The Elephant In The Room

Quick thought on why these two have a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected as President, either individually, or on a combo ticket.I know it’s hard to believe, but Hillary is a woman. I don’t care what any poll says, we are not ready for a woman President, and even if we were, she would have to be extraordinary, and extraordinary, she is not. She can’t even keep her husband satisfied. When Americans walk into that voting booth, women as well as men, will not pull the handle for her. I don’t care what her social policies are, she going to have a hard time getting the black vote, no matter how “ghetto” she tries to talk. Hispanics? Good luck. Sorry, but those cultures aren’t real big on women having power, and that’s just a fact. Who the President is, has pretty much zero impact on black and hispanic communities, no matter what Democrats say. I think men in general, even metro-sexual Democrat men, will reach down, do a sack-grab, and vote against her so fast it will make your head spin. I don’t think women of any substance have the least bit of respect for another woman who lets her husband run around like a slobbering dog, let alone vote her into the most powerful job in the world. Of course the media will never even consider talking about this stuff, to them, it’s just a given that we’re past all that. I don’t think we are.

Obama has a similar problem. For a black man to have a realistic shot, he better be extraordinary as well, and he ain’t. Racism will be an insurmountable obstacle for Obama, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. And he doesn’t have enough substance to fight it off.

That’s just my opinion, and we’ll see, but the Dems are living in a dreamworld of rainbows and unicorns if they think they got a shot with these two. And if they run on the same ticket? Even worse. They would lose in a landslide, even to Ron Paul.

Dis-Honorable Mention (Bad Comics part 2)

Back from camping, and just want to finish off my worst comics list with minimal commentary, or dis-honorable mention.
David Cross– Only funny as an ensemble player. His stand-up sucks.
Dane Cook– I must be too old to appreciate Dane Cook, because he ain’t all that.
Kathy Griffin– I used to like her, until her reality show, (yes I watched it, shut up) showed what a nasty person she really is. I believe she would blow a dog in Times Square if it paid enough. Especially despicable because she performed with the USO, and now bad-mouths the war.
Margret Cho– See Ace of Spades.
Andrew Dice Clay– One joke, 20 years.
Whoopie Goldberg-30 years of not bringin’ the funny.
That about covers it for now, I’m sure I’ll think of twenty more as soon as I turn off my computer.
Next, the best.

That’s So Not Funny

Big post at Ace’s about Carlos Mencia, or Ned Holman, or whatever his name is. I love this stuff, because I’m a big fan of comedy, and what’s the point of having a blog if you can’t criticize entertainers? More than a few names kept coming up, so I want to get my two cents in. Here we go, the official “is this thing on”(incidentally, the title of my blog refers to what a comic says when they are bombing) list of the worst comedians:
Robin Williams– So predictable, it’s literally not even funny. He’s been doing the same tired shtick for 30 years. Watching him getting interviewed, is like a form of torture, especially for the interviewer, who has to laugh uncomfortably at Williams frantically throwing 50 jokes a minute at the wall to see what sticks.
Bill Hicks-Probably the most over-rated comic since Lenny Bruce(also not funny). Being dead gives you a lot of gravitas. I recently watched a documentary about Hicks, hosted by another terrible comic, Janeane Garafolo. The tone of the show, was that Hicks was a comic genius who was ahead of his time, and nobody would book him because he was too “controversial”. They showed plenty of clips, and here’s the gist: Rush Limbaugh and George Bush(41), and Ronald Reagan are The Devil. Genius. And he was baffled why no one would book him. Although comedy, like all great art, is based on anger, the trick is to make that anger funny. Blurting out stuff like “Republicans are eeevil!” is just idiotic. Instantly alienating at least half of your potential audience, is not what I would call genius.
Janeane Garafolo-Ugh. She just sucks so bad, I can’t even analyze it. Another comic that can’t separate anger from funny. She rode that “Edgy Grunge Chick” thing for all it was worth, too bad the ’90s are over Janeane. Of course, where do all pissed off unfunny comics go? Political commentary. Which brings me to:
Bill Maher– The only funny thing about Maher is the size of his melon, which is like an orange on a toothpick. It’s like Sputnik, it’s got it’s own weather system! I can steal jokes too. Being a smug, arrogant asshole is inherently unfunny, especially when you look like a Smurf. A complete failure until he went into the safety zone of failures, Political “humor.” That leads us to:
Al Franken-An also-ran for almost 20 years on SNL. While amazing talents like Joe Piscopo and Rob Schnieder sailed past him, Al ran to the promised land of, well you know.

I got more…

Billy Crystal-Most people don’t consider Billy a standup, but that’s how he started, and he’s equally unfunny when he “acts.” You can tell Billy’s probably a total dick in real life, it just ooozes out of him. Another really angry guy, also doing the same stupid Robin-esqe accents and mugging for the last 30 years. Hey Billy, do that hilarious Sammy Davis Jr. impression again. Or the old black jazz guy. Billy’s like the last of the “catskill” type vaudevillians.

I’ll have more, cause this is fun, but I’m goin‘ campin‘ for the weekend.
Also, a best comedians list.

Failed Comedienne To Replace Failed Comedienne On The View

Only in Hollywood can you fail upwards. Whoopie is allegedly replacing Rosie. What is it about failed female comics that they have to go into some sort of political commentary? Rosie, Whoopi, Garofolo, even Kathy Griffin is getting in on the act lately. I actually think Griffin is funny, when she’s not talking politics. Whoopi? Not funny. Not even slightly amusing. If you have ever laughed at Whoopi, you are suffering a severe case of white guilt. I’m not aware of a single “hit” she has ever been involved in. She was sort of the female Rob Schieder in the 80’s, with a couple of semi-successful movies that all had the same plot. Nothing I would call a hit. To prove my point, quick, off the top of your head, name one Whoopie Goldberg movie.

Rosie’s career was even more dismal. As a comic, she was notorious for plagiarizing, and then murdering jokes. Anyone remember her movie career? Emilio Estevez laughs at her movie career. And he shouldn’t, because he was in some of her “movies.” The only thing she ever did that could be called remotely successful was her daytime talk show. And that’s because she was completely phony. Remember “the queen of nice”? The “crush” on Tom Cruise? Why is this utter failure getting paid millions? Because she’s fat. and a lesbian. A bi-fecta the hollywood establishment loves to push on us. We’re supposed to like her. Even though she sucks. Remember when Ellen Degeneres did a romantic comedy? With a man? She was clearly gay, but Hollywood just had to put her in a movie that would surely tank, because, well because she was gay, and we’re supposed to like her. Same thing with Whoopi. Whoopi has a tri–fecta, black, gay(I think), and let’s just say un-attractive. You have to love that, it’s the right thing to do. Even if she sucks.

These women will always be employed despite their stunning lack of  any discernable talent.

The Aristocrats

I don’t care much about Paris Hilton. Who I do find interesting are her parents, Rick and Kathy. I’ve never seen a family display their shortcomings so publicly, except for maybe the Kennedy’s, but the Kennedy’s wealth was built on crime, so I don’t expect much from them. The Hilton name used to bring to mind a hotel baron, a savvy business man, an empire builder.
Now it brings to mind the first thing that it brought to your mind when you saw the name Hilton above.

Which brings me to Rick and Kathy. Not only do they seem to have no shame, they seem to beam with pride at the vapid, soulless, sperm depository, that is their daughter. It’s nothing new for a wealthy heiress to have a debauched lifestyle, but the elite used to have the common decency to keep it on the down-low. It seems to me, the Hiltons revel in the appalling hedonistic atrocity that is Paris’s life.

Kathy is clearly the typical shallow trophy wife, so the one I wonder about is Rick. As a man, how does he feel when he’s at the country club, or a restaurant, and every guy there has ogled his little girl having sex? Like any other porn star. Is that what he wanted for her? How empty do you have to be to not be mortified at her behavior? I’m pretty sure Rick is not ashamed of being a dismal failure as a father, and especially of his dismal failure to be a man. I’m pretty sure Rick is not ashamed of the family name being turned into a punchline. And most of all, I’m pretty sure Rick is not ashamed of his baby girl almost single-handidly lowering the bar for all the young girls in this country, so that real men, men who actually have pride, have to work that much harder to raise responsible daughters.

Tattoo’s Are Cool

I watch a lot of T.V. Last night I ran across an episode of “Miami Ink,” a reality show about a tattoo parlor, that I find mildly entertaining from time to time. It’s interesting to me how mainstream tattoo’s have become, or should I say, trendy. As kind of an ex-rebel myself, I get the allure of tattoo’s, but when 15-year olds are walkin around totally sleeved, it kinda loses it’s outlaw appeal. When I was a kid, the only guys with tattoo’s, were bikers, sailors, and criminals, real badasses, guys you didn’t mess with. For them, tattoo’s were a badge, a badge that said “I remove myself from society, I’m not part of your world.” I get that. Today, you’d be hard pressed to find a 16-year old girl without one.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-tattoo, there are some amazing artists who do amazing pieces on people, but they are expensive, and most people don’t have those types of tattoo’s. Most people have the same stupid, trendy tattoo’s like: Chinese characters, coi fish, tribal bands, and my personal favorite: The Memorial Portrait. I understand “Miami Ink” is a reality show, and they have to create some drama, but every idiot has to have some deep, personal, facing their demons kind of reason to get Daffy Duck tattooed on their forearm.

Back to The Memorial Portrait. These strike me as particularly offensive. It seems incredibly morbid to me, to have for instance, a portrait of your dead son on your arm, for the rest of your life. I get that you may be heartbroken, after a tragedy like losing a child, but tattooing their image on your body, forever, seems to me, the worst possible memorial. It’s the worst possible memorial because it’s totally narcissistic. That tattoo becomes more about you than the person you’re supposedly memorialising. Every time someone sees that tattoo, you get to tell your tragic story. People will feel sorry for you. It’s just one more way to have this kind of “fake” empathy, that’s really all about being selfish.

Which brings me to another phenomenon I’ve noticed recently, memorials at sites where people have died. I get it if it’s Ground Zero, or Columbine, or VT. I get the families of the deceased doing it. But these things are springing up everywhere, and they’re huge. It’s as if some people wait for a tragedy to happen so they can rush right out, and stick a teddy bear on the side of the road.

About a year ago, a little girl, 2 or 3 years old, was found deceased in a dumpster. She had been beaten to death by her parents. A horrible tragedy. It was a big story in this town. Pretty quickly, that dumpster became hallowed ground. There were literally hundreds and hundreds of teddy bears, candles, and various children’s toys completely engulfing that dumpster, all left by people that never knew or cared about that little girl when she was alive. I feel bad for that poor little girl, I really do, but I have to wonder about people who do this kind of thing. The kind of people who after seeing this on the news, feel compelled to go out, shop for a toy or stuffed animal, for the morbid purpose of placing it at a crime scene for someone they didn’t know. I think they do it for selfish reasons, that “fake empathy” I mentioned earlier. Somehow, they’re “good” people because they just care so much. It’s sort of like Munchhausen by Memorial.

The United States Of Alan Alda

Putin warns he will point missiles at Europe, if the U.S. pursued it’s plan to put Shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, and then went on to say “The U.S.? Those guys are fags!” Please read the last sentence with the Jeff Spiccoli surfer dude accent.

This is just the latest incident of yet another tyrannical head of state pounding his chest at America, joining Kim Jung Il, Achmawhatisname, Hugo Chavez, et al. Dissing the U.S. is the hot new craze, all the kewl kids are doin it.

Why is that? I have my theory. People say we are more hated around the world than ever before. I doubt that. We’ve always been hated. For too many reasons to list here. The difference now is not that we’re hated, but that we’re not respected. And by respect, I mean fear. There is not a country on Earth, that fears the U.S. in 2007.

And why should they? We are the “nice guys” of Superpowers. If Superpowers were “Friends,” we’d be Ross. We would never, in 2007, unleash the full power of our military on any country, for any reason. I fully believe, that even if a nuke went off in a major city, we would not retaliate, unless we had undisputed proof, that one single foreign government, acted with malice, to detonate said bomb. And that’s never gonna happen. Our enemies know better.

People feared Ronald Reagan. There was little doubt in our enemies minds, that Reagan would have no problem dropping a nuke, if he had to. Would he have? We will never know, and that’s the beauty of it. Our enemies feared he would. No one fears George Bush. Iraq has guaranteed that. Why we went in there can be debated till the cows come home, I personally feel it was justified. I believe however, that Bush went in there to create fear. Fear that we would actually do something. And it worked….for about 3 weeks. Remember, Kudaffi gave up his nuke program? For a few weeks, the middle east thought Bush was the “cowboy” that Reagan was, or was feared to be.

What went wrong? Well, let’s face it, this is a complex war, in that we are not at war with Iraq, the Country. we deposed a dictator. Because of that, the “Rules of War” are hard to bring into play. The Rules of War being: kill people and break stuff. Obviously, we can’t really do that in this situation. Or can we? Things started going wrong once Saddam was deposed, and we became “the nice guys.” Insurgents and terrorists started to attack us. But we never responded with brutal force, which could have killed many civilians. Why not? Cause we’re “nice guys,” and our enemies know it. The most they have to fear from us if they get captured, is a stern talkin‘ to. Not very scary. They also have devoted allies in our own media, who wait like Pavlov’s Dog, for our military to do something not nice, so they can scream to the world what monsters we are. So, at the end of the day, the mission is: Be Nice. At all costs.

Of course this is a bit of an over-simplification, but it’s basically true. If we had say, leveled Fahlujah, after an outbreak of attacks against our troops, I think things would be a little different now. But we didn’t, and as things are now, our enemies can pick-off our guys, 10,20,100 a month, for as long as they want, without fear. And now every dictator and despot on the planet can smell the blood in the water. We are weak. We are not willing to do the unthinkable. We would rather you like us than be afraid of us, and that is a very dangerous place to be.