jriddle73's Replies

A terrible article. The 1990 were one of the best decades of moviemaking since the medium began but the Best Picture winners of the era were dogshit. Time and time again, the best pictures of a given year were passed over for trite crap (TITANIC, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, how about THE ENGLISH PATIENT, anyone? Anyone?). AMERICAN BEAUTY was the one movie the Academy got right, for a change. It isn't perfect but this certainly doesn't identify any of its flaws; that its author thinks Lester's big beef with his wife is actually about spilling beer on the couch suggests the movie would have achieved orbit had it gone any further over his head. Lucky dog! A great ep. One of TZ's best, though it doesn't always turn up on people's lists of favorites. When TWD began, Lincoln's was the 2nd-most-embarrassing American Southern accent on television. The prize was taken by Kyra Sedgwick's accent on THE CLOSER, which was [i]screamingly[/i] hilarious. After that show ended, it's been Lincoln all the way. "Thou sure art purty in thy wrath." Michael Rooker (who should have been cast as Rick) was able to take Merle, who was, on paper, arguably the worst-written characters in the entire run of the show, and turn him into someone viewers at least looked forward to seeing. That was all Rooker; the writers weren't giving him anything. Xander Berkeley, another rock-solid actor, did his best with Gregory but again, when it comes to the writing, there's just nothing there. That's the best of what one gets from TWD--talented actors doing their best to make something out of nothing. It isn't really fair to judge him or anyone else by TWD. In Lincoln's case, he's a VERY English Englishman who, in being cast as Rick, is basically John Wayne as Genghis Khan--utterly miscast. Listen to him speak with his regular voice and accent and think about how hard it would be for him just to do that part of the role and then have to try to act through that. And, of course, as with everyone else on TWD, the writers give him absolutely nothing with which to work. They've never given him anything. TWD is a show that has chewed up and spit out several great actors, sticking them in sh!tty, thankless roles. Nothing on the show, anyway. I was excited by the prospect of Hulk zombies who could do that to a bridge--perhaps laying the groundwork for a TWD/Marvel Zombies crossover?--but nothing was ever done with it. A wagon is comically easy to build (and they already have one) but to appropriate another, they go into D.C.--a place that should be crawling with a few million zombies and totally inaccessible--to get it. They were there for other things too, obviously, but the wagon is the one that gets them into trouble. One of the reasons those wagons were so popular in their day is that they were very lightweight but on TWD, it's like it's made of lead--so heavy, it cracks a floor in the Georgia state capitol building (which is the building they used for that sequence) that has had hundreds of thousands of people walking over it for decades. Later, the bridge is out and, in taking an alternate route, they declare the horses will never be able to pull the wagon through a stretch of mud. So they unhitch the horses and the people pull the wagon through that mud! A clue for the writers: a team of horses is MUCH better equipped to move a wagon than a couple guys. A horse is an incredibly valuable thing to have in this sort of world but when a few zombies appear, Rick immediately decides to abandon the wagon and let the zombies eat the horse they're rehitched to it! One random cannon-fodder character goes back to unhitch the horse but is bitten by one of TWD's teleporting zombies. Then, so he can get some medical attention, everyone goes back and, with minimal effort, kills the zombies who had been creeping up. Why not just do that in the first place? It also seems the TWD zombies have evolved to become venomous, because Random Cannon-Fodder Guy is bitten on the arm but dies on the spot within about a minute-and-a-half. No, I just think everyone involved realized the '03 HULK was just way better. TIH has been basically ignored; nothing it established was followed up on. It has been popularized by Jonah Goldberg but it has floated around various fringe-right circles for decades. When, in Europe, fascism first began filling mass-graves with leftists, Ludwig von Mises--one of the American rightist "Libertarian's" patron saints--praised it for no less than having saved civilization and said the praise it has earned for this will live for all eternity. He later went to work for the Austrian fascist regime before, in a bit of ironic justice, having to flee when the Nazis rolled in (because he was Jewish, not because he wasn't a good fascist). After the horrors of the war, when his previous position wasn't going to go over with any public anywhere, he did a full 180 and began describing fascism as "socialism." When that Treasury IG--a conservative Republican named Russell George--looked into this matter, he issued a report that concluded the IRS office in question had used inappropriate criteria for its review of applications for tax-exemption by conservative groups. He testified to that effect as well. Lots of headlines. A major press feeding frenzy. A month later, it was revealed that George's investigation hadn't even bothered to examine how comparable liberal groups making similar applications had been treated. It was further revealed that the BOLOs (be on the lookout lists) the IRS office was using--one of the things that had drawn a lot of attention earlier--had also included phrases used by progressive groups. And George had concealed this fact. No big headlines, barely mentioned in the press at all. The question arises as to why the investigation was handled in this fashion. Was George simply being a hyperpartisan? That was probably a factor, but it turned out there was more to it: "The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans. A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) 'to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.'" (The Hill, 26 June, 2013) Like most of what Issa did during the Obama administration, it was a manufactured fake "scandal," right from its origins. And Issa's behavior in subsequently keeping it afloat--particularly his treatment of Lois Lerner--was, in my view, criminal. That's still repeated on the Fox shows on an almost-daily basis. I end up absorbing far more Fox than any sane man should have to and none of the big shows that push that lie have ever even mentioned that fact on the air: Page left the Trump campaign in September 2016. The surveillance of Page wasn't even requested until October. "#HateIsNotAPlatform" If that was entirely true, Trump could have never been elected president, and his approval would be 0.01% by now. So far, the big Repub campaign effort in 2018 has revolved, primarily, upon promoting virulent hatred of brown people with funny accents from foreign shores. I suppose we'll see how well that plays out. "I bet you never heard that from conservative media because they don't report stuff like that." The regular corporate press barely reported it either, after spending an extended period hyping the entirely false charges of IRS targeting, which were the product of professional car-thief/congressman Darrel Issa in league with a sympathetic (conservative Republican) inspector general in the Treasury Department. "To get a FISA warrant to monitor targets in the Trump camp a judge has to approve of the wiretaps to conduct surveillance." To correct a major misimpression implanted by Fox News and the right-wing Rage Machine, the surveillance of Carter Page--the surveillance approved by that FISA court--wasn't even requested until over a month after Page had left the Trump campaign, at a time when the presidential race was in its final days. "I'd be embarrassed linking to any video by Dinesh D'Souza." ...especially if it's that fucking Prager U video, which didn't get a single point right. "Saying fascism 'emerged' from marxism means nothing since it bears no resemblance to marxist communism" And is, in fact, the mortal enemy of Marxist communism--a far-right movement built around palingenetic ultranationalism promising national renewal by means of the destruction of the liberal society and violent suppression of the left. Including all Marxists. "And to say fascism is 'left wing' is just empirically wrong and just reveals you have no idea what you're even talking about." It evinces an ignorance of the subject that couldn't be more complete but worse, it's the product of someone who has been so misled he's been made to believe black is white and up is down. No, it doesn't, and Stefan Halper wasn't "inside the Trump campaign" either. He, in fact, doesn't even live in the U.S. The 2012 elections offered one very amusing example of that very thing. Fox News spent the entire campaign telling rightists that pollsters were involved in a big conspiracy to reelect Obama, that America really hated him and would under no circumstances reelect him, then, on election night, Megyn Kelly and especially Karl Rove had on-screen meltdowns when they were forced to concede that Obama had just won. The real danger from that "closed information system" is that it's a breeding-ground for fascism and political violence, turning people into unreasoning zombies who are fed a 24/7 diet of anger and hatred and finally decide to "save" America by acting on it. [quote]"The modern left aren’t 'like fascists'. They ARE fascists."[/quote] You think there's a big constituency among liberals/progressives for ending democracy, establishing a one-party, white supremacist authoritarian dictatorship that crushes leftists, suppresses racial and ethnic minorities and initiates imperial wars of conquest? Because if that's the case, I must be [i]very[/i] out of touch with contemporary politics. How is it do you figure Trump and the Republicans came to have the support of the white supremacist/Nazi/fascist factions, factions that uniformly and openly despise everything for which liberals/progressives stand? That's true; Trump is a major problem, no matter what one calls him. Trump is mostly talk though. The damage he causes isn't, primarily, in how he actually governs. It's in what he represents and further encourages--all of those tendencies you just outlined.