally without incident."

So, basically, now "waiting for marriage" is an "offensive" concept?


filed by Hank 9:21 AM
|
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED
In a recent column in The Hill (sorry, no link) Dick Morris argues that you are deluding yourself if you think that Hillary Clinton is not electable. But the more interesting thing is that the only white male Republicans that can beat her, can't get the nomination (in Dick's opinion). Rudy Giuliani is too liberal on social issues and John McCain has just pissed the party off one too many times. Not to mention is wrong-headed approach to the First Amendment.

And the only Republican who can get the nomination and beat Hillary is a black woman. Condoleeza Rice. Maybe Dick Morris is wrong (he's been wrong before). But did you ever think that a serious political analyst would argue that the only person who could get the GOP nomination and win the election is a black woman?

filed by Winston 8:56 AM
|
Monday, December 20, 2004
2008 COMPOSITE BAROMETER
The obsession continues and the
FederalReview 2008 Nomination Barometer has been updated. Hillary still leads. Rudy and McCain are neck and neck. We've added the Republican/Democrat head-to-head generic. No surprise - neck and neck. Bush's approval is slipping, but he remains above 50%.

You may notice that your favorite candidate is not listed. Candidates get listed only when they show up in a poll. That's why Obama is there, but not Bill Richardson.

filed by Winston 11:05 AM
|

Who links to me?