It's Just That Old Parker Luck...

Too late.


From Amazing Spider-man # 589 by Van Lente and Siqueira

We've Created A Monster

(I don't know who made this)

Live From New York...It's a Concession Speech!

It's time for a post I have been planning since McCain received the Republican nomination.

John McCain will not win the Presidency of the United States of America.

Want to know why?

Because he hosted Saturday Night Live.

You're looking at me crazy right now, I know. Let me explain...you see, SNL has a curse...a POLITICAL curse.

Every politician that has hosted SNL, has gone on to lose a presidential election (or nomination).

Let's start with recurring Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader. Nader hosted the show on January 15, 1977. He then lost nominations for President in 1992, and 1996, and achieved the Green Party nomination in 2000, and Independent Party nominations in 2004 and 2008. He lost all three times.

"Well, Nader had no chance of winning, that's why he lost..."
Maybe, but let's move on:

Jesse Jackson. Hosted October 20th, 1984. He went on to lose the Democratic nomination in both 1984 and 1988 after a fairly impressive showing in the polls.

Steve Forbes. Hosted April 13th, 1996. He lost the Republican nomination in both 1996 and 2000. In 1996, he won two states in the primaries.

Al Sharpton. Hosted December 6th, 2003. Lost Democratic nomination for 2004 election.

Rudy Giuliani. Hosted November 22nd, 1997. He just missed the Republican nomination for the 2008 election.

On top of them, we have:

George McGovern. He hosted April 14th, 1984, which of course was after his two attempts at the Presidency (in 1968 and 1972). BUT, as I just learned, according to wikipedia McGovern also tried running for the Democratic nomination in 1984, and lost.

and of course:

Al Gore. Hosted December 14th, 2002. Yes, that's after he lost the 2000 election, but he's also a name that is still coming up (at least four newscasters mentioned him as a candidate DURING THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION). Time will only tell if Gore decides to run again.

So this leaves John McCain. McCain hosted on October 19th, 2002. It was a wretched show. The monologue was especially painful. Now, this was also after his loss of the nomination for the 2000 election, but as I'm sure you know, he's the Republican nominee this year.

Using this evidence above, I shall theorize that McCain will lose in November.

And just so you don't think I'm showing only the candidates who lost, these are the other politicians that have hosted SNL over the years.

Julian Bond. Hosted April 9th, 1977. Senator, never ran for President.
Ron Nessen. Hosted April 17, 1976. Gerald Ford's Press Secretary. Never ran for President.
Ed Koch. Hosted on May 14th, 1983 and May 12th, 1984. New York City Mayor. Never ran for President.


And here's another thing:
What about politicians who have just appeared on SNL, but haven't hosted? I searched online, but I couldn't find a list of these occurrences. Off the top of my head, I know that Gerald Ford appeared on the Ron Nessen episode in 1976 (saying the famous "Live From New York..." line), and lost the Presidential election soon afterwords. Jesse Jackson appeared after Dr. Seuss died, but that was after his Presidential defeats. Lamarr Alexander appeared in a skit right before losing the Republican Nomination. Ralph Nader appeared many years later in a skit before his Presidential campaigns. George H.W. Bush appeared on one episode, but I'm not sure if it was before or after he lost the 1992 election. Former Senator Paul Simon appeared on one episode in the 1980s right before he lost the Democratic nomination for President. I actually think Al Gore appeared briefly on an SNL political special in 2000. Giuliani appeared at least twice more on the show after he hosted. And most recently, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin have all made appearances on the show. Hmm. Maybe Bob Barr will win this election!

Yes We Chan!

I'd like to take some time out to talk about my alma mater.

Hofstra University hosted the 3rd and final presidential debate this evening. We were all very proud.

While the candidates were embarrassing themselves within the David S. Mack Arena, Hofstra itself was being embarrassed on live TV...by my friends.

You see, I was a part of a certain society at Hofstra, I don't know if I need to mention it's name...ok, it was called NONSENSE HUMOR MAGAZINE. We are in fact Hofstra's Only Intentional Humor Magazine.



Current members and Alumni alike (i.e. me) infiltrated the debate coverage tonight, creating fake posters and signs, and trying to get on MSNBC. Finally, after the debate, that goal was achieved.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27207488#27207680



If you look right behind Andrea Mitchell, you'll notice a few odd campaign signs in the background. They look like they could be Barack Obama signs...but not quite...you see, these signs were promoting a little known campaign. They were promoting the Presidential run of Jackie Chan.



In that screen shot you can clearly see two members holding up signs proclaiming a "Chan We Need" and "Chan"



There we have yet another "Chan" sign as well as one of our "I'm Apathetic" posters.



Finally in this one you see current editor Brendan Smyth showing his support for Bob Barr with his hand made sign.

During the commercial break the Obama campaign called and demanded that Nonsense take down the signs. Pussies.

We shall not be silenced! The campaign of Jackie Chan will go on! Let Jackie debate! Let Jackie debate!

It's not like he's the only candidate that wasn't born in this country.

So, this little Improve Everywhere-like idea was cut short by a candidate who couldn't take a joke...Nonsense still came out on top.

Chris Matthews took an issue of Nonsense and enjoyed it. He also signed a copy for an alumna.

Matthews's aid then asked what another sign one of our members was holding up meant. The sign in question said "I Scissored Sarah Palin". An explanation was given, and hilarity ensued.

There will of course be people who will complain about this act of comedy. Nothing unusual about that. When I was the Managing Editor of this magazine, someone complained every week. In it's 25 years of existence not a year went by without a controversy.

If we're not offending people we're not doing our jobs. Comedy is meant to upset the status quo. It's meant to challenge authority.

I love free speech.

I love Nonsense Humor Magazine.

And I'll love Hofstra University if they understand that.

Here She Comes/That Little Town Flirt/You're Fallin' For Her/And You're Gonna Get Hurt

Anyone who watched the Vice-Presidential debate last week probably noticed Sarah Palin's Lucille Bluth-like winks:


(this image was stolen directly from synecdoche)

Flirting with the audience is certainly one way to get people to stop listening to what you are (or aren't) saying. I wonder though, if anyone actually is voting for McCain/Palin now, based solely on the suggestion that Sarah Palin was flirting with them.

Writer John Rogers neatly sums up the response to that:

Modern American Conservatives have sunk to the intellectual and emotional level of the guy who thinks the stripper really likes him.

I've got to take it a step further John. It's not just Palin's flirty winks, but everything any politician does EVER to get people to vote for them. If you think the politician is really listening to you, and really cares about your specific problem, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the lap dance still costs $60.


Politicians are cheap strippers.

And Another Reason Why I Love Stephen Colbert

found via Videogum:



Also, he totally took George Will's words completely out of context.

Making Cancer Funny Again

Satirist P.J. O'Rourke, one of my comedy writing idols, has been diagnosed with cancer.

Cancer of the ass.


Apparently, this is a real thing. O'Rourke has a malignant hemorrhoid. He doesn't go into detail about how this is possible (thank God), but I'm still very confused about it. How on earth did he find out he has cancer of the ass?

And is there a funnier cancer a comedy writer could possibly be diagnosed with? Honestly, cancer of the ass?

As I stated above, O'Rourke was one of my comedy writing heroes. In the mid-70's he was the editor of National Lampoon and was one of the writers who worked on the fantastic (and out of print)1964 High School Yearbook Parody (which if you haven't read, you must. It is perfect). O'Rourke then went on to Hollywood, where he wrote the screenplay for the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Easy Money". After that harrowing experience, he turned his sights to the social satire in Washington D.C. His book "Parliament Of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government" is among one of the best political satire books ever written.



Since then, O'Rourke, like many of his age group, has gone from biting satirist to old complaining curmudgeon. His rants aren't really funny anymore, and now just sound like a more republican Dennis Miller. I haven't even bothered with many of his recent books---most of which require an annotated knowledge of the works of Adam Smith-- really, everything comes down to Parliament of Whores. That's his best post-National Lampoon work. Start there, and then go explore his further works (may I suggest "All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty")

Get well soon P.J.!

My Obama DNC Speech Drinking Game

Play Along At Home!

The Obama DNC Speech Drinking Game


If Obama Says…:.....Action That Should Be Taken:

The word “Change”...........Take a gulp of beer
The word “Hope” .............Take a gulp of beer
The word “Freedom” .......Take 3 gulps of beer

Mentions Energy Crisis ....Take 2 gulps of beer
Mentions Gas Crisis ..........Take a gulp of beer
Mentions the Economy .....Take a gulp of beer
Mentions the Poor ............Take 2 gulps of beer

Mentions Hillary ..................Take 4 gulps of beer
Calls McCain Old ..................Finish beer
Calls For Democrats to Unite ..Take 3 gulps of beer

Mentions God ..........................Take a gulp of beer
Mentions his Faith ..................Take a gulp of beer
Mentions his (ex) Pastor ...........Take 4 gulps of beer
Mentions being a ‘secret Muslim’ ...Finish Beer

Says “YES WE CAN” ................Take 2 gulps of beer

Hillary fans BOO during any
part of his speech .......................Take 4 gulps of beer
Calls Democrats
“The Party Of Jefferson” ...........Take 5 gulps of beer

Says “Change We Can Believe In” .............Take 4 gulps of beer
Mentions his “European Friends” .............Take 4 gulps of beer
Makes any reference to the Media ...........Take a gulp of beer

Mentions he’s biracial ...............................Take 2 gulps of beer
Mentions his childhood in any capacity .....Take 3 gulps of beer
Mentions “Checking Air in Tires” ..............Take 4 gulps of beer

Mentions his wife ..................................Take a gulp of beer
Mentions his wife and doesn’t call her by name ..Take 2 gulps of beer
Mentions his wife and doesn’t call her by
right name...................................................... Finish Beer

Says “Where All The White Women At?” ............Vote For McCain

My Apartment is a Safe Space for Gullible Women

After re-watching this Twix commerical:



It has become apparent to me that the executives at Twix have no clue what blogs are.


Also, just a suggestion guys, you shouldn't use the term "my struggle" when creating sympathetic politically oppressed characters.

Politicos Will Latch Onto Anything To Prove Their Point

This was sent to me:

"Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties. Universal health care and the best quality with no waiting. A dynamic economy and full welfare and unemployment benefits. Liberals, in other words, live in that scene in Spider-Man in which Spidey, forced to choose between saving a tram car full of innocent civilians and saving his girlfriend, chooses both. Liberals live in a fantasy.

Conservatives, though, live in a world of tradeoffs, of either/or. For having this relationship with reality, conservatives are caricatured as grumpy, stingy and negative. Surely all it takes is a bump in taxes on the wealthy and everything will be affordable? Where’s the Hope? Where’s the Dream? Yes, we can!"

Ouch.

And to think, the article was talking about the politics of The Dark Knight...

I Guess Once Again, Comedy Has Done It's Job...

I know that everyone has commented on this already, but it seems that people still don't understand it.

The recent New Yorker cover:




IT'S SATIRE!!!!!!!


The Daily Show made the point pretty well, but still I hear people (read:Newscasters) saying that they think it is offensive...

Look at it like this: If we took all of the descriptions of Barack Obama and his wife Michelle that every commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the such, have said in the past, and given those descriptions to a sketch artist, who has no clue who these people are, this would be the result. The Media has made this image of the Obamas, and now, THEY think it's offensive.

Unbefuckinglievable.

Superman: Red State or Blue State?

I hate to do another comic book related post so close to that last one, but this pisses me off:

Newsarama has reported that DC is doing a book where all the superheroes supposedly declare their political ideology.

No, this is a really stupid idea that has the potential to alienate half their readership. You know there are people that will throw a tantrum because they find out that their childhood hero is of the opposing party of themselves.

Superman Red or Blue?
And what happens when DC's Trinity declares their party? Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are DC's flagship characters and their over-saturated icons. Whatever way they fall will certainly bare scrutiny from the fans that that's the way DC or Dan Didio (Editor of DC Comics) falls.

Dave's Long Box did a pretty good job with guessing superhero political parties last midterm election. For the most part I agree with him on everything, but the people in his comment section bring up quite a few good points that could just as easily go against what Dave Campbell had posted.

Since Superman has had so many different writers over the 70 years he's been in creation, each with their own personal politics and image for the Man of Steel, it's not a surprise that there has been so much evidence to push Superman either way on the spectrum.


The Golden Age version of Superman can be argued to be socialist (for the time), but probably would be regarded as a Moderate Democrat today. In his first issue, Action Comics #1, Superman,
Stops an execution,
Beats up a wife beater,
Dictates what should and shouldn't be in the news,
Tries to clean up Senate corruption,
And scares the shit out of a lobbyist.

And that's only by page 13!

When John Byrne took over Superman after Crisis on Infinite Earths he had Superman execute three criminals from the Phantom Zone (including General Zod). This is the Superman that Dave Campbell mentions in his blog as a Moderate Republican who supports the Death Penalty. Many thought that was out of character for Superman at the time, and it is refuted by Campbell's commentors (quite a bit actually) that Superman, despite this execution, is actually very against the death penalty. DC Comics eventually gave into the pressure and removed the execution and all previous General Zods from continuity during the events of Infinite Crisis (personally I think it should have stayed because it was quite an important part of Superman's characterization and ethical code).

When Joe Casey took over the book in the early 2000s he made Superman a full on pacifist who hated throwing a punch. This is probably the most liberal leaning Superman has been since the Golden Age.


Currently I'd probably say Superman is that Moderate Republican that Dave Campbell talks about, regardless of the execution. His small town values mixed with his big city styling kind of push him that way. I don't think Superman would declare himself to a political party though. He'd probably give a speech that he's not for only Democrats or Republicans, but that he's for all Americans, in fact, he'd say he's for all humans and creatures of the world. Superman hates partisanship and division, and he doesn't really consider himself to be of one country (despite the fact that he wears Red, White and Blue).

Now that I think about it, can Superman even legally vote? He's an illegal alien. He's from the planet Krypton; an adopted child of earth. Sure Clark Kent could be passed off as an earth native...he could even possibly have a Social Security Card...but with the public knowledge that Superman is an alien, would his endorsement of a candidate or political party have much weight, or even be asked for? And with Superman's personal ethics, knowing that he himself is not of earth, and therefore would not be allowed to vote in an election without proper citizenship authorization, do you think that Clark Kent votes, even though he technically can? Would he not vote on purpose just to be fair to all American citizens? To make him just as equal as the others? Maybe that's the inner socialist in him after all?




I was going to talk about some other heroes and their political ideologies here, but I might hold that over for another post because this one is getting too long. I do want to say one more thing though: Superman is an odd case for his time period. If he was to be this anti-authority socialist hero in the 30s and 40s then that was a direct opposite to all the other heroes at the time who were jingoistic, America-loving, Nazi-bashing, patriots. Superman definitely stood apart from them...in fact, unlike all his contemporaries, he never actually fought in the War! This probably has something to do with Superman's creators: Jerry Shuster and Joe Siegel. Yes, they certainly would have been anti-Hitler and would certainly have wanted Superman to fight the Third Reich (which I'm not saying Superman wasn't anti-Hitler, I'm just saying he didn't stand along side The Flash, Green Lantern, Manhunter, Robotman and the others in the All-Star Squadron on the European Front), but they also were urban liberal Jews from poor families.
There was no way Superman was going to represent a WASPy sentiment. He was going to be what his creators wanted: a savior for the poor Jewish people of the time. And at the time, that savior was looking more and more like socialism.

Pop Culture Approves this Message

Mike Huckabee has been a Blackhorse candidate in the Republican presidential race, but I think he’s finally latched onto something that can propel him to the top of the litter.

Take a look at his new campaign ad:

I’ll give you a minute to realize the awesomeness of that ad.

…

Now, Mr. Huckabee has been no stranger to comedy in the past; once telling a whole crowd in Iowa that he doesn’t have enough money to buy them; and I myself have even discussed a few comments that the former Arkansas Governor made about stand up comedy and politics, but this…this is…wow. That’s Chuck Norris man!

The sad thing is, now the Chuck Norris joke generator is not funny anymore, because as Rob Haber has said “He’s become too self-aware of the joke.” The old rule of topical humor goes that if the subject has become a joke on Leno, Letterman, Conan and SNL already, it’s not funny anymore. Chuck Norris cracking jokes about how he has a fist under his beard is the equivalent to that. (Especially with the Writers Strike going on right now we have no other place to see topical humor. Just thinking about that is weird…on TV, it’s currently campaign ads that are the top medium for political jokes. Kinda reminds of during the 19^th century when people went and watched a battle just for entertainment)

Anyway, the question is will Chuck Norris’ endorsement help Huckabee’s campaign. My answer: yes, as long as enough people see this ad. I guess it’s the frat boy demographic that really latched onto the Chuck Norris jokes. Yes, Hipsters did as well, but that was more in an ironic sense than an actual respect for Chuck Norris sense. If these ads are shown to the college crowd and the 17 through 35 demographic, then that’s it. It may not be as funny as say if one of Conan’s writers wrote the ad, but it does show that Huckabee has a sense of humor and at least some idea of what the current pop culture fixations are (even though the Chuck Norris gag is about 3 years old by now). Hillary Clinton is doing a similar thing in her campaign ads using the Sopranos and her husband, cultural icon Bill Clinton to attract votes (that’s for another post though.)

When a politician uses Pop Culture correctly it’s a surefire way for people to take notice and consider voting for them. Look at politicians in the past: Jimmie Davis used “You are my Sunshine” as his campaign song (even going so far as to buy the rights to the song so that he could claim he wrote it) in the 40s, from Kennedy on politicians cozy-ed up to pop culture icons to try and look hip (great examples include Nixon with The Carpenters and Elvis Presley), and Ronald Reagan, the former actor, used to include lines of dialogue from movies into speeches he made. On any given day Reagan could be given a speech as Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford or the Backman-Turner Overdrive.

The use of pop culture which stalls a politician’s campaign is usually if they try to create culture rather than just show they understand it. Usually this downfall occurs by participating in skits on Saturday Night Live. Every politician who has hosted SNL has lost the presidential election. George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, John McCain, Al Gore…and didn’t Barack Obama just appear? Uh oh. George H.W. Bush appeared on SNL back in 1992. I forget if it was right before or right after he had already lost his re-election bid. Either way, the winner doesn’t ever appear. The reason for this is not exactly clear, but it seems to be the same reason enough people didn’t watch “Arrested Development.” The American Public didn’t want their leaders to be creators, they wanted them to tread in the same old ideas that everyone before them treaded in. They want them to be safe. They want them to be predictable, they want them to be a line up of “Yes Dear”, “The King of Queens” and “Two and Half Men”. Originality is frowned upon, individuality is a big no-no. The monikers of Republican and Democrat are enough of a separation to the voters…any more individuality and they’ll need to start paying attention to other details…like the issues.

Now once again, I can think of exceptions…Nixon was on Laugh In before he was president and it helped him a great deal in the upcoming election (people said “He gets our culture!” all because he agreed to say “Sock it to me”), and of course Reagan added a great deal to our culture when he was a movie star, though none of it really has much value outside of “Win one for the Gipper”. Clinton did appear on Arsenio Hall, but there’s a big difference there…all candidates appeared on the late night shows, but not all candidates made late night appearances that were more than campaign stops. Clinton has turned into a culture icon since he was president, as did JFK after death, and even Nixon in some way. Mainly though all this happened after they were no longer president.

Pop culture acceptance is like walking a fine line. This ad could shot Huckabee in the foot, but I don’t think it will. People will look at the ad and probably think Chuck Norris is running as his vice-president, which even I have to admit would be awesome. Anyway, he’s not a bad candidate. I’d probably vote for him over Giuliani or McCain or Hillary or even Obama, so I wish him luck. Here’s hoping when the writers strike is over he doesn’t go on Saturday Night Live.

On the road with Hillary Clinton

Yahoo News has an article on a speech Hillary Clinton gave to her supporters earlier today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_hispanics


Within this speech, Clinton proclaims that the White House needs a 'clean sweep' in '08. "[The] culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence" of the Bush administration needs to be cleaned out, and Clinton feels she's the one right to do the job. A few excerpts:


"Somebody said to me the other day if there was ever a time for a woman president it's now because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning."

"Grab your buckets, grab your brooms," Clinton said. "We're going to have to do a clean sweep"


The article offers no reactions from the 1,000 women of the 'Women for Hillary' organization that filled this fundraiser.


Later today Clinton will be taking part in a forum sponsored by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. She plans on giving the same speech.

15 political movies for your Election Day fun

In case you don't feel like watching the polls this Election Day, how bout a politics themed movie night? (Wow, how lame did that sentence sound?). Here, for your approval, are a few of the best movies related to politics.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939)-Frank Capra
The old Standby. I was watching it again last night, and there's still something that bothers me about this movie: it's too optimistic. But I guess that's it's charm..virtue overcomes corruption. The Everyman succeeds in the political process and Aristotle's "Polity" comes true. Jimmy Stewart gives us hope for a brighter future in everything we do.

Citizen Kane (1941) -Orson Welles
On the other hand, Orson Welles Citizen Kane shows corruption. Or rather, tries to humanize a corrupt figure. Charles Foster Kane attempts a run for political office, but is caught in a sex scandal right before Election Day. After his bitter loss (to someone who was much more despicable than the morally questionable Kane), he has his newspaper print that the Election was tainted. What does this show? Even though Kane was hated by some (and rightfully so) and even though Kane is not a clean, pure, likable person (as was Jefferson Smith of the movie above), he was still probably a better politician than the winner, and probably cared more for the people than any of the politicians that he shook hands with, or married the daughters of.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)- John Frankenheimer
Now we're getting into movies that are a touch more complicated. The original Manchurian Candidate focuses on the Cold War paranoia that was spreading around the country in the 60s. Here politics and fear come head to head and an uncomfortable relationship is made between the two. What does this movie say? Just because someone is preaching the values we want to hear, doesn't mean that they will vote that way (paging Hillary Clinton!). Never assume that you see the full picture of Washington DC. Never assume that the hero you admire really believes what they say, and never fall into voting for someone out of fear.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)- Stanley Kubrick
How absurd was the political chess game known as the Cold War? Very absurd. At least that's what Stanley Kubrick is telling us. The President might think he is in control of everything, but in reality, no one is in true control. A minor general could hold more power than the Commander-in-Chief, or an Air Force Pilot could determine the United States next facet of foreign policy. And what is driving all of these men? Well, of course: Sex! Sex! Sex! Don't be fooled, the President has no clue what's going on everywhere at once, and he has no way to stop what others do--that includes nuclear war!

All The President's Men (1976) -Alan J. Pakula
Or does he? Nixon had more power than any President since FDR (and that..s even debatable). The power kinda went to his head, as he and his staff thought they could get away with the Watergate break-in. So what is this movie telling us? Well, the President might think he..s a dictator, or in an "Imperial Presidency", but he's no different than you or I, and he can be taken down just as easily. Nixon was impeached, his staff was convicted, and their political careers ruined. One branch cannot become too powerful, because there's always a check and balance there to stop you. Here of course, it was the unofficial branch: the media.

Bob Roberts (1992) -Tim Robbins
Bob Roberts is about a musician that decides to run for Senate--and wins. His music takes the form of propaganda, grabbing a hold of and identifying with people. Bob Roberts didn..t just use pop culture, he was pop culture. People who vote for him are the same people who would vote for Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Just because they're celebrities, and just because they have an opinion, doesn't mean they can run a nation or make laws. His catchy-tunes trick you just as his fake assassination attempt tricked the voters, just like TV tricks you into thinking Stewart can handle himself against the likes of Jon Ashcroft and John Kerry. This is the pop culture politician. This is Ronald Regan, this is Bill Clinton, this is George W. Bush, John Kerry, Sonny Bono, Jim Bunning, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Gore, Jesse Ventura. The list goes on. This is where America is heading. Pop culture and politics are the same thing now, and to understand one, means you have to understand the other.

Distinguished Gentlemen (1992) - Jonathan Lynn
How easy is it to get elected? Pretty easy it seems that even a criminal can achieve political office (see New Jersey's Senate race). As long as you have an endorsement, and a name, you can do anything. The people don't know who they're voting for, they probably also don..t care. They also don't listen to a word you say. As Eddie Izzard said: "It's not what you say but how you say it." As long as you sound like a politician, you are a politician, and therefore electable. This movie also shows us another thing: Who are the bigger crooks, the ones in jail, or the ones in the House of Representatives? In Washington, deception and corruption is King. The politics don't even matter.

Dave (1993) -Ivan Reitman
In a time when movies were filled with anti-political sentiment, it took one Republican screenwriter to bring optimism back to politics. Dave is the successor to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in that the good guy can succeed and do well for the people. Dave Kovic is a populist. He wants to help others, especially the people that he now seems to be the President of. Well, technically Bill Mitchell is the President, he just looks like him, but that's a technicality. Dave shows that the mistakes of the past don't mean that someone can't do well for the people now. It's refreshing to see hope again in political movies.

My Fellow Americans (1996)- Peter Segal
Many probably think this movie is a joke that takes cheap shots at both The Republicans and The Democrats. Well, there's more there than that. Though the situation both main characters are put into seems a little overkill, and though one would think that none of this could possibly happen in real life, the message of it all is something that we hope can be true. Even though people have different political parties, and political beliefs, when it comes down to it, those differences can be cast aside to work together, and help those that need help. Republicans and Democrats are not that different in the end, they just like to pretend to be (mostly for comical zingers).

Air Force One (1997) -Wolfgang Peterson
When the situation seems at it's worst, a President can over come anything by ju--yeah, just kidding.

Wag The Dog (1997)-Barry Levinson
Wag The Dog follows in the tradition of Bob Roberts. The election of the President is basically the control of pop culture. The election process is like getting a movie off the ground, you need a pitch, a budget, a crew, a trailer, a soundtrack, product placement, everything--and on Election Day, the people will come out to choose what movie they want to watch for the next four years. The President is the greatest movie character of all time.

Primary Colors (1998)- Mike Nichols
The opposite of Dave--the past of the President will come up to haunt them later on. It adds to their character. In fact, everything the person does relates to their character. Does that make him a bad man? Primary Colors says no, but the voters might think so.

Bulworth (1998)- Warren Beatty
Do you ever wonder if a politician realizes his or her own ludicrousness? Do you think they ever feel bad for it? What if the politician has the same problems that a teenager trying to identify has? Granted, we might call it a mid-life crisis, but that..s only because they're fifty. Anyway, the theory is that the politician is a representative of their constituency. What if their constituency is absolutely nothing like they are? Well, as their representative, then the politician is then forced to fight for their causes, forced to be like them. How much is too much like them though?

Election (1999)-Alexander Payne
Election takes place in a high school--true. The major party politics of Election can best be defined as Coke vs. Pepsi--also true. But here's the thing, Election might be the best critique of democracy since The Prince. The person who is seems to be the best for the job, isn't always electable, and the person who is detested by all, is the one who will do the most good. Should politics be that way? Well, if you try to change it, you..re just going to get yourself in more trouble.

American Dreamz (2006) -Paul Weitz
Ok, so this movie wasn..t that good. There is something here that one can take from it though..the election of the President and the state of foreign policy is like the TV show American Idol. Ok, let me explain. TV is the place where everything comes together for all to see. We live in a world where people make decisions on who to vote for based upon an SNL sketch. To master politics means you need to master pop culture (something that this whole list is preaching). What..s the biggest pop culture sensation currently? American Idol. (Where more people voted for Justin Guarini than they did George W. Bush). The new political battleground will be audience-participation events, places where people can call in, or ask questions directly to the candidate. When Bill Clinton got asked "Boxers or Briefs?" on MTV we all called it stupid--now, that may be the most important question of the modern age.

The Politics of Fear in the 2006 Elections

The Politics of Fear has become very important in recent elections. The British documentary "The Power of Nightmares" showed how fear has been used in politics since the 1950s in both America and many Middle Eastern countries. Now that were in a conflict that involves both, its no surprise that its all we hear from critics of the current administration.

According to the Democrats the Republicans are apparently causing us to vote for them and Bush out of fear, that if we don’t, the terrorists win. It’s funny, that outside of possibly Bush himself, I have never heard a Republican candidate claim this. Its usually the Democrats saying this--to scare us!

Look back; the Democrats chastise the Republicans for using fear in all elections since September 9-11. A keen observer would notice that its the other way around; the Democrats are the ones that are using the element of fear, to induce a fear of Republicans.

It can’t be more evident than the recent Senatorial Race in New Jersey between Bob Menendez (D) and Tom Kean Jr. (R). Has anyone seen the ads for this? They’re all over TV. Menendezs ads are just attack ads against Kean Jr., claiming, "A Vote for Kean Jr. is a vote for Bush." He attacks the fact that Kean Jr. supports Bush on the War in Iraq, Social Security, National Defense and everything else that defines the Bush Administration. (I’m not sure if anything from this is true, but Kean Jr. doesn’t seem to deny the accusations). Menendez asks his constituents if they want a supporter of Bush in the White House. Aren’t you afraid of what he is going to do if elected? Aren’t you afraid that he’s going to support Bush’s agenda? Aren’t you afraid that he’s going to make you afraid of Terrorists?

Please tell me I’m not the only one who sees this. For a party that claims they are for the people and for a party that screams that the Republicans use fear to get elected, they certainly aren’t below being hypocrites.

I need to mention another political event that just occurred. Senator John Kerry called our troops all idiots. No, it wasn’t in those exact words, it was more like: "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." So basically he said that our troops are uneducated. Well, I’m sorry we all can’t go to Yale Senator Kerry! So, Kerry has refused to apologize, and his whole party is backing away from him. Even friggen Senator Hilary Clinton (D-New York) has come out and said that what Kerry claims is appalling and inappropriate. I don’t know what would drive the man to even make this statement and think its ok. Is this part of his attempt to be tough? Remember that whole charade, where it seemed he didn’t care what he did or said anymore? It was the verbal equivalent of Al Gore growing a beard. Senator Kerry, I’m not afraid to say this, you sir, are a shithead.

Here’s a picture a friend sent me from the troops in Iraq to the Senator. I think it gets the point across quite well:

Larry The Cable Guy-Politician

Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has stated that Americans want politicians to be more like Larry The Cable Guy, because of his "Git-R-Done" catchphrase and attitude.

Note, he did not say he thinks Larry The Cable Guy should be a politician but rather that politicians should model themselves after the ideology that the character created by Dan Whitney preaches.

"Sometimes I think we need [a] Larry The Cable Guy running for office so we can just 'Git-R-Done' because that's what people really want out of us. They want competence. They want us to accomplish something,...I don't think the average voter is as ideological as he or she is practical."

Interesting. And not a surprise, since if you were to ask the people of Arkansas what comedians they can relate to most (and probably trust most) no doubt many will state Larry The Cable Guy and his blue-collar sense of humor.

Comedians and politics aren't two paths that haven't been crossed before. Prop-comic Gallagher tried running for Governor of California in their recall election. Doug Stanhope seems to be somewhat serious of his intentions to possibly run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2008. Howard Stern (I know, not a comedian, but a shock jock that can be funny) tried running for New York City Mayor before. And lets not forget the obvious, the constant calls for either (or both) Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to run for President based solely on the reasoning that they can read jokes about the news and politics off a script that were created by a bunch of professional comedy writers, sometimes without Stewart or Colbert's involvement at all. As Mad Magazine put it perfectly in issue ..467: "no appearance by a pandering politico is complete without the kiss-ass suggestion that Jon Stewart should enter politics. At which point, the same studio audience that doesn't think George W. Bush is qualified to handle his job, happily explodes at the notion of being represented by Adam Sandler's roommate in Big Daddy."

What is it about people trusting comedians more? Is it because they quote-unquote "tell the truth"? Is it because they say things most other people would never dream of saying? Is it because politicians are fools anyway, so as Gallagher put it, why not put a professional in that position? Maybe. I'd like to think that it has to do with the power of comedy. I'd like to think that people realize that via comedy, one can tackle a serious topic, and put it in a perspective where the absurdity of it is clear to everyone. More or less, the main purpose of satire. I'd like to think that people realize sometimes that only via comedy can anything truly be said.

Is that what Huckabee is saying? Is he claiming that politicians should be more like comedians in the sense that they tell the truth and cut the bullshit? No, I don't think so. I think he's implying that they would somehow get the job done faster (something, that no one can accomplish, unless you're Michael Douglas or Martin Sheen or possibly James K. Polk). Just because comedians can shine some light on a subject doesn't mean that the whole nation will agree with him or her on it. It doesn't mean that bills become law faster. All it means is that we'll have David Cross as our Press Secretary.

The "Git-R-Done" ideology Huckabee is ascribing to suggests they'll get the work done faster, and that's what people want. Well, it's a nice idea...won't happen.

It's fitting this comes up the same week when Robin Williams and Lewis Black's comedy "Man Of The Year", about a Jon Stewart-like comedian who runs for (and wins) the Presidency opens in box offices. Watch and see how he won't accomplish anything faster.

Can't Kazakh-stand him!...that’s the worse pun ever.

It's nice to know that with all the shades of grey and questionable set morals in the world, there are still stupid people that are just outright idiots.


Doesn't the Kazakhstan government realize that their complaints on this matter only make them look worse than Sacha Baron Cohen ever did?

They find Borat offensive to their country's reputation...I guess I could understand that...it's just like New Yorkers finding Andrew Dice Clay offensive to the city’s reputation...of course we don't sit here and complain about it...we just let him hang himself with a noose of his own idiocracy and hope that everyone else in the world is one ounce smarter than his character and realizes that ain’t New York.

I mean, I hope everyone realizes that Clay does not talk like New Yorkers...we don't talk in Nursery Rhymes all the time...we just make fun of your mother. Oooooooh!

Myspace: Friend of Police

There's an article in Newsweek this week about the police using Myspace to get information on criminals and those suspected of committing crimes. I don’t have a link currently, but I’m sure there is one.

This article disturbs me. One of the incidents described in the article is about the police checking the profiles of all the friends of one kid to see if they were at his party, and possibly caused some damage (including sexually abusing the girl). Isn't there a Right to Privacy infringement here somewhere?

This also reminds me of when colleges were using Facebook.com to crack down on underage drinking. If they saw you holding a beer on campus in one of your pics, they gave you a reprimand.

I was slow to come onto Myspace (and Facebook) because I didn’t like what these sites did. They more or less set up a database where any person can come and find all your information and everything about you. Now I don’t mean rapists or murders or anyone like that, I mean the government. These sites seem like the first step to a dystopian sci-fi movie. Everyone is registered here, and all their info is here, and can be accessed at the click of a mouse. I’m really shocked that in this post-9/11 world people let their guards down for this. How did we go from not having listed phone numbers to filling out surveys and writing blogs describing everything about you? Honestly, this is friggen disturbing.

Then again, I guess I’m a hypocrite, cause I bought into it just as much as everyone else. I’m on Myspace finally (after saying no for like a year and a half) and I’m on Facebook (I’ve been there for almost 2 years) and I’m even on Friendster (joined that around 3 and a half years ago...haven’t checked it since). Both Friendster and Facebook were done kinda out of peer-pressure from my Nonsense Humor Magazine cohorts, but Myspace I joined on my own...why? Because I liked the self-expression option. One could express themselves in anyway possible on Myspace. Either through writing like I do, or through distracting backgrounds, slow loading pictures, horrible layouts, and loud songs. Any option you choose, you’re still expressing yourself and being an individual...the complete opposite of an Orwellian society were everyone’s the same.

Or are we just made to think that? I noticed that most peoples profiles do look the same because they’re built by the same profile builders. Maybe that’s just coincidence. Maybe.

That's why I like writing...whether it be blogs, or the extravagant amount of surveys that I fill out (my friends know what I’m talking about). The first amendment is one of our most important amendments, because it allows us to say what we want, whether that be our opinion, or the facts. It allows us to criticize our government. Criticize authority. Say what we want. If the government ever tries to take that away, tries to suppress our rights and freedoms, then we use the only amendment that’s more important than the first amendment: the second amendment. We follow what John Locke suggested in his Second Treatise on Government and we overthrow our government by force (though this is a measure you take only when all else fails), because the government is based on us. We are in a Social Contract with our government where we allow it to rule us in return for its protection and limits on its power. When they break that, we have the right to break our side of the contract. As Alan Moore wrote in his graphic novel V for Vendetta: "People shouldn’t fear their governments, governments should fear its people."

But I’m getting off topic here.

Yeah, sometimes the way the police or the government or formal authority is using databases like Myspace and Facebook makes me feel like I’m in a Ridley Scott movie (or commercial). But as much as I don’t like everyone in the world possibly knowing everything about me, I also like bragging. Speaking of which: Ladies, I’m single, in two honor societies, and graduating in May with degrees in TWO majors. C'mon, you know you like it. lol

Dr Strangelove or: How I learned to write a paper comparing it to Lysistrata

I have a paper comparing Lysistrata to Dr Strangelove and Wag the Dog due tomorrow, and I’m having a really hard time writing it. I know what I want to say...I just can’t put it onto paper.

For all that don’t know Lysistrata is an ancient Greek comedy from Aristophanes. It’s a genius satire of war. The women of Athens, Sparta and the other city states are fed up with The Peloponnesian War. They decide to end it by withholding sex from their husbands and lovers until the men stop the fighting. They tease the men by dressing in masquerade and then refusing intercourse and force them to live with their painful erections and blue balls until the war ends. In the end, there is a (if my Greek terms are correct) Gamos, or ritual orgy scene, as all is reconciled and everyone’s happy. Basically a perfect example of 'make love not war'

These same satirical elements are seen in a modern war satire like Dr Strangelove. In that, the men (there is only one woman in the movie, and she’s a playboy centerfold turned into a secretary sex object) replace their sexual desires with notions of war. There’s sexual imagery all around Strangelove. The opening scene with the refueling of the plane is purely a symbol of intercourse. The long phallus like fueling pump going into the orifice on the lower plane...and then they’re moving, and shaking, and well, it looks like they’re fucking. What else: All of the powerful men have displaced sexual urges...Ripper, Turidson, Strangelove, The Russian Ambassador, hell even Mandrake have oral fixations. They’re all either smoking a cigar, cigarettes or chewing gum. Ripper's cigar is like an erect phallus to him. After he is defeated look how limp it goes. Also Ripper is worried of the Russians corrupting and stealing his 'natural bodily fluids'. He explains that he came to this conclusion while making love. And since then he doesn’t give his 'essence' to anybody (because that’s what the Russians want)...in other words, his going to war (to 'preserve our bodily fluids') is because of his impotence. (ironic due to his namesake Jack the Ripper destroyed female genitals, while he’s trying to preserve stuff from that area).

Further, there’s an allegory of war is like love making...so many symbols everywhere throughout the movie...the planes are infiltrating Russian airspace...if even only one gets through, then the Doomsday Machine will kick in, and that’s the end of the world (producing no babies that way, but it will in the plan the men have at the end...i’ll get to that later). In the survival kits, the soldiers are given condoms (as well as lipstick and stockings)...when the code to attack comes in, they’re interrupted from doing things like reading Playboy. On the inner door of their safe that keeps their secret codes there are pictures of naked women. The bombs are named "Hi There!" and "Dear John". The bomb doors won’t let anyone through, and when they finally do, Slim Pickens rides that bomb all the way down...feeling the power between his legs...like it’s a swollen phallic symbol.

Turgidson’s (George C. Scott) got a great line, when he’s talking to Tracy Reed, who plays his secretary. He’s going to the War Room, but she wants him to stay and have sex and he says "You just start your countdown and old Bucky will be back before you say BLASTOFF". Of course the sexual metaphors are all over that. Though the best part is the end when the men are more interested in the 10 to 1 ratio of women to men as they try to repopulate the world. Then they get worried that the Russians will try and steal their mine space (the place that will allow them to have sex with these women) and they almost start another war fighting over the idea that the Russians can steal the mine space. The desire for sex leads to war. Basically the 'make love not war' thing is turned on its head and now its War is like making love, but making love the old fashion way gets less people killed.

Then there’s Wag the Dog. One of my favorite satires...I don’t know if it fits well into this at all. Both Lysistrata and Wag the Dog discuss how war can be controlled by people. How it is insanity that can be fabricated by men. Basically the main points I’m going to use from Wag the Dog is the line "Why do people go to war?" "To ensure their way of life" (this is from a conversation between De Niro’s character and William H Macy’s). Basically War is used to keep the status quo...in some way, the women of Lysistrata were both trying to keep the status quo and trying to change it. While they did claim that they wanted to control the money for wars, they really just wanted their lovers and husbands to be home and not be killed anymore. The whole controlling the money thing was just politics...kinda like what was also happening in Wag the Dog.

There...this kinda helped...now if I could only make five pages out of this.