Andy Levy noted that Mel Gibson, in real life, hyperventilating on the phone, delivers a sort of Mel Gibson-ish performance. Again, it's the neck-vein-popping roaring.

This sucks. I really liked Mel Gibson from the first time I saw him in The Road Warrior, through Lethal Weapon, through Hamlet. I even sort of liked Edge of Darkness. Even lame efforts like Conspiracy Theory, I dutifully turned up in the theaters, and thought, eh, not great, but it's Mel Gibson, so there's that.

I dug him more, sort of, when he turned out to be conservative. Although I realized later that he wasn't really a conservative at all, but some type of odd reactionary and general contrarian rejectivist.

But this is as pathetic as it is repellent.

All the talking heads on tv focus on the repulsive nature of it, and I guess that's the right way to focus, but it's the pathetic nature of it, his impotent howling in jealous childish (girlish?) rage, that kills his career.

You can play a hero if you're an asshole in real life. You can't play a hero anymore if you're a whiny, self-pitying, emotionally-unstable freaking-out huffing and panting manbitch.

A hero can be a dick, but he still has to be masterful. He still has to be in control, in control of his own shit, in control of things generally.

You can't be a hero if you're, like, a screaming, pathetic retard.

*Not a fan of The Passion of the Christ -- not Gibson's fault, but in that movie, Jesus is structurally the hero but in terms of actual action on screen, he's passive. I know that Gibson is sort of bound in terms of plotting here. I realize this seems an odd criticism to lodge, because the source material says what it says, and you can't bring in William Goldman or Tom Stoppard for extensive uncredited rewrites.

I know that when you consider the religious aspect of it, he's actually being very active, and the most active a person could possibly be, but that's all either internal in his mind or from external sources, i.e., you have to be informed by external sources (the Bible) what's going on here, the trade of pain for man's redemption.

It's not really on the screen, so, like, evaluating as if it were any other movie, which is the only way I can evaluate it, I offer the weird opinion: The hero was too passive; every active action is taken by someone else, things are done to him, not by him.

Again, I know how odd that sounds, but that's my take on the movie, not on Jesus himself, nor the Biblical story.

Doctored? Oh, please.

Allah's exit question:

. Exit question: Is this pushback about the tapes being doctored really just Mel’s way of planting a tiny enough seed of doubt in the public’s mind to save his career? E.g., “Honey, I don’t want to see the new Mel Gibson movie. Didn’t you hear those tapes?” “But baby — he says the tapes were doctored.”

Every conservative should know this trick, because whenever we get something on tape that hurts a liberal, the "independent analysis of the tapes says they may have been doctored" crap starts up.

The ACORN tapes? May have been doctored, you know. Edited.

They just claimed that about some other tapes a year or two before the ACORN tapes, but which tapes escapes me. (Please remind if you know.)

It's a silly talking point spun up to inject the smallest scintilla of doubt.

In most cases, this stuff speaks for itself, and it really doesn't matter if the tapes were "edited" or something.

There is one case it does matter, very much: When Whore-Chooch says that Gibson had punched her, knocking out teeth, and he does not dispute it, but says "You deserved it."

Now, in that exchange, yes, if she said something else entirely, that would get Gibson off the hook for that one thing.

But just that one thing, because he's obviously saying this stuff. You can't doctor up a whole sentence; the cadences and pauses and such would not be right, the words would not join together properly. It would sound like you stitched different words together.

As for why she sounds so crisp: Because she hired up a private eye specializing in divorce work to rig her up nicely to record Mel. Jeeze Louise. The woman has money (Mel's), so she can afford not to skimp on state's evidence.

Alternately: She is a recording artist, or a wannabe, so she has access to some good recording equipment and an engineer to rig it, right?

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (250)
Post contains 808 words, total size 5 kb.

Not sure what Sargent does well but my guess is being honest and fair doesn't make up any part of it.

He goes after rightwingers who attacked Obama's "Al Qaeda is racist" garbage by saying what we really mean is Obama only cares about blacks.

This has to be the dumbest attack yet: Some on the right are on a tear because President Obama allegedly said Al Qaeda kills Africans because the organization is "racist."

The hint here is that Obama cares more about black victims of terror than about white ones. Get it? It's the latest version of GOP Rep Steve King's recent claim that Obama has a "default mechanism" that leads him to "favor the black person."

Wow, I hope he got a good deal on all the straw you needed to build that strawman!

He then links to what are presumably examples of this "hint" that "Obama cares more about black victims of terror than about white ones". You can read them here and here.

Note, Sargent doesn't quote Jennifer Rubin at Commentary or William Teach at Rightwing News, just links. He can't quote them because they didn't say anything resembling what he's attributing to them. Was Sargent just guessing a fair number of his readers will take his word for it and not soil themselves by going to racist sites?

The problem for Sargent is they, like Andy McCarthy and myself, took Obama's statement on at an issues level. We all argued in various ways that Obama is factually wrong (hint: al Qaeda hates everyone who doesn't follow their brand of Islam and has nothing to do with race) and that the statement illustrates Obama's continued unwillingness to deal with al Qaeda's Islamast underpinnings.

Initially, Ace took a different view on the statement and Jonah Goldberg had an ongoing conversation with McCarthy at The Corner on the subject. Neither of them had to resort to cheap racial attacks and mind reading to make their point. Why? Well, mostly because they have the ability to disagree using thoughts and reasoned arguments.

Mr. Sargent, as is typical of liberals, seems only capable of ascribing terrible motives to others. It's the kind of thing people devoid of real ability and integrity do when faced with things they just don't understand.

He calls the strawman he built "sick". I call his post pathetic, but typical, hackery.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:09 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Link to article at Hot Air.

I like this, because I often get into fights with commenters about what independents actually want. It's good that I can now fight with the liberals at Politico, who seem to not get this themselves.

The passage of financial reform, just a couple months after the passage of comprehensive health care, should decisively end the narrative that President Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naïve hope crushed by the inability to master Washington.

Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the very policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency.

Eric Alterman, in a column that drew wide notice, wrote in The Nation that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats are in near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November.

This is an odd reversal of expectations. When he came into office, the assumption even among some Democrats was that he was a dazzling politician and communicator who might prove too unseasoned at governance to win substantive achievements.

The reality is the opposite. You can argue over whether ObamaÂ’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But especially after ThursdayÂ’s vote you canÂ’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. To the contrary, he has, as promised, covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill.

The problem is that he and his West Wing turn out to be not especially good at politics, or communications — in other words, largely ineffective at the very things on which their campaign reputation was built. And the promises he made in two years of campaigning turn out to be much less appealing as actual policies.

These are legislative victories -- they are not victories as far as the most important thing to independents, which is, 1, a good economy, and 2, everything else being handled competently.

Independents do not really care all that much about partisan ideological legislative victories. If they did, they would not be independents.

They don't care about this stuff. They don't care that Barney Frank's legislative aides and bank lobbyists drafted a "financial regulation reform act" which Barney Frank himself did not read, and the President also did not read, and then the President's allies in Congress dutifully passed it without reading it and then President dutifully signed it without reading it.

Independents do not know what this bill says, or if it's good or not, and that's hardly a knock on them, because Congress hasn't read it and neither has the President.

As Nancy Pelosi said, "Gee, I can't wait until this bill gets passed so we can find out what it says!"

Political partisans barely care about bills they haven't read, and at least we have an ideological opinion about bills in broad strokes. (That is, conservatives don't like regulation as a general matter, and liberals love it as a general matter, but fuck-all if we know what the hell the exact details of the legislation are, or if they'd be positive or negative -- if Congress and the President don't know, how could we?)

Independents care even less, because they tend not to even have a strong opinion about the broad outlines of a bill.

Again, if they did, they would be partisans.

So Independents are not judging Obama by his petty, easy, cheap legislative victories, nor crediting him with them, because he has 59 allies in the Senate and 259 in the House (IIRC) and pretty much if he were offering anything ballpark palatable to the whole of just the Democratic Party this should be a snap.

This shit is easy. It is only difficult for Obama because he continues to say "Fuck You Too" to the conservative side of the Democratic Party and thus must win every vote on liberal votes -- and purchased votes -- alone.

So Independents are not impressed, and, in fact, I strain to imagine why liberal reporters are impressed that Obama can pass legislation with 59 in the Senate and 259 in the House, either.

It's like scoring a touchdown when their are only six men on defense.

Um, it's easy, guys.

You know what's tough? Like, doing something about the deficit, which was like $159 billion -- chump change -- before the big meltdown, which Obama vowed was too irresponsible even at that pitiful level, too much of a burden for our children. Something tough would be Obama doing what he claimed would be so easy for him, balancing the budget and setting the nation's finances on a sound footing.

This easy shit? Who is impressed by this, apart from Chris Matthews, that Obama can (barely) ram unpopular legislation through a Congress controlled by his toadies and groupies?

So, what do Independents care about? They care about general competency in handling presidential affairs and they care about the economy.

Well, the economy is in shambles, despite Obama promising projecting that with his stimulus unemployment would reach no higher than 8.5% and then drop significantly. And the Jackass' response to the Gulf Oil Crisis is to try to get three under par on the back nine. And the idiot continues to agitate against a bill about immigration that has seventy fucking four percent approval in the country.

And yet the People of Stupid keep wondering, "Gee, why don't nonpartisan, practical-minded, results oriented independents get as delighted as we liberal reporters do about Obama's purely partisan easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey legislative lay ups?"

Well, I'm sure we'll all one day be happy he pushed through some shitty legislation on party-line (actually, worse than that-- liberal-caucus-only-line) votes and did absolutely nothing that counts as an objective "general good."

But first, as always:

You will blow me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 1069 words, total size 7 kb.

Slow news day so enjoy a little popcorn as the Democrats rush to blame each other for their impending collapse.

Gibbsy started it off over the weekend by announcing the obvious, the control of the House is in play.

That got Nancy talking angry smack about the White House behind closed doors.

Now she's pointing out that maybe there's some other group to blame for the falling fortunes of her caucus. Those bastards in "the other body".

While trying to mend ties between her caucus and the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned her ire toward her Senate colleagues on Thursday, blaming Senate delays in passing the Democratic agenda for the disappointing jobs picture heading into the midterm elections.

“If we had healthcare sooner, if we had energy sooner, if we had an education bill sooner – they are all three pillars of job creation – and that would have resulted in more jobs created by now,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday at her weekly press conference.

Yes, if only Harry Reid had been able to ram even worse stuff through the Senate sooner everything would be roses for the Democrats. They can never admit people just don't like what they are selling. They run as faux moderates, govern as hard left socialists and wonder why people are pissed.

Meanwhile, Keith Hennesey thinks the latest nomination by the White House is a possible sign the Hope and Change bandwagon have moved on to the post-Pelosi era before the Botox drains out of the body.

On the downside, the GOP is still the GOP so let's no underestimate their ability to screw this up and not capitalize on the situation.

Added: Mich McConnell says Republicans "got our groove back" (Mitch is so hip with all that 90's slang. Seriously Mitch, stop.)

“What Republicans are offering the American people is a pledge, a pledge to do everything in our power to restore government to a size and scope that leads to some semblance of competency," he said. "We’re not going to tell you that if you vote Republican, you’re going to wake up in your dream home with a brand new Corvette outside ready to take you to the best job in the world. You know why? Because government can’t deliver that promise.”

Obviously getting back to Bush/GOP Congress Era sized government is nice as a start. I hope, but have no reason to believe, that Mitch and the gang think they are part of the problem too.

Also, it's great to say to people that government can't give you a job and a new Corvette but we also need to be talking about how the GOP has a list of ideas for creating an environment where if you have skills and work hard, the government won't be an impediment to you getting those things either.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:19 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say they have the Worst Company in the World title locked up for this year.

"BP told the UK government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement on Thursday.

"We were aware that this could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP's exploration agreement."

BP said, however, it was not involved in discussions regarding the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.

"The decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government. It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish government. BP was not involved in any such discussions about the release of al-Megrahi," it said.

Right. They had no comment on the decision just weighed in that if you're going to do it, do it fast so we can start drilling and doing business with Khadafi.

Just a reminder, al-Megrahi was supposed to have only 3 months to live. That was 11 months ago.

I know big business is tough and I know that in the oil industry dealing with unsavory characters is part and parcel of the gig. Even as a committed free market capitalist, I don't have to blindly cheer or excuse every despicable move a company makes.

Once the well is capped and the court proceedings are all said and done, if BP is found to be negligent and is bankrupted by the damages, I won't be sad.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:53 AM | Comments (220)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

White People Are Pissed! -- Crash the Tea Party agent provocateur.

One problem, here, that makes this less delicious than I'd like, is that there are several guys who make some nasty statements and I don't know if there's any evidence they are Crash the Tea Party agent provocateurs.

But definitely, some of Crash the Tea Party's racist signs made it in to the mix.

Thanks to Snapped Shot.

Posted by: Ace at 07:24 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

My logic is undeniable.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:26 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

I want to make a point about the equities markets before I move into my links. I've often said that equities markets only matter to the real-world economy to the extent that they're an indicator of public mood. In real-world terms, equities are pipsqueaks compared to the debt and fixed-income markets. If you want to know where the real economy is going, look to the bonds, commercial paper, and related instruments -- and the news there is not good at all. There is a barge-load of debt out there, and few people can give straight answers as to how that debt (both public and private) is going to be repaid. Remember this when you hear the happy-talk on CNBC or some other financial outlet. The Dow could go to 15000 tomorrow and it wouldn't improve America's finances by much. (And given how volatile things have been this year, it could plummet right back down to 10K a few days later as the hedgies take their profits.)

Equities ended their weeklong run yesterday, closing basically unchanged from Tuesday. The Dow closed at 10,366.65 and the S&P 500 closed at 1,095.17. Optimism over good corporate earnings from the likes of Intel was tempered by downbeat remarks on the economy coming out of the Fed. more...

Posted by: Monty at 02:28 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 1946 words, total size 15 kb.

Good evening and happy Hump Day all

An Animated History of Nuclear Testing

Here's an interesting video that shows every nuclear test from 1945 up to 1998 at 1 second per month. It starts off a little slow but don't worry - by the late 50's it's like a challenging level of nuclear Simon.

So a total of 2053 nuclear bombs were tested over those years with 1032 of those being US bombs (USA! USA! USA!). It's interesting that most of Britain's nuclear tests were also done in the US.

If you watch carefully, you'll also notice a US nuke test in Louisiana and Alaska. And the only continents that haven't had a nuclear explosion on them are Antarctica and (western) Europe.

Update: As some of the commenters have pointed out it was MS that had the test - not LA. And south America has yet to be nuked.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:55 PM | Comments (756)
Post contains 570 words, total size 6 kb.

Via Newsbusters, Chrissy Matthews on Hardball with Rep. Bob Inglis, continues the "all racism, only racism, 24 hours a day" pre-electoral disaster explanation theme.

I'll repeat Winston Wolf's admonition, well, ok, I won't, but you all know what it is. Still, if we have to hear "racism" 37 times a day, repeated by every water-carrying (and bone-weary of it) member of the MFM as if new Jim Crow laws make up some 88 pages buried in the financial reform piece of crap we're fixing to eat, then I smell desperation. And fear.

Post-racial Presidency. I never knew it would be this enlightened. I only hoped.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:28 PM | Comments (129)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.