Author: Richard

Chicago doesn’t get to lose millions hosting Olympics (aww)

I hate to lol at peoples failures, but… LOL… The president, the first lady and even Oprah showed up to make the pitch for Chicago to be selected as host for the Olympics; it was whispered that Obama knew he had it in the bag and that was the reason he made the special trip to advocate for his home city; the much needed victory was on its way to be delivered to the administration; Chicago was to get some pay-back for giving the world the YesWeCan president… and it ended up being the very first city eliminated.

Clearly this means that the Olympics are total raaaacists, right?

Further Schadenfreude:

chicagoreactiongasps

chicagovsrio

Famous Friends: Elizabeth Smart

In the news: Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped on June 5, 2002 when she was abducted from her Salt Lake City, Utah, bedroom at the age of 14. She was found nine months later on March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, about 18 miles from her home.

In richardland: Elizabeth has apparently been living under the pseudonym “Carly” since at least 2004 when I met her. All this time, I had no idea this Carly person was actually an undercover kidnapping victim.

Proof below: Smart on the left. Carly on the right…

carlysmart

carlysmart2

carlysmart3

Anne Frank

More proof that I’m on a version of The Truman Show and that everything revolves around me came this afternoon when I saw FoxNews.com’s front page headlining the existence of a short clip of Anne Frank on Youtube, which is the only footage of her that exists. I’ve had an Anne Frank obsession the last week and a half that won’t end until I know every relevant detail there is to know (which is how these things go) and have been watching and reading as much I can.

Synopsis of the story: The Frank family knew shit was going down and started planning to go into hiding in the annex of Mr Franks business building (a company called Opekta which sold a kit to make home made jam). They had to bump up the move after eldest daughter, Margot Frank was sent a summons to report to a work camp. “Fuck that” was the obvious response, and the family moved into the annex attic that night, taking whatever they could carry without looking suspicious and wearing several layers of their clothes since they couldn’t be seen with suit cases.

They were joined shortly afterward in their hiding place by family friends Mr and Mrs Van Pels and their teenage son Peter. Later, their dentist and friend Fritz Pfeffer (see my companion piece to this post I wrote for BetweenShowers.com here) was added after in inquiring to Miep Giess, one of the office workers who brought the hidden families food and supplies, on a place to hide.

Anne’s father, Otto Frank was the only one to survive.


This is one of the few television interviews Otto Frank gave. Sitting in one of the rooms of the Secret Annex, he is talking about his surprise at the things Anne Frank wrote in her diary. Her thoughts on life, her self-criticism: this was not the daughter he had known

Things I learned that everyone should know:

-The “E” at the end of her name is not silent. Her name is pronounced Ann-eh. kinda like “Anna” but with an ehh instead of the “uh” sound an “A” makes.

-If only whoever betrayed the family (no one knows who made the anonymous call to the Gestapo that gave the tip) had waited a month, Anne and maybe more probably would have survived (Anne died one month before the camp was liberated).

DEATH:

-She suffered. Her last months were pain filled in every sense, starting with seeing her precious diary thrown away by the German police as they ransacked the attic and ending with her death among piles of sick, dying and bodies in the infirmary hut at the camp where she died 3 days after her sister.

-If Anne had not been infected with Scabies (a skin infection caused by mites burrowing into your flesh), her whole family most likely would have lived. 1) because her mother and sister were selected to leave the death-work camp they were in and go to an actual work camp where most of the slave laborers lived but Anne was denied due to her scabies infection and her sister and mother chose to stay with her. and 2) Anne’s expected cause of death, Typhus, was caused by the scabies.

-If Anne had known her father (whom she was closest to) were still alive, I bet she too would still be alive. When the family arrived at the camp, families were immediately forced apart into 4 groups: first the men and women were separated and then each split into either off-to-the-work-camp or straight-to-the-gas-chamber. One of Anne’s friends who ended up in a neighboring camp from her heard from Anne that she believed her father was put into the straight-to-the-gas-chamber group and died that night. She (accurately) believed her mother to be dead and her sister Margot died while Anne was taking care of her. Anne died 3 days later, evidence would suggest, because she just gave up. Her whole family was dead and there was no light at the end of the pitch black hell tunnel she was in, and she just let her illness claim her. If she had known her dad was alive, I believe she could have hung on those 4 more weeks to be liberated.

BBC says its “homophobia” to observe lesbian appearance

Memo to gay community: combat homophobia by not being such whiny crybaby little sissy bitches.

Graham Norton has been scolded by BBC chiefs after making a playful observation about the haircuts of lesbians. The Daily Mail reports that he “has been warned about ‘ reinforcing a potentially offensive stereotype’ after his comments were investigated by the corporation”. Bullshit with the “potentially offensive stereotype” idiocy. New Rule: Actual human beings who are responsible for and then reinforce these sterotypes you hippies find so offensive must come under criticism and crackdown FIRST, then you can start harassing the people who talk about them. Hippies are always thought-policing speech about minorities, but never criticizing the minorities who embody the speech. Hypocrite tools.

The objection posed as the question “What does a lesbian look like?” is retarded and Graham was right to quickly quip back “THAT” as he pointed to the picture. Hippies can’t stand that kind of reasoning though because they’re brainwashed to think any observations on appearance are bad. Doesn’t matter the intent (Graham, who is gay, was not making an anti-gay remark) and certainly doesn’t matter if it’s true; it just must not be said.

Political correctness requires people to lie in service of a hippie bullshit ideology where everyone is the same carbon based automoton. It operates under the fallacy that a description can only be accurate if it applies to literally everything. Thus, things that are generally true (aka “generalizations”) or even overwhelmingly true are forbidden speech under political correctness because if it’s not true 100% of the time, then it’s not true. Therefore, Seattle isn’t rainy because its not raining 24 hours a day, and lesbians aren’t fat and short haired because Rosie O’Donnells girlfriend is thin with long hair.

Chris Slick: total dick

Have you noticed that people are super sensitive about even the most courteous of correction on the stupid things they say or is it just me? I love it when people post political news stories and then freak the fudge out and delete you when you’re not on board because I don’t delete anyone ever so other peoples intolerance gives me the friend-cleansing I would otherwise be deprived of. The keywords though are “politely” and “disagree”, because such a response is justified if its in reply to you going overboard with the hate first.

Today I found this posted item on Facebook to be provocative and replied. You can’t see my replies here of course, because the fellow who posted them (Chris Slick) is a scared little girl who said some  stupid things, got called on them, and then got embarrassed, so he bleached the record.

Luckily for you, dear reader, I have Chris’s replies saved and can easily reconstruct my own responses.

chrisslick.romneynut

What I said that was “completely nuts” was that Romney has a stigma against him that will do damage off the bat and if he is to be a contender for 2012 he must combat his negative image more effectively than he did in 2008.

Super controversial, right? Chris replied:

Richard – the only person the Governor lost to was McCain. McCain will obviously not be in the race this time around.
Additionally, if you we were to follow your premise then Reagan and McCain would never have been GOP nominees. They both ran and lost before they came back the following cycle and won the nomination. So to answer your question – these are at least two reasons why I am so confident. Plus, as of now, Huck and Palin are his closest competitors. Both of them are easy to take out – they are literal fools in ever aspect of the word.

Chris misunderstood my observation that “Romney has image-problems” to mean “Romney can’t win because he lost a previous primary”. An understandable mistake, if you’re dyslexic and retarded.

I clarified by noting that if you take the pulse of prominent bloggers and pundits concerning Romney, you’ll find the dude has major problems with his political base. I even said that the charges are mostly smears (calling him liberal, unreliable, a flip-flopper, etc are all eye-rolling nonsense when you look at the meat behind the charges for instance). For some reason, this still wasn’t taken well and got this response:

CHRIS SLICK: Well, Richard, I would have to completely disagree with you on the Governor not being able to shake the criticisms you listed. He did so and he did it quite well. He would not have beat out the folks he did without shaking those criticisms. People can have their opinions but we can have our facts – and facts will carry the day in the end.

Terrible strategy because its not true at all. Facts don’t just win because they’re facts. Perception is everything and if you have a perception problem, you need to get those facts out there – not just sit back with confidence that the truth will carry you home.

This is important, which is obviously, why I’m posting it here now: because a lot of you think this wrong way and need to not be doing that. Especially since I like Romney a lot – I have no interest in lies about the dude being the prominent headlines.

I said that its a mistake to think Governor Romney combated those criticisms effectively by using “he lost, but ahead of other people” as evidence and that “having your facts” doesn’t equal a win unless you convey those facts articulately and often. I said that its entirely possible that I could end up supporting Romney in 2012, but that he would have to do a lot better at his weak points or I would have to jump ship.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – you completely missed what I said. I am not talking about facts in the purest sense of the word. I was speaking about past history. Additionally, you should probably just jump ship now because you are a fair weather friend. You know, the kind no one likes.

Please never do this. Unless you’re trolling and trying to make the candidate you’re fake-supporting, Stephen Colbert style, look like a buffoon with only buffoonish supporters, never ever say something like “If you think the person I’m supporting has an unfair PR disadvantage then don’t support the person i’m supporting”.

I asked how I missed what he said about facts/history and how my response didn’t effectively reply to that point. “Additionally”, I said that its creepy to “make friends” with a politician because they’re not our friends, they’re our employees. You can’t be both without doing a crap job at one or both of those titles. Then I asked if he wrote Romneys name in on the 2008 ballot since that appears to be what he was saying with his whole “stick with your guy, even if he loses and is not a candidate anymore” policy — made especially weird given the fact that Governor Romney dropped out of the race for president at a time when many thought he could still pull the Republican nomination off, given the right circumstances – yet Romney halted and endorsed McCain “for the good of the country” and the party. so. erm. Romney was being a “fair weather friend; the kind no one likes” to himself?…

CHRIS SLICK: Richard, you do not know me – you obviously have some personal issues about what you believe and why you believe it that you need to deal with. I hope you find a good conservative to support in 2012. Best of luck.

I asked why he’s turning a political candidate strategy topic into a personal one and why, if he supports Governor Romney for president in 2012, does he keep encouraging me not to support Romney.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – your comments are getting deleted – your completely nuts.

I asked what was so alarming about my comments that caused him to whitewash the record. I resisted temptation and did not mention his use of the wrong “your” the second time. I did ask though if he deleted his own comments as well as mine because he was conceding that what he said in them was, in hindsight, not exactly intelligent. He replied calmly and pleasantly, without resorting to personal attacks and crybaby ranting.
Just kidding:

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc. I don’t have time for this shit. I deleted my comments because without your delusional thoughts processes it would not make sense for them to be here. Nor would it make sense for me to address a “Richard” when I have deleted your comments. Now, go take your medicine, smoke some crack, and try to keep your ADD under control.

Ryan – want to talk about splitting the nutty vote? Looks no further…”

I typed this response, again calmly explaining my words and his in an attempt to clarify what the dudes deal was or what he was even getting at:

Why are you asking what my problem is when I’ve stated each problem clearly and concisely? You said you deleted my comments and I asked why. That’s not an accusation, that’s repeating the fact that you had just told to me.

This is the 4th time I’ve asked what I’m allegedly “delusional” about (should i be asking “what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc.”? or is that right reserved only for you?). Thanks at least for answering why you deleted YOUR comments. so now: why did you delete MINE? what was so crack-user delusional about me saying that I hope Romney combats his critics more effectively?

You also never answered my question of whether you wrote Romneys name in on the ballot in 08. I asked since you attacked me and suggested that I not support Romney in 2012 if I planned to vote for someone else (possibly the Republican nominee) in the event Romney does not become a candidate.

I considered as an exit question: “why are you so personally offended by questions that ask for clarity on the positions you publicly espouse?” but it didn’t matter because Chrissy had deleted and blocked me on Facebook after delivering his last reply calling me a nutty delusional crack-addict with ADD for asking questions, so that reply could not be sent.

chrisslick.romneynutblock

Well… I guess he sure told me.

Brb. Crack to smoke.

Bernie Bashes Beck

For all the whining that goes on about Fox News: they’re still the only cable network who routinely has on-air discussion and debate about their own mistakes, poor handling of a given issue and general accusations of bias.

Tonight Bernard Goldberg smacked around, without naming any names, Fox News opinion/commentary hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for being even more biased than they should be as opinion/commentary hosts.

I’m less so sure about Beck, but Hannity is unquestionable in the hacktivism department – though its interesting that Bernie appears to have a good relationship with both personalities and went on both Beck and Hannitys shows promoting his book A Slobbering Love Affair about media bias towards Barack Obama when it came out. hmm. Did their relationship sour? Is Goldberg just talkin smack behind their back? or none of the above and he’s fine with both and just giving good natured criticism on a legitimate beef?

The only thing wrong with Bernie’s analysis is the “cross section of Americans” thing since he’s inserting his own meaning into it, causing a strawman fallacy. Political protests are…political. as in, against a policy. So why would Bernie assume that the “cross section” was a reference to opposite political policy endorsers? That makes no sense. If that was the claim made by a host, then THAT makes no sense, but Bernie didn’t give a quote or claim any clarity there. In fact the pictures and video of the protests do show a cross section of Americans: upper class to lower class and in between. There were people in suits and people wearing Wal-Mart wardrobes. The claim was accurate.

Polanski Romanski ends in Switzerlandski

30 something years ago, a Hollywood director named after an Italian empire allegedly started having sex with a 13 year old girl he was hot for. Some time after that, he drugged her and then had sex with her at Jack Nichelsons house while Jack was away on vacation or something – he got prosecuted for it somehow and he plead guilty to rape. This was supposed to be not THAT big a deal since she allegedly had the consensual sex with him before the rape, and also because he directed Chinatown, which was a good movie, so he should probably not get a heavy sentence. He got 40something days in prison and then fled the country before serving (or even officially receiving) his sentence and has been living abroad all this time. When he arrived in Switzerland to receive an award, the Swiss police, armed with cheese and army knives, seized him at the airport at American authority’s request and now theres a big clusterfuck on what to do with him.

There are a lot of stupid people saying really stupid things in response to this, but the most important cliffnotes of this story are: 1) passage of time doesn’t negate a crime 2) the crime was not just a technicality (unless the victim was really hot. which im gonna say, no. she wasnt) and was pretty wrong 3) prosecution is appropriate and 4) that prosecution should be reasonable since attacking this too hard just isn’t a good investment of law enforcement recourses.

The common Hollywood sentiment is Polanski’s crime is inexcusable but let me make excuses for him anyway. lame. especially since its so unnecessary. There are legit reasons why Polanski shouldn’t be drilled into the ground no matter what the expense and spectacle; there are no legit reasons (including his age, the gap since the crime or fact that his mother died in Auschwitz – wtf?) to just leave him alone completely.

I think we call agree that the real and most heinous  and unforgivable sin Polanski committed was the tarnishing the record of male sexual nature, setting the jailbait movement back countless years (well, not TOO many years cuz then you circle back to it being moral, legal and all around hunky dorey) with his “Everyone wants to f*ck young girls!” (Polanski 1979) declaration – which is true – and then going way TOO young, and living the dream via rape for Christ sake. ug.

Closing item for consideration: I guess this girl at the end is the victim(?)

Glenn Beck punk’s hippie bloggers with Froggate stunt

Glenn Beck, in a segment explaining why, despite his being a staunch critic of Barack Obama’s, he thinks John McCain would have been worse for the country if he had won the 2008 election, used a decidedly controversial visual aid: He tossed a frog into a boiling pot of water on his set.

The stunt was not only an effective attention grabber (had me on the edge of my seat when I watched it at home) but a clever illustration to the warning not to believe everything you hear. Beck was debunking the anecdote that “if you put a frog in boiling water, it will notice the danger and jump out, but if you put it in room temperature water and slowly boil it, it won’t notice and will die”. So Beck goes to a little childrens case of tiny pet frogs and throws one in, expecting it to jump right out and it doesn’t – to which Beck reacts by telling you to “forget about the Republicans, because most of them are fake. forget about the Democrats, because most of THEM are fake. and forget about the frog, because IT was fake”. Then after a commercial break, he fished the plastic frog out of the pot and verified that no animals were harmed during the segment.

Okay. weird. interesting. kinda cute. right?
F*ck no. There was shock and outrage – OUTRAGE I SAY!! – over Beck murdering one of these tiny little spitwads. And these are not vegan sources, thus making their outrage more than a lot hypocritical since, uh – what exactly makes killing an amphibian to illustrate a political point servicing millions of viewers worse than killing a mammal to eat or wear in service to 1? dumbdumbs…

Most of these blogs were relying on an edited youtube video of the segment that cut out Beck stating that the frog was fake. tsk tsk bloggers… Beck gladly accepted the win on his show today:

Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs.com was unhappy about getting the attention over his dubious headline titled “Glenn Beck: Frog Killer” and responded to Beck showing this oops-post of his on air with an impossibly worse/more embarrassing claim: “Beck Lies about LGF“… oy… the “lie” being that Beck didn’t include that Johnson had mentioned in the LGF post that falsely call Beck a “Frog Killer” that there was a possibility that it was a trick. Charles seems to be going through a tough time in his online life as his former admirers start piling on him as he goes through a recent change of calling former colleagues and like-minds racists, liars, kooks, and more and I feel kinda bad for him but… dude… it’s not a “lie” to show that you made a false claim based on edited video you didn’t bother investigating. Ya, it would have been nice for Beck to bail Johnson out a tad and include that Johnson, after stating the false claim as fact, also showed his openness to the possibility that it was a gag, but Johnson has no reason to expect such a pass.

Wtf is wrong with this world when its right-wing leaning bloggers that erroneously freak out over animal cruelty that didn’t take place and PETA is the sane voice of calmness and reason?… yikes.

Pee Wee’s Big Comeback?

What in the HonkeyTonkFunkyTown? @PeeWeeHerman on Twitter is a verified account? big news? new show? On Leno tonight???

PeeWee.com reveals:

Let the fun begin! Pee-wee Herman is inviting you – and all your friends – back to Puppetland. Come join Pee-wee, Miss Yvonne, Cowboy Curtis, Jambi, Chairry and all your favorites, live on stage.

Re-imagined, re-invented, and nuttier than ever, “The Pee-wee Herman Show” will be LA’s theatrical event of 2009, with its live-action cast and puppets galore!

“The Pee-wee Herman Show” will be at the Music Box @ Fonda, on Hollywood Boulevard, from November 8 for a VERY LIMITED engagement. (And tickets are sure to sell out — so book now!)

And some more background for you youngish types:

“The Pee-wee Herman Show” debuted at The Groundlings Theatre in 1981, and later an HBO special (I had on tape and watched a thousand times or so). In 1985, Pee-wee’s first movie “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure” was also Tim Burton’s feature film debut and Danny Elfman’s first original film score.

The CBS television series “Pee-wee’s Playhouse,” premiered in 1986.

“The Pee-wee Herman Show”, and “Pee-wee’s Playhouse” were an homage to an earlier generation’s television classics – “Howdy Doody,” “The Mickey Mouse Club,” “Captain Kangaroo,” “Kukla, Fran, and Ollie,” and “The Shari Lewis Show” — show formats that don’t really exist anymore, where the host would just be playin around doin their thing and the children at home just happened to come visit via camera.And because nothing is real to people under 20 unless it was on Family Guy:

UPDATE: The Leno appearance is below, and he can still pull off doing Pee-Wee without it being creepy (which is important, because Pee-Wee is child like in an innocent way, not a man-child wtf way), but he breaks character a bunch. The character we see here is a Paul Reubens Pee-Wee hybrid. Part Reubens talking about Pee-Wee, part Pee-Wee leaking through to talk about himself. I had heard the indian-pageant story before and its interesting history and all, but its distinctly Reubens history, as Pee-Wee was never a performer to be bitten by any acting bug – he just lives his life and it happens to be entertaining.