Evan Sayet, who has a pretty deep understanding of Liberals, strikes again at Brietbart's Big Hollywood.

Read it and weep. Or laugh. As the mood strikes.

He explains why Hollywood is liberal:

Think about a spoiled teen. His parents have given him everything he could possibly want, demanding nothing in return. His toys are piled high, his room filled with all of the latest gadgets and gizmos, his parents heaping praise on him night and day. Is this child happy? No, he’s miserable. And he’s angry. His only joy coming in wallowing in his teenage angst and his victimhood and from his ginned up sense of superiority to the rest of the world which is evil and stupid and just doesn’t get him. Keep this image in your head, now, and you have the perfect description of the Hollywood star.

The Gunslinger

Mock The Enemy

Yer doin' it right.

The Gunslinger
Enemy of Stupid Celebrities

Sick...but somehow Funny

This is wrong on so many levels...but somehow it just feels right:



Yep, there's yer classless, ghetto-boy Kanye (which I prefer to pronounce "Can´- ya", just to piss him off)

And what is with his head? Oh wait...there nothing INSIDE it, so the best he can do is decorate the OUTSIDE?

(b shur to by his cd...hlep a brotha owt, dood...)

The Gunslinger

American Idol

I haven't written about Idol this year because, well, I just didn't care much. (Relative to my unrepentant hysterical fan-girlism over David Cook last year.)

But last night the winner was chosen by popular vote, and it wasn't Adam Lambert.

This convulsed the media...who called it an "upset", insulting all the fans that voted for him, had every intention of voting for him, had always planned to vote for him, in the millions...and of course, the man himself, whom they thereby declared has been, in their minds, the likely loser.

Nice guy, humble guy, sweet guy, laid-back guy, nuanced guy, Christian guy, and naturally cool guy Kris Allen took home the coveted prize. He's this year's American Idol.

Even if you don't watch, or don't care about AI, this is a big deal for a couple of reasons.

1) The Media hyped its favorite, believed its own hype, and was shocked....shocked that he lost.

Once again the media, and particularly the "entertainment" media, centered in Los Angeles and New York, decided in their little blue bubble that their man Adam Lambert was God's gift to American Idol, North America and the World.

This is a contest in which the viewers vote for their favorite. The "media" has no power to dictate the results except insofar as they can influence their consumers. Even the producers of the show, and the record companies who must sign the winner and produce his first album can only attempt to manipulate the opinions of the audience, they cannot proclaim the winner. They are, after whatever attempt they might may to influence the viewers, at the mercy of the public's choice. It is final, there is no appeal.

This year, the media, and the entire machinery of the show worked, not very subtly, and with rather reckless disregard for good manners, objectivity, fairness, courtesy, and disinterest, to make American Idol the "Adam Lambert Show". Unfortunately for them both, they were among those who drank their own Kool-Aid, and the results became for them, a forgone conclusion, a prophecy fulfilled in all but the mere formality of the vote.

Until, that is, Ryan Seacrest spoke the "wrong" name from the "envelope please".

The shock on the face of the winner, who was among those who became utterly convinced of the inevitability of the crowning of "The Chosen One", speaks to the effectiveness of the inside-the-AI/media-bubble-full-tilt-boogie-full-on-Adam-Lambert-is-the-best-ever-PR-campaign.

This disconnect will come as no surprise to those of us who are the marginalized, despised, criticized, and satirized majority who live somewhere beyond the horizons and under the radar of the glitterati of LA and NYC. But, damn, its nice to see them trip on their bottom lips in front of God and everybody on national television—on the highest rated program of the year.

Sometimes, life is good.

They, of course, don't understand what happened. They are so convinced of the superiority of their brand, of their boy, it does simply not occur the them that others may simply prefer a different one. And that segues into my next point...

2) American Idol watchers and voters once more chose the cute, clean cut, all-American boy next door as their idea of the symbol and face of American talent...instead of what the media hype (and his fans) were pleased to call their favorite: "edgy", "different", "original", "sexual", "in your face".

In order to understand the contest, one has to describe Adam Lambert and Kris Allen. Perhaps a photo of the two is the best place to start:

This is Adam Lambert, the Presumptive winner:



This is Kris Allen, the Actual winner:



Adam is a 27-year-old theater performer (from age 10) living in L.A. Kris is a newly married 23-year-old student, from Arkansas, with no performing resume to speak of.

Adam is a (very) high-voiced glam-rock screamer/singer who wears makeup, black nail polish, snake-skin boots and terminally hip costumes. Kris is a laid-back, guitar-playing, piano playing, nuanced singer who wears regular guy clothes and tennis shoes - and sometimes has that trendy (admittedly kind of sexy) needs-a-shave whisker shadow goin' on.
























Now, to each his own, and all that, but the interesting thing about this year's top two is the cultural issues one side is raising.

Adam Lambert is in my not very charitable opinion, a dated glam-rocker. He's got all the required glam-rock theatricality and overt sexuality of a junior-drag-queen..."not that there's anything wrong with that," as Jerry Seinfeld would say.

I get that this is hot stuff to the unsophisticated and unsubtle tastes of children who think this is what "sexy" means...and to the jaded tastes of old queens to whom subtle flavors no longer give a "lift". He has a very strong, very skilled, very high voice. He can kill all those screamy rock high notes. And he does it with tedious regularity. This is his stock-in-trade. His theater background, his ownership of the stage, his costumes, his bawdy sexuality and his howling soprano convinced the young, the inexperienced, the unwashed and the unsophisticated that he's a "rock god".

And these pseudo-sophisticates are all over the blogs and media columns spitting bile that because Americans prefer Kris Allen, they are "afraid" of someone as "different" as Adam Lambert

"Different" if you've been living under a rock for 30 years.

In any case, Adam's hysterical fans (including the entertainment media en masse) are outraged because the "wrong contestant" won. The vote was an "upset". And they are furious because boring, stupid, white-bread America has proven once again it likes bland and boring beige rather than juicy, exciting and unique "true" talent...and that Adam Lambert is just too "scary" for frightened, uncultured, oatmeal-eating, middle America.

Oh...and that all of us who voted for Kris Allen are just dull, boring, stupid, trembling homophobes. (You HAD to know that was coming, right?)

Once again the idiocy of the Liberal is on full display. How, exactly, does one have an "upset" via a popular vote? The only thing that happened is that the people who were utterly certain Lambert would garner more votes were wrong. Just wrong. There was no "upset". The public voted how it had always intended to vote. It was the Lambert fans who were mistaken in their assessment of his general popularity.

The "right" winner is the contestant that gets the most votes. In a contest decided by popular vote (assuming all votes were fairly counted) a "wrong" winner is a logical impossibility. But they are just like their political allies. They have no doubt that they are correct, that their minority opinion is the right one, and anyone who disagrees with them is evil or stupid.

Starting to sound painfully familiar, isn't it?

And they are all proclaiming that in spite of the stupid (or evil) public, Adam Lambert will be much bigger star than the winner, Kris Allen. They insist that the dullness of the American public in voting for the more or less insipid Mr. Allen will not prevent the glorious Mr. Lambert's soaring success and the rapid fading away of the "coffee-house" singer that actually won.

And they are very content and self-satisfied in their declarations...without a thought about exactly how that can be expected to happen in the real world.

I wonder if these people understand how "success" in music is achieved? I wonder if they understand that if many more people prefer Mr. Allen's music than preferred Mr. Lambert's (which, after all, has been clearly demonstrated by the result of their voting to crown Mr. Allen as the American Idol) it's possible that those same people will purchase Mr. Allen's albums and attend Mr. Allen's concerts in greater numbers than they will Mr. Lambert's.

There's no guarantee, of course, fame is fickle. But it's a likely eventuality I should think.

But it's not the actual eventual fate of either man that is at issue here. At issue, as always, is the smug, superior, condescending attitude and unsubtle tastes of the supposedly sophisticated—but in fact the hilariously parochial and the easily impressed.

Adam Lambert is a big, fast, loud, f/x studded, summer blockbuster Hollywood movie that once seen has revealed all its secrets. Kris Allen is a sophisticated, intelligent indie flick, in which every time you watch it, you find something new.

Adam Lambert is a rollicking bodice ripper romance novel that's pretty much like all the other rollicking bodice ripper romance novels but with different names. Kris Allen is a clever English village murder mystery, peopled with unique characters, that keeps you guessing until the very end.

Adam Lambert is KISS (the band)...whom the American Idol Powers-That-Be chose to appear with him on "results night". Kris Allen is Keith Urban...whom the American Idol PTB chose to appear with him on "results night".

Honestly, I think they got it exactly right...but I'm not sure they understood exactly what message they were sending—silly Liberals.

It did finally occur to me, eventually, that the reason the undue, perplexingly unprofessional and annoyingly obvious favoritism was brought to bear for Adam Lambert is because he's gay. Simple as I am, for a long time I just didn't understand their unwavering and rather slobbering adoration for this slightly bloated, round-faced, serpent shod screamer that would be a perfect fit in Vegas playing to the glam-rock glory-day memories of people old enough to be his parents.

The judges insistence that Adam's 80's showy rock style was "current" was baffled me until I looked at the show with my "political" (conspiracy?) eyes.

I think it's as simple as this: it was important to the Leftist/Media/Hollywood complex that an overtly sexual homosexual win American Idol. One columnist actually said that considering American finally elected a Black president, it's time that America had a gay American Idol.
All the puzzle pieces fell into place. This was a concerted effort to make Adam Lambert, gay guy, the American Idol. He has mad skills...and was a good candidate.

And of course, not a word was mentioned about his sexual preference anywhere near the show. It was the unspoken criterion. So they slobbered and drooled all over his performances, compared other contestants unfavorably to him, recalled praise of him when critiquing other singers. His picture graced most blog and columns referencing AI.

In the final "group song" on results night, the director shot Adam in several close ups...and got not one of the eventual winner...it was typical of the whole season.

In the final analysis, his mad promoters among judges, directors and the entertainment media did Adam a disservice. With all the hype, it's simply not possible that he didn't expect to win. He'd been told as much from his first performance to his last. He was literally set up. He was led to the slaughter by people who had agendas to advance, and for whom his individuality was subsumed by his sexual preference and its usefulness to their politics.

He was, in the end, despite all the apparent drooling affection, treated shabbily.

Kris expected to lose, and was prepared for the inevitable. The win was almost disconcerting for him. He was in shock. But for him, the shock was good.

It would be too much to ask of any young person put in the position Adam was, to expect him to ignore the heaping praise for weeks on end and not harbor certain expectations. Kris' win must have been equally disconcerting for him, even though he handled it with grace. But for him, the shock was bad. And unnecessary. Shame on the "adults" for not behaving more responsibly.

It is, as always, the left who talk of caring for people, but who always sacrifice them, whenever convenient, to their own volcano gods.

We'll see how this plays out. But there is a chance that the artificially and purposefully whipped up extreme expectations for Lambert's win, and the subsequent immense and "shocking upset" disappointment, may serve to tarnish both Kris Allen's legitimate victory and both boys' very real accomplishment of reaching AI's top two.

I hope it's a tempest in a cyber-teapot. But when the Gay-Agenda biddies gets crankin' there's no knowing where that speeding locomotive will stop.

In my opinion the American Idol audience has once again proved that the American people GET. IT. RIGHT.

And Leftists...we're just getting started.

The Gunslinger

ADDENDUM: Here is a hilarious example of the sort of comment on the net about the "upset" on AI:

"It was quite a shocker to say the least. Kris Allen was voted in as the new American Idol, defeating fan favorite Adam Lambert."

Pay particular attention to the italicized bit. Logic is not their strong point.

Sadism & the Left

I finished the book. United In Hate, by Jamie Glazov.

And a more frightening, horrifying, depressing dissection of the Left is hard to imagine.

Glazov's theory covers all the facts, unlike all the other notions we toss around, as to why the Left acts and speaks as it does. And I've got to admit, I'm on the way to being convinced that he's right.

But, if he is, we're got trouble, my friends.

You've probably heard Mike Savage's opinion (and book title), Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Jamie Glazov's argument is even more extreme. In a nutshell, he claims that Leftism is a psychosis, based on re-directed (projected) self-hatred, alienation, and a death wish.

And he's pretty damned convincing. When you look at the actions, and listen to the words of the Left, it makes sense. But if you believe it, it makes persuasion or honest debate, or the possibility of convincing them of their error utterly impossible.

For a long time, we have assumed that when shown the undeniable truth, the average Leftist will accept it; change their mind; see the light. I have talked about them all living in a "Blue Bubble" unaware of the truth because they live in an echo chamber where only their own opinions and points-of-view have currency. I assumed on some level, that if they were removed from it, and had to live in the "real" world, they'd eventually come to their senses. I think a lot of us thought...or at least hoped that was true.

Like the old joke: "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged."

But Glazov demonstrates with the historical behavior of the Left that that simply doesn't work. They have a deep-seated, psychotic, emotional investment in totalitarianism that is not vulnerable to intellectual argument, truth or facts—or even to the threat of self-annihilation.

The Left has supported and adored Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Arafat, Chavez, Al-Queda, the Palestinians, the Sandinistas. Whoever is perpetrating the worst possible and the most widespread terror and horror on their people, are the Left's special heroes.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

And he shows that when these monsters were most popular and deified by the Left, they were at the height of their murderous bloodletting. The more gruesome and enormous their crimes, the more the Left was infatuated. The more innocents were being slaughtered, the more blood, literally flowed in the streets, the more horrific the tortures, the more hell-like the conditions they created in their countries, the more intensely the Left idolized them.

As an example, note how Red China is no longer the darling of the Left. They don't castigate it, but they also don't sing paeans of glory to it either. That happened only during the Cultural Revolution, when hundreds of millions of Chinese were being murdered. Since then, as the fierce murderous mania exhausted itself, especially since they have embraced capitalism...they have become less beloved, and are mostly ignored by the Left, even though they are still the biggest communist "paradise" on the planet. The Left tired of their middle-aged lover, and threw him over for a new, virile and exciting one....Islamic Supremacists.

Leftist homosexuals support a regime that would slaughter them.
Leftist feminists support a regime that would mutilate, rape and enslave them.
Leftist intellectuals support a regime who would imprison or execute them.
Leftist writers support a regime who would censor and silence them.
Leftist "peaceniks" support a regime that spills oceans of innocent blood.

We all see it every day. We wonder "Don't they know what would happen if their side won?" We even try to use that as an argument against them. It never works. They never change their mind. They deny reality. Then, when the facts become just too glaring, they justify it. And when it becomes globally obvious there is no justification, they blame America. Or Israel.

Glazov calls that last "The Devil Made Me Do It" defense. And it always comes down to that. Because the facts always come out...so denial is frustrated. And there is never any logical justification for their bloodlust...so justification is frustrated. In every single case, it eventually devolves down to "America (the Great Satan=Devil) made them do it".

And there is no shortage of Leftist rhetoric to that effect. They did it with the USSR, they did it with Red China, they did it with Viet Nam, they did it with Nicaragua, they did it with Cuba, they did it with Afghanistan, they did it with Iraq, they do it with Venezuela, and they do it every single day with the "Palestinians".

They demonstrate on campuses, they make pilgrimages to the countries ruled by the mad men, they slobber and kneel at their feet. And when they return, they sing their glorious praises, and they lecture us.

Glazov shows that in case after case, the Left supports the bloodiest, cruelest, most sadistic, most vicious, torturous despots in history—especially when they are at the height of their homicidal mania.

He makes the historical case that they only despise Hitler because he was a sworn enemy of Stalin. But they are enraptured by the Islamists, who are today's Nazis, especially and including their fierce, unrelenting, soul-rupturing hatred of Jews and the intense desire for their complete annihilation.

When a Leftist pretends to despise Hitler, he is only doing so because he knows to admire him is to draw the enmity of the entire civilized world—and make him effectively impotent, and irrelevant in any adult conversation. There is no doubt that his actual behavior was in accord with all their other heroes and man-gods.

They've learned:

1) If you love Hitler, you're a skin-head neo-nazi which everyone despises & ignores.

2) If you love the Palestinians, you can be a respected university professor.

But it's just a word game. They are the same Reich. The Nazis created the Muslim Brotherhood, who wished to complete the "final solution" in the Middle East once Hitler had eliminated the "Jewish Problem" in Europe. The defeat of Germany prevented it at the time. But they have not changed their objective, as they make perfectly clear on a daily basis.

The Left is an adoring fan of Hitlerism; they adore his "children", which closes the circle. They will stand with any life-hating, genocidal, mass murderer on the planet against the forces of freedom, light, God and goodness.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

But why do they choose heroes who detest them, who would destroy them? Glazov believes it is self-hate, which while projected onto their own Western Culture, still exists within them, and like masochism hiding in sadism, they despise themselves, and long for their own deaths at the hands of their punishing god-men. They have a deep-seated, if unacknowledged death-wish.

Hollywood, our universities, and the Democrat Party are full of these psychopaths that Glazov terms "believers". And one of them is now President of the United States. His friends and associates all his life have been of this psychotic clan. And he seems to be doing everything in his power to weaken the West and promote the forces of chaos.

His words are false, his actions are damaging, he clearly thinks America is The Problem, he has just sent $900 million dollars to Hamas....for "humanitarian aid". Yeah. That's what they'll do with it. But he's in "denial" at this point, because he can get away with it. Soon he'll justify their killing of innocents, and soon he'll blame Israel and, ultimately, the United States.

I mean, he already has. Remember the "apology " on Arab TV?

Jamie Glazov describes the psychological makeup of a typical Leftist as someone who is alienated from their culture, who doesn't have close and meaningful connections with other people, who feels empty, shiftless, who is hungry for meaning. Because of his alienation and loneliness, he comes to hate the culture in which he finds himself adrift, which provides no meaning, no sense of self for him. But he sees people leading happy, successful, meaningful lives all around him. And he comes to resent those people, and the culture in which they....but not he....was able to achieve them.

They are never people who are busy trying to make a living, or working to make ends meet. They are never the "miserable poor" they pretends to speak for.

They are the privileged ones who feel guilty, insecure, undeserving. They are alienated, lonely and miserable. They are the classic psychotic "lone gunman" who projects his self-hatred onto his own society which has failed to meet his emotional, spiritual and psychological needs.

But they are not "courageous" enough to pull the trigger themselves. They seek to live their hatred vicariously through the murderous behavior of their chosen god-men.

The furious bloodbath of millions by their surrogates is an orgasmic explosion of their own rage and hatred. A tantrum of self-absorbed, inhuman selfishness. The bigger, the better. The more blood, the more satisfying.

As I am writing this, I realize that this diagnosis does not only apply to the sphere about which Glazov writes, the support of totalitarian monsters by the Left throughout all of modern history. I realize it poisons every facet of their thinking.

They are virulent sadists, they revel in the pain, poverty, enslavement and misery of others...

...for social justice

...for the children

...for the environment

If you pay the least attention to their policies, every one is designed to harm someone. And the greater the harm, the more they celebrate and support it.

Birth control is not enough. Abortion is not enough. Partial-Birth abortion is not enough. We must have infanticide!

The sadist Left is not happy unless what they do hurts people, businesses, happiness, ease, joy, success, prosperity. They are not happy unless they are making others miserable. They say they want freedom, but support Castro & Chavez. They say they want women's rights, but support Islamofascists. They say they want prosperity for the poor, but support the destruction of capitalism.

They lie. Just like Obama. Everything they say is a front to cover their true psychotic longing...to make everyone else as pinched, humorless, soulless and miserable as they are, and to end it all in a blaze of blood and glory.

And so it follows that the bigger the misery, the more millions of people that are murdered, tortured, raped, dismembered, beheaded, starved, enslaved and imprisoned, the happier the Left is.

They cannot be persuaded, they cannot be debated, they cannot be educated, they cannot be saved. They can only be stopped.

The Gunslinger

The Sound of Silence

Headline: FEMA Condemned for Slow Response to Ice Storm Crisis

From the Midwest to the East Coast. People are freezing to death all over Kentucky.

I'm waiting to hear the accusations that Zero hates White people—and that he's responsible for the weather.

*sound of crickets*

Where are the breathless Media reports of administration malfeasance causing the suffering of so many helpless victims?

*crickets*

Doesn't that black bitch Kanye West have anything to say on national television about this racist outrage?

*sound of more crickets*

Silly me, how can he possibly talk with his tongue so far up Zero's ass?

The Gunslinger

Whose Victory?

Though originally credited to the London Daily Mail, the author of this piece is, at the moment, unknown:

Obama's Victory

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers every where. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expressionmay well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America !

The Gunslinger

Will the Blimp Lose some Lift?

This is not a surprise, nor is it really "news", except that the asshole might actually have to pay a price this time.

Obese, soiled and unsanitary Michael Moore (excuse me while I wash my hands after typing that...) just might get sued for using a copyrighted photograph by Michael Yon to imply falsely (lie) that our troops in Iraq are killing children.

Yon says the photograph is of an American soldier holding a child mortally wounded by a Muslim car bomb.

Here's the story.

I hope it costs the fat bastard millions.

The Gunslinger

Keep Fighting

Andrew Klavan at Breitbart's Big Hollywood describes the psychological "torture" we're being subjected to as Conservatives. He's got words of warning, words of shaming, and words of hope.

Read his post: Why We Fight

"That’s us–surrounded by the mainstream media. So steeped are we now in their lies about our representatives, their ridicule of our commentators, their demonizing dismissal of the causes we know are just, that we’ve begun to adopt their attitudes toward ourselves! And perhaps chief among the lies they’ve sold us is the lie that they’ve won, that the media are theirs for good and all, and that Americans are going to be hoodwinked and brainwashed by their constant barrage of misinformation forever.

Well, only if we let them. And only if we in the media surrender first."

And bookmark Big Hollywood for future reference and enlightenment.

The Gunslinger

Cockroaches in Suburbia

Here's an interesting story that can go either way.

Are Jimmy Carter and all his Hollywood nancy-boys complete assholes....or is this just the inevitable result of giving homes to ghetto dwellers who didn't earn them, and don't know how, or don't bother to maintain them?

Could go either way.

Actually, I suppose it could be both.

The Gunslinger

Charter for Compassion...

" A website launched Friday with the backing of technology industry and Hollywood elite urges people worldwide to help craft a framework for harmony between all religions."

Let me get this straight. Techno-geeks who create a panoply of violent video games aimed at young adults, like "Car Theft Auto" and Hollywood scum who make "W" and "Religulous", and among whom are Lindsay Lohan, Rosie O'Donnell, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Whoopie Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and that paragon of fatherhood, Alec Baldwin... feel they have the spiritual gravitas to advise WORLD RELIGIONS on how to behave?

Since WORLD RELIGIONS don't have any problem getting along with each other, with the big-fat-huge-honking exception of Islam, who exactly are these gormless cretins talking to?

And they use The Golden Rule as their argument—because, they proclaim, ALL RELIGIONS have this tenet at their core—to the one religion on earth whose fundamental teaching is: "Slaughter Anyone Not Us."

Have they read the Koran? Do they own televisions?

These people have become parodies of themselves. It makes mocking them almost unnecessary.

Read about the Charter for Religious Harmony.

The Gunslinger

Graceless Grace

This classy lady doesn't like Sarah Palin. This is "news", deserving of space in our media...so I wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.

This is Grace Jones. I know you're impressed.

She somehow felt it necessary to say:

"I can't stand Sarah Palin. I bet a woman like that has no sense of humour."

No humor. Has she ever seen Sarah Palin?

Almost assuredly not. But boy, she has an opinion.

Well, she's got an asshole, too. And you know, I think I'd rather hear her fart than hear her talk.

The Gunslinger

A Different Reality?

Thinking (involuntarily) about the boring and preachy television I was exposed to last night, I can't help wondering why in the world does Hollywood makes so many shows about homosexuality.

The fact is, the steady and persistent percentage of homosexuals in the human population throughout history and across cultures is something like 3-6%. (6% being the high that gay activists insist on.) Among billions that's a lot of people. But still, it's a small percentage. Very small. And it's not growing. (Unlike other "minorities", birth-rate is not a factor.) It's been approximately the same they (people who know about such things) figure, for...well...ever.

But, if you were an alien watching American television you would come away with the impression that 30-40% of human beings were homosexual. To say gays are "over-represented" on television is to state the wildly obvious. The question is, "Why?"

Sure, Hollywood is overflowing with weepy Liberals, known for their panoply of "causes". But why this particular one? And why such single-minded, long-term persistence, considering the well-documented fickleness of the Hollywood Trend-Elite?

It isn't just "liberal politics". There are thousands of emoting Liberals in the rest of the country for whom homosexual rights barely register on their radar. If asked, they'll indicate support, of course, but they don't inject the issue into everything they do.

Then it occurred to me that maybe, rather than just being a typical Hollywood "cause", it is, in fact, an actual representation of their reality. No, I mean actual reality, the real kind of reality...not their vacuous poppy dreams of Utopia.

Seriously, what is the likely gay/straight ratio in Hollywood? Could it be 30/70, or even 40/60? I don't have any statistics, and maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think it's completely out of the question.

So in a world of "artists"—writers, producers, directors, makup-artists, set-designers, costuming directors, hair-stylists, fashion-designers, style-consultants—populating every page, scene, show and shot with what, to average Americans seems like an inordinate number of gays and gay "issues", may just be an accurate reflection of Hollywood's reality. Its actual, real-life demographics—what their world really does look like.

Now if this is the case, rather than being schizophrenically "out of touch with reality" which is what most of us generally assume, this would make them merely provincial.

Oh my God, how embarrassing for them. There is no doubt it my mind that they'd much rather be considered insane than parochial, considering their pretentious swaggering as worldly-thinkers.

It rather makes them the "country cousins" of the story, doesn't it?

The Gunslinger

Are the Writers Still on Strike?

I DVR'd two new shows last night, Eleventh Hour, and Life on Mars.

I deleted Eleventh Hour less than halfway through. The villain was a bio-engineering (for food) company...and its greedy owner, who doesn't care about people. The plot was a series of expository lectures from the lead characters disguised as dialogue. This had to be written by 18-year-olds (or liberals of any age): Lot's of ignorance and earnestness; no subtlety.

The script had the pernicious CEO make quite good arguments for bio-engineering. Which was brilliant as propaganda actually. They put real and true facts that support bio-engineering in the mouth of an oily villain, so that they seemed like lies and excuses. An impression that will no doubt be left in the minds of an audience ignorant of the facts. And the next time they hear them in a real debate, they will assume they are just lies in the service of profit.

Really, it's a very good pre-emptive strike against truth that undermines your position.

Of course, I don't for a moment think the writers of this graceless lecture series purposefully managed that level of cunning. Nothing else in the show displayed any grasp of wit or craft. They credulously believe any defense of bio-engineering to be lies, and inelegantly shoved those arguments into the mouth of their chosen villain. The End. Run credits.

Nice work Hollywood.

And when people all over the world are dying of starvation because the elites like yourselves allow only small yield and inferior "organic" food to be grown....I'm sure they'll thank you too.

I just couldn't take it. Rufus Sewell. I did love you once.

As for Life on Mars, well, we were instructed not to hate homosexuals.

Now, there's virtuous advice we just don't get often enough, so, I'm glad that Hollywood found a way to get that worthy and critical message to all of us through the novel idea of making it the plot of a television show.

Pass the duct tape please. Head exploding.

If it wasn't for Sarah Connor and the Winchester brothers, I couldn't watch TV at all.

The Gunslinger

Taxpayers Finance Hollywood

Speaking of movies. Did you know that our fearless leaders are financing them? With taxpayer money? While local business are crushed by taxation and regulation and the current financial crisis.

I can't take it anymore. It's time for a libertarian revolution. "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

The Gunslinger

The Movies

"Left and right moviegoers like their war movies one way…straight up with no fruit. We’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. We win. They lose. Extra violence, hold the lecture. Elitists don’t like it, but it is what it is." --Matt

Best (and shortest) war movie critique ever!

Found this in the comments section of a movie website. It's referencing the Ridley Scott movie Body of Lies starring Leonard DiCaprio and Russell Crowe—which opened poorly. The comment section is strongly of the opinion that anti-American films flop because Americans don't want to see them. And that preachy activist Left-tard actors keep people away from their flicks in droves (DiCaprio's global warming hectoring).

You can see the article and all the comments here.

One interesting note: The Conservative posters criticize the movies, Hollywood and Left-activist actors. The Liberal posters insult the Conservative posters with some variety of "stupid, yahoo, moron, knuckle-dragger". A perfect reflection of our real world political dynamic. So tiresome. So predictable.

The Gunslinger

W, the Movie

OK, I haven't seen the movie. So how can I have an opinion?

Oliver Stone. Hollywood. Movie critics. Reuters. James Brolin (Babs Streisand's husband).

I have an opinion. I don't have to see the movie. Knowing the cast of characters involved is sufficient to reach a conclusion. My brain does function.

The critics (see: "Left Wing Drones") don't think it's a hatchet job. They think it's "fair and balanced". And Stone is just "prodding voters to think". (He's so deep. So earnest. So Saturday morning cartoons.)

Stone is described as "Liberal leaning". Is Reuters writing comedy now?

"It was not our intention to bring malice or judgment on George W. Bush and his administration. He and his administration clearly speak for themselves," Stone said.

No...no bias there. The "news" story itself is a campaign ad for Obie. And they expect grownups to take them seriously.

The Gunslinger

Actors & Liars

I was listening to Kelsey Grammer being interviewed this morning. What an intelligent and articulate man.

Have you ever noticed how the Liberal actors sound like mental deficients...and the Conservative ones sound well-read, well-spoken, well-informed and smart?

Seriously. I'm not talking about how much I agree with their POV (which I do), but how much smarter they are, by all objective standards, than the mush brained Liberals who say things like "Dude! Palin Sucks!"

It was a pleasure listening to this very bright and eloquent man...as opposed to, say, Matt Damon or Alec Baldwin or Babs Streisand or Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins or Rosie O'Donnell or Whoopie Goldberg...et al, whose only measurable contribution their open mouths make to the political environment is excess carbon dioxide.

But the most interesting thing he said was in response to a comment about actors being able to say things they don't believe in...because they're good at saying other people's words.

He said: "Good actors are really bad liars." He explained that good actors bring truth to their roles, and that's what makes a good performance. That the very art of acting was the ability to find a way to infuse truth into a character, regardless of how similar or different it was to the real personality of the actor.

It was revelatory. An actor can convince you only if he infuses his performance with truth. And that's why bad actors are so unconvincing. They're just parroting a script.

It may not be terminally important as revelations go. But it put paid to the accusations constantly hurled at Ronald Reagan: That he was lying, but because he was a good actor, he was convincing.

I don't (any longer) believe that RR was a stupid liar (though I used to, remember). And I certainly would have believed that a good actor could make any lie sound convincing. But I think I see what Grammer was saying. A good actor, in real life, speaking his own "truth"— which is literally his bread and butter, the thing that he most develops in his personality, to be an effective and successful plier of his trade—is the very quality that would make him a bad liar.

And the biggest confirmation is the abject [true] idiocy flowing out of the mouths of the pathetic, inarticulate, second-rate minds of the Hollywood Left.

The Gunslinger

"Botox and Numbskulls"

.
I never paid any attention, or cared one way or the other. So I didn't know that Botox was made from "botulism toxin".

That pretty much creeps me out.

Jan LaRue has a pretty funny take on what it does to people who have it injected into their faces...which is entirely too close to their brains.

Botox = "Numb" skulls... pretty funny, eh?

The Gunslinger

What Bush and Batman Have in Common

By ANDREW KLAVAN
July 25, 2008; Page A15

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

Warner Bros. Pictures

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."

That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.

Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.

---------

Lifted from The Wall Street Journal because you REALLY needed to read it.

The Gunslinger