March 4, 2010UNCLE!My little scheme of broadcast and Internet only Television comes to an end tomorrow. In November 2008, I posted Unless the Avs make a run for the Cup this year, I think I am cool. You can place your bets on how many Kudlowless days jk can take. No worries on the Avs last year. but if you picked "469" or "1 year, 3 months, and 12 days" you win the pool. My motives were pure, but I missed quite a bit of sports and political commentary. I'm actually looking forward to having it back. My intro rate goes 12 months. We'll see how it works out...
Posted by John Kranz at 5:57 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Satellite or cable? Honestly, I thought you'd make it longer than that. Posted by: johngalt at March 5, 2010 2:09 PM
But jk thinks:
Several stations went dark for me when they went all digital. Odd, because I was watching them all in digital format. Sports is the killer. Almost everyone I've heard going back has been for sports. I wouldn't call myself a sports fiend by any definition, but there's NO Avs and no Monday or Thursday night football. After the SOTU, no FOX news panel scrum... For entertainment it is a no brainer, but sports and cable news sing their siren song. Cable. My condo points the wrong way for satellite and that is the root node of the problem. Cable sucks so extremely bad compared to satellite it's depressing. I would've kept my DishNetwork going the whole way without a second thought. Tonight, my very first Glenn Beck! Hope it's a good one and he really gives some clot-head liberals the old what for!!! February 10, 2010The Most Randian Character on TVDon't know how many watch "House M.D." My lovely bride and I have been big fans of Hugh Laurie from his BBC days, and we secretly wait for Stephen Fry to do a guest appearance on House. Ann Althouse once cheered that the drug-addict doctor was the hero over the zealous narcotics officer. For the last couple of years, I've become convinced that Dr. Gregory House is lifted from an undiscovered Ayn Rand novel. He is preternaturally intelligent -- to which he owes all his success; he is self-focused to an amount that disturbs everybody else on the show; he is dedicated to disproving quackery, junk science, new age spirituality and questioning seriously held religious beliefs. And Laurie is a brilliant actor, whose comedy chops keep this prickly character entertaining. The show's flaw is that the rest of the cast is thin and hollow. His oncologist friend Dr Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) has his moments, but there's no ensemble of any kind to play on. Last Monday's episode, therefore, had two fatal flaws. It was built around the hospital's COO, Dr. Lisa Cuddy. That turned out okay, but not memorable. Secondly, I wonder how many House fans are sympathetic to his Randian nature (like me) and how many (like me) were perturbed by the anti-business tilt of the episode, Yesterday’s Ayn Rand Facebook link was a talk on "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business." Our brave Dr. Cuddy has to manage her adopted baby, her creepy husband, the weight of the world on the sisterhood, and then has to negotiate a contract with an (duh-duh-duuuuh!) evil insurance company (boo, hiss!) She's just tryin' to get her doctors paid, but the grubby CEO, who won't interrupt his lobster lunch to speak with her, won't give his monthly budget for olives on his yacht to save children's lives! Thankfully she wins in the end to be cheered in the board room (are you sick yet? Dr. House could figure it out...) I hope we're back to Reason next week.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:02 PM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
Gee whiz, thanks for the non extant spoiler alert! We're a few weeks behind on House (and 24 and ...) because dagny's working busy-season hours. Personally I wonder how many House fans are consciously aware of his Randian nature and still like the show in spite of it. I'm willing to bet the majority of regular viewers are most enthralled with his unapologetic veracity. "Damn, I wish I could get away with that!" We'll probably be throwing things at the screen during this episode. Thanks for the warning - I'll remove sharp objects from the room. Final note: Cuddy's "husband" is actually just a boyfriend, right? Or have I not seen the wedding episode too? Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 3:08 PM
But jk thinks:
Sorrrr-reeee... Boyfriend, yes. We thought they'd get married last week after Foreman ate the bad shushi and they were both drunk at his funeral, but no. Wait a minute, how many weeks were you behind? Posted by: jk at February 10, 2010 3:15 PM
But rewriter thinks:
What you call Randian I call narcissistic and anti-social. See the DSM-IV, soon to be DSM-V. But I agree, there's not much else for Hugh Laurie to play against; Jesse Spencer is the strongest actor of the rest of the lot and he doesn't get much screen time lately. Omar Epps makes odd, not necessarily interesting, choices with his line deliveries, Lisa Edelstein has three stock expressions to suit every occasion, and Olivia Wilde does what she's there to do, rile up the adolescent male viewership. If not for RSL, Hugh Laurie would be hauling this thing around by himself. Posted by: rewriter at February 11, 2010 9:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Any good capitalist will tell you, never waste more on COGS (cost of goods sold) than is needed to achieve a high volume of sales. In this case, COGS = acting talent. Posted by: johngalt at February 12, 2010 3:09 PMStupid Idea of the WeekDid I get the title right BR? I think the same thing every year but they keep running the same stupid ad with the same stupid theme: Spend just a few minutes on our website (and upwards of fifty bucks) ordering this precious Valentine's day teddy bear for your wife/girlfriend/barracks mate and she'll think you spent hours coming up with the perfect gift just for her! Yeah, because chicks must not watch television too. Listen buddy, they're not as stupid as you are if you actually buy into this notion.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:53 AM
| Comments (3)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Heh! Good one, JG. The Refugee and Mrs. Refugee saw one of these commercials the other night and he asked, "Do you want a teddy bear?" The answer was an immediate and succinct "No." Besides, The Refugee doesn't need the competition for his wife's attention. The original phrase was coined as "Idiotic Idea..." but why quibble? Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 10, 2010 10:09 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
My wife has eminently sensible tastes. Instead of candy, she'd rather I pick up some things from a certain Viennese pastry shop in midtown. Instead of a mediocre dinner and long wait times, she'd rather we get the biggest lobsters we can find for dinner at home -- as long as I'm cooking. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2010 9:28 AM
But jk thinks:
All well and good. And yet, I feel that the Bailey's Irish Cream Chocolates will go over pretty well. Posted by: jk at February 11, 2010 10:48 AMSuperbowl Commercial Hidden GemI can't say too many times that Green Police was my favorite Super Bowl commercial, but did anyone else notice the following gem flash by in the Google commercial?
It was only a fraction of a second but I hope there's some subliminal awareness-raising from this. No, not who is john galt silly. Who is the stig!
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:35 AM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Some say... Posted by: jk at February 10, 2010 10:18 AM
But johngalt thinks:
For benefit of the uninitiated Top Gear, the show from whence this reference comes, is the best programme on British tele. It's on BBC America in both new episodes and copious re-runs. While tuned in to BEEB Jr. I've tried watching other programmes such as their daily World News show but I can't sit still long enough for the dry presentation. I guess I'm too drunk and slovenly. [Oh wait, I'm not supposed to know how to turn 'slob' into an adjective.] Slobby. Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 3:18 PM
But jk thinks:
It's been mentioned a time or two 'round these parts. I still think of this article every time I see it. It is also available on the Netflix Instant Queue. Posted by: jk at February 10, 2010 3:29 PMDecember 31, 2009J-TrainI don't watch the TV show, but it was down to finishing some work or following Instapundit's link to the Jersey Shore Nickname Generator 1, 2, 3: Your Jersey Shore nickname is: J-Train
Posted by John Kranz at 12:31 PM
| Comments (4)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
P-Gel, The Tricep, The Hands Team, Bones? It should be self-evident why, when I travel through NJ on my way to wherever, I just keep going and try not to stop. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 31, 2009 2:54 PM
But jk thinks:
Man, I never thought I'd hear "The Tricep" say that -- youse? Posted by: jk at December 31, 2009 3:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:
My "Tiger Woods mistress" is Brandy Hopkins, a 27 year-old orthopedist from Revere, MA. A much more fulfilling cyber generator. Posted by: johngalt at December 31, 2009 5:19 PM
But Keith thinks:
K-Tan? The Body? The Sausage Party? Whiskey-tango-foxtrot? jg, it looks like you and I traveled together to Revere, but at least yours isn't jailbait. I could make it worth your while to make sure that Cecile - and the law - don't find out about 19-year-old receptionist Tiff Jones. Maybe I should have told the thing my name was Roman Polanski. Posted by: Keith at December 31, 2009 6:08 PMDecember 30, 2009Happy Birthday Faith/EchoMs. Eliza Dushku is 29 today, One commenter wishes "her present wasn't a canceled TV show she worked so diligently on." Did anybody know Faith's last name was Lehane? Now that's a trivia question.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:44 PM
| Comments (0)
December 4, 2009TV NewsI thought "Dollhouse" was dead. But there is a two hour episode on tonight with special guest Summer Glau. Also, Blog friend Silence turned me onto "Burn Notice" in a comment awhile back. I got the DVDs from Netflix and am halfway through Season One. That is a very good show, kind of halfway between Dexter and Castle. Goood stuff.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:25 PM
| Comments (2)
But Lisa M thinks:
I like Burn Notice, too. It's like an updated version of The 'A' Team. Posted by: Lisa M at December 4, 2009 6:55 PM
But jk thinks:
Exactly -- it's Castle meets Dexter meets A-Team... Posted by: jk at December 4, 2009 6:57 PMOctober 26, 2009What Color is that Coat?It happened so fast, I never told ThreeSources. But I am completely hooked on this show. Nathan Fillion is awesome. It has a superb ensemble supporting cast. The stories are clever. And -- even without vampires -- it has a lot of Whedonesque cinematography. I don't recognize veterans on the credits, but the folks doing this show are serious fans at the least. Lastly, Detective Beckett is the answer for everybody on Sarah Connor withdrawal. They call on a millionaire who has a gun registered in the caliber used on a murder. He says "it hasn't been fired in years." "Or cleaned," returns Beckett disdainfully. I started watching Season Two live, and I got the DVDs from Season One on Netflix. -- in a couple of days I will be fully caught up. I give it five stars. The stories are self-contained enough that I would not worry about continuity, you could start anywhere. UPDATE: It was good to see the brown coat, but that clip is all you get. Correction: this is only the second season of Castle, not third as I said in the original post (since corrected). And, yes, I have seen all the episodes now.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:51 PM
| Comments (5)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Welcome to the club JK. I too love this show after my wife got me hooked on it. Love the chemistry between Castle and Beckett. Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 27, 2009 12:23 AM
But jk thinks:
Indeed, Silence (hey, it's your password today!) I do not think that has ever been done better, maybe the early days of Joel and Maggie on Northern Exposure. But those two are perfect. Posted by: jk at October 27, 2009 10:39 AM
But jk thinks:
Begging the question...have you and your lovely bride watched Firefly? Posted by: jk at October 27, 2009 1:12 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
No, we should grab those on Netflix, we really do enjoy Nathan. Not to stray too far from the political discussions, but do you watch Burn Notice? Another good show along similar lines. Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 27, 2009 11:54 PM
But jk thinks:
TV talk is always welcomed around here. Firefly does not lack for political undertones and you can add it to dark coffee as that which unities us. (Don't let that scare you off. Only for its extreme lack of longevity is it not indisputably the best show ever on television.) Posted by: jk at October 28, 2009 12:44 PMSeptember 3, 2009One for the Sisterhood!A beloved relative emails a link. Now this particular relative usually only gets her links posted at ThreeSources because I choose to perform a Fisking. But, while our politics are orthogonal, we share a deep affection for each other and a certain fin de siecle television show, The artistic integrity of our favorite show is under assault as the Twilight books and movies have come to define vampires. It had to be done: Buffy vs. Edward It's an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward's character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy's eyes, some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed - in hilarious ways. Ultimately this remix is about more than a decisive showdown between the slayer and the sparkly vampire. It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21ist century.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:42 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
I think there's a significant amount of self-deception exposed in the remixer's predetermined conclusion - "It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21st century." The two metaphorical visions he apparently sees are: 1. Women are universally smart and rational, especially in contrast to men, and therefore are best suited to be in charge. 2. When men are in charge women have only the value of sex objects. In his mind it isn't possible for a woman to be equal in any relationship with a man. Instead she must be either inferior or superior. But who wouldn't draw this conclusion from the role models he used for male and female behavior? The female character is a superhero and the male is a misanthrope. I find Wheedon's theme refreshing. He inverts the Hollywood formula of "the little blonde girl who goes into a dark alley and gets killed in every horror movie." But this guy (are we sure his name isn't Maurice?) needs to get over the "women as victims" mentality. Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2009 1:03 PMAugust 27, 2009Best TV News EverThreeSources, E! Network -- it's getting harder to tell them apart. Being a Dollhouse fan on Facebook got me this excellent news: SUMMER GLAU MOVES INTO JOSS WHEDON’S “DOLLHOUSE”. O. Yeah.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:02 PM
| Comments (0)
November 30, 2008The Gospel According to JackNow that you've read Dave Berry's humorous take on Jack Bauer, about the moral ambiguity of summary execution of pirates, and our spirited back-and-forth on the merits and shortcomings of the latest season premiere for '24' please consider this serious moral defense of Jack's tactics: Colliding with those facts, however, is the conventional morality, held even by some of those supposedly committed to our defense. It is clear that the enemies of “24” hold ethical notions drawn from the toxic wells of the antiquity: incoherent “virtues” of a vague niceness, of infinite “restraint,” of turning-the-other-cheek, of dutiful self-sacrifice, of infinite generosity—all as ends in themselves, regardless of their consequences to our survival, and to be observed even in wartime emergencies. That this suicidal gospel is being preached even at West Point is, frankly, terrifying. As Ayn Rand would have said, "Check your premises." The storyline in '24' occurs not over 24 weeks with time to weigh and calculate every action - it represents a single day. And not any ordinary day. A day like, for example, 9/11. Anyone remember that? Bidinotto concludes: “America wants the war on terror fought by Jack Bauer.” Read the whole article for the story about how the Pentagon wanted '24' to "tone down" certain scenes, and why.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:32 PM
| Comments (2)
But T. Greer thinks:
JG, you are forcing my hand.... Here is my real problem with Jack Bauer: The world of 24 is a lie. Real life does not happen in a single day. 9/11 is a fair example of this. There were rumblings about terrorist attacks for years before they actually happened. President Clinton bent to public pressure and failed to deal with the problem when it first became apparent, and President Bush stuck to his "humble foreign policy" up 'til the day of the attacks, despite clear warnings of what the consequences could be. Let me reiterate this point: we had years. Not 24 hours, not 24 weeks, but years. That is why I am quite glad out boys at West Point are getting a lesson in real morality. See, our soldiers don't live in the world of 24. In the real world - the one we occupy - America just won a war because of the virtues "drawn from the toxic wells of antiquity."
Hell no. Here is why: 1. Torture. Does. Not. Work. This one is pretty simple. People capitulate under torture. However, you cannot trust a single thing they say. The tortured man cares not for accuracy or truth- only something that will make the pain go away. There is a reason, after all, that so many women confessed (and blamed as many others)of witchcraft during the Middle Ages. Bidinotto tries to get around this by stating that the efficacy of torture is irrelevant to 24. That is bull crap. Sure, 24 might be an argument for doing "extreme tactics" in times of extremity, but you cannot get around the fact that 24 advocates a very specific extreme tactic. 2. The statement "I’m simply upholding our moral right and responsibility to use extreme tactics if they work and if we have to" is one of the most dangerous I have ever come across. Think about the implications of these words. I have, perhaps sentimentally, held the belief that America is, or should be, a land ruled not by men, but laws. A nation ruled by laws is, by definition, a nation ruled by limitations. We limit the sphere of government to very specific tasks. The government is not to interfere with the market of goods or ideas. The government is not to violate the liberties of its citizens. These are rights, self evident and unreliable, that the government does not have the right to break. Such a system is impossible if we accept the morality of 24. See, one only needs to declare that we are in an "extreme" time, and the mere idea of the rule of law and natural rights is destroyed. Consider, for example, the case of global warming. Convince the majority of the citizens that we are "running out of time" before they all die, and the government has a free hand to confiscate property and destroy liberty in order to prevent it. Another example: gun rights. Ak-47s are dangerous. Obviously ATF agents need to strip citizens of their second amendment rights- because if they did not, "the people holding those rights will not [survive]." A third example: A country with a rather large army and projection capabilities invades the United States. Recognizing that the United States is near "imminent destruction" he decides to suspend the constitution and place his fellow citizens in a state of martial law. One final example: One happens to believe that President-elect John McCain will lead us into a nuclear war with Russia the minute he becomes President. Facing an existential threat, the simplest solution is to assassinate the man before he becomes President. And herein lays the problem: once we have defined something as "extreme" there is no limit to tyranny. Orwell said much the same, near 60 years ago. "There is no 'Law'," he said, "there is only power." If we do not limit what those working for our government can and cannot do, then Orwell will have been proven right. ~T. Greer, quoting a Mr. King, "A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live." P.S. I also take issue with Bidinotto's general idiocy and factual inaccuracy. Here are a couple of things he seemed to be particularly sloppy about: *The "image" of terrorist organizations has dropped faster than that of the United States. See Here. *Rights do not exist to "protect human life", nor are they "moral principles that define proper boundaries of human action in society." Rather, natural right are independent of society altogether- indeed, our government was created in order to secure these rights from interference in the first place. (Hopefully I do not need to link this one...)
Posted by: T. Greer at December 1, 2008 12:36 AM
But jk thinks:
Awesome post and comment -- did I mention that I have much to be thankful for? Without taking sides here (though you know which side I'm on), I would just add a nice riff in The Black Swan. Taleb goes to some conference in Vegas discussing the philosophy of uncertainty attended by business, government, and military leaders. He claims the business and government guys did not get it at all, but that the military folk -- and only the military folk -- had the nuanced and philosophical understanding to comprehend what he was saying and add insight. I don't remember that's being highlighted in "American Beauty," but I believe it. And I believe that those same leaders, like Capt. Wright in the Newsweek piece, can handle a "Human Rights seminar" and still be able to defend our nation. November 24, 2008Review CornerKeith wants to talk about '24.' [fourth comment] Sounds good to me! His cynical take away from the long awaited return of agent "torture when necessary" Jack Bauer was that the plight of child soldiers in the develping world was intended to be the next cause celebre in the Hollywood activism community. Being the staid, fatalistic, heartless conservative that I am, I simply viewed the child soldier issue as a sympathetic plot device for foundational purposes to the story: Now that Jack (and CTU) have saved the nation and untold thousands of her citizens from death by terrorist acts, the panty wetters in our midst are free to question their tactics. "How many people did you torture Mister Bauer?" I look forward to a vigorous defense of such methods in defense of liberty and can only hope (there's that word again) not to be disappointed. A positive sign was the repeated scenes involving the Frenchman who drove the U.N. supply truck. Feckless at every opportunity, when the brown stuff started hitting the fan and he sanctimoniously recited, "The U.N. remains neutral in this matter" Jack told him, "Why don't you go hide in the shelter with the other children."[3:37] Jack's back, that's for sure. But so is (the supposedly killed) Tony Almeida! And they find a way to include Chloe as well. I'll have to grudgingly concede Keith may be on to something though... the Coalition to stop the use of child soldiers, including the "red hand" campaign, is linked prominently from the official 24 website.
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:52 PM
| Comments (7)
But jk thinks:
Welcome to ThreeSources, tg! I have historically been the only one to question the sanctity of his Jackness. I watched the entirety of last season (I had to, less my blog brothers would use a masonry bit on my mandibular foramen) and came to the same conclusion. Be careful, friend, we're in a distinct minority around here. Immigration or Anarcho-capitalism debate has nowhere the severity of '24' debate.
But Keith thinks:
I didn't mean to start this... my bringing the subject up was to simply point out the latest cause du jour, and how I expected Congress to hold hearings on the subject. Truth be told, I couldn't even sit all the way through this week's premiere. I walked out at the point where the French blue-helmet ratted out the children to the bad guys. Of course, I took some pleasure in seeing the role of cowardly collaborator given to a Frenchman, and seeing the UN work in this fictional country the same way they did at the Lebanon-Israel border. T. Greer is right - the show lacks reality (let's see how many "in-real-time" episodes it takes for him to return to the States, for example). After the first or maybe the second season, the plot devices become annoyingly predictable (as soon as the President's son asks the kid if he has any evidence of the financial cover-up and the kid answers he's uploaded it to his hard drive, you know he's a Dead Man Walking). And there's always the Nefarious Criminal Mastermind high up in government - really, as if our government was competent to do this effectively. As for the clear moral judgment issue, the show is hamfisted about it at a superficial level. In the first five minutes, we learn that the bad guys use children as soldiers in their planned coup and round them up against their will for that purpose (evil!), but Jack loves children so much, he'll let them steal the present he intends to give that petulant, willful daughter of his (saintly!). The writers certainly wielded that contrast like a blunt instrument, didn't they? My feeling is that we've always needed heroes - we want there to be larger-than-life warriors to believe in. Jack Bauer, Jack Ryan, and Peter Parker are just the logical extension of Heracles and Apollo. We want there to be a Jack Bauer, because our government certainly won't do the job we want it to do against our enemies. We want a President like Jack Ryan, because neither the one we have, the one we're getting, or the one we voted for have the fortitude or the sense to do what Ryan would. Our need for heroes springs from our disappointment with what we're faced with in reality. How's that for an amateur mass psychoanalysis of pop culture? Posted by: Keith at November 25, 2008 12:04 PM
But sugarchuck thinks:
Great Googooly Moogooly, I clicked on Three Sources and got Oprah Winfrey. JK knows I hold him in high esteem and T.G.'s erudition and defense of Teddy Roosevelt make him tops in my book, but ya'll are starting to sound like a bunch of nancy boy David Schusters at a turkey killing. Simply put, you are violating Sugarchuck's Mighty Fine Rule #1, "Don't be cracking on Jack!" Grounded in reality? Maybe you want to watch a show about a bunch of Brie eating bureaucrats armed with Robert's Rules of Order and their own righteous indignation, slowly working their way through the perilous subsection C, paragraph 1 of a U.N. resolution, only to see it blocked by the French at the Security Counsel. (Oh the humanity!) You'd like, perhaps, a minute by minute rendering of Foggy Bottom types working their way through the grays and haze of diplomatic minutia, fiercely substituting this word for that? Not me! I'll take Jack and his "this sides Yin that sides Yang mother F'er" sense of moral judgement every time. It takes clarity, real moral clarity to defend the country with power tools and if you don't want to take my word for it, ask a woman. Do you think Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton are going to loose themselves in a debate over moral consequences when the fate of the free world and the safety of their children is in the hands of some lowlife terrorist with the codes to the launch sequence? No damn way. While Bill and Barak search for symbols and commonalities of mutual understanding and cooperative dialogue, Michelle is getting the Craftsman circular saw and Hillary is pulling a Diehard out of the SUV. That's moral judgement.
But Keith thinks:
Sugarchuck: I don't want to see Jack kick some butt - I'd much rather see him shoot people in the thigh or or attack their throats with his bare teeth. My point is that we want to see Jack do it because we're getting the opposite in real life. I want my country to protect its borders and go toe-to-toe with enemies foreign and domestic. Because we're not getting it in real life, though, we go to the television to get our dose of it. I will, though, amend one thing about what I've previously written. 24 has certainly taught us at least one thing that is true to life - it's given us a series of presidents that are inept, corrupt, or testicularly challenged, or a combination of the three. Posted by: Keith at November 25, 2008 3:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Except, that is, for President David Palmer. In his case it was the first lady who was some combination of those three. Posted by: johngalt at November 25, 2008 4:01 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Except, that is, for President David Palmer. In his case it was the first lady who was some combination of those three. Way to go Sugarchuck! I tagged out to you at just the right time. Posted by: johngalt at November 25, 2008 4:04 PMNovember 5, 2007Guild StrikeMeh. Hollywood writers on both coasts are now pounding the pavement instead of their keyboards. I wasn't going to even think about this, but I saw a video on the news tonight that showed a picket line. What were they chanting? "What do we want? _________. When do we want it? Now!" How intolerably lame. No wonder we get such feature films from Hollywood as Spiderman 3, Police Academy 27 and 10,000 reality shows. The writers are completely unoriginal. Bums.
Posted by AlexC at 11:15 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
What was the blank? Free Sushi? Sugar Free Latte Syrup? They're a pretty hard group to feel sorry for. OTOH, I'm as big a fan of Schumpeter as you'll find 'round these parts, but in the transition to new media and new distribution, the gales are blowing hard. It's perfectly fair for creators to do what they need to ensure their property rights will be respected. I'm sympathetic to artists who want to get paid, I was one of 'dem once. I'd also question whether the writers are the cause of poor quality -- they don't really get to choose what's green-lighted. Workers of the world unite! (Your point holds, by the way, we have every right to expect better chants from soi disant professionals!)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Hey now, I loved Spiderman 3! Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 6, 2007 12:19 PMApril 17, 2007Fairness in TaxationI watched this on Kudlow & Co. last night. Don
Posted by John Kranz at 6:12 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Quick! Send this to Harry Reid! The time has finally arrived for a flat tax rate for ALL TAXI DRIVERS! Huzzah! Then I just have to figure out how to get my PC and 21 inch tube installed in the front seat of a yellow Crown Victoria. I'll be the country's first "Mouse jockeyin' widget designin' native English speakin' taxi driver." Whatever it takes, though, to soften my tax bite. (I am 6 feet tall after all.) Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2007 3:08 PMJanuary 29, 2007Jack Bauer's Dilemmas--and OursTaking a short break from serious reality to discuss serious fiction... A short time back we had a short back and forth (I won't call it a debate) about the virtues of Fox Network's "24." JK asserted that the program is "about" the action scenes. I disagree, giving the writers credit for at least as much intellect and nuance as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although without the same "hipness." WSJ's Brian Carney agrees: You don't need to watch "24" as a kind of primer on moral philosophy, but you probably should.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:55 PM
| Comments (8)
But Terri thinks:
I can't believe that you mentioned "24" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in the same breath!! Buffy is clearly the winner when it comes nuance if only because the acting on that show was supreme. Jack and his good vs evil while I have to dabble in evil to accomplish good may be nuanced but pulease! The actors, other than Keifer are cardboard cutouts of people. I had to quit watching after season 3. Posted by: Terri at January 30, 2007 11:15 AM
But sugarchuck thinks:
First off, let me just say that I love 24 more than the next guy. Given that I live in blue to purple Minnesota, I love 24 more than most next guys, but I can't claim for a second that there is any subtle moral distinction or nuanced insight to be found. There is a venner of obnoxious Hollywood PC inserted to placate CAIR and the handfull of liberals that watch and that is it. 24 asks the question; if a bunch of raggedy ass terrorists threaten the good old USA can we hook their privates up to a Diehard, shoot 'em between the eyes, lop off their heads and use the severed noggins as bargaining chips with other raggedy ass terrorists. The answer, as my daughters would say, is "well duh...." Greatest show in the world, yup. Better than Buffy, not really. Posted by: sugarchuck at January 30, 2007 12:07 PM
But jk thinks:
Terri, welcome to ThreeSources! I am a huge Buffy fan and, although we have Firefly/Serenity fans, I'm in a minority around here. I started this, fully suspecting it would end in an all out flamewar. I had just started watching 24 this season and wondered if there were subtleties and layered meanings that I was missing (I didn't even get Sen. Kerry's "If you're stupid you go to Iraq" joke). Twenty-four is fun for its high octane pacing and unapologetic patriotism, but I find I still watch Buffies, read the lit-crit about them, and catch new nuances after more than a dozen viewings. I cannot say -- and have heard nobody really claim -- that there is that depth in 24. Posted by: jk at January 30, 2007 3:17 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Well, I clearly don't have the "Buffy appreciation" gene. I got Season One on DVD for Christmas a year ago and watched the whole thing. I had no urge to get Season Two. JK says he is "not going to be coerced to aid a terrorist plot" but do you believe the frightened father fully realized the implications of "delivering a package" for the arabic kid across the street? Being forced to do so at gunpoint would certainly tip me off but c'mon, he's not supposed to know he's in a TV drama about terrorists blowing up America. And objecting to this scenario as "unrealistic" makes me wonder what I, in turn, am supposed to think about vampires. Is 24 as good as Firefly? Yes. But 24 is put together with a wide angle lens where Firefly, like Buffy, is a close up, individual story. They both make the viewer think and I, personally, can imagine myself in any of their situations. Maybe it's the same kind of difference as that between science fiction and science fantasy that dagny and I continually debate. The important idea though from the article I posted is this (seventh paragraph): "But it is not merely a question of choosing between family and a greater good; or--in other contexts that crop up repeatedly on the show--between civil liberties and national security; or between torture and human rights. It is a failing of our politics that these kinds of questions, in the real world, are presented by both sides as either easy to answer or unnecessary to choose between--or both." Posted by: johngalt at January 30, 2007 3:19 PM
But jk thinks:
I did not know of your efforts. It is very difficult to develop Buffy appreciation by watching Season One. A couple of episodes are good (The Pack and Nightmares) but there are no standout episodes, and the show does not really find its groove until later. Better to start in the middle and find your way back. You do like Firefly. I compare Capt. Reynolds to Jack Bauer and find our beloved CTU agent comes up lacking. They both have beliefs (and I'd say both have a warning about discussions our government does not have). Mal is a deeply complex figure: tough as nails, stalwart in his beliefs, yet a mixture of real and fake bravado that is endearing. Getting into later Buffy and Angel episodes, you see Joss Whedon's chops develop to where he could do Firefly. In Buffy/Angel, he had twelve seasons to craft a coherent, consistent universe. On the scene. Wait a minute, pard'ner. In a week of terrorist acts, my friendly , neighborhood, MidEastern teenage neighbor holds my family at gunpoint, my son informs me that he has killed one of my other neighbors. I am forced to run an errand where I give A SUITCASE OF CASH to a man who says it's "not enough money." So I kill the guy with my bare hands (I guess my ATM card is in my green pair of pants) and I drive out to deliver it to another MidEastern-lookin'-fella. All during a state of heightened alert. Am I delivering the latest Abba video? A pack of JuJu-Bees? (Infidel-Infidel-Bees). That is pretty hard for me to believe. The vampires, magic, and demons are allegorical in Buffy -- it is less a matter of believing as interpreting.
But jk thinks:
And I want it noted that our beloved Randian blog brother is lobbying for "the greater good." What planet did I wake up on? :) Posted by: jk at January 30, 2007 3:59 PMDecember 8, 2006Online BrowncoatsWired News: Firefly Reborn as Online Universe Now that's shiny. Hat-tip: Insty. Not sure I'm the MMORPG type. (r-tard!) Without a large dose of Joss Whedon input, I can't see this being too interesting.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:33 PM
| Comments (2)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Sorry,..if it isn't the original show (or new eps) I'm not interested. Fix shot itself in the foot on this one. BTW - check you instapundit link. Posted by: TrekMedic251 at December 9, 2006 12:11 PM
But jk thinks:
No question you're right; this is miles down the excitement scale from new eps or another movie. Ever the optimist, I'll point to the precedent of Douglas Adams, who personally became very involved in the crafting of the infocom game version of "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy." That was a blast, to a level where reading the books after was a disappointment. (The book of his to read is "Dirk Gentry's Holistic Detective Agency." Were Whedon to see it as a new palette and craft some of his genius into it, it might be something. March 23, 2006South Park Kills ChefThis was actually a pretty damned funny episode.
The thinly disguised satire continued the show's feud with Scientologists in its 10th season premiere on Comedy Central. The soul singer has voiced the Chef character in "South Park" since 1997, but left recently because of what he called the animated show's religious "intolerance and bigotry." Founders Matt Stone and Trey Parker said Hayes, a Scientologist, was mad that "South Park" mocked the religion in an episode last November. A rerun of that Scientology episode was mysteriously pulled off the air last week amid published reports that actor Tom Cruise, another Scientologist, had used his clout to bury it. A Cruise spokesman denied that. Hayes didn't participate in making Wednesday's episode; the character's lines appeared to be patched together through tapes of past dialogue. Chef repeatedly said he wanted to "make sweet love" to the "South Park" elementary school kids -- it seems the "Super Adventure Club" turns its members into child molesters. Would a hearty heh be necessary here?
Posted by AlexC at 6:15 PM
| Comments (2)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Now,..start boycotting MI:3! Maybe these Scientology cultists will start getting the message! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 23, 2006 10:26 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Good idea, but I didn't need the South Park kerfuffle to boycott MI3. I stayed away from MI2 long before any of this stuff surfaced! Posted by: johngalt at March 26, 2006 2:07 AMMarch 15, 2006"Oh, Snap!"Maybe it's just a guy thing, or my distaste for Japanese cars, or my straight laced law-abiding revulsion to the hip-hop culture. Maybe I get too much enjoyment from smashing things, or pretty young eurobabes in short skirts, or middle aged techno geeks being portrayed as hip. But when I watched this commercial for Volkswagen's new factory "tuner" car last night my wife asked, "Is that funny?" "If you have to ask...," I replied. The other two ads in the series are here, and here. Brilliant!
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:00 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Yeah, I had seen the first one, and thought it a swing-and-a-miss. Watching the other two, I don't know if I am getting into the series or the others are better. I chuckled at If you vant me to de-pimp your ride, say vat.” “What?” I love Japanese cars, but admit my eyes glaze over when commercials try to tie into hip-hop culture.
But Silence Dogood thinks:
The "do you know what time it is" line was a sleeper hit to me - asked of a guy wearing a clock around his neck. Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 17, 2006 8:27 AM |