My 2 cents on the Oscars

Helen Mirren best actress - I agree. "The Queen" was a great movie. However, the True "best supporting actress" was really Lady Di. The image and remembrance of Lady Di, and her tremendous charisma, helped to make "The Queen" a great movie.

"The Departed" as best movie. I strongly disagree. See my previous post "The Depart Disappoints". I thought that it was a rather pointless, boring and uninteresting bloodbath. It was way below Scorcese's abilities.

Maybe Scorcese just needs Italian actors, like De Niro and Pesci. Scorcese without De Niro is like a hamburger without french fries. Scorcese seems to have adopted Di Caprio as the new De Niro, but he isn't very convincing. Di Caprio may be half Italian, but he doesn't seem like it. Nothing personal, but he just doesn't seem Italian.

However, Martin Scorcese definitely deserved an Oscar for Best Director for his previous works. In fact, this would seem to be a massive embarrassment for the Academy that a giant like Martin Scorcese had never previously won a best director award. Who beat him out in the years that "Taxi Driver" or "Good Fellas" or "Casino" or "Mean Streets" were produced? Can you even remember what movies those were?

My vote for "Best Picture"? "The World Trade Center". By a mile. That movie was the best movie that I've seen in the past five years!!! But yet it did not get one single nomination? Why?

I think POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Hollywood is following the fashion of being anti-Bush and anti-war, and they don't want to bring up any "inconvenient truths" about WHY there is a freeking war in Iraq. They just want to tell us that all those freeking murderous Arabs are just sweet little innocent cupcakes who wouldn't hurt a fly.

So that is the reason why "The World Trade Center" was pointedly ignored. The people who ignored this movie are probably the same people who ignored Scorcese for all those years.

Personally, I think that the Oscars should be at least partly based on a nationwide popularity poll. Instead of having a bunch of pea-brained idiots decide what the "Best Movie" is, based upon revenue projections and political correctness, it would be better to listen to the American people.

Look at what happened when we didn't listen to the American people in November of 2000, and instead listened to a bunch of Supreme Court judges: We got George Fucken Bush.

First fucken draft: 2/26/07

Platform of the MyUSA Party

I've decided to start a new political party. For now, we'll call it the "MyUSA" Party. Here is the initial platform:

1. The creation of "The Watchdogs of Democracy". This is a central feature in the resurrection of true American democracy. The Watchdogs would be a third house of congress that would have no actual powers except to have oversight over the rest of the U.S. Government.

This third house would follow the initial constitutional rule that each representative will represent no more than 30,000 people. So there will be approximately 7,000 representatives. This will provide direct representation to virtually all Americans, and will do a great deal to dilute the powers of the lobbyists, special interests and super-rich.

Apportionment: To avoid the idiotically corrupt apportionment fiasco in the current Congress, this third house would be apportioned by a random computer model.

The algorithm is fairly simple: Take all of the zipcodes in the particular state. Initially assign 1 representative to each zipcode. If a zipcode contains less than 30,000 people, then limit the area to one part of the zipcode that contains 30,000 people. Assign an additional seat to the remaining part of the zipcode.

If the zipcode contains less than 30,000 people, then add on a contiguous zipcode (randomly selected). After hundreds of iterations, each state would be divided into contiguous areas each containing exactly 30,000 people, and these areas would be selected by random selection techniques.

Once selected, elections can be held, by private means (this does not have to be approved by the government), and the representatives would be sent to Washington. Since this Watchdog group would not be part of the government, all revenue would come from private contributions.

2. The elimination of income taxes for people with incomes below $50,000 per year. People with incomes of 50K to 1 Million would remain the same. Incomes above that would be taxed at progressively higher rates. Multi-billionaires would be taxed at a 75% rate.

This would provide an enormous stimulation to the economy, and it would put money at the grassroots level, where the economy could truly "grow". Bush and the Republicans like to bullshit the term "growing the economy", but in reality, they "trample" the economy, since they funnel all of the money to the very rich, who spend the money on bullshit, rather than what is really necessary.

3. "Off shore" foreign workers working by telephone for American complanies would now be required to have green cards. They are currently sharing in the wealth of the American economy while paying nothing in return.

4. America will no longer be the "volunteer" policeman of the world. If other nations want the assistance of American security forces they will have to pay for them at a competitive rate.

5. American corporations that have deserted American in order to build offices and factories in Cheap Labor land will be required to pay for their own defense. No longer will Americans pay 3 trillion dollars a year in taxes for defense forces that help traitors take away American jobs.

Draft 2: 2/22/07.

Why the World Isn't Flat

The world is not flat.

We are told today that we must compete on an even playing field with countries like India and China. This is enormously unfair to Americans.

When Americans pay high taxes to support our troops as "the world's policeman", Americans are much like the Jews under Hitler who were forced to dig their own graves. We are paying huge taxes to support the machinery of a global empire. But yet we in turn are getting excluded from the benefits of this empire, because the treasonous chieftains of America's corporate elite view American workers as "too expensive".

Do you see the absurdity of this? We are first of all the ones who CREATED the infrastructure of the "flat" world through American Big Government paid for by "expensive", highly-taxed, American workers. But then we are told that we are "too expensive", so the jobs are all being outsourced to India and China.

The people of India, who are taking away American jobs by the truckload, pay no taxes to support America and pay no taxes to support the massively expensive machinery that keeps the "global market" operational.

To put it in other terms, would we have a "flat world" or "global market" if Hitler had won World War II? Or even if Stalin had won WWII? Or the Japanese?

The Japanese turned China into a giant slave-labor plantation during WWII. The Germans did the same thing in their conquered territory, and they planned to turn the entirety of Eastern Europe and Russia into one gigantic slave plantation.

Do you get my drift?

I am not yet able to put this into words, but the idea that this is some sort of "flat world", where America and India are on a par, is the height of absurdity. American big business leaders have adopted treason as their business model. Whether or not they are sincere, they seem to be oblivious to everything except greed and cheap labor.

This is an idea that must be developed and sharpened laser-sharp for the 2008 election. It is difficult to articulate. It is an explosive issue that has not been properly focused upon and it is actually far more important than the Iraq debate.

Draft 1: 2/13/07

Best Movies of All Time

This is the list of my favorite movies of all times. Later, I will put them in ranking order.

12 Monkeys - There is something awesome about this movie that I don't understand.

Godfather I and II. (Didn't like III very much)

The Great Escape

War of the Worlds (original; the remake sucked)

Apocalypse Now (original; the redux sucked, and it INFURATES me that whenever they show Apocalypse Now on TV, its always that HORRIBLE redux. News flash: The reason that they edited-out all of that footage is because it sucked. You are not getting something "extra" by viewing all of that disorganized junk. You are just viewing a bunch of irrelevant crap that ruins the movie. And why did they remove the GREAT music at the end of the movie, when everything was blowing up while they showed the credits? That is GREAT.

World Trade Center. A profound emotional experience.

Terminators I & II. (T III sucked). Lets face it, Ahnoold is getting too old and respectable. When hes says "Aisle be back", it sounds like he's running for re-election. Yawn. Don't remind us.

Star Wars (but ALL of the sequels have sucked)

On the subject of Sequel Theory, I've been developing Orf's Law of Decreasing Entertaineousness. I was hoping to publish it and get a grant: The law states that there is a 95% probability that the entertaineousness of any given sequel is no more than 50% of the immediately preceeding movie. In other words, the odds are 20-to-1 against a sequel being any more than 50% as entertaining as the movie directly preceeding it (which may also be a sequel). This is a recursive mathematical law.

Therefore, the odds are also 20-to-1 against: A sequel III being any more than 25% as entertaining as the original, a sequel IV being more than 12.5% as entertaining as the original, a Sequel V being any more than 6.25%, a sequel VI being more than 3.1%, etc.

This explains why most III sequels are horrible, and most V or VI sequels are bad enough to induce vomiting. They can be downright painful to watch. If watched frequently enough, especially in one sitting, they can even cause death. It is entirely possible that this is what killed Anna Nicole Smith.

Consider the endless "Star Wars" garbage. The original Star Wars was fantastic, but the most recent sequels are, as mathematically shown by Ork's Law, only about .0000125% as entertaining as the original. In fact, the entertaineousness of Star Wars sequels, at this point, is beginning to approach negative infinity. Once a movie reaches an entertaineousness of negative infinity, the consequences can be drastic: Viewers will start uncontrollably vomiting up their popcorn, and start laughing hysterically at all the wrong parts, and, as in the possible case of Anna Nicole, even die.

So you have to be very careful about going to see sequels. That is why I am not going to see Rocky XLVII, or whatever it is. Soon, they will have to use scientific notation to show the sequel number of movies in the Rocky or Star Wars chain: Star Wars 10 to the 43rd power, or Rocky 1.543 times 10 to the 63rd power. These movies can actually induce negative entropy, thus not only killing the viewer, but actually causing him to vaporize!

I will list more of my favorite movies later, as I think of them.

Draft 1: 2/9/07

Now I Look Like an IBM'er

Here's a new photo of who I look like. This time I used a direct photo without my glasses.

Now I know why I hate Microsoft so much. Thomas J. Watson is the son of the founder of IBM and he did most of the work to make it a computer company.

Draft 2: 2/9/07

The Painted Veil

I moderately recommend the movie "The Painted Veil". I award it 3 cholera boogers (4 and you die of diarrhea). The acting was a bit wooden, but the photography was magnificent and it gave you a glimpse inside the Chinese peasantry, although I don't really know if it was actually filmed in China.

However, a bad sign is that I only managed to sit thru 75% of the movie. I've mentioned before that that is my typical attention span, except for extraordinary movies. But it is certainly a good movie, and people who like serious, intelligent, sensitive movies should enjoy it.

Unfortunately, I tend to prefer movies where there are bombs going off, witches fighting wizards, people shooting each other, men f---ing beautiful women, and/or people traveling thru time naked.

First draft: 2/3/07

Giuliani: Building Inspector on 9/11/01

WARNING: THIS POST IS UNJUSTIFIABLY NASTY AND MAY BE UNSETTLING TO YOUNGER READERS.

With Giuliani running for President, I have to question his role as the ultimate Building Inspector in New York City on 9/11/01. Isn't the Mayor of NYC the ultimate, buck-stops-here, Building Inspector of NYC?

And that raises an interesting question of blame that nobody has wanted to talk about: Why was it believed that the World Trade Center Towers could withstand a direct hit from a jet plane? And why did Osama Bin Laden know otherwise?

As I see it, the situation was as follows: When the Twin Towers were designed, jet planes were MUCH smaller and carried much less fuel. At the time that the Twin Towers were constructed, they probably COULD have withstood a direct hit from a jet plane, since jet planes were much smaller back then.

But the question is, how come none of the building inspectors in NYC revised their opinions and said "Hey. If a big modern jet hit the WTC, it would collapse the entire building!" And don't tell me that anybody never thought of that. It was an event that could well have happened even by accident.

There are only two possibilities: Either the building inspectors were corrupt, or the the building inspectors were incompetent.

Case 1: They were corrupt. In this scenario, they knew quite well that a big, modern jet full of fuel could destroy the entire building. But alerting the renters to this fact could cause a mass exodus of renters from the WTC. Or, it might have forced the owners to do major structural changes, like expanding and re-enforcing the central stairwell, improving the sprinkler system or even reinforcing the flimsy support structures.

Any of those alternatives would have cost huge amounts of money, so it would obviously be much cheaper to simply bribe building inspectors and/or city government officials. Enter Giuliani, or his people.

Case 2: They were incompetent. The building inspectors were too stupid and incompetent to see that the WTC would collapse if hit by a jumbo jet full of jetfuel.

It is particularly damning that BOTH towers collapsed. If only one tower had collapsed, they could have called it a "freakish occurrence". But since they BOTH collapsed, it can be assumed that any serious, competent architect should have been able to figure out that that would happen if the building were hit by a jumbo jet. After all, a jumbo jet is a known quantity. It carries a known quantity of force, a known quantity of mass, and a known quantity of fuel.

Both case 1 and case 2 reflect poorly on Giuliani, and it is likely that they will emerge in an election.

These questions were conveniently obscured by Bush's response to 9/11 being totally to destroy the perpetrators. That is all very well and good, but there now looms an ENORMOUS question of whether ANY of the super highrises in America could withstand a direct hit by a jumbo jet. And nobody seems to want to talk about it. Maybe because there is an enormous amount of money at stake.

You might ask: "What do you have against Rudy Giuliani? What did he ever do to you. Gosh." Well, I'm pissed at him for coming around here in South Florida and campaigning for Florida Governor Jeb Bush in Jeb's re-election campaign of 2002. What the F did Giuliani know about the issues in Florida that he should come down here and cash in on his 9/11 fame to get votes for Jeb? That really pissed me off.

Just because you're famous for 9/11 does not mean you should go strutting your stuff all over the USA, telling people what to do like some hot French dominatrix.

Actually, Giuliani isn't a bad guy, but he's not a contenduh.

Second draft (unjustifiably nasty): 2/2/07.

Biden Calls a Spade a Spade

It looks like Biden is DOA. The very first day, he gives Barak Obama a Politically Incorrect Compliment. Oh My Gawwwwwd!!!

But Biden showed that he wasn't a contender when he made an even bigger mistake: He apologized! Why should he apologize?

I can see a person apologizing if they got a blowjob in the Oval Office from a 21 year-old intern by promising her that he would marry her. But no. All Biden did was give Barak a good natured compliment.

Barak seems a bit oversensitive. If he were not, he probably would have changed his name to "Barry" by now. I like him, but I don't think that anybody with a name like Barak Obama could possibly get elected President of the United States. Nor a person with a name like Hillary.

And after Biden's compliment, like a dog sensing easy prey, R.A.C.I.S.M, Incorporated bared its teeth and went on the attack: "What? Is Biden implying that Jessie Jackson ain't articulate? Is Biden implying that the only solution is not revolution? Or is Biden trying to insinuate that Al Sharpton's hairdo wouldn't wow mainstream America? No doubt that Biden is an Evil Racist."

Personally, I think that blacks are FAR more racist than whites. Blacks interpret EVERYTHING in terms of skin color. Maybe it's not their fault, but it IS a fault.

But I conclude that Biden is not a contender for 2 reasons: 1. He made a slightly inappropriate politically incorrect statement. 2. He was dumb enough to apologize for it.

If Biden were truly presidential material, he would have turned the whole thing around on Barak Obama. Most Americans probably don't like what Barak did. He took a compliment from someone and then turned it into an insult just so that he could pick a fight and suck up to his cronies. If Biden were a contender, he would have realized that this could have hurt Barak more than it hurt Biden.

What I'm thinking of is Reagan's famous retort, when queried about his old age, he stated that people should not let the youthful inexperience of his opponent prejudice that against him.


Third draft: 2/2/07. I was rebuked by God for making fun of Barak's name! After calling him "Borat", and suggesting that he should change his name to "Barry", I was reading the Bible and God directed my attention to a passage wherein "Barak" is described as a hero. So that is most certainly a direct rebuke by God, and I have changed the post accordingly. However, I will not apologize, for reasons stated in the above post.