Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun Pt. II

RL mourns the passing of 'Great' Britain - when a man could
be homophobic and racist and be celebrated for it...

I was glancing through my old posts when I saw my old post on Richard Littlejohn's fine book House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness and noticed that I'd left the door open for a sequel. Well here is that said sequel! Obviously it'll be worse than the original (unless it's a Godfather Part II, or Toy Story 2, but I don't hold out much hope) but I'm lazy, so I'm going for the usual easy target. Anyhoo, here's a couple of 5-star review from amazon:

I have to say that this is a genuine five star review. You'll notice there are many but some are oh-so cleverly masking negative reviews that are not only cringeworthy and unoriginal but patronising (Some of them are pretty funny though... And the people who do that are at least people with views that aren't horrible...). These people should do stand up. (The 'do' isn't needed in that sentence.)

As A. Birchall said, "there's clearly a campaign to slate this book. No doubt by Labour loyalists or Con-Dem haters" (Sensible people who are left-wing then...) Another said "my friends got brain damage so he loved it!". Which says alot (That should be two separate words. And yeah, because RL has never mocked disabled people...). If you hate the Mail and RJ (RJ? His name isn't Richard John. His fans are so thick they even don't know the rat-bag's name...) fair enough, say it. Even if you haven't read the book - which some admit to. You're opinion of him can still help someone to dicide to purchase or not (That is true, except I would say almost everyone who buys this book has also read his columns, so it really doesn't matter). But it's a different realm altogether when a number of people are scrambling for the 'no' button after every positive review (Perhaps that is a little far). Some positive reviews are very descriptive, intriguing and to the point and make me want to know more, yet for example only "0 out of 10 people find this review helpful" ...why? (Maybe other people felt differently?) Who can these people be I wonder? (You have no possible way of knowing, but I suspect that won't stop you jumping to conclusions) Sometimes a negative review is placed and followed by positive one, these are then mysteriously blanked out through the mass of people who "don't think this adds to the discussion" - when it clearly does - in a poor attempt to hide what's great about this book (That's not how Amazon reviews work. I think you mean Amazon comments. And maybe, just maybe, the comment was insulting or otherwise wasn't adding constructively to the discussion). These actions, frankly speak volumes and indicates that his work clearly hits a nerve somewhere (Yes it does. Because his views are offensive and hateful.). 
Both the positive AND negative reviews made me want to buy the book because of how much he clearly annoys the followers of the self-serving crooks who were massively part of the mess this country is in (or all because they simply don't like a certain newspaper) (That's a bit petty isn't it? And the mess the country is in is a result of a global economic crash. Not the Labour government. Indeed, Gordon Brown is considered one of the favourites for the vacant position as head of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], except Mr. Cameron has said he won't support him. He is also currently an advisor for the World Economic Forum. He didn't do this by being incompetent. He got it by being so highly respected by the economic community as a result of his safe leadership and economic recovery packages that were copied by most of the rest of the world. Unlike Mr. Osborne, who isn't highly regarded by anyone.)

As a hard-working Brit taxpayer who's never relied on benefits (People who rely on benefits can still be hard working you know. They may have been laid-off and can't find a job as a result of the swingeing cuts made by the current government. Not everyone on benefit is a work-dodger. Though you and RL will probably never accept that...), who's fathers' pension was stolen (I don't think Gordon Brown nicked your dad's pension somehow...), who was fined for using fog lights in dense fog (That would have been the police, moron. As much as Brown doesn't steal pensions, he also doesn't go around fining people for using fog lights either...), I could go on. Reading it was so enjoyable to the point it reminded me there was someone with a voice on my side, someone who, ok, knows he can't make a difference but can simply, like me, sigh, roll my eyes and chuckle at the madness we've witnessed from a government of a once great country. (Out of these many lines, only four of them are an actual review. And a really shit review at that. It's entirely subjective and about as in-depth as a character from a Dan Brown novel...)

Thoroughly recommend it! (And yet you never say why I should buy it...)

And here's another one, somewhat shorter than the last:

Judging by the number of faux reviews from guardian munching (I don't know about the Daily Mail, but people usually read the Guardian rather than eat it...) leaders of the proletariat (How dare people be middle-class, but champion the cause of those less well-off and influential than themselves?) who are obviously uspet enough by LittleJohns (He doesn't have a capital J. It's not like McRae or anything...) musings to take precious time out of their busy schedules to mock him (Actually it's just really, really fun. It's certainly worth taking time out of my empty schedule to do.), this is a read I will thoroughly enjoy (So you have not only not read it, but not even purchased? I really don't think you should be 'reviewing' anything. Really this is as much a 'faux review' as anything by any 'guardian munching leaders of the proletariat'.). Thanks again to the above mentioned persons, what would I do without you. (nb - thats not a question) (And what would this website do without Littlejohn and his followers? Pick on other people obviously, but there would be no go-to idiot for when I'm feeling particularly lazy...)

That's really it for good reviews that aren't fake or two lines long, so we shall have to end it there. But there are other Littlejohn books to mock!

Movieguide and The Top Ten Lists

Following the success of my post the other day on movieguide's coverage of the Golden Globe Awards, I thought I'd come back and tackle a few of their '10 best films' lists. First up we have this list for the Top 10 films for mature audiences of 2008 (I've thoughtfully put the Rotten Tomatoes consensus in brackets to help you judge, as well as comments from me where I felt they were necessary...):

• 10. Henry Poole Is Here (37%)
• 9. Marley & Me (61%)
• 8. Tyler Perry's The Family That Preys (51%)
• 7. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (10%. Also, this is the film that believes evolutionary theory caused/causes fascism, the holocaust and such things as abortion and eugenics. Little surprise they liked it really. Oh, and its 97 minutes of anti-evolution, pro-christian lies.)
• 6. The Day The Earth Stood Still (I heard that it was a pile of festering manure, hence its 21%)
• 5. The Longshots (41%)
• 4. Changeling (62%)
• 3. Valkyrie (61%)
• 2. Gran Torino (80% At last! A really good film!)
• 1. Iron Man (94% But with an average of 7.4/10, is it really film of the year territory?)

Right, whilst I agree that Gran Torino is right up there, pretty much the entire rest of the list is complete and utter drivel. Where's The Dark Knight? Or Slumdog Millionaire? Or The Wrestler? In Bruges, Revolutionary Road, The Reader and Frost/Nixon are all ignored in favour of dross like Expelled. I mean, Iron Man was a good way to spend a couple of hours, but best film of the year? Not by a long shot.

Now, let's see what crap they put in 2009's list:

• 10. The Blind Side (67%)
• 9. Confessions of a Shopaholic (23%)
• 8. Invictus (76%)
• 7. Julie & Julia (65%)
• 6. Knowing (33% It is so much worse than that though...)
• 5. Star Trek (94%)
• 4. The Stoning of Soraya M. (58%)
• 3. Taken (58%)
• 2. Terminator Salvation (32%)
• 1. The Young Victoria (76%)

Now, this list is nowhere near as bad as the previous year's, but where is The Hurt Locker, or District 9? Or A Single Man or An Education? Inglourious Basterds? Precious? Up In The Air? A Prophet? There are so many great films not included, yet tripe like Knowing, Confessions... and Terminator make the grade?

Finally, we have their favourite mature films of the last decade:

• 10. The Family Man (52%)
• 9. Fireproof (40%)
• 8. Evelyn (65%)
• 7. Gods and Generals (8%. You've really excelled yourself here)
• 6. Batman Begins (84% Ah. A good film in this list at last...)
• 5. The Queen (97%)
• 4. The Patriot (You would like this... But it's still only 62%)
• 3. Spiderman/Spiderman 2 (89/93%)
• 2. The Lord Of The Rings (92/96/94% But if these are only 2nd then what's...)
• 1. The Passion Of The Christ (Oh, Jesus. I should have known it would be you... 50%)

I could list every single film from the noughties that should be in this list before most that are, but I would be here for hours, so I urge you to put forth your own suggestions in the comments area!

I daresay I shall be back soon enough with their list of 2010's films, so keep those eyes peeled! As an added bonus, they're constructing a list of the best 100 films ever, so when that's complete I can have a go at that too...

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic Journalist

If you're gay and see this woman, please kiss the nearest
member of the same sex. It'd be funny...

Yes, I realise that I had a post accusing the Daily Mail of homophobia pretty recently, but it's not my fault that almost everyone who works there is a homophobic bigot...
Today columnist Melanie Phillips wrote a column claiming that it is now the 'gay agenda' that is prejudiced, and that it is just awful that homosexuality is going to be referenced (in very small and minor ways) in schools. Here is what she has to say on the matter in full, so apologies for the length:

Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.

In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood. (How dare they try to eradicate ignorance towards homosexuals? What gives them the right to see a world without prejudice?)

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour. (It's phrases like that one that make homosexuals feel marginalised in the first place. Besides, homosexuality is normal. Up to 19% of mallards engage in male-male relationships.)

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality. (And about time it was too. It was a demeaning law, that suggested that homophobia was okay. Afterall, if the government can do it, why can't anyone else?)

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory. 

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse. (Yup. I'm heterosexual and am bullied non-stop because I like women... God you're a vile person aren't you?)

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding Christian values. (I covered this already, they broke the law. The fact that their beliefs forced them to do it isn't an excuse. If a neo-nazi kicked a black man to death because of his beliefs tell him that he is worthless, I think he'd still be locked up.)

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions. (Again, all of that was breaking the law. Religion isn't an excuse to do whatever you like.)

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation. 

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem. (No, the scientists and professionals in the field point out that prohibition doesn't work at keeping people safe. It makes things worse because it puts more power in the hands of organised crime etc. and increases the danger due to the sometimes toxic chemicals the drugs are cut with. That and the steadily increasing numbers of people using cannabis mean that prohibition isn't working)

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very welcome news. (Oh piss off. These are scientists. They know a fuck-load more about the subject than a thick, ignorant journo like you. Their attitudes are liberal because that makes sense.)

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack. (Not that astonishing. He does hold some pretty horrible views...)

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights. (Yup the same Christian values that led to burnings of heathens and witches, the ostracizing of anyone not white or christian or who was homosexual)

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down. (Good on them)

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the council is gay or lesbian. (So his views are quite important to his role on the council, aren't they?)

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour. (Yes, but it's not really the same though is it? The gay members have never gone around saying that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married or should be kept to the fringes of society, have they?)

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack (So your partisan attack is fine then, is it?). Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction. (Which is complete and utter rot. It is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.)

He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true. (The raw data is true, but the reading of it is flawed. It could be that people who are happier, drink less and don't smoke are more likely to get married. It is impossible to tell which caused which)

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life. (The difference is, that the existing members have opinions born from their studies into drug abuse and its effects. Not dictated by a religion. And Christian views are bigoted when taken to these extremes. I know many people of the Christian faith, they are mostly people who would be as disgusted by this man's views as I am. The vocal minority are only succeeding in making their religion seem even more pointless than it already does.)

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for common sense and morality on the Advisory Council. (It's not common sense it is ignorance.)

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships. (So you would be okay if I were to claim that God told me that all women should be subservient to men, then?)

It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others. (But they'll be appalled by your bigoted views also, I suspect)

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. (So not so much of u-turn as you tried to imply then is it?)

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true (THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW! YOU STUPID CUNT!). Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. (Actually, equality isn't really oppressive. It's more liberating...)

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, homosexuals and Welsh speakers. (I'm sure they have their reasons)

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals. (Yes, 'including transexuals' not just transexuals. So not 'just' transexuals. It could also be looking at discrimination against bigoted, middle class journalists for all we know)

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda (Yes. Upside down because homosexuals should be at the bottom. Of they're allowed to live at all...). But the seemingly all- powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites. (I think that's pretty much impossible to be honest. But kudos for the scare-mongering...)

How on Earth this rag is still bought by people I have no idea. But it's very depressing...

Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness

FREE! Cut out and keep dartboard...

As you may have gathered from previous posts, Richard Littlejohn is not one of our favourite human beings (if that is indeed what he is. Rather than, say, a festering pile of manure that's been left out in the sun). In fact he's right down towards the bottom with Nick Griffin. This is mostly to do with his racist, misogynistic, homophobic and generally repellant views. At this juncture you could point out that well thought out and reasoned opinion is a basic human right. Which is all very true, except that none of that applies to Littlejohn's writings; based, as they are, on lies, prejudice, misinformation and incorrect assumptions. But anyway, Richard released his new addition to the Western Canon earlier this year with the not-at-all cumbersome or one-sided title of Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness. Obviously those who give it one star are right, so we'll look at the idiots who gave this rallying cry for the BNP five stars instead:

It`s pretty clear that there is a campaign to discredit this book on here (This much is true. And I thank you Amazon readers for all the incredibly sarcastic and witty fake 5-star reviews), Trouble is when you are as brutally frank and honest as Littlejohn you are going to ruffle a few feathers (Or, you're going to ruffle feathers when you lie through your teeth or are horrifically prejudiced against any/every minority. One of the two). I have no axe to grind (You can have an axe in your head if you want. I'll gladly take time out of doing this to deliver it to you post haste), I read all kinds of books (Piers Morgan as well eh?) and as an ordinary joe so much of what I`ve read in this book rings true (I presume you get your news from the Daily Mail then? Only one of you could be so ill informed in this country). Littlejohn writes it as it is (No he doesn't, he invents most of his stories out of thin air. The rest are drawn from the Daily Mail's own made-up stories). I find this book entertaining,funny and echoes the feelings of many people today who are in disbelief at what new labour have done to this country (What, lead it through the greatest economic boom in years? No? Then the improvement in education and health? Still no? Oh, then you're referring to the economic crisis. You realise that was America and the banker's fault right? Of course not. Why let the truth get in the way of a good jab at the 'loony left'...). You dont need to be a Daily mail reader to enjoy Littlejohn but it probably helps! (Well of course it does. Only Mail readers would be so stupid to think a word of what's written in here is true. 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' and all that...)

Here's another:

What I found most hilarious is that the majority of people that have rated it 1 haven't read it (Who needs  to? It's Littlejohn, we all know what will be contained therein. And it ain't better than Tolstoy no matter what he says...). It's typical Labour rubbish of claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is bigoted or racist (This would be a better defence if Littlejohn weren't bigoted and racist.). When probably his views are fair and balanced. (They aren't. I've read some of them. They're enough to make a man cry...)

I actually found the book fantastic (Can we get a lobotomy to here!). It highlighted some of the absolute nonsense that went on under Labour (Yup. Like Increasing VAT during an economic recovery. Or increasing tuition fees, whilst simultaneously making far less money available for Universities and trying to discourage foreign students from gaining access. Or cutting up to 40% from local councils. Oh, wait hang on, that was all the Tories in less than a year...). They'd rather spend money on daft diversity programmes (Those equality loving bastards!) such as encouraging more of ethnic minorities to go fishing (Actually I think they were encouraging them to go on to higher education) than spend money on cancer drugs that could have saved my father's life! (Look. NICE are in charge of all that, and they are independent. You're precious Tories are taking them away, meaning that whatever drug is currently being touted by your precious 'newspaper' [I use the term quite incorrectly] as a 'miracle' will be approved. Who cares if it is no better than placebo in proper medical trials, Mrs Bloggs says she was saved while she was on it therefore it will cure everyone and it only costs £500,000 a box...)

I'm sorry, I know I normally do 3 or so, but this time I can't. If I read any more reviews about the 'loony left frothing at the mouth' or 'nulabor' (They can't even spell Labour the British way...) I will end up on the 6 o'clock news having hacked my way through most of England. These people make me ashamed to be British, they really do. Perhaps I will come back to it at some later date, but just now, it's all too depressing...

On a lighter note, Happy 4,540,002,011th Birthday Earth, try not to get too drunk eh? And stay away from that Venus, she's not good enough for you...

Disaster Movie

If you want to not laugh at a film, then
this is the one for you...  via comingsoon

Disaster Movie has a most apt title. The film is a complete and utter disaster from start to finish. By some way this is the worst film I have ever had this misfortune to watch. It's not even bad in a funny way (like Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus). It's just an unfunny, offensive piece of horseshit. No scratch that, horseshit is useful as fertiliser, make it chickenshit. These Amazon reviewers, however, are severely misguided and ought to seek counseling as fast as their dragging knuckles will let them:

First time I saw this film it had me in stitches (Why? Was it so awful that you threw yourself through a 3rd story window? I would've if I'd paid for it...). So I thought I have to buy it and have as a keep sake (A keep sake to remind you forever of the day you saw this tripe?). Laugh out loud stupid comedy (I didn't laugh at this film. Not once.). Great. (If you think this was 'great' then I pity you.)

Here's another moron who writes for our entertainment. I'm guessing this review is in reply to people (quite rightly) pointing out that the 'disaster' in Disaster Movie barely gets a look in...:

well i disagree with you both there was a disaster (Technically speaking you're correct, but at the same time, it doesn't actually make fun of disaster films very often. It doesn't even really make any attempt to parody the character tropes that are so prevalent in the disaster genre. It just makes fun of just about anything. For example, one of the main characters is a parody of Juno.) so the name applys and the spoof of all those movies was hilarious (Those movies not actually being disaster movies. Just movies in general...).Better then than superhero movie by far. (Actually, I have also seen Superhero Movie, and while not exactly The Godfather, it's not too bad. It's certainly twice the film of this fetid pile of excrement. It enjoys the distinct advantage of being actually funny in places. In no small part due to an actual focused attack on superhero movies.)

And another... (This is actually how it was set out. Someone should probably tell him not to hit 'enter' so much...:

i just watched this with my brother and 
honestly its the funniest thing i have ever seen (Really? The funniest thing? You poor mirthless sod.)
Like the other review states the sarcasm is 
excellent (especially teh sex and the city scene) (I fear sarcasm is far too high humour for this turd...)
It had me peeing it was so funny (When? When was it funny?) and it was on for a reasonable 
amount of time too (87 minutes. And you notice every single one. Dunbar would love this film... [any Catch-22 readers will get that. If you haven't read it, then trust me when I say my joke was hilarious...])
Alot better than Meet the spartans (Isn't that a bit like saying that having sex with a boiling kettle is preferable to having sex with Ann Widdecombe?)
Overall excellent (Oh dear Lord...)
thank you for reading my review (I'll need more than thanks for reading that.)

It's people like these that result in films like Transformers making a shit load of money. A spot of eugenics is in order methinks...*

This will probably be my last post before Christmas, so Merry Christmas loyal followers!

*I would like to clarify that I do not in a any way condone the systematic murder of thick people. But if any 'accident' were to befall Nick Griffin tomorrow I wouldn't exactly be crying myself to sleep...

Fox News Viewers

A recent study has revealed that viewers of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News are the most likely to be misinformed on a variety of political news stories. The study showed that viewers were more likely to believe such utter hogwash as:

• Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• The economy is getting worse (26 points)
• Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

For some reason I am not surprised by any of this. Perhaps it's because this is the same channel that employs such great minds as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I feel so sorry for any liberal-minded person who tries to go on there to defend something sensible like the health care bill...

In a case of unfortunate timing, Mark Thompson (Director General of the BBC) has stated that he wants the impartiality rules on TV news in the UK to be laxed to allow for 'opinionated journalism'. Yes, I can totally see why that is a good idea...

Star Trek The Next Generation

 Data. An android. One of the coolest characters in TNG.
Image via Gunaxin

Being the rebel that I am, I'm doing things a little bit differently today. Yes, instead of choosing several reviews from one item, this post will have 4 reviews by the same reviewer, with all reviews for different seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Not only are this man's opinions ill-thought, but his facts are downright wrong. We shall start, predictably enough, with his review for season 1. It starts quite well, the end is a little shaky though:

I tried to like it I really did, but there are just too many dud episodes per season to be anything like consistant. (I'm sorry, but earlier in your review you said how much you loved The Original Series. If you think that they were consistent, and had fewer dud episodes then you obviously haven't seen them since you hit puberty. They're patchier than a badly mended Teddy Bear)

I am only buying it because they are such a good reduced price.

Nothing too bad you're no doubt thinking. And I'd agree. If it weren't for his next reviews, he would never have graced this blog with his presence. Here's season 2:

Well, after a totally lack-lustre first season (The why did you give it 3 stars? That suggests you felt it was average, not lack-lustre), I would really like to say that the second season is a fantastic improvement.

I would really like to, but unfortunately I just cannot. (Oh I bet you could)

In truth, season two is no better than the first, in at least one aspect it is actually worse. (Ooh! I am on tenterhooks at the edge of my seat!)

I just cannot get emotionally engaged by the shallow cyphers that pass as main characters on this series (They're not entirely shallow, they all get developed as the series goes on. Maybe you just have that thing where you can't form emotional attachments, like Dexter from Dexter...). There is the London girl doing that monumentally awful east European accent asking everyone how they feel about things (She's a councillor, that's pretty much her job. And her accent isn't that awful), a Klingon that is about as amped up (judging by the movie Klingons) as a flat battery (He was raised by humans, give poor Worf a chance to develop you prick!), a blind bridge officer that steers the ship (yes folks, a blind man has his hands on the steering wheel :0 ! (Xenophobic much? And he has a VISOR so he can 'see'. Meaning he's just as qualified as anyone else)), then there's the gay robot (Homophobic much? And he's not gay. Where the fuck did you get that from? You must have looked pretty hard), humour that is so forced it is cringe inducing (Nope, never really noticed that either. But then, maybe I'm wrong. But, then, I'm never worng...) and an Executive Officer that does not know what to do with his hands and walks like John Wayne! (What? Seriously, where the fuck are you getting all of this?) And who can forget the, by now, infuriating and brain cruchingly stupid..."We have a major - and in all likelyhood potentially FATAL - situation, so what shall we do about it? I know, let's all leave the bridge and have a good long chat about things in our special 'Sit Down And Talk About Things Alot' room at the back of the ship" (Yes. Because running round like a headless chicken is really going to help.)

Please! 

And, good grief, even by this second season...they were already having money problems??! How could that have happened, at $1 million per episode? But it surely did because the final episode of this season, the one that is normally the cliff-hanger, and is designed to make you want to watch the next season..? 

A 42 minute cut-together of flash-backs, taken from previous episodes. When a show does this it is usually a sign that all is not well and that corners have been cut cost-wise. (Now, here is where the quality of his research really pays off... Actually, there was a writer's strike that cut the season short. They desperately needed another episode, so the producers quickly made this because it required very little fresh writing. All makes perfect sense)

I really expected this to be the final season. (Well, then you're a fool.)

The stupidity continues:

Well, season three of Next Gen is the series where it really began to reach some of the potential that it supposedly had. (Still given 3 stars though...)

Hang on a minute...it took how long to actually get to the good episodes? (Encounter at Farpoint was good. And that was the pilot...) Three seasons? If this had been any other TV SF series it would have been canned after 1 season, never mind three (Except others felt it was good. It had its share of poor episodes, yes, but far fewer than TOS ever did. And it was drawing in more than enough viewers). $1 million per episode and it didn't hit its stride until its third season in? (Quite a few series take a while to really get good. It's not unusual)

Scandalous. Paramount were clearly under huge pressure to a) prove that 'new' TREK was superior to classic TREK (Mission accomplished already then) b) keep a flagship SF show on the air to compete with the fact that BABYLON 5 was gaining year-for-year in the ratings. (Compete with Babylon 5? Babylon 5 didn't have its pilot till 1993, 3 years after season 3 of TNG finished! The actual series didn't begin until 1994. Could the producers of Trek see into the future or something? Fucktard.)

In a climate that dictates that some shows do not even get passed 6 episodes before they have the plugged pulled and a mid-season replacement is brought into production...three seasons is a crime that should never have happened. (Are you a writer/producer whose SF show didn't last a season by any chance?)

That said, Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes continue to be the best thing about NEXT GEN (Well, there's a back-handed compliment if ever there was one). It sure as hell is not the effeminate 'droid (Leave Data alone! He's far cooler than you ever will be. And he is widely regarded to be an excellent character. His desire to be human was one of the series' greatest arcs), the wobbley accented counsellor, the pointless night club (sorry, staff canteen) generally poor stories, horrendous acting and tortuously contrived humour. 

It does, however, have one of the best season finales ever made (At last, we agree about something!). Sadly the fantastic "Best Of Both Worlds" Part One is not just great enough to carry a whole season. (It's a good thing it didn't have to then...)

And finally, season 4:

Well they certainly took long enough to get here but there are a fair number of pretty good episodes in this season (This season also gets 3 stars. Do you think he knows that there are more ratings?). I think they seriously stopped trying to compete with BABYLON 5 by going for more than 3 seasons, BABYLON 5 being the first space-based US TV show to do so. (Seriously now. What the fuck? Where are you getting this information? The Idiot's Guide To Being An Idiot? All of that is wrong. I mean ALL of it.) 

Picture quality did improve too in this season, I am not entirely sure why as this is as they were still using the "shoot it on film and then edit it on video" technique adopted by many TV shows of the time. (Maybe the video got better)

Audio also switched to Dolby Pro-Logic (which has stereo left+Right Centre and Surrounds), rather than just bog standard surround (Stereo Left+Right and Surrounds) to give clearer sound and the FX were taken over by FOUNDATION IMAGING - the company that had done the revolutionary BABYLON 5 FX for the first three years of that show - and done in CG rather than actual models. (Nope. IF did do Babylon 5 seasons 1-3, but they would never do TNG. They did DS9 from the season 5 finale onwards, and Voyager from season 3)

A slight improvement over the first three years, but still certainly not brilliant and certainly not as good as many people claim, nor as good as it should have been. (Oh piss off will you. You're reviews have almost as many holes in them as the Bible)

Sorry to have made such a long post, but I was determined to mock this man as much as possible... Till next time gentle readers!

Twishite, I mean, Twilight

How big and plasticky can a face get?
Image via Starpulse

Normally on this site we mock stupid one-star reviews of things we like. But today I'm gonna mix it up a bit and mock stupid five-star reviews of something I detest. That 'something' is Twilight in all it's forms. The following two reviews are for the film Twilight: New Moon:

One of the best films I have ever seen (Poor, poor you. Now that you've watched this you should watch the films I've listed below). I loved it and slightly preferred it to Twilight mainly because the film was more colourful and Bella smiles a bit more (It's nice to see that you've picked up on what's really important in a film). I have already watched it 3 times (I understand the US are looking into this as a new form of torture). I have never watched any of the special features on DVD's before the Twilight features but I enjoyed the extra special extras disc as much as the main one (Wow, praise indeed. This means that the extras for this film are better than most films...). I love the deleted and extended scene and fast forward Jacob abd Edward. I would watch it every night if I had the time (Wouldn't that drive you a little nuts?). Thank you Amazon

And:

This is the best film ever (Is it really? You, too, should check out the list below for films that I would like to suggest as perhaps being a little better) and it arrived 2 days before the release date!! All my friends were pretty jealous!!! (Wow! Two days early?! I guess you should be thankful that one of your friends didn't hack you to death with a pair of blunt, rusty scissors whilst you slept so that they could have it early instead).The best love story ever :) (Yup, necrophilia and bestiality are so romantic...)

This review for the book Twilight is in a similar vein:

I do not actually understand how i have lived without reading this book for so long (By breathing in and out probably). Without this book no life is complete (Oh no! My life is incomplete because this person said so! I'd better jump off a bridge.), and no i am not a fantasty junkie, i just have a very strong opinion (That's horrifically wrong.). However try this book and if you do not agree there is a good chance you weren't paying attention to what you were reading (Or that you're not a teenage girl who has no clue what constitutes a good book). Stephanie Meyer is a genius (No she isn't. Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were geniuses. Stephanie Meyer is a piss-poor writer with all the creativity of a genital wart.), i have finally found a book that is better then Harry Potter and that is quite a challenge (No it isn't. If you're looking at the Harry Potter's on a shelf of a bookshop, look to your left a little and you'll see His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman. They're significantly better for a start), The twilight saga will be hard to beat for anyone including some of the past literacy greats (Literary greats. Yes I'm sure Tolstoy, Dickens and co. are hanging up their pens as we speak. I've humoured you, now fuck off). On a final note BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN and always will be (I'll throw this copy of Crime and Punishment that's not in my hand in the fire then. For an incomplete list of books better than Twilight, scan your eyes downwards a little)

As promised here's a list of just a few films in no particular order that are miles better than Twilight: New Moon:
The Godfather Trilogy, Apocalypse Now, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Dark Knight, The Good The Bad And The Ugly, The Good The Bad And The Weird, Oldboy, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Sin City, The El Mariachi Trilogy, The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, The Host, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu: Symphony Of Terror, Nosferatu: Phantom Of The Night, Star Wars (including the crappy ones), the Back To The Future trilogy, Platoon, Seven Samurai, Rashomon, The Bicycle Thieves, M, Metropolis, Blade Runner, The Matrix, Inception, the Indiana Jones films (even the crap one), the Jurassic Park trilogy, American Psycho, American Beauty, The Departed, The Aviator, The Alien films, the Predator films, fuck even the Alien Vs. Predator films, The Battleship Potemkin, The Birth Of A Nation (despite its racism), Vertigo, Psycho, the Toy Story trilogy, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris (the Russian one), The Hurt Locker, Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski, An American Werewolf in London and Pan's Labyrinth. I think that'll do for now. Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments area.

And here's a handful of books better than Twilight, again in no particular order, except the order in which I remembered them:
War And Peace, Crime And Punishment, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Animal Farm, Oliver Twist, Lord Of The Rings, Hearts of Darkness, Dracula, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, Brideshead Revisited, The Old Man and the Sea, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Tess of the D'Urbevilles, Alice In Wonderland, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, To Kill A Mockingbird, Bleak House, Of Mice And Men, Catch-22, The Catcher In the Rye, Lord of the Flies, The Grapes of Wrath, On The Road, Pride And Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aenid, The Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, Maus, Wathmen, The Dark Knight Returns, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, Redwall, Tintin, Asterix, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Jurassic Park, The War of the Worlds, Birdsong, Rebecca, Treasure Island, William Shakespeare, The Good Soldier, Slaughterhouse 5, The Great Gatsby, The Crucible, and The Picture of Dorian Gray. There are more, but I'm writing this late and I'm tired. If I've missed anything obvious please leave a comment so I can kick myself for having forgotten it.
Till then friends, Romans (it's possible one of you is Roman...), countrymen, goodbye!