"Oh, and the ending! The ending of the movie was AWESOME! The bad guy? He's about to win, right? And he's coming over to the hero. . . And the hero's all. . .like, he's just about dead, right? And so the bad guy's getting closer, and closer, and closer. And all of a sudden, the good guy looks the bad guy right in the eye. . . and he's been holding the secret weapon all along! And the camera zooms in on the bad guy's face, and the bad guy's all, 'NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!'"
"Wow, that sounds great! What movie is that?"
ALL OF THEM! IT'S EVERY MOVIE! EVERY FREAKIN' HORROR/SCIENCE FICTION/ACTION MOVIE ENDS LIKE THAT! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Rush Limbaugh's Head Might Explode!
In 2007, Edith Windsor married her girlfriend, Thea Spyer. When Thea died in 2009, Edith inherited Thea's property, but, because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), she could not claim spousal inheritance rights. She was assessed over $360,000 in taxes on her inheritance--taxes she would not have owed had her marriage to Spyer (which was performed in Canada) been recognized by the federal government. Yesterday, however, a federal appeals court ruled in Edith's favor, declaring that such provisions of DOMA discriminated against homosexuals. Many observers speculate that this case will go to the Supreme Court, which will then rule once and for all on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
The appeals court made the right decision, of course. But let's take a moment to acknowledge those who will suffer because of this ruling: Teabaggers. Consider the quandary faced by poor Michele Bachmann, for example. If the Minnesota Congresswoman clings to her well-documented antagonism toward same-sex marriage--and homosexuality in general, which she has called "personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement"--she will find herself in the equally unpalatable position--to her--of defending the rights of the IRS--an agency that she worked for only because, as she claimed, she had to "know her enemy." And not just any rights, either, but the right to seize hundreds of thousands of dollars from a widowed octogenarian! OK, a widowed octogenarian who shall burn in hellfire for her deviant lifestyle, but still!
If Bachmann possessed the intellectual capacity to appreciate irony, I'm sure even she would be tickled.
The appeals court made the right decision, of course. But let's take a moment to acknowledge those who will suffer because of this ruling: Teabaggers. Consider the quandary faced by poor Michele Bachmann, for example. If the Minnesota Congresswoman clings to her well-documented antagonism toward same-sex marriage--and homosexuality in general, which she has called "personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement"--she will find herself in the equally unpalatable position--to her--of defending the rights of the IRS--an agency that she worked for only because, as she claimed, she had to "know her enemy." And not just any rights, either, but the right to seize hundreds of thousands of dollars from a widowed octogenarian! OK, a widowed octogenarian who shall burn in hellfire for her deviant lifestyle, but still!
If Bachmann possessed the intellectual capacity to appreciate irony, I'm sure even she would be tickled.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Miscellaneous Musings
True story: Original title for "The Walking Dead"? "The Sitting Dead." I think they made the right choice.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Mo' Binders, Mo' Problems
I'm sorry I missed the debate last night. I was, however, glad to hear that President Obama mopped the floor with his GOP challenger. Admittedly, that's a partisan interpretation based on second-hand sources, but no matter how one spins the result, it sounds like Barack sure showed up last night.
Of course, all that anyone's talking about is Bindergate, Mitt Romney's infelicitous attempt to shore up the women's vote. As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Mittens portrayed himself as a champion of women's equal opportunity because, as governor of Massachusetts, he questioned why his staff couldn't find qualified women to apply for senior governmental positions. He requested--nay, demanded!--that aggressive steps be taken! And last night he bragged about compiling "binders full of women." And a meme was born!
I've spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to determine whether this remark was actually offensive. I'm willing to give Mittens the benefit of the doubt here: I'll assume he wasn't being sexist and may, indeed, have relatively--relatively! Remember, the man's in the same party as Rick Santorum--mainstream sttitudes towards women in the workplace. I think that, unlike his infamous "47%" comment--which came as part of a lengthy discussion and thus probably reflects his true feelings toward the less fortunate--this "binders" remark truly was just bad phrasing: It says less about Romney's possible misogyny than it does about his utter out-of-touchness: For him, women--people in general--are just so many data points, so many quantifiable inputs to be color-coded and tabulated and assessed in terms of their bottom-line value. Romney may or may not be a sexist, but this comment plays perfectly into the caricature of him as cold-hearted business mogul who evaluates--and values--people only insofar as they contribute to his agenda.
At times like these, I think of my Republican friends--I must have some: I'm a very likable guy. How did they react when Romney uttered the "binders full of women" line? Did they cringe, realizing this would be the take-away from the whole debate? Were they perhaps fixated on some equal and opposite gaffe committed by President Obama (a gaffe pitched to a dog-whistle-like frequency that only Republicans can hear)? Or do they see nothing wrong with it?
I don't say that out of a sense of condemnation, either. I think of my reaction when then-Senator Obama made his infamous "gaffe" during the 2008 election cycle, about how certain people "cling to guns and religion" out of a sense of fear--Obama's own "47%" moment, if you will. Many expressed outrage at the elitism implied by the words, but, frankly, I remember thinking, "What's the big deal? He's basically right."
We've reached a point in the election cycle, nearly--mercifully--over, when for the most part only the most egregious of blunders will have a serious effect on the race. Those of us gleefully bantering about Mitt Romney's latest faux pas are for the most part people who would in no way have considered voting for him anyway. I can't wait for the day when Americans can put all this unpleasantness behind us and return to simpler, more universal pleasures, like hating on Canadians.
Of course, all that anyone's talking about is Bindergate, Mitt Romney's infelicitous attempt to shore up the women's vote. As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Mittens portrayed himself as a champion of women's equal opportunity because, as governor of Massachusetts, he questioned why his staff couldn't find qualified women to apply for senior governmental positions. He requested--nay, demanded!--that aggressive steps be taken! And last night he bragged about compiling "binders full of women." And a meme was born!
Binders are the new Big Bird.
I've spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to determine whether this remark was actually offensive. I'm willing to give Mittens the benefit of the doubt here: I'll assume he wasn't being sexist and may, indeed, have relatively--relatively! Remember, the man's in the same party as Rick Santorum--mainstream sttitudes towards women in the workplace. I think that, unlike his infamous "47%" comment--which came as part of a lengthy discussion and thus probably reflects his true feelings toward the less fortunate--this "binders" remark truly was just bad phrasing: It says less about Romney's possible misogyny than it does about his utter out-of-touchness: For him, women--people in general--are just so many data points, so many quantifiable inputs to be color-coded and tabulated and assessed in terms of their bottom-line value. Romney may or may not be a sexist, but this comment plays perfectly into the caricature of him as cold-hearted business mogul who evaluates--and values--people only insofar as they contribute to his agenda.
At times like these, I think of my Republican friends--I must have some: I'm a very likable guy. How did they react when Romney uttered the "binders full of women" line? Did they cringe, realizing this would be the take-away from the whole debate? Were they perhaps fixated on some equal and opposite gaffe committed by President Obama (a gaffe pitched to a dog-whistle-like frequency that only Republicans can hear)? Or do they see nothing wrong with it?
I don't say that out of a sense of condemnation, either. I think of my reaction when then-Senator Obama made his infamous "gaffe" during the 2008 election cycle, about how certain people "cling to guns and religion" out of a sense of fear--Obama's own "47%" moment, if you will. Many expressed outrage at the elitism implied by the words, but, frankly, I remember thinking, "What's the big deal? He's basically right."
We've reached a point in the election cycle, nearly--mercifully--over, when for the most part only the most egregious of blunders will have a serious effect on the race. Those of us gleefully bantering about Mitt Romney's latest faux pas are for the most part people who would in no way have considered voting for him anyway. I can't wait for the day when Americans can put all this unpleasantness behind us and return to simpler, more universal pleasures, like hating on Canadians.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Stuck at Work, Pining for Debates
I imagine that round two of the "meh" debates has just begun. I, unfortunately--or not, depending on how one looks at these things--am at work tonight and unable to tune in. I imagine that President Obama will not sleep through this one. I'm hoping he took a few hits of whatever Biden was smoking last week. I trust that you, my loyal Sloppists, will fill me in on whatever I miss.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Mix It Up
Eleven years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center inaugurated "Mix It Up Day," a nationwide event where students are encouraged to eat lunch with students with whom they would not normally eat. I know: Pretty gay, right?!?
Actually, no. Not at all. Not in any sense of the word. But that hasn't stopped the American Family Association from condemning "Mix It Up Day" as a nefarious attempt to recruit unsuspecting schoolchildren into the hedonistic ranks of the creeping homosexual subculture. The conservative activist group--and thanks, right-wing troglodytes, for turning "family" into code for ignorant bigotry--has called on parents to keep kids out of school on October 30--lest their children come home all gayed up!
The event, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in an incidental way. The "Mix It Up" program "is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria." "Mix It Up" is part of the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project, which seeks to combat bigotry and, obviously, intolerance wherever it may crop up. Sure, on "Mix It Up Day someone will presumably end up dining with a gay student; someone else will dine with a bunch of science geeks; and someone else will finally get the chance to talk to Charlene, the cheerleader he has pined for since freshman year but who never knew he existed so she could never see that they were meant for each other and he could love her in a way that Chad the wide receiver never could and--
Sorry, I got distracted.
The American Family Association seems to labor under the kind of misconception that has caused paleoconservatives to react with atavistic dread to the concept of same-sex marriage: The fact that people CAN marry people of the same sex does not make it MANDATORY to do so. The fact that people will be "forced" to eat lunch with a relative stranger on October 30 does not mandate that the new lunch buddy be gay. I hasten to point out that the program calls for students to dine WITH--not ON--each other.
Furthermore, conservatives are terrified at the thought that dining with a gay student could turn a straight kid gay. But by that reasoning, isn't it equally plausible that dining with a straight kid could bring the poor benighted deviant child back into the good graces of God and community? Or is the lure of homosexuality just so great that no one can hope to resist? For a group that hates gay people, the AFA sure does give them a lot of credit.
Look, AFA, talking to or eating with--or even, dare I say, befriending--a gay person will not make a straight person gay. In much the same way, if I were to dine with any representative of your group, I wouldn't turn into a moron. Luckily, the world doesn't work that way.
Actually, no. Not at all. Not in any sense of the word. But that hasn't stopped the American Family Association from condemning "Mix It Up Day" as a nefarious attempt to recruit unsuspecting schoolchildren into the hedonistic ranks of the creeping homosexual subculture. The conservative activist group--and thanks, right-wing troglodytes, for turning "family" into code for ignorant bigotry--has called on parents to keep kids out of school on October 30--lest their children come home all gayed up!
The event, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in an incidental way. The "Mix It Up" program "is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria." "Mix It Up" is part of the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project, which seeks to combat bigotry and, obviously, intolerance wherever it may crop up. Sure, on "Mix It Up Day someone will presumably end up dining with a gay student; someone else will dine with a bunch of science geeks; and someone else will finally get the chance to talk to Charlene, the cheerleader he has pined for since freshman year but who never knew he existed so she could never see that they were meant for each other and he could love her in a way that Chad the wide receiver never could and--
Sorry, I got distracted.
The American Family Association seems to labor under the kind of misconception that has caused paleoconservatives to react with atavistic dread to the concept of same-sex marriage: The fact that people CAN marry people of the same sex does not make it MANDATORY to do so. The fact that people will be "forced" to eat lunch with a relative stranger on October 30 does not mandate that the new lunch buddy be gay. I hasten to point out that the program calls for students to dine WITH--not ON--each other.
Furthermore, conservatives are terrified at the thought that dining with a gay student could turn a straight kid gay. But by that reasoning, isn't it equally plausible that dining with a straight kid could bring the poor benighted deviant child back into the good graces of God and community? Or is the lure of homosexuality just so great that no one can hope to resist? For a group that hates gay people, the AFA sure does give them a lot of credit.
Look, AFA, talking to or eating with--or even, dare I say, befriending--a gay person will not make a straight person gay. In much the same way, if I were to dine with any representative of your group, I wouldn't turn into a moron. Luckily, the world doesn't work that way.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
A Hero Plummets
Earlier today, Austrian daredevil Felix Baumgartner leapt from a space capsule nearly 25 miles above the earth's surface, setting records for the highest sky-dive ever and the fastest, as he shattered the sound barrier on the way down.
Longtime Sloppists know I can come across as a bit, shall we say, cynical. I hope you will trust me, then, when I say that I am in awe of Felix Baumgartner. He exemplifies courage, determination, the fundamental power of the human spirit to achieve. Some people look at an obstacle and ask, "Why?" (which is silly becauae the appropriate question would be "How?). Others look at the same obstacle and say, "Why not?" Felix Baumgartner said, "Why not?"
His leap should inspire us all. We should all channel our own inner Baumgartners. We must all stare bravely into the dark, whether it be the darkness at the edge of space or in the dark corners of our own souls where our fears and our doubts conspire to keep us earthbound. We must, like Baumgartner, break free of their clutches, lest we remain condemned to toil away our little lives in frustrated obscurity, waiting almost eagerly for the soothing embrace of death to put an end to our quiet despera--
Wait. He used a PARACHUTE?!? Well, what's the big fucking deal then? What an incredible pussy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)