Month: October 2012

While I Have Your Attention…

Something actually INTERESTING:

“Tsunetomo believed that becoming one with death in one’s thoughts, even in life, was the highest attainment of purity and focus. He felt that a resolution to die gives rise to a higher state of life, infused with beauty and grace beyond the reach of those concerned with self-preservation. Some viewed him as a man of immediate action due to some of his quotes, and in the Hagakure he criticized the carefully planned Akō vendetta of the Forty-Seven Ronin (a major event in his lifetime) for its delayed response.” – Wikipedia, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

Faster, Puppycat! Mock, Mock!!

‘First – What is an atheist agenda (and why capitalize atheism)?’

Because that’s proper English usage.

‘If you think that atheism means something other the disbelief in deities’

Ummm…no offense, but…”than” disbelief.  Actually…I take back the “no offense” part.  I say that in an a-offense way.

‘and/or evidence for such you need to reconsider your definitions rather than create strawmen to knock down.’

I’m not a rich man, I’m not a handsome man, I’m not a smart man, I’m not an educated man, I’m not a well-dressed man, I’m not a tall man, I’m not a straw man, I’m not a milk man, I’m not a gingerbread man…

‘Second – Atheism ‘purports’ nothing of the sort, another strawman.’

Hey…why did you capitalize “atheism”?  (See Above)

‘Third – If you want to assign particular beliefs to groups that hold them while also not believing in gods feel free to do so.’

Fifth…

‘Atheism in itself have no more opinion on homosexuality than on ice cream flavors.’

I HATE to be nitpicky, but…”has”.

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

10/24/12: JUST TO CLARIFY…AGAIN…I am NOT poking fun at this person BECAUSE of their use of language.  As was made clear to me by comments he made regarding my “ganglion”, which I sorta know the definition of but not precisely, his position was this…although he’d never come out and SAY it: “You’re an idiot, I’m really really smart.  Therefore, you are inferior and I can mock you and if you don’t understand, that’s your own fault for being an idiot.  BUT…if you make fun of my incorrect English usage, you’re being mean…” 
Even though ignorance of proper English usage is EXACTLY THE SAME as ignorance of the exact meaning of “ganglion”. 
Point: Intelligence does not grant license to be a jerk.  Noone is “better” because they’re smarter…contrary to what supra-intellectual elitists might WANT you to believe, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable, sensible, intelligent people that are NOT inherently inferior because of their lower IQ’s.  It’s about morality, not MENSA scores.
Or, to quote John Cleese regarding outrage felt by my mocking of ignorance, after I was…mocked…for…ignorance (???!!!): “Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

First Citiwide Antitheist Bank – English 101

‘His is agnostic in the same way as most people who state that they do not believe in a god.’

His what?  His best friend, his dog, his cat, his third cousin, who?

‘Stating that something like a god categorically does not exist is a positive claim.’

“Like” a god?  What’s “like” a god?  A demi-god, someone who looks really old with a long beard, what?

‘Something most people who have thought about this probably would not do.’

That’s not true…plenty of people have stated that god does not exist.  I don’t know if they used the word “categorically” (that’s a good one, btw…try ‘Balance Of Power’), but that statement is not true.

‘You cannot categorically rule one out(any more than elves or mermaids but oh well).’

See, now you’re just being a snarky little a$$.  What looks like a “concession” is in fact intended as a backhanded mockery of anyone that could DARE to believe in ANY sort of supreme being.  So what looks like polite conversation is basically your pretentious, a-holier(I just made that up!)-than-thou way of saying “Anyone that believes in God as anything more than a BARELY possible myth is a MORON”.  THAT is what you just said.  You can frame it elegantly, but it’s the same statement.

‘I do agree with you when you state that you are not clever.’

I’m a clever person who talks loudly in restaurants!!!

‘You are demonstrably daft.’

Did you use “demonstrably” and “daft” together for the supercool “alliteration” effect?  Bravo!

‘I should have perused your previous replies on this page prior to replying to your post.’

Wow…you LOVE alliteration.  You do know that just because you begin 5 words with the same consonant doesn’t make you any more right or less snarky, right?  Just checking.  Here, try this one…”Peter Piper Picked A Peck Of Pickled Peppers”.  Great, huh?

‘I do apologize for the typo and that you were not bright enough to sort it out.’

No, let me splain…a “typo” is when you type something incorrectly…say, for example, a spelling error.  When you completely leave a word or three out, that’s not a “typo”.  That’s a “big fcken mistake”.

‘It should have read “We should not have to define ourselves by what WE do not do or do not believe”‘

De Doo Doo Doo, De Da Da Da…The innocence will pull me through.

‘I do not need to describe myself as an a-mermaidist or a-golfer (as I also don’t play golf) or a-elfist.’

Wait…a golfer, or a golfer?  I’m easily confused by small shiny objects.

‘No anger at all.’

Of course not, you’re more of a robot than Joel…what’s your fav, ‘The Changeling’ or ‘The Ultimate Computer’?

‘If anything just the annoyance of using a phone to post.’

So you’re annoyed?  Well…that’s something.  Could I possibly get a “quite put out”?

‘And do feel free to quote me to your heart’s content. Your blog is an expose on you far more
so than anyone you care to quote there.’

THANKS!

-Puppy/Some AtP guy.

How Do I Get Anything Out Of This? The Answer Is Simple…VOLUME.

‘He does not like the baggage that others assign to a particular “ism”.’ (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

Said baggage, in this case, is “getting angry and in-other-peoples-faces about atheism”.  That is the baggage he so desperately wants to avoid, because he can’t STAND people like that.

‘Listen to 2:35 on which is where he makes his case.’

So the previous 2:34 he was just babbling for no apparent reason, and should be ignored?

‘Earlier he states there is no evidence for a god which is good enough for most of us.’

That is incorrect.  Unless by “us” you mean atheists/anti-theists.  If you mean “us” as I believe you do, talking about people in general, that is a false statement, since the majority of people DO NOT believe there is “no evidence for a god”.  Whether I agree with that or not is irrelevant…your statement is false.  Or, as Joel might say: “NON-SEQUITUR.  YOUR FACTS ARE UN-COORDINATED.”

‘That he does not want ignorant theists or atheists to make assumptions about anything further than his position on the lack of evidence for a god is rather diplomatic.’

What the fck are you talking about?  Wow…I need to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ now, to make sure the world NEVER, EVER falls into your hands.

‘The world is rife with fools’

Why is it that you like to use the word “rife”, but you lack basic writing skills?  Is it some sort of over-compensation for a perceived inadequacy?

‘who assume all sorts of idiotic things from a simple declaration regarding non-belief in fairy tales.’

Who assume that because he says “I’m Agnostic”, that means “I’m Agnostic”.  Oh yeah…that’s really idiotic.  I don’t know what came over me.  He CLEARLY meant something else.  And you, of course, know what “Agnostic” means more than he does…because quite clearly, your mind is superior to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s. 

‘He is quite right when he says the concept of atheism should not exist.’

Hey!  You converted!  Great…I thought you were gonna be an angsty antitheist forever, but this is quite a sudden turnaround.  So what faith are you, now that you’ve disavowed atheism?

‘We should not have to define ourselves by what do not do or do not believe in.’

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

‘In other words he’s as much an a-theist as he is a non-golfer.’

What if he golfs?  Nice game, golf…get out in the sun, really pleasant…ahhhh…

DISCLAIMER: For those who may be wondering, the sarcastic comments concerning this guy’s improper English usage are NOT “because” he doesn’t type very well.  It just so HAPPENS that he doesn’t type very well, and I am making sarcastic comments about that because he’s a pretentious wanker.  Thank you.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

The Wiccan Agenda – Satire By Puppy

I was, of course, aware of the Homosexual Agenda, in which the world’s homosexual population plans to clandestinely infiltrate all of society, until they show ‘Glee’ on every channel and the only legal music is show tunes.  Thanks to Das But for alerting me to this.

However, I’ve recently been informed of an even MORE insidious conspiracy…

AtP’s Joel (He’s not stoned, he’s just really tired) recently imparted this bit of wisdom to me:

“…the reason there haven’t been any Wiccan despots in history is because Wicca is a relatively recent invention.”

It made me think…he’s RIGHT…it all adds up.

So remain vigilant, one and all…next thing you know, our forests will cease to be indiscriminately razed, our soil will cease being contaminated, Nature in general will be respected and treated with dignity, and EVERYONE will live together in peace and harmony, allowing for complete personal freedom without causing harm to any other individual.

“It’s SCARY…it’s SCARY!”

Thanks Joel, GREAT idea…

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“And he just goes ON and ON and ON…”

‘deGrasse Tyson just made the same mistake he was railing against, by ascribing characteristics to a group because of a label.’

So you’re saying that ascribing characteristics to a group because of a label (atheist, agnostic, catholic, jewish, muslim, etc) is a, and I quote, “mistake”?.  So why do you do it, exactly?

‘Calling oneself an atheist doesn’t mean anything about how vocal you are about it.’

True.  But by creating a page aimed at ACTIVELY opposing religion that sort of indicates you’re fairly vocal about it(although you seem to be somewhat confused over the difference between speech and writing since you accused me of “slander”)…putting yourself squarely in the camp of those that deGrasse Tyson (someone your page “Likes”) clearly finds so far beneath his attention that to even ANSWER the question posed to him made him look pained and exasperated.

‘Agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between atheism and theism. There are theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics.’

A “theistic agnostic” is actually pretty close to the middle…do you need me to look up the word “middle” for you?  I mean, unless you mean the EXACT middle…or is that the median…errr…I dunno, I’m not as smart as you are and I sometimes get my facts un-co-ordinated. 

NON-SEQUITIR…NON-SEQUITIR…I am NOMAD I am perfect…oops.

‘Both you and Neil need to go back to Philosophy 101’

You’re saying that YOU are so much smarter than respected astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that he doesn’t even know the first thing about what he’s talking about compared to you?

I actually like Philosophy 101, btw…it’s fun and educational without being Ayn-Randian in its snobbery.

‘maybe part of the reason there haven’t been any Wiccan despots in history is because Wicca is a relatively recent invention.’

You’re suggesting there’s a clear and present danger of a Wiccan despot in the near future?  What will they do, FORCE everyone to respect nature and live together in peace and harmony, respecting freedom unless it hurts anyone else in any way?  B@STARDS!!!!!!

Your take on my Wicca question is like Silverchair’s take on Pearl Jam – Sounds KINDA ok, but really dumb and kinda laughable when you really pay attention. 

“Wa-ter out of tap is…*RIFF RIFF* Ver-y hard to driiiiiiiiinnnnk…”

‘But besides that, your point is retarded.’

My point is “retarded”?  Are you saying that my point is physically or mentally disabled, are you making light of physical and mental retardation, or are you just in an angsty tizzy?

‘You may as well ask how many despots didn’t have mustaches for all the difference it makes.’

How many despots DIDN’T have moustaches??? Hmmm…interesting point you make…

‘Your post wasn’t humour until you decided to try to awkwardly portray it as so. It certainly wasn’t satire, in fact I don’t think you even know the meaning of the word.’

Yes it was…let me show you- “satire (n): A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humour is often used to aid this.”  So you see, you ARE a joke, even if you don’t get it.  Kiss kiss.

‘Your arrogant, self-righteous, attention-whoring bullsh1t is no way to win friends and influence people. Go back to your hole in the ground.’

D@MN…I watched the wrong video…let me see…here it is…’How To Irritate People’.  Oh well…at least I got to watch some early Cleese.

Wait a second…go back to my hole in the ground? I thought you said, just yesterday…”keep posting”?  Are you rational on alternate days, do you mark certain days on your calendar, what?

Just in case you don’t know…

Propaganda (n): A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

Famous propagandists in history:  Well…just about every dictator, really.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Classic Hypocrisy

AFTER complaining about my posts, here’s a post made on ‘Anti-theist Propaganda’ that was not only completely non-“reprimanded”, but was liked (at last count) 41 times:

(Setting: Job application, man sitting in chair, man behind desk interviewing him)
Interviewer, glancing at “resume”: “It says here that you raped 20
children”
Interviewee, smiling: “And counting”
Interviewer, smiling broadly: “WELCOME ABOARD!”

Sign above office revealed: CATHOLIC CHURCH

Now, by the logic *I* was given, that I was supposedly suggesting all anti-theists are supporters of mass murder and genocide when I was in fact using satire…THIS would suggest that the poster believes that EVERY member of the Catholic Church is a child rapist, or, at the VERY LEAST, supports the idea of child rape.

So, AtP admins…where’s the outrage here?  Or are you tacitly agreeing with that suggestion?

When one of them does it, it’s humor and if you don’t “get it”, you’re stupid or “out of touch”

When someone who doesn’t fall into step with their (self-proclaimed) propaganda DARES to do something that is much more clearly satire, but NOT in support of their agenda, they invite them to, and I quote “fck right off”.

Hypocrites.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

And ON and ON and ON…

‘Anti-theist Propaganda Oh, yeah, we’re “famous” because you posted about our page on your blog that maybe 5 people read. You’ve really made us look bad.’

First, that’s a false statement.  Second, you’re admitting that you don’t believe I caused you any harm.  Third, you did no research to substantiate that claim.  As for causing “damage” to the reputation of my website…well, that remains to be seen.  (See ‘Libel’)

‘See, what you don’t understand is there’s a f#cking huge difference between “ridicule or criticism”, and accusing people who don’t support mass murder and genocide of supporting mass murder and genocide.’

I didn’t accuse you of supporting mass murder and genocide.  Show me, where exactly I accused you of supporting mass murder and genocide.  The point that I was/am LABORING to make is that there is no “magic cure” for all the world’s problems.  I was using satire to poke fun at the claim that, and I quote, “religion sucks” and that, and I’m paraphrasing here…”the next step in human evolution will occur when religion is done away with”.  The extreme example I used, Pol Pot, was intended as exactly that: an extreme example to show that your “theory” is absurd.  Now, if YOU take that in a radically different way than what I intended, that’s not MY problem…that’s YOUR misinterpretation.

‘If I went onto your blog and started accusing you of being a Nazi or a kiddy fiddler, that wouldn’t be ridicule or criticism, it would be stupidity and slander. Same goes for the bullsh1t you’ve been posting here.’

You’re implying, again, that I accused you of what you said I accused you of as quoted above.  And I believe I have already answered that incorrect suggestion.  Also, slander is spoken…the correct term for what you’re accusing me of is “libel”…which I explain above, regarding your comments directed at my website.

‘So you’ve gone from claiming you were trying to “educate people about Pol Pot” to claiming that your posts were “a joke”.
Get your story straight.’

I was trying to do both, as described above.  It’s called “satire”.

‘I’m just saying for someone who wants people to think they were just kidding all along, you sure did come on pretty strong about Pol Pot being an example of antitheism being taken to its logical extreme and all of us being guilty by association.’

“Wants people to think?” No, you see that implies that I WASN’T being satirical IN ANY WAY, in your opinion, and that I believe the logical conclusion to antitheism is mass murder and genocide.  Which I do not.  Therefore, your statement is false.  If you BELIEVE that the logical extreme of antitheism is mass murder and genocide, then that’s not MY problem…and it’s not MY fault if my satire makes you feel “guilty”, if it does…I mean, what you’re saying here is that you believe I think all antitheists are supporters of genocide and mass murder…at least, that’s the impression that I get.  And my response to that, quite frankly, is go FCK yourself.

‘You’re playing with semantics, and I’m not biting.’

Semantics (n): The study of the relationship between words and their meanings.

Are you saying I should use words without regard to their meanings?  Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of using words?

‘As for how many readers you had, I simply made
a subjective evaluation of your site design and content, and thought “surely there couldn’t be more than five people who would put up with this on a regular basis”. wink’

Do you know the only difference between this “joking” comment and my supposedly “libelous” ones?  There’s a wink-smilie at the end of it.

So, if I had put a wink-smilie on my first post, everything would be hunky-dory?

And a “subjective evaluation” is NOT “adequate research”.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

I refuse to believe in this conversation, but neither do I disbelieve in it.

‘Let’s look at what you’ve done here.’

See, I was right!  Ve-ry su-per-sti-tious…

‘You’ve just compared the admins of a Facebook page to one of the most brutal, misanthropic, insane dictators of recent history.’

I was just ridiculing your just-as-absurd generalizations about ALL religions.  According to your own page’s description: “NOTHING is above ridicule”.  So why can’t I ridicule you?  You do exist, do you not?  And are therefore a “thing”?  So according to your mission statement, I’m doing your job for you.

‘Then you try and act like you have the moral high ground and were just trying to make some kind of point.’

See above.

‘Your extreme example is meaningless.’

Your entire goal is to eliminate religion, in the insane belief that will produce the “next stage of human evolution”.  My extreme example points out that it’s not QUITE that simple…try watching “How To Do It”.

‘You are not making a point here’

If I am saying nothing, why are you bothering to respond?

‘you are not promoting education’

Sure I am.  The Wikipedia Pol Pot link got plenty of hits since I posted.  Education!

‘you are just making yourself look like a colossal a$$hole’.

Well I am colossal.  I’m tremendous.  I’m stupendous.  I’m even superlative.

‘We don’t need to block you’

You don’t need no education…

‘because every time you post you only show the readers of this page how utterly ridiculous you are.’

Well, NOTHING is above ridicule, after all…

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Post-Script

Is the following a logical statement?

“Everyone should think for themselves and make their own decisions.  Therefore, if you want to know what free-thinkers should think and why, come to X and we’ll tell you.”

Or, you can just do your own independent research, evaluate all the available information, decide what you truly believe, and live by it.

I’ll go with the second…BUT you don’t have to…

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Just Sayin’

I have no problem with ANYONE because of their faith/lack thereof.

I have a problem with hypocrites/propagandists.

Propaganda, by definition, aims at treating people like sheep.

I prefer my free-thinkers to think freely of their own volition, without being stimulated a la Pavlov.

Propaganda (n):  A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

Excerpts from FB’s ‘Anti-theist Propaganda’ page

‘Hi Aaron, thanks for sharing.’

Ummm…you’re welcome, Joel.  You know, I expected something really nasty in response…

‘On behalf of everyone on this page, I’d like to cordially invite you to f#ck right off.’

Like that.  And since we’re supposed to be about TRUTH and FACTS, why do you say you “cordially” invite me to fck off?  You’re ANGRY…you’re DENYING the truth. You are LYING.  How is that promoting “truth”?

‘If you know anything about Pol Pot, you’d know that his motivations and actions are so far removed from anything we endorse that your comparison is beyond ridiculous.’

It was an extreme example used to promote thought and education.  Worked, didn’t it?  So…what’s the problem?  Extreme “examples” are great when they serve your agenda, but they’re horrific when they don’t?  I don’t get it…’splain, please.

‘We…promote education for the benefit of the human race.’

So I just educated hundreds, perhaps THOUSANDS of people who, before my post, did NOT know that Pol Pot was a crusading atheist who tortured and killed people for refusing to NOT believe.  So…why aren’t you promoting me?  Isn’t that for the benefit of humanity, to show that you can be anti-theist and still be a total scumbag?  How can you not understand this?

‘Although as anti-theists we are in a position of vehement opposition to religious belief we would never condone violence,’

So you’re saying that, even though you encourage freethinking, NOONE who likes your page/agrees with your anti-theism would EVER commit an act of violence?  Please…now who’s spreading fairy tales?

‘believing that a freethinking individual is entitled to make their own choices’

Ok.  So what you’re saying is, by this direct, unedited quote…is that you think everyone should make up their own mind.  Great.  Point made.  So why do you keep making the same point over and over and over and over again?  Your page makes sweeping generalizations about how everyone that is religious is “brainwashed”…that’s as absurd as saying that EVERY anti-theist is a fanatical POS like Pol Pot.  Oh wait…how is the second any worse than the first? 

WAIT…I’ve got it…because I refuse to be brainwashed into thinking I’m brainwashed…I’m brainwashed.  Got it.

‘and that our duty to our fellow humans is not to force them to share our beliefs but simply to empower them to make up their own minds.

This stands in stark contrast to the Khmer Rouge regime of death
which sought to destroy all educated people and force an entire
country to serve one man’s twisted vision of an extreme socialist state.’

Well, I’ve made up my own mind.  But I’ve got a strange feeling that you WON’T leave me alone…I’ve got a strange…call it a “superstition”…that you’ll send ANOTHER message to me, or someone else will say something really nasty.  Which sort of goes against what you just said, huh?

‘Your earlier statement likening our opposition of religion to “skinning nonconformists alive” is equally absurd, not least because in the countries where most of us are from, religious belief is the norm and atheism is seen as the nonconformist position.’

I was referring to Pol Pot, atheist/anti-theist.  Pol Pot DID, in FACT (since you insist on facts, why don’t you accept them and applaud me for providing them?) skin people alive (among other forms of torture) as well as force them to dig their own graves before being beaten and thrown in, often buried alive by the Khmer Rouge.  The POINT is…your little dream of “doing away with religion will make the world a happy, peaceful wonderful place and everyone will be shiny and happy” is just as absurd as any other fairy tale taken seriously…and Pol Pot is a FACTUAL example of  how your “perfect world” can go HORRIBLY wrong.  But what do I know…I’m not an anti-theist.

‘Many of us either face or fear discrimination on the basis of our lack of religious belief. So maybe you should re-check your perspective.’

You live in Australia, do you not?  I wasn’t aware of the fanatical religious groups that dominated the Australian sphere of influence. Ummm…see below:

“Australia has no state religion, and section 116 of the Australian Constitution prohibits the federal government from making any law to establish any religion, impose any religious observance, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion” – Wikipedia
—

‘Religions suck.’ – Wow, that’s really profound.  Who wrote this, Anton LaVey?

‘One thing we know is clear- NOTHING should be above ridicule or criticism.’ – Including your page.

‘You are the enemy’ – I thought you meant only to educate/enlighten…”enemy” sounds very…what is the word…dangerous.  Hey, see ‘Pol Pot’ above.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Monty Python’s The Meaning Of Life (1983)

Visually impressive, with some good bits and really bad taste.

But this has always been the coldest, most cynical, least inspired, least structured, most inconsistent and just plain least interesting of the Python films…and the fact that on my 4th viewing the only thing I was pleasantly surprised to see again was Mr. Creosote is very depressing to me.

‘Flying Circus’ took clever and dared you to ignore it.  This takes clever and shoves it down your throat.

The ending song from ‘Life Of Brian’ said more on “meaning” than this whole movie does.

Grade: D

The Video Dead (1987)

It’s kinda nice to see something light after a creepy ‘Twilight Zone’ episode.  Oh wait…this is a “horror” movie.  Somewhat gory, but mostly CHEEZY.

If you like really, really bad movies with horrific scripts, and you’ve already seen ‘Troll 2’ and ‘Hobo With A Shotgun’, this might sorta do the trick.  Otherwise it’s useless.

They’re not so much “flesh eating zombies” as they are “easily amused human lifters”.

Inspirational Quote: “My goose is cooked…I could get reform school for this!”

Grade: D-

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 14)

I’m the captain, the original EAM is ‘Let Me In’, the new one is ‘Let The Right One In’.

Vis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-k3U3qiqjI&feature=related

-Puppy/Crimson Tide(TM, all rights reserved them)

1/11/14: Disney you SUCK! (If you really wanna watch the clip, it’s the part of the movie where they get into a slowly-building tense argument).

Let The Right One In (2008)

Before I watched it, first thought: this will be a necessary but otherwise irrelevant and amateurish rough draft for the superior remake (‘Let Me In’).

After watching it, I realized that I was correct.  It’s necessary if only because if it hadn’t been made, there’d be nothing to remake.  But otherwise it’s an inferior carbon copy…think a tolerable but merely decent if innovative old blues song reworked by Led Zeppelin.  You might admire the first more, but how many people would honestly rather LISTEN to the first more?

Differences that don’t matter: ‘Deliverance’-ness, credits done by Holy Grail Llamas.

Differences that do: less subtle, less challenging, longer but less flowing in progression, worse acting, dumber henchman.

In short, my first thought was right.  It’s not bad…but ‘Let Me In’ is much better.  And, since they’re virtually exactly the same apart from that which is noted above, this one is rendered redundant and irrelevant.  Any claims that ‘Let Me In’ is a “different” version of the book are nonsense…it’s a remake.  But it’s a far superior remake.  ‘Psycho’ the original ain’t.

So no, I don’t prefer the “dumb” American version over the “smart” original version.  It’s closer to the opposite, really.  But thanks for the idea, Sweden.

Grade: B-

Binders Full Of Mitt

Comments on Mitt Romney’s “Binders full of women”:

– I think someone should create a song hooked around him saying that over and over again, like Orb’s “Fluffy Clouds”

– On a serious note, the Jon Gruden-esque pauses Mitt made while trying to think of what the *BLEEP* (his mental note) to say illustrate how unprepared/unconcerned he was with the question.  He just wanted to not totally fck up and move on to something that actually MATTERED to him.

– These binders, did they actually contain women, or just the names of women?  Because if the former, that’d be a neat trick…”Binder Of Holding: Value 20,000 Gold Pieces”

– If Obama ever sees himself behind in the polls after this, he should echo Jon Lovitz’s comment (hopefully with better results) after 3,000 points of light – “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”

-Puppy >.< Yip!