The Dangerous Self-Delusions of Some Hillary Supporters


, , ,

Like these here folks

As we’re in the home stretch (fucking finally) of the 2016 election cycle, and Hillary Clinton is now the official nominee, there are some trends that I’ve been seeing for a long while that, in the big picture, are kinda scary, and I wanted to talk about.

First the obvious:  In the abstract, it is absolutely amazing we finally have a woman at the top of a Presidential ticket.  Women are woefully, absurdly under-represented in the public sector (outside of folks working as administrative assistants, I would imagine), and it is far past time we had a woman at the top of the ballot.  And I think the excitement among many women generated by her candidacy is pretty damn understandable.

Still in abstract mode:  It’s good we have a qualified candidate on our ticket.  No matter what you think of her, Clinton has been involved in politics for a long, long time, had an intimate look at how a Presidential administration works, and has accumulated some good legislative and diplomatic experience since Bill left office.  No matter what the right-wing nut jobs (RWNJ) say, this lady is qualified.

Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton is a terribly-flawed candidate, something that caused me to vote for someone else in 2008, and made me lament this election season, “Does it have to be this woman?”  Even more unfortunately, expressing that kind of thought has been, if not exactly dangerous, a good path to get inundated with charges of sexism and misogyny.  Pointing out her very real non-progressive policy problems doesn’t seem to help; if you were for Bernie against Hillary, you must be a sexist, patriarchical pig (in some quarters).

But now I’m seeing some genuine delusional thinking among Hillary supporters, and it’s kind of scaring me.  It’s scaring me for Hillary, because she might actually lose to Trump and, despite my dislike of her as a candidate, she is so much better than him it’s scarcely worth talking about why.  But I’m also worried that by allowing themselves (and this includes the folks inside the campaign) to continue on with these delusions, they’re going to endanger a very real chance of taking over the Senate or House.

There are two main delusions working here:

She is being unfairly treated by the press, but once people “really” get to know her (or “once she gets her message out”) they’ll see she’s great.

And the response to this is a simple negative: No.  No they won’t.  Hillary has been in the national public eye for more than a quarter-century, and a plethora of polls show that people have made up their mind about her.  Another huge set of polls show her negatives are higher than her positives; ignoring Trump, she is the most widely disliked candidate to ever run for President since polling started.

Lots of people hate Hillary, everyone has made up their minds, and that’s not going to change for many people, if any.

And the dangerous delusion is that this will change.  That people will actually give a shit about her “official policies”, or listen to her speeches, or be convinced by the endless articles about how unfairly treated she is by the press.  Or by going to her rallies.  Or by anything.  People’s minds are made up, and the best thing her folks can do is work hard to get people to the polls.  Not just to save us from Trump, but for the down-ballot folks who can benefit from a higher turnout.  Higher turnout, Dems win.  It’s that simple.  And this leads us to the second, even scarier delusion:

There’s no ‘enthusiasm gap’.

Again, a simple response is available: Yeah, there is.  It’s very real, and there’s been a ton of polls and articles that support this.

This delusion was displayed in stark terms today with dueling columns in the New York Times, where Paul Krugman pooh-poohed the idea there’s an enthusiasm gap (with a pointer to an article by Michelle Goldberg from April, aeons ago in political time), and another article talking about how Millenial black women are indeed very unenthusiastic about Hillary’s candidacy.

I’m a very leftist Progressive, one who has advocated for GLBT equal rights for decades, who believes we need single-payer healthcare, who thinks the government needs to stop financing monogamy, etc. etc.  Hillary is a New Democrat Apparatchik who is a war hawk (Henry Kissinger, FFS!), has close ties to Wall St., and has followed her husband’s trailblazing path by not just ignoring her base, but (with encouragement from the Beltway press) actively and publicly scorning them and their policies.  That she has now paid us lip service by including some of our policies in the party platform is nothing but window dressing, given no one really pays attention to the party platform after an election.  (Note none of this has anything to do with her gender.)

One might argue I’m an outlier.  But in addition to the Bernie folks, you’ve got plenty of Progressives who distrust Hillary because of her defense policies, her Wall St. ties, and other issues where previously (as a Senator or Secretary of State or even early in the campaign) she said and did one thing, and then (mostly after leftward pressure from Bernie) she changed her tune, or seemed to.

There are also more than a few people with Clinton Fatigue.  Almost all these folks  are well aware she is treated unfairly by the press, that her reputation for lying/sneakiness/whatever is something the RWNJ press has been hammering into the public consciousness for decades.  And they don’t care.  They’re sick of hearing about Benghazi, emails, Vince Foster, lame jokes about Monica, and on and on and on.  And the only way they’re going to be relieved of that fatigue is by the Clintons stepping away from public life.  So you can imagine that looking forward to another 4-8 years of Clinton nonsense feels these folks (and yes, I’m one of them) not with excitement, but a fatal combination of dread and ennui.  These are the people who saw her lose in 2008 and breathed a sigh of relief.  One that was premature, as it turned out.

This is a group that includes people like my mom, whose feminist cred dates to the early 70s and indoctrinating her son with Ms. Magazine and Our Bodies, Our Selves.  My good bi friend who actually worked with Hillary in the mid-90s.  My wildly progressive friend in Portland.  My ex-gf, who applied to be a Bernie delegate at the convention.  And on and on.  This is anecdotal, of course it is, but it’s backed up by plenty of polling data.

But Paul Krugman and other Hillary boosters seem to want to deny this is an issue.  They have a double-barreled strategy:  1) There is no enthusiasm problem, and 2) Even if there were, what are those whiny progressives going to do about it anyway?  Vote Trump!  Ha ha ha ha ha!

It’s a problem.  And not just for Hillary, but for the down-ballot folks so important to getting any of the progressive agenda into the conversation.

Personally I don’t understand Hillary’s whole candidacy.  We found out from the whole DNC/Debbie Wasserman-Schulz debacle that what most progressives suspected was true: “The Establishment” had put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Hillary.  But why?  Aside from her high negatives, she has a terrible relationship with the press, is a desperately boring (or annoying, depending on who you ask) speaker, scorns her base, and has negative numbers that strongly suggest winning would be a very difficult, uphill battle.  Why did everyone decide she needed what amounted to a coronation rather than a primary season?  Why did so many other, very qualified women (Elizabeth Warren leaps to mind) decide to stay out of the race?  Hell, why did so many men decide to stay out?  WtF kind of party decides even before the primary season that there’s basically only going to be one candidate?  What the hell?

And The Democratic Establishment wonders why so many of the “rank and file”, so many of the progressives, so many of the millennials, so many African-Americans, so many college-educated men, weren’t all immediately sold on the Hillary narrative.  Why people keep saying their out of touch.  Well, duh!

So I hope to God the Hillary boosters’ delusions are either popped (though I see no evidence that’s going to happen any time soon), or it ends up not making a difference because Trump is so awful he drives people away and into voting for Hillary and the other Democrats.

I hope.

Some Thoughts on Avengers III


, , ,

Or as Marvel insisted on calling it: Captain America: Civil War
(Photo courtesy of Huffington Post)

Just watched “Captain America: Civil War” and had a few thoughts. And let that be your warning; it’s going to get geeky. Might want to take a pass.

It was an oddly paced movie that in a way reminded me of the second Matrix movie, with long episodes of talking bracketing big or intimate action sequences.

imageMerovingian: “Blah blah blah blah blah…”
(Photo courtesy of Matria Wikia; Monica Bellucci included because why not?)

Luckily, I found the talking portions to be, honestly, fascinating.

Why so? Because these folks have been blowing up cities and parts of cities for a bunch of movies now, and in comic books forever, and there have rarely been consequences. This shows that some problems aren’t easily solved, don’t have black-and-white points of view, are not (in short) “comic book” simple. Honestly, the dialogue among the Avenger characters was so much more nuanced than that of our Presidential candidates—and yes I’m being dead serious here—that it was a little vertigo inducing. Fictional comic book movie characters are actually debating in a rational and realistic way their in-universe problems?

Now it should be said it wouldn’t have been nearly as good without Robert Downey Jr., who honestly is quite remarkable. Somehow that guy has managed to channel his harsh life experiences into his acting. It’s amazing to watch. Chris Evans isn’t a bad young actor, and it’s interesting to see how he’s grown as the films have progressed, but Downey is in many ways the film’s gravitational center, a person obviously wrestling with the paradox of his situation as a hero who may be inviting villians to simply up their game. As a man who deliverately went around “the establishment” now acknowledging government may have a genuine role in life. You may not find it fascinating, but I did.

It certainly helped that he’s surrounded by some high-caliber actors, such as Don Cheadle and Paul Bettany. Not to mention old pros like Martin Freeman, Paul Rudd, William Hurt, and Marisa Tomei. John Slattery! William Hurt! Alfre Woodard, for heaven’s sake!

Photo courtesy of Romano’s Reviews)

On a more granular level (as we say in tech), I loved they made Spiderman an actual teen. He looks it and acts it, and it was a whale of a lot of fun. Maybe a Spiderman movie will be a relief from all this grim ‘n grittiness.

On the down side, I could hardly follow the action in the “big” fight sequence among the Avengers, because I couldn’t remember who the heck was fighting who, and was perpetually confused.

And as much as I love Paul Rudd, and boy do I, I still can’t stand Ant Man. Maybe he’ll be less . . . out of place if they ditch the shrinking and leave him with his giant thing. But in the meantime, ugh.

Sorry, Paul (Rudd at the Ant Man Premier)

But to get serious again, to me the moral center of the movie was Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. I’ve made no secret I’m a total Johansson fanboy; I think she’s an absolutely amazing actress, in addition to being multi-talentied, almost ridiculously beautiful, and having one of the sexiest voices since Kathleen Turner did Roger Rabbit. (Would have been a fun nod to Body Heat to have Turner be some computer voice or something that talked to William Hurt. But I digress.). I admit this. But put it aside.

Black Widow is, by far, the most morally-ambiguous character in the film, perhaps in the Marvel Comic Universe (MCU). She was training from a young age as a professional killer, and is one of the very best in the world. That was her job as a spy for the Soviet Union. And then she switched sides to the Americans…and did the same thing for them. Now she’s an Avenger, empowered to act with this group of incredibly powerful people totally beyond the law.

And yet it’s Black Widow/Natasha/Nat who seems to grasp what no one else is able to: That some things can be more important than taking a side. That sometimes, groups can break up, but other times, you need to do whatever you can to keep the group together because it’s just the right thing to do. Even if it pisses off some people. Because to Natasha, having been on all sides, or perhaps no side, it’s the *people* who ultimately matter, the people to whom she has decided to give her loyalty to, after a lifetime of giving it to governments and agencies and higher authorities. It’s Nat who realizes that agencies, authorities, governments, they’re all made up of people, too. And if you can’t be loyal to your friends––and to Nat, her friends are incredibly precious to her––who can you be loyal to at all?

The advertising hook for Civil War is for you to choose a team, and half-joking, half-not I said I didn’t choose Team Iron Man or Team Captain America, but Team Black Widow. Because over more than half a dozen movies, it’s *her* that *I* have learned to trust, and to her I’ve given my cinimeatic loyalty to. And so you can only imagine how surprised I was when I watched the film and found that . . . I had made the right choice. Because neither Cap nor Iron Man were right, and neither was wrong; in the end only Natasha was able to grasp the underlying truth and, while seeming to betray *both* sides, turned out to be truer to not only herself, but the ideals of her teammates.

Which, being me, infuriates me in two ways. First, after telling Stark to watch his back, she *disappears from the film* for the entire final act. Just up and vanishes! WTF, Russo Brothers?

And second it only reinforced what many, many fans have been clamoring about for a while now: This character, played by this (immensely bankable, extremely popular) actress absolutely deserves a film of her own.

How many times do I have to say it? (Photo courtesy of Medium)

Laziness and Bigotry

No, RWNJs; it’s actual manners

I’be often wondered why people are so resistant to changing the language with which they address people, groups of people, ideas, and so on.  Why does it cause such anger (mostly on the right) to ask people to please not call Native Americans “Indians”?  Why is there so much rage against addressing folks by their preferred pronoun?  Heck, I read a right-wing lament prior to the 2006 Olympics that using “Turino” rather than “Turin” was some kind of PC insanity.  I didn’t understand it.  It’s okay when someone corrects your pronunciation of their name; why is this other stuff such a big deal?

Bigotry, sure.  A lot of people are simply bigots, and would probably still be calling African Americans “nigger” and Jews “kike” and Irish “Micks” and so forth if they could get away with it.  Sad but true, those people are still with us.

There’s also the piece in there exemplified by all those Tea Party demands to “take our country back!”  Back from who?  Back to what?  WTF are they talking about?  Well, probably back to the day when naming a baseball team “Redskins” was so acceptable that no one gave it a second thought.  When the population of the US was so heavily tilted towards white Christians that they felt they could act and speak with impunity (and usually could, too).  When it was widely accepted that GLBTs were aberrant, sick people engaged in behavior that was patentently amoral and accepted as such (at least openly).  When you could pinch a woman’s ass at work, call her “honey” or “sweetheart” or “babe” or “girl” without so much as a raised eyebrow.

But ya know, I think some of that, and some of the backlash itself, comes from laziness, pure and simple.  People don’t want to learn new terms, new ways of addressing people, new rules of politeness because they’re lazy.  (I’m not excepting myself from this, by the way; I’m hella lazy, too.  I just suck it up and deal, because it’s the right thing to do.)  Learning new terms, integrating them into your daily language, remembering them…it’s all a big pain in the ass and people don’t want to do it.  So instead of sucking it up and dealing, they scream and rant and rave and look like (to be blunt) bigoted douche-nozzles.  It’s not about “we don’t want to give in to the PC police!” so much as “We don’t want to learn new things, waah waah waah!”  (And yes, imagine that in the tones of your least-favorite local 3-year-old, because that’s the emotional level of the demand in my opinion.)

I don’t have a good solution for this—just as “the poor will always be with us”, the lazy will be, too.  And in all of us, for that matter.  If I thought it would help I would suggest you to stare these “the heck with being PC!” folks in the eye and tell them, “You’re only saying that because you’re lazy and don’t want to work!  Would you call someone ‘PC’ if they asked you to please stop mis-pronouncing their name?”  But I don’t think it would, honestly.

But maybe it will help you, when you hear or read about these whiners complaining about the “demands of the PC police”, to think of them whining like a bunch of spoiled 3-year-olds.  It helps me a little bit, anyway.


A Virtual Secession


, , , , ,

They will defend your right to discriminate to their dying breath!

Recently there have been a raft of “religious freedom” bills throughout the South (and elsewhere, unfortunately). Most of these seem directly targeted against the Surpreme Court’s recent recognition of marriage equality, although now (e.g. in North Carolina) they seem to be targeting trans citizens.  In my opinion, these bills have fuck-all to do with religious freedom and are simply a method in which bigotry can be re-enshrined in places where the courts have outlawed it.  (To try to tell whether they’re really about “religious freedom”, look at a law and ask, “If this applied to blacks/Jews/Catholics/Asians/whatever, would it be discrimination?” and that should do it.)

I find this cynical and reprehensible, wildly hypocritical (“It’s all about religious freedom!”; no it ain’t, it’s all about being able to be prejudiced without being called on it), and quite frankly unChristian.  How is it in line with the Golden Rule to want to discriminate against your neighbors?  Obviously, it isn’t.  But that’s not what I want to talk about.

Unsurprisingly, most of these bigoted laws have come out of the South, primarily states that were part of the former Confederacy.  There have been laws in Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina to force trans citizens to use the bathroom of their birth sex rather than their gender.  And usually people shake their heads at this stuff, say, “Yeah, that’s the South,” and move on.  But something surprising is happening this time:

A bunch of businesses, organizations, and artists are saying they’re done.

In case you haven’t seen, the draconian North Carolina law has caused businesses like PayPal and Deutsche Bank and performers such as Bruce Springsteen and Cirque d’ Soliel to pull out of performing there.  The NBA is also threatening to pull next year’s All Star game from there as well.  As you may imagine, hard-right folks are calling the companies and performers everything from “bullies” to “child molester supporters”, and trying to pretend their happy Springsteen et. alia aren’t coming to their state.  (Which wee all know is BS, but never mind.)

And it made me wonder.

It seems like we’ve been relighting the Civil war over various areas of bigotry and discrimination multiple times over the last 150 years.  (I’m hardly the first to point this out.)  There was the Civil Rights/anti-Jim Crow fights of the 60s; the battle over women’s rights and the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s; the “Southern Strategy” of Richard Nixon; and the recent battle over marriage equality.  A (depressingly) huge number of folks in the South seem to want to keep their region firmly in the 19th Century, and get angry and resentful any time they’re forced to confront their bigotry and prejudice.  And now they’re actually being punished for it.

So I wondered if this isn’t sort of like a slow-moving, virtual secession.  I mean, I don’t anticipate the South actually breaking off from the rest of the country legally, but what if the region were slowly but steadily to suffer the same fate staring North Carolina in the face?  (A fate that caused the right-wingers to back down in Arizona and Indiana, by the way.)  What if these states stood by their “principles”, and were cut off by banks, job-rich high tech firms, entertainers, sports leagues, and the like?  What if the Titans were removed from the NFL, and the Predators from Nashville, the Hornets from Charlotte?  No more visits from Taylor Swift or big rock acts or what RedState insists are “has beens”?  What if the Federal government started denying Title IX funds because these states were breaking anti-discrimination laws?  What if the amount of tax dollars that flow into these states?  (“Red” states receive far more tax money than they contribute to the Federal government, while “blue” states pay in far more than they get back.)

Maybe “the South” wouldn’t be legally cut off from the rest of the U.S., but they kinda would be, wouldn’t they?

No, I don’t think it would actually happen.  And if it did, I doubt the right-wingers would be particularly happy to finally get what they want (and they would blame the Left for their poverty, lack of jobs, increased infant mortality and teen pregnancy rates, etc.).  But it seemed an interesting thing to think about.  And I have to think it was fear of something like this—or at least a portion of it—that caused Jan Brewer of Arizona and Mike Pence of Indiana to step back from the brink.

I used to wonder how far to the right the right would have to go before the left finally got off their lazy butts and pushed back hard.  Now we know.  And it’s kind of satisfying, don’t you think?

Republicans Can’t Do Math


, , , , , ,

So why do we keep voting them into office?

Recently I got into a . . . discussion . . . on Twitter.  (You can’t really have discussions on Twitter.  For one, you’re limited to 140 characters.  And for another, most people don’t want to discuss, they just want to bludgeon you.  Sometime, if I’m okay with being sued, I might relay some of my conversations with Cathy Brennan, an extremely unpleasant radical feminist who is one of the most abrasive, obnoxious, litigious, angry people I’ve ever seen online.  And I’ve been online a really long time.  I mean, since Reagan was President.  To say this woman is “transphobic” is to understate things so massively I can’t even express it.  See, what happened was…Wait, where was I?  Oh, right; Republicans and math.)

Anyway, this person––who was not a bad or unreasonable guy––insisted to me that “both sides” had problems with math, citing the amount that the debt has doubled under Obama, just like it did under Bush. I didn’t bother telling him it was a genuinely idiotic comparison, as Bush had been handed an economy running at a surplus and quickly destroyed it with two obscene tax cuts, two unbudgeted wars, a huge new (also unbudgeted) federal drug program, and some phenomenal mis-management, while Obama was handed an economy in free-fall with a skyrocketing deficit, which he turned around and now has the deficit coming down.  But when you’re “debating” with someone who reiterates that absurd right-wing canard about the government giving away “free stuff”, you’re not speaking to a person well-acquainted with actual facts.

But it reminded me of a very basic fact: Republicans just can’t seem to do math.  And I mean simple math, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  You know:  K-6 math.

Let’s take immigration.  The Tea Party, the Trumpsters, and of course the Republican Party as a whole want to get rid of every last illegal immigrant in the country.  All of them.  And what I wonder is:  Can’t the G.O.P. do simple math?

(“Obviously not,” I hear you cry.  Yes, you’re right:  they think cutting taxes will increase government revenue; they think giving ACORN a few million dollars will bankrupt us, but fighting trillion dollar wars won’t; etc.  Bear with me anyway.)

If figures are right, there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

That’s a lot of people.  I mean, a lot a lot.  It’s basically the entirety of the L.A. metro area.  I mean, it’s a lot.

So let’s assume that you can snap your fingers and gather all those people up with no effort at all.  None.  SNAP!  11 million people appear, ready to be deported.  Now what?

A Republican politician when confronted w/ this question

Where are you going to put them?  Empty all of L.A. and house them there?  Put them in a corner of Texas or New Mexico where they can wait to be processed?  Better be a damn big corner.  And what would you do with them?  Hand them shovels and seeds and tell them, “Good luck!  You’re number 2,459,345–we should get to you by August of 2019; better start tilling and sowing!” and hope it doesn’t turn into an environmental disaster?

But let’s say you figure it out.  You won’t; but let’s say you do.  (“We’ll make them stay right where we find them while we process them, then when we’re ready we’ll do the finger-snapping thing!  Yeah!  That’s the ticket!”)   So now you have 11 million people handy.  How are you going to get them home?  Bus?  Let’s do a little math:

A typical school bus–you know, the yellow kind without air conditioning or seat belts–seats between 75-90 folks.  Let’s go with 100, just to be conservative.  If you want to transport 11 million people to Mexico, you’re talking about 110,000 school bus trips.   How much diesel fuel is that going to take?  How many bus drivers?  How many hours of travel?

Or put them on a train.  The CalTrain double-decker “baby bullet” trains seat about 150 folks per car.  For 11 million people, that works out to around 74,000 cars.  I’ve seen multi-locomotive trains hauling 75-100 cars on ocassion–not often–so that would work out to 740 100-car train, full-loaded.

(And we haven’t even considered issues such as luggage, children, sanitation for longer trips, the processing speed of the U.S. and Mexican governments, and other related issues.)

Bear in mind that the government couldn’t even get ice to New Orleans after a single hurricane while you contemplate the above–and remember too that New Orleans had only about a third of a million folks in it.  So your problem is to move the entire population of 33 New Orleans’ from wherever they are to Mexico.  I’m not too sanguine about the possibility, personally, even if they’re all right there in Brownsville or Laredo.

This is just the simple math of logistics, too.  I’m not an expert in this stuff—I’m sure it’s way more complicated.  And if the simple math shows it to be this bad, what’s the more complicated situation going to look like?  (Answer:  Ugly as hell.)

Not to mention what would happen when all the Orlandos, Carloses, Jesuses, and all the other folks who work the jobs nobody else wants to do (Picking strawberries?  Cleaning out office buildings?  Laying sewer pipe?) up an leave, all 11 million of them.  Imagine all of New York City—not just the adults, but the whole friggin’ city—plus the whole of Newark, Nassau county, and most of Connecticut just pulling up stakes and leaving.  I mean, seriously:  think about it.  Don’t you think it wouldn’t have some kind of massive effect for everyone else?  What happens to the Northeast power grid?  The trains?  The airports?  Imagine New York City being blacked out, but forever, instead of for a few hours as sometimes happens, usually to chaotic effect.  It’s mind-boggling.

So it’s clear:  Republicans can’t do math.  Remind me again why they are ever put in charge?

How to Talk to Politicians


, ,

Politicians basically do this when asked questions
Copyright the Bil Keane estate, all rights reserved, I’m sure

As a guy who grew up watching Ron Ziegler dance around Nixon’s lies, and has observed (usually with horror) how people like Scott McClellan, Dana Perino, and their ilk dissemble and outright lie to the press, it occurred to me that there is a one way to demand answers from politicians:

Treat them like children.

I have two kids.  Kids are past-masters at lying, deception, and attempts to change the subject.  The only way that I personally have found to consistently get information is to not allow myself to be distracted.  Like this:

“Who left this crap in the living room?”
“I haven’t been in the living room today.”
“That’s not what I asked.  Did you leave this crap in the living room?”
“That’s not my stuff; it’s [other kid’s] stuff.”
“That’s not what I asked, either.  Did you leave this crap in the living room?”
“Why do you want to know?”
“It doesn’t matter.  Did you leave this crap in the living room?”

And so on.  It’s a pain in the ass, yes, but eventually you find the culprit (granting that you are more stubborn than your kids which, in my case, is a good bet).

This is exactly how spokespeople, politicians, and their ilk should be treated.  They don’t want to answer the questions they are asked in a straight-forward way?  Fine; treat them like a 9 year-old.  Keep asking the same question.  Demand an answer to your first question.  And if the spokesperson or politician won’t answer?  Well, after 7 or 8 iterations of this, it will be obvious to all involved that they are dodging and lying, and their credibility will go down regardless.  Either they answer or they look like idiots; either one is fine by me.

Consider the issue of torture.  Just once, I wish a reporter had the balls to press and press and press Cheney:

“Mr. Vice-President, do we torture?”
“We have instructed our interregators to remain within the law at all times.”
“That’s not what I asked, sir.  I asked you, do we torture?”
“As I said, we remain within the law.”
“Sir, water-boarding is considered torture by all civilized people.  Do we torture?”
“I believe I have already answered that question.”
“No, sir, you haven’t; do we torture?”
“I cannot talk about sources and methods.”
“That wasn’t my question, sir.  Do we torture?”

And so on.  If these bozos want to act like 9 year-olds attempting to cover up the fact that they have been lighting fires in the back yard, then they should be treated the same way.  Heck, I would even put them “in their room” (and cut off all external access) until they admit what they’ve done.  It’ll be even funnier than those times politicians (and other jerk-wads, like Martin “let’s gouge people for AIDS medicine” Shkreli) keep repeating the same answer over and over, no matter the question.

I dunno; I guess I’m just feeling vindictive.  I’m pretty tired of the Cavalcade of Clowns we’re stuck with on the Republican side, any one of which would be a disaster if President, and any one of which may actually end up President.  As much as that horrifies and frightens me, it’s true.  As true as the fact that the Republicans—despite having a “brand” so eroded that no voters will actually admit they are Republican—are in control of the House and Senate.  (Go ahead; ask a random right-wing bloviator on Twitter or Tumblr or wherever if they’re a Republican.  It’s always “No.”  They’re “Libertarian”, or “Independent”, or whatever, even if they’ve never voted for anyone other than a Republican in their lives.) Which is plenty scary, too.

I’m not too thrilled with triangulation artist & “realist” Hillary Clinton, either, except that I know she’ll be better than anything the Republicans finally throw out there.

But for now, I’d settle for Meghan Kelly pinning down Trump or Rubio or Cruz and refusing to let up until she has an actual answer.  Say, on wars.

“Senator, given the disastrous results of the Iraq War, why is it your foreign policy seems to only advocate more war?”
“Well, I don’t know as I’d agree with the premise.”
“Almost all Americans agree it was a disaster, so why do you advocate more war?”
“Meghan, the question is whether or not America is strong and a leader.”
“Actually sir, the question is why do you advocate more war?”
and so on.

I’m not holding my breath, though.

The Meaningless Scramble for “Scoops” and “Exclusives”


, , , ,

This concept was dead before I was born
(image courtesy of Technapex)

Recently, a news crew from MSNBC bribed their way into an active crime scene and exposed information that could damage the investigation.  And why?  To get a “scoop”!  Because getting a scoop, or landing an “exclusive interview!” is important, right?

Oh bushwah.

It was disgusting.  It was journalistic malpractice.  And it was completely and utterly useless.  It gained the public no additional understanding of what had happened, it didn’t help the police, and it brought nothing but opprobrium down on the network that put out the footage.  Good work, there, MSNBC!

Look: I was watching a video on YouTube, and the (typically baritone and serious-sounding) news anchor informed us proudly that this was a story that “you’ll only see . . . on NewsChannel 3.”


Of course, I was watching it on YouTube.  Not only did I not know where “NewsChannel 3” was, hell, I didn’t even know what time zone they might be in.  Or when the clip was posted.  Or by who.  Nor did I care a whit.

And that’s a problem that I see with Big Media:  they’re wedded to “the scoop” or the “big get” “exclusive” interview.  And aside from a very few people that I like to see doing interviews—Jon Stewart (when he’s on his game), Rachel Maddow—I simply don’t care who has the “get,” or “the scoop,” or “broke the story.”  I don’t think anyone does, honestly.

It’s time that news organizations realized that, in an era with news aggregators, YouTube, RSS feeds, Twitter, Facebook, Instant Messaging, and other news-gathering tools and methods, the old rules of “scooping” simply don’t apply (if indeed they ever did outside the minds of reporters).

I don’t care who has a particular story “first,” by days, hours, or minutes.  I care about the information, and I care about whether the story is accurate, but as to whether the story came from Salon of the New York Times or “NewsChannel 3”?  Nope, don’t care in the least.  But it sure seems like the Times, the Post, the networks, Fox, and places like “NewsChannel 3” do care.

And that’s the thing; if those outlets are spending their effort going for the wrong goal–the “scoop”–then they’re not providing the public with what it wants.  And they’re not going to get an audience that is after facts that are accurate.

And as for the “exclusive” interview, these days its basically a meaningless term.  If you’re talking to Donald Trump, it’s not an “exclusive” even if The Donald wasn’t willing to talk to you last week.   That guy can’t stop talking; no interview with him can possibly be an “exclusive”.  Which goes for pretty much any other public figure, and doubly-so for politicians.  Yes, I’m interested in an interview with Elizabeth Warren, or Wendy Davis, or anyone else on my “I wonder what they’re thinking” list.  But whether it’s “exclusive” to Fox or NBC or whoever plays absolutely no part in my decision-making process.

And further, by next month or next week (or hell, sometimes even the next day), the same person will give out another interview (often also touted as “an exclusive!”) to another outlet.  With even highly-public folks posting selfies, having their own Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, or whatever accounts, the “exclusive” is a dead concept.  Sorry, mainstream media, but it is.  Get over it.

In this turbo-charged, highly-connected, text messaging and web-based culture, do we want stuff fast?  Sure we do.  But does anyone really care where the facts come from, and who gets them “first”, and whether it’s “exclusive” (whatever the heck that means any more)?  No one that I know.

Get the facts right, MSM—because if you get it wrong, it won’t matter if you’ve got an “exclusive!” or a “scoop!”; people will stop listening to you, reading you, or paying attention to you.  And they definitely won’t shell out any money for you.

So can we declare the “scoop” and the “exclusive” dead now and move on?  Please?  Because I don’t know about you, but I simply don’t care.

We’ll Never See Eye-to-Eye


, ,

Photo of psychotic shooter courtesy of CNN

Recent events in Colorado, where a deranged lunatic decided it was his duty to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic, has brought back up to a boil the perpetually-simmering “conversation” about abortion in this country.  Only it’s not a conversation; it’s two people on totally different planets, speaking at each other.  The following is a post I wrote in 2012 after an attempt by anti-abortion absolutists in Mississippi to pass a “personhood” law, to make any newly-fertilized egg a “person”.  Mississippi voted it down, but that hasn’t stopped folks, as you can see.  Here’s what I wrote then, and it depresses me it’s still applicable:

With the recent defeat of the “Personhood” amendment in Mississippi, along with the continued support that the “personhood” idea has in Republican party and, most depressingly, in the Republican Presidential candidates, I’ve been thinking about abortion a lot over the past few months.  I don’t want to; it’s a depressing topic.  But there it is.   And what I’ve come to is that anti-abortion folks will never see eye-to-eye with pro-choice folks.

For a long time, I totally didn’t understand the anti-abortion folks.  Yes, they believe a fetus is a person, but the underlying assumption that women can’t be trusted to make this decision, or that women cavilierly just walk into a clinic and use abortion as birth control, just sickened me, honestly.  How could a rational person actually believe that.

And then I realized that it’s because they believe a fetus is a person. I know you know that, but let me break it down a bit.

I think pro-choice people make a big mistake in how they frame the issue.  “It’s about women’s health!” they say.  “The health of the mother!  Do you want to force a woman to bear the child of a rape, or incest, or that might kill her?”  All those arguments make perfect sense to me, but they’re falling on deaf ears.   Because from the moment it is created, the fetus is a person.  Don’t you see?  It a human being, with rights and privileges.  And an abortion is, literally, murder.

So arguing that they shouldn’t force their beliefs on you strikes these folks as absurd; this is murder.   Surely murder is one of the few areas where the rights of the state to enforce laws over-rides everything else?  This is not (as Rachel Maddow puts it) “Wanting the government to regulate every woman’s uterus;” this is merely a logical extension of the government acting against a heinous crime, i.e. murder.

In this context, Roe v. Wade is immaterial; this is murder.  Murder shouldn’t be allowed, period.  Saying that if you support capital punishment but are against abortion is immaterial to these folks; capital punishment is the rightous punishment of the state for committed crimes.  Abortion is murder, and shouldn’t be allowed.  And any danger to the mother, or forcing her to carry the child of rape, or incest?  It’s completely beside the point; killing that fetus is murder, so if a woman has to suffer to save that life, so be it.  If the woman’s life is at risk to carry that pregnancy to term, that’s a risk they should be willing to take to save a life.  That microscopic multi-celled creature is a person to these people, and aborting it is murder, and murder is evil.  Period, end of discussion.  Do you see?

And when you toss in that a good percentage of these folks believe that any sex not focused on procreation, any sex that is engaged in for pleasure only, is genuinely evil, well, it’s an easy call for them.  (And clearly if non-procreative sex is evil, any woman who engages in it is clearly a whore, and deserves what she gets.  I don’t think all anti-abortion folks think that, but I bet plenty of them do.)

Now as we saw in Mississippi, these folks are not even a majority of the population in one of the reddest states in the country, so they’re clearly a minority.  But they’re a loud minority, and one which is never going to change their point of view, and which is (as we seen with the heinous murders of abortion doctors) very dangerous.  I don’t know how to fix the problem, but I do know two things:  we’ll never see eye-to-eye with them, and arguing about “women’s health” as a way to change their minds is simply going to fall on deaf ears.

The conversation post-shooting has been a perfect example of this.  While not exactly condoning the shooter, the right-wing has been screaming about “baby parts” and Planned Parenthood “making a profit out of selling them”, something which is absolute errant nonsense, but which they believe.  Some of these folks state publicly that all the other healthcare services provided by Planned Parenthood—i.e. the 97% of their services that aren’t abortion—are just a smokescreen to cover up their highly-profitable abortion-and-baby-parts-sale scam.  And yes, I’m serious.  And yes, it’s goddamn scary.

Arguing rationally with such folks seems to be a total waste of time.  So what can we do?  Support groups like Planned Parenthood, women’s health services, vote in politicians who don’t have their heads up their shorts on these issues, and do our best.  Because these people, we’re just never going to convince them.

P.S.: I know I haven’t been posting much lately.  Aside from selling our house and moving earlier in the year, I changed jobs about a month ago, so it’s been kind of a busy time for the ol’ family here.  I’ll try to do better.  Not that there’s been a huge outcry or anything.

A Meditation on The Terminator


, , , , ,

Yes, you read the title right (photo courtesy of themOvieblog)

Today I went to see “Terminator Genisys” with my son.  That’s he’s a teenage boy is all you need to know as to why we went—I probably would have just waited for it to come out on video.  (Indeed, I rate it as “Wait until it’s out on video” in the Doug Movie Rating Scheme.)  Emilia Clarke is much more enjoyable than I ever would have expected her to be having seen her flat acting in “Game of Thrones”, plus she looks significantly better as a brunette.  Ahnuld is Ahnuld, as one might expect.  Kyle Reese is played by some six-pack-sporting block of wood name Jai Courtney, who is quite a contrast to the slender, easily-hurt, somewhat wild-eyed and desperate Michael Behn from the original film.  He’s not as bad as Hayden Christensen [but then, who is?] in “Jumper”; think Sam Worthington from “Avatar”.  Why is it all male action movie stars now have to sport slim waists, ridiculous six-packs, and wooden acting?  When did that become de rigeur?  And why is it they continue to cast slender, small-busted, small-hipped women and try to make them look curvier than they are? I don’t understand Hollywood.

But this isn’t a review of the film.  God knows you can see reviews for this summer blockbuster almost anywhere.  (Next week it’ll be “Ant-man”, a movie I still can’t believe got made.)  It truly is a meditation on thoughts that this film, released 31 years after I saw the first one with a couple of buddies in college, came to me there in the dark, flickering images dancing on my face while I chomped on pretty durn good pizza.  And if you want to know how you can have good pizza while simultaneously watching a film, you need to see if Alamo Drafthouse has opened a facility near you.

Where was I?  Oh, yeah: Meditating.

I wasn’t all that interested in seeing “The Terminator”.  In 1984, hardly anyone had heard of James Cameron, Ahnuld was a hulking “actor” without much acting ability who had played Conan and a few other silly roles (two Conan movies, “Hercules in New York”, that sort of thing), and it was pretty low-budget—$6.4 million, compared to, say, the first Ghostbuster movie out the same year, which cost $32 million.  All in all it sounded like a bad combination, so I was going to give it a miss and wait for it (for years maybe in those days) to come out on video.  But then a good friend of mine on the Ultimate Frisbee team (“Ultimate Kaos”) convinced me to go.  And I was glad I did.  I went expecting explosions and stupid action sequences; what I got was explosions, excellent action sequences, suspense, humor, interesting special f/x, some damn decent acting (and a role Ahnuld was clearly born to play), and most of all . . . a story.  An honsest-to-God interesting story that I never would have expected from a movie with a young directory, a (comparatively) low budget, and a wooden leading man.

There was no way I would have expected the movie to turn its filmmaker into the biggest director on the planet, spawn a TV series, 4 sequels, a long-running career for its star, and two terms of Governor Schwarzenegger.  Not to mention countless catch-phrases, imitations, rip-offs, spin-offs, and God alone knows what else.  Even Exxon-Mobile’s accountants (less scrupulous than the worst Mob accountants any day) would be hard-pressed to calculate how much dough that one movie eventually generated.

What did “Terminator Genisys” do in my case?  It made me feel old, and depressed, and homesick.

Let’s say this up front:  Despite my chronic pain and slowly-breaking-down 52 year-old body, I don’t feel a whole lot different than I did in my 20s (there are those who will insist that I didn’t age emotionally much after age 12; I’ll leave it to others to decide).  I don’t feel as if I’ve aged much past 27,

aken in front of the Franz Josef glacier, New Zealand, by Tim Miller

despite the hard evidence I see every day in the mirror.  I like to think I have a young spirit to go with my old soul, but I’m probably just fooling myself.  But truth to tell, most of the time I really don’t feel old.

And I love living in Austin, a truly wonderful town much more polite and relaxed, much cheaper, and much less crowded, than the San Francisco Bay Area, or even my beloved Santa Cruz.  And I’m a hard person to get down for long; it takes quite a bit.

But still, that’s how I felt after “Terminator Genisys”: Old, depressed, and homesick.

Ahnuld looks old.  The guy is 70; he has every right to look old.  But when I first saw him in “The Terminator”, he looked significantly older than me.  Looking at his young version in the new film, he looked so very, very young.  So now someone who looked old when I was young now looks young.  MAN that made me feel old.

And thinking how long ago it was—before the Loma Prieta earthquake, Chernobyl, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, 9/11, before even “Back to the Future” came out—made me feel old.  And it wasn’t one of those Baby Boomer “Oh my childhood was so innocent!” type deals; I was remembering an era that had the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan rattling sabres at each other in the middle of Europe (Germany, to be exact), an era when “The Day After” had just come out, when we really did, no kidding, worry that our President was going to do something cosmically stupid and we were all going to die in a nuclear holocaust.  It was hanging over us all the time, though we usually managed to forget it, but it was there.  Look, kids; I know I sound like G’Grandma talking about the Depression, but I’m telling you, it could be fucking scary.

So yeah, sitting in a spanking new theater with my 17 year-old son, my cell phone in my pocket, a 7th Star Wars movie being previewed up on the screen, thinking just how far away that whole time period seems, and I felt old.

But the film also takes place in San Francisco.  I lived in the Bay Area for 25 years, visited 3-4 times a year for the next 7, then lived there again part-time for the next 3. But in the last year-and-a-half, I’ve been there once; last April, on business.  And I miss it, damn do I miss it.  Don’t want to move back, but I miss my friends, my old haunts (especially in Santa Cruz), my favorite restaurants, and the unbelievably, eye-melting beauty of it.  Lord it’s a beautiful place, and I do miss it.

And finally, it made me depressed.  Partly because I can’t watch this film with the same low expectations (thought I was going to say “innocence”, didn’t ya?) I brought to the first one, partly because it reminded me of things gone, or things changed, and partly because this was probably the first time I’ve taken The Boy to a movie he has been hugely looking forward to that he was . . . disappointed by.  It was “Okay;” it was “not bad”.  But it  also “didn’t make a whole lot of sense”, which for him was a combination of the time travel stuff confusing him, and the plot holes.  (For me there was also, “WTF happened to JK Simmons’ character?”)  I was already pretty bummed, but seeing my boy not excited, in fact seeing him experience his first real movie “let down”, was a massive bummer.  Two weeks in a row we’ve gone to movies that he’s really anticipated (and he loved Chris Pratt in “Jurassic World”; the “Terminator” folks should take a lesson as to what a lively actor can bring to a film) and have fallen short.  You’re stealing my son’s innocence, you movie-making boneheads!

Well, okay, that’s a bit harsh, but you see what I mean.

What’s funny is that in a way, we live in a Golden Age of Sci Fi, only it’s mostly on TV.  “Orphan Black” is a wonderful, wonderful SF show with a complex plot line and (imagine it!) a woman in the lead role.  Ditto the two new shows on SyFy, “Killjoys” (interstellar bounty-hunters, sort of “Cowboy Bebop” in a different solar system with a woman playing Spike) and “Dark Matter”, a kind-of “Farscape” where the whole crew has amnesia.  Very faithful to the whole “Firefly”/”Han shot first!” vibe.  And there’s been “Continuum” (with a female lead!), the more fantasy-esque but still fun “Lost Girl” (with several female leads!), the Halle Berry vehicle “Extant”, and on and on.  And we’ve had “Eureka” and “Marvel’s Agents of Shield” and “Warehouse 13” and even all the comic-book originated one like “The Flash” or “Arrow”—some not so great, sure, but the volume is really incredible.  (And remember Sturgeon’s Law!)

Maybe it was just ahead of its time by a decade?
(Photo courtesy of Giles Bowkett)

Really, in this kind of environment I’m surprised that so few folks have the balls of a Wachowski or Nolan to make an original SF movie, and that the sequels rolling our way (“Jurassic World”, say) seem so flat.  Perhaps it’s as some say: That the episodic nature of TV lends itself better to SF.  Or that Hollywood has run out of ideas.  Or the public has become jaded.

I don’t know the answers.  All I know is that it made me feel old, depressed, and homesick.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll have a drink, one  of my morphine tablets, and re-watch “The Terminator”.  Or maybe “Kingsmen”; I hear that’s kind of fun.  Hope springs eternal.

Sexism, Comic Book Movies, and Executive Stupidity


, , , , , , , ,

Scarlett Johansson
Scarlett Johansson, prepared to kick ass (Photo courtesy of The Daily Mail)

Despite the fact that right-wingers firmly believe that Hollywood is controlled by socialist/communist gay and lesbian pornographers, the truth is that, like most rich folks, rich Hollywood execs tend to be pretty conservative.  Sure, some directors, actors, etc. are liberal, absolutely; but do you think the (American) folks in charge of Sony or Disney or other big multimedia companies are liberals? Ha, it is to laugh!

I mention this as a prelude to my main theme here:  The fact that these conservative, hide-bound, and almost-certainly sexist media execs refuse to green-light big summer movie projects starring women.  My particular peeve is with the huge increase in comic-book super-hero movies, which are getting the biggest bucks and most attention right now and where the problem is especially acute, but feel free to extend it to basically every other movie genre.

This topic has come up in the media (finally!) in the wake of the release of Joss Whedon’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, a huge hit (apparently).  For those who don’t know, Whedon is very vocal about being a feminist, and is widely regarded as a writer of strong female characters, and is generally the go-to person for nerds to point at as an example of a man who is bucking the sexist trend in the nerd (comic books, sci-fi, and the movies based thereon) culture.  While this is perhaps true in broad outline, I think Leah Schnelbach does a great job deconstructing this claim (on the site), without being at all unfair or doctrinaire as so many folks can get on this topic.

However, Whedon is taking some flack on this particular film because of his treatment of the character of Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson.  For just a quick recap of the arguments:  There have been 11 “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU) comic-book films, of which all have starred men, often multiple men.  These films rarely pass the Bechdel test (if ever); the presentation of the women in group/team posters is significantly different from that for men; women characters are often treated as plot devices or standard tropes (the damsel in distress, for example); and on and on.  It’s pretty ridiculous.

Gee, what do you think they’re trying to draw your attention to?
(Photo courtesy of Zimbio)

(I will here make a brief nod to the TV end of things, where there are a few more solid characters: Peggy Carter (with remarkably her own show); Karen Page, Claire Temple, and Vanessa Marianna in Daredevil; Skye, May, & Bobby in Agents of SHIELD.  And DC has the wonderful Felicity Smoak in Arrow, a character so awesome they keep having her show up in their other series, The Flash.)

Specifically to the most recent MCU film “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, the one true strong female character is Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson.  And as Leah Schnelbach points out in the post referenced above, while Black Widow has now been in four MCU films, hers is the only character who takes time out of a film to lament how she can never be a parent.  Thor doesn’t whine about whether or not to be a daddy, nor does Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury, Tony Stark, or anyone else (though Captain America laments not getting to dance with Peggy Carter during World War II).  She is the only Avenger whose character is defined—and only in this film!—in terms of her sexuality and gender.

Now, if there were as lot of interesting female characters in the MCU, maybe we could give this one a pass.  Or if Black Widow was about to get her own film, as nearly every other Avenger has (hell, Ant Man is getting his own film before he becomes one!).  I mean, geez, Hulk has had, what, two (really bad) films?  Captain America has had two with another one coming.  Thor has had two; Iron Man three.  Black Widow?  None.  With none on the horizon.  And if that isn’t bad enough, there isn’t even a female-starring MCU film planned until 2018 . . . eight more films down the line.  A second film about the Guardians of the Galaxy, a property that hardly anyone gave a damn about, sure (which, to be fair, was a film I enjoyed a lot); another Captain America film, another Avengers film, yet another reboot of the Spider-man franchise, even.  But a film about Black Widow?  Heavens, no; that’s a terrible idea!

Do we really need another one? (Photo courtesy of Wibblyspider on DeviantArt)

One could argue, and some do, that female-led super-hero movies don’t make money.  But if you take a gander at the hacked emails by the studio execs, who complain about “Supergirl”, a bomb from 30 years ago, it’s pretty clear we’re dealing with nothing but blatant sexism here.  After all, way more male-centered super-hero movies have bombed than female-centered ones.  That’s sexism, kids.

And not only is it sexist, in the case of Black Widow—a well-established character played by a bankable actress that the public is actually asking for—it’s downright stupid.  Let me just run a few facts by you, here:

  • Black Widow has now been in four MCU movies and has actually established a considerable fan-base; there are fan sites, a twitter hash tag, a petition, etc. etc.
  • The Motley Fool does a good job pointing out the factual basis for expecting a positive result from a Black Widow film.
  • There have been far more giant flops in big Super Hero films starring men than those starring women.  Seven vs. three, if memory serves.  And it’s important to note that films like “Catwoman” genuinely stunk.
  • Scarlett Johansson is almost ridiculously bankable.

Let me throw you some numbers on that last point.  And this is where it connects to my opening about folks on the right, which is:  The right-wing simply can’t do math.  (I did several posts about this on Salon which I will re-post here at some point but in the meantime, take my word for it.  Two words:  Laffer curve.)

They just can’t do math; don’t blame me! (photo courtesy of Democratic Underground)

  • Luc Besson is a director with a lengthy Hollywood career, and whose biggest film up until last year was “The Fifth Element”, starring Bruce Willis, Gary Oldman, Milla Jovovich, and (God save us) Chris Tucker.  On a budget of $93 million it made $263.9 million, or $170.9 million.  His newest biggest film?  “Lucy”, starring Scarlett Johansson; on a budget of $40 million it made $458.9 million, or $418.9 million.
  • Films with Scarlett Johansson have made a total of $2.393 billion dollars domestically, and a brain-melting $5.844 billion world-wide. “Well, okay,” I hear you say; “But she hasn’t starred in all those, some are ensemble films that made tons of money.  How does that compare to male stars?”  I’m glad you asked! Let’s look at the money with regard to those who have been in big budget films themselves.  (Figures from Box Office Mojo)
    • Chris Hemsworth (Thor): $1.622 billion
    • Andrew Garfield (Spider-man):  $587 million
    • Tobey Maguire (also Spider-man): $1.535 billion
    • Chris Pratt (“Star-lord”): $848 million
    • Chris Evans (Captain America): $1.909 billion
    • Paul Rudd: $1.143 billion
    • Ahnuld: $1.794 billion (!)
    • Harrison Ford: $3.925 billion
    • Bruce Willis: $3.186 billion
    • Brad Pitt: $2.610 billion
  • And those comparisons are apples to apples—lifetime totals of all films made by folks who have starred in blockbusters.  (I could do it in dollars adjusted for ticket price inflation but trust me, other than with Ahnuld, it doesn’t make a lot of difference in demonstrating the basic point.)  When you look at those comparisons, also consider this:  Bruce Willis is 60, Schwarzenegger is 67, Harrison Ford is 72, heck even Brad Pitt is 51.  Johansson is 30.  30!  You’ve got to think she’s going to blow those other guys out of the water by the time she gets to 40, let alone 60.
  • Speaking of “well known”; I like Paul Rudd as much as the next guy, but he’s not exactly Bruce Willis or Ahnuld or even Brad Pitt when it comes to big, summer, “tent-pole” action/adventure extravaganzas, is he?  Had anyone heard of Chris Hemsworth before they handed him “Thor”?  Eric Bana before he made “Hulk”?  While Chris Evans was not exactly unknown, he wasn’t a household name either when they made him Captain America.  And what about those total unknowns they handed Superman’s cape to?  On the other hand, Johansson is well know, with a huge built-in fan base.  How is a film starring her as a (now) well-known character more of a risk than “Guardians of the Galaxy” starring Chris Pratt or “Ant-Man” starring Paul Rudd?  I mean, c’mon!

So honestly, given all this, ask yourself two things:  Can the lack of female-starring big-budget movies be anything other than sexism, and can the lack of a big-budget, Johansson-starring Black Widow movie be anything other than profoundly stupid sexism?

I think you all know what my answer is.

Yeah, you got it (Poster courtesy of LemonPunch on Tumblr)

So there it is, you dim-witted, right-wing, major studio honchos (and you, Kevin Feige, you bonehead):  Women can make you tons of money.  It’s only your backwards attitudes that’re stopping it.  Get a grip and start making those movies!