ktchong

Got an email from the Bernie campaign! (The first and only email I got from his campaign since 2016.)

For some unknown weird reason, the mainstream media really, really want "Alita: Battle Angel" to fail - almost as much as they want Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to fail and lose the Democratic primaries. Even today, the Hollywood Reporter - which is a major publication in the film industry - published an article to specifically attack "Alita: Battle Angel". This Hollywood Reporter hit piece is just the latest in the series I have been seeing that have been relentless bashing and smearing Alita. On the other hand, the media is already shilling hard for Captain Marvel. I already know all the critics and the media will give praises and raving reviews to Captain Marvel, which will get over 90% at Rotten Tomatoes, just like how they shilled hard dfor The Last Jedi and Black Panther, (i.e., Black Panther was okay but certainly not as good as the critics made it out to be; it did not deserve the score of over 90% at Rotten Tomatoes.) It is reminiscent of how the media is shilling hard for Kamala Harris and has already anointed her to be the Democratic candidate and the President. I know the mainstream media is very dishonest. Donald Trump may be a deplorable douchebag, but he is right about the media. For a major publication to run an article to smear a movie is something that I do not think I had ever seen before. It is shocking how much the media is gunning against Alita. Just two of the many similar videos on YouTube, because people are not stupid and have noticed: "WTF is going on with the critics and media?? Something really fishy is going on here."

For clarification: I have never read the Alita manga or seen its anime. I am not a fan of any manga or anime or anything Japanese in general, except sushi and sashimi. I do not even like JRPG; in fact, I have said a few times in these forums that I hate JRPG. I had never really enjoyed anything else made by the director, Robert Rodriguez. He had made some cheesy dumb kid movies, (i.e. the Spy Kids series,) film noir, (Sin City,) and slashers, (Machete;) I previously pegged him as a "B-movie" director. Moreover, the Alita movie had some controversy about the casting: the director Rodriguez, who is Hispanic himself, cast Hispanics instead of Asians in many leading roles even though the source materials are Asian/Japanese. That seemed to be a tribal and self-serving casting decision. However, later I googled and found out the setting of the story was set in a futuristic Los Angeles, so it would make sense for the characters to be Hispanic (or white) for a story that was set in North America. (I live near Los Angeles, and the population is mostly Hispanic.) I brought up the casting in Alita to make a comparison to the recent Ghost in the Shell movie starring the very Caucasian, very white Scarlett Johansson as... "Motoko Kusanagi". That movie had too many conspicuous out-of-place white Caucasian characters with full Japanese names living, working and blending in a Japanese society. Many of those characters were Caucasian yet worked as undercover agents in a Japanese city filled with Japanese people. I actually googled to check if any Caucasian or white people had ever worked as a police in Japan - and confirmed that, nope, no Caucasian or white person has ever been hired or worked as a police in Japan. Never. Yet, somehow audiences were supposed to overlook that fact and suspend our disbelief for Ghost in the Shell, to believe those white Caucasian police officers, especially Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi could work as an undercover officers, easily blend into a Japanese population but somehow did not stick out like a sore thumb among everyone else who were Asian, shorter and rounder. The worst thing about Ghost in the Shell was the film knew it was threading on shaky ground, and then it tried to offer an explanation near the end of the movie as to why Scarlett Johansson's character, with a full Japanese name, living in a Japanese city, working undercover as a Japanese police, was white and Caucasian instead of Japanese. Unfortunately, the explanation at the end came off as insulting and patronizing to Asians, which only made the awkward situation even worse than the casting controversies. Anyway, my point for bringing up Ghost in the Shell as a comparison is this: in the Alita movie, it actually made sense and felt natural for the characters to be Hispanic and Caucasian, because those races fit into the setting and story, because the location and setting were in North America. (Unlike, let say, a white female Caucasian cop working undercover in a Japanese city filled with Japanese people in Ghost in the Shell - which made no sense or whatsoever, and I was never able to get past that huge elephant in the room or suspend my disbelief for the entirety of the movie; it just kept bothering me at the back of my head throughout the whole movie: "wait, she is white; why hasn't anyone else who's Asian noticed she is white in Japan??!?") Anyway, I had read that Alita also had a similar casting controversy as Ghost of the Shell did, so I did go into Alita with negative feelings due to my negative experience with Ghost in the Shell, (even though the controversy was unwarranted for Alita but absolutely warranted for Ghost in the Shell.) Yet, I saw Alita and thoroughly enjoyed it. Another thing: before I saw Ghost in the Shell, I had heard the term "cultural appropriation". I had always thought that term was silly and did not make a lot of sense. Then, when I was watching Ghost in the Shell, I saw all those white people with Japanese names, wearing Japanese kinomos, drinking Japanese tea, eating Japanese meals, sitting on floor like Japanese. They acted like FAKE Japanese, except none of them was actually Japanese, and they did not and could not even spoke Japanese. I thought, "this is so dumb andd painful to watch, all these white people are acting so fake and inappropriate within the Japanese cultural context... oh wait, cultural inappropriate! I finally get why they call it cultural appropriation! Because it so cultural inappropriate for all these dumb white people to act like fake Japanese!" Thank goodness Alita has a Western sounding name, and her name is not like... I dunno, Yoko or something.

So last week I saw Alita: Battle Angel twice. The first time in regular IMAX 3D on Wednesday before it officially opened, and the second time in IMAX with Laser on Sunday. (I am not sure why Alita got only 50ish at Rotten Tomatoes; this movie should have gotten 90ish and The Last Jedi the 50ish.) The IMAX 3D with Laser was definitely better than regular IMAX 3D. When I walked into the theater (with the laser projectors,) it was definitely much darker than the regular IMAX theater. The theater was one of the darkest I have seen. I got the perfect seating and sat right in the center and middle of the theater, (for both with and without laser, the both times I saw Alita.) The seating was a main reason why I chose IMAX 3D with Laser over Dolby 3D: I could not get any good seating for any Dolby 3D theaters near me. The images for IMAX 3D with Laser were much sharper - they were the clearest, sharpest images I have ever seen. The differences in image clarity and sharpness between IMAX with Laser vs. regular IMAX were immediately apparent and very noticeable. IMO IMAX with Laser could be clearer and sharper than even Dolby Cinema, (although I have not seen Alita in Dolby 3D so I can't really make a direct comparison; however, I have seen other movies in Dolby 3D.) I remember being blown away last year when I saw a movie in Dolby Cinema for the very first time, and I thought, "whoa, holy crap! From now on I must always see big-budget AAA spectacle movies (like Avengers) in Dolby Cinema!" On the other hand, I was never that impressed by the regular IMAX. From now on, I will definitely be seeing big-budget AAA spectacle movies in either Dolby Cinema or IMAX with Laser. I could be wrong, but I felt the 3D effects were better in the regular IMAX format than the laser IMAX format. However, I personally prefer clearer, sharper images over better 3D images. However, Alita was spectacular in both regular and laser IMAX. IMO, Alita is likely the pinnacle of CGI and special effects - it is the best of CGI and special effects. There is no other movie that has better CGI or special effects, and it is very obvious and apparent that Alita is at the top of CGI and SFX. There is simply no other movie that has better CGI or SFX. Its CGI and special effects are that good, and I have seen over 100 movies in the past year, (closer to 150, courtesy of my movie subscription plans - i.e., MoviePass and then A-List.) Alita is a movie that everyone must see on a big screen in a theater, preferably in Dolby Cinema or IMAX. The only problem was the glasses: IMO the glasses for Dolby 3D and regular IMAX felt more comfortable. The glasses for IMAX 3D with Laser was big and square. I could see the edges (the inner and bottom edges) of the glasses when I had it on, which slightly distracted me from what was on the screen. I am not sure why the laser and regular IMAX used different glasses, but IMAX seriously needs to fix the problem with the glasses for laser 3D. With video gaming becoming more and more expensive with all the DLC, loot boxes and microtransactions, and with movie theater chains started offering "all you can eat" movie subscription plans, (i.e., I used to have MoviePass until last year, and then I switched over to AMC Studs A-List,) I have been going to movies more and more and playing less and less video games - especially now that I have discovered Dolby Cinema and IMAX with Laser.

On Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: In America, the word "socialism" - and its associated ideas like universal healthcare, tuition-free public universities, higher minimum wages, etc. - had always been taboo topics in mainstream media and politics. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Democrats, the majority young people, and even the majority of American people as a whole, actually like and support those "socialist" ideas and programs. However, American media and politicians had refused to talk about socialism in any serious way; because the rich, bankers, corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street - i.e., the so-called one-percenter elites - do not want people to talk about it. The top-percenters were worried that if Americans started having serious talk about socialism, then its ideas like universal healthcare and free universities would catch fire, and then more and more people would want those programs in America. If people start wanting socialist programs, socialist politicians will eventually arise to appeal to those voters - and be voted into the government. If the government institutes socialist programs, then the government will have to raise taxes to pay for all those programs - and the rich one-percenter elites will be the prime target to be taxed more. The best way to keep socialism at bay is to not talk about it at all. As the rich and elites own and control the mainstream media, they also control the public narrative, so they have been censoring socialism and socialist programs being discussed in the mainstream media. It is basically suppressing the narrative to protect their own interests and wealth. Bernie Sanders openly called himself a "Democratic Socialist". He ran on a socialist platform and started talking about socialism about two years ago during his presidential campaign. Even though he lost the Democratic primary election, he has successfully shifted the public attitude and narrative on socialism. He has influenced a whole new generation of young people and politicians. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or "AOC") is one of Bernie's legacies and proteges, the first of the "new generations" of politicians who openly campaigns on and calls for socialist programs in American and taxing the rich at the 70-percent (or higher) marginal rate. Regardless of what she can or will accomplish for the next two years of her term as a Congress representative, she has already changed the narrative. Now everyone is talking about universal healthcare, tuition-free public colleges and universities, taxing the rich at 70-percent marginal rate or even higher, etc. Even the mainstream media can't avoid and has to start talking about her - and her socialist ideas and proposals. Republicans hate her. Establishment Democrats want to get rid of her, (to which is the very party she belongs.) Now, even the media can't avoid talking about her - and, most importantly, her socialist ideas and proposals. Once the rich one-percenters can no longer suppress the narrative, they know the new discussions on socialism will snowball into a big problem for them. So AOC has become a thorn in the eyes of the rich and one-percenters.

On the differences between "liberals" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party: Economically more freedom + less government control (which really means less regulations and more tax cuts) = libertarianism, which is mostly a right-wing conservative position in America. I should have used the description "progressive" instead if "liberal" because being economically "liberal" has become very different from being economically "progressive". Nowadays those two positions mean almost the exact opposite in America. ... actually, I did use the description economically "progressive" instead of "liberal". Strictly speaking, "neoliberals" - i.e., the establishment centrist Democrats - are ideologically liberal in both social and economic policies. Economically, they believe in deregulation, free market, globalization, low taxes, open immigration, etc., all of which are libertarian ideals. Pre-Trump Republicans wanted those same things as well, except they are more extreme. On the other hand, the new "progressives" (represented by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) do NOT believe in "liberal" or libertarian economics. Progressives are as socially liberal as neoliberals: both support minority and gender equality. What differentiates "progressives" from "liberals" are their very different economic platforms: progressives like Elizabeth Warren believe in regulations and oversights, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants high marginal progressive taxation, etc. Progressives like to call - or insult - liberals/neoliberals establishment Democrats as "Republicans Lite" because liberals and Republicans can be so similar in their economic platforms: both are libertarians but to different extents. (i.e., Centrist establishment Democrats are really closet libertarians.)

Like how the old lady with white hair reacted at 0:55: "Oh snap, he just got spanked, hard." "From about the 1930s to 1960s" = otherwise known as the "Golden Age" of America in terms of economic growth and prosperity, which supposedly was the era when America was "Great".

What a coincidence that this clip came out on the day when Roger Stones was arrested and charged by the FBI, and Donald Trump lost the shutdown standoff with House Democrats. It's like, America has become Apocalypseburg under President Trump, but everything is awesome because House Democrats have worked as as team to defy Trump and now all the alt-right and MAGA trolls in here and elsewhere are so triggered.

Three things have happened today: FBI arrested Roger Stones and raided his home. Mueller charged Stones with some serious indictments that, if Stones is convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in prison, (unless Trump pardons Stones.) The FAA halted flights at a New York airport - IMO, it is a message to Trump that if he does not end the shutdown, they will shut down more airports and bring the country and economy to heel. Donald Trump ends the shutdown. He is not getting the money for his wall, so he lost the standoff. Pelosi and Schumer has been holding press conferences and (subtlely) gloating. No wall money for Trump unless he declares a national emergency to get money for his wall - but if he does, then he will set a precedence that will be used by the next President, (who will most likely be a Democrat,) who will be able to declare a national emergency for climate change (which is more like an international and human extinction emergency) or gun controls (and school shootings are actual national emergencies.) So much winning in one day.

A new report has just come out. Who committed the most extremist killings in America in 2018? Take a guess. Antifa? Black Lives Matter? Communists? Democrats? Islamic terrorists? Left-wing radicals? Muslims? Radical socialists? Here is the correct answer: It's right-wing extremists. Next question: what percentage of all 2018 extremist killings in America was committed by right-wing extremists? It's 100 percent. All of the extremist killings in America in 2018 - every single one of them - was committed by right-winger. Not Antifa. Not BLM. Not loonie lefties. Every single one of the extremist killing and murders in America in 2018 was committed by a far right conservative, a right-winger. Source: Anti-Defamation League's Annual Report on Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2018

Okay, this is what need to happen: the airport security and tower control workers - who have been ordered by Trump to continue working WITHOUT PAY - need to walk out of their jobs and go on strike. Why are they still working when they have not been paid for a month?? They need to to refuse to work until they get paid. That is when the entire country will be at a standstill, when all flights will be cancelled and grounded, and the economy will tank as a result. Then we shall see if Trump will continue to go on TV to make unilateral, one-sided demands and calling it a "compromise".

The incident really started when the white boys (plus a few girls) mobbed a group of Black Israelites, whom they mistaken thought were "Black Muslims". Supposedly harassing Muslims (or Blacks?) somehow made their behavior okay because now the boys and their moms are using it as an excuse - except the morons could not even tell the difference between Muslims and Israelites/Jews when they were black. The Native Americans saw the white boys were mobbing the Blacks - i.e., in a scenario similar to the picture posted above by Bartimaeus - and they interfered. So now all the alt-right and right-winged MAGA trolls like Volourn are crying "fake news", making excuses for those boys, and pushing the narrative that the "full video" shows the Native Americans approached the white boys first... except their half-true narrative conveniently omits the fact that the even "fuller" video shows the white boys had harassed the Black Israelites first before the Native Americans saw what happened and interfered.

Here were my comments from a couple other sites, but are relevant to the topic:

After Tulsi Gabbard had confirmed on MSNBC that she would make an official announcement of her bid for the presidency in the following week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) did a couple very interesting, unexpected things on Friday and Saturday. The RNC did somethings that they did not do when Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris announced their bid for president. The RNC put out a press release to attack Tulsi Gabbard on Friday. Then, the next day, RNC tweeted out a "cheet sheet" infographic to attack her again. As far as I can tell, the RNC has not done the same to Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris after she had announced her bid. The GOP only mentioned Warren and Harris on their Twitter feed, only one time for each of the two. The RNC certainly has not taken the time to put out a press release to attack either Warren or Harris. The fact the GOP took the time to put out a press release and put together an infographic to attack Tulsi Gabbard in the two days immediately after she had said she would run is very telling. BTW, unlike Warren and Harris, Tulsi has not yet made the official announcement yet. The reactions from the RNC says a lot about the potential of Tulsi's candidacy.

The one issue that Tulsi Gabbard has always been consistent: she has always been anti-war and anti-intervention. You can't say that about Hillary Clinton, who has always been a hawkish warmonger, which is one of the main reasons why many progressives refused to support her. Frankly, I couldn't care less about Tulsi's supposedly homophobic or Islamophobic history. Those identity politics issues have been toxic to the Democratic Party. Those issues impact very small segments of the American population (LGBTQ and Muslims,) and they distract from what are really important: economy, education, healthcare, and war. Democrats need to focus on issues that deliver maximum impacts to the most Americans. No, LGBTQ and Muslims, I don't care about issues that appease you at the expenses of everything else, so go away. I don't mind gay people getting married or more Muslims claiming asylum, but they must be "side issues", not platform or priority issues that override economy, education, healthcare, war, etc. I will NOT support any candidate who make LGBTQ, Islam, or women as her main thing, (i.e., like how Hillary made women's right into her main issue.)

Everyone here knows I do NOT like Donald Trump, but his decision to pull out of Syria is one that I support. We really have no business or reason to interfere in - and prolong - the Syrian Civil War.

Tulsi Gabbard: "I'm Seriously Considering" Running for President in 2020: Tulsi Gabbard visited New Hampshire last week as an early contender of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary race: A big plus: She is 37 years old! Seriously have had enough of old farts who should be in retiring centers instead of the White House or Congress.

If Sony makes a Spider-verse game and make it a Playstation exclusive, (like how the excellent Spider-man game is a Playstation 4 exclusive,) it will be the end of Xbox.

Fireworks. The (outgoing) Republican House majority - Trump's own party - did not give him the funding for the wall for the past two years. I am not sure why he expected the incoming DEMOCRATIC House majority would give him what even the Republican majority had refused to give him. Especially when Democratic constituents turned out at record rate and voted for them with the expectation that the Democratic MAJORITY in the House will OBSTRUCT Trump (as Republicans had obstructed Obama for years.)