Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
I heard on the radio the other day that Rush Limbough was saying on his show that he hoped that the new Congressional leaders would call him and discuss policy and issues and such. Of course, my first thought was “sure he wants them to call him…he’s not going to have anything to talk about for 2 years if he gets cut off from DC.”
Now, it seems like Rush has nothing to worry about. In about 8 months (remember that for the over/under…I’ve got 8 months…let’s call it June) the first big Democratic scandal over something will come out. So someone tell Rush he just has to limp along till June.
Oh, and uh…brains and stuff…..yeah, brains…..everyone just put down the guns/broadswords/katanas/tire irons, and we’ll get along just fine….
Now, it seems like Rush has nothing to worry about.
He never did (unless there’s another drug scandal in his future). Those kinds of folks do best when they can bìŧçh about the way things are without taking any blame. That’s why I was so surprised that Air America didn’t take off (Well, the fact that the shows were terrible didn’t help).
So….now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?
I would not be surprised if his ratings have been down these last few years and experience an upturn now. On the other hand, Keith Olberman’s ratings ahve been growing lately and it will be interesting to see if they continue.
O’Rielly has been the smartest one, casting himself (truthfully or not) as a populist willing to take on both sides.
Of course, if Limabaugh and the rest have gotten to like the feeling of being invited to big DC parties and being considered as movers and shalers, then yeah, this must have come as a blow. But if ratings and viewership still matter they should be happy.
“Single murder” is your wording and is not an ambiguous term.
If we can’t go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?
Except, I’m not asking you to take my word for anything.
They are plainly worded phrases that match. The only virtue in denying they match is to shelter racism, macaca.
You repeatedly characterize me as having gone “full speed over the cliff of insanity,” but you never refer to anything I’ve said. Are you so needy that you insist on settling disagreements by your word alone? Is that how it works in your fantasy world?
I’m sorry Craig, I can’t imagine anyone being stupid enough to step in and try and muddy the interpretation of “single murder” other than the person trying to defend his statement. But there you are.
“So….now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?”
I’ve always found this to be a false argument. You can do both and very easily explain it.
Say you have an outbreak that takes out a city the size of New York. Patient zero appears on day one and by day seven you have 65% of the population infected. These zombies were alive within the last seven days. These are your zombies that are every bit as quick and strong as humans. By day ten, 85% of the population has been infected. You still have fast zombies, but the first wave are slowing down due to the various processes that follow the infection’ attack on the mind and body. By day fourteen, you are dealing with 95% infection. Most of your zombies are the slow and weaker then an average human type with only a hand full of runners in there. By day twenty-one, you have the moaning, shambling mob.
I’ve always thought that this would be a more realistic zombie scenario. It would take time for the body to degenerate after infection. This also gives you a mix of scares with an interesting mix of threats. You start out with just a few fast zombies. They’re dangerous even in their lower numbers. By the end of a month, you now have zombies in overwhelming numbers that are not so fast, so strong or so powerful that it’s stupidly unrealistic for a handful of humans to be able to survive in the minds of viewers/readers. However, you still have a threat to your heroes in the sheer numbers of zombies that they now have to face.
Slow or fast? Jerry’s got an interesting approach. I think there’s a sequal to 28 days later, called 28 weeks later, being made. Maybe we’ll see some of that in it?
The Walking Dead uses a cold/temperature approach, with colder zombies moving slower, to the point where if it gets to freezing, they stop alltogether. Also interesting, although the zombies there, in addition to being living-challenged, are pigment challenged as well.
Zombies eat brains. I don’t have one. So they got nothin’.
I say, bring it on, you candy-ášš Zombie losers! I’ll PWN you.
“Somewhere, in a small Catholic church, a writer for the Daily Show is lighting a candle.”
The Church of the Sacred Irony
“Believe it or not, that’s sort of part of the premise of the sequel to our recently concluded movie THE FOREVER DEAD. I’m about 2/3 of the way done on the script and it’s getting to the point where I’ll have to make painful cuts to get in all the stuff I want.”
Are you serious? I wasn’t sure, beceause we were discussing the serious threat of Zombies, and you started talking about movies.
If you are serious, I’d like to hear more about it.
“So….now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?”
It depends on the brand of coffee they drink.
“If we can’t go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?”
Mike, did you start quiting and arguing with yourself? I’m not sure.
“Except, I’m not asking you to take my word for anything.
“ANY racially motivated murder” is Bill Mulligan’s choice of words
“Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is from Lemkin’s definition
They are plainly worded phrases that match.”
Context, Mike.
I say, bring it on, you candy-ášš Zombie losers! I’ll PWN you.
You’ll pawn them? Well, ok, but don’t expect to get much.
Even though I’ve been in 3 zombie movies (SECOND DEATH, THE FOREVER DEAD, Z-13, for those keeping score) and all 3 had fast zombies, I’m still partial to the slow movers. They make for a great allegory to death itself–it ain’t fast but it gets you in the end.
Of course it can be argued that only the Romero and Fulci movies (and a few others) feature “true” zombies. In Romero’s world, any death results in a zombie, even a natural death. The recent DAWN OF THE DEAD has the more current genre rule of only those dying from a zombie bite coming back. In that scenario you can go from alive to zombie with nary a blink, while in the Romero world you may spend a bit of time dead and rotting, hence the slow shuffle.
It’s easier to see how the Romero World fell apart so fast, since any death anywhere creates it’s own little zombie epidemic. It’s a little more difficult to rationalize how quikly it all goes to hëll in the newer zombie movies.
(28 DAYS LATER is in a category of its own. The monsters are not really zombies at all, though close enough for government work, but their mode of infection is so virulent that it’s easy to see how things got so bad).
I say, bring it on, you candy-ášš Zombie losers! I’ll PWN you.
You’ll pawn them? Well, ok, but don’t expect to get much.
Even though I’ve been in 3 zombie movies (SECOND DEATH, THE FOREVER DEAD, Z-13, for those keeping score) and all 3 had fast zombies, I’m still partial to the slow movers. They make for a great allegory to death itself–it ain’t fast but it gets you in the end.
Of course it can be argued that only the Romero and Fulci movies (and a few others) feature “true” zombies. In Romero’s world, any death results in a zombie, even a natural death. The recent DAWN OF THE DEAD has the more current genre rule of only those dying from a zombie bite coming back. In that scenario you can go from alive to zombie with nary a blink, while in the Romero world you may spend a bit of time dead and rotting, hence the slow shuffle.
It’s easier to see how the Romero World fell apart so fast, since any death anywhere creates it’s own little zombie epidemic. It’s a little more difficult to rationalize how quikly it all goes to hëll in the newer zombie movies.
(28 DAYS LATER is in a category of its own. The monsters are not really zombies at all, though close enough for government work, but their mode of infection is so virulent that it’s easy to see how things got so bad).
“I think there’s a sequal to 28 days later, called 28 weeks later, being made. Maybe we’ll see some of that in it?”
We kind of saw that at the very end of 28 Days Later with the infected starving to death and unable to lift themselves off of the ground. Besides, I never saw that as a real zombie movie. The victims didn’t die as much as they flew into an insane rage created by a man-made infection. Zombie-like, but not really zombie.
“…with colder zombies moving slower, to the point where if it gets to freezing, they stop alltogether.”
You really should track down the Max Brooks (Mel’s son) book I mentioned to Bill above. And his new one, World War Z, seems pretty good so far. I’ve only just started that one as I got it the other day as a birthday gift.
And, Bill, you still haven’t said what the job pays. I need to know. I may be easy (just ask my wife), but I ain’t cheap.
“Zombies eat brains. I don’t have one. So they got nothin’.”
Actually, zombies eat everything. They seem to really like guts more then anything else. Go rent Land of the Dead or one of the other Romero films. The others, like the Fulci films, may be harder to find.
My, my…. Mulligan has a GIN-U-WINE listing on IMDB. I must now go sulk and hate you for your success. ;-(
Sulk/hate is over now. That’s pretty cool, Bill. 🙂
“Single murder” is your wording and is not an ambiguous term.
Wow, you’re so talented, Mike, that not only do you assume somebody else made my post, not only that, but then you say that I’m stupid because you did it.
But then, I wasn’t trying to muddy anything.
I was just pointing out how much of an idiot you are. Apparently I didn’t do it in plain enough English for you, because you were the moron with the grudge dumb enough to attribute what I said to somebody else.
Again, that wonderful power of logic you have, in action…
My, my…. Mulligan has a GIN-U-WINE listing on IMDB. I must now go sulk and hate you for your success. ;-(
Wha wha what??
(pause while I check this out)
Well boy howdy! And I guess I should have a second listing real soon! (I have to ask Christine, the director how this works–is the one movie there becasue it has an offical DVD release? THE FOREVER DEAD actually had 5 theatrical showings (and a guy in Sweden of all places wants to show it there. I would SO love to hear it dubbed. “Looooky doooky her der fer be zooooomby”)
You know, if any of you are ever anywhere near Sanford NC I’ll bet I could make sure you got in a zombie movie. It’s not like there isn’t one being made almost every weekend. And i’ll be in most of them if I have my way.
Are you serious? I wasn’t sure, beceause we were discussing the serious threat of Zombies, and you started talking about movies.
If you are serious, I’d like to hear more about it.
Well you can read all about THE FOREVER DEAD at Christine Parker’s blog http://blog.myspace.com/adrenalin_productions
Go to the archives and read it from the beginning. It’s a better story than the movie itself, frankly.
the sequel is something I’m trying very hard to do a good job on, a zombie movie that actualy has something to say. But I’ll be sending it out to anyone who wants to read it when I finish and you can tell me whether or not I pulled it off. Thee movies take too long to shoot to bother doing one that has to overcome a bad script.
Well, let me rephrase, then.
“Single murder” is still not ambiguous.
What aren’t you sure of, Micha?
If Sean Scullion had responded with “Your powers of logic are incredible” he would have been making a defensive non-reply. It would have been wrong, but it still would have made sense.
Instead, you made a defensive non-reply for him. This is not only wrong, but it makes no observable sense. Overestimating intelligence is a mistake more commonly made when addressing stupid people. I overrestimated your intelligence.
Again, “single murder” is not ambiguous. It was Sean Scullion’s disqualification for genocide. That means, according to him, two murders can qualify for genocide. What is your problem, Craig?
There is no ambiguity. What context is missing?
I’ll take your inability to reply as an admission of your neediness, Jerry. Pitiful.
“Your powers of logic are incredible.”
While I agree with this, I DIDN’T WRITE IT. Craig was the one who observed this. In the immortal words of John Whorfin, I hates to be mistaken for a somebody else.
Anytime I can work John Whorfin into a conversation, I’m happy. No, Mike didn’t make me happy. Craig made me happy by lighting another little fire under Mike. Funny. Someone who’s so concerned about the accuracy of a definition can’t be accurate as to who said what when he could, I don’t know, go up the thread a few posts to see it.
“They are plainly worded phrases that match.” Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match. However, in the case of genocide, there is more ADDED to the phrase.
Hey, Bill, you ever need someone to help with one of your movies, I’m nowhere near either Carolina in the morning, or any other time, but I writes a mean horror story, I does. That and the fact that I’m an editor(got Premiere Pro rendering a project as I type this) you know, maybe I could help. And a buddy of mine is a make-up artist, and a FINER one you won’t find, if he does say so himself. But he is pretty good.
Great. Now I have to go buy Mulligan’s movie from Amazon. Wait…Zombies from the Amazon…I’m seeing a movie, here!
“Except, I’m not asking you to take my word for anything.
“ANY racially motivated murder” is Bill Mulligan’s choice of words
“Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is from Lemkin’s definition
They are plainly worded phrases that match.
Context, Mike.
There is no ambiguity. What context is missing?”
The context of Bill’s full argument and the context of the definition and phenomenon of genocide. Phrases derive meaning from context.
And just for you. The Britannica’s definition of Genocide. Note the context of the part you like to quote.
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group. The word, from the Greek genos, meaning “race,” “nation,” or “tribe,” and the Latin cide, meaning “killing,” was coined after events in Europe in 1933-45 called for a legal concept to describe the deliberate destruction of large groups. Despite many historical incidents of genocide and the modern case of the massacre of Armenians by the Turks at the outbreak of World War I, there had been no attempt until after World War II to construct a legal framework through which the international community could deal with cases of mass extermination of peoples.
In 1946, under the impact of revelations at the Nürnberg and other war-crimes trials, the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed that “genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable.” In 1948 the General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which went into effect in 1951.
The fact that under the convention genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war distinguishes it from the “crimes against humanity,” defined by the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg as acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes. Under the terms of the convention, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are also made punishable. Perpetrators may be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals. They may be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in which the act was committed or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction has been accepted by the contracting parties.
One of the results of the convention has been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an internal matter (“a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction”) but a matter of international concern. Any contracting state may call upon the United Nations to intervene and to take such action as it considers appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. See also Nürnberg trials.
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
And also the definition from the Oxford Compendium, 9th edition
genocide // n.
the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.
[Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide]
Sean, if you’d been here Sunday you would have loved it. Z-13, a low low budget movie was shooting in Greensborough and my buddy Mike (another good makeup artist) went up there to help out and be zombies. Very nice group of young filmmakers, some real talent on display.
Anyway, the thing it, the set. The set! An abandoned textile mill, in post apocalyptic condition. Paint peeling from the ceiling like spanish moss, nothing but empty space about the size of a few football fields inside. Unbe-freaking-lievable. Enough windows that we didn’t need any lighting–at the magic hour it looked like something from a Spielberg movie. And lots of creepy rooms and spiral staircases to who knows where.
This place makes you want towrite a movie just so you can film there. So if you have a good idea for a horror movie set in a giant empty factory please send it my way.
Hey, what kind of stuff do you do on Premiere?
Instead, you made a defensive non-reply for him.
Sorry, wrong again. It was actually very offensive (unless you think being called an idiot is a compliment?) on behalf of only myself.
This is not only wrong, but it makes no observable sense
Oh, it’s very much right, because it makes perfect sense, and it’s made by *gasp* my own observations of your posts on this forum.
“Well you can read all about THE FOREVER DEAD at Christine Parker’s blog http://blog.myspace.com/adrenalin_productions
Go to the archives and read it from the beginning. It’s a better story than the movie itself, frankly.
the sequel is something I’m trying very hard to do a good job on, a zombie movie that actualy has something to say. But I’ll be sending it out to anyone who wants to read it when I finish and you can tell me whether or not I pulled it off. Thee movies take too long to shoot to bother doing one that has to overcome a bad script.”
Thanks Bill. I’ll be happy to help you with your script anyway I can. I am better with helping others develop ideas than with helping myself.
Have you considered trying to combine the horror movie zombie tradition with the Voodoo zombie tradition?
Bill–DROOLING ALL OVER MY F#%^ING KEYBOARD OVER THAT SET.
Anyway, the biggest thing I’ve done in Premiere is a video for Carfax Abbey, a Philly Goth group that has had major personnel changes so they can’t use any of the live stuff in the video, but there’s still enough there that I could just insert new with the new people and not change it overmuch. Right now, tho, just working on a Danny Phantom set for my son.
Empty factory…I want the empty factory…
Micha…you are obviously a much more patient person than I am. Maybe it’s just that after teaching high school all day I have a hard time dealing with a grown man who acts worse than an adolescent but Mike is SO not worth the effort, at least judging from what he’s brought to the table thus far.
Sean–if you can only buy 1 zombie movie this year wait until December when Forever Comes out–it’s got 6 times as much me to make fun of.
Anyway–Here’s my top 10 list of zombie movies
1- Night Of The Living Dead
2- Dawn of the Dead
3- Day of the Dead
4- Land of the Dead
Romero’s films of course. The standards.
5- Zombie- Lucio Fulci was part genius/part hack and Zombie has all of his flaws and charms. A ripping good yarn and it has the single most gruesome injury to the eye ever. Not for all tastes.
6- Dead Alive- The goriest movie ever made, it ended the career of a promissing young filmmaker named Peter Jackson. We can only wonder what he might have gone on to do.
7- The Beyond- Fulci’s greatest movie. It makes no dámņ sense whatsoever. If you watch it with the idea that it’s the dream of someone on serious acid it works much better.
8- Return of the Living Dead– The only good funny-fast moving zombie movie. The best party movie that has zombies.
9- Re-Animator- In the hands of most this would have been crap but Stuart Gordon makes it work. Unrelenting.
10- Shock Waves- Peter Cushing and underwater zombies. Ultra low budget, so be forgiving. Why hasn’t THIS one been re-made?
11- Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things- About halfway through a TERRIBLE movie about hippy actors the film takes a sharp turn and turns into a pretty dámņ good zombie movie.
12- Pet Semetary- One of the better Stephen King adaptations, it works mostly because of the unflinching use of children in peril. I saw it when my ex-wife and I were trying to adopt a child and it killed me.
13- Shaun of the Dead- Funny, moving and actually a pretty good horror movie to boot. So quotable. Looking forward to HOT FUZZ from the same team.
14- Wild Zero- Insane Japanese combination of Rock and Roll and Zombies. I only have a Japanese language version so that may explain why it makes no sense but I doubt it. Still great though.
15- Cemetary Man– Little seen but very neat italian zombie movie. Beautifully shot.
Bill–DROOLING ALL OVER MY F#%^ING KEYBOARD OVER THAT SET.
Yeah and they rent it out for only $100 a day.
“Micha…you are obviously a much more patient person than I am. Maybe it’s just that after teaching high school all day I have a hard time dealing with a grown man who acts worse than an adolescent but Mike is SO not worth the effort, at least judging from what he’s brought to the table thus far.”
I’m like Michel J. Fox’s character in Back to the Future. I’m incapable of walking away from an argument. I should really join a support group: AA (Argumentatives Anonymous).
But the truth is that this argument doésn’t require much effort. And I doubt that that it will have any effect, positive or negative. Many years from now, many threads from now, the two dreaded ‘matching’ quotations will reappear, like the villains of a horror movie. It’s gorry, it’s repetative, it’s tastless, but we still enjoy it.
Back to politics for a moment–Joe Conason, who I can’t imagine anyone…well, ok, maybe one person…would be crazy enough to consider a right winger, has some interstesting things to say about Nancy Peolesi’s choice for the number 2 spot: http://nyobserver.com/20061120/20061120_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp
And if anyone thought the new congress would bring a fresh outlook to their jobs, here’s Mr Murtha himself: Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was “total crap,” but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.
(from Roll Call)
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
George Orwell, Animal farm
Most of you think I’m nuts for supporting the war. I remember the first Gulf War. I remember the TV coverage: the bombs going off, the battleships firing ordinance and the what not. I also remember the reason we were there. OIL. I am not stupid enough to believe Iraq was a threat to us at that time. The real threat was to our oil supply. The first Gulf War can actually be used to trace the origins of Al-qaeda. bin Laden believed that his people and not foreigners should drive out Saddam. Christians in the holiest of holy, outraged him and those who supported him. Anyway, our ‘alliance’ fought the war and won.(350,000 of our own troops were there)We had Saddam’s army cut off from Baghdad. Our generals were told to back off and his army survived, somewhat. The fear at the time was that any removal of Saddam would create a power vacuum that an Iranian supported leader would fill.(Saddam was the same kind of muslim as the Saudis. I forget which is which.) UN inspectors went and so forth. At the same time this was going, our government began to support local rebellions, the true reason for the no fly zones. For whatever reason, the support was withdrawn. 9/11 happens and Bush and company start planning for Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Iraq was on the plate from day one I believe. A good excuse was all that was needed. For Bush, I do believe it was personal. Why else does he have a trophy, i.e. Saddam’s weapon? While, it’s true Saddam was no threat to us, he was a threat to those we support. Notice I do not call them allies. Where did a majority of the hijackers come from? Of course, the main reason again, OIL. This is where national security acutally plays a part. Our country is the biggest user of oil. The loss of any oil from say Saudi, Iraq, Iran and so on would cripple our country. Would you believe Afghanistan also plays a part? After that war, plans to build a pipeline there became a reality.
While I support the war, I cannot support how it is being ran. There is part of the problem. Why do they call it running the war? It’s not a Wal-Mart. Anyhow, this war will not be won unless we let the Iraqis take the lead. They are relying on us too much, yet, we cannot pull out. We are in a major s***hole and the diarrhea is flowing freely. We debate the politics, but still nobody has a plan. We have plenty of ideas, I am in favor of Murtha’s. It needs some tweaking, though. A complete pull-out is out of the question. Anybody remember the footage of Soviet troops firing flares to keep Stingers off their helicopters after their Afghan trip? That could be us if change does not begin soon.
15- Cemetary Man– Little seen but very neat italian zombie movie. Beautifully shot.
Seconded.
Came out about a month ago on DVD. Get it if you can.
“You repeatedly characterize me as having gone “full speed over the cliff of insanity,” but you never refer to anything I’ve said. Are you so needy that you insist on settling disagreements by your word alone?
I’ll take your inability to reply as an admission of your neediness, Jerry. Pitiful.”
So, Mike wants proof of where and when he has shown that he very easily takes fast trips over his own short cliff of dementia and insanity? Fine, I can do that. One last time, Mad Mikey.
First, there’s this old classic from the first debate I remembered Mike from. He not only displayed his asinine levels of cutting and pasting out of context remarks to make up arguments so that his limited abilities could possibly come off as seeming to debate well, but he also threw out this little nugget that told me that he was well and truly screwed in the head. Not to mention oddly creepy.
“Posted by Mike at June 12, 2005 08:56 PM
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig’s post, and you’re all like, “Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like?” and I’m like “???” and you’re like, “If you don’t know why you’re replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like, why do you keep doing it?”
David, what’s your problem?
Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife’s neck like he’s steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?”
Turns out that this was about the same time that he kept posting a link to an article about why some dim bulb used to be a NeoCon and then quit being one without really knowing way. That should have gone a long way in showing he was nuts. Beyond it not backing the point he claimed it did (and he kept linking it over and over and over and over again), he couldn’t even seem to figure out what it was he was trying to say with it. It was almost like arguing with two different people. He would claim it proved something when arguing with one poster and then argue that it proved something opposite when debating a different poster. Early signs of the dementia.
I could remember roughly where that was because it involved the whole X-Ray thing. I’m not going to dig through a year’s worth of other postings to drag out all his other weirdness and that one does help show that he’s displayed levels of insanity or just plan creepy weirdness long before now. I did notice as well that he really liked to use one phrase at that time over and over again towards people who disagreed with his points.
“– like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.”
He seemed rather fixated on knives, pimps and høøkërš at that point in his life. Hopefully, he sought help..
Oh, wait. He hasn’t. Flash forward about a year plus…
“Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 09:33 AM
“Like how a group of defensive white guys deny “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, you needy closet eichmann?
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Ðìçk Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a høøkër’s devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hëll knows what keeps you hanging on?
Ewww, Mike goes all sexual weird on us.
You heard it here, folks: beatings are sexual. Still taking your sex education from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mulligan?
To quote John Malkovich’s Lennie Small: “Thtop thqueaming! I jutht wanna pet you! Thtop thqueaming!””
Still obsessing over pimps, høøkërš and beatings. Mike still needs to get that help. Hëll, Mike may just need a girl. Oh, and by girl, I mean woman of legally adult age. I point that out because he’s jumped into some of the last two weeks’ posts’ jokes about women and such by bringing up teenage girls and Buffy. Again, either his dementia makes it impossible for him to understand when an actual woman is being discussed and what one is or his repressed pedophilia is showing.
On to the insanity of Mike and Genocide.
In Principal Poopypants, Bill Mulligan said that he doesn’t care for hate crime laws. He never said people should never be punished for killing minorities or people not of their own race or sexual preference. Several people also said that they saw no point in using hate crime laws as ADDITIONAL punishment for a crime. As I pointed out, murder often gets you the death penalty. Can’t do much more to a person after that.
Mike then spent the better part of two weeks, TWO FREAKING WEEKS, of obsessive insanety in a syphilis induced dementia and screeching on about how we’re all Nazi’s, racists and deniers of the Holocaust because… Well… Several of us don’t agree with the need for hate crime laws. Again, Mike’s point about what is and is not genocide started with his demented attempts to prove that disagreeing with the need for hate crime legislation equals denying the existence of the Holocaust or of genocide itself.
Can you say, “dementia?” I knew you could.
Yet another fast drive off his short cliff. He thinks CNN gives a flying wang about his insanity.
“Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:22 PM
The only basis you have to call me screwed up is because I caught you sheltering racism. If you don’t want to cop to what you were caught doing, why wouldn’t you call me screwed up? If you want to try and out me, I’m ready to start a national debate on cnn if you are.”
Most of the truly demented crazies we get often go on about how they’ll expose whatever it is that they’re believing in their dementia by telling the President, the Governor or Larry King. Yeah, they tend to gravitate towards Larry. But we get a lot of guys telling us that, no lie, they’ll see us when they’re exposing us on CNN. It must have something to do with the meds.
Does Mike’s dementia and insanity stop at just thinking that he’s going to get us all on CNN for his own, personal debate show? No. It extends into paranoid dementia.
“Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:48 PM
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was several weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.”
Now, you may ask yourselves what started this and how it can be viewed as crazy, demented or paranoid. Simple. Mike tends to post in lots of places ranging from his own blogspot to this one and a fair host of places in-between. This means that he has a history of comments elsewhere that some may have seen and that you can use to get a better idea of if he’s just yanking our chains or he really is nuts. I pointed out that I think I know who he is and that he really is just that goofy.
Not the first time that has been done here. Others have pointed out that random posters here are so and so from Byrne’s board or some other place. No one has ever reacted by being so dementedly paranoid that they declared that this expression of belief of identity was intimidation and race privilege. It might have been funny had it stopped there. It didn’t.
Mike takes an even greater plunge into dementia and paranoia by declaring that we must want to kill him.
” Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a demented paranoid. His name is Mike.
“Posted by Mike at November 12, 2006 08:41 AM
Mike, if you’re doing this for the fun of upsetting people, you’ve succeeded. Please stop.
If on the other hand you truly believe what you’re writing, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness.
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys (who frequent sites where the year’s dead are subject to ridicule and humiliation) denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, I’m mentally ill?”
No, Mike, you’re not seen as mentally ill just because you believe some demented idea that you came here and valiantly exposed a bunch of race haters, Nazis and genocide deniers. You’re perceived as mentally ill because… well… Just about everything that comes out of one of your posts pretty much gives that indication. You can’t even function as normal for more then three posts before you’re off in your own demented fantasy world and expressing to or about us.
You are, Mad Mikey, quite clearly and disturbingly insane. I now re-shroud you for all further posts and threads. Post on, Mad Mikey, but I am well and truly done with you.
Awwww…I was kind of looking forward to being on CNN…you know, if he’d said MSNBC it might have been plausable.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 15, 2006 11:19 PM
Awwww…I was kind of looking forward to being on CNN…you know, if he’d said MSNBC it might have been plausable.
Keep it up, Mulligan, and I’ll expose your mendacity on my cable access show, The Tinfoil Hat Hour!
Well, then what has been your problem all this time?
The text you cite makes my point.
When language evolves, yes, sometimes the meanings of words expand.
The varying definitions of a word do not supplant each other. There is nothing in Lemkin’s plainly-worded definition, which came first, that excludes the Oxford definition.
Then why did Sean Scullion — who will agree he is no friend of mine — just admit that “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide?
As opposed to, say, zombies?
Even a beating a høøkër takes rarely results in the struggle for survival of the human race, or even the consumption of a single brain. Compared to høøkërš, zombies are just plain fûçkëd up.
If my assertions have no basis in reality, then why the hëll did Sean Scullion just admit that “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide?
Straw man.
No, Bill Myers, leader of the Closeted-Guy Party, introduced her as the epitome of sexual attraction.
When I called Bill Myers an eichamnn for denying the plainly-worded definition of genocide, it was after Bill Mulligan had called me the same for citing the definition in the first place.
If you’re afraid to cite Peter’s entries my posts appear in, I’m just going to dismiss all of my other quotes you pull out of context as similarly justified as the quotes I’ve addressed here.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Most of you think I’m nuts for supporting the war.
I don’t. I disagree with you, but I’m not so arrogant as to believe that means you’re nuts. For one thing, you’ve put the war in historical context and done it well. Although, given your acknowledgement that the war was about oil, and a personal grudge for George W. Bush, I am curious: where do you see the benefit for the nation as a whole? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to find more stable sources of oil in the near term, and alternative energy sources in the long term?
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Our country is the biggest user of oil. The loss of any oil from say Saudi, Iraq, Iran and so on would cripple our country.
A minor quibble: we don’t get any of our oil from Iran. After the hostage crisis, we severed all diplomatic and economic ties with that country.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
While I support the war, I cannot support how it is being ran.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Anyhow, this war will not be won unless we let the Iraqis take the lead. They are relying on us too much, yet, we cannot pull out.
One of the more cogent arguments for a swift U.S. withdrawal is that the Iraqis will never learn to provide for their own security in this post-Saddam era until we eliminate a convenient crutch: us. While I cannot dismiss the argument out-of-hand, I don’t agree with it. If we leave too soon, I think the current Iraqi government will crumble.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
We debate the politics, but still nobody has a plan.
Agreed. I hope the “Iraq Study Group” convened by the president will provide some actual, y’know, concrete ideas about how to proceed. I’m not filled with confidence, though. And while I voted nearly straight Democrat in the most recent election, I’m not thrilled with their failure to come up with an alternative other than “get out now.”
Wow, I go to sleep for the day and come back to find out I’ve been pegged for a cabinet position, and apparently have to start planning for some level of zombie disaster. Well, hopefully the secretary of defense is up to the task, whoever that may end up being.
Proud as I am of my Scottish heritage, I have to agree that in a massive, çlûšŧërfûçk zombie battle, a claymore would be a poor choice of weapon, particularly when minimizing human casualties is an absolute necessity. The traditional combination of Katana and Wakizashi (sp?) offers effectiveness and utility, with a long blade for outdoor fighting, and shorter blade for indoor/close-quarters battles.
Also, if we do make it into the White House in ’08, we see to it that jobs are created by starting a large-scale manufacturing effort to see to it that combat-ready melee weapons are readily available for every able-bodied, still-breathing adult.
Another thing our administration should look into. Tower shields and gladiuses (gladii?). History shows that one of the most effective tactics against a largely disorganized, on-foot enemy (even a larger force) is the Roman shield wall.
However, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Department of Homeland Security should definitely start keeping a much closer eye on biotech companies and religious wackycrazies of all stripes, while making nice with genuinely holy people, purveyors of white magic, and the guys from GhostHunters.
-Rex Hondo-
Also, if I may recommend, the Guy Party (if we gain the White House), in the spirit of bi-partisanship, should tap Bill Mulligan to head up a committee to look into potentially zombie-making government projects, assess the danger, and safely shut them down. Emphasis on the word “safely.” We don’t want to shut down a couple of potentially zombie-making projects only to end up making zombies because vat A ends up mixing with test tube Z when we toss them in the landfill.
(Hëll, this administration sounds almost like the plot of a movie already. Just let me know when y’all are ready to start filming.)
-Rex Hondo-
“History shows that one of the most effective tactics against a largely disorganized, on-foot enemy (even a larger force) is the Roman shield wall.”
That could be a problem with zombies. They don’t die (duh) in the crush that the wall creates as do humans. You may be stepping on and over them while they are still biting at your troops.
Results? More zombies. Some who may not even turn until later that night while sleeping in their cots. Cots that are right next to all the other soldiers’ cots. There goes a huge chunk (down a bunch of throats) of your troops.
Ahh.. But that’s where the gladius comes in. It wasn’t the crush that necessarily felled so many opponents, it was the small, fast blades licking out from between and over the shields that they couldn’t avoid because of the crush. Of course, it would be harder to achieve decapitations, being more suited to disembowling thrusts and the like. But, if the shield wall manages to hold, it should keep the undead away from their intended victims and distracted long enough for a heavy attack of some sort to hit them in the flank or rear.
Of course, this is all dependent on having sufficient troops and materiel to pull off particular maneuvers. Which is why we can all thank our lucky stars Z-Day didn’t occur on Rummy’s watch. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Rex Hondo, with your knowledge of ancient warfare tactics, you would be perfect for Secretary of Defense. The job’s yours in ’08.
As for giving Bill Mulligan a cabinet post, I don’t think that will be a problem. When The Guy Party wins in ’08 (not if, but when), and Mulligan’s party loses, I think he’ll be begging us to join our party. Don’t let him fool you — he loves pørņ as much as the next guy.
As for preventing Zombie disasters — well, OF COURSE that would be a priority. We need to proactively eliminate everything that would distract us from football and pørņ.
You see? We can reach out to the other side of the aisle, co-opt their positions, and grind them under. THAT’S bi-partisanship.
the plural of gladius is gladii. But I don’t think the roman legion is suited to deal with zombies. The thursts of the spears and gladii are not effective enough to destroy the zombies, and the shields are not strong or big enough to protect from the crushing weight of relentless zombies.
No, the answer lies with medieval tactics.
Knights with armor (maybe the thick cloth used the protect against dog bites), long lances, swords, maces, flails — all useful, combined with the speed and manurevability of the horse, and its own crushing weight. Also does not require large numbers. Although it begs the question of zombie horses.
The castle is of course a very useful defensive tool.
If you prefer infantry, the long lances and halberds of the swiss mercenaries are similar to the Roman legion, but probably better suited for zombies.
You should also consider using bows and slings to slow down the zombies.
[finally a realistic sane discussion].
I personaly prefer Bill Mulligan’s security first policy over Bill Myers’focus on internal economic issue. But I think his platform will have populist appeal so long as he finds a way not to antagonize the women voters.
You can also use the Anglo Saxon shield wall + axes, which will also appeal to conservative WASPs
The best part among many great parts of The Zombie Handbook was the telling of historical zombie outbreaks. Had I the budget to make it look non-cheesy I’d LOVE to do a period piece that explained the disappearance of the Roanoke colony as the result of a zombie outbreak.
Max Brooks cites several cases where the Romans effectively disposed of far larger numbers of zombies with minimal loss of life to their own men. True, the gladius and spear are not ideally suited to the fight but it’s the organization of the Roman Legion that makes the difference. The pilum would probably not kill many but a zombie with a weighted pilum lodged in their body would be slowed down. And while the gladius was more for stabbing than cutting I don’t think the average Roman soldier would have too much trouble severing a rotting neck with one.
The Roman battle against Boudicca could provide a clue for how we could best fight off a zombie horde. Keeping in mind all the advantages they have (not tiring, feel no pain, never panic, admirable clarity of purpose) we still have the one advantage that can turn the tide–intelligence. Using natural barriers and cars arranged with a narrowing opening we could allow the zombies to herd themselves into a smaller and smaller area with our soldiers at the end. It would be a long fight but as long as the defenses were not accidentally breached it should work (unless we’re talking about a whole city of the dead here).
Hey, here’s a free tip–why do people in zombie movies always go off into battle with no better armor than a flannel shirt? Me, I’d be wrapping duct tape around my arms, legs, etc. No it isn’t hammered steel but it’s harder to bite through than my skin. For that matter, if I knew I was going up against Dracula, Lord of Vampires, I’d spend a few minutes with a sharpie drawing crucifixes all over any part of my body I’m fond of and drinking holy water like a long distance runner.
Bill Myers–sorry it’s my fault you got called an eichamnn. I’d be even sorrier if it was an actual word.
“While, it’s true Saddam was no threat to us, he was a threat to those we support.”
Yes, he could have used his non-existent WMDs at just about any time on them.
“Notice I do not call them allies.”
Well, I’d thought you were referring to Israel, who is an ally. So now I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Where did a majority of the hijackers come from?”
Saudi Arabia, so now you’ve *really* lost me. The majority of hijackers were Saudis, and were members of bin Laden’s terrorist group, except we didn’t attack Saudi Arabia in response, we attacked Iraq, a country whose leader despised bin Laden, and we knocked that leader out of commission while slaughtering thousands upon thousands of his citizens, with the result being an abundance of brand new recruits for bin Laden where he didn’t have any before. So whatever point it is you’re trying to make, I’m not following it.
PAD
Good points all. This is why, when Secretary of Defense, I will heed the advice of my advisers and generals.
I can certainly see a need for many contingency plans for dealing with a variety of zombie scenarios. Are they metaphysically or scientifically created? (Or, God help us, a combination of the two) If metaphysical, is there an animating force like an artifact or altar that can be found and targeted. Is is a shambling, rotting mass of mindless hunger, or is there a directing intelligence, like a vampire, lich, or mad priest that can likewise be targeted? If scientific in nature, can a counteragent be developed?
As Bill Mulligan said, our intellect can be our greatest asset, if we just use it.
-Rex Hondo, Super Macho Zombie-Hunting Cowboy Cop-
Uh, yeah, Gene, you’re not nuts, just wrong. It’s arrogant to say your nuts. But wrong? Not so arrogant.
How minor a quibble is it when Iran’s oil sells on the global market just like any other country’s? We aren’t paying a subsidy for oil to compensate for the benefit of Iran’s supply on the market.
Thanks for establishing we invaded Iraq to secure our oil supply, Gene. While eminent domain is still controversial within the US, there is no eminent domain between nations. Oil wasn’t sold as justification for invading, and it isn’t being sold as a justification for continuing the occupation. No soldier is writing home of his duty to secure the nation’s oil supply.
There’s your next horror movie: Village People of the Ðámņëd.
Not going to get into how Mikey twisted my words’ meaning like some kinda quasi-Colbert protoHannity.
Just a question for Rex–when you’re secretary of defense, can I be secretary of degate?
Gene, Bill: IS there a good way to wean the Iraqis off our help? From what I hear, weaning is often a messy process.
There’s your next horror movie: Village People of the Ðámņëd.
But could it possibly be as scary as Can’t Stop The Music?
Peter, you got the point perfectly. Saudi Arabia is not an ally to us. They rely on us to keep power.
Another history lesson. Why do the Saudis not crack down on the the extremists in there own country? They were the ones that helped liberate Saudi Arabia during WWI. You can also look at how succesful the British were in the 20s of creating an Iraqi democracy to see history repeating itself.
Flash Fact: Did you know our Navy protects oil shipments to China?
Posted by: gene tullis at November 16, 2006 09:40 AM
Why do the Saudis not crack down on the the extremists in there own country?
Because the Saudis are worried that the extremists could easily foment an uprising that could threaten the Saudi royal family’s hold on power. By tolerating the extremists, they are protecting their grip on power.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 16, 2006 09:23 AM
Just a question for Rex–when you’re secretary of defense, can I be secretary of degate?
WHAT? Rex, here I bring you into my political party and offer you a sweet position and what do you do? You try to take over! Now Sean Scullion’s asking YOU for cabinet positions!!!
There’s trouble in paradise, folks…