Roger Ebert on Ryan Dunn’s Death Like Liberals After Giffords Tragedy.

Roger Ebert is a class act. He couldn’t even wait for the tears to dry over Ryan Dunn’s death before rhetorically rubbing salt in his family and friends’ wounds.

Do you remember when liberal know-it-all pundits were so sure of themselves that “the actions of a madman obsessed with ‘mind control’ and the Communist Manifesto were a harbinger of things to come with a Republican-controlled House? I do. And anyone who was on Twitter in the moments after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy does as well. You would think that after being so grossly wrong on so many things that women like Janeane Garofalo and men like Roger Ebert would let the dust settle (or all the Congressional Twitter crotch shots surface) before running their mouths. Apparently not:

Before knowing for sure if alcohol contributed to the awful car crash that killed “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn and two others, Roger Ebert tweeted the following yesterday afternoon: “Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

If Roger Ebert had any class he would have put that Tweet away for a few hours, came back to it later, and then thought better than to rub salt in the wounds of those mourning Ryan Dunn’s death. But he has no class. And he couldn‘t resist, because the same liberal gene that tells him that small groups of men can “plan” 14 trillion dollar economies tells him he knows the crucial details of Ryan Dunn’s death before they’re reported. The liberal mindset that believes hundreds of millions of people can be controlled by a large central government—in a way that increases liberties while ensuring equal outcomes—(not possible) gave him all the confidence he needed to spout off.

Did I want to write a blog post in the moments after Ryan Dunn’s death was announced? Yes. There are valuable lessons that we can all glean from it (just as their are valuable lessons we can glean from any tragedy). However, I refrained in this instance because I didn’t want to make a mistake and possibly come across like…a jackass. It’s funny: Roger Ebert, the socialist, would tell you he’s for “the working class,” and yet when a story about a guy like Dunn comes around (can you get any more blue collar than the guys from Jackass?) he doesn’t even wait until the tears have dried before doing the rhetorical equivalent of “I TOLD YOU SO!” on Twitter for all the world to see.

“Friends don’t let friends drink and drive,” Ebert? Very true. However, friends also don’t let friends act like insensitive jerks. I’m afraid to contemplate what that means in regards to the number of people who consider you a true friend.

Roger Ebert Sinks To Liberal Depths, Comes Up With The Bends.

Ebert's new litmus test for "crimes against America" is "silence" if you fail to wail and flog yourself Ashura-style when he claps his fat. If that's the case, I wonder if he'll apply it to certain religious communities who are eerily silent when cartoonists have Somali nutcases attack them with hatchets...

What happens when you go down the liberal rabbit hole too far? You turn into angry, deranged malcontents like Roger Ebert and John Cusack. Most liberals venture though a few Alice in Wonderland type doorways of progressivism, partake in some weird sexual acts, experiments with drugs, and economic absurdity—enough so, that when they resurface and interact with the real world, they come across as naive-but-well-intentioned public policy clowns.

Roger Ebert? He’s went to the liberal depths of the earth without adequate scuba gear, came up too fast, and the bends did some weird things to his mind. As it stands, he only gets excited for movies like The Woodsman, and heroes like Hit Girl scare him. He also calls it a “crime against America” for radio hosts and pundits to ignore…a non issue:

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh must join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in particular must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he believes the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have evidence, or does he have none? Yes or no.

To do anything less at this troubled time in our history would be a crime against America.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think Barack Obama is a Muslim. However, it’s completely legitimate to wonder about someone who thinks dialogue is possible with Holocaust denying loons like Ahmadinejad.  And it’s very rational to have concerns about a president who essentially goes on an American apology tour to start off his term.  Anyone who remembers when President Obama said “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” understands why conservatives question his judgement.  American Exceptionalism is REAL, and President Obama openly stated that he doesn’t believe in it. That’s scary.

But back to the point: The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators weren’t flying airlines filled to the brim with jet fuel into large metropolitan areas. The last time I checked they weren’t threatening to kill the creators of South Park or Facebook over the jihad excuse de jour. And the last time I checked they weren’t advocates of stoning.

With that said, there is one group of people who are largely silent when it comes to real, concrete, in-your-face instances of “crimes against America.” If Roger Ebert wants to play that game, I’m more than happy to do so while ignoring the nuances of the real world. If “silence” is now an indictment for conservative talk show hosts who don’t wail and moan and beat themselves with chains, Ashura-style, when Roger Ebert claps his fat, then I suggest applying that logic to all religious communities that have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fans within their ranks.

Roger Ebert may not be a supporter of George Bush, but I am. And always will be.  When it came to protecting the United States in the face of danger, he was crystal clear where he stood.  He was a man of integrity. You may not agree with George Bush on a number of fronts, but anyone who hasn’t delved too far down the rabbit hole knows he’s a man of conviction.

Roger, if you’re reading this, I’ll let you go. I know you have an appointment to watch The Woodsman again, and perhaps to stew over the state of the world some more.

Best,

Doug

President Barack “Sea Bass” Obama.

I love the guys at hotair, but at the same time they really need to stop

Who knew the President was modeling his presidency on "Sea Bass" from Dumb and Dumber?

calling President Obama “Kickass.”  Why? Because Kickass is actually a great movie with American Exceptionalism written all over it! I’d hate for anyone to start associating that movie with President Obama because a faux macho charade was employed to appease the “glib” Matt Lauers of the world during a time of crisis.

Personally, I’d like people to start calling the President “Sea Bass” from the Jim Carrey classic, Dumb and Dumber. I think the “Kick his ass, Sea Bass!” refrain fits rather nicely when making Gulf oil spill presidential analogies as well.  And, in some strange way, I think it’s safe to say Americans feel like Jim Carrey in the infamous gas station bathroom scene…

If the kids were looking for hopeandchange, they now know that they didn’t get it. How can I make such a claim? Easy. When Jon Stewart goes Wolvie Berserk style and leaves the President with intellectual adamantium poisoning and claw slashes inches deep…it’s over.  It’s just sad that it took so long for so many people to see the Milli Vanilli nature of it all.  It’s little consolation to consider myself part of the “called it way back when” crowd.

So, in short, as much as I love the fake movie posters, I don’t want to see a great movie like Kickass sullied by the President’s handling of the BP Oil Spill. If you start linking good movies with liberalism, even in jest, Hit Girl’s nemesis, Roger Ebert, might start liking her. And that would just be wrong.

Many Americans are closing their eyes, sucking their thumbs, and deciding to pretend nothing bad happened after it's all over. I'm not one of them...but I understand the desire to do so.

Multi-culturalist Molecular Gastronomy Meets Roger Ebert.

I’m on a John Nolte kick this week, what can I say? Or, I guess the question is: “What is Roger Ebert saying?”

“Kids who wear American flag t-shirts May 5 should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July,” (Roger Ebert, via Twitter).

Ebert is apparently perturbed that Americansliving in the United States—had the audacity to wear the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. This is coming off the heels of his equal revulsion to Kick Ass’ Hit Girl. I presume that after venting on Twitter, Roger cools down by watching that Kevin Bacon child molester drama he liked so much a few years ago, but I’ll let someone else psychoanalyze that one.

Old Navy American Flag shirt warning label: Wearing this 100% cotton apparel on May 5 exposes the wearer to possible disciplinary action.

If anyone wants to take the time to find the racial breakdown the high school I attended, (or they can just ask Roger, since he’s familiar with the area), they’ll quickly conclude that I had a few interesting Cinco de Mayo experiences growing up as well. And I bet the underlying issues that caused a group of kids to don the American flag on that day in 2010 are the same ones that caused friction between students when I was a kid back in 1994: multi-culturalism with a moral relativist glaze, dished up by liberal educators with a background in molecular gastronomy.

The United States runs the risk of being irreparably balkanized for a number of reasons, some of which I mentioned just recently:

  • No country can exist without having control over its borders. Sovereignty doesn’t exist if this simple task is unable to be fulfilled. I don’t care what the United Nations tells you.
  • Language is important.

Our educational system is filled with liberals who teach our children that the bullet points above are not important. Then, on top of that, they teach the Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Twilight Zone versions of American history.

Note to self: If Hugo Chavez is a fan of your history books…something’s wrong.

How sad is it that the girl in this video views it as “disrespect” that someone would wear an American flag on May 5th? I agree with Ed Morrissey:

Would I, as an American of Irish descent, get offended by an American flag on March 17th? Er, no. I wouldn’t even get offended by someone wearing Mexican-flag themed clothing. In fact, I wouldn’t care at all.

There are kids who love their country out there. And at a time in their lives when they’re still trying to figure the world out, they’re barraged by the “blame America first” educators of the K-12 liberal inculcation brigade. For the American student, everyone’s heritage is celebrated…except their own:

Forget George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln—nothing meaningful happened in America before 1877.

That’s the lesson North Carolina public high schools may start teaching. Under proposed changes in their high school history curriculum, the U.S. History course (which seniors take) will cover events from 1877 forward only.

As I said before, I don’t blame the kids. I blame the liberal multi-culturalists and moral relativists for trying to tear our country apart at the seams. They’ve created a world where hispanic students are made to feel “disrespected” when someone wears an American flag on their chest—when the thought should have never crossed their mind to begin with.

There’s a cultural undertow that’s sweeping away large swathes of those who would otherwise grow up to be the next generation of American patriots. Kids of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Talk to your kids about sex, they say… That’s fine, but in this day and age you need to talk to your kids about the Founding Fathers and the First Principles this country was founded upon, because right now all they get is the kind of pap you find on Roger Ebert’s twitter page.

Dear WWII Veteran in shock holding his own blown off arm: Even though I'm not worthy, I'd honor you by wearing the flag on my chest...but I can't because it's May 5. You fought for a world where we have the right not to have our sensibilities shaken.

Roger Ebert: Hit Girl too “dark.” The Woodsman’s Child Molester? Intriguingly Chartreuse.

Kevin Bacon has an interesting career. Sometimes he plays characters who

Roger Ebert isn't a fan of Hit Girl because she's "dark." Yet, Kevin Bacon as a child molester in The Woodsman is apparently an intriguing shade of chartreuse?

can’t fight the compulsion to stand up and dance, and sometimes he plays characters who must fight the compulsion to ummm…molest children. However, this post isn’t going to be about Kevin Bacon. Instead, I’d like to concentrate on Roger Ebert.  You know, that guy who is so bright he calls his readers “nutjob Teabaggers.”

First off, I’m not here to bash The Woodsman. I can see where many people might find it “thought provoking” or “daring.” Or, as Ebert put it:

The reason we cannot accept pedophilia as we accept many other sexual practices is that it requires an innocent partner, whose life could be irreparably harmed. We do not have the right to do that. If there is no other way to achieve sexual satisfaction, that is our misfortune, but not an excuse. It is not the pedophile that is evil, but the pedophilia.

While I find it interesting that Ebert doesn’t use the same pattern in logic to come to a Ted Nugentonian conclusion on Gun Rights, what piques my interest the most is Ebert’s fawning praise for a piece on humanizing child molesters—and sneering condescension at a world where a little girl can defend herself against drug dealers, gangsters, and the amoral dregs of society:

The little girl is named Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). She adopts the persona of Hit Girl. She has been trained by her father, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), to join him in the battle against a crime boss (Mark Strong). Her training includes being shot at point-blank range while wearing a bulletproof vest. She also masters the martial arts — more, I would say, than any other movie martial artist of any age I can recall. She’s gifted with deadly knife-throwing; a foot-long knife was presented to her by Dad as, I guess, a graduation present…

The early scenes give promise of an entirely different comedy. Aaron Johnson has a certain anti-charm, his problems in high school are engaging, and so on. A little later, I reflected that possibly only Nic Cage could seem to shoot a small girl point-blank and make it, well, funny. Say what you will about her character, but Chloe Grace Moretz has presence and appeal. Then the movie moved into dark, dark territory, and I grew sad.

So “dark, dark, territory” for Ebert is apparently only kosher when Kevin Bacon is struggling with fantasies about girls like…Hit Girl! I get it. And so, following Ebert’s earlier logic, it is not the drug dealer or the crime lord (who puts people in giant industrial microwaves for lumber and pushes the ‘on’ button) who we should hate, but their desire to do so… Hit Girl’s problem is that she didn’t feel remorse for ridding the world of guys who would give Tony Soprano a Gene Kelly aura of innocence.

Guess what, Ebert: the world likes seeing pure evil blown up, shot, smashed, and killed. And, while I don’t think child predators should be harassed upon their release from prison, I do wonder why liberals like you and Oliver Stone are always trying to put guys like Hitler “in context.” Yeah, we get it—they’re human. They’re complex. But guess what, Roger: some people do things that are so beyond the pale we call them evil. And when I see a movie where someone like Hit Girl gives society’s skid marks a taste of their own medicine, I cheer.

I suppose that’s the tell tale sign I’m a“nutjob Teabagger,” right Roger? Well…I’m fine with that if proud socialists like you are the one’s setting the definitions. I.will.not.be.obedient.

Update: Big Hollywood’s take on Kick Ass might be worth a read if you have the time.