This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Hollywood shitbags

  • Cruise: being an actor is just like serving in Afghanistan

    I have never been able to watch a Tom Cruise movie. No, I haven’t even seen “Top Gun”. I just can’t stand to look at the fool. The one time I did watch one all the way through was when he did that Jack Reacher movie – I never wanted to punch a movie character in the face as much a I wanted to punch Tom Cruise’ Jack Reacher.

    But anyway, Scott sends us a link to the New York Daily News which reports that Tom Cruise claims that his job, whatever that is, is just as tough as being a soldier in Afghanistan;

    To Tom Cruise, being away from his daughter while shooting a big-budget action movie “feels like” serving in Afghanistan.

    The “Top Gun” actor was responding to a lawyer’s question comparing the extended time away from his Suri while filming a movie to a soldier’s tour in Afghanistan, according to legal papers obtained by the Daily News.

    “That’s what it feels like,” Cruise responded during the deposition stemming from his $50 million lawsuit accusing Life & Style and In Touch magazines of defaming him in 2012 cover stories claiming he abandoned his daughter.

    Yeah, it must be tough having to take a private jet home every weekend and, you know, having people shoot guns at you that don’t have bullets in them. He went on to compare his chosen career to being an Olympic athlete.

    ADDED: Bonus NOT SAFE FOR WORK or SMALL CHILDREN;

  • YGBSM!!

    Obama right now, where Obama is is right around where Reagan was, right around where Nixon was. There, he’s no more left than those, those, those Republicans.

    . . . Obama’s right around where Bob Dole is. They’re very similar, you know? There’s not much of a difference there.

    So sayeth that great “sage for the ages”, Rob Reiner.  You probably remember him best as “Mike Stivic” from the 1970s TV show All In the Family.

    So, you say Obama’s politically right around where Nixon and Reagan were?  And about the same politically as Dole?

    Yeah, right (pun noted and intended).  Uh-huh.  Riiiiiiiight.  Sure, fella.

    Hell, even Edith ain’t buying that one.  (smile)

    Apparently Archie Bunker was dead-on-target when he chose the nickname for Reiner’s character on the show – but was talking about Reiner himself, not the character.  Think much, Rob?

    GMAFB.  And quit p!ssing on my leg and claiming it’s rain, too.

  • Hollywood supports Snowden

    David sends us a link to Just Foreign Policy which reprints a letter from the usual suspects who support Eddie Snowden, the NSA contractor who is in the process of releasing state secrets to encourage fellow traveler, Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, to accept Snowden as a refugee from American Justice;

    We have seen this drama play out several times before under the Obama administration. The administration has charged more than twice as many whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined. These have included Thomas Drake who also exposed wrongdoing at the NSA, and most notably Private Bradley Manning, who stands accused of providing Wikileaks with information that revealed U.S. war crimes, U.S. meddling in other countries’ affairs, and other grave and troubling misdeeds.

    As could have been the case with Assange, Manning’s treatment since his arrest shows that Snowden could be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment if he were taken into U.S. custody. There is also a grave danger that Snowden would have difficulty in receiving a fair trial in the U.S. – a point he reportedly has made in his petition for asylum. Manning’s case also shows that Snowden’s constitutional right to a “speedy” trial might also not be secure. These are all serious examples of political persecution against Manning that may await Snowden if he becomes a U.S. prisoner.

    The list of signatories includes a bunch of the regular anti-American, commie-hugging know-nothings from Hollywood including Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Danny Glover, John Cusack, Roseanne Barr and bunch of other B-list people of whom I’ve never heard. In the mix are political gadflies like Joe Wilson (wife of Valerie Plame), Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Ann Wright, Tom Hayden (Mrs. Jane Fonda) and Daniel Ellsburg.

    Yeah, so if I had an intention of ever supporting Snowden, this letter pretty much satisfies that urge. I also understand that if this had happened before last year’s election, none of these luminaries would have made a peep over the issue.

  • You are Breanna Manning, not me

    More low information BS from Hollywood;

    For one thing, you cretins, Manning told his company commander that he’d prefer that everyone call him Breanna, and people on this blog seem to be the only folks in the world willing to fulfill that wish. For another thing, there’s a difference between “whistleblowing” and “treason”. SEALs who raided the bin Laden compound testified that Manning’s “whistleblowing” product turned up in that compound, so obviously it was of interest to the enemy, if we’re still calling bin Laden an enemy, that is. That product is still considered classified by the government.

    If you all want to be Breanna Manning, then you can stand up with him for the firing squad, which would take more courage than you can muster, I’m sure. If you’re saying that you would turn on this country and endanger the people who are fighting for you, that’s where you belong anyway.

  • Cuomo patches up SAFE Act

    Apparently, the New York legislators and their vaunted governor have decided that they moved too fast too pass their SAFE Act. The first week, they discovered that cops weren’t protected from the draconian ban of weapons and magazines, now they’re moving to protect Hollywood shitbags who might want to film their violent garbage in the State, according to links sent to us by Catherine and Veritas. From the Democrat & Chronicle;

    Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, told reporters Wednesday that the state is not expected to make major changes to the gun-control law adopted Jan. 15. But lawmakers could amend the law so Hollywood productions are exempt from the assault-weapons ban.

    “We haven’t talked about the details of it, but the basic concept of should you be able to use these types of guns in movies? The answer is yes,” Cuomo said. “We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here. So obviously we would want to facilitate that.”

    Yeah, because the Hollywood shitbags whose faces splash across our headlines often enough for their criminal behavior are much more trustworthy than the average New York citizen. From the New York Times;

    Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday that while he and lawmakers did not want assault weapons on New York’s streets, they did not intend to ban their use on film shoots, and that concerns had been raised that the new measure could put a damper on the state’s growing film and television industry.

    “Should you be able to use these types of guns in movies? The answer is yes,” Mr. Cuomo said in a news conference at the Capitol. “We do spend a lot of money in this state bringing movie production here.”

    By the way, 20 of the state’s 62 counties have passed resolutions condemning th SAFE Act and the way it was rammed through the legislative process. 18 other counties are considering resolutions.

    5000 people showed up in Albany today to protest the SAFE Act.

    So good job, Cuomo. The Maryland Senate did their best to follow in Cuomo’s footsteps today. I hope they’re watching New York.

  • Hollywood pounces on Kyle story

    So this Bradley Cooper guy, who I recognize but don’t remember, thinks that the Chris Kyle story is compelling, but not for the reasons that you and I think it’s compelling, but rather for the typical Hollywood bullshit. According to his interview with Inside Movies, by way of Breitbart;

    “The first draft was coming in this week, and Thursday I was at Walter Reed hospital meeting with veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder, among many other ailments; and then all of a sudden I hear this thing and I just can’t believe it. This man has two children, and he is an advocate for putting guns back in veterans’ hands, as a way of therapy.”

    Cooper went on to discuss what he had heard, citing news reports that claim Kyle took Eddie Ray Routh, who suffers from PTSD, to a shooting range in Texas to help him, where Routh then allegedly shot and killed Kyle as well as Chad Littlefield, Kyle’s friend.

    “His story first of all really needs to be told, and it’s also relevant on two fronts: gun control and the need to address the many soldiers who are coming back with PTSD. Medicine has evolved to such a state — soldiers are coming back and they’re going to assimilate into the culture and if we don’t address the mental state along with the physical state it’s going to be a problem.”

    Yeah, so this Hollywood guy has diagnosed Routh with PTS from all way across the country. Or maybe he’s just jumping to the conclusions that the media wants us all to jump to. And why would that story be a movie about gun control, unless Cooper is planning on working against the very thing that Chris Kyle was working toward?

    It seems to me that the Chris Kyle story is more about the events that led to his enlistment, his participation in the war, and the reasons that he left the service rather than the final moments of his life.

    Knee-jerk Hollywood bullshit.

    Thanks to David and SGT K for the links.

  • Bullet to the Head star supports weapon ban on his audience

    So, this utter moron, Sylvester Stallone, thinks that the weapon ban wending it’s way through Congress is a good idea. The guy who has been making violent movies since the 1982 when he pretended to be the epitome of the crazed Vietnam veteran in that movie “First Blood” wants to take weapons out of the hands of perfectly sane, law abiding Americans;

    Stallone supported the 1994 “Brady bill” that included a now-expired ban on assault weapons, and hopes that ban can be reinstated.

    “I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

    Yeah, but that’s not even the worst part of this empty-headed moron;

    “It’s unbelievably horrible, what’s happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It’s that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin’ crazy. Really crazy! And that’s where we’ve dropped the ball: mental health,” he said. “That to me is our biggest problem in the future, is insanity coupled with isolation.”

    See, the “biggest problem…is not so much the guns…” but let’s take guns from people anyway. Says the guy who has built a career upon pretend-killing scores of people. And I’ll even bet that he wouldn’t blame the violence in our culture, and the part he’s played in that culture over the last 30 years.

    Thanks to Gabriel for the link.

  • “Good for the Environment”, Eh?

    Looks like our Hollywood “do-gooder” environmentalist extraordinaire Leonardo DiCaprio is at it again.  This time, he’s taking substantial time off from his acting career to do “good for the environment”.

    In an interview with Germany’s mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: “I am a bit drained. I’m now going to take a long, long break. I’ve done three films in two years and I’m just worn out.”

    “I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment.”

    OK, let’s take him at his word.  And let’s look at what the effect of this trip will be on Mother Earth.

    Now, you know a Hollywood “A-list” type like DiCaprio isn’t going to fly anywhere on regularly scheduled airlines.  He’ll fly on a private or chartered jet.

    Let’s be kind and assume he uses a small LearJet – say, a small one like the Bombardier 35A.  That aircraft can cruise comfortably at around 400 knots, or 460 MPH, for a bit over 2000 miles – in round numbers, about of 4.5 hours flight time.

    That aircraft uses 197 gallons of jet fuel per hour at cruise.  So each 2000 miles will use about 885 gallons of jet fuel.

    Now, assume 30,000 miles for the total length of DiCaprio’s round the world “save the planet” tour.  (He’ll certainly be visiting “down under”, NZ, and probably South Africa and South America, plus North America, Europe, and parts of Asia – so that’s probably an underestimate.)  Doing the math, that comes to around 13,300 gallons of jet fuel.

    Chemically, jet fuel is kerosene-based. Kerosene has an average chemical composition of C12H26.  That means it’s approximately 85% carbon by weight.

    Jet fuel weighs about 6.8 pounds per gallon.  So DiCaprio is going to burn about 90,400 pounds – or about 45 tons – of jet fuel on his trip.

    That amount of jet fuel will contain about 38.3 tons of carbon.  But remember:  according to the “save the world” crowd – “Carbon . . . . baaaaad!”

    Why is carbon “bad”?  Well, according to the “save the world” crowd it’s because it produces carbon dioxide.

    Virtually every atom of carbon in that jet fuel will produce a molecule of CO2 when burned. (The tiny fraction that doesn’t will produce stuff that’s even worse as a pollutant – unburned hydrocarbons, soot, etc . . . .)  Since the carbon is only about 27% of the weight of each molecule of CO2, burning this amount of jet fuel will add more than 140 tons of carbon dioxide to the earth’s atmosphere.

    That’s just the jet travel.  It doesn’t account for the fuel for DiCaprio’s chauffer-driven limo at each stop.  (What, do you expect him to rent a Volkswagon and drive himself anywhere?)  Or the fuel for the vehicles for his bodyguards or his entourage.  Or the energy used to heat/cool their hotel rooms.  Or . . .well, you get the picture.

    Also, a “round the world” trip like this shouldn’t take more than 3 months.  All of the above fuel and energy?  That’s only what DiCaprio’s going to waste – unnecessarily – in about 3 months.  Wonder what he’ll burn through during the rest of the year?

    Here’s a real world sanity check:  a guy or gal driving a car that gets 20 miles to the gallon 15,000 miles annually burns 750 gallons of fuel.  That’s only about 5.6% of the more than 13,400 gallons of fuel DiCaprio will waste in 90 days during his meaningless publicity stunt.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is “Hollywood”.  Or here, maybe that should be “DiCaprio”.

     

    Look, I’m all for conserving resources for the next generation.  I don’t want to see the environment spoiled. I want my kids and grandkids to have a nice place to live.  They won’t if we screw up the planet.

    But what DiCaprio’s doing here isn’t “saving the planet” – it’s nothing more than meaningless grandstanding to feed his ego.  Like so many other libidiot ideas and causes, it sounds good initially and makes people “feel good”.  But when you analyze it, just like many libidiot ideas and causes it’s actually wasteful and counterproductive.

    Want to really help “save the earth”, Lenny my boy?  Then freaking stay home vice traveling the globe – and promote conservation from and within Hollywood.

    You make films for a living.  You should be able to figure out how to reach people from a distance.

     

    (Author’s note:  the original version of this article used diesel fuel as a basis for calculation of the amount of CO2 generated by DiCaprio’s upcoming “save the world” tour.  That was an error.  The reference originally consulted erroneously implied modern jet fuel is chemically similar to diesel fuel. That is not the case; like most older jet fuels, modern Jet A and Jet A1 are kerosene-based. The error has been corrected above.)