Mission One: Take classic or prestige movies and re-market them as B-movie exploitation thrillers, or "grindhouse" type movies.

Mission Two: Do the opposite. Take cinema-lint and discount-theater trash and dress them up pretty for their Sundance debut.

It's the second batch that's funnier. Partly because a lot of the "quality" movies re-imagined as trash I already thought pretty much sucked.

This is by a guy called Citizen Jerk. A lot of these movies have been given foreign-translation titles, because everything sounds better in French, you know?

Hopefully that's a broad enough hint for you uncultured, monlinguistic morons.

"Red Dawn" would sound nice translated into French, I think.

Thanks to Slublog.

Okay... Though I wasn't really digging on the classy-to-trashy 'shops, this one made me giggle. It's from, ahem, "Ass-Cobra."

Incidetally, by page 3 or 4 of the classy-to-trashy makeovers, they kinda abandon the premise and just begin making already-trashy or at least non-prestige movies into grindhouse ones. So you have one of Robocop, promising death and vengeance from beyond the grave, which is, you know, what the movie really was about anyhow.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

Mort's actually been suggesting this, more softly and vaguely, for some time. But this is I think his clearest and coldest statement about this drastic, nasty Plan B for Iraq.

Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty."

...

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.
On the other hand, as Bush's critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.

Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now Iran's candidate to rule Iraq.

Shiites make up 60 percent of the Iraqi population, so Shiite domination of the government is inevitable and a democratic outcome. The United States also has good relations with Iraq's Kurdish minority, 20 percent of the population, and would want to cement it by semipermanently stationing U.S. troops in Northern Iraq to ward off the possibility of a Turkish invasion.

I disagree that the US would need to formally "take sides" in such a civil war. Simply refusing to intervene would be as much "support" as the Shi'as need to do their dirty business.

Allah is, suprisingly (to me at least), taking a more idealistic view on this.

It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan. When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens. If you take Kondracke seriously, the best solution might actually be to have the Air Force carpet-bomb Anbar: it’d solve the problem instantly, we’d get “credit for helping the Shiites win,” and it’d send a none-too-subtle message to Sadr that he’d best not antagonize us in the future.

I don't know where I come down on this. I do know that should the Shi'as attempt this sort of widespread, systematic pogrom, we 1) really can ill-afford to take on the majority of the country in a fight (who, precisely, do we install to govern afterwards?) and 2) I'm not terribly keen on American soldiers dying to protect Sunnis, either.

I'm not keen on the Shi'as' plans for a bloodbath, either. I guess I just don't care enough anymore about the Sunnis who have been murdering us and blowing up innocent civilians or the Shi'as who have been murdering us and blowing up innocent civilians. If it does come to that, I don't see what our role is, except to hang back, let the psychopaths murder each other and destroy the country, and perhaps be willing to extend some aid once they've healed the country through systematic murder.

By the way, this isn't a new position for me. I know I've gone very wobbly on the war, but I've never thought the US should become involved in a true, full-on civil war in Iraq. Whose side would we fight on, exactly? The majority Shi'as who will wind up doing most of the bloodletting due to numerical advantage, or the Sunnis who have killed so many in the past three dreadful years to bring things to such a state?

I'm also not the world's biggest opponent of ethnic cleansing. Ehtnic cleansing always involves force, coercion, and murder -- but primarily it separates populations which have demonstrated they cannot live together in peace anyway.

I'm not a supporter ethnic cleansing, God knows. But ethnic cleansing usually arises from a state of unending, murderous de facto sectarian civil war. In other words, the murder and mayhem are already present.

And if ultimately driving the Sunnis out of Baghdad results, long-term, in less murder, mayhem, and carnage, I'm not really going to lose sleep over displaced persons or the shattered dream of different ethnicities living together in harmony.

Especially not the latter -- because it's frequently an unachievable dream that winds up murdering people. If they can't live together, let them live apart; at least they shall live. Or at least more of them will.

I would prefer if the Sunnis aren't ethnically cleansed and violently suppressed. But that is a mere preference at this point, and hardly a critical national-security objective I'm willing to secure by fighting the bulk of the Iraqi population and loosing further US troops.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 943 words, total size 6 kb.

They convicted them on pretty much everything.

An American vegan couple were sentenced to life in jail today for the murder of their malnourished six-week-old son, who weighed just 3 1/2 lbs when he died.

Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31, fed the boy, who was named Crown Shakur, a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice, the Atlanta court heard.

The baby boy was born in a bathtub in the coupleÂ’s home and never taken to see a doctor. He was dead when his parents took him to a hospital across the street from their flat on April 25, 2004. He was so emaciated that doctors could count his bones through his skin.

The couple maintained during the trial that they did the best they could for the boy while adhering to their vegan lifestyle, a strict form of vegetarianism which does not allow the consumption or use of any products linked to animals.

But prosecutors convinced the jury that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield for their actions.

“The vegan diet is fine,” Chuck Boring, a prosecutor, told the jury. “These parents lied about what they fed him. He just was not fed enough.”

He added: “They’re not vegans. They’re baby-killers. Think about how long they had to listen to his screams and hollers.”

Thomas, the father, hung his head and almost collapsed when he and his wife were found guilty on May 2.

I'm not sure if the prosecutor is being candid there -- is a purely vegan diet, consisting largely of soy milk (which is not to be used as a substitute for baby formula, and says so on the box) truly "fine" as a diet for an infant? Is he just claiming that in order to assuage jurors' concerns about parental rights to feed a kid whatever way they like?

I dunno. Seems like a kid who's missing essential amino acids and nutrients won't get those just by feeding him more of the same nonnutritive food.

In another update, Jeremy tells me that I was wrong to criticize the zombie sequel 28 Weeks Later for what seemed to be predictable and noxious anti-Americanism in the trailer. (The American troops engage in indiscriminate shock and awe destruction of London; some Americans seem to deliberately try to infect a pair of young girls with the zombie plague as, I'm guessing, some sort of experiment in weaponizing the plague.) He says my criticism was too crude:

I remember you posting about 28 Weeks Later some time ago and criticizing it because it made Americans out to be bad guys. I just got back from the movie and have to say that whatever you read that gave that idea was exaggerating. Sure, the Americans have to make a hard decision but they do so reluctantly and the director made sure to show the weight of the decision on the minds of the soldiers. In addition, it is a group of Americans that lead some kids to safety. If you weren't planning on seeing it because of what you had read, I hope you change your mind as it is a very good movie, as zombie movies go.

Well, that's good to know -- I like zombie movies, and I guess this one is back on my list.

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 585 words, total size 3 kb.

Glenn Beck's documentary exposing the "Climate of Fear" in the global warming non-debate. Six parts; they should all be there.

Fred Thompson's speech at the Lincoln Club was reportedly a disappointment -- not enough "red meat," Robert Novak reported one attendee saying. I have to think part of the disappointment was the dashed expectation that he would either announce there or all-but-announce, but whatever.

Watch it for yourself if you like.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

...over Republicans' failure to make ethics a priority. He wants the "scalp" of Congressman Ken Calvert.

When John Doolittle had to step down from the House Appropriations Committee because of a corruption investigation, the House GOP gave the nod to Calvert.

In 2005, Calvert and a partner paid $550,000 for 4.3 acres of land. Calvert then used his earmarking powers to secure $8 million in funds for an interstate exchange on the property. He then sold the property for about $1 million.

Also in 2005, a business partner of Calvert's bought additional land that Calvert's earmarks benefited. When the property was sold, a firm financially connected to Calvert received a commission for the sale.

In 2006, Calvert engaged in other shady land deals. The list goes.

He wants you to call congressmen and have Calvert removed from the committee.

Sounds like a plan.

The oddness of an Important Action Alert and Pretty Vicious Rant coming from the right, though, highlights the difference in ambition and emphasis between the dextrosphere and sinistrosphere. We attack the media, by and large, and our (very quixotic) mission is to displace it; they attack Republicans and also insufficiently progressive Democrats, and their mission -- far more acheivable, and in fact largely acheived -- is to displace the establishment of the Democratic Party itself.

Their plan is better. But I have to say I find it unappealing to become political operatives and actor as the left blogosphere has. It feels cheap and trivial and a little childish.

But it does get results.* We're never going to significantly change the house organ of the Democratic Party that we know as the liberal media -- they've had a long history of ignoring public criticism, even as they hemmorage money and market-share -- but a political party is far more responsive.

* I don't think the leftist hijacking of the Democratic Party is good for that party's health; sure, they won back the Congress, but largely on the back of conservative Democrats and just slightly aided by the Republicans' corruption, incompetence, and lack of principle. Whether it would be any different were the restive right to stage a coup, I don't know. But it seems stuff like this -- removing an earmark-crazy shady Taxman for the Liberal Welfare State from an appropriations committee seems like both good politics and good policy.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Not really sure why this gets the huge Drudge banner -- it was already reported days ago -- but okay, slow news day, I'll play ball.

U.S. and German officials fear terrorists are in the advanced planning stages of an attack on U.S. military personnel or tourists in Germany.

Law enforcement officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com that U.S. air marshals have been diverted to provide expanded protection of flights between Germany and the United States.

"The information behind the threat is very real," a senior U.S. official told ABC News.

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble told reporters, "The danger level is high. We are part of the global threat by Islamist terrorism."

Of particular concern, according to U.S. and German law enforcement officials, is Patch Barracks, the headquarters for U.S. European Command, near Stuttgart.
...

"There are 300 to 500 people who are suspected to be part of al Qaeda cells in Germany," said Col. Andrews Pratt (Ret.) of the George Marshall Center in Germany.

"In a democratic state like Germany, you just can't go out and arbitrarily arrest people because they are under suspicion," Pratt said. Asked to explain this strange reading of German history, Pratt said, "Well, technically, Jews still aren't 'people' under German law."

I may have added that last sentence.

Why are jihadists going to attack Americans and Germans? Because of Iraq, of course.

...

Several radical Islamist groups have threatened violence unless Germany withdraws its troops from the NATO force in Afghanistan.

A radical Islamist group in Iraq took a German woman and her adult son hostage in February, threatening to execute them if Germany did not pull its troops out of Afghanistan. The two are still being held.

Pardon ABCNews for misspelling "Iraq" twice. You know what they meant.

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

What's a body farm? It's an outdoor, real-world-conditions forensics laboratory. They bury and just dump real bodies in order to study patterns of decomposition, insect genesis, and animal munching.

An idea whose time as come, alas? Nope. It's the nation's third corpse farm.

In Miami, they're working on the nation's first exploding SUV farm.

This CSI: Miami parody is pretty funny, but a scatological gross-out warning is appropriate.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh. "All time high." Their casualties, you see, are ever-increasing.

The media says that about US and civilian casualties -- apparently unaware that any purely additive calculation will always result in an "all-time high" and is by definition "ever-increasing," so I might as well say that about the dead terrorists too.

3,980 so far; 20 more 'till the grim milestone.

I hear that ABCNews is going with a full-court press on this watershed number, and will feature Chris Bury reading the names of the terrorist dead for four straight nights on Nightline.

Posted by: Ace at 07:47 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd kind of think that last one was a gimme. But this puffin-humpin' iceback snow-wop stoops to resorting to stereotypes and scapegoats to explain his failings, when in reality this fjord-kike ought to be blaming his own degenerate Toilet People genetics.

Swedish magician Joe Labero has provoked a strong reaction with suggestions that Las Vegas is controlled by "Jewish business syndicates, American dollar millionaires and homosexual booking agents".

The magic master's comments were made in an interview with rail company SJ's on-board magazine Kupé.

As a prelude to his controversial thesis, Labero explained that he has long been close to getting his own show in Las Vegas.

"But at the end of the day it seems to be impossible - unless you are a homosexual, a Jew or an American.

"I don't mean to sound prejudiced of course, I'm just cynical. A blond Swedish Viking will have a hard time breaking through the hierarchies that control Vegas, where power rests in the hands of Jewish business syndicates, American dollar millionaires and homosexual booking agents.

"But I will get there, sooner of later," Labero told the magazine.

Joe Labero is the stage name of Lars Bengt Roland Johansson.

...

The editor of Kupé magazine admitted that he had been hesitant about publishing the controversial quotes.

"We discussed this a lot internally before arriving at the conclusion that it would be controversial and inappropriate in the context of a Swedish discussion.

"But we also raised it in the context of an American discussion, where it is not considered controversial to say that decisions in Hollywood are dominated by Jewish, homosexual and American interests," Gunnar Wesslén told newspaper Resumé.

Maybe it's just that people really don't want to see a lumbering Olaf doing magic. And "magic," to a shaved yeti Scandi bastard, primarily consists of scratching his balls on stage with reindeer antlers.

Thanks to MarkP.

Discovered: Lars' magic act:

Posted by: Ace at 07:33 AM | Comments (132)
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

Crazy brain money.

He got that from a cool site about anthropology. Here's one: in women, a higher verbal IQ correlates with being a night owl. No strong correlation in men.

Posted by: Ace at 07:09 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.