Ok, I've Been Slacking Off Again... THE ELECTION PREDICTION '08 POST!!!

Right.

Some background.

A guy - Martin Lewis - posted a blog entry over on the Huffington Post the other day. In it, he recommended that the military overthrow President Bush, and "restore order."

At any rate, several of the things he said were, in fact, felonies.

And you know, some conservatives can read.

So they commented, and pointed out the fact that he should be arrested immediately for treason. Because, you know, it's ok to say "President Bush is a screaming idiot assclown cockmonkey," but it's really NOT ok to advocate armed rebellion against the government, or to attempt to incite the military to overthrow the government.

His response? "It was a satire, you're just too dumb to get it."

Well, my reaction on reading this was quite simple: bullshit.

I'm not the smartest person in the world by a long mile, certainly, but I am quite well-read and fairly bright, and I've never had any trouble seeing the attempts at humor made by people known to be comical.

However, this particular writer has never published any other article intended to be humorous; he's on a site devoted to dead-serious, although loony, political commentary and discussion; and frankly, I don't see anything remotely non-serious in this article, at all.

Invoking the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and quoting extensively from the United States Code, is of course always good for a laugh.

Now, my intent had originally been to do the same thing, satirically; to quote, at great length, the United States Code, and the UCMJ, as reasons Martin Lewis should be arrested for treason and jailed.

Until I found out that someone else had done it first, and better.

What follows is the full text of a comment left on the article discussing this brouhaha over at HotAir.com:

"

Dear Martin,

Satirize this, why dontcha?

You committed 5 felonies in your “satire,â€� specifically:

18 USC Sec. 2389 Recruiting for service against United States

Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war by inciting insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States

Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally, by advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States

Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy

Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

So, given that in the United States, the ordinary American has the right to make a citizen's arrest of suspects committing or having committed a felony, consider yourself on notice: IF I SEE YOU ON THE STREET, I WILL ATTEMPT TO AFFECT YOUR ARREST. Please don't resist.

Nah. Don't worry. It's ONLY SATIRE! I don't mean it. Just like you didn't mean it.

georgej on August 27, 2007 at 6:25 AM

"

Dear "georgej": You. Are. Awesome. I bow before your total pwnage of this rampaging assclown.

For the rest of you; sorry I've been slacking off. Don't worry, as the political fray begins to take off, leading up to November next; I will pick up the pace a bit.

I will make a few predictions, for the coming election:

1. There will be constant threats of terrorist action - they've already begun - running all the way through the election, at which time they will mysteriously vanish. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]

2. There will be sex scandals "discovered" about each and every Republican candidate.[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]

3. There will be financial misdealings present in the portfolio of every single candidate with poll numbers over 1%. Don't worry, as we close on election time I will break out the hard numbers to back this one up. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]

4. EVERY SINGLE PERSON RUNNING will get "swift-boated" by some group or another. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]

5. Regardless of who is elected, regardless of party, regardless of publically announced sentiment, or position, or support - or lack thereof - for the war in Iraq; the United States will not pull out the bulk of our troops from Iraq in the next 3 years. REMEMBER I SAID THIS. Especially after the election. Watch as all the pre-election rhetoric turns into so much hot air, and vanishes. [*Edited to Add: or, fuck the elections; watch as this dries up and blows away long before the elections... Sometimes I hate to be right. Click here.*]

6. The only two candidates running who have decent platforms will not get their party nominations. (That'd be Bill Richardson of the Dems, and Ron Paul of the GOP.)[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]

7. At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, the Democrats will spawn a horde of lawsuits.

8. At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, there will have been overwhelming election fraud, across the board, in every major voting district. By both sides.

9. No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a slew of angry rants by people with tiny brains, demanding the removal of the electoral college, as though that would somehow improve things.[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]

And one more, just as a bonus:

10. If California's measure to split the electoral vote based on the state's popular vote percentage passes, our next president will be a Republican.

I'll explain that last one very briefly.

The way the electoral college works is actually very simple. each state has a certain percentage - based on population - of the fixed number of electors. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote for that state then receives ALL the electoral votes for that state.

The Democrats have been close in the last two elections solely by virtue of the fact that California has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state.

California has a measure on the ballot this year - which would make it effective for the '08 elections - which would split the electoral votes based on the result of the popular vote.

To wit, in the last election, instead of Kerry getting 55 electoral votes from California, and Bush getting none, had this measure passed, Kerry would have received 33, and Bush 22.

The Democrats - I hate to break this to those of you who may be of that persuasion - DO NOT POSSESS an electoral map capable of electing a president that does not include all 55 votes from California.

In other words, without California, they can kiss the presidency goodbye for a long, long time indeed.

Let's put this in perspective: in 2004, Bush got 286 electoral votes, and Kerry got 252. That 252 INCLUDES all 55 from California.

Had the electors in fact been split, it would instead have been 308 to 230.

This is because - despite their assurance that it is a bastion - the Dems nearly lost California. It was actually astonishingly close; the percentages represented there are a bit illusory, because the number of actual voters wasn't that big. The Kerry majority in California was a little over 1.2 million - in a state in which 12 million voters showed up.

Now, take that one step further. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, California seems to be doing quite well under The Governator - and he has shown an astonishing ability to get the voters to the polls.

What might happen if the Dems flat-out LOST California? Hmmmm?

Blame it on election fraud?

Sue everyone?

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

The world may never know. Or, we might just find out in November 08.

Wish us luck.

 

[*Edited to add note #1: all three of these predictions are addressed at length in this post.*]

[*Edited to add note #2: these three are addressed in this post.*]

Obsession Is A Dangerous Weapon...

That was the tagline for a pretty good movie from a few years ago, "The Vanishing."

A movie just came out to which it applies as well, only more so.

You guys may not realize this, but Jim Carrey is a fine actor, in every sense.

All of these things frame something simple: a movie review!

Just recently, a movie called "The Number 23" appeared in - and vanished from - theaters, practically overnight. That's really too bad. Maybe the ads didn't sell it properly - I admit I didn't see many.

It was, however, a damn fine film.

First, I will start by saying that I have seen quite a few movies by director Joel Schumacher; some great (Flatliners), some decent (A Time To Kill), some not so good (Dying Young). But when he shines, he really, really shines(Falling Down).

So, it was with a bit of skepticism, but hope, that we sat down to watch "The Number 23." A movie about obsession, starring Jim Carrey, filmed by Joel Schumacher? Hmmmmm...

How can I put this: We're buying it, as soon as it comes out on DVD.

There are enough really nasty plot twists to satisfy anyone; there is in fact a decent amount of obsession; there is a really great mystery, a really creepy subtext, some very odd "coincidences," and a TON of creepy moments, all filmed in a surreal, Nine-Inch-Nails-music-video style that reminded me a lot of some moments in "Se7en."

Schumacher apparently has been taking lessons from Fincher, which is not a bad thing; I've always accorded more credit to Fincher's films than most people I know, and seeing Schumacher - who I already like - taking the kind of filmmaking risks that David Fincher take was a treat, to be sure.

But what made the film was Jim Carrey.

I don't know how many of you watched "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind." More of you should have, than did, for sure; it didn't do well in theaters either.

That's easy to explain. Since Jim Carrey has made a staggering assream of money with his goofball comedies, he can now pick any kind of movie he likes to star in. His last two - ESOTSM and "23" I certainly hope are examples of where he's going. They're risky films, and they're the kind of films studios hate - because they not only ask, but REQUIRE, that their audiences think.

Thought, in a movie? Scary idea, indeed. Which is why movies like "23," and - another perfect example of the type - "One Hour Photo," starring Robin Williams as a sociopathic stalker, don't do well at theaters.

It's amazing how well they seem to do on video, though. As word of mouth grows, DVD rentals and sales pick up, until they make more money on DVD than most movies make in theaters.

I hope this is one of them; "23" deserves every penny it gets, and I hope it encourages Jim Carrey to try more roles like this; the whole film revolves around him - in more ways than are immediately apparent - and he carries it brilliantly.

Hey.

Pssst.

Yeah, you. Over here.

This is your word of mouth calling.

Go rent - or buy - "The Number 23." It's one of the better movies this year. Don't be put off by the box office numbers; drones never go see movies that require thought. Ask yourself to be a bit better than that; exercise your mind; and go see this movie.

It'll rock your socks.

Let's Talk About Intellectual Content. And Movie Trailers.

You know, there are some really, really cool movies coming up in the near future.

The fans sure know.

They are, as usual, hunting down movie trailers, and saving the movie companies tons of money by hosting these trailers themselves, sharing them with their friends, and generally selling the movie companies' product for them, for free.

They are greeted with cease and desist letters from corporate attorneys hired by executives with no actual business sense.

There's some good music out right now, too. But you most likely aren't hearing any of it. This is because when radio stations play anything other than, you know, Top 40 - they get threatened with the looming notion of royalties - which would kill radio, as the station owners well know. Because the music companies would kill, to keep you from selling their product for them, for free.

Let me back up a bit.

Robert Jordan is a widely read, really, really terrible author. He sucks; his fiction is complete garbage, and he wrote the single, solitary book I've ever - EVER - thrown out after reading.

But he sells millions of copies, thanks to his publishers, years ago, making an astoundingly wise business decision: to put standups for his books in the airports.

You've been in airports. When you didn't bring a book, because this is only supposed to be an hour-long flight anyway, and you're just in time, and you're ready to go...

...And your flight is delayed for three hours. Now what? Well, you go to the airport gift shop, where you find local souvenirs, Tiger Beat magazine, and Robert Jordan books. Most adults, given the choice, will settle for the lesser of three evils, and buy Robert Jordan books.

Now for me, frankly, this is an idea that just begs to be repeated. And outside the major media companies, movies, music, and publishing, it is embraced with gusto. Look at the tabloids: where do you find them? Right where you can't avoid seeing them. Where are the rest of the magazines? In a separate, secluded section the customer has to actively seek out. Not the tabloids; the customer couldn't avoid seeing the National Enquirer if their life depended on it. Want to bet which publication has the wider circulation?

If you guessed the tabloids, you guessed right.

Now, for the customer, a song on the radio - or a movie trailer - is the equivalent of a tabloid at the cash register. The only way to avoid it, is not to go to the store. If you have the radio on, whoever owns the station you're listening to can play anything they want, pretty much, and you're at least going to hear enough of it to decide whether to change the channel.

You went to the theater; the trailers come first, because you can't get up and leave without missing what you paid for.

So, they're free advertising for the media companies, just like at a bookstore, when they have that standup display next to the register for the books they really want to sell this month. You're more likely to buy a product if you KNOW ABOUT IT.

Which brings me to the internet. Fans of movies, books, music, you name it, put clips on YouTube, their blog, their homepage, what have you. And they share through BitTorrent. I've seen downloaded movies; you basically can't download a movie in decent enough quality to justify not buying a DVD of it if you liked the movie. The same is true for songs; in order to get them to a filesize that a reasonable person would want to download, the quality comes down from what's commercially available.

Now, I can understand the media companies' unwillingness to let random Joes give away their product; after all, there's not exactly strict quality control if just anybody can rip / edit their product, you know?

What mystifies me, though, is why the media companies aren't giving their products away over BitTorrent THEMSELVES.

Picture this. You go to your favorite Torrent website, and see a listing for a new, hot movie that just hit theaters, or is about to come out on DVD in a week. You download it, not even noticing that the account name of the uploader is "officialuniversalstudiostorrents" or some such. You watch it, and when it first loads, you see a trailer. Not for any random Universal movie - although no reason not to do that too - but for the theatrical or DVD release of the movie you're about to watch. It says,

"Thank you for downloading this Universal Studios product; we hope you enjoy it. But the picture quality, the sound quality, and the overall experience is a whole lot more enjoyable in a theater (or on DVD, ??/??/????.) The DVD contains features, and video and audio quality, not available through the internet, and we hope you choose to try our product in its best presentation."

You'd make a fortune. DVD sales would go up, ticket sales would go up, and you would lose... wait for it...

...Nothing.

Just the way the music companies have had nothing but profit, for years, from radio "giving their product away." Which is why they've never ACTUALLY charged the radio stations royalties; they know it's free advertising. Or at least they did. Now they seem to have lost sight of that concept; as though a song I heard in terrible radio quality would prevent me from buying the album, because, you know, I've heard it.

Crap.

If I had any say in it - which, as a customer, I clearly don't - I would pimp the product as much as possible. Sell, sell, sell, sell, sell. Even if you give away free copies to do it.

Which brings me back to YouTube.

There are some really cool movies coming out, some of which were a complete surprise to me. (I'll explain in a sec, promise.) I am going to post trailers for some of them.

Wanna bet on how long they last before the cease and desist letters come in? (I will note here that SOME of the movie companies seem to have figured YouTube out, and are posting their OWN trailers on it, which is what I've been hoping would happen all along. Dimension Films is an excellent example; too bad most of the other movie studios can't get it yet.)

The surprises come in two flavors for me: first, that several of them are remakes; usually remakes are bad, but it looks like the studios are actually giving some efort to the idea of making remakes that are actually good movies in their own rights. Secondly - well, the first of the trailers I want to show you should pretty much say it.

First up is one that was a total shock to me: not because they're making it, but becase based on the trailer, I think it will be really good, and actually want to see it: "John Rambo."
That's right, with Stallone. It looks like a return to First Blood, which was actually a damn good movie. Granted, the sequels have been crap, but the first one was good. This one looks... well, see for yourself.

Next is the Rob Zombie remake of "Halloween". Rob, when asked, says "within five minutes of the movie you will know that they cannot be compared, because they are completely different films," which from the trailer seems accurate. I can't wait; Rob is the man.

Next is "The Invasion," also a remake, of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers; looks good, and creepy.

Next is "30 Days of Night," about an Alaskan town under siege by vampires. Awesome potential, trailer looks good, we'll see.

Next is "1408," one of several upcoming Stephen King films, starring John Cusack, and it looks badass.

Next is I Am Legend, also a remake. Will Smith I wouldn't have picked for the role, but having seen the trailer he looks like he could pull it off; we'll see.

Next is an upcoming project which is as yet untitled but for its release date - 1/18/08. Watch the trailer. To me, this just SCREAMS Godzilla, but if that's the case, why the secrecy? Only time will tell.

Next is "The Devil's Chair," which I know little about other than that the trailer looks badass. But it does look badass, doesn't it?

Next is "Fragile," about a nurse in a children's hospital where Bad Things are happening.

Next is "War," which looks like nothing but action, which is good sometimes.

And last, but by no means least, is "The Host," which I've actually seen - it's Korean, and looks to be coming here finally - and actually is a hell of a lot of fun.

Check 'em out. Maybe, who knows, you'll want to see one of them. And then you'll get my point; the people doing free advertising for these companies ought to be embraced, not criminalized. And make no mistake; the things these people are doing weren't against the law, until they started doing them - and the media companies decided it should be.

Show 'em they're wrong; download a movie, and then buy it - and tell them you did, at the video store. "Yeah, I wouldn't be buying this movie if I hadn't seen it thanks to BitTorrent."

Maybe they'll figure it out if enough people give them a nudge in the ribs.