Eh, I couldn't resist. Since imeem is so awesome i'm going to try and post some songs again. This weeks comes from alt-country mavens (well they're not really mavens but that word sounded so sweet that I needed to use it) The Roadside Graves. Their music reminds me of say Fingers Cut Megamachine or a country-fried Wolf Parade. Thusly they are pretty sweet. Anyways, this song has been stuck in my head, and I wanted to put it on my Myspace, however was derailed when I couldn't find it. The song is called Family Friends and is off The Roadside Graves 2007 release No One Will Know Where You've Been, which you can buy here.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Random list stuff
Reno 911!, Family Guy, Aqua Teen Hunger Force
In the next couple of weeks (since i'm not a movie aficionado i'm not sure of the exact time frame) The Simpsons movie will hit theaters. Now, I'm sure, as a result, all kinds of bloggers are furiously typing out rants about how the Simpsons is terrible, and, currently, a blight upon mankind then proclaiming Matt Groening to be the heir apparent to Satan or Alastair Crowley or something while eating cheezy doodles (like Stephen A. Smith) and reassuring themselves that they are the suavest of the suave. Or they're making a list or something about other TV shows that should be made into movies (Futurama anyone?). However, since I'm not suave, I won't be doing any of those things. I will be making a list however, of TV shows that should not be made into movies.
5. Robot Chicken: I guess some people find this show to be entertaining. I'm not one of them. I am however aware that recently the did a Robot Chicken themed Star Warsor something equally useless. Apparently, if that IGN cove story means anything, that little stunt has caused some kind of Robot Chicken fever that threatens to swallow up society and multiplexes alike. Please, comedy central, don't let that happen. I love me some claymation but this show fucking sucks.
4. Sealab 2021: One would assume that only a crack addicted meth monkey would even consider making a movie out of Sealab 2021, but since they made a movie out of ATHF I suppose anything is possible. Hopefully, however, Comedy Central will realize that any attempt to make a movie out of Sealab will result in something akin to a 90 minute fever dream that only mushroom popping burnouts will want to watch. And maybe this time they'll make the prudent decision and not make the movie anyways.
3. Friends: Considering the, in my opinion, completely unexplainable popularity of this show, it seems quite likely that the humorless bastards that own the Friendsbrand will someday try to beat a feature length film out of the dead horse that is Jennifer Aniston's "career". Honestly, I don't even know if Jennifer Aniston is in the show, but she seems like the kind of person that would be so I'll use her name here. The only way a Friends movie would be moderately entertaining would be if they took the cast to some deserted island and let Ted Nugent hunt them with high powered rifles. Or, alternatively, they could take six monkeys, all of different species and put them together in a posh Manhattan apartment then let them do stuff, like scratch and throw shit all over the place. It would be infinitely more entertaining then Joey mistaking Ross' statement that he's "hammering wood" as some kind of gay pass at him or Phoebe singing a stupid ass song about flowers and giving birth. Oh, and the acting would also be superior.
2. Seinfeld: As moderately entertaining as Seinfeld was making a movie out of it would be pointless. I just don't see what kind of storyline they could pull out their asses that will successfully cover 90 minutes. I suppose they could go Clerks style and make a series of vignettes, but, honestly, Jerry Seinfeld is no longer funny enough to pull that off. I never really understood what the hell the people were laughing at during those little stand-up skits that Seinfeld used to open each show. Maybe they were all thinking of Dane Cook. Or Carlos Mencia cuz those guys are flipping hilarious!!!! Anyways, my memories of this TV show are too good to be ruined by a movie so Jerry better not be getting greedy anytime soon. The only way a Seinfeld movie could be entertaining is if they replaced that fat guy that was eaten during Jurassic Park with either Michael Clark Duncan or Samuel L Jackson (when he's acting all crazy). Then, one of those two could share some screen time with Michael Richards. The racial unity that would then ensue would put a smile on the world's face or something.
1. Dukes of Hazzard: Jeez, I can only imagine how terrible a movie this show would make. I mean all the show featured was two retards driving around in a car on pointless. What the hell would they use to keep our interest for the whole two hours? They would have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel... maybe sign Johnny Knoxville and one of those American Pie rejects as the leads while pulling Willie Nelson out of his hemp coffin to play that old duke fellow. Then they'd have to make tedious jokes about how Willie smokes the cheebus and how it's funny to drive a car with a confederate flag in downtown Atlanta. The only way they could tarnish the "legend" (?) of Hazzard county is by hiring some talentless piece of white trash to play the iconic Daisy Duke!! They would never!!! Oh, wait. At least they never made a sequel.
In the next couple of weeks (since i'm not a movie aficionado i'm not sure of the exact time frame) The Simpsons movie will hit theaters. Now, I'm sure, as a result, all kinds of bloggers are furiously typing out rants about how the Simpsons is terrible, and, currently, a blight upon mankind then proclaiming Matt Groening to be the heir apparent to Satan or Alastair Crowley or something while eating cheezy doodles (like Stephen A. Smith) and reassuring themselves that they are the suavest of the suave. Or they're making a list or something about other TV shows that should be made into movies (Futurama anyone?). However, since I'm not suave, I won't be doing any of those things. I will be making a list however, of TV shows that should not be made into movies.
5. Robot Chicken: I guess some people find this show to be entertaining. I'm not one of them. I am however aware that recently the did a Robot Chicken themed Star Warsor something equally useless. Apparently, if that IGN cove story means anything, that little stunt has caused some kind of Robot Chicken fever that threatens to swallow up society and multiplexes alike. Please, comedy central, don't let that happen. I love me some claymation but this show fucking sucks.
4. Sealab 2021: One would assume that only a crack addicted meth monkey would even consider making a movie out of Sealab 2021, but since they made a movie out of ATHF I suppose anything is possible. Hopefully, however, Comedy Central will realize that any attempt to make a movie out of Sealab will result in something akin to a 90 minute fever dream that only mushroom popping burnouts will want to watch. And maybe this time they'll make the prudent decision and not make the movie anyways.
3. Friends: Considering the, in my opinion, completely unexplainable popularity of this show, it seems quite likely that the humorless bastards that own the Friendsbrand will someday try to beat a feature length film out of the dead horse that is Jennifer Aniston's "career". Honestly, I don't even know if Jennifer Aniston is in the show, but she seems like the kind of person that would be so I'll use her name here. The only way a Friends movie would be moderately entertaining would be if they took the cast to some deserted island and let Ted Nugent hunt them with high powered rifles. Or, alternatively, they could take six monkeys, all of different species and put them together in a posh Manhattan apartment then let them do stuff, like scratch and throw shit all over the place. It would be infinitely more entertaining then Joey mistaking Ross' statement that he's "hammering wood" as some kind of gay pass at him or Phoebe singing a stupid ass song about flowers and giving birth. Oh, and the acting would also be superior.
2. Seinfeld: As moderately entertaining as Seinfeld was making a movie out of it would be pointless. I just don't see what kind of storyline they could pull out their asses that will successfully cover 90 minutes. I suppose they could go Clerks style and make a series of vignettes, but, honestly, Jerry Seinfeld is no longer funny enough to pull that off. I never really understood what the hell the people were laughing at during those little stand-up skits that Seinfeld used to open each show. Maybe they were all thinking of Dane Cook. Or Carlos Mencia cuz those guys are flipping hilarious!!!! Anyways, my memories of this TV show are too good to be ruined by a movie so Jerry better not be getting greedy anytime soon. The only way a Seinfeld movie could be entertaining is if they replaced that fat guy that was eaten during Jurassic Park with either Michael Clark Duncan or Samuel L Jackson (when he's acting all crazy). Then, one of those two could share some screen time with Michael Richards. The racial unity that would then ensue would put a smile on the world's face or something.
1. Dukes of Hazzard: Jeez, I can only imagine how terrible a movie this show would make. I mean all the show featured was two retards driving around in a car on pointless. What the hell would they use to keep our interest for the whole two hours? They would have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel... maybe sign Johnny Knoxville and one of those American Pie rejects as the leads while pulling Willie Nelson out of his hemp coffin to play that old duke fellow. Then they'd have to make tedious jokes about how Willie smokes the cheebus and how it's funny to drive a car with a confederate flag in downtown Atlanta. The only way they could tarnish the "legend" (?) of Hazzard county is by hiring some talentless piece of white trash to play the iconic Daisy Duke!! They would never!!! Oh, wait. At least they never made a sequel.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Let's spin history like Rudy G
Rudy Giuliani is a bloody genius.
I was perusing through the AP news briefs as I am akin to do, and there buried among the reports of roided up wrestlers murdering their families was an interesting little nugget of news. Rudy Giuliana, whom I, along with what must be 95 percent of the nation, think is the smartest son-of-a-gun that currently exists in politics, apparently thinks that Bill Clinton was weak on terror. "Bill Clinton" you say, "what the hell does he have to do with anything happening in the world today other than that nifty campaign ad his wife ran that lampooned the Sopranos?" "Well," I would say, with drama and gusto and other stuff "Bill Clinton is important because..." well, honestly, I don't really know why he's important right now, other than the fact that his wife is probably going to metaphorically impale Rudy Giuliani's presidential hopes on some kind of medieval lance. As we all know, and as Giuliani seems to be kindly pointing out, presidential candidates are never hold their own political views, they simply take the views of their spouses and use them while holding the most important job in the world. A vote for Eisenhower was really a vote for Maimie, any half-wit knows that!!!
Anyways, enough with the rambling. What Giuliani said in his undeniably brilliant address (ok, just a little more sarcasm) was, essentially, that Bill Clinton was weak on terror and that he totally FUBAR'ed the 1993 WTC bombings that killed five people. Giuliani then revealed, AL QAEDA first declared war on us in 1993!!! When I read this I was, of course, almost moved to tears, so I can only imagine how dramatically engaging such an emotionally wrought speech was to whichever elitist Republican's he was addressing at the time. But since I, regrettably, wasn't there, I only have my imagination. Oh, and the transcripts. Oh, and a pregnant sense of Giuliani's idiocy. His point, according to what I've read from what he said, rests largely on the fact that he believes that Clinton's limp-wristed decision to treat the WTC bombings as a criminal act directly led to other terrorist attacks on American's. Specifically Giuliani cites terrorist attacks on the Khobar Towers, attacks on housing complexes in Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Tanzania and the strike on the USS Cole.
Of course Giuliani ignores several facts. First of all Clinton's (in Giuliani's mind) misguided approach to handling the WTC bombings only resulted in the arrests and convictions of those involved, including the alleged mastermind Ramzi Yousef.
So, damn you Clinton, all you were able to do after the first WTC bombing was bring the perpetrator's to justice!! Obviously what he should have done was fire-bombed a couple of random Middle Eastern cities then sent thousands of US troops to their deaths in the pursuit of FREEDOM (not ours but that of our close neighbors in the Middle East)! If only Clinton had seen the light and, say, appointed George W Bush as his secretary of defense then the US and its citizens abroad would finally be secure!! Dubya would have saddled up and doled out some Texas justice to the darkies. He would have gone Walker Texas Ranger on their asses and the US would have never been attacked again!! Except on September 11. Oh, and our citizens might have been attacked in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and countless times in Iraq in 2007 as has happened since Bush became president but as Giuliani seems to be insinuating, thats not very likely. After all, nothing appeases radical Islamic terrorists like a white bread Texan who wants their oil and hates their God. Because, obviously if Bush had been in power in 1993 his brilliant military strategies would have stopped Al Qaeda once and for all and he'd be like the Captain Kangaroo of the Middle East and would be appearing on kiddie TV shows. Or something like that.
I was perusing through the AP news briefs as I am akin to do, and there buried among the reports of roided up wrestlers murdering their families was an interesting little nugget of news. Rudy Giuliana, whom I, along with what must be 95 percent of the nation, think is the smartest son-of-a-gun that currently exists in politics, apparently thinks that Bill Clinton was weak on terror. "Bill Clinton" you say, "what the hell does he have to do with anything happening in the world today other than that nifty campaign ad his wife ran that lampooned the Sopranos?" "Well," I would say, with drama and gusto and other stuff "Bill Clinton is important because..." well, honestly, I don't really know why he's important right now, other than the fact that his wife is probably going to metaphorically impale Rudy Giuliani's presidential hopes on some kind of medieval lance. As we all know, and as Giuliani seems to be kindly pointing out, presidential candidates are never hold their own political views, they simply take the views of their spouses and use them while holding the most important job in the world. A vote for Eisenhower was really a vote for Maimie, any half-wit knows that!!!
Anyways, enough with the rambling. What Giuliani said in his undeniably brilliant address (ok, just a little more sarcasm) was, essentially, that Bill Clinton was weak on terror and that he totally FUBAR'ed the 1993 WTC bombings that killed five people. Giuliani then revealed, AL QAEDA first declared war on us in 1993!!! When I read this I was, of course, almost moved to tears, so I can only imagine how dramatically engaging such an emotionally wrought speech was to whichever elitist Republican's he was addressing at the time. But since I, regrettably, wasn't there, I only have my imagination. Oh, and the transcripts. Oh, and a pregnant sense of Giuliani's idiocy. His point, according to what I've read from what he said, rests largely on the fact that he believes that Clinton's limp-wristed decision to treat the WTC bombings as a criminal act directly led to other terrorist attacks on American's. Specifically Giuliani cites terrorist attacks on the Khobar Towers, attacks on housing complexes in Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Tanzania and the strike on the USS Cole.
Of course Giuliani ignores several facts. First of all Clinton's (in Giuliani's mind) misguided approach to handling the WTC bombings only resulted in the arrests and convictions of those involved, including the alleged mastermind Ramzi Yousef.
So, damn you Clinton, all you were able to do after the first WTC bombing was bring the perpetrator's to justice!! Obviously what he should have done was fire-bombed a couple of random Middle Eastern cities then sent thousands of US troops to their deaths in the pursuit of FREEDOM (not ours but that of our close neighbors in the Middle East)! If only Clinton had seen the light and, say, appointed George W Bush as his secretary of defense then the US and its citizens abroad would finally be secure!! Dubya would have saddled up and doled out some Texas justice to the darkies. He would have gone Walker Texas Ranger on their asses and the US would have never been attacked again!! Except on September 11. Oh, and our citizens might have been attacked in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and countless times in Iraq in 2007 as has happened since Bush became president but as Giuliani seems to be insinuating, thats not very likely. After all, nothing appeases radical Islamic terrorists like a white bread Texan who wants their oil and hates their God. Because, obviously if Bush had been in power in 1993 his brilliant military strategies would have stopped Al Qaeda once and for all and he'd be like the Captain Kangaroo of the Middle East and would be appearing on kiddie TV shows. Or something like that.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Ruminations on The Hold Steady
So yah, one thing about me is that i'm some terrible music obsessive. Because of that fact last year (and this year so far) was kind of depressing because, honestly, barely anything worth listening to came out. Or at least that's what i thought.
You see the last couple of weeks i've become obsessed with a particular album. That album is The Hold Steady's Boys and Girls in America. Yes, I heard about it last year, but i really didn't pay much attention to it because i really didn't like the Hold Steady that much. Of course, based the raving critics i gave it a chance, but as is usual was probably distracted, or watching TV or cursing those damn Lakers or something because i didn't really listen to it again. That is until maybe two weeks ago when i started listening to it obsessively.
So yah, I guess it's common knowledge, (or should be at least) that the Hold Steady rock. The only problem I had with the album, (and in retrospect probably the reason I didn't purchase a physical copy of the CD until last week), is that the freaking cover are is so bloody, unspeakably ugly!!! If you've seen it you know what I'm talking about. The "art" is ridiculous, it looks like one of Raffi's rejected album covers made up by some guy who was high on confetti drugs or something (perhaps explaining the strange excess of confetti plastered on the cover). The Hold Steady should be one of those CD's that you can proudly display and be like, BOO-YAH, brother, or sister, look how awesome this CD is, it has skulls and crossbones and flaming skulls and eerie landscape pictures of barren barns and wheat farms or something. But no, all the Hold Steady's "colorful" album art provides me is a quizzical look that seems to say, "so that's why your pants are so tight"-even though i don't wear tight pants. So yah, that kind of sucks obviously.
So my shortened point, is, curse you Hold Steady, I expect this out of The Polyphonic Spree but not you!!!!
Oh, and I really want to see them live in San Diego, that would be awesomer then awesome.
You see the last couple of weeks i've become obsessed with a particular album. That album is The Hold Steady's Boys and Girls in America. Yes, I heard about it last year, but i really didn't pay much attention to it because i really didn't like the Hold Steady that much. Of course, based the raving critics i gave it a chance, but as is usual was probably distracted, or watching TV or cursing those damn Lakers or something because i didn't really listen to it again. That is until maybe two weeks ago when i started listening to it obsessively.
So yah, I guess it's common knowledge, (or should be at least) that the Hold Steady rock. The only problem I had with the album, (and in retrospect probably the reason I didn't purchase a physical copy of the CD until last week), is that the freaking cover are is so bloody, unspeakably ugly!!! If you've seen it you know what I'm talking about. The "art" is ridiculous, it looks like one of Raffi's rejected album covers made up by some guy who was high on confetti drugs or something (perhaps explaining the strange excess of confetti plastered on the cover). The Hold Steady should be one of those CD's that you can proudly display and be like, BOO-YAH, brother, or sister, look how awesome this CD is, it has skulls and crossbones and flaming skulls and eerie landscape pictures of barren barns and wheat farms or something. But no, all the Hold Steady's "colorful" album art provides me is a quizzical look that seems to say, "so that's why your pants are so tight"-even though i don't wear tight pants. So yah, that kind of sucks obviously.
So my shortened point, is, curse you Hold Steady, I expect this out of The Polyphonic Spree but not you!!!!
Oh, and I really want to see them live in San Diego, that would be awesomer then awesome.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Unforgiven is forgiven...by me at least
So yah, the other week, or month or sometime in the recent but not too recent past Best Buy had like the most awesome sale ever where they essentially liquidated their special edition movie thingamajig and sold a bunch of awesome special edition movies for 10 bucks each. Understandably i was jazzed and bought a whole bunch...i got some good ones (amadeus, se7en) some totally terrible ones (chariots of fire...this garbage won best picture?!?) ones that i forgot (i can't paranthesize them because i forgot the titles) and one truly awesome piece of American cinematic acheivement -Unforgiven.
Now this is a movie I love. In fact, i already owned the crappy one disk slack cardboard case edition of it but still felt the need to buy the two disk special edition even though it lacked film commentary by Eastwood himself (which i would really like to hear but which he never seems to sit down and do for any of his movies). For those of you that don't know, Unforgiven won best picture in 1992 i believe and, in my opinion, definitely deserved the honor. There are, of course, those that decry and refuse to watch it because it is a Western (i would generally fall into this category, because i hate shit like Gunsmoke and Maverick) but in all honesty Unforgiven transcends simple genre labels. It's raw, emotional, gritty and uber Dirty Harry style violent in some places. In fact, that's probably the most gripping unique aspect of the film-the way in which it handles violence. The story revolves around violence and the film, in no way sanitizes the pain and bloodshed associated with violent acts. It's a daring approach that adds a new dimension to a story about the fall of a "good" man.
So the point is not really a point. I just thought the way that Unforgiven approaches violent situations was interesting, and, honestly, one of most intriguing parts of the film. I tried to think of other movies that tap into the same vein, but really could only think of a few. One obvious one was Saving Private Ryan, though it didn't have nearly the same emotional impact as the violence in Unforgiven. Another one i considered was Straw Dogs but honestly, after that, i really couldn't think of many films that don't glorify explosions in the like. On the same note, i'd really like to find a copy of David Croenberg's History of Violence because it sounds like it would explore similar themes (though croenberg is like borderline psychotic or something - because, after all, he came up with Videodrome). If anyone reads this (doubtful) or thinks of similar movies, i'l like to know the names.
So yah, go watch Unforgiven. Oh, and when i have more time i'll put more stuff up on here, since, i've obviously, let myself lag a bit.
Now this is a movie I love. In fact, i already owned the crappy one disk slack cardboard case edition of it but still felt the need to buy the two disk special edition even though it lacked film commentary by Eastwood himself (which i would really like to hear but which he never seems to sit down and do for any of his movies). For those of you that don't know, Unforgiven won best picture in 1992 i believe and, in my opinion, definitely deserved the honor. There are, of course, those that decry and refuse to watch it because it is a Western (i would generally fall into this category, because i hate shit like Gunsmoke and Maverick) but in all honesty Unforgiven transcends simple genre labels. It's raw, emotional, gritty and uber Dirty Harry style violent in some places. In fact, that's probably the most gripping unique aspect of the film-the way in which it handles violence. The story revolves around violence and the film, in no way sanitizes the pain and bloodshed associated with violent acts. It's a daring approach that adds a new dimension to a story about the fall of a "good" man.
So the point is not really a point. I just thought the way that Unforgiven approaches violent situations was interesting, and, honestly, one of most intriguing parts of the film. I tried to think of other movies that tap into the same vein, but really could only think of a few. One obvious one was Saving Private Ryan, though it didn't have nearly the same emotional impact as the violence in Unforgiven. Another one i considered was Straw Dogs but honestly, after that, i really couldn't think of many films that don't glorify explosions in the like. On the same note, i'd really like to find a copy of David Croenberg's History of Violence because it sounds like it would explore similar themes (though croenberg is like borderline psychotic or something - because, after all, he came up with Videodrome). If anyone reads this (doubtful) or thinks of similar movies, i'l like to know the names.
So yah, go watch Unforgiven. Oh, and when i have more time i'll put more stuff up on here, since, i've obviously, let myself lag a bit.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Virginia Tech
So as everyone knows today in Virginia Tech 33 people were shot and killed. As a recent college graduate things like this are frightening - they strike close to home, and, quite honestly, fill me with sadness and regret.
And, of course, as often is in America, there is something else compounding that feeling. What I'm talking about is our erstwhile President George W Bush's comments about the situation. Basically what he says is that, "we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today." It sounds like I might be just grabbing choice pieces from his statement, but honestly, all he really talks about is how God is great, God is good, God can help us all etc, etc, etc. Now, I guess, this taken by itself is not much of a problem (though based on my college experiences not every single freaking college student believes in the same "God" as President Bush - after all colleges emphasize diversity meaning that its very unlikely that everyone affected by the Virginia tragedy is a hardcore Christian like Mr Bush [and thus by his beliefs damned to hell]).
However, the statement issued by his "spokeswoman" is just ridiculous. What she said was, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed." Now that is just a bullshit, cold hearted thing to do. I'm imagining his mindset as he's preparing his statements about the incident. Let's pray for them but, at the same time, make sure we lose no ground with the NRA folks-that right pray for them with one side of the mouth, while, at the same time, making damn sure that it can happen again!! Nothing screams class like making turning a tragedy into a political statement on the very same day that the tragedy occurred (especially when the political statement supports the killer's right to bear arms).
So while I'm horrified and disturbed by what happened at Virginia Tech I am saddened to say that I'm also disturbed by my government's reactions (and i'm not even mentioning how badly Virginia Tech bungled the whole thing). I'm disturbed by the fact that Bush makes blatant statements that essentially ignore the diversity that our American college campuses feature (and thus the diversity of the victims) and I'm disturbed by the way the white house finds it necessary to spin such a tragedy in such a way that supports both their ideological and political beliefs (though the ideological spinning doesn't bother me quite as much). I guess my point is that Bush can praise God all he wants but approving a statement supporting guns is simply ridiculous.
And, of course, as often is in America, there is something else compounding that feeling. What I'm talking about is our erstwhile President George W Bush's comments about the situation. Basically what he says is that, "we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today." It sounds like I might be just grabbing choice pieces from his statement, but honestly, all he really talks about is how God is great, God is good, God can help us all etc, etc, etc. Now, I guess, this taken by itself is not much of a problem (though based on my college experiences not every single freaking college student believes in the same "God" as President Bush - after all colleges emphasize diversity meaning that its very unlikely that everyone affected by the Virginia tragedy is a hardcore Christian like Mr Bush [and thus by his beliefs damned to hell]).
However, the statement issued by his "spokeswoman" is just ridiculous. What she said was, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed." Now that is just a bullshit, cold hearted thing to do. I'm imagining his mindset as he's preparing his statements about the incident. Let's pray for them but, at the same time, make sure we lose no ground with the NRA folks-that right pray for them with one side of the mouth, while, at the same time, making damn sure that it can happen again!! Nothing screams class like making turning a tragedy into a political statement on the very same day that the tragedy occurred (especially when the political statement supports the killer's right to bear arms).
So while I'm horrified and disturbed by what happened at Virginia Tech I am saddened to say that I'm also disturbed by my government's reactions (and i'm not even mentioning how badly Virginia Tech bungled the whole thing). I'm disturbed by the fact that Bush makes blatant statements that essentially ignore the diversity that our American college campuses feature (and thus the diversity of the victims) and I'm disturbed by the way the white house finds it necessary to spin such a tragedy in such a way that supports both their ideological and political beliefs (though the ideological spinning doesn't bother me quite as much). I guess my point is that Bush can praise God all he wants but approving a statement supporting guns is simply ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
