About the Reviews

If you scroll down a little, you’ll notice I’ve started doing movie reviews. Or, well, I’ve started doing reviews of movies that don’t necessarily suck, and have been released more recently than fifteen years ago.

I feel I have to explain, because it might not be overtly evident. There will be two different kinds of reviews: The first is longer, and will usually be for older movies that are probably really fuckawful. These are more for the purpose of mocking the movie, really, than anything. The second is shorter, and will probably be for newer movies of varying quality. These will be more along the lines of reviews you’d find in a magazine, and are for the purpose of providing judgment on the quality of the film.

Rude Pundit’s Contract With the American Government

The Rude Pundit had a great idea last week on his site: a loyalty contract for those who claim to be supporters of the Bush administration’s policies.

You can find a gussied up version of the contract over with the Stashman, or mirrored on my site here.

Pass it around, post it on your blog, stuff it under the windshield wipers of your conservative neighbors. Let’s call them on it, see if they’re willing to be subject to the demands and domestic espionage of the administration they claim to support.

The Rude Pundit’s original post is quoted below the fold:

Continue reading

Personal Economics (i.e. Give Me Money)

It has come to my attention that people actually, uh, send money to David Gonterman.

It’s time for me to disclose an embarrassing fact: Nobody has ever donated money to me at all for my work on this site. Not even when I offered the “free signed print with donation” thing a couple months ago. Yet, in the last two months, Gonterman has gotten fifty dollars.

I’ve noticed recently that my traffic has gone up significantly over the last few months. If it goes up much further, it will break my bandwidth limitations. Bandwidth is not free, and I’m not the one consuming all of it. And as much as I enjoy writing, and providing all this content to everyone (and taking the time and effort to make sure that the final product contains almost no errors in grammar or spelling, which is more than can be said for most mainstream sites), if it starts becoming a financial burden for me on my temp worker’s pay–WHICH IS, AHEM, NOT NEARLY AS LUXURIOUS AN INCOME AS ONE MIGHT THINK–, I may have to consider, well, not providing that content.

In other words, I am poor. If every one of my approx. 1,500 monthly unique visitors were to send me a dollar each month, it would exceed the monthly income I receive from my regular job. SO, UM, PLEASE DO THAT. The address is there. You may not think it worth your while to mail a single dollar bill, but it TOTALLY IS. And those who donate enough will receive a special drawing as a token of thanks or something.

I’m also going to go ahead and point to the left of the page, to the DONATION button below the nav. You can also use that to donate, though PayPal, I guess, takes about ten percent of each transaction. I’ll be moving that button further up the page to a more prominent location soon.

In addition to that change, I am now accepting proposals for advertisements. (Contact me at etjabberwock(at)gmail.com if you’re interested.) I have yet to figure out definite prices, but I’ll have that worked out soon. The ads will run to the right of the content, in the space, well, right over there –>

Now, I don’t want to shit in anyone’s cereal, here, and I’d prefer to keep the site free from advertisements, but if nobody wants to donate, that’s how it’s going to have to be.

Don’t want to see ads? Donate a few dollars to buy some empty space. If I get enough money from donations, I’ll put up an “empty space ad”.

I’m still puzzled as to why Gonterman has been getting money and I haven’t. Do people really like his fuckawful art? Well, if that’s what people like, I’m going to try drawing like him and maybe people will send me money as well:

Review: Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain (2005, Director Ang Lee)

We saw the preview for Brokeback Mountain a couple months ago, and I’ll admit I was moved. In fact, Janet cried a little (again, this is just the preview), and she’s not fond of romantic movies.

I’m not sure how they managed this, but somehow the film itself was less moving than its preview. Truth told, I was a little bored. It’s not that I’m an insensitive person–I’ll admit that I cried a little at the end of Serenity, for instance, and that wasn’t the first or only movie–, it’s just that the film didn’t allow for much of an emotional connection.

I think a large part of the problem was the soundtrack. It had more of a “playful pets trying to find their way home” feel than a “forbidden love between cowboys in a homophobic society” feel. At the moments that were supposed to be more emotional and moving, the accompanying soundtrack seemed to say, “aww, the little kitten is going to get rained on while finding his way back to his family”. That’s not to say the music was bad; I liked it on its own, but it just seemed inappropriate to the subject.

Of course, the subject–other than the inclusion of the element of homosexuality–wasn’t anything new. In fact, for most of the film, it was pretty standard “forbidden romance with secret affair”-level stuff that we’ve all seen a few hundred dozen times in other romance films. It was good, but ultimately still just regular old drama.

Then there were the characters. Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, came across as annoyingly forceful and a little obsessive. He certainly didn’t care much about anyone but himself. The attitude was understandable when applied to his frigid southern-belle-of-the-county-fair bitch of a wife (Anne Hathaway) and her overblown-ego jerkoff parents, but it extended all the way to people he actually claimed to love. None of the actions he took in the film seemed to serve any other purpose or to work toward any other goal than fulfilling his own desires.

Heath Ledger‘s character, Ennis Del Mar, was also annoyingly self-serving and cold, but not as irredeemably so as Twist. What surprised me about this film was that there seemed to be no kind of inner struggle in Twist or Del Mar over the choice between family and each other. Even Del Mar, the more appealing of the leads, came across as some kind of monster in relation to his family. Despite having brought two children into the world with a faithful, loving partner (Michelle Williams), he seemed willing to drop her–and his kids–like a used condom whenever the opportunity arose. Even if he wasn’t attracted to her at all and she was only a beard1, you’d think he’d have some feelings for her, or at least for his kids.

The entire emotional scope of most of the characters’ motivations and behaviors seemed oversimplified and grotesquely muted at its best moments and borderline silly at its worst.

While the makeup (and facial-hair growth) was done well enough to make everyone seem to age appropriately throughout the film, there was a moment near the end when a supposedly forty-something-year-old Del Mar and his daughter are talking in a trailer, and I thought to myself, “wait a minute–he’s only ten years older than she is”. Though, now I’m just nitpicking.

Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. It was good, but not nearly as much as I’d expected. And there has to be something wrong when the preview moves someone to tears but the film itself does not.

1A pubic wig; slang for the heterosexual wife of a homosexual man who is trying to disguise his or her sexual orientation.

A Letter from Josh to the Apathetics

Dear Apathetics,

I’m beginning to lose my patience with you. I’ve heard you say things like “I really don’t care who the president is”, and “I don’t pay much attention to politics”.

Well, hey, I’ll switch you paychecks.

I know many of you apathetics make a lot more than I do. I know because I’ve worked with some of you, and I’ve seen postings for things similar to your job descriptions, and the pay range given is maybe three or four times what I, as a temp, make. Oh, uh, for doing just about the same job.

So, you don’t care who’s in charge of decisions regarding the economy? You don’t care what happens to programs that help people in need? Well, fine. I’ll give you my ~$14,000/year income, and you give me your ~$35,000/year one. ‘Cause, see, I actually give a shit what happens in this country.

I find it appalling that I should have to be punished for your apathy. I mean, okay, fine, I know you’re busy, and I know the news is confusing and all, and it’s hard to take the time to separate the bullshit from the spin from the real accounts of events, but we’re talking about something far more fucking important than Billy’s soccer practice or Susie’s flute lessons. If you can take twenty minutes a day for Starbucks, then you can take twenty minutes a day to pop onto the internet and do a little reading.

And if you don’t care, then, fine. Just give me your paycheck–don’t forget to endorse it–, and I’ll give you mine. After all, you don’t care, and I do. If you don’t care who makes decisions about the economy and wages and such, then you obviously don’t care what you get paid. So you could easily make the shit wages I do, and it wouldn’t bother you at all, right? And, see, I actually care–not just about myself and my own crappy financial situation, but about the situations of others. I don’t really have anything to give financially, of course, but I do take the time to write, which is something I hope will make a difference somehow. It’s a lot more an effort, anyway, than you take to educate yourself on current events.

I say that everyone who claims not to care about politics should switch incomes with a homeless person or someone with a poverty-level yearly income who does care.

You know, there are a lot of things worse than reading the goddamned Guardian U.K. once a day.

Sincerely,
J Crowley

Revisionist History and the Path to Scifi Dystopia

“There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11. I’ve never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq.�

- George W. Bush, 12/16/05

Okay, so I’m a little confused now: How come, then, whenever anyone would ask a question about the war in Iraq, Bush would bring up 9/11? And why was it a central point in many of his speeches? I mean, this has gone on for years. And how come Cheney actively reported in interview after interview that there was a link? And what about the investigation that’s taking place into the upper ranks of the Bush administration regarding the leak of the name of a covert CIA operative to discredit the findings of a man sent to Africa to investigate (and, as they hoped, validate) a report of a link between Saddam, al Qaeda, and 9/11, whose report was unfavorable to their desired conclusion? And how come Bush would sometimes even swap out the name “Saddam” with “Osama” in some of his speeches during the last election?

So anyway, revisionist history of things that happened only a couple years ago, we have always been at war with Eurasia, we have exceeded in our estimates of boot production, Mission Accomplished, yadda yadda yadda. Don’t tell me you didn’t see this coming.

Question: What’s an easy way to deal with people you don’t like, when you control the White House, the Congress, and (very nearly) the Supreme Court?

Answer: Declare protesters and other non-violent but politically-threatening organizations and groups to be “threats”, even though they’re not doing anything illegal. Oh, and it helps if you start passing legislation like the Patriot Act, which can be fairly ambiguous about “threats”. Currently, any citizen deemed a “threat” to national security by the president or AG can be detained.

See, here’s what creeps me out about all of this: I’ve read a lot of books about dystopian futures, and this is always the kind of shit that the characters talk about when they remember things first starting to go wrong.

What has to happen before we finally remove them from power? Hopefully, we’ll have the courage to fend them off before they strip away our ability to do so.

So who wants to bet I’ll be added to the threat database for saying that?

Sony Patents Doublethink,

Embeds Rootkit in Software for Oceania’s Telescreens “[T]o Protect Copyright”

This website has an interesting article up about a recent interview with a Sony executive.

Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios president Phil Harrison has claimed that Microsoft’s Xbox 360 “doesn’t have true HD functionality,” saying that consumers seeking a HD experience will have to wait for the PS3 to arrive.

Hmm, a Sony executive dismissing the Xbox 360 and saying the PS3 will be better, nothing unexpected there. But what is this about not being true HD?

“As you well know,” he continued, “the Xbox 360 doesn’t play high definition movies and doesn’t have true HD functionality – PlayStation 3 is the only format that has 1080-progressive, which is the true definition of HD, so it’s really premature to be talking about the HD era.”

1080p is the true definition of HD? Then, why did you lie to us when you advertised your TVs as HDTVs? Here is an example. That TV only does 1080i, which isn’t true HD functionality. Are you going to recall these TVs, or simply refund everyone’s money for false advertising?

Of course, you now have a few HDTVs that display 1080p (KDS-R50XBR1 and KDS-R60XBR1). But then read this article. That’s right; your 1080p HDTVs can not accept a 1080p signal on any of their inputs. What’s the point? So the PS3 can output 1080p, which then must be converted to 1080i, and then converted back to 1080p. Why not just output 1080i in the first place?

It would be interesting to see if Microsoft would go after Sony. On the one hand, if they claim HD means 1080p, they can be popped for false advertising. If they then claim that 720p and 1080i can be considered HD, then perhaps they could be popped for libel (or the product equivalent?) against Microsoft for the comments on the Xbox. Either way, I hope they go out of business soon.

Another Episode Of The Unquailing Fighting Spirit of the Democratic Party in the Face of Injustice

The quotes you are about to read are real. The name of the source has been changed to protect the guilty.

“If Bush actually pulls this out and wins, I’m taking to the streets and protesting for the next four years straight. It does appear so far that this election was relatively free and fair, so the claim that he stole the election cannot really be made this time around — well, let’s see how the provisional ballots go, actually — but I still can’t stand that smirky bastard.”

–J. Random Democrat, Nov 2004

“I think Roberts is the reward the Democrats get for giving Bush hell over several other high-profile nominees. Roberts may be annoyingly conservative, but he’s being appointed by a Republican — that’s how it goes. He’s certainly not as horrible as Owens or Brown, as far as anyone can tell, so I think he’s okay.”

–J. Random Democrat, Jul 2005

Tune in next time, when they lose the midterms again and Congress illegalizes divorce.

Tookie Update

I guess vengeance is far more important than whatever anti-gang influence he might have had in the future.

America: Where punishment of one is more important than the well-being of many.

Update: By the way, with this and the results of the special elections this year, everyone say “hasta la vista” to Schwarzenegger 2006. And good riddance.

(Link thanks to Wattly in the comments, since I was too lazy to look it up myself.)

The Breathtaking Graft Adventures

If Bush does not end up in Hell when he dies, I am entirely uncertain as to what it is for.

Some of you might be thinking – oh, he’s going to talk about Iraq. Let’s touch ourselves.

No. Iraq is a complicated issue. We will get to that some other time.

What I am talking about is the simple fact of the matter: Bush is a charlatan and a thief. I hear ‘idiot’ a lot, and it makes me angry. Man isn’t an idiot. Man is very clever.

Whenever Americans hear Bush talk, we are conditioned – if we disagree with his policies – to imagine Bush as a simpleton. ‘He has no idea what he’s talking about’.

A little history: Nixon was the last honest Republican. We would remember him much as we remembered the man under whom he was vice-President – inoffensive, avuncular, with a few unfortunate, atavistic tendencies, but not a terrible President – if he had not been a peerless asshole and a psychopath. Nixon was not systematically out to fuck anyone in particular.
On the other hand, Reagan was a trojan horse: the ‘Great Communicator’ was a buffoon who was more than willing to blow the dust off of his acting skills and dance around the national stage spouting whatever lines a rightist cabal felt like throwing at him. He was not the clever man we remember him as. He fucked up a lot, and he did not clearly understand his asinine economic policies. (And if Bush Sr had not been a miserable, simpering lap-dog, he would have made that more obvious.)

And now we have Bush. Is Bush a trojan horse? You bet your ass. But not the kind Reagan was. I am genuinely convinced the Gipper did not have a damn clue what the greater ramifications of his mind-blowingly stupid public policies were. (And if he had suspicions, he was trained not to act on them.) Bush, on the other hand, is a clever man. A well-educated man. A career businessman and a lifelong political flotsam. (His daddy was director of the CIA, Vice-President, and President – you pick up a few things.) When we talk about his business endeavors, we like to imagine someone who was put in a position of power in a big company by his daddy and was too dumb to run it without the same bailing him out.

Bush has had a lifelong education engineering fraud. He has learned how to fuck up in such a way that people come to his rescue and nobody brings him to call. And he has been doing that for a decade now. Half a decade in Texas. Half a decade in Washington.

Reagan might not have known what the effects of a top-heavy tax cut would be, or what the effects of a ballooning military-industrial complex would be. He might not even have understood Iran-Contra and the other nonsense going on in his administration. He was given lines and he delivered them.

Bush knows what the effects of his tax cuts are. Bush knows what Halliburton et al are up to.

He knows he is a puppet. And he knows he is being used for evil. He does not care.

That is what makes graft – which you’re going to see in any administration to some degree – into Breathtaking Graft. With every previous president, it was an embarassing necessity. Bush is a willing and knowing accomplice in the fleecing of the American people in the interest of the interests, and if his administration is not the most corrupt we are to see in our lifetimes, then the American republic is well and truly damned.