Daily BirthdaysSusan Sarandon Forum (2)
| ||
| by babak my lady you are the best actress i see your movies for2000 you were the best in thelma+louise atlantic city+dead man walking i love you Comment on this... |
| ||
| by Fred I knew you were a Liberal, must of been those LESBO tendencies I've seen in you. Comment on this... |
| ||||
| by MIKE Plain Speak Print Friendly Format E-Mail this to a Friend By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder Published 4/25/2003 12:04:00 AM If you were to say that President Bush will be recorded in history as one of America's greatest Presidents, three out of four people would either laugh, smirk, or break out in a sweat. Are you serious? they would say. Have you ever heard him talk? How could a fumbling talker be called a great President? They'd take your remark as a personal insult. Somehow these easily insulted people never think of asking this simple question: Who ever proved that fluency in speech has anything to do with intelligence? Only a lack of intelligence would make someone believe there's a correlation. The "Bushisms" that characterize the president's mixed-up speech have exposed nothing about Bush. They've only exposed and revealed the ignorance of so many Americans. If it were true that a smooth talker is a better thinker, the IQ of a used-car salesman would be ten times higher than Albert Einstein's. Moreover, the guy on television selling tapes that will enable you to buy up a whole city of real estate even without 10 cents in your pocket would win a Pulitzer Prize in philosophy. We have all heard the cliché about a man who is a talker not a doer. That is why personnel directors all know that you cannot judge a prospective worker simply by the impression he makes in an interview, because it is not unusual for people to "talk a good game" who can accomplish nothing. That is why the ability to talk is always referred to as the "gift of gab" because it is given freely to people who have achieved nothing to deserve it. If the ability to talk had any connection with the ability to think, why is it that the man on the street who is begging for help talks so much better than Bill Gates? Why does the host of a television show whose only accomplishment in life is the possession of a clear throat talk so much better than his guest who just wrote a best-seller that will cure every disease, except a Jewish woman's with a headache? Almost every time you talk to a parent of two children, you hear the same story. He has one child who is a genius, but because he is self-conscious about his other child, who is not quite so bright, he will always try to save the situation with an emotional outburst about what a great talker this other kid is. Grasping for air he will start yelling, "He is not a great scholar (in other words he is still in high school at the age of 38) -- but what a talker he is! He could sell you anything whether you want to buy it or not." You could bet that this parent may even start to believe he's telling the truth, though in fact he's not. It is generally true that the better the thinker the worse the talker because he is too busy thinking to waste his time talking. Watch the most brilliant minds on PBS and try to listen to them talk, you will find that you will not be awake for very long. By the time the first one finishes his first sentence, you will have lost any need for your sleeping pills. However, if you switch to Jerry Springer, you will find that when his guests are not punching each other, they are such great talkers that they make an unbelievable story sound like an epic drama (and they are doing it the hard way because they are also talking through a kilo of cocaine still clogged in their noses). Either way, we have here two more categories of people that are quick to judge a President according to the quickness of his tongue instead of the sharpness of his mind. But the best category we've saved for last. Ironically, we all know that it probably takes less intelligence to succeed as an actor than at any other profession. Nevertheless, actors have decided to become the chief critics and judges of the Bush presidency. If your mind is hardly working, there is no doubt that you can still succeed as an actor. If you compared the IQ rating of all the professions in the world, the acting professional would probably be identified with a lower number than the job of shoveling snow. At least shoveling snow requires the brains to handle a shovel whereas acting requires no ability to handle anything. Shoveling snow also requires a man to work alone making his own decisions. An actor is not required to think at all. Before he says a word the director tells him how to say it and since it takes three months to shoot a movie an actor only has to learn how to say a total of one sentence a day and he doesn't even have to memorize it. A script girl is at his side to repeat the line to him every 90 seconds because the director does not have enough confidence in his ability to remember it. If he gets it wrong, he has an average of three days to correct it, and after spending a month with this kind of intellectual challenge he comes out an expert on foreign policy, the chief architect of what to do with the environment, how to handle North Korea, and, despite his never having read a book unless there was a part for him in the movie, he also becomes an authority on the subject of nuclear proliferation. Moreover, he attacks the President everyday about the war in Iraq, even though if he were asked to look at a map and identify Iraq he would probably point to Pittsburgh. An actor is the living proof that talking has nothing to do with intelligence. And that a big mouth can work perfectly with a small mind. Jackie Mason is a comedian. Raoul Felder is a lawyer. Comment on this... | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
| by MIKE MORONS Comment on this... | ||||
|
| ||||
| by Fed Up I'd like to vote for no more comments from the above mentioned person. Comment on this... | ||||
|
| ||||
| by Mike If you are Anti-War but Pro-Troops, where were you when they came home? No money in it for the Democratic National Committee, hunh? Moron. Comment on this... | ||||
|
| ||
| by Mike Hollywood anti-war set needs some new lines April 8, 2003 BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement TO: Jennifer Aniston, George Clooney, Sheryl Crow, David Duchovny, Janeane Garofalo, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Woody Harrelson, Jessica Lange, Michael Moore, Edward Norton, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Eddie Vedder, et al. RE: Operation Iraqi Freedom Dear Celebrity Anti-War Activist: Over the last several weeks and months, you have used your status as a person of fame to tell the world you're against the war with Iraq, which you believe to be unwarranted, unethical, unconstitutional and un-American. Some of you have said you "hate" President George W. Bush (hello, Jessica Lange!), while others have expressed mere contempt for the president and his policies. Even though you are among the luckiest and best-rewarded human beings in the history of civilization, you have moaned long and loud about life in the oppressive United States of America. And you have complained that free speech is practically an endangered species--though it's not as if you've been kidnapped, bound and gagged for expressing your views. You have talked about how ashamed you are to be an American. You have said you believe this is a war for oil conducted by a power-hungry simpleton in the White House. You have given speeches at awards ceremonies. You've marched in the streets and held forth at anti-war rallies. You've gone on talk shows and you've written op-ed pieces and you've signed letters and you've flashed the peace sign every time you've gone out in public. Even after the fighting began and U.S. troops started risking their lives to fight for the very freedoms you've been enjoying--including the right to speak out against government policies--you refused to let the drumbeats of war drown out your voices of dissent. Fine. You've made your point. And if you want to keep on with the the marching and the protesting and the grandstanding and the speech-making, well God bless America, that's your right. But I'm just wondering: If you're such a crusader for kindness and decency and the rules of fair play, when are you going to say something about the atrocities committed by Iraqis since this war broke out? Stop right there. I can already hear you launching into your well-practiced diatribe about how none of these things would be happening in the first place if not for that warmonger Bush--but that doesn't answer my question. My question is, why are you not condemning the unconscionable acts of terrorism committed by Iraqis? Since the fighting began, American troops have conducted themselves with much honor and courage and have engaged in the traditional rules of war. We've seen story after story about U.S. troops coming to the aid of wounded enemy soldiers, image after image of Americans comforting Iraqi children, quote after quote from American troops expressing deep regret after killing soldiers and civilians who would not surrender or kept charging, even after repeated warnings. On the other side, some Iraqi soldiers have posed as civilians and faked surrender in order to ambush allied forces. Then there are the suicide terrorists, like the noncommissioned Iraqi officer in civilian clothes who pretended to be a taxi driver and waved to U.S. soldiers for help--only to blow himself up and take four American soldiers with him. We've also seen American POWs mistreated on Iraq TV. The Fedayeen have been known to use civilians, even children, as human shields. They stage military operations from hospitals. In one incident, Iraqi soldiers fired at a U.S. helicopter that was evacuating wounded Iraqis. Even if you believe we have no business being in Iraq, you can't possibly endorse any of the tactics used by a significant percentage of Iraqis. They are cowards and they are scum and they are war criminals. So, Ms. Garofalo and Mr. Sheen and Mr. Moore and Mr. Robbins: Why not hold a press conference to condemn these acts? How about taking out ads in USA Today and the New York Times so you can sign your names to a petition expressing your outrage at this behavior? How about donating your talents to a fund-raiser for the families of fallen American soldiers? At the very least you can update your anti-war speeches to include words of praise for the likes of Jessica Lynch, and words of protest against the Iraqi thugs. I'm not asking you to march in the streets of Baghdad to protest these atrocities. You can make your point from the comfort and safety of your home turf--the same launching point for all your verbal missiles against the American government. It won't mean you're against the war. It'll just mean you have a sense of perspective and honor, and that your hatred and contempt isn't reserved exclusively for the president of the United States. War criminals need loathing, too. Don't be afraid to say it. Sincerely, Richard Roeper Comment on this... |
| ||
| by Mike Oliver Stone gets the ax Mona Charen (archive) April 18, 2003 | Print | Send Tim Robbins, call your office. The "chill wind" he detected in the nation is at it again. This time, HBO has decided to pull "Commandante," Oliver Stone's adulatory "documentary" about Fidel Castro, from its May lineup. "In light of recent alarming events in Cuba," an HBO spokesman explained, the network decided "not to air Oliver Stone's film in May as scheduled. Had we aired the film in March, I don't think we would have had an issue with it. But now, the arrests and trials are an important piece of what's going on in Cuba, and the film's incomplete." It's all a matter of timing. Castro has been rounding up and arresting dissidents for decades -- but that wouldn't have affected HBO's willingness to air a fawning tribute. It was just so unseemly for Castro to do his dirty business just before the film was about to air. One wonders whether Oliver Stone is embarrassed by the dragnet Castro has spread over the island. (Of course, one wonders whether Stone is capable of shame.) What does the good director think when he reads of more than 80 independent journalists and human rights activists arrested? On April 2, 2003, a number of Cuban men hijacked a ferry and attempted to make the 90-mile trip to Florida. The ferry ran out of gas and was towed back to Cuba. Last week, three of the hijackers were given one-day trials and then executed by firing squad. Four others received between two and 30 years in prison. Hijacking is serious business, of course, but these executions seem to be part of a wider crackdown on dissent. (Just by the way, why do liberal groups always say that the United States and China are the only countries in the world that practice capital punishment?) Hijacking may deserve the death penalty, but not after a one day trial. Besides, it looks pretty obvious that these hijackers were motivated by a desperate hope to escape Cuba, and nothing more sinister than that. Castro's crackdown began late last year, when the security services began arresting dissidents for offenses like running small businesses and selling food or other goods from their homes -- widespread practices that permit Cubans to scrape by, but which are illegal under Cuba's communist system. The human rights movement in Cuba has been picking up steam despite the regime's ferocious repression. Recently, a petition demanding free elections garnered more than 20,000 signatures in a country of 11 million. Now more than 80 dissidents are being tried in what the State Department has condemned as "kangaroo courts." No outside observers. No independent journalists. And, it need hardly be added, since Cuba is one of the last Stalinist nations on earth, no possibility of acquittal. According to Ann Louise Bardach, writing on The New York Times op-ed page, "Commandante," Stone's encomium to Castro, depicted the dictator "in a chummy mood, affable, playful, sometimes defensive, yet exposing more of his personality than most Americans are used to seeing." At the recent Sundance Film Festival, Stone described Castro as "warm and bright ... a very driven man, a very moral man. He's very concerned about his country. He's selfless in that way." But not quite selfless enough to hold a free election, eh Oliver? In a way, this story is the same old same old. Lefty Hollywood type lionizes a communist thug -- ignoring copious evidence that the man is a despot and a monster. Like Leni Riefenstahl producing admiring film portraits of Hitler, Oliver Stone is able to find the positive side of Castro. But there is a new twist to this story. HBO has pulled the plug. What got into them? Am I wrong in thinking this would not have played out as it did absent the Iraq War? Surely the revelations about Saddam's torture chambers and children's prison have diminished everyone's tolerance for dictators. Well, maybe not Oliver Stone's. If he and Michael Moore are seeking a good retirement spot, they might consider Havana. Comment on this... |
| ||
| by Mike by Mike Hot air sometimes prompts a chilly wind Kathleen Parker (archive) April 19, 2003 | Print | Send For those who haven't heard, a chill wind is blowing through our nation. So sayeth actor Tim Robbins, significant other and parenting partner of fellow actor Susan Sarandon, speaking a few days ago at the National Press Club. Robbins was expressing his concern about the increasingly fragile First Amendment - the same one that was protecting his speech that day - particularly as he and Sarandon have noted their popularity plummeting in certain quarters. "A chill wind is blowing in this nation," Robbins intoned. "A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown: 'If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.'" In a phrase, swamp gas. Robbins' sudden constitutional concerns have arisen from what he and Sarandon interpret as their being censored owing to their anti-war position. Both have been outspoken in their opposition to the U.S. strike against Iraq. Both have been rewarded in recent weeks with rejection by parts of the private sector. Sarandon was uninvited to speak at a Florida conference on women's leadership. The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., canceled a 15th anniversary celebration of the baseball movie "Bull Durham" that was to include appearances by Sarandon and Robbins. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the cancellations (I disagree for the same reason one ignores a showoff), one thing needs to be clear. That chill wind Robbins feels isn't coming from a censorious or conspiratorial White House - which is busy frying somewhat larger fish - but is the cool response of consumers enjoying a free market. Welcome, in other words, to the real world. Just as Robbins and Sarandon (and I) have a right to speak as we please, a free marketplace provides that consumers have a right not to buy, or listen to, or otherwise subsidize products, ideas or people they find unappealing. It's called choice, which everyone seems to understand when they're doing the choosing. But Robbins and Sarandon, who have occupied the lofty heights of stardom, aren't accustomed to the firefights that take place on America's streets. When they descend from the protected planet of Hollywood, they're shocked to discover that some would decline their warm embrace. In his defense, Robbins is justifiably outraged that some of the public's scorn has been directed toward his children. He's also right to criticize the more rabid reactionaries who propose death to anti-war activists. I don't blame him for being angry and bent on revenge vis-à-vis his press club appearance. Let's hear it again for free speech, by the way. The man is permitted his podium. But where is Robbins' passion and outrage toward America's real enemies, the terrorists who attacked us and the countries that protect or support them? This is what Robbins is missing and what other Americans find so appalling. In his speech, Robbins noted, for example, that after 9-11, he "held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of all this." He hoped that the United States would send a message to terrorists: "If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of fire, we will be reborn." His message, straight from the we-deserved-it school of self-loathing, characterizes much of the war opposition: If only we had been better people, none of this ever would have happened. Given our badness, we can do no good. Zen master Robbins wants to send terrorists to the corner for "time out" and convene a support group for self-improvement, while the rest of America - the 75 percent or so who support the war - are scrambling for Terminator's phone number. As for "something good," does letting children out of prison and ending the sidewalk beheadings of women count? Robbins ended his talk as he began it - by flattering the assembled media, some of whom couldn't resist applauding themselves. "The fate of discourse, the health of this republic is in your hands," he said portentously. " . This is your time, and the destiny you have chosen." I think I speak for my fellow journalists when I say, 'Thank you, Grasshopper." I feel like a better person already and plan to surge like a phoenix just as soon as our soldiers get the rest of those screaming people out of those underground dungeons. Meantime, feel free to ignore this column. It's a free country Comment on this... |
| ||||
| by Mike If I find a way, I will pursue this to the utmost. I am not the only one who feels this way. As far as what "has Iraq done to us"... Oh, never mind. Moron. ____________________ 16 May, 1918 The U.S. Sedition Act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.... Comment on this... | ||||
|
| << Previous Page | Next Page >> |