Pistol Whipped by Patton Oswalt

Read it at KevinWillis.net

---

Just to let you know, the entertainment industry keeps beating me. Patton says, because I'm not a billionaire, George Bush hates my f___ing guts. But who is it that really doesn't like me here?

I know they don't love me. I know it. They hate me. They abuse me. But I keep taking it. Look, I've got problems, I know it. Sure I do. But who doesn't? I can’t leave them. Don’t ask me to. You know I can’t.

Anyhoo, in this case, it takes the form of Patton Oswalt. I love Patton Oswalt. He's a rarity in comedy, or entertainment generally--the cerebral everyman. The erudite regular guy. Sort of a still very liberal Dennis Miller. While I'm probably never going to do it, I can certainly sympathize with his Amsterdam bit ("I was like Templeton the Rat in Charlotte's Web, you know? Hookers and pot! Hookers and pot!") and what other comedian has such an awesome, and inspiring, bit on the noble PAAS Easter Egg Coloring Kit? Indeed, he waxes eloquent on classic conservatism (without, perhaps, noting the irony) because the bit ends with effusive praise of the fact that PAAS is still around, and has remained classic and unchanged since practically the beginning.

He can be dark and disturbing, and gross. But no more than, say, Southpark. Still, I think he’s funny, and I really enjoy his stuff. But, underneath the surface, it turns out that he—like so many of the others—is another Hollywood Pod-Person. And out comes the pistol, and he starts whipping me with it.

There's not a lot of heroes left these days. There's a horrible psycho in the Whitehouse and we're on the brink of apocolypse, but there are heroes . . .

And then he goes on to praise the hedonism and indulgence of Robert Evans. But, okay, that's not so bad. Just his opinion, and perhaps Patton is not as well-read or informed on actual history or political issues as he is in regards to Hollywood minutiae and different words to describe human (or other) genitalia.

But then there's this bit:

The thing I don't understand is the people who support George Bush and they're not billionaires. Like, that makes no f___ng sense. They're like, "I think George Bush is f___in' awesome, man!"

And you're like "Wow! How much do you make? You must be like a billionaire!"

They go, "I make, like, 30 grand a year."

And you go, "Wow, cause Bush f___in' hates you, did you know that? He f___in' cannot stand you. He wouldn't be caught dead with you."

Seeing someone like that, it's like meeting a girl like, well - say Michael Damien is touring the state fairs in the Midwest, still doing his, you know, "remix" of "Rock On" and she f___in' blows him by the Tilt-A-Whirl and then goes home to her mom and says, "F___in' Michael Damien is in love with me, Mom, and he's gonna take me out of this town!"

And Mom's like, "Sweetie, no.. He appreciated the blowjob, but he's not going to come back for you.. He's gonna move on to other state fairs, but he won't come back to rescue you. You will go to work at Fashion Bug tomorrow like you will until you die."

A lot of stuff is in there, though. Hollywood folks--the elite of whom are filthy rich, and the rest of whom aspire to be--don't understand why regular folks working regular jobs, such as the reviled retail job at the Fashion Bug, would support someone who didn't promise that the government was going to send them a big fat check every month for sitting on their collective asses and doing nothing for the rest of their lives. Why would someone who earns $30k a year support Republicans? The only people who like the middle class and the poor are wealthy socialist elites, like the folks who tax those very people to death in California, and elected Democrats, who tax those people to death in California and would like to do so everywhere else.

And what evidence does Patton have that Bush hates you, or me, for that matter? Because Bush himself is not poor. He hasn't ever been poor. Bush is, in fact, rich, and his family has been wealthy for generations. He is old wealth. Unlike, say, John Kerry, who doesn't even know how to properly eat a hot dog and spends his free time windsurfing, or Ted Kennedy, who can afford to not only have numerous casual affairs with interns, but drive drunk and drown them and still get off with a handslap because he's so frickin' rich and powerful.

And on and on and on. The Democratic party is filled--up to the gills--with old wealth, and financed by old wealth, as are most of the socialist elites who support the Democrats, if only because there isn't an even more liberal, leftist, Marxist political party to bankroll.

Although I should be inclusive. There is a great deal of new wealth that throws money hand-over-fist at the Democratic Party, too.

And who is too good to be seen with me? George Bush or John Kerry? Dubya or Nancy Pelosi? Who is too important for me? Dubya or Hillary Clinton? There are plenty of arrogant, too-good-for-you politicians in the United States, left and right, and Bush wouldn't even be in the the top fifty. There are plenty of mayors of little buttwipe nowhere towns that are more self-important and ego-inflated than Bush.

And let's say he doesn't care to be seen with a peon like me. I'm voting for president based on who I think likes me the most? Who would be more likely to patiently sit through a photo-op with a working-class Joe (which, btw, Bush does all the time, even as president)? How screwed up would that be? I've had some friends that are good friends and fine people, don't get me wrong, but they should never, ever become president. Or win any elected office. What does whether or not George Bush would be seen with me or would like me as a person have to do with the price of tea on Tuesday?

The answer is, nothing. Whether the president would be your good buddy doesn't and shouldn't inform your voting. And it doesn't, really, on either side of the equation. What about the African-Americans who again voted for the Democratic candidate in droves? Are we seriously supposed to believe that John F. Kerry has a friendship roster populated with boyz from the hood? That he hangs out with Ice'd Flavah Cubie Smalls discussing 2 Pac and the relative merits of Colt 45? Or that he'd be caught dead with any minority, except as it might further his political goals?

I.e., it's a false dichotomy. Big time politicians don't spend a lot of time hanging around the little people in either party, and whether or not they'd be your personal friend doesn't have any bearing on how good or bad their policies might be for you, your neighbors, and your country.

Well, maybe it's his policies. Perhaps George Bush's policies show that he only likes billionaires. But, uh, I'm doing slightly better now, but when I wasn't make much more than 30k was when the Bush tax cuts went through, and they were a lifesaver for me. They really, really helped.

Then he tried for Social Security reform, which would really help guys like me out when they get to retirement. I've got a wife and two kids, I've got debt to pay down, and it's very difficult for me to invest in my retirement right now. And may be that way for years ahead. And George Bush wanted to let me take a little bit of my Social Security tax money and invest it in a private account that I would own and could even pass on, should I die before my Social Security collecting days came to pass. And not only that, he wanted to make it my money--my money that had hopefully been appreciating over time, but my money. So when it came time to live off my Social Security, it wouldn't be my children or my grandchildren paying for it, and I wouldn't be any additional burden to our public welfare system. It would simply be my money that the government had, not unreasonably, forced me to save for myself and my family, for my own good and to avoid my being an excessive burden on future tax payers. Shoot, I think think this guy might actually likeme, Patton.

And despite all the bellyaching, Social Security reform is in the current budget, and looks like it might get started. I tell ya, I sure hope so, and the folks that I presume must like me so much since George Bush isn't supposed to, have done nothing but fight giving me a better retirement, and the right to have my own tax money go to help provide for me in my senior years and they have fought to keep any real wealth I might build up in my life time from being passed, unmolested, to my children and grandchildren. And they have fought against letting me keep more of my income in general so I can pay my bills and provide for my family.

I'm sorry, who is it that doesn't like me?

And it's just silly. How many people say, "You treat me great, you support legislation I agree with, I find you physically attractive, I love your taste in movies, but you only make $30k a year and my cut off is, at minimum, a hundred thou per annum, so I hate you." How many people do that the other way? Envy and resentment may provoke a few, but it's the snobbery of out-of-touch elites who happen to be wealthy that most plain folks resent, not their actual annual income.

In the end, it's the same question I always ask, and folks like Patton Oswalt--who I think is a brilliant, not-quite-as-edgy-as-he-thinks-but-still-darn-funny comedian most of the time--make me puzzle over it again. How can I guy who so clearly has his brain engaged, who is so clearly well-read and well-educated--come to such a kindergarten-level analysis of contemporary politics? Why is it that smart--often very smart, very grounded liberals--suddenly lose all that when it comes to partisan politics?

And I'm not even talking about being wrong on the issues, which I believe they are, but demonstrably having no idea what any of the issues actually are. Bill Clinton may or may not have been almost sociopathic, but, even if he was, he didn't not portend the apocalypse, and most would agree that only wing-nuts thought he would. George Bush might be wrong on everything from the war in Iraq to tax cuts for working families, but would that make him a psychopath? Would his election signal the end of the world? Or even close enough that it might be funny to a rational human being grounded in some sense of reality?

Man, I don't know about you. But I don't think so. But, in the end, I don't think Bush f___ing hates me. And, when it comes down to it, if he did, it would have very little to do with whether or not he was the right man, given our other choices, to be elected president of the United States.

French Youth Riot Against Facism

No, sorry, if the French put as much energy into fighting facism and totalitarianism as they have into rioting against companies having the ability to fire incompetent or unnecessary employees, America wouldn't have constantly had to save their lazy butts.

Predictably, the fine folks at Alternet (in this case, Robin Craft) completely understand why giving employers a choice in who they hire and fire would have French youth rioting in the streets.

Craft notes:

Between 500,000 and 1.5 million people were mobilized Saturday afternoon against a new youth labor contract that would, among other things, allow employees -- that are 18 to 26 years old -- to be fired without cause during the first two years of employment.

How absurd that companies should have the same choice as employees--who can, of course, quit without cause at any time. And they aren't just given two years to quit, but can, in fact, quit any damn time they please. Why they would want to quit when they can do a bad job and still get paid and never get fired is beyond me, but, you know, the option is there. Maybe their years of experience at loafing could get them a better paying job somewhere else in the roaring economy of France.

As to why companies would want to fire outstanding or high-performing employees without cause is not touched on. Why they should be forced to keep people who don't perform--or, heck, just aren't needed due to changing market conditions--isn't mentioned.

But of course not! Companies don't exist to serve a customer or provide products to fill needs in the marketplace. They exist to provide paychecks to lazy, entitled, wine-swilling Frenchmen who can't be bothered to get off the couch long enough to defend their own country from Nazis, but can start turning over cars (not that it's that hard to tip the small and flimsy European cars they've been attacking) and setting things on fire to demand not to be penalized for their poor performance, or changing conditions in the marketplace. At least, not without driving the company that hired them out of business, too.

Of course, Alternet's take is predictable:

[S]tudents and labor unions united against what they see as a proposition for substandard labor protections, job insecurity and inequality reminiscent of American labor conditions.

Eeek! American labor conditions! what a terrible, brutal world we live in in America. Let's compare and contrast the brutal American job market with the soft, fuzzy French one, shall we?

Unemployment in France is 8.8%--which is great for such a quasi-socialist economy, and much better than it was in 1997, when their unemployment was 12.6%--the kind of rate American's associate with a severe depression, and would have Democrat's calling for impeachment. Indeed, even at under 7% unemployment, the Democrats attacked Bush on the job situtation constantly.

But the brutal U.S. unemployment rate is currently 4.8%. Even though companies can hire and fire much more easily than in France, our unemployement rate is 4% lower than theirs. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that our brutal style of American economics ends up employing more people more consistently?

As for Purchasing Power Parity (roughly, how much the average citizen is capable of purchasing with what they make versus their costs and expenses), United States ranks #3. France ranks #20. The CIA World Fact Book ranks them as #24.

As far as Gross National Product, measured per capita, United States is number four, and probably would be number two or three if GNI (Gross National Income) wasn't calculated to include the economic productivity of non-residents in places like Luxembourg.

There are several different measures of economic growth, and we've been beating France for years on pretty much all of them. What a brutal economy we have!

Another worry is that the contract will become a favorite among employers, contributing to unemployment for older, unskilled workers as they are replaced by easy-to-fire young people, who in turn fear losing their jobs to others just before the end of the two-year trial period.

Well, then, they should work extra-hard to do a good job and learn valuable skills that would make it more expensive to replace them than to just keep them on the payroll. Again, does the employee get to quit the company without "cause"? Why should the government actively discourage companies from hiring people and trying them out by making the decision largely irrevocable?

In the end, if the folks rioting in France would devote that much energy to their jobs, their marketable skills, and taking responsibility over their own lives, they wouldn't need to worry about this, or any other, change in French law that makes it easier for companies to fire workers. If a worker is valuable, they either won't get rid of him/her or he/she will find it very easy to get another job. If a worker is not valuable or does not contribute, why should the company keep paying him/her for shoddy work?

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. There ain't no free lunch. So stop trying to get someone else to buy your lunch for you, get off your ass and go make a sandwich.

I'm in an Abusive Relationship with George Clooney

And then blaming the other person. What fun is it to admit you have a problem if you don't simultaneously point the finger at someone else? And if I'm admitting things, then I have to admit that my battered-spouse existence with George Clooney is just the beginning of my relationship woes.


You see, I'm also in an abusive relationship with Cameron Diaz and Julia Roberts.

And, as it turns out, I'm also in an abusive relationship with director Ang Lee. And writer/director David Koep.

Sure, Steven Speilberg and George Lucas may not pistol-whip me like some of these other folks. But, let's be honest. They aren't really my friends.

And neither is Owen Gleiberman, entertainment critic for Entertainment Weekly. In fact, now and again, he's been known to smack me around.

And so has songstress Norah Jones. And Pixar CEO Steve Jobs. And former Disney CEO Michael Eisner. And don't get me started on the beatings I've taken from Michael Stipe and Moby and Eminem. And Garrison Keillor, who called me a hairy-backed shrieking midget, among many worse names. Or so many of the fine folks at Ain't It Cool News. Which I read as religiously (sometimes moreso) as I read National Review or Red State.

See, I'm an entertainment geek. I love movies. I love music. I love pop culture. I could be an entertainment critic--well, could be, if my political persuasion were more leftwards, I guess. But I love the stuff. I love industry gossip. I love knowing who is doing what.

As I have a regular life and geeking on entertainment news doesn't feed the kids or pay the bills, I often find myself out of the loop, and then, when it comes time to play catch up, I love learning about all the new movies, bands, and books that I've missed.

Sadly, this is a decidedly one-sided relationship. See, Julia Roberts has said, point blank, that she hates me and doesn't understand how anybody could be me. I think she said something about wishing I was dead, but I blocked it out.

George Lucas thinks I think in absolutes. When it comes to Star Wars, I might fancy myself more the Luke Skywalker type, and he thinks I'm a Sith Lord. He may not say it, but . . . he practically does.

I love those guys (and gals), but when they talk about me, they think I'm evil. When they write people that live and vote like I do (sort of) in a screenplay, those are the bad guys, with extra-added evil that I personally haven't witnessed as being part-and-parcel of conservatism.

And then, there's what doesn't get made. Stephen King's Cell, just released, has been optioned and is already on it's way into scripting and production. But what about Michael Crichton's State of Fear. That would make one helluva movie, but, alas, he doesn't tow the Hollywood line on global warming. Or Crichton's cautionary tale of nanotechnology gone awry, Prey would also make a great movie. But, heck, Crichton's already wandered off the reservation. Even Airframe, which was in the production line at one time, didn't end up getting made. Could it be because of the negative take on unions? Or the Chinese government and culture? Hmmm.

Perhaps that's too conspiratorial. And, to be honest, Crichton has a better shot than some folks. Any movie with Christians that aren't either evil or misguided-but-then-enlightened-by-some-liberal are destined to be straight-to-dvd, or never produced. But movies that "bust stereotypes"--i.e., that load L.A. with lots of 1950s style-racism, ala Crash, or shows us manly gay cowboys, ala Brokeback Mountain get the red carpet in Hollywood.

So, what's the problem? Are they out of touch with mainstream America? Well, given that George Clooney proudly proclaimed that he was out of touch, and that "out of touch" essentially meant that he was out of touch with all those racists, bigots, misogynists, and homophobes and their well-thumped Bibles in middle-America, is, to some extent, proof that they are not just out of touch, but living in an alternative, largely fantastical, reality.

First, he gives Hollywood too much credit for being on the right side of important issues, historically or now. Clooney's protestations aside, Oscar has passed over many exceptional performances by many exception black actors while, at the same time, exceptional African-American managers have been promoted and rewarded for their fine performance in evil, backwards corporations at rates that, while imperfect, would certainly put the Academy to shame. Any number of African American entertainers could tell you how hard it was to get African-American themed movies made in enlightened Hollywood--movies that turned out to be classics, and made a hefty profit. And then, when it came time to make the next movie, those enlightened Hollywood folks couldn't be bothered to help make the bread once again. Although George Clooney would certainly be willing to show up and take credit for it, once the bread was baked, sliced and toasted.

Second, he gives middle-America no credit. Even if only liberals were good folks, there are plenty of them in Middle America. Not to mention, women's suffrage and the abolition movement in this country were things politically championed by the Republican party (and opposed by the Democrats) and also more supported than opposed by Christian evangelicals. There's no pause to wonder if, perhaps, they paint conservatives, Republicans, and Christians, with too broad a brush. No stopping to consider the possibility that being "out of touch", to paraphrase Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride), does not mean what he thinks it means.

But then, that's just the problem. They are so sure of their world view, and so insular in the company they keep and the material they digest, that there is no reason to do anything but dismiss everything else out of hand. It wouldn't occur to them to have a sympathetic Christian or conservative character--at least, not one that didn't somehow come to understand how liberals were right and conservatives were wrong.

Now, Camera Diaz speculating that rape might be legalized if George W. Bush won in 2004 was just stupid. So she's easy to dismiss. But what about a fine entertainment critic, like Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly? I like Owen and read his stuff. But check out this abbreviated review of Power of Nightmares, where Owen all but endorses the movies assertion that Islamofascism and American Christianity, and neocons (who are often irreligious, just as an informational point) as being mirror images of each other. To whit:

He shows, for instance, how the neocons deliberately fabricated evidence of the Soviet threat (an astonishing clip of Donald Rumsfeld in the '70s, talking about undetectable weapon systems that never existed, will look eerily familiar), and that their philosophical godfather, the legendary academic Leo Strauss, endorsed the use of such fictions as a basic organizing tool of a civilized society.

And this isn't the complete review. I don't recall the specific words, but I do remember that the review, as it appeared in the magazine, had even more laudatory things to say about the film maker's thesis.

I don't have to wonder what Owen would think of a similar documentary demonstrating how environmental activist fabricate date for environmental problems there is no real evidence for, just "consensus" opinon--he'd revile such political drivel. I do wonder why a serious critic wouldn't address the fact that neoconservatism, as such, is not inherently religious, thus making a poor analog to Islamofascism, which is fueled entirely by religious zealotry. But no, this is a fine movie, because it "audaciously" makes an "audacious" ("audacious" being the Hollywood word for what middle-America would call "patently absurd" or "just plain dumb").

But . . . do you see how they treat me? The "deliberately fabricated Soviet threat"? Invisible weapons systems aside, the Soviet system was a killing machine that killed more human being through murder, war, starvation, and slave labor than any other political insitution in the history of the world, from Nazism to world-wide slavery. Maybe just a nod to the fact that Donald Rumsfeld's general contention that the Soviet union was unabashedly horrible and bent on world domination being completely correct and, in retrospect, perhaps understated, might be nice. Just throw me a bone, Owen. But, no. Owen doesn't like me. In fact, Owen doesn't see much difference between me and Osama.

And yet I keep on taking it.

And I'm a big fan of Harry Knowles and the folks at Aint It Cool News. But sometimes there desire to inject irrelevant politics and anti-religious garbage into their commentary stretches credulity. For example, take Harry's review of Aeon Flux.

I laughed one of those, “Oh the red states are going to love this,” sort of laughs.

Not that this film is anti-Republican – but seriously how many in the Bible belt are really going to be down for a film with plot devices involving drug induced higher planes of psychic existence where people of similarly augmented consciousnesses can gather to plot in total chemical secrecy the overthrow of their utopian existence? A film, whose design, is wholly bizarre Euro-sci-fi-esque – without a single thing that they can recognize as familiar or comfortable. How about this – how about the subject matter of cloning as the sole way to preserve humanity – because… well, it turns out “God’s Chosen Few” that survive the great decimation of mankind… well, it’s those godless fucking scientist that save mankind with their Satan ways.

So, let's check this out. Harry says:

1. That red staters don't like science.

2. Are too ignorant and uncultured to appreciate cheesy Euro-sci-fi.

3. Are so opposed to drugs that a movie that has some sort of nanotech system for sending messages and communicating "brain-to-brain" as it were would be too drug like for them, and it would make them "uncomfortable".

4. Always look for something familiar and comfortable, because they are unwilling to challenge themselves, even in a movie.

And I'm sure you can find a few insults of your own. Do you see how they treat me?

And I can go on. I enjoyed Pleasantville, despite the cliche of having the guys who wanted to keep the classic black-and-white sitcom ways being portrayed as brownshirts, but then I listened to the director's commentary on the DVD, and he had nothing good to say about me, while praising himself, and his fellows, effusively. I thought War of the World's was lame, but it certainly wasn't helped by the assertion by writer David Koep that the invading aliens, killing folks randomly then catching them and grinding them up for plant food, were analogous to the American military. What a rotten thing to say about our men and women serving in our armed services. And what a stupid thing to say.

Or Tim Robbins, who I enjoyed in The Player and a number of other movies, even though Bob Roberts was just dim-witted conservative-bashing, saying that the fact that I can find an alternative viewpoint, and find information and commentary that resonates with me, on talk radio means that there is a "chill wind" blowing. He thinks it's bad that I can hear things he doesn't agree with! Because, I surmise, they are so patently wrong (or payed for by dark-suited men in smokey-rooms, busy greasing the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the proletariat, and thus not authentic), that's it's bad that I even get to hear an alternative point of view. Sheesh! With friends like these . . .

But what am I going to do? I love the movies. I love music. Even when I disagree with some of the content, I still love 'em.

I know! I know they aren't going to change. I know that. Don't you think I know that? But I can't leave them. I love them. It would break my heart.

But maybe it would hurt for them to, you know, dry out. Spend a few days in jail. Then maybe they'll think before giving me another shiner. You know?