Archive for the ‘Topical!’ Category
Congratulations! Here’s John Nolte’s full half-birthday post, with helpful citations added by yours truly:
Big Hollywood celebrates its six month anniversary this week and everyone here at Breitbart Central Command would like to thank all of you who have made this half year an exhilarating(1) and fulfilling(2) success(3).
First off, many, many thanks to the readers(4),(5), especially those who contribute to the lively(6) and engaging(7) community on the comment boards(8). You have made this site addictive long after the regular content’s been consumed.
But nothing would be possible without the generosity(9) and talent(10) of our growing family of writers. For six months we’ve been blessed with some of the best content anywhere — thoughtful(11), articulate(12), persuasive(13), lively(14), witty(15), passionate(16), respectful(17), informed(18) content. This site was created as your forum but in exchange your voice has offered so much more in return.
I speak for everyone here when I say that the pleasure that comes from reading Big Hollywood is only matched by the pleasure that comes from knowing and working with its contributors(19).
(1) “I’m a proud “douchebag” and I’m happy to say I am a proud, loud listener of Rush Limbaugh!” – Brian Jennings
(2) “Twilight should be hailed as the work of iconoclasts.” – John Nolte
(3) “I wanted to pop in here to let “Big Hollywood” readers know about the just-published spy thriller I wrote with my friend Keith Korman. What is it like? Well, think of an episode of “24″ written by Proust. – Rich Lowry
(4) “Having listened to the filth spewing from those three [Fey, Couric, Dowd], it is clear that those 3 harpies used their pads first before tossing them [at Sarah Palin].” – Commentator
(5) “I found it pretty easy to keep from having sex as a teen, not because I didn’t have offers, I just couldn’t stomach the idea of having sex with any male I knew.” – Commentator
(6) “I think Adam [Lambert] transcends sexuality.” – Commentator
(7) “Like Zo said – you are no better than DL who is chained to the mantel of the DNC like a good HN should be, and is expected to be by their masters.” – Commentator
(8) “AGREE JOHN. THIS IS A SATIRE. EVERY WORD IS A SARCASM. SOME BIG HOLLYWOOD LURKERS LOST THEIR MARBLES. THE SATIRE IS IN EVERYWHERE. – Commentator
(9) “There’s nothing great about humanity.” – Doug TenNapel
(10) “At this point I had to assume she had herpes. She left me no choice.” – Jon David
(11) “Intelligence has only made us immoral with more knowledge.” – Doug TenNapel
(12) “I’m done being a good, soft-spoken, withering WASP. Men wearing beanies no longer turn me off.” – Charles Winecoff
(13) “Women, correct me if I’m wrong, but there doesn’t even seem to be that “dime store floozy” stigma attached to being the “town pump” anymore.” – Steven Crowder
(14) “Anybody got a problem with that, I’ll mapquest you directions to my front door, we’ll settle it like men.” – Gary Graham
(15) “HOW MANY LIBERALS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHTBULB?” – Gary Graham
(16) “If I were boss, for starters, I’d censor movies.” – Burt Pretlusky
(17) “if you’ve been watching 24 this season, you’ve seen a taste of what Pope John Paul II meant by ‘the genius of the feminine.'” – KLo
(18) “The truth is that atheism is literally a “retarded” philosophy in the sense that it is very “late to the table” in its thinking.” – Steven Crowder
(19) “John Cook, this is Andrew Breitbart. I’m basically fuming and I’m reading your shit at Gawker right now, saying that this guy’s a rightwing extremist. And it’s such a fucking slander on people like me. This guy went after, this guy was after neocons like me who are conservative. He had the address of The Weekly Standard there. Conservatives believe in individual liberty, they don’t believe in group’s rights. This guy’s a multiculturalist, just like the black studies and the lesbian studies majors on college campuses. This guy was a 9/11 truther. This guy’s hardly a rightwinger. This guy’s political philosophy is more akin to the drivel that you hear on a college campus that delineates us by group, not by individuality. It’s the exact opposite of my political philosophy. It’s deeply offensive that you would use this for political gain. I could care less how you describe me in regards to Drudge or anything, but for you to put on me this fuck-face crime against humanity is so fucking beyond the pale.” – Andrew Breitbart
Art Brut - Demons Out!
In sum, their [Snoop Dogg’s and Eminem’s] careers to me seem empty and manipulative, and I’m surprised when their buying public doesn’t see through the charades.
My teenage children do, and so do their friends, but still, Snoop and Eminem are multi-millionaires many times over, and maybe they think they can do what they want to do, with no repercussions. After all, isn’t anything allowed in the media any more? Class is something kids cut to go get a tat, chill with their homies, and spend time texting and sexting.
Doggystyle was the object of controversy when I was in middle school in Montana, because (OH NOES) 13 year-old white kids were listening to it. I haven’t been in middle school for quite some time. And given that Snoop’s doing things like performing with Taylor Hicks these days, maybe Press could’ve picked a more vital example if he wanted to beat up on prurient youth music. But he does mention Eminem, too, though, and he’s back in the spotlight again (sigh), so let’s focus on the argument itself.
Please, if anyone out there ever catches me making the “Kids these days! Can you believe the music they listen to?!? And the technology they use!?!” argument, call me out on it so I can go put a fucking bullet in my head.
Normally, when someone gets all chest-out about the deplorable morals that hip-hop espouses, I point them to the Elvis Presley FBI files, which contain the exact same argument, complete with the racial overtones and the worry that OH MY GOD, 17 year-olds might be having sex! What a new and scary situation for humanity! Or I warn of the moral threat posed to our youth by this scary rock band called “The Rolling Stones” that has violent, sexual lyrics and ties to street gangs.
But Skip Press has one-upped me. It’s not just the newfangled music of this generation he hates, it’s the music of the last generation as well. He wants to go back to the days when (no exaggeration here) “How Much Is That Doggie in the Window” ruled the charts. Why? Because Patti Page had class, goddamn it.
Patti would wait outside the stage door every time she did a TV show (the only person to ever have her own show on the top three networks), and signed autographs for every fan that wanted one. Her reasoning was simple; the fans put her where she was.
Can you imagine Eminem doing that, or even Miley Cyrus? I’ve wondered, how many current music stars will still have a thriving career in their 80s? Will any of them? Maybe it’s just me, but it seems the stars with the most class live longer. Are any current stars thinking about that?
Fuck, I hope not. If in 50 years we might still be arguing about Eminem, I hope the crazies are right about this whole Obama/Antichrist thing. Bring on the fucking 4 horsemen, please, sooner rather than later.
But if by “career,” Press means the lame Branson-brunch nostalgia circuit that Page enjoys, then, sure, I’m sure Taylor Swift or whoever will be there in 50 years. And I’m sure some douchebag will be writing articles comparing her favorably to the current crop of megastar cyborgcore bands, pining for those simpler days in 2009 when pop stars had CLASS. That’s the way this game works.
I’m just going to keep doing this until Romano starts implementing basic intellectual rigor into his posts. So I might be at this a long time.
In part one, our hero took a DHS report to task for using “immigrants” instead of “illegal immigrants,” when in fact that report used the latter phrase a solid half-dozen times, and the former once, clearly for brevity’s sake, in a footnote. From this it was clear that, not only had John Romano not read the report he was bitching about, but that he hadn’t even bothered to click over to the second page of the Washington Times pearl-clutcher he was using as a source.
I want clarification as to why she [Sonia Sotomayor] feels that being a Latina woman makes her inherently wiser than a “white male.”
Romano is referring to Sotomayor’s now-infamous remark from a 2001 lecture:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Romano wants clarification! Happy to be of service! That is one sentence from a 4,000-word speech Sotomayor gave in 2001, specifically about her Latina identity. You can read it in its entirety here. Here is the very next sentence:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Of course, Romano would know this already if he actually read the things he complains about, instead of just getting all red-in-the-face about random pull quotes he heard while listening to Morning Joe through the door while he was a taking a dump, or however he gets his news.
In case 4,000 words isn’t enough clarification for Romano, though, there’s always the FUCKING CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. That is what they are for, dude.
What’s funny to me about this whole shitstorm over an 8 year-old pull-quote, though, is that just a few days ago, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Big Hollywood, etc, were all complaining that the media was only discussing Sotomayor’s race and not her record. Then they did their research, realized that her record is actually quite moderate, (especially when you consider that she’s replacing Souter) and decided to make their opposition to her appointment all about race.
Let’s be real here. Conservative opposition to Sotomayor’s appointment is about three things: 1) Abortion, 2) Tribal opposition that would greet any Obama nominee, and 3) Abortion. Let’s have a discussion about those things instead of manufactured controversy! That would be awesome!
I am seriously going to laugh my ass off if conservatives end up blocking the appointment of a politically moderate Hispanic woman, only to have Obama end up appointing some white dude who is the dirtiest of hippies.
As has been my custom of late, I’m going to quote today’s Greg Gutfeld piece in full, so you can really savor the whininess:
So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
So what do we know about her?
Well, she’s Hispanic.
Also, she’s Puerto Rican.
Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.
That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup – and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”
So far, every single headline I’ve seen mentions the woman’s race – which, as you know, is by design. It’s a terrific strategy, this vaccine against scrutiny. Simply make sure you nominate anyone who is the “first” of anything and you create an impenetrable cone of immunity around the nominee (protecting mainly against the media, and of course, conservatives). You could say this strategy worked with great success during the last presidential election – that if Barack wasn’t black, he would have just been another white policy wonk – a less persuasive version of John Edwards, without the wayward weenie.
Granted, I don’t know the first thing about Sotomayor (I’m sure she’s a nice lady!) other than she’s Hispanic, and an “inspiring woman” who grew up in “poor surroundings,” etc… But it all sounds a bit familiar in an unnerving way. The bottom line is, when a person’s “story” is the story, it’s purely a diversionary tactic to take you off the ideological ball.
It’s a clue to everyone – especially the media – that this time you should do more than order the commemorative plates.
I love how he admits that he knows absolutely nothing about Sotomayor, but he still whines that her nomination MUST be a race-card tactic. And then blames the media for his failure to educate himself. How dare the media report that the first Hispanic woman on the court will be the first Hispanic woman on the court! Because clearly that’s not newsworthy!
And besides that, there actually has been a lot of discussion about Sotomayor in the press relative to other potential nominees. There was that now-infamous New Republic hit piece and the controversy that ensued.
Perhaps the real problem is that by “the media” Gutfeld clearly means “the cable news networks” and by “articles” he means “Fox and Friends segments I watched online while getting drunk.”
One of the good things that came out of the tragic events of 9/11 is
Great. Awesome. Please, Burt Pretlusky, tell me the fucking upside of the deaths of thousands.
One of the good things that came out of the tragic events of 9/11 is that heroism has reacquired some of its original luster. I’m not certain when it lost it, not at all certain when bravery above and beyond the call of duty gave way to meaning nothing more or less than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Looking back, I have an idea it happened during the Jimmy Carter administration when hostages were taken in Tehran. People who had been abducted by the minions of Ayatolah Khomeni, and held captive by Iranian thugs, were being widely hailed as heroes by the American media.
I’m not suggesting that a hostage can’t also be a hero. Apparently Sen. John McCain behaved like one when he was a POW, volunteering to be beaten by the Vietnamese in order to spare the men in his charge. But I’m afraid that your run-of-the-mill hostage is no more a hero than were any of the unfortunate passengers in the planes that were crashed into the World Trade Center.
It is appropriate to grieve for innocent victims, but we should stop short of lionizing them. Otherwise, how do we distinguish between those who simply die and those who perish trying to save others?
Oh, great. You know, 9/11 wasn’t all bad, because it helps Burt Pretlusky’s semantical case for what does and does not fit the definition of the word “hero.” TOTALLY WORTH IT.
It’s pretty great that Pretlusky can’t even get through a simple, run-of-the-mill “The Troops are Awesome!” Memorial Day piece without being a total dick. Instead it becomes:
“The Troops are Awesome! They’re waaaaay better than those douchebags who died on 9/11!” What?
S.T. Karnick (goddamn, how many people are going to write for this site?) has a short piece up crowing about how the internet “Superbrain” predicted Kal Penn’s exit from House (yeah, I don’t really care if I just spoiled you).
My first thought was “Holy shit, is there some sort of advanced neural net system dedicated solely to predicting House plotlines? AWESOME.” Sadly, by “Superbrain,” Karnick is just referring to what the kids these days generally call the “hivemind.”
Last week’s episode of the Fox Network medical-mystery series House included a Big Event meant to shock the show’s viewers and send the story line in an interesting new direction, as one of the main characters of the series was killed. As it happens, the show’s fans figured out exactly who it would be, several days in advance of the program’s airing, as the kind of public conversation the Internet makes so easy enabled a mass pooling of information and instant critiquing of same.
This almost instantaneous accumulation and processing of information makes the web something of a superbrain. Yes, figuring out the plot twists of television shows may not be the most productive use of people’s time and brainpower, but this somewhat frivolous achievement does indicate the impressive potential of the Internet as a mass information processing tool.
Karnick provides no links to back up this assertion, but presumably he’s referring to the fact that Michael Ausiello of Entertainment Weekly and Kristin Dos Santos of E! Online posted overlapping blind items the week before that House episode aired, causing pages and pages of speculation both at their sites and at TV related sites across the web.
I have no idea what Karnick’s point is. Some speculators on the internet correctly predicted the twist, but only with the help of key information leaked by the show. It’s not as if they came up with it whole cloth. And, for every random blogger or commentator or TwoP forum poster who correctly predicted Kumar’s demise, there were 10 who guessed incorrectly. Read through the comments to Ausiello’s post, and you’ll see just how awesome the “Superbrain” is.
While there are posts like this:
YoursTruly Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:20 PM EST
I agree with Colleen S – if it’s House, it has to be Kutner. Taub is too obvious, as is Thirteen. Wilson’s even a little obvious with Amber dying and his brother issues. We know absolutely nothing about Kutner except that he was raised in foster care (that’s true, isn’t it?). I keep waiting for an episode centered around him, and with this new blind item, I’m starting to believe we’re not going to get it.
So for a suicide that completely comes out of no where, with no previous info indicating it’ll happen, I absolutely vote for Kutner. Though i do like Kal Penn.
There are many, many more posts like this:
Monica Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:04 PM EST
Since Washington State has legal assisted suicide, I say it’s Izzie on Grey’s. What a good twist and relevant issue. George will help her
Judy Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:16 PM EST
I agree with those who said either Nicki or Sara of Big Love. I am very obsessed with that show, and agree about those synonyms as being hints. I think it will be Nicki. I hope I am wrong because with Nicki gone, the show would be very different. Love that show.
bean Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:32 PM EST
cant be Kutner, yeah he was adopted but he seems like the most balanced person on that show and I wouldn’t consider him a main character. We haven’t seen much of him lately and we only really see him at work, no personal life. I’m thinkin TR Knight or Katherine Hiegel on Grey’s is that one too obvious? I don’t keep up with that show anymore are they still main characters?
Steph Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:34 PM EST
It has to be Battlestar Galactica since the BI just showed up. And it would have big repercussions for the fans. Even though the show will be over, it will drive us wild. My bet? Admiral Adama. Laura drifts into death on the wreckage of the big G and Adama follows her with suicide. He can’t live w/out both his girls. Plus, “in order for children to live and grow, their parents must die”. Therefore Adama and Roslin are goners. 😦
You get the idea. The “Superbrain” didn’t “predict” the twist in any meaningful sense. There was no real consensus, just wild speculation. A small portion of that wild speculation happened to be correct. So fucking what?