The country could be in a lot more trouble than many realize. No, not from the groups that the press usually gloms on. Then from what group? When the press ignores a situation or issue, who does that situation or issue usually effect? Women.
And the group that's most dangerous to the country currently is a group of women. These are the little girls who live to impress men and go around ripping apart one woman after another -- especially, if she might potentially achieve something truly historic.
They satisified their blood lust and their need for male approval in 2008 by ripping apart Hillary (and never objected to Barack's non-stop sexism of course -- maybe, as he said of Michelle, they just wanted to sit there and look pretty), ignoring Cynthia McKinney and then dog piling on Sarah Palin. They went after all three women and let's hope these little girls at least got laid because they certainly didn't get educated and they certainly didn't get informed.
And to be clear, you could disagree with any of those three women. I disagree with Sarah Palin on probably every issue other than special needs children. And you could disagree with her 'respectfully' or 'non-respectfully' -- it didn't really matter and it's the speaker or writer's choice. But what you couldn't do and still consider yourself a self-respecting woman was to attack Palin with lies.
In fact, attacking Palin with lies not only reveals you are dishonest, it also reveals how infantile and how, yes, stupid you are. You disagree with Palin -- a woman you think is an idiot -- and yet to discredit her, you have to lie about her. You are so intellectually deficient that you cannot disagree with her (calmly or robustly) by taking apart her arguments, instead you have to invent 'statements' she never said and 'positions' she never held.
While calling Palin stupid, so many of her attackers revealed the real idiot on the public square was the little girl trying to win male approve by trashing a woman.
Case in point Vote for (Democratic) Vets Kate Hoit who is forever throwing tantrums online and revealed that she can't let go of her hatred of Palin (or her desire to distort Palin) when right wing veterans began laughing at Hoit for some poorly worded statements Hoit made. Not a surprise that she worded so poorly, as usual with Kate, she didn't know what she was talking about. The fact that she and I were on the same side of the issue (this was the policy Gen Ray Odierno thankfully killed re: pregnancy) doesn't change the fact that Kate didn't know what the hell she was talking about. In fact, should she ever assemble a book (let's not use the term "write"), she might want to consider I Don't Know What The Hell I'm Talking About for the title.
She never knows. She lacks the ability to self-edit. She lacks the ability to step outside her very vocal mouth. Which is how she makes comments that are either borderline racist or flat out racist. One example, while votes were being counted election night 2008, she offered this mishmash at the New York Times: "I want to put on one of my combat boots, a high-heel on the other foot read a book to inner-city kids, hug my neighbors, and go search for Bin Laden." To Kate, a bi-racial man meant she, in all her Whiteness, must include a shout out "to inner-city kids." Again, borderline racist or flat out racist, you can determine for yourself.
The image of Kate in a combat boot and a high heel may thrill her beau -- shhh, we won't go there -- but it also serves to indicate how seriously off balance the woman is. Would either be appropriate footwear for reading to any children? No. But as you picture her stumbling around in those shoes, you get a good image of what a walk through that brain must be like.
Kate got a lot of 'fresh blood' while seeking male approval in 2008 and her sickness only grew. She will not face her problems but she will continue to go after any high profile woman in an attempt to curry favor with males.
Which is how we arrive at today's latest admission that the US educational system failed her, "The Hurt Locker Doesn't Get This Vet's Vote."
First off, Kate, it doesn't 'need' your vote. Your not a member of the Academy. You have no vote on this. Those of us who are will vote as we please and your non-thoughts honestly won't influence us one bit. No, they won't, little girl.
About a decade ago, I was having lunch with a good friend who was coming off a mini-hit film (which he needed at that time) and we were still debating the pros and cons of his doing that film. Was it really worth it? Was a hit needed that badly? He was charming and he was sexy in the film -- as was to be expected -- but he also had a scene that really went against his own beliefs in terms of onscreen violence. In the middle of our discussion, we were interrupted by a stranger who just wanted to say hi to both of us, big fan, he explained. 35 minutes later, as the stranger continued to explain why the gun scene in that movie ruined the whole film for him because the gun was the wrong make and who knows what else, I excused myself and asked, as I left the table, "Was it worth it?"
To have to endure that conversation alone, about one scene in a film, would indicate: No, it was not worth it. The scene was a crowd pleaser, however, it was not the heart of the film, it was one detail and for every gun addict that was against it (and I'm sure some gun addicts enjoyed it), there were many people who didn't know and or didn't care whether there was bullet in chamber or whatever. It was not a documentary, it was a film. (It was a popcorn movie, in fact.)
People such as that stranger like to pretend they're doing 'criticism' when they're not. They're not even up to fact checking. They've got their one detail (don't call it an "issue" that gives it and them too much weight and substance) and that's all they care about.
Which brings us back to Kate who builds her 'critique' around the following: "The year is 2004, the Baghdad streets are clean, almost too clean, and dust lingers in the air, soldiers appear...in the wrong uniform. Soldiers deployed to Iraq in 2004, the year The Hurt Locker was suppose to take place, were not wearing the Army Combat Uniform. I should know I was there."
First off, Kate: "Supposed." You forgot the "d," dear.
Kate, did you not know what you were walking into? Did you think you were watching CBS News? Or a documentary?
It's a costume, dear. The only purpose it had to serve was to indicate to the audience that the person was a member of the US forces. The costume is not the heart of the film. It's not a documentary, it's a feature film.
I think many people can grasp that but I don't believe Kate Hoit is one of them.
Why else would she write, in her concluding paragraph: "James played a Hollywood soldier that was fearless, reckless, and is now the face of the 21st century G.I. Joe."?
"James played a Hollywood soldier"? If you saw The Hurt Locker, you may be asking, "James who?" You saw the credits, you don't remember a "James."
That's because James isn't an actor, he is the lead character.
The lead character played a Hollywood soldier?
Again, it's not just criticism that's beyond Kate's abilities, it's even a basic fact check.
Fact, fiction, it all swirls around in her head till she barfs on the page and insists she's done a "critique."
She's not done a damn thing worth noting. A critique of a film requires knowledge of many things -- including narrative, subtext and context. Those concepts linger far from Kate's remedial grasp.
Some of you may be wondering: If she confuses the character with the actor, why is she even writing about the movie? If the best she can do is 'I don't like the costumes!', why is she writing about it?"
Because Kathyrn Bigelow was nominated for Best Director (feature film). She is only the fourth woman to ever be nominated since the start of the Academy Awards. She is only the second American woman to ever be nominated. She stands a good chance of winning.
And when a woman might score a win, a win that would mean so much for so many women, little girls like Kate Hoit, constantly seeking the approval of her Daddy figures and driven by the blood lust from her previous kills, are out to destroy.
Why don't we have a woman president? Look to little girls like Kate. Why don't we have more women in Congress? Look to little girls like Kate. Why did an alleged 'health care' 'reform' bill exist around 'reforming' away our reproductive rights? Look to little girls like Kate.
Now The Hurt Locker, as many point out, is only one in a series of films about the Iraq War.
To appreciate just how deadly to feminism a little girl like Kate is, you have to read that last paragraph. It's there that she attacks . . .
What? Brian De Palma's film? No. There have been a ton of Iraq movies made. Only two were directed by women. There's The Hurt Locker and there's Stop-Loss. Want to guess which other film Kate Hoit slams in her non-review? Right. Kimberly Peirce's film. Kate judges it -- in a word applied to all of Kate's writing -- "Awful."
Kathryn's not good enough for her, Kimberly's not good enough for. Kate gets to live through the 2008 dynamics all over again! But with less applause because the men she thinks are going to applaud her? Most of them aren't that interested in the Academy Awards. They wanted Barack in and they were happy to applaud any woman who would rip apart another woman. But when Kate tries to make like a cat depositing a dead rat on the front porch this go round, she's liable to be kicked off the men's porches.
It'll be so confusing to Kate. Hasn't she always sought male approval? Hasn't she always been rewarded as 'one of the boys' for attacking other women? But it's not working the way it used to. It's so confusing to little Kate.
But then so much is confusing to Kate. Before she writes again, she might try reading. Before she visualizes herself reading to children, she might try tackling a few big books for her own mental nourishment.
It's not just her 'calls' that are appalling, it's the flat writing 'style,' it's the inability to -- even for one brief moment -- offer one sentence that dances or comes to life. In other words, she's not just a non-thinker, she's a poor writer. When an empty brain tries to navigate a keyboard, Kate Hoit proves, it's not pretty.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4374. Tonight? 4375.
For those late to the party, I do know Kathryn and I've been campaigning offline for the film. (And am still doing that.) I also know Hillary, Cynthia, Brian and Kimberly. I've never met Sarah Palin. (And for the record, Redacted is amazing film and possibly Brian's finest one, my opinion.)
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
i hate the war