Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in 1988. A combination of live footage film and animation. Starring the talented Bob Hoskins, and directed byRobert Zemeckis, the end results were mixed. The lasting impression for me was not the movie itself, but the experience of seeing it at the drive-in.
My parents loaded up the family for a drive-in double feature of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the movie Vibes, starring Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum.
It began to rain as we drove, but my parents thought it would be fine to continue onward. We lived in Phoenix, and the drive-in was in south Scottsdale, so it wasn’t exactly nearby.
The rain kept up throughout Roger Rabbit, so the window wipers were left on, which lent itself to the pseudo noir setting of the movie.
The movie ended and it was still raining, so my parents decided not to stay for the second feature film. As we left the maze-like parking lot, my father got turned around, and ended up going the wrong direction through an exit, running over the ground spikes that avert traffic from going the opposite direction.
So the family was stuck at the drive-in exit, with blown tires, in the rain. My father walked in the rain to the nearest payphone and called my aunt Mary for a lift, and then called a tow truck.
Aunt Mary arrived to the scene, and we all packed into her VW bug, as father stayed behind waiting for the tow truck. We fell asleep on the ride back, only waling up as we arrived home. I haven’t a clue how late it was by the time father was dropped off home, but he was certainly there when I woke up the next day.
For a movie that was only mediocre, I never forget the rainy circumstances of which we saw it. The mishaps and shenanigans of trying to leave, and the eventual divorce it lead to.
Let’s face it, job interviews are no place for honest people. Answer questions candidly in good faith, and you’re toast. Tell them the diplomatic lies they want to hear, and you’re in like Flynn(“My passion is to help people! I loved my old job, and the only reason I left was that I felt I had reached a point where the position wasn’t conducive to helping me achieve my future goals, etc.”)Well, actually you may not get the job anyway if you don’t look the part or if you give off any kind of off putting vibe at any point in the process.
In any event here are some honest interview answers we’d like to see:
“What makes you want to work for us?”
A: I need a job or I will run out of money. I applied to 20 places, and you were one of the ones who called me back
“I see that you only worked at this place for 4 months. What happened there?”
A: I hated it. The place was like a prison, and you needed to clock out just to take a piss. They also gave me more accounts than anyone could possibly handle.”
“What are you looking for in your next job?”
A:Something that pays all right and where I’m not constantly in fear of being fired for violating some trivial technicality.
“Were you able to consistently hit your quota?”
A: Yes, but only for a while. Then I got burnt out. Then again the quotas were so unrealistic that no one on the entire team was hitting them, except maybe like 1 or 2 people.
“Tell me about a time when “XYZ” happened and how did you handle it?
A: I can’t really think of a specific example, so let me just pull something out of my ass real quick and hope that it sounds like something that could have actually happened.
“What would your colleagues say about you”
A: That I’m sort of creepy cause I tend to hit on girls through the office communicator and on Linkedin, but that I know what the fuck I’m doing, and that’s why everyone still asks me for help.
I generally hate “listicles” as I associate them with millennials, but I was feeling nostalgic and reflecting on some repressed childhood memories… so here are some common frustrations experienced by children of that fantastic decade, the 1980′s:
- Taping the Super Bowl on Betamax only to discover after the game that it didn’t record because the VCR was set to the wrong channel.
- Getting really far in a Nintendo game, but when you try to continue you can’t get the passcode you wrote down to work because you can’t tell the difference between 0 and O and Q on the pixelated screen.
- Getting in big trouble in school for acting out “Karate Kid” moves at recess.
- Trying to find the last few Garbage Pail Kid cards you need on the checklist when all the stores have already started carrying the next series.
- When one of the sides of your M.U.S.C.L.E. Hard Rockin’ Knockin’ wrestling ring breaks.
- Your parents yelling at you through the home intercom system
- After seeing films like “Red Dawn,” “Wargames,” and “Nostradamus: The Man Who Saw Tomorrow,” the feeling that nuclear war between the US and The Soviet Union was inevitable and only a few years away.
- You get in trouble for repeatedly making a pay phone call itself.
- One of the first female TV characters you’re sexually attracted to turns out to be an alien lizard.
- Agonizing over the stuff you want from the toy section of the new Sears catalog
- The lever on your viewmaster gets busted.
- You turn on the TV and find out your favorite Saturday morning cartoon has been canceled
- Your mother won’t take you to Hardee’s so you can get a California Raisins figurine with your meal.
- When you push play on your walkman and find out the volume is set to “insanely loud.”
- One of your favorite read-along records breaks or goes missing from its case.
(technically this one came out in 1979, but seriously EVERY kid from 1980-1985 had a copy of this or “The Hobbit” or “The Empire Strikes Back.”)
- Getting made fun of for greasing your hair after seeing “The Outsiders” and thus actually becoming an outsider yourself.
- You guessed wrong in the “Where’s The Cap’n” $1,000,000 Cap’n Crunch Sweepstakes
- Having your brand new shiny, Husky 683 destroyed by a tomahawk chop from a carpenter pencil in an epic game of popping pencils.
- Your mom yells at you when you come home with grass stains all over your clothes after playing “Smear The Queer” at recess.
- A member of your party getting dysentery in “The Oregon Trail.”
- Being terrified that your creepy talking Pee Wee Herman doll will say something in the middle of the night by itself.
- Being punched by all your friends at a sleepover for not saying “safety” or putting your thumb on your forehead fast enough after you farted.
- One of the buttons stops working on your video game watch
- The Los Angeles Rams trading Eric Dickerson to the Colts.
The Cardinals should persuade Kurt Warner or Jeff George to come out of retirement.
I wish this was seriously being considered. It would be legendary if it actually happened. Though the fact that they re-signed Lindley a few weeks ago tells me they are not really “thinking big.”
The argument generally given why they chose Lindley is that “he was the best that was available, and he is familiar with the offense.”
First off, there are a lot better quarterbacks out there than Lindley(any on the free agent list for starters.) My point of course is that getting a quarterback to come out of retirement like Jeff George or Kurt Warner or even Tim Tebow would be a bold and creative move. There was nothing bold or creative about taking Lindley(except it was brave to think he could lead the team through the playoffs if Stanton went down…insanely so in fact.) So there is no reason to believe they would do something epic like bring someone out of retirement. I’ve been watching football for 30 years and Lindley is one of the worst quarterbacks I have ever seen. He’s down there with T.J. Rubley(though I actually liked Rubley when he played for the LA Rams.)
Warner doesn’t have to learn any of Arians’ schemes. He can wing it. The offense will adapt to him. It’s not like his style was ever about physical fitness. I’m sure he can still drop back and throw a deep ball accurately, something Lindley can’t do while in prime physical condition. There are other options besides Warner though. The cardinals aren’t going to win the super bowl or even the division with Lindley at QB. They’re going to need more than field goals. I’m not a big fan of Tebow, but even his QB rating is almost double Ryan Lindley’s. So yeah think about that for a second. The Cardinals QB is actually WORSE than Tim Tebow, and Tebow is available.
In the 1977 “Mud Bowl,” trailing in the third quarter the Rams considered putting an aging Joe Namath in the game. From Wikipedia:
…redemption and a Hollywood ending was there for the taking. After a disastrous three quarters of turnovers and only trailing by seven points in the opening round of the playoffs, head coach Chuck Knox seemed ready to pull Pat Haden and insert Namath. Rams assistant coach Kay Stephenson said Namath looked great warming-up in the third quarter and advised Knox to put him in. The television audience was on the edge of their seats as it appeared Namath would replace Pat Haden and save the Rams’ season. But Knox hesitated. Haden’s problems continued and the Rams lost to the Vikings by a score of 14–7 in a sea of mud at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
The Cardinals have a chance to make their storybook season truly something magical. Will they settle for being merely typical?
One recurring theme you hear in both mainstream media and alternative right narratives is how the birthrates of native born populations of Europe, the US and places like Japan are below replacement levels and that we need to either import more immigrants or start having more children if we want to survive. I say, no we don’t. At the very least, we can’t know yet if we do or don’t.
Are we committing suicide or preserving ourselves?
The reason why intelligent people have less children is that they recognize how much of a responsibility taking care of a child is and think ahead about how they can pay for it. Other demographics seem to have a shorter time horizon and less impulse control(see the lollipop time horizon study.) They don’t think about any of that “down the road” stuff. They just pop out babies and let the chips fall where they may while society is left to clean up the mess. We don’t know what the long term future holds. It could be that breakthroughs in medical technology will lead to humans having much longer lifespans, and thus there would be less of a need to increase birthrates. Encouraging responsible people just to start primitively pumping out babies indiscriminately whether they can afford them or not just to get their numbers up, is not forward thinking. If you want to encourage them to have more children, work to provide an environment where having and raising children is seen as affordable and logical, and not as a liability. Our present society isn’t it.
In the early 70′s, capable working class guys could get a factory job right out of high school that paid 30 to 35k per year. plenty of money to start a family on in those days, and so they did. 40 years later, those jobs are gone and salaries haven’t increased much, while the cost of living has. Having a child can be a financial disaster for a person who cares enough to be responsible for them. I have a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant and now pays $1000 a month in child support(even though he doesn’t even have visitation rights,) which amounts to nearly half of his take home pay check.
As far as a culture that views children as a liability as “committing suicide,” I would urge you to take a look at what happens in the wild when populations of animals grow wildly. It often leads to mass starvation and disease and ends up destroying the whole herd. Or you can just take a look at Africa to see the result of people living on pure “id” and how it
affects a civilization.
There’s no way to know what the long term future holds based on present birthrates. There are too many variables involved. In the 60′s and 70′s people were convinced there would be massive overpopulation(Soylent Green, The Population Bomb, etc.) Those projections didn’t pan out. Just because birthrates are declining below replacement level(a favorite topic of Pat Buchanan) among certain demographics, doesn’t mean the population will decline all the way down to zero. It could be that we have way too may people right now, so after it gets down to the point where we are once again running around freely in the open spaces of the post apocalyptic frontier or merely mining the underground caverns of mars, babyfever could return in some form.
It’s not defeatist to believe so either. Defeatism would be having a bunch of children you can’t afford and then thinking the resulting generation of poorly raised, dysfunctional, meth addicted white trash would be somehow be a step forward for civilization(but we got the birthrates up!)
For one thing, it’s irrelevant whether sperm counts are reduced, as in the near future they won’t be required for reproduction. Advanced scientific intelligence is more of an evolutionary advantage in the long term than just pumping out babies. Through medicine, eradication of diseases which had wiped out entire populations of primitive people put us way ahead of “build huts and hump” crowd. The real question is not whether we can reproduce at the same rate, but whether we can be smart enough to separate ourselves from the overbreeders to create an environment where we can thrive. The technological advances I’m talking about aren’t “pie in the sky” Heinleinian dreams. They’re in the works. No one is talking about Highlander style “immortality,” but there’s little question that in the future people will be living much longer than they do now. Most likely, people in the distant future will look back and think how short and miserable our lives must have been, the same way we look back at the days before people had electricity, cars, running water, etc.
It’s cool though. Some people would rather we all live in trailers and bone down all day to create kids we can’t afford, because you know “we’ll have more Caucasian and Japanese people!” They advocate going down to the level of backward peoples so we can reproduce irresponsibly like they do and keep up with them. I’d rather us climb to a higher level entirely, one that man has not yet reached. While the others are out there in their wife beaters, smoking overtaxed Winston cigs, juggling their 8 kids(that they won’t be able to see because they can’t make the child support payments) trying to outbreed mobs of barbarians and battle it out with them on the streets, we’ll be off in our own homeland putting up a force field to keep out the riff raff, so they can’t interrupt us while we’re interacting with virtual reality porn and trying to watch marathons of Battlestar Galactica(upbeat 70′s version, not the bleak and castrated remake.)
With the Bill Cosby accusations dominating the news and the positively cataclysmic negative impact on his public image, many right wing Clinton conspiracy theorists are thinking it may be a good time to recycle some of Bill’s old sexual misconduct allegations(as well as the more bizarre “body count” accusations) with the thought that maybe people might be more receptive to them in this age of hyperfeminism.
While I agree that there is a double standard with Clinton and Cosby, Clinton was only accused of rape by one woman(Juanita Broaddrick,) and she changed her story:
“During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies.”
Cosby on the other hand has been accused by more than 15 women. If there were a new accusation against Clinton it might revive the story.
The double standard goes both ways though, with conservatives willing to believe any old accusation against Clinton and reluctant to believe accusations about Cosby, due to his statements in the black community which resonated with them.
The Clinton accusations don’t even come close to the Cosby stuff. Kathleen Willey’s “sexual assault” amounted to him “embracing her and forcefully kissing her on the lips.” Wow! That’s some x-rated stuff there. Willey was also not credible. So you have the two most notable accusers with major credibility issues..
Nothing compared to drugging someone and having sex with them while they’re passed out, of which multiple people accused Cosby of. I don’t believe for a minute that Clinton was offing people either. He was a horny hick. Nothing more.
Cosby is much more disturbing because he seemed to have a developed his own creepy system.
I can’t find anything on any of this stuff that isn’t from an unbiased source. Snopes is a left wing site, but they definitely address some of the outlandish “body count” allegations.
I believe the Gary Johnson incident possibly may have taken place based on the Gennifer Flowers Hannity interview, but still there’s no tangible proof. I mean where’s the beef? More likely I think is that the story is completely made up, and she just repeated what she heard from some third party after the fact. It doesn’t sound plausible at all when you start reviewing the times and dates and the fact that no one can prove this guy is even real.
The problem with getting Clinton conspiracies any traction, is that people who hate Clinton start believing absolutely everything, and it discredits the stuff that may actually be true. It’s no different than the neocons willing to believe Ahmed Chalabi and all the Iraqi exiles about their wild claims about Saddam’s nuclear program. A lot of us believed that stuff back in 2002 because we simply wanted to(and also our own CIA, president, congress and secretary of state were telling us it was true.)
People need to find definitive sources of information if they want to lend this stuff any credibility…like police reports, videotapes, letters, etc. Otherwise these stories will never be believed by anyone but die hard Clinton haters(of which I consider myself one and even I’m not all that persuaded.) It’s at best chain email quality where it’s at now.
Cosby’s accusers included some pretty famous people, who were willing to go on television to tell their story. Where is Gary Johnson? Is he still alive? Does he still have the tape? Can anyone offer proof that he even exists? If not, then this stuff is as good as dead .
Most of the Clinton cases are pretty easily debunked with just a bit of searching. These Clinton conspiracy blogs leave out inconvenient facts and what they do include they examine uncritically. There is no real evidence to back up any of them. Most are just examples of Clinton being a sleazy guy, which everyone already knows and and a plurality of people have come to accept.
It doesn’t matter if one of these alleged incidents “sounds like” something Clinton would do. There has to be physical or verifiable evidence. A known sleazy guy grabbing a girl’s boob or thigh, or whipping it out when he’s drunk isn’t enough to scandalize anyone. In Anthony Weiner’s case there were actual photos and proof of what he was doing.
Again, see this thread to see how this stuff can’t even withstand the most basic scrutiny:
I say this not as someone who thinks Clinton did or did not commit these acts, but just to point out that if this is the best you’ve got, it’s going absolutely nowhere outside of kookville.
Professional conspiracy theory believer Roger Stone posted this on Facebook as a teaser for his upcoming book:
Bill Clinton has no degree from Oxford. The Rhode Scholar Rapist was tossed out of Oxford for raping 19 year old Emily Wellstone, beginning a pattern that will make Bill Cosby look like a boy scout- COMING SOON in my next book “The Clinton’s War on Women’ – Skyhorse 2015
Color me skeptical. This woman’s name doesn’t even bring up a single hit in google. Can’t wait to see what this guy’s evidence is. I hope this isn’t going to be like those Gareth Penn books on the Zodiac. On second thought, Gareth’s Penn is at least an interesting and witty guy.
I think people should have to pass intelligence tests in order to have children or vote, or at the very least…maybe pay 5 dollars to vote.
Robert Heinlein laid out a modest proposal in “Expanded Universe” which was so logical and intuitive that there is no possibility it could ever be implemented in today’s PC universe:
A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education – e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth – and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck next election! No lower age limit in this system – smart 12-yr-old girls vote every election while some of their mothers – and fathers – decline to be humiliated twice.
There are endless variations on this one. Here are two: Improving the Breed — No red light, no bell…but the booth opens automatically – empty. Revenue — You don’t risk your life, just some gelt. It costs you 1/4 oz. troy of gold in local currency to enter the booth. Solve your quadratic and vote, and you get your money back. Flunk – and the state keeps it. With this one I guarantee that no one would vote who was not interested and would be most unlikely to vote if unsure of his ability to get that hundred bucks back.
No, I don’t think they need to solve quadratic equations or have mastered the finer points of organic chemistry. Would it be too much to ask though for people to successfully answer basic questions like “if I have a basket of 8 apples and someone takes 2 of them, how many apples do I have left?” or “is it safe to leave your baby in a car on a hot day?” I would say they should be able to use the correct forms of words like “their” and “there,””too and to,” as well as “loose and lose,” but that may weed out too many adult Americans.
Just kidding! I hate remakes They’re almost all so egregiously awful and opportunistic that I can’t imagine narrowing the “worst” down to a mere list of 10. I can only think of maybe 4 remakes that are good:
1. The 1981 version of “The Thing” which a remake of “The Thing From Another World” from 1951.
2. Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Man Who Knew Too Much”(1956) which even then was a remake of his own movie, “The Man Who Knew Too Much”(1934)
3. The 1988 version of “The Blob,” which I enjoyed many late night HBO summer vacation viewings of. It was Kevin Dillon’s finest hour.
4. “One Million Years B.C.”(1966.) It has Raquel Welch’s bangin’ body in it, and that’s enough to make it good.
Yep, that’s it…unless you count “Blame It On Rio”(1984) which was apparently based on a 1977 French film. I don’t even know if that makes it a true remake. It also isn’t considered good by anyone in the world except me.
Everything else is garbage. All the remakes of the last 20 years have been made by a dumber, less creative, more PC whipped generation of filmmakers and made to appeal to a dumber, shorter attention spanned, historically challenged audience.