Frankbeaton.com

“I represent the gangsta party.”

read comments (0)

Over the last few months, The Onion News Network has become pretty much my favorite thing ever. They have more than 30 videos up now (usually one per week), and they’re all brilliant. Totally worth your time.

Their latest report may be the best one yet.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

(Of course, “Missing Teen Probably Raped” will always have a special place in my heart.)

read comments (0)

1. If it hasn’t already happened, an editorial mandate will be issued to all on-air talent, stating that, from this point on, they are only to refer to Obama by his full name: “News from the campaign trail today, as Barack Hussein Obama began his latest…”

2. At least once, Sean Hannity will “accidentally” slip up and say, “Osama– I mean Obama!”

Fifty bucks says both happen before June.

read comments (1)

[My goal is to get all my political ranting out of the way now, before the blogosphere gets even more annoying than it already is.]

Ahem.

Attention well-meaning idealists:

Dennis Kucinich will never, ever be President.

Ever.

Nor should he be.

This is not because his policies are bad (I agree with almost all of them), or because his wife is too pretty, or because there’s a vast, media-run conspiracy to keep him down. It’s because he’s an even more divisive figure than George W. Bush is, and having him as President would do more harm than good. Not entirely his fault, sure — much of the Kucinich-bashing is completely unwarranted, but there’s no point in denying that it’s had an effect. ALL of the right, most of the middle, and a good chunk of the left all think the guy’s a crackpot, and that is never going to change. If you support Kucinich, it means you actually LIKE the increasing polarization of the last eight years — you just wish your side was in charge of it.

It’s sad, but you know what he is? He’s our answer to Pat Buchannan. Extremists love him, but he’s not electable by any stretch of the imagination. If you believe otherwise, you are delusional.

I mean, the teabag thing — that says it all, right? His supporters love that he carries used teabags around in his breast pocket, because it means he’s walking the walk. They find his eccentricities endearing, and indicative of his deep commitment to the issues. Everyone else thinks it makes him look like a fucking mental patient.

There was this girl I knew a few years ago, an environmental activist — spent literally all of her spare time doing volunteer work. Walking the walk. This girl used to keep a tiny shovel in her backpack so she could bury her feces rather than waste water using a toilet. THAT is dedication, my friends. That is believing in your convictions and living by your principals, and I can honestly say that I admire that girl’s commitment to what is undeniably an important cause.

But I sure as shit wouldn’t elect her to public office.

read comments (0)

Please please PLEASE don’t let there be a sudden backlash against Obama just because he’s popular now. This isn’t the new Arcade Fire album, it’s the fucking presidency. It is NOT your sacred duty to declare everyone and everything “overrated” just to prove how discerning your taste is. We get it, you’re a connoisseur of all things. Now shut up and order something, will ya?

I’m delighted Obama won in Iowa. A little shocked, to be honest, but delighted. He’s been my guy since he first announced his candidacy, largely because his health care plan sucks less than the other candidates’ health care plans. The prospect of voting for a corporate shill like Hillary or a disingenuous used car salesman like Edwards doesn’t thrill me at all. I’d vote for either of them over a Republican candidate, but that would be the only reason — that they weren’t Republicans. Obama is the only viable candidate who seems to actually believe in what he’s saying.

Actually, now that I think about it, the same can be said for Mike Huckabee. Granted, what he believes is a little troubling (the leader of a major nuclear power really shouldn’t spend so much time talking about the end of the world), but he really does believe it.

I think that’s what people are voting for this time around: a lack of fakeness.

[Cross-posted from Blogtown PDX.]

read comments (1)

Well, in short, I support it. (Come on, politically I’m just to the left of Lenin — what did you expect me to say?)

I’m not a guild member myself, as you may have guessed by my astonishing lack of film and TV credits. But as someone who can certainly see himself working in Hollywood at some point during his career, I do have a stake in the outcome of this action. Also, working in digital content distribution — as I have been, off and on, for the last five years — I can tell you right now that this strike is absolutely, 100% necessary. And now is the perfect time.

This is apparently the fourth time the WGA has had to resort to a strike, and those strikes are the reason writers are now fairly compensated for reruns (1957), feature films broadcast on television (1965), and home video sales (1988). This one is about Internet broadcasting and purchased downloads. Right now there are no residual payment models in place for digital sales (iTunes), ad-supported streaming (NBC’s HEROES), or video-on-demand (Vongo). These distribution methods unquestionably represent the future of home entertainment — industry pundits are already heralding the death of physical media in favor of online delivery systems in as little as 10 years — and if the studios (or, more accurately, the corporations who run them) have their way, the men and women who created that entertainment will get nothing. Which is exactly what they’re getting right now.

So, yes. I support the strike wholeheartedly and without reservation. Consider this me honking my horn and raising my fist in support. Or, what the hell, me picking up a sign and joining in.

You tell ‘em, Sally.

[For comprehensive, up-to-the-minute information on the strike, go to UnitedHollywood.com. Also, check out these awesome strike-related essays by Joss Whedon and Brian K Vaughan.]

read comments (0)

Everyone loves that story about the Nixon/Kennedy debate, about how the polls afterward showed that people who watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy won it hands-down, while those who listened on the radio gave it to Nixon. The inference is that Kennedy only won because he was handsome and charming and came off better on television, even though Nixon was really the “smarter man.”

If I may, I’d like to call bullshit on that. After 47 years, I think someone ought to.

It stands to reason that the only people likely to have listened to the debate on radio would have been those who didn’t own a TV. It’s the nature of technology, right? Well, according to the US Census Bureau, by 1960 90% of American households had at least one television set. Who were the other 10%? The “radio people”? Families in rural areas who either couldn’t afford TVs or didn’t care about them. In other words, staunch conservatives who would have sided with Richard Nixon no matter what the hell he said.

So we can just stop with all the cynical, “I guess image is everything” crap. JFK won that shit fair and square.

And then he had sex with Marilyn Monroe.

While Richard Nixon did not.

read comments (1)

This has been blogged elsewhere, I know, but I think it deserves a wide circulation.

In June of this year, Johann Hari of UK newspaper The Independent went undercover on one of The National Review’s yearly cruises to find out “what American conservatives say when they think the rest of us aren’t listening”. The result is one of the most illuminating pieces of political and social journalism I’ve ever read. Those of you who think the red and blue gap is an artificial construct or that it’s not as wide as the media would have you believe, read on.

I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, “Of course, we need to execute some of these people,” I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. “A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country,” she says. “Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that’s what you’ll get.” She squints at the sun and smiles. “Then things’ll change.”

Full story here.

read comments (0)