December 9, 2005, - 4:33 pm

More Weekend Box Office: Chronicles of Narnia, Syriana

By Debbie Schlussel
* “Chronicles of Narnia“: Fabulous screen manifestation of even more fabulous book. Excellent costumes, set, magic. Great for kids beyond a certain age. Young kids might be frightened by the witch, fighting, killing, etc. For those bothered by the Christian themes therein, tough. It’s barely there, but for a Santa Claus-esque character and plays out like a great, adventurous fairy tale. We’re confident that if it had Muslim themes, liberals would gush over it.
Plus, we love the presence of cool mythological animals, including centaurs (half-man, half-horse), satyrs/fauns (half-man, half-goat), and gryphons (half-eagle, half-lion). And, yes, there are unicorns, too.
We hope this movie is a big hit and can’t wait ’til THIS C.S. Lewis book becomes film. Will the P.C. forces keep it from being made?


centaur.jpggryphon.jpg

Plenty of Centaurs & Gryphons in Narnia

* “Syriana“: Typical arrogant George Clooney fare–self-absorbed, boring, disjointed. He gets Valerie Plame’s CIA right, though. A bunch of corrupt, lying, inept buffoons infected with State Department, hate-America ideology, who assassinate foreign leaders in waiting accordingly. Biggest things we hate about the movie: 1) it paints Islamic terrorists as nice people who had to do it because we made them lose their jobs on the oil fields, so they had to turn to extremist Islam and homicide bombs; and 2) this guy, who has terror ties in real-life, plays a heroic Muslim. Right.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , ,

14 Responses

The real problem will be when someone tries to make the last book into a movie. That one’s really not-PC.

technogypsy on December 9, 2005 at 5:46 pm

Debbie,
I’m currently a student at the Ohio State University majoring in Philosophy. One of the main branches of philosophy is Logic (correct reasoning), so it is of course part of my curriculum. In one of my courses it is required that I keep a Logbook of fallacies through out the quarter. We were supposed to take examples of basic Logical fallacies from the media (theyíre nearly infinite) and record them in our logbook. Well, I recently turned it in and just got my grade back, I received an A. The only reason why I’m telling you any of this is because your website and the things you say everyday was the primary source of the logical fallacies I used in my logbook. Itís an odd thing, despite your utter contempt for elementary reasoning; you are held to be a voice of authority in the political realm and are a practicing attorney. In any case, I just wanted to thank you for helping me continue my education, and let those fallacies keep cominí because itís boosting my GPA.

nicholasedward on December 9, 2005 at 6:40 pm

Nice horse laugh there, Nicky. Are you sure you got an A for the paper or the act of deriding a conservative commentator? To be true, the rules of debate shouldn’t be applied to casual, deliberate, and comical mockery. Otherwise Oscar Wilde would’ve just been a prissy.

Melek Taus on December 9, 2005 at 11:12 pm

List a few of Debbie’s supposedly fallacies, Nicholas. Let’s see if you can back up your claims, logbook boy.
I have a few things you can put in your logbook, too.

The_Man on December 10, 2005 at 1:08 am

I had some classes like that in college. Anything written or said was golden as long as it was left wing. It was really pathetic and about as intellectual an exercize as taking a dump (pardon my French). The only tension was how low the Republican kids would sink to go along.

shleppy on December 11, 2005 at 9:17 am

Shleppy.. I had some surprisingly liberal professors at Kansas but fortunately the majority welcomed open discussion.

American Crusader on December 11, 2005 at 10:04 am

What do these celebrities drink? acid kool aid? Clooney has gone off the deep end, but at least he has lots of company in Hollyweird. They hate America so much, why don’t they leave. Remember when Johnny Depp was stating how he was glad to be living in France, and how America has gone crazy with all those conservative ‘extremists’. Now, after the riots, Depp is saying he is leaving France – it’s bad and crazy, and he is moving back to America. What did Depp see in France that changed his mind? I wonder. All those Mohammedans rioting, screaming Allah Akbar, and setting a disable person on fire or beating to death that infidel trying to put out a set fire in the dumpster outside his apt. Didn’t you like that Johnny?
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/depp%20i%20cant%20stay%20in%20riot-ravaged%20france
DEPP: ‘I CAN’T STAY IN RIOT-RAVAGED FRANCE’
Also see:
JOHNNY DEPP
FINDING NEVERLAND
Hollywood star JOHNNY DEPP is so shocked by the riots raging through France, he’s considering abandoning his home in the country.
The FINDING NEVERLAND heart-throb moved to Europe when life in Los Angeles became too violent.
He has since divided time between the two continents – but he fears France will be scarred permanently by the current troubles.
He says, “It’s insane, that setting cars on fire is the new strike.
“I went there (to France) to live because it seemed so simple.
“Now it’s anything but. I don’t know how they’ll recover from this.”
18/11/2005 17:31

John Sobieski on December 11, 2005 at 12:23 pm

“nicholasedward”?? Mr. Log Book Boy?? Cat got your tongue?
You don’t have to post a whole log book of Debbie’s “fallacies”, just one or two.
I’m giving you an F for punctuality so far.

The_Man on December 12, 2005 at 6:03 pm

The_Man- My apologies for not responding sooner. I havenít checked back because I intended that to be the last post I made, but here I am. I’m not going to go through each and every single logical fallacy she commits because there is so many (probably at least one or so every day), but hereís a good example of BASIC logical fallacies she commits: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/11/celebs_who_supp.html
On that entry you’ll find Ad Hominem fallacies- Tu Quoque, Circumstantial and Abusive
Melek Taus- The grade I received was legitimate. Logical fallacies shouldn’t be applied to comical mockery but Debbie schlussel is far from being remotely funny. Any kind of comedy she attempts is negative and mean spirited, in short, she comes off as a hateful bigot. Most of what she says has to do with everyone being a terrorist or supporting them, none of which has any comedic value.
Shleppy- Politics didnít play a role in my class. From what I understand, Ohio State has got a better philosophy program than Yaleís (at least at the moment anyways), so its not a joke program where simply hating republicans will get you a good grade. Besides, attacking professors for being liberal only makes you look like an idiot. The smartest people in the country are our college professors and if the majority of them happen to lean to the left, that only hurts your cause.

nicholasedward on December 13, 2005 at 3:08 am

Nicholas, sounds like your arguments are just your opinions.
You showed no examples, just linked to a Debbie article. Be more specific.
It’s your opinion that Debbie is not funny. Who said comedy cannot be “negative and mean spirited”? Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Howard Stern among others are frequently “negative and mean spirited”, but many people find them funny.
How do you know Ohio State’s has a better philosophy program than Yale?s? “The smartest people in the country are our college professors…” Proof?
Nicholas, you are entitled to your opinions. But, you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your opinions. Why should anyone take your opinions over someone like Debbie Schlussel, who is far more accomplished?

Jeff_W on December 13, 2005 at 9:49 am

Nicky, Log Book Boy, is that it? You using the Roger “Debbie is a meanie” Ebert defense?
Not asking for a book, just a couple examples. All you provide is a link and silly “look at me use big words”? You DID say you logged Debbie’s so called fallacies. What did you do for your big “A”, copy and paste her articles?
College professors are the smartest people in the country? Please tell me you aren’t that stupid and gullible.

The_Man on December 14, 2005 at 12:21 am

The_Man- I’m not talking to you like a four year old so please don’t speak to me that way, a little courtesy goes a long way. You accused me of implying “look at me use big words” or something like that. Listen man, don’t try to make me look stupid just because youíre too lazy to look up the definition of a word you aren’t familiar with, thatís the terminology for the fallacies she committed, what else could I have said, should I make up words?
Alright well I’ve got a lot to answer here so I better get going. I suppose I’ll start off with Ohio States philosophy program. Every two years the philosophical gourmet report is released ranking the top 50 programs in the country. If youíre in the top 50 at all, you have a very good program. In the most recent report, Ohio State’s program was tied with Brown University at #21 overall, Yaleís was ranked at #25. Hereís the most recent report- http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.htm
I think itís quite a stretch comparing Debbie Schlussel to Richard Pryor. Unlike funny negative comedians like oh say Lewis Black, Debbie’s “humor” is driven by her own prejudices and mindless hate. If a black guy tells a joke about black people its no big deal, but if a Klan member tells that same joke its pretty obvious they think its funny for different reasons. Her distain for everyone loosely affiliated to Muslims takes away from anything which could be called an attempt at humor. Maybe thatís not a real good example, think of it this way. Itís like when the Kid who doesn’t get hugged enough makes fun of the other kids for being fat or weak to mask his own feelings of inferiority. Sure, itís technically a joke but the joke is entirely at someone else’s expense, it isn’t insightful, witty and it sure as hell isn’t warranted. Haven’t you noticed a lot of the times when she gets pictures of people sheís speaking about, she’ll show horrible pictures of them, like Star Jones in a bathing suit or Katie Couric’s sagging skin. What the hell does that have to do with Couric being an unfit anchor or Jones being an idiot, its just unnecessary shots below the belt.
What the hell are you talking about Professors arenít the smartest people in the country? Its not like the guys are just hired based on political affiliation (Not to say that you were implying that). What could possibly make you think they arenít intelligent? This is where knowledge and wisdom come from in our country. Anthropologists, leading psychologists, philosophers, Mathematicians, sociologists, archaeologists- Most of them find work at colleges teaching the new generations.
None of that is really all that important though, alls you really cared about was showing a fallacy or two. Ok if you go back to the link youíll find Debbie attacking all of these celebrities for supporting Tookie. It does get annoying when celebrities use opportunities like this to show that they care but she doesnít address any of their viewpoints. Instead of researching or examining any of their personal opinions or reasons for why they support tookie, she instead insults them as means to make them look discreditable. These are all Ad Hominem fallacies.
Example 1-
Jackson “I beat my girlfriend” Browne
Abusive- This is an attack on Browneís character rather his reasoning for supporting the life of Williams.
Example 2-
Kerry Kennedy Cuomo (You always need a Kennedy of some ilk, all the better if she was cheated on, then dumped by a Cuomo.)
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why would you even mention that? Does her having been cheated on really have relevance to Williams death sentence? She only said this to make the woman look bad. Its dirty comments like these that fuels most of my rage for Debbie Schlussel.
Example 3- George Costanza (Jason Alexander), who is at least consistent; He stands up for Palestinian terrorists, too.
That link takes you to a snoop dogg rant so I donít know what sheís talking about, I would assume its because heís occasionally a spokesperson for the Anti Defamation League but I could be wrong. In any case lets assume Alexander actually does support terrorists and that Williams is a terrorist as well. This would be an example of Tu Quoque, which basically means going after somebody on the grounds that they are affiliated w/the group in question. This is a fallacy because their political affiliation or whatever it is that makes them relevant to the group does not establish that theyíve reached an invalid conclusion. Take Laura Schlessinger for example. She calls for family unity but wonít speak to her parents. Clearly sheís a hypocrite, but that doesnít mean sheís wrong. Itís the same thing with Jason Alexander. Even if he does support terrorists (and thatís a pretty shaky thing to say), that doesnít mean Stanley Williams should be put to death.
Well thatís three there and I am unbelievably tired so thatíll be all for now, if absolutely necessary Iíll produce some more later. But until then, Iím gonna get some rest. Happy holidays everybody.

nicholasedward on December 14, 2005 at 2:30 am

From the philisophicalgourmet link, “Please give your opinion of the attractiveness of the faculty for a prospective student,…”
It’s someone’s opinion. Not discounting it totally, still it’s someone’s opinion.
What I get from Debbie’s posts, especially the one about the celeb support for Tookie, is that you can’t separate a person’s character from their positions. If you want to call them “fallacies”, fine.
I don’t totally discount what they say because nobody is totally consistent in their behavior, but I DO in fact think it’s important to consider the behavior of a person along with what they say.
Dismiss it as a “fallacy” all you want, but character counts to me. Else, it’s just empty words.
Call it what you like, but most people I know call it plain common sense.

Jeff_W on December 14, 2005 at 9:54 am

Well its not just someone’s opinion, rather many peoples. The rankings are “based on reputational surveys completed by 266 philosophers throughout the English-speaking world.” That isn’t to say its absolute, because when you rank anything its subject to error, but I think its similar to the Oscars. A lot of the times I personally feel the Academy awards fail at choosing the best picture but if a movie gets nominated at all its probably a really good picture. So if your on that list I think a school is probably a really good school, but in terms of actual ranks its certainly isn’t infallible.
“but I DO in fact think it’s important to consider the behavior of a person along with what they say.”
I agree with you, and I think most people would too. Character should considered, But judging someone solely on past actions without even addressing their position is what makes it a fallacy. Plus what what about Kerry Kennedy, what does her being cheated on have to do with her character?

nicholasedward on December 15, 2005 at 5:13 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field