<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Redhawke's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>http://www.intensedebate.com/users/551690</link>
		<description>Comments by Redhawke</description>
<item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Something Gays &amp; Muslims Need Never Fear: CBS, Grammys Mock Catholic Church</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912878</link>
<description>3.  So Minaj is a &amp;quot;schizo-aesthetic artist,&amp;quot; is she?  Igoring for the moment what the hell that means, it reminds me of a morality exercise I participated in in high school, the upshot of which is, no matter the cognitive ability or motive of a person who punches me in the nose, it doesn&amp;#039;t make my nose hurt any less (I say this as a never-been-Catholic).  Minaj&amp;#039;s performance was so transparently anti-Catholic that even if &lt;i&gt;she&lt;/i&gt; didn&amp;#039;t recognize it, &lt;i&gt;someone&lt;/i&gt; in the long list of reviewers of the performance should have done so.  That &lt;i&gt;no one&lt;/i&gt; either foresaw a problem with this, or didn&amp;#039;t care, is itself an issue. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912878</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Something Gays &amp; Muslims Need Never Fear: CBS, Grammys Mock Catholic Church</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912661</link>
<description>2.  Tell you what: you hold on to the &amp;quot;position&amp;quot; that there was nothing political about Minaj&amp;#039;s performance; me, I&amp;#039;ll live in the real world for now.  The evidence I hold on my side is: in the same week that the political realm practically exploded over the dispute between the O admin and the Catholic Church over the latter having to pay for contraceptive services, Minaj takes to the Grammies to perform a &amp;quot;fever dream&amp;quot; about overtly Catholic priests holding her prisoner and persecuting her, the first part of which is in a unique icon of Catholic practice (the Confessional).  If it was just coincidence, it was one of the more amazing (and unbelieveable, in every sense of the word) coincidences in an industry that seems to fall back on the coincidence excuse on a nearly weekly basis. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912661</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Something Gays &amp; Muslims Need Never Fear: CBS, Grammys Mock Catholic Church</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912462</link>
<description>I have several comments to this, in no particular order:  1.  No matter what Minaj&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;appeal&amp;quot; may be (to whomever that may be), her presence on the Grammies is arguably broader for its incorporation into the Grammies production.  Unless you sincerely believe that (a) the Grammies producrers told Minaj &amp;quot;hey, we love your work, so do what you want.  We aren&amp;#039;t even particularly interested in seeing it beforehand,&amp;quot; Minaj&amp;#039;s message was endorsed by a broader &amp;quot;speaker,&amp;quot; namely the Grammies producers.  I sincerely doubt THEY were hoping for laughs.  I saw absolutely nothing to suggest that it was put on for comedy (nor, for that matter, do I honestly believe that the Grammies producers have a working comprehension of &amp;quot;humor,&amp;quot; but I digress).  Absent that, the only really &amp;quot;absurdist&amp;quot; commentary I can foresee is that of the Grammies producers, and it ain&amp;#039;t the one I believe you think it is. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291912462</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Something Gays &amp; Muslims Need Never Fear: CBS, Grammys Mock Catholic Church</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291524207</link>
<description>I definitely could be wrong, but did I hear audience members laughing at the utter ridiculousness of the &amp;quot;confessional&amp;quot; part of that performance (at least before the hoard of tortured cats drowned them out)?  If so (a huge &amp;quot;if,&amp;quot; I grant), audience drones laughing at what was clearly being played as a &amp;quot;serious statement&amp;quot; is a good sign...small but good.    OTOH, such an OTT broadside against the Catholic Church (as opposed to the overworn &amp;quot;child molester&amp;quot; charge), aired in prime time on a major network is a very BAD sign. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/13/something-gays-muslims-need-never-fear-cbs-grammys-mock-catholic-church/#IDComment291524207</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Rappers Love Obama, Hate Paying Him Taxes</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/whall/2012/02/13/rappers-love-obama-hate-paying-him-taxes/#IDComment291515695</link>
<description>Ah, sounds like more racial dog-whistling to me. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/whall/2012/02/13/rappers-love-obama-hate-paying-him-taxes/#IDComment291515695</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Carolla Slams Progressives for Ruining a Day at the Beach</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/11/carolla-slams-progressives-for-ruining-a-day-at-the-beach/#IDComment290044821</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;m pretty sure whatever right you are looking for (so long as it doesn&amp;#039;t involve guns) is to be found in the penumbras of whatever&amp;#039;s left over of the Bill of Rights once the Obama Administration is done with it. </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/11/carolla-slams-progressives-for-ruining-a-day-at-the-beach/#IDComment290044821</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : 'An Inconsistent Truth' Debunks Gore's Global Warming Hysteria</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pvalentine/2012/02/07/an-inconsistent-truth-debunks-gores-global-warming-hysteria/#IDComment286744626</link>
<description>IMO, for most of the front-line GG soldiers, it&amp;#039;s the same instinct for conspiracy theories - a frosting of guilt for our lifestyle (which MUST be bad brcause Americans are all, globally speaking, the 1%), over a self-important cake of need to be among the &amp;quot;inside&amp;quot; people who see something the common sheeple who lack the clear sight to see the conspiracy for what it is, don&amp;#039;t.  People like this are absurdly easy for puppet masters to manipulate.  Just put forth a theory that&amp;#039;s one part phoney-baloney pseudoscience, and three parts speaking to their political prejudices.  Just like trutherism </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pvalentine/2012/02/07/an-inconsistent-truth-debunks-gores-global-warming-hysteria/#IDComment286744626</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Which Celebrity Had the Best Super Bowl Ad?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/zleeman/2012/02/06/which-celebrity-had-the-best-super-bowl-ad/#IDComment285696638</link>
<description>Yeah, good luck with that one, Midnite. Sadly, I suspect they&amp;#039;ll be seeing a LOT more of your (and my and everyone else&amp;#039;s) money.  We just won&amp;#039;t be handing it over with the hope of getting a mid-quality car, or anything else, in exchange.  Going Galt is pretty much the only other option. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/zleeman/2012/02/06/which-celebrity-had-the-best-super-bowl-ad/#IDComment285696638</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Which Celebrity Had the Best Super Bowl Ad?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/zleeman/2012/02/06/which-celebrity-had-the-best-super-bowl-ad/#IDComment285689769</link>
<description>IMO, the commercial isn&amp;#039;t selling (or even mentioning) Detroit, the actual city in Michigan, it&amp;#039;s selling Detroit, the Motor City, the &lt;i&gt;concept&lt;/i&gt; behind American motor production.  The Big 3 have been selling the &lt;i&gt;idea&lt;/i&gt; of Detroit for decades (even as the City has descended into the Fourth Circle of Hell).  The fact that Detroit hasn&amp;#039;t been the actual center of American car production is beside the point - it IS the spiritual center.  The fact that Detroit is also the poster child for uberliberal mismanagement and union greed and &amp;quot;I-got-mine-ism&amp;quot; is just a happy coincidence. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/zleeman/2012/02/06/which-celebrity-had-the-best-super-bowl-ad/#IDComment285689769</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : <span style="color: #ff0000;">Muppets Go Partisan: Kermit and Miss Piggy Trash Fox News</span></title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280427084</link>
<description>Nope.  Back then, we had three flavors of the same warmed-over liberal pap, no alternatives to that enforced intellectual gulag, and, interestingly enough, a completely different professional whiners (LeftWing stuck up MSM).  How things have changed. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Feb 2012 03:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280427084</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : <span style="color: #ff0000;">Muppets Go Partisan: Kermit and Miss Piggy Trash Fox News</span></title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280423843</link>
<description>[full disclosure: I have not seen the newest film]  Those villians at least made internal &amp;quot;sense&amp;quot; (if such a word can be used to describe a Muppets movie).  When the protagonist is a frog, it makes internal sense to make the villian a restauranteur of a national chain of frog legs restauarant.  It makes the conflict personal and logical.    As well, making the &amp;quot;thief&amp;quot; character &amp;quot;interesting&amp;quot; by making him a &amp;quot;bored rich kid&amp;quot; also makes sense, as it&amp;#039;s a common, non-political trope (making him an actual greedy rich man who got there by ripping off consumers would be closer to the political hit I presume you&amp;#039;re thinking of).    However, an oil tycoon villain makes no sense in the context of the plot of the film, as I understand it.  Why would you need such a convoluted scheme to get an oil tycoon involved?  KISS. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Feb 2012 03:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280423843</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : <span style="color: #ff0000;">Muppets Go Partisan: Kermit and Miss Piggy Trash Fox News</span></title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280404435</link>
<description>&lt;i&gt;Aside from Miss Piggy&amp;#039;s joke, I don&amp;#039;t see this being partisan.&lt;/i&gt;  Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?  The screenwriter went out of his way to make the villian an agglomeration of right-side cliches, when, as has been pointed out in this thread, far more realistic, and/or tonally appropriate villians.  Then, when called on it, rather than addressing the issue striaght-forwardly, or at least leading with a less broadside, ad hominem and cliched meme-attack, MissPiggy&amp;#039;s voice/hand-up-the-a$$ went with the least imaginative b.s. possible. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Feb 2012 03:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/30/muppets-go-partisan-kermit-and-miss-piggy-trash-fox-news/#IDComment280404435</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Pathetic Judd Apatow Panders to Politically Correct Hollywood Crowd: 'F*ck You, Jerry Lewis'</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/13/pathetic-judd-apatow-panders-to-politically-correct-hollywood-crowd-fck-you-jerry-lewis/#IDComment263534822</link>
<description>Sounds an awful lot like Apatow&amp;#039;s still smarting from Katherine Heigl&amp;#039;s critique of Knocked Up as sexist.  Well, you all know the old saying, &amp;quot;If you can&amp;#039;t laugh at yourself...make fun of other people!&amp;quot; (credit Bobby Slayton) </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/13/pathetic-judd-apatow-panders-to-politically-correct-hollywood-crowd-fck-you-jerry-lewis/#IDComment263534822</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Will Hollywood Rally to Christian Bale's Side Following Skirmish Involving Chinese Activist?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment259613570</link>
<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/www.jokesandhumor.com\/jokes\/386.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Iceberg.  Goldberg.  What&amp;#039;s the difference?&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment259613570</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : The Onion Forgets Mission, Protects Obama as 2012 Election Beckons</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2012/01/09/the-onion-forgets-mission-protects-obama-as-2012-elections-beckon/#IDComment259602690</link>
<description>Why is it that, every time someone brings up the rampant bias of so-called &amp;quot;satire&amp;quot; news sites (The Onion and Jon Stewart are the ur-examples), one of the primary themes of comments are &amp;quot;Why are we/you so surprised?&amp;quot;  Um, I, for one, am not surprised, but that doesn&amp;#039;t mean that this type of blatant favoratism shouldn&amp;#039;t be exposed root-and-branch.  For instance, when one of the Bigs posts a commentary on Pelosi following the liberal party line, it&amp;#039;s rare that someone posts &amp;quot;She&amp;#039;s a liberal doing what liberals do.  Why are we/you getting all het up about this?&amp;quot;  Here&amp;#039;s a thought - even when supposedly &amp;quot;non-partisan/apolitical&amp;quot; fellow travelers wind up doing what we pretty much all knew they would do, it&amp;#039;s still incumbent on those of us who see this malarkey for what it is to point it out.  Otherwise, like other &amp;quot;big lies,&amp;quot; they go unanswered and eventually become the &amp;quot;conventional wisdom.&amp;quot;  And I, for one, have no intention of allowing, even unintentionally, crap like The Onion eventuially falling into the category of &amp;quot;humor.&amp;quot;   </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2012/01/09/the-onion-forgets-mission-protects-obama-as-2012-elections-beckon/#IDComment259602690</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : SNL Spoofs Santorum, Mocks His Hands-On Campaign, Stance on Gays</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/01/08/snl-spoofs-santorum-mocks-his-hands-on-campaign-stance-on-gays/#IDComment258915262</link>
<description>I expect Thay_Live is right in one respect...it&amp;#039;s likely more people know of SNL&amp;#039;s skits through the Bigs than actually watch it on a weekly basis.  </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/01/08/snl-spoofs-santorum-mocks-his-hands-on-campaign-stance-on-gays/#IDComment258915262</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Did Oprah and Rosie Burn Their Brands By Going Political?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/01/04/did-oprah-and-rosie-burn-their-brands-by-going-political/#IDComment256172928</link>
<description>Wow, Mike.  Way to ignore a significant paragraph, only to latch onto the least relevant (possibly throwaway) fact, and then engage in a slanderous and unsupported &amp;quot;tu quoque&amp;quot; attack.  This is everything I personally have come to expect from the left.  Good job! </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/01/04/did-oprah-and-rosie-burn-their-brands-by-going-political/#IDComment256172928</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Will Hollywood Rally to Christian Bale's Side Following Skirmish Involving Chinese Activist?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment241220521</link>
<description>Fair points, I&amp;#039;d guess.  My comment, though, was a play on the last line of &lt;i&gt;Chinatown&lt;/i&gt;.  With all that entails.  Admittedly, I may well have hacked the quote, as well.  More to your point, however, this strikes me as moral equivalency at its worst.  &amp;quot;This ain&amp;#039;t your country, so you can&amp;#039;t criticize how we do things,&amp;quot; is the clarion call of every society that knows its behavior is indefensible, so it must move the goalposts.  As the PRC does on such a regular basis, you could put it on a loop.  Perhaps Bale is being a bit the spoiled American/movie star, but for once he&amp;#039;s doing it to further a moral goal, underlining the immorality of the PRC.   The fiunal irony of all of this is, &lt;i&gt;Chinatown&lt;/i&gt; was about a culture so steeped in corruption that even the ostensible guardians of morality had accepted it as the way things would always be, and about a man who railed against it to the destruction of everything he believed in.  The dubious final takeaway from it (epitomized by the quote I mangled) was, &amp;quot;You can&amp;#039;t change it; might as well just accept it.&amp;quot;  Sound familiar? </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment241220521</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : Will Hollywood Rally to Christian Bale's Side Following Skirmish Involving Chinese Activist?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment239739964</link>
<description>&amp;quot;Forget it, Christian...this is China.&amp;quot; </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 04:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/12/16/will-hollywood-rally-to-christian-bales-side-following-skirmish-involving-chinese-activist/#IDComment239739964</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Big Hollywood : New Fall TV Season Heavy On Sex</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/08/22/new-fall-tv-season-heavy-on-sex/#IDComment186365057</link>
<description>To those here (both left and right) who recommend some variation on &amp;quot;Just change the channel/turn the TV off&amp;quot; -  As, among others, Ben Shapiro points out, one of the main reasons TV is as liberal as it is is that Conservatives gave up the field.  Yes, we have had the deck stacked against us for decades, but every time we get frustrated or offended, we tune out, and the Neilsens show that liberal shows get more and more of the remaining audience.  So what do conservatives do?  We can boycott sponsors (as long as we actually follow through, which WILL mean sacrifice), but more importantly, we can take a more active role in what we watch.  Search out those GOOD shows that skew right, and watch them religiously.  Spread the word to your fellow conservatives of shows that represent YOU.  Who knows?  Maybe one of the people you contact is a Neilsen family.  Actively support products (that are good) that sponsor these shows, and LET THEM KNOW - not only that you support them, but WHY you support them.  In short, if you disconnect, you have no one to blame for yourself if Hollywood doesn&amp;#039;t pay attention to you.  if, however, you engage, wisely, you CAN make a difference. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/08/22/new-fall-tv-season-heavy-on-sex/#IDComment186365057</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>
