September 15, 2012

The Invisible Man.

I went looking for the classic Claude Rains depiction of The Invisible Man. (Here's a nice variation, staged by a photographer.) Here's the great old movie.  The Invisible Man wraps himself up like that to get as close as he can to having a human face.



I went looking, because I saw the news today. Oh, boy... an unlucky filmmaker the feds dragged in. And though the news was rather sad, well, I just had to laugh. I saw the photograph.



This was a man who, unlike The Invisible Man, had a face. But we haven't seen his face before, and he's not inclined to let us see it now... now that he's at the center of an international rage-storm, and our government seems to want the maniacs to focus their attention on him.

In the comments at the earlier post, EDH said: "The picture reminds me of the 'Invisible Man.'" And I said I'd thought of that myself. And I wonder whether the filmmaker intended the allusion. He's a man of movies. The movie he's associated with right now is so badly made, but we don't know the story of the man who got caught up in that crude, low-budget production. We don't know that he doesn't know film, that he's incapable of making an allusion to the Hollywood classic.

We'll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, murders of great men, murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction.

99 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

Woke up, got out of bed, put a towel on my head...

Shouting Thomas said...

Agreed with most of what you say, Althouse, but I've talked with people in the Philippines who are sympathetic to Abu Sayyaf, the local Qaeda affiliate.

I didn't think they were "maniacs." I also do not agree with their program.

These Abu Sayyaf men don't want a Western style culture. They want the traditional culture of Cebu and Mindanao to continue, and they know that the intrusion of Western values, particularly feminism, will destroy that traditional culture.

They are absolutely correct that Western values will destroy that traditional culture. It's happening.

And, yes, the reason it is happening is because most Filipinos are deciding that Western values are better.

Steve Austin said...

As with everything else now, only place to get news like this is Drudge and Althouse.

Sort of amazing that we have two medias right now. Unfortunately I don't think enough people know about this one. Many are all still tied to the MSM that wants to talk about O's insurmountable lead in a few polls today as the lead story.

If people want to send a message, take a friend to the file "2016" this weekend. Keep that one high in the box office totals.

Hagar said...

There is no "seem to." They want the visual to stay with you, "This guy is a perp and a muy bad hombre!"

dandean said...

He needs a dose of Monocane.

Mark O said...

How is this not an assault on the First Amendment? Who cares how bad the movie was? Do any but the obsessed believe the movie is the reason for the killing? If it is, then so what? Our response should be to champion our freedom, not pander to the mob.

More from your Speech Code President.

traditionalguy said...

"a Rain of Terror"...is this more global warming fakery?

Darrell said...

Yeah, the peaceful protestors just decided on the spur of the moment to take their RPGs and mortars out of their back pockets and in a precise and co-ordinated fashion make every shot count as if they had years of experience. It's amazing what you can master from watching internet videos.

EDH said...

Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.

[Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]


Because when "authorities descend" on your house just after midnight is when everyone wants to do a "voluntary" interview.

traditionalguy said...

Seriously, no Middle eastern person respects mercy and forgiveness. They despise the idea.

After memorizing the Koran, the Muslims have a clear understanding of their duty to cleanse the earth of the Saturday worshippers and then the Sunday wordhippers.

The short lull in the Jihad storm was their adjusting to Obama's pretending to surrender to them, and now thry are through waiting.

elkh1 said...

Islamist threats were a figment of Cheney's imaginations. BusHitler was diverting attentions from his incompetence to heighten global threat alerts to orange around 9/11 since 2001.

Upon Obama's inauguration, his bow to the Saudi king, and apology to the Egyptians, the Islamists threats which were reactions to Bush's cowboyism had ceased.

Killing Gaddafy, pushing out Murbarak, supporting the Brothehood, unsupporting the shitty little Jews have endeared us to the Islamists.

What went wrong was the fault of the film maker exercising his freedom of speech. That silly piece of parchment has outlived its life and must be burnt with that silly flag.

elkh1 said...

Strong horse, weak horse, we are weaker than the Dead Horse.

edutcher said...

This guy is a marked man, like Salman Rushdie, and so is his family.

He needs to cover up.

But the Feds should be protecting him, not giving him the third degree.

Shouting Thomas said...

Just watched the opening of the offending video. Don't have a lot of time because I've got to prepare for a gig.

The video is hilarious! The bad acting is just the right touch.

Gives it the look and feel of a Monty Python skit!

EDH said...

"Oh, the Invisible Man. Sorry, I should have recognized you. Go ahead."

"Nice work, Joe."

madAsHell said...

Why does this look like scapegoat theater? Obama is a fuck-up, and this theater is provided to distract us?

Invisible Man? No, Wag the Dog.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Althouse quoting Lennon and not Dylan!

What's the world coming to?!

Ann Althouse said...

"Agreed with most of what you say, Althouse, but I've talked with people in the Philippines who are sympathetic to Abu Sayyaf, the local Qaeda affiliate."

Read my earlier post. I don't disagree about the existence of this sentiment beyond the actual violent protesters, but I am calling the smaller, murderous, active group maniacal in this context of criticizing our government for drawing a target on this filmmaker.

Ann Althouse said...

By maniac, I don't mean to say these people are insane to the point where they'd have an insanity defense. I'm using craziness more broadly, to refer to the irrational and crazed mob.

Ann Althouse said...

"How is this not an assault on the First Amendment? Who cares how bad the movie was?"

If bad movies aren't protected:

1. The vast majority of movies are not protected.

2. The legal authorities will have to distinguish good from bad.

Oso Negro said...

It is unbearably sad to see Americans - whether misguided, miscreant, or even on probation - taken from their homes in the middle of the night for political show.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

I think Obama and his team will do anything to get Obama re-elected even in effect denouncing our freedom of speech rights and outing this guy which may effectively be a death sentence. Whatever it takes, anything and everything to maintain political power.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

The violence has nothing to do with a movie.

Pastafarian said...

Well, if this means that the people who produce films like "Cowboys and Aliens" might be dragged from their homes at midnight by the authorities, I might have to rethink this whole Bill-of-Rights thing.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Agreed, the is a complete assault on our freedom of speech rights by OBAMA. Generally acceptable speech needs no protection, only vile, bad, detested,controversial and or hated speech does.

bagoh20 said...

We're in a bit of a heat wave right now in L.A. It's no time for incognito in that fashion.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

I saw an episode of the 1958 British tv version of the Invisible Man on a local channel a couple of years ago. In that version, he doesn't go insane, he uses his "gift" for good as a government spy and agent for the police. He lives with his sister Jane who lost her husband in the war and her daughter, Sally. In that episode, Jane came into his bedroom and spied Sally giggling and squealing as she apparently was sitting on Dr. Peter Brady's lap as he was invisible--which we could guess because Sally was hovering in this air above the bed.
The strangest part, though, was that she didn't hit him in the head with a lamp.


[Yes, I know that the clothes Peter Brady was wearing on the day he became invisible also became invisible, in this re-telling. But you only learn that in a different episode and I had forgotten that from the last time I saw the show in the 1960s.]

MayBee said...

So Basile is or is or is not an Israeli citizen as AReasonableMan told us?

Lem said...

Chavez must be delighted to see this..

AprilApple said...

The invisible man under the Obama bus.

Wayne-o said...

Am I the only one thinking of Ellis from the first Die Hard? For the uncultured, Ellus is the guy who tries to sell Bruce Willis to Gruber hoping to save his own skin.

President Ellis

Actually, I'm doing Ellis an injustice: Ellis didn't have a Secret Service detail to protect him from Gruber

Lem said...

Bad optics for the Obama campaing btw..

Anybody with a basic understanding of the Constitution could infer what many people have been saying about Obama.
If not an outright foreigner...
Obama is un-American.

Richard Fagin said...

Turner Classic Movies showed this movie a couple of weeks ago, just as an aside.

Richard Fagin said...

Turner Classic Movies showed this movie a couple of weeks ago, just as an aside.

furious_a said...

Invisible Man? No, Wag the Dog.

No, feed him to the crocodiles, so, you know, they'll eat us last.

gk1 said...

I woke up in a different country this morning. The one I used to live in had freedom of speech and expression as one of its basic rights. If I can remember right the British authorities didn't round up Salman Rushdie when the Ayatollay Khomeini was calling for his head. What has changed? Can I have that old country back?

Lem said...

You know this invisible man post got me thinking... I'm only sorry I'm not at home to post links supporting this idea...

The press may have unwittingly helped Romney by picture bombing him into this Obama foreign policy situation.

Had the press not played up Romney’s "timing", his comments would have gone unnoticed... the comment standing up for our values instead of the equivocation coming from the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department.

Why if Crack was a believer, he would say it’s the invisible guiding hand of the almighty ;)

America's Politico said...

Breaking news:

NYT to headline a story on Obama tomorrow with this:

Obama is the greatest POTUS running for re-elect

The story would say that no POTUS who is so successful has been challenged. The story will say that in cases like this, the country should do away with election and just re-elect the POTUS.

GOP will you agree?

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

I'm using craziness more broadly, to refer to the irrational and crazed mob.

We are talking about everything else but this . We are letting the bad guys on both sides change the subject (to freedom of speech, blah, blah), helping the culprits avoid accountability. We are falling prey to the cravenness on one side and deceit on the other.

Lem said...

Romney should do an ad contrasting his "untimely" comments with the plethora of White House / State contradictions.

pm317 said...

@Althouse: "now that he's at the center of an international rage-storm, and our government seems to want the maniacs to focus their attention on him."

-----
I thought I would just repeat that. They[our govt] don't want just the maniacs to focus attention on him, they want the voters to focus their attention on him so the voters won't focus their attention on them [the govt].

elkh1 said...

The very visible invisible man. His name is known, where he lives, the style of the house he lives in (in case someone took out his neighbor's house by mistake) are reported by LA Times.

His persecution by Obama's Justice Dept. is a lawfare against those of us who may not toe Obama's line.

JohnJ said...

I suspect this mostly is a show for the Muslim world.

So, free speech rights aren’t really threatened, you see, because…it’s all an act…to get them to stop killing our people and burning our stuff.

It just has to look like we won’t tolerate ridicule of the Prophet.

We don’t really mean it.

I also understand that the suspect of interest has graciously agreed to be executed just to help maintain the fiction.

Lem said...

Hitchens would be wrapped up in his element... were he alive.

The Crack Emcee said...

That man has NOTHING to do with what's going on, and to focus on him is ignorant.

We should be defending his American right to free speech and nothing more.

I know - you'd rather shout "bigotry" or whatever, like the Islamists, than deal with real issues.

That's the NewAge way,...

LarsPorsena said...

The fate of the new 'Invisible Man' (Ralph Ellison style) of the non-PC in American society.

Chip S. said...

Now that the guy's been in police custody of sorts, we can start the countdown to the riots demanding his extradition to Libya.

Cedarford said...

Problems with the 1st Amendment defense:

1. Most countries don't give a rat's Patootie about our Sacred Parchment anymore than we give a rat's patootie about their Constitutions. Especially the Muslim countries that enshrine the Holy Qu'ran as the legal core of their Constitutions.

2. All the rightwingers now lauding the freedom of speech and press for this shady person we should never have let into America were singing a different tune about CBS and Abu Ghraib.
Remember?
That, all the photos..was another big sword we gave the Muslim enemy gratis of the Mighty 1st Amendment, supposedly...and the Muslims ran than sword through us again and again as hundreds of Hero US soldiers ( in the parlance of the times in 2004) were killed and maimed by insurgents. Insurgents who when captured had large numbers tell interrogators that the Abu Ghraib photos were the thing that motivated them to risk their lives, grab a gun and grenade and join those targeting Americans.
(Had the Iraqis released photos showing an Iraqi soldier looming over a naked and humiliated female US soldier on her hands and knee tied with a dog leash on her neck..I'd want to kill some Iraqis, too.)

3. Even in America, we have limits on speech that incites a riot. People have been prosecuted for what they claimed was protected political speech, but was deemed by prosecutors deliberate agitation to incite violence. Al Sharpton should have been taken to trial for fomenting arson and murder....the law was clear..but NYC chickened out.

jr565 said...

Crack wrote:
I know - you'd rather shout "bigotry" or whatever, like the Islamists, than deal with real issues.

That's the NewAge way,...

HOw is that particularly New Age? It's like you're taking any negative trait and simply arguing it's New Age.
Also, you can have freedom of speech and still be a bigot. Rev Phelps is excercising his freedom of speech but does anyone think he's laudable and not a bigot for doing so?

William said...

In recent times, the Coptic population of Egypt has decreased by half. The Muslim population of Israel is increasing. The Coptics who have fled Egypt have their reasons. They don't just face discrimination. They face slaughter. If anyone has a right to have some radically hostile feelings toward Islam, it is the Copts. The Muslim population of Israel also have their reasons for staying. They are a minority and I'm sure that, here and there, they have to take a few lumps, but generally they do well and prosper....In those cases where their complaints have substance, you can depend on some Israeli filmmaker making a movie to dramatize their plight, and you can bet that movie will be shown at Cannes....What are the odds of a movie being made about the hostility the Copts have to confront in Egypt? The Christians in Palestine? The Bahais in Iran?

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

HOw is that particularly New Age? It's like you're taking any negative trait and simply arguing it's New Age.

jr, I'm tiring of your cult apologist stance already:

Most of our negative traits ARE NewAge - we've erected a NewAge CULTURE.

That's why you, in particular, don't see it - YOU'RE PART OF IT. Your every utterance is a defense of every negative trait that's got us in the mess we're in. You are a relativist - "well, if you look at it THIS WAY,..." when there is NO OTHER WAY to look at certain things.

Why is almost every new sci-fi film about a world in destruction? Why are business men almost always the bad guys? Why are environmentalists almost always the good guys? Women?

Because you don't understand Hollywood is a NewAge hellhole and it's a mental trap you're being INDOCTRINATED with.

PatCA said...

Turns out the filmmaker has been a federal informant since his arrest a few years back.

Is no one outraged that the media and the Erick Holder have been hunting this man down?

Lem said...

'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

Somebody is pushing this guy in fornt of us...

Chip S. said...

BTW, the smoking gun claims that the filmmaker was a government informant.

So it looks like the "never heard of him" defense Hillary deployed isn't gonna fly. Of course, I'm no good at 4-dimensional chess, so I may be missing the subtleties involved here.

Chip S. said...

Oh hi, Pat!

deborah said...

"3. Even in America, we have limits on speech that incites a riot. People have been prosecuted for what they claimed was protected political speech, but was deemed by prosecutors deliberate agitation to incite violence. Al Sharpton should have been taken to trial for fomenting arson and murder....the law was clear..but NYC chickened out."

Politics ain't bean bag. If dude puts it out there, he should expect to put it all out there.

Cedarford said...

1st Amendment be fucked..in terms of advancing America's interest, even our domestic tranquility..We need to be smart and not praise people that harm us with damaging media as some sort of avatars of "precious rights" personified.

Yes, the Islamoids are predisposed to violence and looking for an excuse.
It does not advance America's interest to treat 1.6 billion people we are trying, supposedly to Bring Freedom To!! - to photos of female US soldiers dragging naked Muslim men around on a dog leash..To see American porn producers make doctored phony child porn tapes casting Mohammed as a pedophile..To give sanctuary to shady Copts that want take their conflict global - to start open war between the US and the Islamoids...Or some idiot Christian Zionist Fundie videoing himself out burning Korans...

Yes, in the US, many blacks, especially in the inner cities, are predisposed to violence. Authorities still, given that, do not look kindly on people that shout "Nigger!" at a football game where a third of the stadium is full of inner city blacks and the other 2/3rds is white/hispanics from another community. A good defense if a riot happens is not "I used my free speech rights to make a political point - to prove the niggers would riot and injure people on little provocation!"

Sure, we may be headed into a time as dark as WWI or WWII! But if there is a clash of civilizations, it ought to be something we control our destiny and decision to commit to on..not be dragged into it by a Gavril Princip or some shitty little place like Danzig. Or find America in the midst of mass global slaughter because we stupidly allowed ourselves to be sucked in over rival claims of shitty little countries - leading to war not confined to shitty little countries but the big countries that can do mega-slaughter.

Mark O said...

"Is no one outraged that the media and the Erick Holder have been hunting this man down?"

I am. It is a violation of his rights done to deflect attention from the President's failed foreign policy. It's another shiny object.

This is the President who tried to chill speech at Fox News. Where is the ACLU?



Fr Martin Fox said...

I'm appalled, I want to throw up. That's where I stand.

Because I feel so strongly, however, I want to think this through, so I'm going to play devil's advocate here and see what I come up with:

Why did they take him in? Because he's on probation for financial shenanigans, and according to one story, the terms of his probation included not using a computer or accessing the Internet. Ergo, it's possible he violated his probation.

Why after midnight? Is it possible someone thought this would minimize press coverage?

Why five officers? Why not just ask him to come in on his own, in the middle of the day? Is it possible he asked for protection? Or that they suggested it, given the circumstances?

OK, that's the best I can offer.

I'd like to think that if this really were only about a probation violation, someone with good judgment and good small-r republican virtues would say, "no, we're not touching this guy until we know about another possible violation."

Or maybe they could get court-permission to "wiretap" his computer, if there's really reason to think he's back to his old financial misdeeds.

And, come to think of it, it's possible those things are unseen parts of this story.

Meanwhile, the President's folks--surely with his permission--attempted to pressure Google to squelch speech. Meanwhile, the President's folks keep wringing their hands over the feelings of bloodthirsty mobs. So even if this is a blunder, the indictment of our leaders stands.

Because, after all, if this were some "edgy," leftist-approved filmmaker, the President might speak up saying, I sure hope those cops aren't stepping on his freedom of speech...

Instead? Crickets.

William said...

Further rant. In last week's New Yorker, there was an article by Salman Rushdie. In it, he recounted his experiences as the first western artist marked for fatwa. I thought some of it was self serving in that he took pains to explain how his novel really wasn't anti-Islamic in any way and that it was all a big mistake. Well, I don't blame him for that, but the marked contrast between the way he was treated and the way this fellow is being treated is bothersome......Rushdie was a man of the left, and they closed ranks around him. I suppose Rushdie's work has literary merit, but what made him so beloved by them was not his treatment of Islam but his contempt and ire towards Thatcher.....Freedom of the press only applies to those who use their freedom in approved ways and against approved targets. I'm reminded of the Hollywood Ten. How many of them protested against the internment of foreign nationals during WWII?

Fr Martin Fox said...

It's not that hard to say the right things, if our leaders really wanted to do so. Maybe something like this, Mr. President, and Madam Secretary of State, and your spokespeople?

In America, people are free to say what they like. That means they can--and do--say stupid and even hateful things.

In some parts of the world, the response is the long arm of gov't, or the violence of a bloodthirsty mob.

In America, the response is more speech. It's not a perfect system, but which do you prefer? All-powerful government, mob-rule, or freedom of speech? Those are the choices.


That's what I want to hear from our President; and not phone calls to Google trying to jawbone them into restricting speech.

The Crack Emcee said...

Fr Martin Fox,

I think your post at 12:20 PM is spot-on.

The Crack Emcee said...

Fr Martin Fox,

Your next one, too,...

bgates said...

But Ann, imagine how many embassies would be on fire and how many film makers would have been arrested if McCain were President.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Crack:

Thanks! Given your gimlet eye, that's high praise.

Chip S. said...

The police acted stupidly.

Mark O said...

From a First Amendment scholar:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/15/why-punishing-blashphemous-speech-that-triggers-murderous-reactions-would-likely-lead-to-more-deaths/

Lem said...

And, come to think of it, it's possible those things are unseen parts of this story.

Unseen..

The most transparent administration in history... not.

Eustace Chilke said...

It's been said that what connects the anger with the American government is the Islamist belief that it is the obligation of governments to enforce their religious taboos so that, no matter who made the video, it's distribution is an intentional insult by a government that could stop it but chooses not to. There's probably something in this even though it's far down the list of reasons for the attacks.

Since it's just a pretext for action that would be taken on any pretext, the administration won't get any traction by signaling to the Muslim street that they guy they want is the object of official suspicion and will be jailed if they can find the least reason for it. The signal at home is much more potent. Free speech your ass, they're saying. You give us grief with your precious free speech and we'll jail you. Never forget that we can jail anyone any time.

Smile face fascists. And the smiley faces are set to come off any time now.

Carnifex said...

You people are missing the point. This guy, a schmuck no-body, is invisible to the Dear Leader. He lacks substance. Not at all like Beyonce, or Jay-Z, or any other celebrity or billionaire bundler who can deliver money or votes to Zero. He's just some little 2 bit movie maker scamming people into backing grade d movies "You can be a Producer!", and as such he is "invisible" to Zero.

This is how Zero sees everyone. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone. Such a Narcissist wouldn't hesitate to throw his wife or kids under the bus to preserve their own hide. Just look at John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, etc. All pretty much slimeballs.

This is also how Zero sees us.

Carnifex said...

C4 buying in to the leak that the guy is jewish.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Carnifex:

As others have said, I think of lot of us--the Administration included--is missing the point in more substantial way.

This whole episode was not about that video; that was a pretext.

There are other forces at work:

> The Jihadists wanted to get revenge and strike back against us. They haven't been able to re-create the original 9/11, or initiate their intended sequel, as of yet; and they've not been able to replicate their attacks in London and Madrid, or India, either. This is what they were able to do.

> According to Walter Mead, linked by Glenn Reynolds, the Egypt thing is about a struggle between the extremists in power and the more-extremists seeking power. I don't know if he's right but his argument makes sense.

> I do think this is also a result of an over-all weakness of policy.

Carnifex said...

For you facist wanting the film maker locked up, you do realize that he made a bad historical drama, right? Ol' Mo' did sleep with women, children, men, goats, sheep, camels, his left hand, his right hand, roadkill, piles of dung, and anything remotely warm and soft that he could stick it, at the same time spreading a religion by dint of worship his God or die tryin'. Gods own rejects are rioting just because it was put on film. That's it. That's why they are upset. Hell, they're proud of their inbred, country cousin fornicatin' ways!

Chip S. said...

@Carnifex, So you're saying that a better title for this flick would be Here Comes Mohammed Boo Boo?

Carnifex said...

Personally, If I were the president, I'd take a big dook on Mo's face, wipe up with his book, and toss it into a pigsty just to show the retards what's what. Then send an expiditionary force to kidnap that stupid rock they worship, and bury it at sea, like we did Osama..."Oops! My bad. And fuck you very much, ya' bunch of stoneage jackasses. Oh! Thanks for Algebra, it helps when we design these missiles that kill your asses...and by asses I don't mean your beast of burden/lover for the night, ya' sick freaks."

Carnifex said...

Hey! My fambly resembles the BooBoo clan!

Carnifex said...

No need to get nasty Chip!

Carnifex said...

@FR Fox

I like you. You're the Anti-Crack. And yes, the film is a pre-text, a false talking point for Zero, and the Muj to deflect from the real problem...Muj hatred.

Chip S. said...

Lordy, Ah knows it cain't be easy findin' someone besides kinfolk t' fornicate with when ya gotta walk barefoot allaway t' th' next holler t' do it.

Same problem in all them Berserkistans.

Cedarford said...

Carnifex said...
C4 buying in to the leak that the guy is jewish
=================
No, initially the Copt lied and claimed he was Israeli and backed for 5 million by approximately 100 wealthy Jews here and in Israel.
(Once the shitstorm started).

No Jew. A Copt con artist and bank fraud crook.
Unlikely his smear flick cost 5 million.
Still unknown who his financial backers were.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Most of our negative traits ARE NewAge - we've erected a NewAge CULTURE.

But that's the definition YOU'RE attributing ot our negative traits. Those traits are not specific to new ageism though but are universally human. Before we had a new age, humans were exactly the same. Thus saying they're this way BECAUSE of new Age makes no sense. Maybe they flock to New Age because they're they have those trains and new ageism (as you define it) reinforces what they already are and do not CAUSE them to be that way.


That's why you, in particular, don't see it - YOU'RE PART OF IT. Your every utterance is a defense of every negative trait that's got us in the mess we're in. You are a relativist - "well, if you look at it THIS WAY,..." when there is NO OTHER WAY to look at certain things.

I don't think of myself so much as a relativist, but would have to argue that there may not be another way to look at certain things (like Math for example) it doesn't mean that the certian things we must be absolute about are the certain things that you are arguing for. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even define "New Age" the same way you do, thus your assertion that all these problems are because of New Age,mean that because your definition is different, my disagreeing with means that I'm a relavist of some sort. Why is your definition an example of a thing that we must not look at any other way at.
And note, that is not a defense of new ageism; rather its a disagreement over your definitions. So basically, there is no other way to look at anything but the way Crack looks at things. Anything else, and you are a relativist.

jr565 said...

Further you're going to have to define how New Age got us into "this mess" what aspect of New Age got us anywhere and what is "this mess". What is "this mess"? Religions prior to New Age didn't get us into a mess? Is New Age responsible for wars, famine, poverty?
And most importantly, are those things you are attributing to New Age, even New Age? Because to me, as I've already stated, Mormonism is not new Age. Deepak Chopra is new Age.

Eustace Chilke said...

I finally had to go see this video.

There's much about Google I don't care for but I respect them for not pulling the thing just because BO needed some relief.

That is one bad video. It's supposed to be a trailer so I suppose the whole movie might hang together better. Mostly it looks like bad comedy. There's nothing in it about Big Mo that many others haven't said before.

Here's a much better video made by a seagull.

jeff said...

"2. All the rightwingers now lauding the freedom of speech and press for this shady person we should never have let into America were singing a different tune about CBS and Abu Ghraib.
Remember?"

No. Neither do you. "All" paints with a very wide brush. I will concede you might be able to find one that no one has heard of might have said something about shutting down CBS, but I really doubt it.

Synova said...

"No Jew. A Copt con artist and bank fraud crook.
Unlikely his smear flick cost 5 million.
Still unknown who his financial backers were.
"

But we'll find out. Yes we will. We'll find out if he ever missed a child support payment. If he made any mistakes on his tax returns.

We. Will. Find. Out.

Ever wonder Cedarford, if your life could stand up to someone backed by the government who decided that you offended the Jews?

This whole thing is disgusting.

jr565 said...

Cedarford wrote:
Yes, the Islamoids are predisposed to violence and looking for an excuse.
It does not advance America's interest to treat 1.6 billion people we are trying, supposedly to Bring Freedom To!! - to photos of female US soldiers dragging naked Muslim men around on a dog leash..To see American porn producers make doctored phony child porn tapes casting Mohammed as a pedophile..To give sanctuary to shady Copts that want take their conflict global - to start open war between the US and the Islamoids...Or some idiot Christian Zionist Fundie videoing himself out burning Korans

I actually agree with this. It's probably going to be treated as hostile if you openly call Mohammad a pedophile (even though it is true). So, as a practical matter it's probably not a good idea to prod the bull with the stick. But by the same token, what if this were a movie critical of coptic Christians by Muslims or by atheists. Would we expect the same reaction (i.e coptic Christians storming embassies?). Would the justice department go to the filmakers house and question him?
This then is largely about the reaction of a certain group that the rules may not apply to.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Now, as it happens, I have not always had the most respect for Canadians.

But when R. Emanuel denounces a band, by God, that band moves up a notch or two on my list.

So, if he shits on the most American Canadians ever, with Kid Rock and Wayne Gretzky backing up said band in additon to many through ZZ Top, then I say all folks of good faith ought to consider freshly Nickelback.

Carnifex said...

@Chip

Ya' know what they sez..."Why go lookin' at other famblies, when your sister looks so fine!" Easier to keep track of the sexual partners too. Just list the fambly members!

sfw said...

The Real Invisible Man. http://youtu.be/U2D-T6O7myQ

Michael said...

The video, by the way, has been out for months. Miraculously discovered by the ROP on 9-11

Michael said...

The video, by the way, has been out for months. Miraculously discovered by the ROP on 9-11

Cedarford said...

Synova - "But we'll find out. Yes we will. We'll find out if he ever missed a child support payment. If he made any mistakes on his tax returns.

We. Will. Find. Out."

=============

What part of "terms of probation" don't you understand?????

This Copt crook was involved in bank fraud, multiple online identity theft, aggravated ID theft - and spent 21 months in jail on a felony rap. And was also caught with multiple forged passports, SS#s, credit cards, birth certs giving himself 6-7 aliases.

Part of this undesirable aliens probation was no online activity without clearing it with his probation officer, no use of false identity, no efforts to solicit funds without Probate being contacted.

Sure enough, soon as he was out of jail, this career criminal renamed himself "Sam Bacile" an Israeli, went online and in person to wealthy people to con them out of some money for "an Israeli movie condemning Mohammed the Prophet".

Then the dumb bastard got caught.

When you are on Probation...not that I have been...but I venture to say unless you are a crook who crime comes to as natural as breathing and unable to hide activities...best keep a low profile.

This shitbag alien is in about the same moral spot as a guy out on probation after killing someone drunk driving - with no drinking or drugs terms of probation - caught on national media clicking beer mugs with Obama.

WTF do you think the police and Probies have to do when it is exposed in public..just say "there, there, fellah, w'ell give you another chance and ignore it"???

And the foreign Copt wasn't in violation of probation on one beer screwup..he was violating crominal probation several times a day from the day he got out of jail.

But I don't want to see him in jail.
I want to see him deported to Egypt.



LarsPorsena said...

"..What part of "terms of probation" don't you understand?????.."

What part of 'pretext' don't you understand? If it wasn't this 'movie' is would be something else.

Epiphyte - said...

" . . . It's probably going to be treated as hostile if you openly call Mohammad a pedophile (even though it is true). . . ."

Except it's not a moot point:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/03/11/13201531.html

Criticizing this conduct involves acknowledging and criticizing its source: islamic law based in the Quran(65:4) and the conduct of Mohammad.

How can you change something if you're prohibited from discussing it?

Baron Zemo said...

Cedarford is a first amendment purist.

jr565 said...

Lars wrote:
What part of 'pretext' don't you understand? If it wasn't this 'movie' is would be something else.

Exactly. If not this, then a cartoon. If not that then a beauty pageant.

Patrick said...

No, initially the Copt lied and claimed he was Israeli and backed for 5 million by approximately 100 wealthy Jews here and in Israel.
(Once the shitstorm started).

No Jew. A Copt con artist and bank fraud crook.
Unlikely his smear flick cost 5 million.
Still unknown who his financial backers were.


Why should it matter. He has a right to put this crap out even if his backers were jerks. Why should it matter if his smear flick cost 5 cents or 5 million?

Sad to see you bringing up all of this, and buying the line that this is all because of a probation violation. Sad to see you roll over for the President. Heel, little doggy, heel!

That's a good dog.