gdp's Comments

Breitbart.tv : In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:14:45 +0000

I have such a heavy heart about this. He was indeed a conservative culture warrior nonpariel — his sites are the Common Sense of our age. A significant voice is now silent, and I wonder who will fill this void. R.I.P., Andrew.

Big Hollywood : Five Best Picture Winner Blu-ray Review: Four Must-Owns and 'Crash'

Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:48:53 +0000

Sincere apologies, Wanks — I am hoist on my own petard! YMMV indeed! Why I chose to come across as an arrogant snot I'll blame on the overflow of secretions from this URI I'm fighting... ;-) Maybe if I change my comment to... "Cod-Shakespeare from 'hipsters' who wouldn't know real literature (or acting, for that matter) if a library fell on them." It wasn't a horrible film, after all — just not my cup of tea! ;-) YMMV. All taste is in the mouth.

Big Hollywood : Five Best Picture Winner Blu-ray Review: Four Must-Owns and 'Crash'

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:45:00 +0000

Ugh. SiL was tedious at best...Cod-Shakespeare for the 'hipsters' who wouldn't know real literature (or acting, for that matter) if a library fell on them. KatherineL had it right above — a one note rom-com anachronism. SPR had some of the best 20 minutes of celluloid action ever...but it, too, has a last act that fails the narrative. "Earn this?" Really? feh.

Big Hollywood : Trailer Talk: 'Men In Black 3' Looks Like More of the Same, Until...

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:40:03 +0000

Yeah—The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Red Dwarf sure suck...</s>

Big Hollywood : Last Night on Glee, 11/09/11: Gay Teen Sex -- Let the Controversy Begin!

Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:50:30 +0000

...and 35 years ago, it was called James at 15/16... Those who were appalled at the 'Camel's nose creeping under the tent' back then are hardly shocked now that the ass has followed.

Big Hollywood : Morning Call Sheet: Oscar-Winning Party Clown, 'The Super Cops,' and 'Bag of Bones'

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:19:00 +0000

Meh. After the turd in the punchbowl that the reboot movie was, it would be more than fitting for MacFarlane to add his 'talents' to the brew. They could let zombie Ed Wood take over the Star Trek franchise for all I care now.

Big Journalism : Ten Years Later: Remembering 9/11

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:01:26 +0000

Excellent piece, Dana. Sadly, not enough of our fellow citizens had the scales drop from their eyes, though many faked it as well as they could. Until our bombs dropped from the skies. I had just stepped out of the shower when the first report of a plane flying into the World Trade Center Tower 1 came across my radio. I went to the living room, turned on the TV and watched for a few minutes before returning to the bathroom to grab my toothbrush and finish getting ready for work. I returned to the TV, toothbrush in mouth and towel in hand just in time to see the second plane hit WTC Tower 2. I knew at that moment this was deliberate and that it wasn't over yet. I called into work, told them to turn on the TV to see why I'd be a little late coming in, and slowly finished getting ready. As I drove in, listening to the horror unfolding in NY, I watched a plane on approach to Love Field, after the ground stop had been ordered. I wondered if this plane, too, was about to become another deadly missile. I arrived at my job, and joined the rest of my stunned colleagues in one of the conference rooms. When the station we were watching suddenly switched to a view from Washington, before the announcers could find out what they were showing I said, "That's the Pentagon." For the next 30 minutes, we all watched silently until the WTC Tower 2 collapsed. That's when the spell finally lifted for everyone and the true evil of what we were witnessing bore it's dark fruit. I composed this on the first anniversary of 9-11, with the intention of creating a video to accompany it. I have never really gone past the initial stages for the video, as I still react so viscerally to the images—my somber mood returns to white-hot rage at what this 7th century cult of death wrought that day. So this song remains as tribute to all who lost their lives on that horrific day, and especially for those who ran towards the catastrophe and showed how selfless sacrifice will always ring eternally over death's empty sting. http://snd.sc/rhplQq

Big Hollywood : Today's Open Thread: #25 'WKRP In Cincinnati'

Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:39:48 +0000

It is extremely unlikely that the remaining seasons will be released, due to the absolute travesty of the licensing rights issue. The butcher job that was released as Season 1 did not sell well enough to make the studio consider releasing the rest - which as far as I'm concerned is quite alright. Unless the studio decides to do it right and clear the music, it is just a waste of money to buy 'defective' merchandise.

Big Hollywood : 'Hate-filled Holy Book': Bill Maher Takes Heat From Left, Source Responds with Koran Quotes

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:10:42 +0000

I've been waiting 3 weeks for a comment I made on the Great Christian Artists thread to 'clear.' I only occasionally surf these sites now as a result.

Big Hollywood : For Political Reasons, New York Art Institute Punishes Conservative Artist

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:11:58 +0000

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...I had something similar happen to me back in '90. I was one of 5 Honors candidates who were up for Best Portfolio, and was considered the favorite by both faculty and peers. The judging was shared by the faculty and a select few from the Honors Class underclassmen – perhaps in this particular case better said 'underclasswomen', since 4 of the 5 were indeed women. My Honors teacher told me upon reviewing my book that there was one piece that would cause trouble; a graphic illustration that accompanied a section of text taken from the book Grand Illusions - The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. I had adapted the cover illo from the book, which was a magicians top hat, cane and gloves with bloodstained fingertips – I elected to show the gloves pulling the baby out of the blood-filled hat. This did not go over well with the jury. I was later told by the one male on the student jury (who was also a friend) that I had the award wrapped up until they got to this piece. He said that they were greatly offended by it, and pretty much ignored the remainder of my book. My teacher confirmed this story, and while sympathetic, did remind me of his warning. I told them both that my convictions and my art would stand on their own, and not bow to any 'politically correct' group think. In another small irony, though, I am still awaiting for an approval or an explanation of denial for a comment I made on the Great Christian Artists post over a week ago...

Big Hollywood : Great Christian Artists: Interview with Danielson on New Album 'Best of Gloucester County,' Part 1

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:15:14 +0000

So how long before my comment leaves 'moderation'? Apparently never.

Big Hollywood : Great Christian Artists: Interview with Danielson on New Album 'Best of Gloucester County,' Part 1

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:12:12 +0000

I wish I would have bought one of those on their '03 reunion tour!

Big Hollywood : 'Unknown' Review: Thrilling Ride Worth Taking

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:20:36 +0000

So, was the negative for 'Hidden Agenda' in the lost suitcase? ; )

Big Hollywood : 'Paul' Star Simon Pegg: 'Who doesn’t get flak from the Bible belt in America?'

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:31:05 +0000

Much the same could be said about Muslims being 'an ally' in the culture war. Of course, they actually fight it as if it were indeed a war... I hear Kolob is nice this time of year.

Big Hollywood : 'Paul' Star Simon Pegg: 'Who doesn’t get flak from the Bible belt in America?'

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:45:07 +0000

The tired tropes against the evangelicals amount to little more than straw-man bashing bigotry clothed in smug self-awareness that masquerades as Important Commentary. They think they are 'edgy' and 'speaking Truth to power' by repackaging the same message over and over and over and over again, since they can't be bothered to leave the echo chamber to actually learn anything beyond the stereotypes and characitures they've been largely responsible for creating. Unfortunately for those who continue to beat that horse, their 'message' all too often has all the edge of a balloon - and like a balloon, all it takes is a single pinprick of logic and truth to pop the framework and expose it for the gasbag it is. I won't be holding my breath for our 'cultural betters' to make similar Important Commentaries against those whom it would actually matter. Of course, it's also hard to actually speak Truth to power when your mouth is...er...otherwise engaged, so to speak.

Big Journalism : Brokaw Blames Guns for Arizona Massacre

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:04:44 +0000

There go the libtards again, going off half-cocked and shooting their mouths off trying to paint a bullseye on speech again. Always pulling the trigger on the same, tired bullet points in their attempt to take aim against those whom they consider their enemies. Sadly for them, the narrow scope of their rhetoric falls short of the target as they fire away in clip after clip from their media bunkers. Even though their ammo is well past its "use by" date, they keep reloading and keep gunning for those of us who long ago saw the whites of their lies.

Big Hollywood : Of Gays and Straights and the Conservative Movement

Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:59:54 +0000

[cont. from above] Here's what I think is a better analogy (based on the 2008 Republican electoral result): 600 people who profess to support a set of principles which neither proclaims nor proscribes a certain behavior gather. Of that number, 400 believe that behavior is incompatible with not only their values but is also demonstrably harmful to some of the principles of the group. Sitting at a table in the corner are 6 people who claim to support the principles, but also wish to make their behavior acceptable to everyone no matter what. The 400 and the 6 know up front that there can be no compromise on their respective positions. That leaves the other 194 people who claim to have no dog in the fight to decide whether or not to get involved or try to ignore the issue. Most remain silent, though a substantial number have decided to try and 'mediate' between the factions for 'the good of the group.' This 'mediation' usually involves telling the 400 who do not support the agenda of the 6 to let them participate since they agree with most of the principles and try to 'reason' with them when they attempt to push their agenda. Some of the 'mediators' then object to any attempt to 'reason' after the fact, using their libertarian viewpoint to provide cover for libertine behavior. And when factions within the 400 begin to withdraw, they are held up for ridicule and invective by those who beforehand wanted to proclaim 'tolerance' for differing viewpoints. Which leads to more factions to decide to leave... This is why there is a difference in response to an individual gay person attending the caucus, and a group that has formed to promote an agenda based upon their behavior. And to touch upon the 'Big Tent' analogy again and why I think we are ill served by it's use: once the camel's nose in in the tent, the ass is not long behind. I do know that you and I (and most other conservatives) share a number of things in common, and you would probably be surprised to know that I am not someone who supports turning America into a theocracy. I have ‘broken bread’ with many who disagree with me, including an ex-BIL who was flaming. Also, remember that I am a Graphic Designer by profession, which means that I am usually the minority in both my political and spiritual outlook. I have had to keep my head down and mouth shut on more occasions than I can remember. I do so because I understand that these organizations need the ’80%’ of me that utilizes my skills, not the ’20%’ of me that disagrees with some of their policies or agendas. That is a courtesy that I wish was extended to me by those who won’t shut up about what should be private. And there can be no ‘benefit of the doubt’ extended when the explicit, stated purpose in 4 of the 10 GOProud Agenda points are about extending rights and benefits based upon their behavioral identity, including opposition to DOMA and repeal of DADT. An agenda based upon those points may be Libertarian, but it is not Conservative. Let's put it this way: if we lose the gay cons, we lose how many votes again? We have already seen what happens when just part of the social con vote sits out - what do you think happens when we decide that the party is no longer representing our values? We already lose the rhetorical battle in the MSM no matter what we do, so that is a non-factor from my perspective. The 2006 (and to a lesser extent the 2008) elections provide a clear view of what happens when the 'values voters' stay home. Since 66% of Republican voters surveyed by the Washington Post in Nov. 2008 self-identified as conservative/very conservative on social issues, good luck trying to replace them with the 1% of the Republican electorate that identified themselves as gay. They should be welcome to the party, but they should understand that the playlist is set. There is another party down the street that is already dancing to their tune. You may view this as an absolutist screed - nothing more than another jeremiad from a religious nut. Well, I have been told I tend to pontificate from time to time, and my e-mail sig is an aphorism I coined some years ago: “Those who believe the world is made up of shades of grey have been staring at the line between Black & White for so long that their Vision has blurred." Sorry Greg - as much as I love you and Red Eye, you need to put your glasses back on. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

Big Hollywood : Of Gays and Straights and the Conservative Movement

Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:59:14 +0000

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams This issue will in fact be the hill that we so-cons will die on - and when we die, so will the Republican party. I am not only a proud 'right-wing funny-d-mentalist' (that means I'm an educated Christian with a sense of humor), but also a graphic designer, which means that I am not just looking through a stained-glass prism that filters what I 'know' about homosexuality. Yes, my conservatism followed my conversion - or better said, flowed from it. However, I have always understood that while our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we are not a theocracy. I also understand that we live in a pluralistic culture, and everyone has the right to think, worship, speak, and associate as they wish in keeping with our laws. I do not in any way wish for gays to be harassed or bullied in any way - privately or publicly. That said, I do not believe that they should be allowed to bully those of us who feel that their private sexual lifestyle remain exactly that - private. And I can tell you that EVERY SINGLE 'out' gay person that I know identify as gay first. And all the the 'closeted' ones (who are not as 'closeted' as they think) are lock-step doctrinaire gay-rights supporters. Even those very, very few who claim to be conservative/libertarian make it a point to always lead with how they are gay first and want to change the Party platform on homosexual issues. All of which is to say that my anecdotal evidence is as valuable as those who know some gays who claim to not care about marriage, DADT, etc... From a religious perspective, homosexuality is to be condemned. Those who choose to act upon their impulses will find no support in scripture for their behavior, only judgment. From an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is a self-correcting genetic error, or at best a severe identity/personality disorder. I will lend credence to those studies by scientists who anthropomorphize aberrant animal behavior that attempts to equate such acts with human behavior when those same creatures they study accept surrender signals from outside of their species. Which is to say we are NOT animals, but something greater. We as humans have the faculties to not only understand but also act against our base natures. That some choose not to should only serve to show how far certain behaviors deviate from the norm. On this particular matter, however, we have a very small, very vocal minority whose identity is bound in private behavior trying to make public policy based on said behavior. While that is their right as citizens, the greater majority, both religious and secular, who feel that such behavior is not only wrong but harmful to society, are being made to feel as if we are intolerant, hateful bigots. For the record, tolerance does not mean acceptance. I will 'tolerate' the fact that (being generous) 10% of the (again being generous) 3% of the population that is gay may wish to align with "80%" of conservative principles, but when they wish to push their "20%" agenda that would actually undermine not a small portion of the 'common ground', I will not accept that. This isn't so much the tail wagging the dog as the brine shrimp steering the whale. And rest assured, as my previous anecdote stated, every one of those 'shrimp' I've encountered wish to steer the whale, and will not rest until they do. If we wish to really speak of tolerance and acceptance, then why isn't it they who accept the fact that their '20%' agenda is not tolerable to the '80%', not all of whom are coming at this from a religious perspective. We are being asked to give up our principles for a portion of our caucus that may be charitably considered a rounding error. The "80-20" analogy is also weak in my view. If the "20" that is in conflict is non-negotialble to the two opposing sides, then what does the other "80" matter? And why should the rounding error be the side that is accommodated? I have never been a fan of the 'Big Tent' analogy that some on our side tirelessly trot out in order to sound more 'enlightened' or 'compassionate'. A tent has no foundation, and cannot withstand any serious internal or external pressure against it. Its walls are not fixed or permanent, therefore anything can crawl in under them. So when the inevitable storm comes, the tent folds. As soon as the storm passes, all that is left is a scattered, bedraggled group of fools who failed to see that only a sure foundation offers the support necessary to construct a shelter that can survive those storms and offer refuge to anyone who seeks it. Of course, anyone can create a foundation and build upon it, so if you don't like the way this one is constructed, you are free to start your own project, instead of vandalizing that which you don't like. [cont. below]

Big Hollywood : Open Thread: 'Star Trek'

Mon, 11 May 2009 14:09:58 +0000

Here's an updated and greatly expanded review based on my previous post in another thread...WARNING: TWO MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! I say minor, because if you saw any of the trailers, then only one of the 'spoilers' wasn't included in them! I guess it's time to turn in my OG* Card... I have always felt (and have seen it expressed on various other sites) that if you have to break the toys someone else created to tell your story, then it's best you don't play with them. So many of the current geek crowd fail to grasp this simple concept. They think that (insert favorite character/story) would be so much cooler if only it were like this (insert personality/motivation/power/plot never hinted at and often diametrically opposed to who they are or what the history is) instead of building upon the firm foundation already there. Why must we laud those who cannot seem to be able to create stories using these legends without totally deconstructing them? And rest assured, this movie does exactly that. The TOS characters are iconic - when I look at the new cast, I get a whiff of the ironic. To re-invent Kirk as a rebellious teen needing the discipline of Starfleet to make him into the 'man' that that is presented here is so fundamentally wrong to who we KNOW the character is as to move beyond cliche into full-on BS. To have Spock and Uhura have any sort of 'relationship' removes any sense of 'alienness' from his character, not to mention killing off his mother, which is what gave strength to his 'human' side - come to think of it, I guess explains the former 'plot' point. Oh, and while we're at it, let's blow up Vulcan! These are but four examples of the pathetic attempt to 'reinvigorate' the characters and legend we have grown up with. As for the story itself, it is little more than generic paint-by-numbers sci-fi plot devices and current stylistic elements: generic villain - check; generic revenge motivation - check; generic super-weapon - check; flashy CGI to provide eye-candy to the geeks - check; rapid cut editing to hide the fact that your story is actually boring - check; nauseating shaky-cam to cover the fact you have no concept of cinematography - check. The way that coincidence upon coincidence is used to get the crew together would be bad enough without having to further suffer the incredibly stupefying way that Kirk ends up with the conn! And the fact that everything isn't returned to status quo ante at the end does this film no favors. You are still left with the fact that if you changed the names and took away just the specific dialog that 'ties' these new portrayals to the originals, the story would lose nothing at all and be revealed for what it is; generic. Actually, that's not quite true. It would lose the cachet of the brand, and with it any real interest from not only the geeks but also the 'civilians'. This movie is nothing more than an admission by everyone involved, from the studio on down, that they are not equal to the task of using what has gone before to create something fresh and exciting without destroying that self-same source. You can try and justify it by throwing out lingo like 'reboot', but then don't pretend that this story has any real connection to the original creation other than sharing names (Nimoy's cameo notwithstanding.) Attempting to justify it as an 'alternate universe' is also a poor story device to hang a franchise on; what happens when the hoi pollloi decide they're done with Trek again? "Well, guess it's time for another 'reboot'! So sorry that you were invested in these characters and stories!" This 'reboot' also means that the only thing that *may* remain canon in the 'new universe' is from the wretched 'Enterprise'. How special. My original assessment of this flick and the target demographic still stands: This week on Star Trek: 90210 - Kirk wrecks the Galileo 7 while taking it for a joyride with Uhura; Spock teaches McCoy the Vulcan Death Grip; Scotty gets drunk again; and Sulu wrestles with his feelings for Chekov. Guest starring Zach Braff, Hayden Panettiere, and Abe Vigoda. Fail. R.I.P. Star Trek. *Original Geek Card