There are very few bad Fred Astaire movies, but there are a few. You’ll Never Get Rich definitely falls into that category. Even Rita Hayworth, who is at her most lovely, cannot save this pathetic wreck of a movie. The plot is convoluted, which is normal for an Astaire movie, but the movie makes the fatal mistake of casting Astaire as a cowardly, dishonest man. Nobody expects a macho Fred, but nobody wants a quivering, cowardly, lying Fred. The dancing is lovely, though, and TiVo means that you can just fast forward to the good parts.
There was one scene in the movie, however, that merited watching. I’ll try setting it up as briefly as possible: An unwitting Rita Hayworth opens the morning paper to discover a false headline saying she was engaged to Astaire. She believes (erroneously) that Astaire planted the headline. Hayworth’s fiance, a Captain in the Army, then calls her and, when he learns the headline is a lie, heads over to her apartment while wearing his civilian clothes. Astaire also heads for Hayworth’s apartment to berate her, since he believes (erroneously) that Hayworth planted the headline. The Captain reaches Hayworth’s apartment first. When he, Hayworth, and her roommate hear Astaire banging at the door, Hayworth shoos the Captain and her roommate into the bedroom. And here’s where this mess of a plot momentarily gets interesting.
Once in the bedroom, the Captain says something along the lines of “I’ve got a great idea to prank this guy.” He then turns to the roommate and (I quote) asks, “Have you got a gun?” Without so much as a blink, she replies “It’s in that drawer.” He opens the drawer and grabs a large revolver. Armed with his gun, the Captain bursts into the living room, pretending to be Hayworth’s outraged Southern brother demanding that Astaire marry his “sister.” Astaire rabbits out of the room. In the next scene, an agitated Astaire is telling his boss, who’s the real culprit behind the newspaper headline, about the threat to his life. His boss says, “Buy yourself a gun.”
Can you imagine any Hollywood movie today showing a woman having a revolver just hanging around in her vanity drawer? Can you imagine a gun being used as a playful joke in a happy musical? And can you imagine that a Hollywood movie would show someone terrified of being attacked getting advice from a colleague to “buy a gun”? It’s inconceivable (and I know what that word means, too).
And while we’re on the subject of guns, Charles C. W. Cooke notes that everything the Progressives tell you about the necessity for gun control laws is a lie. Since all the elaborate registration requirements and background checks currently on the books don’t prevent mass shootings, small wonder then that Second Amendment supporters suspect that increased registration requirements are simply a predicate to gun confiscation or otherwise criminalizing gun owners.
I did mention, didn’t I, that the dancing is lovely?
Commercials — they’re big money in America and they’re super-dooper big money at the Super Bowl. For the upcoming Super Bowl, advertisers are paying $3.8 million dollars per 30 seconds of air time for commercials. You know what commercial you won’t see, though? One supporting the Second Amendment. Here’s the ad that the NFL refused to show:
Mulling over the NFL’s craven retreat from supporting a core constitutional right, my first thought was “Hey, we ought to boycott the Super Bowl.” Only a second’s reflection made me realize that there was no way Americans would refuse to watch the Super Bowl over something like this, even pro-gun Americans. It is, after all, the Super Bowl, and it will take a bigger insult than a banned commercial to make people abandon one of the year’s great pleasures.
When I heard yesterday about the price for advertising on the Super Bowl, however, it occurred to me that Americans can take a stand without sacrificing their viewing pleasure: Second Amendment supporters should let it be known that they will boycott any service or product advertised during the Super Bowl. After all, while you and the players focus on the game itself when you think of the Super Bowl, for the NFL honchos and the advertisers, it’s all about the money.
According to Forbes, the following companies have already signed on to those exorbitant ad rates: “Anheuser-Busch InBev; Butterfinger; Chevrolet; Doritos; GoDaddy.com; Hyundai; Intuit; Jaguar; Mars; Oikos; PepsiCo Beverages; and Wonderful Pistachios.” There will eventual be
None of those are essential products that people must have in order to survive. If you’re a Butterfinger or Mars fan, consider the fact that a boycott will help you with that diet you’ve been meaning to start. Same goes for the Doritos nibblers among us, the soft drink consumers (PepsiCo), or the beer drinkers. And honestly, as a luxury car, aren’t Jaguars just the slightest bit, well, old fogey-ish? If you’re looking for a luxury car, pick one that isn’t giving almost $13,000 per second to an organization that considers the Second Amendment controversial. I’m willing to bet that, subject to a few exceptions, every single advertised product will be something that you can do without.
I’m sure there are those among you who will say “It’s just a commercial” or ask “Why is one commercial such a big deal?” or something like that. In years past, I might have agreed. But this year is different. This is the year in which Organizing For America is telling Americans to have Sandy Hook anniversary gatherings in order to fire up anti-gun sentiment. This is the year that children across America were attacked by school authorities for chewing pizza into gun shapes or pointing their fingers at each other and saying “bang.” Moreover, this is the administration that has been open about its desire to ban guns in America and that has at least another year to pursue that goal.
In other words, this is a year when Americans cannot afford to sit back and say “whatever” when a major American institution cries craven on the Second Amendment. So please, think about making a fairly painless, but very principled stand against an institution that refuses to accept a very low-key commercial celebrating a constitutional right.
A friend of mine put up a Facebook comment about the shooting at LAX, in which he spoke movingly about the very nice TSA people he’s met there, as his job requires a great deal of travel. The very first comment to his post about a personal tragedy said, “We need to acknowledge that America has a problem not currently being addressed, and find a way to solve it.”
I somehow divined that this guy wasn’t talking about inadequate care for the mentally ill, but about guns, so I put in my two cents: “I completely agree with you, Roger. If we had more good guys with guns, bad guys with guns wouldn’t be able to get away with this kind of thing.”
Incidentally, I later read that LAX had only recently removed its armed guards from the area where the shooting occurred:
3:13 p.m. Months before Friday’s shooting at LAX, officials removed armed police officers from their permanent assignments protecting TSA checkpoints, one veteran airport police officer told The Times.
Unfortunately, I have a prior engagement that I can’t avoid, but I wish I could go. John Lott brings common sense and sound data to information about gun ownership and gun use in America. This forum sounds so good it would even be worth lifting, only temporarily, of course, my self-imposed ban on going into Berkeley, my least favorite city and my least favorite college, in America.
Hat tip: Jose
The repulsive Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson made news yesterday by putting out a fundraising letter that likens the Tea Party to the KKK (which, during its heyday, was an entirely Democrat organization):
Today, in a very timely way, Caped Crusader sent me the first sensible gun-control proposal I’ve seen, when that gets to the heart of the violence underlying gun crime:
In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 Adam Lazna, the child of a registered Democrat, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
Recently, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I’ve heard to date. JUST SAYING.
Normally, when I see the usual liberal talking points on my Facebook page, I try to ignore them lest I damage my blood pressure. Today, though, I got a wall of stupid. I’ve already written here about the profound ignorance that lies behind the progressive masses’ repeated claim that Obamacare is the “law of the land” and that the Republicans can do nothing. Aside from being grossly hypocritical coming from a party that refuses to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, it’s also ignorant. The House has the power of the purse precisely because, as a representative body with a two-year turnover, it is the best reflection of the will of the people at any given moment.
I probably could have tolerated that stupidity if I hadn’t also gotten a boatload of dumb about the gun shots fired in Washington, D.C. today. Early reports indicated that a driver who tried to slam into the White House was the shooter. Instantly, people went on their anti-gun tirades. Of course, when the dust settled, it turned out that the only shooters were the cops and that the person driving the car had a long history of mental illness. (Warning: site has autoplay video.) When I passed this information on to the Lefties claiming that guns were at the root of this, at least two of them made the identical risible argument: Even though the gal didn’t have a gun, she’s still a poster child for gun control, because she could have had a gun.
Honestly! How in the world can you counter that kind of monomania? It transcends reason and fact, and is an article of faith as profound as the Democrats’ historic belief that blacks are an inferior race who need either slavery or government welfare to function.
Given this type of irrational anti-gun lunacy, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that a Phoenix-area police officer was asked not to wear his uniform when he picked his child up from elementary school, because parents were frightened by his gun.
I love Ace’s take on this story. The article that originally reported the story presented the school’s point of view:
A district spokeswoman told the station that “some parents” voiced concern about seeing a fully armed police officer on the school’s campus. The spokeswoman apologized that Urkov perhaps took the discussion the wrong way.
“It was not the intent of the principal to offend him,” the spokeswoman said.
To which Ace provided the only response possible:
Yes yes yes yes yes. He took it the wrong way. It’s on him. He didn’t understand your intent. He’s got the problem; not you.
Of course you don’t have a problem. Hysteria is not only natural, it’s preferable.
Shall we ban Cowboy Hats next? I mean: Cowboys. They carry six-shooters.
An armed former Royal Marine who happened to be in the Westgate Mall in Kenya when the Al-Shabab terrorists struck, may have saved as many as 100 people.
For all that liberals profess to think better of people than conservatives do, one of the most striking things about them is that they believe that, the moment people get hold of guns, they turn into crazed killers. The vast majority of people, when given a gun, will use it only for good or, at the very least, not for bad. Disarming them means that they are unable to come to anyone’s defense.
I don’t know if this Royal Marine fired his gun, or if he just used his other skills to rescue people. Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether he would have been as effective if he didn’t have his friend at his waist.
Sometimes I’ve been a little bit unclear about what, exactly, it means to “politicize” an event. After all, some things are inherently political. For example, the attack on the Benghazi compound either did or did not reflect administration failures before and during the attack, and did or did not involve an administration cover-up after the attack. Any report on the attack was, therefore, going to end up taking sides in a political fight.
What I do know, however, is that there are some venues where the political subject matter should never be touched . . . say, at a memorial service. There, you talk about those who died and what they meant to those who still live. If you start politicizing the event by talking about your ideas about what caused the person’s death, you’ve pretty much lowered yourself to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church. In their case, of course, one needs a complete vocabulary of Shakespearean invective to describe adequately the human detritus that populates that loathsome organization.
So what does it say about the fact that, at the Navy Yard memorial, President Obama saw the microphone and thought, “Wow, what a great opportunity this will be for me to push a deeply divisive and, in the last political go-round, unpopular political agenda”? For Obama, to have the thought is to act on it. So, in front of grieving friends and relatives, Obama gave a political speech:
As President, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence. Fort Hood. Tucson. Aurora. Sandy Hook. And now, the Washington Navy Yard. And these mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies, as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America — from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here.
Aside from turning the President into a card-carrying member of the “Westboro Baptist Church House School of appropriate conduct at a funeral or memorial service” club, those two sentences pack in a world of dishonesty.
First, Fort Hood wasn’t “gun violence,” it was an act of war committed by a dedicated jihadist taking orders from foreign leadership. Second, there is no epidemic of gun violence across America. Take away specific areas and perpetrators (i.e., young black men living in “gun-free,” Democrat-run urban enclaves) and you end up with gun crime rates comparable to those in Europe. And third, as Katie Pavlich nicely points out (hat tip: Hot Air), none of Obama’s gun crime initiatives would have prevented Aaron Alexis from going on his killing spree:
Let’s refresh what happened last week: Mad man Aaron Alexis, who was hearing aliens talk to him, purchased a shotgun legally at a Virginia gun store after passing two background checks. He carved cryptic sayings into the shotgun like “better off this way,” and “my elf gun.” He then illegally took that gun into Washington D.C., illegally brought it into the Navy Yard and committed mass murder. When it comes to more gun control, I’m not exactly sure what Obama is trying to get out here. Is he implying we should institute more restrictions on basic shotguns?
Oh, and here’s the truth hidden behind all of Obama’s lies: in each case, these shootings took place in “gun free zones.” Whether driven by madness or religious mania, each of these shooters was sufficiently connected to reality to understand that the best way to create havoc and draw blood is to go to a forum in which no one is capable of fighting back. There are no mass shootings at NRA headquarters. Indeed, although I can’t find a link for it, I seem to remember that several years ago a man tried to shoot up NRA headquarters and was shot within seconds by an armed guard on site.
Has there ever been a man who so totally debased the White House? Kennedy and Clinton engaged in disgraceful sexual conduct, but at least they did it behind closed doors. When it comes to the White House, I’d rather have a discrete philanderer than a . . . a . . . a whatever the heck that man is. Seeing something like this really leaves me — me!! Ms. Verbal!! — without adequate words to describe what our President is or how deeply I despise his conduct.