Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Gore in 1992: Saddam a Terrorist, on a Crash-Program to Develop WMD's | Main | Recent Polls Show Bush Moving Into Lead in Key Swing States »
June 25, 2004

A Tale of Two "Documentaries"

Re: The Clinton Chronicles

All this might seem silly were it not for the fact that similar scandal-mongering was taken quite seriously during the Clinton years. The notorious 1994 video The Clinton Chronicles tied Bill Clinton to a series of "mysterious" deaths — "Since August 1991, an alarming number of Clinton associates have died of unnatural causes," it said — and helped spawn a small industry of Internet "Clinton body count" lists. Condemning The Clinton Chronicles and tying its unfounded accusations to the mainstream political opposition became a standard part of White House defense strategy in times of scandal. For example, in her famous "vast right-wing conspiracy" appearance on the Today show in January 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton complained about the "mean-spirited give and take of American politics right now," which included, she said, "accusing my husband of committing murder, of drug running." A few years earlier, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos, speaking to the Washington Post, angrily said of the president's enemies, "They're accusing him of murders. . . . That's unheard of." The paper reported that Stephanopoulos "senses a conspiracy of sorts — a campaign of 'manufactured hate.'" And Bill Clinton himself often mentioned the accusations in an effort to show how unreasonable his opponents had become. "I've been accused of murder and all kinds of things," he said at a 1999 news conference. -- The Weekly Standard

Re: Fahrenheit 9-11

Two Thumbs Way Up!-- Siskel & Roeper

Winner, Palm d' Or-- Cannes Film Festival

It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power. -- the dipshit reviewer for the amateur leftist newsletter Slate (along the way he charges "conspiracy!" because the Secret Service were protecting the Saudi Embassy, another case of a movie reviewer assuming he knows stuff because he took twenty credits of film criticism at the Seton Hall School of Communications. He now corrects to admit that, yes, it has long been a Secret Service practice to guard embassies and ambassadors in Washington; but he's still very, very suspicious)


Okay, guys. Explain the distinction. I'm all ears.

Apparently a schlocky, extremist, dishonest "documentary" is bad when it's about Clinton, but good and useful "counterpropaganda" against Bush. Please explain your objective reasons for preferring the latter while subjecting us to ten years of whining over the former.


posted by Ace at 06:11 PM
Comments



"Production values"

We're talking about people who value style over substance, remember.

The right wingers were a bunch of outsiders, while the Great White Whale can draw on the professionals of Hollywood and New York news bureaus. (How does one go about getting all those clips and outtakes, anyway? Can you imagine the outrage if an outtake of Clinton primping for a CNN appearance made it into a VRWC "documentary"?)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on June 25, 2004 06:19 PM

Ummm, nice try, but I don't think that's the reason one is excortiated and the other is feted.

Posted by: Ace on June 25, 2004 06:23 PM

"Excoriated"?

"Feted"?

Those words are too sophisitcated. You're one of them!

Posted by: Aaron on June 25, 2004 06:50 PM

Because one accuses a President of murder - that's right, actually killing people to get them out of the way of your quest for power. As bad as our political discourse is getting these says, it's still (at least I hope) going a bit too far to actually attack the man's reputation by calling him a murderer without something more than a conspiracy theory. I'm talking about evidence - either one big smoking gun or a million small ones - not just suspicious statistics.

On the other side, it's not like anyone's accusing Bush of murder. They're just saying he colluded with international terrorists who attacked our nation, all for political gain and a manufactured war in Iraq for oil, and in Afghanistan for ... er, someone remind me what greedy capitalist premise we had for that one?

The two accusations don't even come close, so do the honest thing and cut the Clintons some slack on this one.

Posted by: Aaron on June 25, 2004 06:59 PM

Drugs

Posted by: Brian B on June 25, 2004 07:14 PM

C'mon, those Hollywood types are all apolitical. They just appreciate the best practioners of their art. They never bring their political beliefs into objectively evaluating such works.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on June 25, 2004 09:05 PM

Aaron, with all due respect, I don't see the difference that you're trying to make.

Clinton wasn't accused of murdering anyone (with his own hands). He was accused of being associated with/colluding with folks who were likely responsible for the murders (for his political gain) referenced in the Clinton Chronicals. It was Clinton and his people who said that he was being accused of murder.

Bush isn't accused of murdering anyone (with his own hands). He is being accused of being associated with/colluding with folks who murdered 2000+ on 9/11 (somehow for his political gain).

Sounds like someone trying to tie a sitting President to the murder of Americans...in both cases.

Posted by: Rudejelly on June 28, 2004 10:27 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.
Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win

Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.
You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!
In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.
In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.
Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
Recent Comments
Eromero: "You can’t hide your lion eyes. ..."

runner: ""In Iran, crowds were documented taking to the str ..."

old chick: "Where are people seeing the 10 point agreement? ..."

Berserker-Dragonheads Division: "Murder hornets. To be fair, though, if I ever s ..."

General Uprising: "The Shah appealed to the Iranian Army today, but n ..."

man: "Time for a big snort of bourbon" Well said. ..."

garrett: ">>Time for a big snort of bourbon The most se ..."

TecumsehTea: "April 20. Thank you!! Hey Wolfus! We hardly eve ..."

San Franpsycho: "They are launching on Israel. The missiles have be ..."

nurse ratched: "Time for a big snort of bourbon. ..."

Yudhishthira's Dice: "You are aware that 42,000 protesters have been mur ..."

Anonymous Rogue in Kalifornistan (ARiK): "6 Her Majesty and The Big Dummy are home after th ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives