Mistakes?

Mistakes?

Talk about a pre-existing condition!

Nice work this week, Tom!

...for DEMOCRATS...

Paycheck Party, comrades, is simple concept. Please to answer question: Do you belong in Party?

Is how to determine:

You get paycheck? You in the Party!

You sign paycheck? You NOT in the Party!

Please to be joining Paycheck Party and taking back society, economic theories, and lining pigs up against wall!

Not many of us have NOT had that kind of day.

I was sick. But not with a virus. Not with a broken bone. Not with a sore throat.

I was sick of work, and a mini-vacation was just what I needed.

I have done this approximately six times in 37 years of work. Put that statistic into your little study, Chicago School of Economics, and then go SHIT IN YOUR HAT.

And their point is...?

Fuck the Chicago School of Economics, the public think tank for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, subsidiary propaganda arm of Wall Street, etc. Their little ideas have been fucking proven WRONG, over and over again, for the last two decades...

...I was hooked.

I work in a Landmark Theatre, art house deluxe provider nationwide. This film is, as Andrew says, stretched to the limit stylistically and thematically. Every shot is squared--it finds the center of the room, the tableau, etc, and the camera only moves on 90 degree angles to and from that center. It gets only a bit annoying after awhile, because it helps the tension in what is already a foregone conclusion of guilt or fatalism.

The excellent soundtrack is aided by the almost-MTV style of the editing and cinematography. It is relentless, and after a short while into the movie, much more effective than I would have imagined.

Some very humorous lines and situations as well. Tony Sorvillo is amazing in his absence of glib and inability to be surprised or to express any emotion--and yet the performance is full of life in the movement of an eyeball or the oh-so-slight shakiness of his hands holding a cup of tea.

Yes, we had it for two weeks--but it should have lasted longer, just for the quality and satisfaction of the movie. Andrew hits a bullseye in this review. Netflix it, see it, and forget about what you know of Italian history. The Devil is easy to recognize here, and he is fascinating.

But not Weiner. He's the political pro. He should know better than to try to make a fellow Democrat look bad--for ATTACKING the thieves and their whores.

A whore, by MY definition, anyway, is BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, which describes lobbyists perfectly.

Weiner should have kept his big mouth shut. HE'S the one trying to grab a headline.

Now, Weiner is one of the Good Guys, fer sure. But he needs to learn something very important: you don't muzzle your attack dogs, you just step aside, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB, and act as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.

Weiner, take note, if you want to get ahead in politics the HONEST way. It can be done, and Grayson's trying to show you how.

Here's a little secret I predict will come out, sooner or later:

She was fucking him.

He lived with the family. She's nuts and completely ego-centric. He was a horndog teenager fucking her daughter.

She was fucking him. Bet on it.

One comment too many?

Everyone knows these thieves, whether they're Obama's thieves or members of the Bush Crime Family, ARE whores.

If Grayson called him or her a whore, I trust him. He has been SPOT ON so far; he's wealthy, liberal, and can't be bought; it's his CONSCIENCE that guides him, and not money. More importantly, everything he's said so far has been skewering honesty, and nobody's slowing him down yet.

'Whore' is exactly the same term my favorite blogger would use. It's the language most Americans use, except he left one word out, if this person is as crooked as he infers: She's a FUCKING whore.

No language is TOO bad to describe persons helping themselves to the Treasury trough, babe. You are dead wrong. Grayson didn't go too far. He's still on the straight and narrow path of simple honesty.

I saw plenty of women in line at my box office for "Amelia" this weekend. It was the hit in our lineup.

But the movie was/is basically unsatisfying. I'm not sure why; I haven't seen it yet, and I may not see it. But that's what people tell me who I trust for information about the quality of a film.

Bad movies have been the only source of 'tanking' badly, except when bad movies become hits--for whatever reason. It's the movie itself, and NOT sexism.