Donald Trump attends costume party themed "Villians and Heroes" and dresses like himself. Seems right.

Courtesy of the New York Daily News:

President-elect Donald Trump played the role of party pooper-in-chief at a swanky Saturday night costume soirée in Long Island themed “Villains and Heroes.” 

Trump showed up at the ultra-exclusive fiesta thrown by hedge fund manager Robert Mercer in a staid dark suit and checked tie. 

On his way into Mercer’s lavish Suffolk County estate, Trump was asked who he was dressed up as. 

The Republican hero pointed to himself and mouthed “me.”

I don't see how this makes Trump a "party pooper." After all when you are in fact a real life comic book supervillain why would you need to wear the costume of another comic book supervillain?

It's actually Kellyanne Conway's costume that I find ridiculous.

After all, Supergirl is a young fit superheroine from another planet sent to rescue earth from dangerous aliens and villains determined to destroy it.

On the other hand, Kellyanne is an opportunistic political operative who just helped place a dangerous villain in a position to succeed in destroying this planet.

Nothing heroic or super about that.

Why I am not going to see the new Ridley Scott movie and you shouldn't either.

Look at that!

Doesn't that look good?

Yeah I think so too. I love going to the movies and that looks right up my alley.

I mean I love the director Ridley Scott, I am a big Christian Bale fan, and big extravagant films like this are why I go to the movies.

Except I am not going to see it. Ever!

Why you may ask?

Because it is all bullshit that perpetuates a myth that is incredibly destructive and vilifies an entire nation even though there is absolutely NO evidence to support it.

Don't believe me? Here you go:

It turns out that there is no archaeological evidence of any kind relating to a separate settlement of religious people in Egypt during that time. There is also no evidence of any kind relating to a mass migration across the Sinai Peninsula. 

If things did indeed happen as it says in the Bible (and the Torah), there would have to be some archaeological evidence. But there is none. 

Further, there is no evidence of any kind that Egypt even used slaves, and certainly no evidence that they enslaved an entire nation. The workers that built the pyramids are known to be well payed Egyptians. The pyramids weren’t even built in the right time period, being 800 to 2,000 years older than the supposed “Exodus”. 

The same techniques used to track the migration patterns of ancient humans by examining DNA also show that there was absolutely no procreation between ancient Egyptians and ancient Israelites during the time that the story was supposed to have taken place. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if an entire nation was enslaved for hundreds of years, surely there would have been some inter-breeding. 

In short, this story never happened. 

There is more here and here if you need further convincing. 

Last year I was talked into going to see the movie Noah, starring Russell Crow, by my daughter.

However halfway through I thought "Well this is just religious bullshit. And by purchasing a ticket I am financially supporting this religious bullshit and probably helping to convince movie makers to create more of this religious bullshit."

It actually bothered me for days afterward, and even though I tried to rationalize it by reminding myself that I also watched the movie Troy, which is also based on mythologies, I still couldn't do it.

You see it is easy to dismiss a craptastic flop like Kirk Cameron's recent Christmas movie, but these movies support the mythologies that are vital to propping up a religion that, let's face it, is now well past its sell by date.

You see I dearly love fantasy movies and will gleefully spend my hard earned money to watch all kinds of completely unrealistic action sequences on the big screen.  I like horror movies, superhero movies, dinosaur movies, Liam Neeson movies, you name it.

However in most cases the line between fantasy and reality is pretty easy to identify.  (Though I actually have problems with movies about demonic possession as well because I think they perpetuate a superstition that can be quite harmful to people with mental health problems.)

And besides at least Captain America movies never promoted a mythology which supports the oppression of women, makes it alright to hate gays, and is actively trying to destroy scientific education in this country.

I'm just saying.

Producers make changes in new movie about Noah's Ark because of claims from religious people of historical inaccuracies. You read that right, "historical inaccuracies."

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

According to The Wrap, Paramount Pictures has edited Darren Aronofsky’s Noah — which stars Russell Crowe in the titular role — in order to avoid offending Christian viewers. 

Aronofsky allegedly told an associate that he was “not happy” when he learned that Paramount had appended a disclaimer to both the film and promotional materials for it. 

At the request of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Paramount added a disclaimer which reads, in part, that “[t]he film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.” 

NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrap that the disclaimer was necessary because the film is “historically inaccurate.” It is, Cooke said, “more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling.” 

Cooke is not the only Christian to have concerns about the film. 

Writing on his blog last year, Answers In Genesis president Ken Ham noted that the film’s script “is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis.” Ham believes the trailer for the film is “a Hollywood con” designed to lure unsuspecting Jews and Christians to witness “an unbiblical production.” 

He lists the many ways in which the film does not accurately reflect his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He notes that “Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.” Moreover, “[i]t appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.” 

Most problematic for Ham, however, is that “Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood,” and that “[t]he Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.”

To be clear this is an impossible story, told by untold authors, about an event that defies all scientific probabilities.  In short it is about has "historic" as the story of Athena being given birth from a hole in the skull of Zeus.

There are a lot of movies coming out with an overtly religious theme this year like Mark Burnett "Son of God." featuring the first latino Jesus (Wouldn't that me "Hey-suess?"), Ridley Scott's "Exodus,"  "Heaven is for Real," and "Mary, Mother of Christ," to name a few.

And of course all of this is by design, after all the sixth mountain of the 7 Mountains of Societal Influence is Arts and Entertainment.

So you would think that the religious community would be thrilled simply to have their mythology spread to a newer secular audience.

However if they are going to insist that every part of the film be completely accurate according to their favorite version of the Bible (King James?), they are going to lose much of their potential audience.

After all these are movie goers used to watching giant robots transform in to cars, humans portrayed as living batteries while their minds remain trapped in a giant MMORPG, and superheroes fighting off an alien invasion in the middle of New York City.

But let's remember there are limits to any movie goers ability to suspend disbelief.

I mean come on, watching hobbits taking a dangerous journey to dispose of jewelry while fighting off orcs and wizards is one thing, but buying into the concept of one family building a giant boat to hold two of every kind of animal on the planet while the entire population of humans, animals, and insects is drowned around them.

I mean come on how did a story that absurd even get past pre-production?

Picture of the day.

Nothing to see here, just a few superheroes washing windows...outside of a children's hospital in Pittsburgh.

I can only imagine what the children's faces must have looked like.

Sheer joy.

Little boy has important question for the President.

"Are you Spider-Man's boss?" 

And the President's response... 

"Well, I'm the Commander-in-Chief. But Spider-Man is a free agent."

Best answer ever!

And I bet it made that kid's day.

Fox News gets dissed by perhaps the BIGGEST movie of the summer. Aww, sucks to be them!

Courtesy of Politicususa:

In the upcoming blockbuster The Avengers, MSNBC and CNN are featured, but after dissing Spider-Man last summer, ratings leader Fox News is conspicuously missing. 

TVnewser has the scoop, “MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts appeared as himself, gamely pretending that the world had just been saved by a giant green man and the Norse God of Thunder. In addition to MSNBC, “footage” from the battle ran on CNN, local Time Warner Cable channel NY1 and ABC affiliate WABC ( we didn’t see any real anchors, just clips and an interview with a “witness”). There were also some fictional TV networks, including a fake channel 5, which is a Fox affiliate here in New York. We also noticed that the only cable news channel not featured was Fox News Channel.”

Now you may be wondering WHY Fox News, who is certainly not shy about self promotion, would not have their name prominently displayed throughout this movie? Good question.

A possible reason for this might be that Disney, who is distributing this movie hates Fox news, or perhaps that Fox News hates them back.

Or it could be this:

Fox News has accused the left of forcing Marvel to “take a radical left turn to extreme political correctness” by making the new Spider-Man half black and half Hispanic.

Marvel, which is also the comic book company behind the Avengers, is undoubtedly sensitive about having one of their most iconic characters attacked in this way, so that might very well have something to do with the fact that the movie now portrays Fox as being perhaps the ONLY cable news network that would not consider the saving of New York by a group of colorfully garbed super heroes to be newsworthy.

Undoubtedly Fox was too busy covering another socialist political move by President Obama, or reporting on how a white person exercised  their first amendment rights by delivering justice through the barrel of a gun to some poor minority that walked too close to their house, or perhaps they were busy making sure that the stupidity falling out of Sarah Palin's mouth was broadcast into the homes of unsuspecting Americans.

Yeah I know that it will probably not have any real impact on Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, or the shareholders of Newscorp.  After all they have a Hannity, an O'Reilly, and a Van Susteren as their own personal "superheroes," assuming of course that blatant lies and obfuscation can be considered a super power that is.

Well personally I am very excited about attending this move today. Because even though Fox News may have an army of brainwashed paint chip eaters who are still ignorant enough to support them, those of us who are NOT seeing a Leftist agenda behind every corner have something much more exciting, we have a Hulk!

Oh boy, I can taste the popcorn already!

Took an Iron Man 2 break from blogging.

I was just kind of getting burned out and thought I needed to recharge my batteries on this rainy Tuesday morning. So off I went to see the biggest intellectual cotton candy blockbuster I could find.  A kind of "mouthwash for the brain" if you will.

And Iron Man 2 fit the bill perfectly.

To be honest I much prefer the first one to this one.  I mean sure it had amazing WTF? special effects, and tons of explosions, and a few good one liners, but it just did not quite blow my socks off the way the first one did.

I am, sadly, somewhat of a comic book geek going way back to my collecting days in the seventies so I certainly don't regret going, but I hope in the next installment they step away form the whole "Tony Stark is simply a fragile mortal theme' and instead  focus on the amazing Iron Man armor and the WTF? special effects.

Oh, and if I can just be a guy here for a moment, they definitely must bring back the gorgeous Scarlett Johansson.

I mean damn!

Okay back to work for me.  I am currently working on a post containing a rather long and expansive interview I did with Sherry and Mercede Johnston.  It should be done by tomorrow or some time Thursday.