Friday, April 29, 2016

Here's Looking At You, Id

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, trump, cruz, fiorina, forbidden planet, monster, id
And Krell metal? It sucks. Sucks. It's metal for losers. You need real American steel.
Here at Hope n' Change, our favorite movie of all time is Forbidden Planet. If you haven't seen it, lay your hands on a copy as soon as possible or forever regret a life only half-lived.  And for that matter, stop reading this commentary until after you've seen the film, because there will be spoilers ahead.

Dr. Morbius (we don't know if his first name is Donald) is the smartest man in the universe ("I have a very high IQ, very high. It's beautiful."), has built many impressive structures, and has a plan to make the world, under his guidance, absolutely perfect for everyone using the power of his wonderful, wonderful very big brains.

The only little problem is the appearance of an invisible monster which rips to shreds anyone who disagrees with Morbius about anything. Which, sooner or later, turns out to be practically everyone. Oops!

It's his "monster from the id" that acts on subconscious qualities of fear, anger, envy, lust, and resentment. Our baser extincts which are so hard to contain, and which feel soooo good to let out  - whatever the consequences.

And in some significant ways, Donald Trump is starting to feel like our collective "monster from the id." The personification of unsubtle, ignoble, and anti-intellectual impulses which are entirely understandable given the provocations we've all endured for over seven years.

Before any Trump supporters swear off Hope n' Change forever, we'll admit the possibility that there are reasons to support Trump which can appeal to the "thinky" parts of our brains, although personally we're still desperately looking for them (his big and frequently self-contradictory foreign policy speech on Wednesday sounded to us like an 8th grader's oral report on a book he hadn't read).

Frankly, we still like Cruz and approve of his selection of Fiorina as a possible VP. But we don't think they're going to stop the Trump juggernaut, any more than the Krell metal door above kept the monster from the id from turning on its creator.

Rest assured, however, that if Trump does land the nomination, we have no plans to criticize him in this forum unless he goes waaaaaaaaay off the reservation. Rather, we will focus our efforts exclusively on the ongoing disaster that is the Obama administration, and the impending disaster which would be a Hillary administration.

And however we personally feel about The Donald (and we'll even concede that there's a chance he might be just who we need right now), he'll definitely get our vote if only because it gives us the deliciously sweet opportunity to vote against Hillary. 

Which we would do, gleefully, even if she was running against the Horrible Syphilitic Monster that Lives Under the Bed and Sharts on your Face in the Dark.

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, trump, cruz, fiorina, forbidden planet, monster, id, robby, robot, whiskey
Interesting trivia note: if you don't think Robby is the greatest robot ever, you're dead wrong.

66 comments:

Mike aka Proof said...

Watching Forbidden Planet just for the sight of a young Leslie Neilsen is worth the price of admission alone! The fact that it's a good movie is just a bonus.

BTW, proving that I'm not a robot to make this comment seems a bit ironic to say the least!

Albatross said...

A door made from unobtainium alloy will stop anything.

drjim said...

Dr. Morbius' first name was Edward....

Tucci said...

Given the fact that our current Indonesian-in-Chief has either "overpromised" or baldly lied with his every public statement of intention (except, of course, for his 2007 pledge to implement "climate change" policies which were designed to make everybody's "electricity rates necessarily skyrocket"), one has to wonder precisely why our host here worries all that much about The Donald's utterances in campaign mode.

All political candidates lie, exaggerate, bloviate. Anyone who maintains a delusion to the contrary is arguably in need of neuroleptic maintenance pharmacotherapy and close psychiatric follow-up. This aside, the element that most prominently draws favorable attention to Donald J. Trump in the presently ongoing advance-auction sale of stolen goods is his willingness to grasp the nettle on the subject of immigration from the Third World to permanently confer upon the political left an overwhelming majority of on-the-plantation voters supporting the accelerated malignant growth of government in our republic. This demographic change is already wreaking havoc, and if continued as our National Socialsts have entrained it will destroy our polity.

Secondarily, of course, are Trump's other positions, many of which are anathema not only to the progressive left but also to the donor class which owns the Republican Party, making it what Frank Chodorov had once called the party of Rotarian Socialism ("Three cheers for free enterprise, and keep them quotas, set-asides, sweetheart deals, no-bid contracts, low-interest loans, competition-crushing regulations, and H-1B visa workers a-coming!").

Mr Jarlsberg might conceive that Trump's perception - and voicing - of the ever-growing well-considered and pervasive grievances of the American working and middle classes makes The Donald some kind of "monster from the id," but in so doing our host seems bent upon obliterating attention paid to those issues in precisely the same way that politicians in both wings of the wonderful Boot On Your Neck Party incumbency have been doing for so many decades, as if continuing to apply tincture of merthiolate to a squamous carcinoma in order to disguise its malignancy is sound diagnosis and treatment.

Tucci said...

Damn. And only after I enter a comment here, I come upon the latest Fred on Everything, from which I quote the final paragraphs:

Corruption has come to be the purpose of government, and the Club battens on it. You want to see the political equivalent of a public latrine in Uganda? Try HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I promise that you will be horrified by the diversion of funds and lining of pockets.

You ask, Fred, why do you say this? Are you a student of HUD? No. I know nothing of HUD. I know much of government. HUD is an outfit with over thirty billion a year to spend, completely unwatched. Have you ever seen a newspaper story about HUD? I guarantee that it is dominated by the sacred ethnic groups who milk it like a prize Guernsey, and by big companies getting sweetheart contracts.

Or try Commerce, or Education, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Congress.

It is to preserve these overflowing rice bowls that we have elections without substance between candidates without a difference. Hillary is just Jeb Bush in a dress, Biden a universally applicable cipher, Cruz a compliant applicant for membership in the club. Since the parties collude in avoiding issues that people care about, the contest becomes a popularity contest of the sort found in middle school. Whoever wins, the Insiders win.

Of course Trump also is a billionaire,but he is a turncoat, a class traitor, the Benedict Arnold of billionaires. He addresses the issues that the Insiders want to remain unaddressed. He is indeed dangerous. He threatens the endless (immensely profitable) wars, the endless (immensely profitable) shipping of American jobs to China, the endless (immensely profitable) importation of cheap Mexican labor. He threatens the sacred rice bowls.

It is why he must be stopped.

Geoff King said...

As the Libertarian candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states - the first time ever for a third party - and may also have to be included in the Presidential Debates, there will be a viable option to the monsters behind door number one and door number two.

Rod said...

Stilt; you just produced another classic. And you do "The Donald" soooooo well.

James Daily said...

Me thinks that Cruz choosing Fiorina for his losing campaign is no more than just shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. Personally, I see no positive results of this choice as she also has a bit of baggage.

Aufklarer said...

"Star sapphires take a week to crystallize properly. Would diamonds or emeralds do?"
So where is the nearly-naked Anne Francis?
Better yet, where is the naked Melania Trump?

REM1875 said...

Wait till the media "Sarah Palins" Fiorina. If ya ever had any doubt on who is waging war on women, this should finish that off.

I still support our Senator but will vote Trump in a heartbeat.
Our enemy is on the left and we are going to have to come together to slay the sHrillybeast in the end.

Earl Allison said...

Firstly, yay! Forbidden Planet, an all-time favorite (and so far, it has dodged the bullet of what would be a horrible remake re: The Day The Earth Stood Still).

And Morbius? Unlike so many villains, he wasn't EVIL so much as completely misguided, and as soon as he realized what his id-monster would do to his beloved daughter, he stopped it the only way he could -- I don't see even a thimbleful of self-awareness among the Left today ... well, I know what I am putting in the DVD player when I get home ...

I don't like Trump, although I do like that fact that everyone is so determined to destroy him. He has the "right" people mad at him.

Even if he IS a Dem, I see him as an old-school Dem, not the same class (or lack thereof) as Obama or Clinton.

Basically, there is a nonzero chance I might get at least SOME of what I want from a Trump Presidency, but in a Hillary one? No chance. If the people elect an (other) unindicted felon and traitor to the White House immediately after the CURRENT one, I think we as a country are done.

And how about that whopping *0.5%* growth rate under President Historic First? The ONLY President unable to maintain even a 3% growth rate under his two terms?

Ed G. Mann said...

Well this is going to a tough election for me. The last two times I voted Republican was back for Goldwater and then Reagan. Otherwise I voted Libertarian. (After Goldwater, I was in the Nam, didn't vote until '72') Voted for Gus Hall once because there wasn't a Libertarian on the ticket and the rest gave a bad name to corruption.

Now I have to choose whether to vote for Donald or Gary. The idea of putting my thumb in the GOPe's eye is far too delicious to pass up but then again the Libertarian ticket needs those votes too.
This is a tough call.

Judi King said...

Great cartoon and comment! It pretty much nailed it, but I still can't vote for Drumpf. I see no difference between him and Hilliery BTW HE is part of the "donor Class". It just depends on which way the wind is blowing that day. More promises of change? We just lived through nearly 8 years of "change". How'd that work out for anyone? Unless, of course, you are owned by the government.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mike aka Proof- True fact: I once had dinner with Leslie Nielsen and a very young and busty, um, "friend" of his. He had a rubber bladder device in his hand, and made fart noises the entire evening whenever a waiter got near our table. It was a surreal evening.

@Albatross- In other words, we can only buy one from James Cameron?

@drjim- But Robby called him "Eddy."

@Tucci- Great comments and (surprise!) I agree with most of what you say. Trump is saying the right things in an unsubtle and politically incorrect way on a host of issues. My problem is, per your own comments, that politicians (and Trump is very much one at this point) lie freely and fluidly and you'd have to be nuts to actually believe what they're saying.

Which is why we mustn't judge candidates by their words, but by their actions and histories. Which is why I'm having difficulty overlooking Trump's past: a supporter of entirely discretionary abortion including partial birth abortion. A man called on by the Democrats to testify against Reagan's tax cuts as injurious to the economy. A man who is "neutral" on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but claims to be the biggest supporter of Israel on Earth because he sent them some money. Although he then points out that he sends money to everyone and it doesn't reflect his beliefs, only his calloused attitude about doing business.

In previous years, he spoke of running for president as a Democrat. Yesterday, IU coach Bobby Knight endorsed him and said that Trump isn't a Republican, nor a Democrat. Which would be fine if Trump was running as an independent, but he's not.

You say our host seems bent upon obliterating attention paid to those issues but my goal is actually the reverse. Trump is speaking about long overlooked issues that must be addressed - but he must also show evidence that he's not simply using these emotional issues to get elected, after which point he'll revert back to the progressive ideas he has consistently embraced in the past.

But let me also toss this into the mix: I think our political system is now so screwed up and so close to being impossible to fix that this does strike me as a time for dramatic action - and Trump might be just the wrecking ball that Washington needs. But on such a critical matter, I'm just not wired to cast my vote on hope or rhetoric. I'm waiting for Trump to give me more.

@Geoff King- Sadly, I'm afraid my own definition of "viable" requires that a candidate has a prayer of beating Hillary.

@Rod- Unfortunately, it's not hard to replicate The Donald's distinctive style of oratory.

@James Daily- I found Fiorina quite impressive in the debates. She seemed to have information on everything, and specific ideas. I like her. But I think Cruz is toast at this point. Not because he couldn't win the nomination, legally and ethically, on a second ballot at the convention. But because Trump has poisoned the well, and his supporters will stay home rather than cast a vote for "Lyin' Ted" in November.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Aufklarer- "What's a swimsuit?" is a question appropriate from both women. By the way, if Trump makes Robby his VP, I'm totally in.

@REM1875- I'm already seeing the media making snide remarks about Carly's appearance. The Left, interestingly, is the most apt to make such attacks. The (blankety-blank) hypocrites.

For now, I'm still a Cruz man...but in the end, I'll vote for Anyone But Hillary. Plus, the choice of voting between someone who WILL be a disaster and someone who only MIGHT be a disaster (and might even be great) is an easy one.

@Earl Allison- I love "Forbidden Planet" down to the soles of my shoes, and was delighted when a remake got ashcanned a few years ago. I might, however, approve of a really well done 3D conversion of the original for the big screen.

And Morbius is a genuinely tragic figure. We can all fight to suppress our darkest and most primal instincts, but that doesn't stop them from existing. And "Forbidden Planet" also warns of the dangers of pure intellectualism. It's easy to look at Obama as Morbius, a professorial personality utterly baffled by the barbaric but effective actions of ISIS. Considering how instrumental Obama has been to the growth of ISIS, it's a particularly apt comparison.

And regarding the economy, NO president has ever done a worse job of restoring our nation's wealth and productivity after a recession. Yet yesterday the SOB was bragging that he saved the world economy and has done a better job than any other leader ever has. He's delusional.

@Ed G. Mann- Believe me, I'd also like to stick a thumb in the GOP's eye. But the dealbreaker boils down to Supreme Court nominations. My number one priority is making sure that Hillary won't get to make those picks, and that means I have to vote for someone who could beat her whether I'm happy about it or not.

@Judi King- I agree, but per my comment above I think we all need to do whatever we can from keeping those Supreme Court appointments out of Hillary's hands. I just hope that doing so doesn't create too much collateral damage.

Boligat said...

Loved Forbidden Planet. Loved the '50s War of the Worlds, but the remake was horrible. Loved The Day the Earth Stood Still, but not the remake. Remakes tend to suck big time. And I don't understand why Hollywood would make a remake of a silly movie in the first place. That's what we have now in politics. All these people are nothing more than remakes of previous politicians that sucked in the first place. Although I have to admit that Hillary is in a class by herself.

Heywood Jablome said...

Truly, Ann Francis was a goddess, unparalleled before or since.

Bill said...

Hello,

I'm hoping for a presidential contest between Bernie Sanders(a Communist), and Donald Trump (a Capitalist).

I've seen the USA moving toward Communism for the past fifty years, and would like to know whether we will go full Communism by electing Bernie.

I've worked in Communist countries, and seen Communism and I've worked in the USA and I've seen Capitalism. Capitalism is better, but I can live in either system.

I just would like to know which system, so I can adapt.

Bill Moore

Geoff King said...

I refuse to vote for Trump simply because he is not Hillary. I no longer detect any difference between Republicans and Democrats, and Trump proves that point very well. He even donated to the Clintons, for Christ's sake. He has no foreign policy to speak of, and his other positions seem to vary like the wind just as Clinton's do.
Perhaps the total destruction of our once great nation may be delayed slightly by putting him in charge instead of the Wicked Witch, but perhaps not. Neither candidate is a good choice, and my conscience will not allow me to vote for what may or may not be the lesser of two evils.
Here is an article that expresses my feelings quite well:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/18/will-never-vote-trump-loses-hillary-will-fault-mine/
I will even go as far as saying that Hillary could be the better choice as her presidency could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes the American people to finally wake up and take their country back.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to steal 'thinky'. It'll become part of my daily vocabulary. I shall spend the rest of this day thinking how to use it in various sentences.

The other night I watched The Blob for the first time in years.

There is no dispute of the hotness of Anne Francis however I submit Doris Day in the Tammy movies or, my thinky part is pretty sure, The Apartment with Fred MacMurray.

Anonymous said...

Trump is a Democrat, and, somewhat redundantly, a monster. He believes in nothing except Trump. All Democrats believe only in their own self-enrichment. Trump is in the race to make sure Hillary, who is deceptively stupid, wins. She is the Vag-Canidate as much as Trump is such a d1ck.

If people do not start recognizing Leviathan for what it is (and Trump and Hillary are Leviathan as are all those who work for the state - that would be all bureaucrats, who by definition are fat, lazy, and overpaid), we will finally implode - the United Blackhole of America.

UBA UBA!

Sounds like a bureaucrat talking huh?

CenTexTim said...

One thing for sure - anyone who pisses off John Boehner can't be all bad.

Boehner: Ted Cruz a 'miserable son of a bitch'

Boehner went on to say he's a golf and texting buddy of Trump, and that he’d support Trump in the general election, but not Cruz.

Lots of stuff there to ponder over regarding who's the real outsider and who has ties to the D.C. establishment...

Anonymous said...

As near as I can tell, Trump won't play Mr. Macho against Putin, and is opposed to the NATO nonsense of trying to start a shooting war with Russia--as are the NeoCons with their stupid Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Regards,

Desertrat

Judi King said...

I agree with Boligat. The old 50's sci-fi movies are SO much better than the stupid remakes. Much more fun, etc My favorite was "War of the Worlds" with Gene Barry. I liked that God was the winner in that one.

Anonymous said...

Loved the Forbidden Planet comic...even though I am a Trump supporter. Very funny and well done!

Of course it helps that I am as big a FP fan as you are. One of the greatest SF movies EVER! Do yourself a favor and seek out the original novel. It is based on an earlier version of the filming script, but is actually a well crafted book. It give us quite a bit more background detail. The story is told in sections, from the viewpoints of various characters, including Morbius himself. A must read for every FP geek.

"It's the real stuff. Genuine Ancient Rocket Bourbon..."

M.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Boligat- You're speaking my language with the great 50's movies. As a writer (and once upon a time screenwriter) I hate most remakes. Please- let great movies become great OLD movies and show us some new ideas! And as you point out, that's not a bad suggestion for politicians, either.

@Heywood Jablome- I'm not sure she ever looked better than in Forbidden Planet, but she was always gorgeous.

@Bill- I think all of us are trying to figure out which way to jump at this point. I'm not sure if capitalism or communism will be the ultimate victor here.

@Geoff King- I agree with nearly everything you're saying with one critical exception: at the point the camel's back is broken, it's never going to come back as a better camel. It's just going to be a crippled or dead camel.

@Anonymous- It's fun to tell people to "use the thinky part of your brain." Not safe, but fun.

Regarding actresses, you've got be confused. I think Doris Day was quite attractive (and still looks good for her age), but I think it was Debbie Reynolds in Tammy, and Shirley Maclaine in The Apartment. Lovely ladies all.

@Anonymous- Hmm, just 10:30 in the morning. I can't start drinking seriously for another half hour...

@CenTexTim- I'd LOVE someone to follow up with Boehner about his love of Trump. He says they've been golfing and texting buddies for years. Okay, Mr. Boehner, did you ask for Mr. Dealmaker's advice when you were negotiating with the Dems? If not, why not? And if so, why did the deals suck ass so badly that the Dems won everything every time?

@Desertrat- I'm all for avoiding a shooting war with Russia. And again, SOME of what Trump says aligns with my own thoughts. The question is whether he means it, and whether he can implement workable policies rather than just stating goals ("we'll only win wars.")

@Judi King- The special effects in the "War of the Worlds" remake were great, but the film overall is nothing more than eye candy. The original film from the 50's was epic. Also recommended: "Them!" "The Time Machine," and "When Worlds Collide."

John the Econ said...

Another brilliant cartoon this morning, "Monster from the Id". Definitely sharing it.

Victor Davis Hanson laid out this phenomenon the other day:

"Trump is a reflection of, not a catalyst for, a dishonest age."

Trump is hardly a "new low" in American politics, but merely another datapoint on the long plot of decline the Progressives have been sending down for decades. At the end of the day, he's just the latest manifestation of what I've been calling the "Progressive War on the Middle Class".

John the Econ said...

@Tucci, I do know a bit about HUD, and it's just another example of a runaway big-dollar government bureaucracy on autopilot. The hard data I have on HUD is somewhat dated, but the last statistics I saw was that in today's dollars it is costing taxpayers nearly a half-million dollars per unit of subsidized housing.

Let that sink in. How many of you reading this are living in half-million dollar houses? Not that these houses would actually be worth a half-million on the open market; they're relatively modest middle-class homes. It's just it cost the Federal government a half-million dollars to build what is ironically called "affordable housing". No President, who theoretically should have power to address this kind of absurdity has ever addressed this, or like insanities.

@Geoff King, a Libertarian allowed in an actual debate? Thanks for the 2nd laugh for the day.

@Stilton on "Which is why we mustn't judge candidates by their words, but by their actions and histories."

Yes, now that it's almost certainly Trump vs Hillary, we'll see a more subdued Trump, and a re-pivoting Hillary; Two people who've never stood a stationary position on any map and have spent the last year telling people exactly what they thought they wanted to hear. What a choice, and you are so right.

DougM said...

Not sure if I've ever agreed with you more,
except that I'd limit FP to favorite sci-fi.

Tucci said...

Jarlsberg: "Trump is speaking about long overlooked issues that must be addressed - but he must also show evidence that he's not simply using these emotional issues to get elected, after which point he'll revert back to the progressive ideas he has consistently embraced in the past.
------
No disagreement with this stance, but again and again and again it must be borne in mind that without The Donald, those "long overlooked issues" would've either remained "overlooked" or been exacerbated a la outrance. Consider that a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens entering these United States from the Third World had been blatantly advocated by some several of the candidates on the Republican side (the most prominent example being Jeb Bush, the single Red Faction entrant best beloved of the GOPe as this long and miserable "season" opened in 2015), allegedly in aid of courting those Hispanic voters so eager to cast their ballots for the guys with an "(R)" after their names.

Batpuckey. As long as the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) projects itself so successfully as pushing endless government-as-Santa-Claus, these millions of de facto and de jure criminals wouldn't be voting against Hitlery even were America's Ex-Wife to be caught on video sodomizing a pack of Cub Scouts with a strap-on and a jar of Dencorub.

Given the high likelihood that Trump took "progressive" positions in the past - as a private citizen, not as either an elected officer responsible for public policy or as an aspirant to such office - on the basis of expediency, currying favor in the same sense as he'd rented incumbent politicians, as a matter of public relations, how is he any less (or more) likely to adhere to the policy statements he's been making in the current campaign? Do you honestly expect sincerity in anyone putting himself forward as such a candidate?

I don't. What I'm looking for is the possibility of getting something different than "mixture as before," because the effects of that hackneyed old compounding is on the verge of destroying our republic. Nobody else except The Donald offers any such potential.

tude dog said...

Ted was not my first choice but now he is the only hope. Thinking about Hillary v. Trump election my first thought was to abstain, but I am driven. Desperate considered voting for Hillary and that nanosecond has left me with migraines.

txGreg said...

First of all, I am not a big fan of Trump, but I also do not hate him with a burning passion as so many seem to. I voted for Cruz in the primary, and would be content to have the opportunity to do so in the general election as well.

For those of you who feel that Trump offers nothing to tempt you to vote for him over Shrillery, please allow me to share with you one peg upon which I am currently willing to hang my vote for him: The Second Amendment (2A). With Trump, it's not just rhetoric from what I understand. He not only claims to support 2A, but he has a concealed carry permit in CCW-unfriendly NYC, and is generally exercising his Right on a regular basis. On the other side, her history is replete with examples of Shrillery calling for the elimination of our Right to bear arms. If Trump follows through on not a single one of his other promises, but continues to do what he's already doing in supporting the 2A, then he's a better choice.

Now, on a more important issue - movie remakes. I too generally loathe hearing of yet another Hollywood remake. I think part of the problem is the movies they pick. I understand their reasoning. "It was a popular, successful movie in the past - so it should be a popular, successful movie again." The problem with that logic is that it paints them into a corner. If you simply use the same script with updated technology, then what's the point? The people making such a remake are just hacks (according to many consumers), and not doing something that brings them any personal fulfillment either. On the other hand, if you "re-imagine" the film then you will probably lose what made it successful the first time around - and be raked over the coals for "tampering" with it as well.

What they should be doing if they can't come up with something sorta original is to look for good ideas from bad movies and "remake" those. For example, I've heard several times of different people trying to get remakes of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (P9) off the ground. Even though it is yet to happen, too me this is the right idea. Read a synopsis of P9 based on what they had in mind and - if you like SciFi at all - it sounds pretty darn good. If you've ever watched P9, you know that that vision got lost on the way to the finished product. Now it's only "good" as a movie so bad it's laughable. To me, this is the right kind of remake to pursue. Nobody could fault you for not being bound to a failed script, and you have the freedom to maybe be recognized for improving upon the original rather than be castigated for deviating from it.

(Yes, I've obviously thought about this too much before...)

Mark Matis said...

The Chinese hate Trump.
The Japanese hate Trump.
The Mexicans hate Trump.
Merkel hates Trump.
Hollande hates Trump.
Cameron hates Trump.
Draghi hates Trump.
The "Pope" hates Trump.
Lyin' Ryan hates Trump.
Post Turtle hates Trump.
Mittens hates Trump.
The Shrubs (every stinkin' one of them) hate Trump.

Of course, maybe they are all truly interested in the well-being of the United States, and merely want to dissuade Mere Citizens from making a stupid choice. But that's not how the smart money bets. Trump is the ONLY candidate from a major party in the past twenty-eight years who believes in Western culture and the nation-state. He is not the Messiah. He is human, and has his own faults and foibles. But he towers head and shoulders over the REST of the field.

And by the way, Putin respects Trump because Vlad ALSO believes in Western culture, and would prefer not to be the only major world leader with that predisposition.

JustaJeepGuy said...

@txGreg, I'm absolutely with ya on the RKBA issue. I'm a single-issue voter, though I'd like to not be. However, when a "candidate" like the witch-with-a-capital-B comes along, with a decades-long history of trying to eliminate my RKBA, it's ABH for me!

On the other topic, I have to say I watched Forbidden Planet a few decades ago and frankly, I didn't like it. If I want to immerse myself in fighting inner demons, I'll go read Shakespeare's The Tempest. You know, the original source, not the sci-fi remake.

Popular Front said...

Great to see Leslie Nielsen get another gig. Dead and loving it!
I'm with Earl Allison re: The Day The Earth Stood Still. How those Hollywood goons ever imagined Keanu Reeves could replicate Michael Rennie's brilliant portrayal in the original is beyond me. Why can't they just leave these old classics alone?

KLAATU BARADA NIKTO!

DaughterJarlsberg said...

I have been raised on this movie (for obvious reasons) - Robbie is unquestionably the best movie robot ever, followed by the first robot in film history, Robot Maria, from Metropolis.

I'm still not sure if I can vote for Trump. Luckily Oklahoma is an overwhelmingly red state, so if I vote third party it's not a default vote for Pillory Hillary - but I'm torn. Trump definitely appeals to my monster of the id - the question is whether I should trust this id or not.

DaughterJarlsberg said...

I misspelled Robby. Time for my seppuku.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- The math is typical. The government spends $500,000 of our tax money for a "modest" residence, or $800,000 to fund a single "job created" and on and on. And there's never a real push for economizing or efficiency - only higher taxes.

@DougM- My absolute "favorite" film varies with the mood I'm in, but Forbidden Planet is in the 10-film rotation. As far as Sci-Fi goes, it definitely has my #1 spot.

@Tucci- Trump has definitely brought some of these issues to the forefront, but I'm not sure they were going to be ignored by the actual conservatives who were competing early on. True, Trump is the only one saying he was going to round up every illegal in America and boot their ass back to Mexico - but do you believe he will or can? Do you believe he'll actually be dragging millions of people off the streets and breaking up families? Personally, I think he'll have no more success deporting our illegals than Barry has had closing Guantanamo.

You laudably and honestly state that none of us should believe anything that the candidates are saying (and apparently we should ignore what they've actually done in the past). But you support Trump because of the possibility that he might be good. I agree, but that's a damn low bar for such an important position. It's like picking a random person out of a crowd to fly the jetliner you're about to board because they look like they might be able to pilot a 747.

@tude dog- Never ever ever vote for Hillary. I don't care if she's running against Ebola, Hitler, or an asteroid aimed at Earth: never Hillary.

@txGreg- Another thing I hate about remakes is that they don't want to repeat the original story note for note, so they make (ahem) "improvements" to the story that always screw up what made the original great. In the godawful remake of "Miracle on 34th Street," they through out the climactic scene in which tens of thousands of letters addressed only to Santa Claus are delivered to Kris Kringle in the courtroom. Brilliant! But in the remake, one kid sends him a damn dollar bill and the lawyer focuses on the phrase "In God We Trust." He says that the government has therefore declared that people should have faith, and therefore "my client is Santa Claus." Wait - huh?! Never mind that it makes no friggin' sense at all - that was the winning argument. Bah.

Not long ago I saw the remake of Poltergeist, and it was just horrible. Seriously, avoid it.

The idea of remaking a bad movie into a good movie is interesting - but probably not great from a marketing standpoint. The people who love the "bad" version won't like the "good" version, and no one else will even care.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mark Matis- Goodish points, though I'm not sure I could agree that other conservatives don't believe in Western culture. It's certainly true of the Dems, though.

@JustaJeepGuy- Oh sure, Shakespeare is fine (and Forbidden Planet is based on Shakespeare), but Forbidden Planet rocks. Robby the Robot could have gone a long way to punching up some of the slow spots in the bard's other plays.

@Popular Front- I loved the elegance of the original robot in "Day The World Stood Still." When that visor opened and you saw that pulsing energy, you just knew that anyone who'd honked off Gort was about to get blasted into eternity.

@DaughterJarlsberg- Hey, welcome to your Dad's political playpen! I agree with your robot ranking. How much does C3PO owe to Robot Maria, am I right?

Regarding a vote for Trump versus a 3rd party candidate, we still have quite a bit of time until November. If he surrounds himself with intelligent people (I'm talking policy advisors, not political hackmeisters) and shows greater seriousness of purpose, then maybe we can both vote for him with a clear conscience. Time will tell.

And Robby didn't like you getting his name wrong. His blaster is pointed at you and there's a fireworks display going on inside his head.

Mark Matis said...

I believe you'll find that all the other credible Republican candidates, Stilton Jarlsberg, are One World Government types. And that includes Cruz.

One World Government gets established by destroying national identity. That's why Our Betters are encouraging invasion from the south, and importing terrorists from the Middle East. Same for the latter in Europe as well. Which candidates BESIDES Trump have stood against that?

Tucci said...

Jarlsberg: "Trump has definitely brought some of these issues to the forefront, but I'm not sure they were going to be ignored by the actual conservatives who were competing early on. True, Trump is the only one saying he was going to round up every illegal in America and boot their ass back to Mexico - but do you believe he will or can? Do you believe he'll actually be dragging millions of people off the streets and breaking up families? Personally, I think he'll have no more success deporting our illegals than Barry has had closing Guantanamo.

"You laudably and honestly state that none of us should believe anything that the candidates are saying (and apparently we should ignore what they've actually done in the past). But you support Trump because of the possibility that he might be good. I agree, but that's a damn low bar for such an important position. It's like picking a random person out of a crowd to fly the jetliner you're about to board because they look like they might be able to pilot a 747."

---------
Those other candidates on the Red Faction side who have held posts of public trust and responsibility (i.e., on government payrolls) have track records beyond those which they've developed as private persons.

How have they performed in those capacities, and what might their past records as officers of the police power in civil society have revealed about their likely conduct in the presidency?

If it's a matter of looking at "a damn low bar for such an important position" with regard to The Donald versus hard evidence of malignancy in those also contending for the position, what are the available diagnostic criteria upon which you must predicate your selection?

Let's look again at your "picking a random person out of a crowd to fly the jetliner you're about to board because [he looks] like [he] might be able to pilot a 747."

The rest of the guys in that crowd are showing outward indicators of being Muslim jihadis, every one of 'em muttering "Allahu akbar!" and diligently paging through Arabic copies of the Qur'an. One guy looks as if he "might be able to pilot a 747" and you've seen him discussing the Book of Mormon with two other passengers, all three dressed like LDS missionaries.

Who don't you pick?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mark Matis- I'm familiar with the concept of One World Government and in fact think it's the next step on Obama's "to do" list. But I think you're significantly over-generalizing about all the other current and former GOP candidates being in favor of such a scheme. I don't see it.

@Tucci- Actually, a number of the candidates have performed pretty well in the capacities you describe. The fact that they haven't managed to accomplish the larger things we wish they could in the past 7 years owing to spineless GOP leadership, Dem intractability, and Obama's veto pen shouldn't necessarily be read as a failure to adhere to principles.

Per my example of choosing a pilot out of a random group of people to fly the aircraft I'm about to board, in your heavily-stacked example (one guy with a strong jawline, 3 guys dressed as Mormon missionaries, and 114 Middle Eastern guys wearing bomb vests) I'd skip the flight entirely. Moreover, I'd steal a bicycle from one of the Mormons and ride away as fast as possible. Which, metaphorically, may be what we see too many voters doing in November.

Tucci said...

Jarlsberg: "Actually, a number of the [Republican] candidates have performed pretty well in the capacities you describe. The fact that they haven't managed to accomplish the larger things we wish they could in the past 7 years owing to spineless GOP leadership, Dem intractability, and Obama's veto pen shouldn't necessarily be read as a failure to adhere to principles."

----------------
I could so qualify Dr. Ron Paul, but the present crop of Red Faction aspirants? Apart from The Donald, I can recall none of them earlier even talking seriously or with honest intent about a great many of the most critical issues facing our republic, whether it's been over the past seven years or over the past twenty-seven.

Indeed, many of them have used their positions in public office to advocate and act to purposes malignantly at odds with the good of our republic and the society it serves.

As for your option to "skip the flight entirely," are you advocating abandoning the republic (sauve qui peut!) as your alternative to working with what's been allowed us - specifically The Donald, if the GOPe doesn't manage to sabotage him or eliminate him - to get us some sort of mitigation?

Judi King said...

@Tucci....apparently you've never bothered to check out Ted Cruz's qualifications.

Tucci said...

Judi King: apparently you've never bothered to check out Ted Cruz's qualifications.

-----
Alas, I've checked out his disqualifications, emphasis on the fact that by no means has he ever been a natural born citizen of these United States, which eliminates him from consideration for the office of president.

I'll admit that I like him for the stance he's taken with regard to the anthropogenic global warming - er, "climate change" - fraud, but the door slammed on him long before he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

Judi King said...

Cruz IS considered a natural born citizen ....legally.

Tucci said...

Judi King: Cruz IS considered a natural born citizen ....legally.

By what standard? Was his father a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth? No?

Then Senator Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Never was. Never can be. Not now. Not ever, even though he's no longer a Canadian citizen.

Sorry. Article II, Section 1, which sets the standard, and Vattel's The Law of Nations which defines "natural born citizen" in the sense of that specific and precise use in the U.S. Constitution.

By the same standard, of course, every day that Obozo pretends to be a lawful chief magistrate of our republic is a separate set of felonies. The law is the law whether or not the officers of government discharge their duty to enforce it.

Zardoz The Magnificent said...

Whoa, you're happy with Open Borders, Islam loving Fiorina? Yikes dude-of course it certainly shows, even more, just exactly what Cruz is. But if he somehow finagles the nod, I'll tip back a couple dozen and have someone wheel me into the voting booth and pull his lever.

FP is of course a classic-I'm partial to first movie I ever saw in a theatre, Rodan-not nearly as good as FP but nostalgic for me. To this day, Invasion of the Body Snatchers gives me the creeps. The remake with Sutherland was pretty dang good too.

And my copy of The Time Machine gets a workout once or twice a year-it's the ultimate Alpha male story.
MM

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Tucci- You say: As for your option to "skip the flight entirely," are you advocating abandoning the republic (sauve qui peut!) as your alternative to working with what's been allowed us - specifically The Donald, if the GOPe doesn't manage to sabotage him or eliminate him - to get us some sort of mitigation?

Nope. I was specifically responding to your example about the plane filled with Aloha Snackbar types. As I've clearly stated here, I will vote for Trump if he's the best option available. And I won't ever abandon this country, but I do plan to go more John Galt in the near future.

@Judi King & Tucci- I'm pretty sure that Barack Obama and the Justice Department have made it official that anyone can be a natural born citizen if they own Photoshop.

@Zardoz The Magnificent- Carly isn't perfect and I don't agree with her on everything. But she's smart and would be a great weapon in fighting the "Woman Card" that Hillary is now embracing for her campaign.

And I'm right there with you on movies like Rodan, seen on the BIG SCREEN (on a Saturday matinee) the way it was meant to be seen. Mothra was great, too. Rubber suits, toy tanks, and balsa wood buildings? Who cares - pass the popcorn!

And yes, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is still scary as hell, and the Sutherland remake was decent. And as long as I'm strolling down memory lane, let's hear it for the original "Mighty Joe Young," Ray Harryhausen's "Earth vs the Flying Saucers," and "The Thing!" (both the original and Kurt Russell remake).

Judi King said...

Cruz's mother IS an American citizen (mothers count too), ergo, her children are natural born citizens. Natural born has always meant NOT naturalized (as in legal immigrants) and he is born not naturalized. This question has been discussed months ago by many people and found irrelevant.

Geoff King said...

And here I thought "natural born" meant that the mother was screaming all different sorts of obscenities at the father during labor, and the father just really wanted a stiff drink or 12.

DaBlade said...

I'm also a #NeverMorbius but loved the comic.

Shelly said...

Cruz is an American citizen and so far has not lied to me, his constituent. He is brilliant, principled and shows outstanding leadership qualities. Trump has shown he possesses all 9 traits which make up Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Do we really want a president who goes off on the slightest perceived knock with his finger on the so-called proverbial nuclear button? Nope.

Tucci said...

Judi King: Cruz's mother IS an American citizen (mothers count too), ergo, her children are natural born citizens. Natural born has always meant NOT naturalized (as in legal immigrants) and he is born not naturalized. This question has been discussed months ago by many people and found irrelevant.

------------
Precisely no. Remember, please, that there was no such thing as modern Social Justice Warrior "political correctness" in the 18th Century, and the citizenship of the mother didn't matter. ONLY the father's citizenship was one of the necessary criteria in determining "natural born citizen" status, which was explicitly and purposefully incorporated in Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution and nowhere else in that charter.

Kinda tells you something about the Founders original intent with regard to the office of the president, doesn't it?

By the bye, what is it about reference to Vattel's The Law of Nations - the uncontrovertably definitive resource on this matter as the Founders interpreted the concept of "natural born citizen" - that you're deliberately not getting?

Tucci said...

Shelly: Cruz is an American citizen and so far has not lied to me, his constituent. He is brilliant, principled and shows outstanding leadership qualities.

Yes, and he makes an adequate Senator. He might make a very good Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court if the Red Faction cadre in the Senate can keep Borking Obozo in that slimeball's efforts to slug a "Liberal" fascist into the slot vacated by Antonin Scalia.

But he's emphatically not a natural born citizen. There's a difference. I've read it estimated that 75% of American citizens are natural born citizens. Ted Cruz is not, and there's an end to it.

I think that his pretenses might be put to death with a simple television commercial, showing him photogenically in front of the Maple Leaf flag while "O Canada" plays in the background and the image changes to a display of the document formally certifying his 2014 renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

Article II, Section 1. Whether the government thugs choose to enforce it or not, it's still the law of the land.

Rod said...

It may not have been my first movie but it was early & my most memorable by far at the time: I knew nothing of H.G. Wells' novel, nor the later radio fright. 1953 film "The War Between the Worlds" was on at the drive-in theater. Dad & Mom either overestimated my courage or couldn't get a sitter. It started with us all in the front seat. But that snake-head death-ray scared the Hell out of me and I jumped into the back seat to watch the rest of the movie from there. I looked through the vertical gap between the two front seat backs. Those cover plates coming off the saucerand the ray-thing coming out gave me nightmares for a long time.

Judi King said...

@ Tucci: Precisely YES. You are quoting a foreigner born 300 years ago. This is the 21st century, not the 18th. OUR constitution: " No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President...." (Article II, section 1) Nothing about "fathers", etc. All interpreters have accepted Cruz as being a born citizen through his mother.

@ Shelly: I agree with you 100%. And you are right about Trump and NPD. I saw the definition being applied to our dic in the WH, but all the symptoms applied perfectly to Trump as well.

Anonymous said...

In the past, my litmus test was the Second Amendment. I began shooting and hunting in 1941.

Now? "War-hawk-itis". "Get tough with Putin" is a big negative.

I saw Midway, Wake and Corregidor in 1949. Inchon, Yong-Dong-Po and Seoul in 1954. My son saw the "Highway of Death" in 1992. Ungood landscaping.

The US foreign policy actions, this century, have wasted our tax dollars, created disgust among former allies, led to the problems with refugees--and on and on. My problem here is that much of it was in places wherein I've seen little of national interest--IMO, of course.

For me, then, Cruz is pretty good on domestic issues, but a danger in foreign affairs.

Regards.

Desertrat

Judi King said...

I believe in an America First foreign policy.....Cruz

Shelly said...

@Tucci, you sort of remind me of Dan Rather. He was sticking by his story whether it was true or not because he knew in his heart it was true, facts be damned. I guess he thought if he broadcast it in his serious anchorman tone, others would be believe it too and he would keep that wretched Bush out of office. Turns out, he was the one who lost his job. Wah Wah!

Tucci said...

Judi King: You are quoting a foreigner born 300 years ago. This is the 21st century, not the 18th. OUR constitution: " No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President...." (Article II, section 1) Nothing about "fathers", etc. All interpreters have accepted Cruz as being a born citizen through his mother.

---------------
And you are ignoring the precise letter of the law, embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

If you've informed yourself sufficiently about Emer de Vattel to have learned that he'd been born in 1714, you know good and well that his Le Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns, 1758) was acknowledged by the Founders themselves as well as by all honest modern constitutional scholars and historians to have been the definitive authority in international law both prior to the American Revolution and throughout the period during which the U.S. Constitution was framed, debated, and ratified.

You do NOT get away with any of your progressivist "This is the 21st century, not the 18th" allegedly "living constitution" crap, first and foremost because all legitimacy inherent in the federal government arises from that charter, AS RATIFIED ORIGINALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED.

You want it to suit your personal preferences as regards Ted Cruz? Get the Constitution AMENDED to eliminate the "natural born citizen" qualification in Article II, Section 1. Such amendments have been made before, haven't they? What the hell gives you to think that your own and other damned fools' willful flaming idiocy is cause sufficient to support criminal violation of that charter?

Judi King said...

So Tucci, you now are resorting to name calling? Typical. The direct quote from OUR Constitution is the law of the land in THIS country. Our Constitutional framers studied MANY philosophies before completing the finished document. Where de Vattel was used doesn't seem to come up in the Federalist Papers but, Since you seem to think you are a constitutional scholar, I'll take your word for that. But, it doesn't matter because it's not included in the finished product. Perhaps there should be a clarifying amendment concerning "Natural Born", but the fact is, it has meant not naturalized for many years. And an amendment, as you seem to prefer, would make it a progressive "living constitution" not the law as written, as I prefer.

Tucci said...

Judi King: So Tucci, you now are resorting to name calling?

---------------------
Take it as given that there's a limit to the patience and respect of an honest respondent when receiving your blatant "politically correct" obtuseness. You want the Constitution to say what you want to say, and if it doesn't, you're going to squeal and squall and dig in your widdle heels and hold your breath until you turn blue. If you're presumed to be an adult, else is that other than the behavior of a bloody fool?

Consider, if that capacity is in you at all, what it means if the Constitution were to be considered mutable at whim, with not even the process of a decision in the U.S. Supreme Court (however godawful those have been, and how little one finds grounds for those justices "interpreting" the legitimatizing charter of federal government in either the Constitution itself or in the accumulated Federalist Papers [which were propaganda pieces published by Federalist politicians to "sell" Hamilton's schemings to the New York State electorate during the ratification debates, and in no way intended or composed to serve as fair or balanced discussions of the qualities of that charter].)

The structure and the operations of federal civil government in our republic must be predictable in order for those living in its jurisdiction to reliably order their affairs. What's more, that Constitution defines the authorities and responsibilities of the federal officers acting in our polity. The Founders certainly knew - as do all honest examiners of the nature of government - that allowing those government officers "flexibility" in defining those terms under which said federal agents operate is about as sensible as installing a back door to a bank vault and handing the key to a kleptomaniac.

And in the case of the "natural born citizen" qualifier at the time of the Constitution's creation, Vattel was the authoritative defining source, overtly acknowledged by the Founders themselves in correspondence and other written records. Nobody but a willful ignoramus, a scheming liar, or a bloody fool attempts even the pretense that the case is otherwise.

You're pushing for precisely the sort of "progressive 'living constitution." Ms. Kirg, that you claim you don't want, which is either incompetence on your part or hypocrisy.

Look, if you don't want Article II, Section 1, as written, then you and your Cruz-pushing confreres must AMEND that Constitution to get your way.

And the Founders deliberately made that damned difficult, didn't they?

Ever wonder why?

Tucci said...

Shelly: ...you sort of remind me of Dan Rather. He was sticking by his story whether it was true or not because he knew in his heart it was true, facts be damned.

Actually, that's Judi King you're talking about. I'm simply maintaining the facts of reality, regardless of damned foolish progressive wishful thinking.

I would favor Senator Cruz over any of the other contestants in the Red Faction presidential nominating process except Dr. Rand Paul, but Ted Cruz (as is also the case with Senator Rubio) is simply not constitutionally qualified to stand for the office of President of these United States.

----------------
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right."

See http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a201/mister2wrx/no%20you%20move_zpsvy8mzgsk.jpg

Judi King said...

@ Signor Tucci: Many people besides me and many courts declared Ted Cruz eligible to be president. None of us WANT to dig our "widdle" heels in and hold our breath. We WANT the constitution to be accepted AS IT WAS WRITTEN. Intent and hundreds old European writings went into the thoughts of the framers and there were differences of opinion then, as now, but they wrote their own constitution for the new country of the US. This after great deliberation. . You, Signor, are a pompous ass and have apparently been brainwashed by a liberal education. And now Cruz has dropped out so your points are moot. Have a nice day.

Tucci said...

Judi King: Many people besides me and many courts declared Ted Cruz eligible to be president.

----
Oh? Court decisions go on the public record. Provide sufficient identifying information to enable searches for these "many courts" declarations regarding Senator Cruz' alleged natural born citizen qualification. The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, not mine.

Of itself, your own opinion (as has been demonstrated) isn't supported in any way at all, and is therefore worthless.