February Surprise?

I'm not sure what to make of this story that claims that the United States is going to set up an "aerial" blockade of Syria outside of the United Nations.

I understand that some kind of buffer is needed for the humanitarian aid to be distributed to refugees but two problems strike me.

The first is unilateral action on the part of the U.S. I personally don't have a problem ignoring the UN, it's a bunch of thugs and dictators for the most part, but Obama and the rest of the worlds liberal internationalists constantly scream to all the world the need for the "international community" to act as one in these kinds of endeavors. Has Obama realized that that point of view is childish an unsustainable? I doubt it. Some kind of election year warmongering? Wouldn't be the first time but seems unlikely for Obama.

While trying to understand the mind set of a socialist megalomaniac is a pointless venture, trying to understand how an aerial blockade would even work here isn't. To the best of my knowledge the entire conflict is contained inside Syria. I don't believe the Syrian air force, if it exists, is participating in the slaughter. Knowing that, how does an aerial blockade work? Are our planes going to fly around and target Syrian military forces that seem to be engaging civilians? Are we just protecting aid workers? How does this stop the Syrian government from killing people?

When we had the fighters securing Iraq after the first Gulf War, it made sense. Iraq had some planes and were moving heavy military around that we could target and destroy. If we are going to destroy Syrian military in a city environment while they are engaged with civilians, that seems like a recipe for disaster. We may very well destroy large percentages of active Syrian military but can't help but kill high numbers of civilians as well. On the other hand, if that's not what we are trying to do with the aerial blockade, then what are we doing? Nothing else will save any lives.

This smells faintly like Vietnam-era decision making where Washington theorists are trying to determine the most mathematical way to get this done. If we are willing to bomb cities in an attempt to keep the Syrian government from killing them why not just invade with the goal of regime change? We did it in Afghanistan, Iraq and virtually in Libya so why not here as well. Seems like a hell of a lot better than an indefinite bombing campaign with hazy objectives and limited possibilities for success.

United in Hypocrisy

Few things in this world vex liberals like the case of Citizens United v. FEC.

Sady Doyle tries to take a stab and making the case that all of humanity should be outraged and demand that a constitutional amendment be passed to overturn the ruling that allows for profit corporations to enjoy free speech protections.

The primary argument seems to be that a corporation isn't a person, legally or otherwise. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that liberals would come to that conclusion. After all, if an unborn human being doesn't count as a person why should a corporation?

Her "logic" falls apart rapidly when she compares corporations to other entities that enjoy the same freedoms that corporations do after the Citizens United case. What constitutes all of these groups? Let's examine.

Corporation - A group of people (investors, employees, directors) that combine their efforts to further the business and make profits.

Union - A group of employees that collectively bargain for their own collective benefit. (AFL-CIO, NEA)

Non-profit group - A group of people combining resources and efforts to achieve a certain goal, unrelated to profits. (NAACP, NOW, Americans for Prosperity)

Gee, all of these things seem awfully similar. What justification could Doyle use to censor on group of people but not the other two? Easy, corporations are comprised of bad people while labor unions and non-profit organizations are the salt of the earth. Except for those rotten conservative Super PAC's of course.

Doyle makes the assertion that corporations have unlimited amounts of money and will absolutely try and buy a politician. Maybe so. I'm sure all the George Soros, Warren Buffet and Hollywood funded Super PAC's are as pure as fresh snow. Certainly labor unions have never tried any underhanded techniques, outside of assaults, lies and voter intimidation. Lets also not forget that almost all of the bailout dollars went to propping up unions across the country so the cash discrepancy that Doyle cites as a reason to discriminate against corporations is a total fabrication.

Ultimately liberals hate the Citizens United decision because it gives conservatives a chance to balance out organizational shortcoming created by the liberal activities of unions and non-profits like the NAACP. The uglier side of the argument is how liberals like Doyle simply dismiss corporations as uniformly bad. Maybe the directors are all multimillionaires who can take a hit or two but what about the legions of employees, stock holders, etc. that earn their living working for the corporations? What about all the other workers of the world who might have retirement accounts or mutual funds that include stock in these corporations? Are they inherently bad too? Why should the group they belong to be any less empowered to protect their interests than their unionized counterparts? They shouldn't be of course.

Doyle's article is a pathetic attempt to cover her own partisan shortcomings. Why is she so certain that conservative corps. can buy politicians? Because all liberal politicians have been bought and paid for buy unions and wealthy liberals, that's why. She is simply projecting the dark activities of her side onto the opposition. In typical liberal fashion, whenever they fail in their attempt to win the ideological discussion (dwindling support for unions proves the failure) they simply utilize the courts to try and legislate socialism.

Are corporations people? Of course. What else could they be? So are unions, Super PAC's, non-profits, religious groups and political parties. Combine this attack on free speech with the recent attack on religion and liberals have just about opposed all of the first amendment. Better peacefully assemble now while its still legal.

Worst Movies Ever

This will be a running list of the worst movies I've ever seen. In no particular order.
***UPDATE*** In the spirit of positive over negative, in addition to identifying some of the worst movies ever, I will also try and offer up a better alternative.

9. Midnight in Paris (2011) - This franco-masturbatory pile of self indulgent excrement must have been underwritten by the French Chamber of Commerce. I realize that Woody Allen has turned his neurotic stalking from NYC to Europe but this is ridiculous. It's one thing to be nostalgic for the past but to be nostalgic for a past that never existed is pathetic. I refuse to believe that Owen Wilson would find the magic wormhole that allowed him to travel back in time just so he can get Hemmingway to give him notes on his crappy book. I also refuse to believe that the Rachel McAdams character exists in real life. Women this bitchy yet still desired only exist in movies so that we feel sorry for a lead character that we would otherwise wish a horrible, horrible death on. Not this time Woody. TRY INSTEAD: Un Prophete (2009); OSS 117: Lost in Rio (2009); OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies (2006).

8. What Dreams May Come (1998) - Sweet Jesus what a mess. Whatever hope this movie had was quickly destroyed in a massive bout of overacting and scenery chewing by Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding Jr. right before he made that movie with Horatio Sanz on the gay cruise. The real crime here though is that not only did they make a god awful movie (pun intended), they obliterated the memory of a pretty readable book. And seriously, Max von Sydow should just pretend to be dead next time Patch Adams comes callin'. TRY INSTEAD: Drag Me To Hell (2009).

7. The Baader-Meinhof Complex (2008) - A grueling, 2 hour plus communist/terrorist lovefest that could only be loved by all those jackasses wearing Che t-shirts. One good part was the nude loving German RAF terrorists trying to explain to the PLO that sex and revolution are one in the same. Bet they got a lot of mileage out of that one. TRY INSTEAD: Munich (2005).

6. Marie Antoinette (2006) - The mystery of Sofia Coppola continues. Avoid this movie at all costs. Gay porn would be a serious upgrade in both acting and plot. TRY INSTEAD: Girl With A Pearl Earring (2003).

5. Drillbit Taylor (2008) - Owen Wilson's veins didn't just spontaneously burst from massive pride and accomplishment you know. TRY INSTEAD: Battle Royale (2000).

4. The Fourth Kind (2009) - The movie starts with Milla Jovovich warning the audience that many of the scenes in the movie are real footage from police files and that the story is essentially true. That would in fact make the movie better if that weren't a complete lie. Not only did they make a fictional movie, they opened it with a fictional PSA to try and make you think it might be true. I already bought your ridiculous premise when I bought the ticket. Stop trying to trick me a second time. And then try making a good movie. TRY INSTEAD: Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy (1968) or Predator (1987).

2 & 3. Lady in the Water/The Happening (2006/2008) - Maybe The Last Airbender will be M. Nights big comeback movie. What's that? Oh. TRY INSTEAD: The Abyss (1989)/The Signal (2007).

1. Sphere (1998) - If Sharon Stone plays a major role that doesn't include coked-out whoring or sex crazed murdering, there's a good chance that movie sucked. Exhibit A. TRY INSTEAD: Event Horizon (1997).

Stupidity Turns One

Erik Trager took the thankless task of offering the liberals view of world events to the world by penning a lamentation of the current state of the Egyptian revolution. An event that Trager claims was and still is the most inspiring thing he had ever witnessed.

Mixed in this tripe is Trager's sadness that he was apparently duped into believing that the Egyptian protesters were somehow liberal democrats just waiting for their own Society to make Great. Sprinkled in this woe-is-me tale is mild criticism of Obama and the administration for failing to have any idea of how to influence this situation in a positive manner. The administration has capitulated everywhere and is currently hoping to work some kind of deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, who themselves are trying to find legal ways to invade Israel.

The sad part of this pathetic mess is that Trager is no doubt is shocked by the events that have transpired in Egypt and everywhere else in the Arab Spring.

The problem is how liberals view revolutionaries. To the leftist all revolutionaries are freedom fighters hoping to relieve the nation of oppression by killing the tyrant and installing socialist governments. In this respect liberals are half right. These revolutions are usually in response to overthrowing a authoritarian tyrant. Mubarak was to Egypt what Fulgencio Batista was to Cuba, a monster.

The problem lies in the solution. Liberals seem incapable of believing that revolutionaries would overthrow a murderous tyrant just to replace him with a murderous tyrant. Yet this regularly happens. Batista was replaced by Castro a Guevara who were monsters in their own right and Egypt is now in the hands of a quasi-military, theocratic totalitarian regime that hates Jews.

What evidence exists in the middle east that would support a spontaneous liberal revolution? The history of that region is one of murderous thug replaced by murderous thug. The only thing that ever changes is what subsection of Islam (Sunni, Shiite, etc.) is going to be in charge of the killing. Outside of Israel the only recently changed country that has even a shred of western democracy in it is Iraq. And that is a tenuous situation at best. If the world can barely get a modernized country like Iraq to accept the slightest democracy after a decade of military presence and a trillion dollars then what hope can we have for a spontaneous coup d'etat executed by religious fanatics?

I'll never understand how liberals can convince themselves that the same people who take to the streets to riot and overthrow the state can be relied on to be good-natured in the aftermath. This is the same tragic logic that results in Laura Logan standing alone around the back of a 72 Pinto hatchback in the middle of this antisemitic, anti-American, misogynistic free for all. Did that tragedy even slow down liberals enthusiasm for the Arab Spring? Nope, full speed ahead. Light has come to the dark, Obama is freeing the Egyptians, let the post Bush world rejoice.

Now Trager has come to the sad realization that most of us knew a year ago. This is a scam. The new guys are worse than the old. People like Trager were just deluded by their own world view. They saw what they wanted to see despite all evidence to the contrary. I hope that these same people slowly coming to this conclusion on Egypt will not make the same mistake in dealing with Iran. I suspect that I'm living in my own delusion on that matter.

Booze, Baseball and Silkwood Showers

Sampler packs seem like a great idea. In theory.

Logically speaking if a product has many variations that you would like to try a little of before committing to a full run, then a sampler is the way to go. This has traditionally been the case with booze. Especially with beer.

This line of thinking led me straight into the jaws of the Jim Beam X-mas 4 pack.

Things started off so well. A nice airplane sized bottle of regular Jim Beam on the rocks. Delicious. Pour number two was the livelier Jim Beam Black. I'm my humble opinion, a better drink than the original.

Then it happened.

Understand that by this point that I'm in free drinking mode. Not drunk mind you, those bottles don't hold tons, but I could see a decent buzz just around the corner provided I could get the last two bottles working in me quick enough.

Bottle number 3. Red Stag. I have no idea what this is but I pour it on ice, let it chill a bit, then swigged a big mouthful of despair.

I felt like I was being waterboarded with a combination of cherry NyQuil, Mineral Ice and kerosene. It was awful. So awful I had another drink just to prove to myself that I didn't just have a stroke during the last drink. The cumulative effect was worse than the first drink alone! I seriously could not even begin to imagine what flavor was trying to be achieved here. If date rape had a flavor this was it. So after I tricked my wife into tasting this catastrophe (she wasn't pleased), I finished it off then went to examine the bottle to see just what had happened.

I should have known. Black Cherry Bourbon. Just great. It recalled the same disgusted feeling I had after taking a shot of Jack Daniels Honey Assault. I never thought I could have anything worse than that honey sludge in my mouth until the Red Stag came along. Turns out I was wrong. This Black Cherry WMD is worse than JD Honey, lengua and a weekend at Burning Man combined.

Make no mistake, I'm not against a blend per se. I quite favor the Jeremiah Weed Cherry Mash Bourbon but we've gone to far in trying to flavor booze. From Smirnoff Ice, to honey whiskey to strawberry vodka to Red Stag it just seems like booze manufacturers are solely focused on ways to make it easier for women and gay guys to get drunk. I know I'm not the only one who sees this trend happening. Otherwise, Michael Imperioli wouldn't be questioning my manhood over a shot of Tequila every third commercial during the playoffs.

Luckily, the good folks at Jim Beam closed out the sampler with the very enjoyable Devils Cut. My brain would like me to believe that going 3 for 4 in anything is admirable. Damn near a spectacular night in baseball. My heart tells me the truth though. Not all 3 for 4's are the same. Sometimes you get 3 singles and a weak pop to short. Sometime you hit a double, two homers and fly out to the track. Then sometimes you get a couple doubles, a hard single off the wall then you beat the umpire to death before you defecate in his goalies mask.

Red Stag is closer to ump murdering than a flyout. I still love me some JB but like a jilted lover I'm gonna need to take a little break after this breach of trust. Spend a little quality time with the Wild Turkey until I can get the stink of this episode off of me and learn to love again.

Series Movie Review: Punisher

Today we're reviewing a classic set of revenge movies:

Punisher (1989)

The Punisher (2004)

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

Bad Azz Mutha: Black Punisher (1998)

Punisher (R 1989) - It's hard to believe this classic Dolph Lundgren pic was a straight to VHS effort. Apparently New World Pictures went bankrupt before it was released here. Anyway, copies of the movie are hard to find and by hard to find I mean I refuse to watch a VHS and it isn't on Netflix. From what I remember when I saw it in 1989 though, it was friggin awesome. Seems like tons of violence, bad dialogue and Lou Gossett Jr. doing stuff. Since it was 1986, I'm betting there was a terrible soundtrack, frequent shots of stripper/hooker related nudity and mild to moderately racist things said about all the Japanese gangster and LGJr. All the stuff a 9 year old boy needs in a film. Good times. FINAL SCORE: B-

The Punisher (R 2004) - Holy god what a mess. Thomas Jane seems like a guy who needs a Prozac and a good nap instead of a guy hellbent on revenge. He literally has dinner with the neighbors in the middle of his rampage. Not good. And everyone seems to know exactly who he is. Isn't he supposed to have a costume and alter ego for a reason? Jane seems like a real firecracker compared to Travolta though. I know Battlefield Earth is the big joke but is it really worse than this? Travolta's "villain" seems manic, alternately ordering people killed the switching to completely disinterested with the fate of the whole plot. Guess what Johnny boy, me too. I would also like to complain that the Punisher family killing scenario is a simple one that should be set up in the first 15 minutes of the movie. This one goes all the way out to foreign islands with family reunions and a long drawn, draaaaaawn out shooting scene just to kill a kid and his mom. Jane wasn't even the Punisher until minute 40 of this wreck. Kill the family, shed the tears, start the rampage. And for God's sake do it with a little life and snap to it.

FINAL SCORE: D-

Punisher:War Zone (R 2008) - Not a bad movie. Ray Stevenson is by far the best Punisher yet and the movie doesn't spend a lot of time before they get to the punishing. There are a couple of those "dinner with neighbors" moments but not many. I do wonder what happened to Dominic West though. He's a great actor and even though he is an English actor he played an Irish guy from Baltimore perfectly in The Wire. I cannot fathom what accent or speech pattern he is going for but it failed miserably. I sounds like Jimmy McNulty had an aneurysm while being raped by a Newsie. Otherwise the Jigsaw effects were obvious but effective enough. I must admit I'm still not sure I can remember the plot. Who cares.

FINAL SCORE: B+

Bad Azz Mutha: Black Punisher (NR 1998) - I have no idea what was going on. Fred Williamson is playing the gritty Lt. Malone from the Black Cobra series but there seems to be a strange divergence of plot. Some of it is Malone chasing bad guys and some of it has to do with freedom fighters and the UN. Worse, for a supposed blaxploitation film, there's very little blaxpolitatin going on. Williamson might be the only black guy in the movie and he seems like a real team player. Hell, he even teams up with the UN at the end of the movie. I thought there would be a lot more of stiff white commissioners telling him to turn in his gun and shield. Maybe a few jive talkin ladies with afro's. If I wanted a lecture on freedom fighters and the UN I would watch Oliver Stone make love to Castro's corpse. What? Fidel is still alive? Who cares, time to go rent Shaft.

FINAL SCORE: Incomplete. I'm not sure this is an actual movie.

Yikes

A recent CBS News poll shows just how badly off President Obama is. Here are the results in the hypothetical election matchups:

Romney 47 Obama 45

Paul 45 Obama 46

Gingrich 41 Obama 49

Huntsman 41 Obama 48

Perry 42 Obama 49

Santorum 43 Obama 47

Seriously? Not over 50 percent against any of them? Bad news considering the field.

Romney is a guy whose own party doesn't really want to be president, he's winning by default. Paul is a certifiable, tin hat wearing, quasi-racist lunatic. Gingrich seems shocked that negative ads have been used and has now decided to scorch the earth in an attempt to beat Romney. Huntsman is a little weasel who plotted to overthrow the very man who gave him a job while he was still on said job. Perry may be one of the worst campaigners in modern history and Santorum is Romney-esque big government, northeast Republican with more whine and snark.

The idea that Americans seem willing to turn over the country to one of these guys shows just how far he has fallen in the eyes of the American public. Maybe if he spent more time governing and less time trying to hide the extravagantly lame life he and his nutty wife live he wouldn't be in a position to a guy who is a 9/11 truther for crying out loud.

And just imagine how far ahead a good Republican candidate would be.