Breitbart without Breitbart: change the name, guys.

There is a difference between imitating a good man & counterfeiting him. 

Benjamin Franklin 

 

Guns for me but not for thee, endgame

Guess Who Gets To Go Through Airport Security Again Tomorrow? |

Guess Who Gets To Go Through Airport Security Again Tomorrow? |


I plan on asking every cab driver in whose cab I ride whether they did any of these things in the backseat:

- Changed a diaper
- Used hand lotion/body cream/anti-fungal cream
- Sat in the back after playing golf
- Got mud in their floorboards
- Ate bacon/hot dog/cured meat
- Drank water

See, “nitrates” in all these things will trigger the TSA’s Official Terrorist Alarm whilst I undergo their security screening and I don’t want to be held responsible for some terrorist cab driver’s water-swilling, hand-lotioning ways. I once accidentally took a bullet in my carry-on for a cross-country trip but look out, hand lotion.

This guy got a finger wagging from the TSA for showing the insipid weakness of their Backscatter machines. I thought the machines were perfect? To hear the TSA explain it, they don’t douse your body with a questionable amount of radiation, they pelt your body with cupcakes and sugar. Who doesn’t love cupcakes and sugar? Terrorists, that’s who. I kid you not, in Dallas I had a TSA agent shout at me that “radio waves aren’t radiation.”

Scientists spoke out against the Backscatters, but luckily the CEO knows the President well enough to fly around with him. I’m sure that helps in bypassing pesky health certifications.

Missing Breitbart

PJ Media » Missing Breitbart

Just before Christmas, after only being able to watch it in bits and pieces during October and November, I finally had the chance to take in the documentary film Hating Breitbart in one sitting.
What prompted me to do so was some unfortunate news, namely a lawsuit filed by the immensely talented Dana Loesch signifying that the late Andrew Breitbart’s nascent publishing empire may be imploding. I hope I’m wrong about that, but based on my limited conversations with him when he was alive and my observations from afar, I completely agree with those who say that Andrew never would have let things get to this point. That whoever is currently running things at Breitbart has allowed such a deterioration to occur seems not to bode well for the operation’s long-term success, or even its survival.

While viewing the film, I could not help but wonder whether November’s presidential election might have turned out differently if Andrew had not died on March 1.

Despite all the establishment press hype about Barack Obama’s “convincing” victory, the fact remains that he won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote (50.6%) than every successful incumbent in the past century except three, all Democrats who failed to achieve popular vote majorities: Bill Clinton in 1996, the second time he won with only a minority of the popular vote; Harry Truman in 1948 in a four-way race; and Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Fewer than 200,000 switched votes in four battleground states would have changed November’s outcome to a Romney win.

Breitbart is one of the main reasons why a Republican candidate, and especially one who we have since learned really didn’t want to run for the office, even had a ghost of a chance against Obama. That’s because in September 2009, as Hating Breitbart demonstrates, he ensured that filmmaker James O’Keefe’s undercover videos at ACORN locations throughout the country would receive the visibility they deserved.

But he did much more than that. His slow-drip approach to releasing the videos baited ACORN head Bertha Lewis into repeatedly claiming that O’Keefe had exhausted his supply of damning material. Every time Lewis said that, another outrageous, offensive, scandalous, and embarrassing episode would appear.

After desperately trying to ignore the story in its first few days, the press went into gullibly relaying Lewis’s spin, along with her bogus charges that O’Keefe’s work was “heavily edited” (even though he, unlike his critics, posted his raw footage), that he was somehow racist, and that what he was doing was somehow not legitimate “journalism.” This last point particularly reeked of hypocrisy. ABC’s Food Lion debacle in the 1990s involved undercover reporters acting as participants and egging on reluctant fellow employees to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise wanted to do. By contrast, O’Keefe and partner Hannah Giles merely posed as clients (a pimp and his prostitute) needing help, and watched ACORN employees freely reveal the degrees of treachery, criminality, and exploitation they would shamelessly support.

The (National) GOP Can Not Legally Help Stop Vote Fraud, No Joke

The (National) GOP Can Not Legally Help Stop Vote Fraud, No Joke

My good friend Alan Vera of True the Vote told me long ago that we have a two party system: the Corrupt Party and the Stupid Party.  To that fact, during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?


Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.  (I’m not joking.)

As part of a lawsuit settlement with the Democrat Party, the Gutless Old Party agreed to not engage in any voter protection initiatives. Two of the clauses read this way:

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

ACORN Whistleblower Anita Moncrief added that when she spoke at the Republican National Convention, she had to submit her speech to make sure nothing she said could be construed as violating the order not to assist voter integrity.

I now think the characterization “the Stupid Party” may be too kind.

Momentum: Romney Increases Lead In National, Swing State Poll

Momentum: Romney Increases Lead In National, Swing State Poll

The CorruptMedia is desperate to keep Obama voters motivated to turn out through a phony Narrative that says Romney's momentum has stalled. Two of the most reliable pollsters in the country would beg to differ. Mirroring Gallup's results yesterday, today, in two different tracking polls, Rasmussen shows Romney pulling away.

Yesterday's seven-day Gallup tracker showed Romney increasing his lead overnight by two points -- 47-50% to 46-51%.  The last time Romney was below fifty in this poll was almost two weeks ago, on October 14. Since the move to likely voters, Obama has yet to reach 50% in Gallup and hasn't even been able to reach 48% since October 1.

We'll see what today's Gallup results are at 1pm Eastern.

Michael Smith News

Michael Smith News

I Am Jack's Persistent Internet Meme.

"I Am Jack's Younger Self":

The Secret Connections between "Fight Club" and "Calvin and Hobbes" REVEALED!

By Galvin P. Chow
 http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cfightclub.html

In the movie Fight Club, the real name of the protagonist (Ed Norton's character) is never revealed. And while some feel the only reason behind this is to give the character more of an "everyman" quality, I say, do not be deceived. Because it's obvious to anyone with working eyes that "Jack" is actually someone whom many of us grew up with, someone who might've been present at all your childhood breakfasts of Sugar Frosted Chocolate Bombs. You see, "Jack" from Fight Club and Calvin from the greatest comic strip ever, "Calvin and Hobbes," are in fact the exact same person! You have doubts, I'm sure. Well, that's to be expected. But laugh now, for by the time you finish reading this page, I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ed Norton is indeed playing the part of grown-up Calvin.

---

Part I: The Hobbes-Tyler Connection

We start with the most obvious bit.
Picture this: a hyper, self-absorbed child initially concocts an imaginary friend as the ideal playmate, to whom more realistic qualities soon become attributed. This phantasm becomes a completely separate personality, with his own likes, dislikes, temperament -- and the imaginer and the imagined clash and argue constantly, though remaining fast friends. This pattern continues to the point where the child begins to perceive what was originally mere fantasy to be _reality_. So, in short...

...Calvin has an imaginary jungle-animal friend named Hobbes, whom everyone else believes to be nothing but a stuffed toy...

"There are EIGHT rules of Fight Club!"

...just as Tyler is Jack's imaginary cool-guy friend, whom no one but Jack can see.

"Mmm, fresh swordfish steaks!"

In both cases, the entity that began as the ideal companion soon took on a more realistic, 3-dimensional quality. In other words, they became REAL. This is evident in that both Hobbes and Tyler also began to function as scapegoats for their creators. For instance, consider that Calvin often blames broken lamps and other assorted household mischief on Hobbes, and that Jack is inclined to believe that Fight Club and other various anti-society mischief is brought about by Tyler, not himself. Calvin claims Hobbes pounces on him every day after school, Jack believes Tyler beats him up next to 40 kilotons of nitroglycerin in a parking garage -- the list goes on and on. The relationships between the two sets of friends are the exact same. And is this mere coincidence? I think not.

Now then, filling in the time-gap between Calvin and Jack, we can imagine the story as something like this: Once Calvin reaches the hostile environment known as the 7th grade, the constant teasing from the other students and the frustrated concern of his parents finally becomes too much, and a reluctant, disillusioned Calvin is finally forced to grow up, or at least begin to. This decision is sealed by one of the hardest things young Calvin will ever have to do in his life -- un-imagining Hobbes, an act which to Calvin is essentially no different from murder. After being Calvin's best friend for over a decade, Hobbes is packed away in a box, or tossed carelessly into a garbage bag, perhaps even stuffed under the same bed that once contained so many monsters. This is all of course, very painful for Calvin, so much so that he represses it all in shame. So little did Calvin suspect, that while he was busy learning to tie ties, asking someone out to his first dance, deciding what "dinette set defines him as a person," and basically growing up, Hobbes is in fact doing the same thing, in a dark, hidden corner of Calvin's mind, waiting for the moment when he can be free again.

It's worth noting that during these 20 or so years, Hobbes never bore a grudge against Calvin nor wished any ill upon him. Back in their prime, though they bickered constantly, the pair truly did deeply care for each other. And Hobbes, knowing this, resents being put away, but he does not hate Calvin. Rather, he hates the society that MADE Calvin put him away. Hobbes, being inside Calvin's mind, sees and experiences all that Calvin does -- and truly despises all of it. He witnesses a bright, superbly imaginative kid (with a genius-level vocabulary, I might add) reduced to nothing more than another nameless cog, and fighting off the tears wept for his best friend, resolves to one day set him free. And perhaps pays special attention when a bored, college freshman Calvin idly looks up homemade-napalm recipes on the internet, wistfully fantasizing about the freedom he traded in all for the sake of "growing up"...

Flash forward to the timeframe depicted in "Fight Club." Jack, or should I say, "Rupert," or "Cornelius" has reached an all-time low. Even though he had done everything he was supposed to have done, and wound up completely miserable. Which is when Hobbes, newly adjusted as "Tyler Durden" (after all, grown-up Calvin would no longer accept a jungle animal walking, talking, and eating canned tuna), re-enters Calvin/Jack's life. He's going to show Calvin everything he's done wrong, whether Calvin likes it or not.

Tyler to Jack: "I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I'm smart, capable, and most importantly, I'm free in all the ways you wish you could be." And to anyone who argues that Calvin never secretly idolized Hobbes, I point you towards the storyline wherein Calvin dresses up like a tiger and attempts to live in the woods, as collected in "Weirdos From Outer Space!" Moreover, Hobbes was always smarter than Calvin, often served as his social conscience -- yet was not above mischief, often because he knew Calvin would be the only one taking the blame. Both Hobbes and Tyler are cool, collected, intelligent and very cerebral, and share a distaste for man's self-importance, as shown in the panel below:

"You are NOT a beautiful and unique snowflake"...early signs of Tyler?

And, let's not forget that Tyler wants to move back to a more primal, hunter-gatherer society...in other words, an environment in which an animal, i.e., a tiger, would be very much at home. Given the evidence, it's VERY likely that Tyler is indeed an updated version of Hobbes, twisted after so many years trapped inside Calvin/Jack's brain. Just as Calvin is Jack, Hobbes IS Tyler.

Want further proof? Look at Tyler's relationship with the only woman in Jack's life: Marla.

---

Part II: Marla Singer: Avatar of Susie Derkins?

= ?

Dual Victims of Testicular Cancer?

Okay, I know what you're thinking.
"All right," you say, "Calvin being Jack is a stretch, Hobbes being Tyler is even more of a stretch, but Susie being Marla? Simply impossible! For one thing, their personalities are nothing alike, and also, Marla is not imaginary nor does she remain unnamed throughout the film!"

To which I respond, oh ye, of little faith. Imagine, please, the following:

Somewhere between the end of high school and beginning of college, uptight, grade-obsessed Susie Derkins loses her way. The pressure to get good grades, the pressure to succeed, simply becomes too much for her, and she snaps. Free from the protective bonds of her parents' guidance and the bland safety of her suburban home, she loses her moral bearings entirely and sinks into a dark, seamy, grim world of sex, drugs, and eccentric Albert-Einstein-like hair. And, her transformation being so complete that she no longer even remotely resembles the upright citizen that her parents and society, not necessarily she herself, wanted her to be, she also changes her name. Like Calvin, she has become a misfit, one of society's lost lambs. It is for this reason that she soon finds herself frequenting support groups such as "Remaining Men Together." Fate has brought her back to Calvin, whom maybe she even spurned back in junior high. But the two have changed so much that they no longer recognize each other!

Also I'd like to point out that the pink dress Marla wears in one scene slightly resembles something that "Binky Betsy," Susie's favorite childhood doll, might wear. You remember, the one Calvin once stole and attempted to ransom, but...oh never mind.

All right, so it's a BIT of a stretch, but it could happen! And regardless of whether Marla is indeed the twisted, fallen-from-grace future of Susie "Straight-and-Narrow" Derkins, the fact remains that the two girls play similar roles in the lives of their respective male counterparts, AND with their imaginary friends. Which is to say, that while Calvin and Susie mostly teased and tortured each other, HOBBES, on the other hand, actually quite fancied the raven-haired beauty. Accordingly, Jack despises Marla, whereas Tyler takes an *ahem* sort of interest in her that is definitely NOT appropriate for the Sunday Funnies. And it is through the examination of these relationships in which we can find further evidence that "Jack" is the matured Calvin.

When first we are introduced to Marla, she is but a tumor on Jack's slowly deteriorating world. She is disenfranchised, morbid, socially apathetic -- and Jack despises her because she is a mirror image of himself, his own female double. On the other hand, Calvin hates Susie because she is his exact opposite: Bright, obedient, demure -- the unruly Calvin has every reason to hate her. However, certain strips definitely infer that Calvin has somewhat of a crush on Susie, and some even imply that Susie shares these latent feelings. But as a cootie-fearing grade-schooler, Calvin may only express these strange feelings through attention-getting antagonisms such as constant snowballs to the head, ransoming her dolls -- AND through his separate, conveniently more mature other personality -- Hobbes.

Above: The grown-up versions of Calvin, Hobbes, and Susie restart their old relationships.

Unlike Calvin, Hobbes has never been bashful about showing his affection for Susie. Calvin's imaginary tiger-friend has called her a "cutie," worn swim jams to impress her ("Girls flip for guys in jams"), and even claimed he would betray their club's secret code if she gave him a tummy rub (which is one of the key differences between Tyler and Hobbes). Naturally, all of this confuses and frustrates Calvin beyond words, even though Hobbes is really nothing more than a product of his own mind! And though Hobbes and Susie never consummated their love for each other (he's a stuffed tiger and she's a kid, you sicko!) this is, of course, the EXACT same deranged love-triangle that is shared between Jack, Tyler, and Marla, or at least a natural progression thereof. Perhaps Marla puts up with Jack/Tyler's apparent nonsense for so long, because it's the sort of thing she became used to as a child? And perhaps, in the end, Jack finds solace in Marla because it's the exact same connection he should've made long ago, in his suburban youth. A connection that may have saved them both.

A minor loophole here is Marla's line, "I haven't been fucked like that since grade-school." Well, besides that line having been substituted by David Fincher, not the writer, for another ("I want to have your abortion"), it's more than likely Marla was simply exaggerating, or even considers "Susie" to have never existed.

---

Part III: GROSS: Precursor of Fight Club

A lot of people think that the creation of something like "Fight Club," by which I mean the actual club and not the movie, would be a frighteningly revolutionary thing. But this is not so. Because when you boil it down, the fighting-club that Jack and Tyler start is really just an odd sort of boys' club -- no ovaries allowed -- where men can be men, and the so-called stronger of the sexes can take solace in the fact that, even in our politically correct times, some exclusivities of manhood still remain. (As a side note, imagine how much more controversy the movie would have generated if it involved scenes of men fighting women on equal ground!) And clubs like this, of course, have their beginnings in backyards, tree houses and garages all over America. Clubs where boys can be boys, clubs made just to exclude girls. And, not surprisingly, Calvin, and Hobbes, started such a club when he was 6 years old. Little did anyone realize that he would construct another one much later in his life, again with the aid of an imaginary friend. For just as Calvin, Hobbes, and Susie have dark future versions in Jack, Tyler, and Marla respectively, GROSS -- Get Rid of Slimy girlS -- has the same in Fight Club.

Above: In a scene eerily reminiscent of Fight Club, Hobbes blithely informs a sulking Calvin that he decides his own level of involvement in GROSS.

GROSS shares many characteristics with Fight Club. Among them:

• Both have catchy names (although the "slimy" part of GROSS is redundant, otherwise it doesn't spell anything).
• Both are co-run by a friendless male and his imaginary companion (Calvin is Tyrant and Dictator-for-Life; Hobbes is President and First Tiger).
• Both are exclusively male organizations, although Fight Club's membership is considerably larger.
• Along with that, all members of both organizations are very loyal
• The leaders of both organizations constantly engage in fisticuffs (but only in GROSS does a member receive a demerit for biting)
• And in said fights, in both organizations there is only one fight at a time!
• Both are supposedly very secretive (though Jack never tells his mother about Fight Club)
• At least one leader of both organizations is fond of giving speeches (though Calvin never uses the term "space monkey")
• GROSS and Fight Club both wreak havoc on their respective neighborhoods (GROSS' target is considerably more focused, i.e., Susie)

Clearly, in GROSS can be seen the roots Fight Club. Calvin shows his penchant for such male-oriented, destructive organizations. Also, just like cardboard-box-time-machines and water-gun-transmogrifiers, GROSS was likely created as an escape, a release. As, of course, was Fight Club.

---

Part IV: Moe Develops Karmic Bitch-Tits

---Atonement--->

Okay, so Robert "Moe" Paulson, Calvin's grade-school bully, becomes a six-time weight-lifting champion, and somewhere along the line develops large man-boobs as a result of testicular cancer. This of course leads him to his support group, where he is shocked to find Calvin. Moe greatly regrets his bullying days, but too ashamed to reveal his true identity to Calvin, he instead offers his ample bosom for him to cry on, as a measure of retribution. From there...just kidding! Just kidding! Perhaps the conspiracy doesn't run THIS deep.

But *coughcough* Chloe is actually Calvin's old babysitter Rosalyn. Seriously. The evidence is all there, but no one believes me. Fools, all of you!

---

Part V: The Root of Evil

Although we've already learned of the fates of Hobbes, Susie, and even Moe and Rosalyn (sort of...), there are a couple of other people important to Calvin that are missing. People that even more integral to his development than (arguably) Hobbes. And these people, are of course, his parents. Namely...
His father, Mr...uhm...

...and his mom, otherwise known as...uh...gimme a sec here...

Okay, I forgot, they don't have names. But then again, we don't NEED to know them. Because in the comic strip, they're not supposed to be important characters in their own right. They only matter in regards to how Calvin is directly effected by them; an effect which, by the time of the movie, doesn't seem to have been very positive. From what Jack mentions, he's not exactly what could be called close to his parents, particularly not his dad, on whom he seems to pin many of his problems. And this matches perfectly with the relationship depicted in the comic, as well as with what I believe to have happened afterwards (in Part I). Let's take a closer look.

We'll begin with Calvin's mom, since she seems the less consequential. In the strip, she appears to be an ordinary housewife, nothing more, nothing less. She comforts or scolds Calvin as needed, goes to many parent-teacher meetings, and seems to enjoy gardening, and that's about all we know. She doesn't seem to be a particularly weak woman, as she seems on fairly equal ground with her husband, in terms of intelligence and personality. Nevertheless, locked in the passive role of a housewife, she appears to have had relatively little effect on Calvin's development.

Now Calvin's dad, on the other hand, seems to have done quite a number on his son. As stated, it was probably at his urging that Calvin "grew up," by which I mean, finally started to try and play by society's rules, which is something that we know never quite worked out. Of course, he wasn't without his playful side -- good-naturedly teasing Calvin at every opportunity -- but perhaps this is why Jack resents him so. For maybe, after Jack reached the end of the path of that was decided for him, only to find emptiness as his reward, perhaps he thought back to when his father told him that the sun sets down somewhere in Arizona every night. "Maybe," thought Calvin, "maybe ALL of it's been just another one of Dad's cruel jokes."

In the "bathtub" scene of Fight Club, Jack and Tyler discuss their parents. In this scene, key information arises, as do, apparently, large inconsistencies. First the latter. Jack claims his father left when he was six, an age when Calvin's was obviously still around, but this statement is contradicted soon after, when Tyler mentions his own dad telling him to get married when he was 30, to which Jack responds, "mine said that TOO." So what this probably amounts to is the self-pitying Jack attempting to garner additional sympathy from his newfound friend by making his childhood sound worse than it actually was. But even more interesting is Tyler's hostility towards his father: when Jack asks him who he would fight, if he could fight anyone, he answers, "I'd fight my father." But, since Tyler is only a figment of Jack's imagination, we can only assume he's referring to JACK'S father. And while this hatred would only make sense given that the two are sharing the same brain, why is it that Tyler seems to hate Jack's father even more vividly than Jack himself does? Well, maybe it's because Tyler hasn't forgotten who's ultimately responsible for the de-imagining that took place years before...maybe he's still not too happy about it...

...and maybe he's got some pretty good ideas for revenge.

So, as you can see, the role of Calvin's father in all of this is no small one. Other than to "save" Calvin, it's entirely possible that Tyler's real motivation for taking down civilization is simply to get back at Calvin's father. For by destroying the society that forced Calvin into repressing Hobbes, he's also destroying the society that Calvin's father, after all, epitomizes. And this of course, allows Hobbes an indirect measure of revenge. But we're getting off track again. Because with all this talk of secondary characters, we're forgetting the one person that's at the center of all of this:
Calvin.

---

Part VI: And Finally: "I Am Jack's Lost Youth -- Calvin"

As we've already thoroughly examined all the secondary members of the cast, and analyzed them in light of their various relationships with the protagonist, actually putting Calvin himself under the microscope, at this point, seems largely unnecessary. After all, there already seems to be abundant evidence of the connections between Fight Club and Calvin and Hobbes. However, there do remain some key points that rest only within Calvin, and only with Calvin, himself. So, examine we shall. 

Although the personality differences between Calvin in the comic strip and Calvin in the movie are pretty large, it can be explained as easily as taking Id and introducing him to Superego (Jack actually seems to have sort of a Super-Superego). Nearly all people go through the same thing when first confronted with the crushing grind of reality. But, as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall -- and in terms of imagination and dreams, Calvin was a giant.

Above: Calvin displaying an early distaste for institution

Still, it's not as though no common traits between Calvin-Calvin and Jack-Calvin can be identified at all. Besides a preference for imaginary friends over real ones, and an ability to express affection for girls, Calvin has never done well when forced to play by any sort of rules. Take, for instance, his utter inability in any sort of organized sport, compared to his unbridled joy while playing the make-it-up-as-you-go-along "Calvinball." Furthermore, even at age 8 Calvin never exactly thrived in stifling, authoritarian establishments (i.e., school), and he's always had clashes with authority figures since the strip began (his parents, the doctor, his teacher, Rosalyn) -- which actually may have initially planted the seeds for Tyler. Beyond that, his excellent vocabulary and way with words is still with him in the voice-over narration of Fight Club, and the rampant materialism that started with mail-order propeller-beanies ended with yin-yang shaped tables. I'm sure I'm even forgetting a few of the similarities -- as for the differences, they can be credited to the demoralizing effect of reality.

Of course, there IS the issue of Calvin's trademark spiky blond hair, noticeably absent on Jack. But, many adult brunettes were blondes as children, and furthermore, notice how Tyler, Jack's image of an ideal male, does possess the hairstyle in question.

So, when it all comes down to it, what do the events of Fight Club mean to Calvin? Two words: "Personal Responsibility." For although Fight Club and Project Mayhem were both mostly Tyler's doing, by the end of the movie, Jack readily accepts his own part of the blame, as Tyler is his creation. And by doing so, he's also accepting responsibility for the undesirable condition of his own LIFE -- his father may have pushed him, but Calvin himself was the one who chose to obey. It is through this newfound self-accountability that Calvin/Jack is able to take control of his own life at last. As skyscrapers flash and crumble in the background, and blood oozes from the bullet hole in his head, Calvin says that he is "okay." And we are apt to believe him.

---

Part VI: Odds, Odds, and Ends

Despite my exhaustive research, there are still some oddities and disparities along the way from Calvin to Jack. None of them are too important, so I'll just list them briefly:

• Whither Calvin's trademark red, black-striped shirt? If he's attempting to revert more back to his old self, you'd think he woulda tracked down something similar, as his "Rosebud."
• It's hard to believe Calvin could ever really get along without TV.
• Notice how Calvin and Hobbes actually reversed many personality traits as Jack and Tyler? Maybe Calvin is the personality that got repressed and Hobbes is the one that did the "growing up."
• Tyler wears a fur coat near the end of the movie. What is the significance of this garment, given his past incarnation as a jungle animal? Discuss.
• Jack's skill with firearms apparently was not helped by years of practice on Calvin's dart gun.

"Stay away from me, Tyler!"

• If Calvin really wanted to change things, then why didn't he just dust off his old cardboard-box time machine and hop in?
• Given Calvin's dislike for camping trips as a child, it's strange he took to life in the Paper Street house so easily.
• Tyler has a preference for loud, gaudy clothing, whereas Hobbes' look was always one of dignified reserve.
• If it had been winter in the movie, I'm sure there would have been a scene where Jack and Tyler make a small gallery of gruesome snowmen.
• After the end of Fight Club, when Calvin realizes he's effectively killed Hobbes twice now, do you really think he'll still be "okay"?

---

Tyler Durden says: "You've read this far, you may as well finish it!"

---

Part VII: Conclusion

*Whew* That was quite a trip, wasn't it? We've come a long way, and you're probably more than a little confused. So, let's finish off with some brief explication.

To look at it one way, Calvin's world in the comic strip is pure, romanticized idealism, whereas in the movie, he lives in gray, bleak reality. Within the safety of the panel, Calvin is perpetually eight years old, terrible things can never happen, and no matter how crazy a stunt he pulls, everything always returns to status quo. Because of this, our hero is free to do as he wishes, free to chase his dreams as wildly as he desires, never having to worry about tomorrow because there essentially will never BE one -- unless it's part of a continuing storyline. This makes the reality of Fight Club all the bleaker, because it depicts what happens when you take someone weaned on dreams and limitless possibilities and jam him into a cramped cage confined by rules and regulations. It probably only took poor Calvin a few years in the adult world (or growing-up world) to fully make the sad change. Watching his dreams be crunched into dust by cold reality, he must have felt a little like Icarus after flying too close to the sun.

In closing, we must remember that the transition from Calvin to Jack is not a terribly unique one. Because really, the same probably would happen to any fantasy character suddenly finding himself in reality. Little Nemo became a banker, Peter Pan became a lawyer, and Garfield was caught and butchered by the chef of a Chinese restaurant. (One exception to this would probably be Charlie Brown, who from all indications, was mentally middle-aged at the time of his birth) Reality bites, kiddies, and Calvin in Fight Club is proof of that.

So there you have it. Incontrovertible evidence, laid out in detail, that the so-called "Fight Club" is indeed a disguised, live-action movie version of Calvin and Hobbes. Perhaps now that this is exposed, David Fincher can come clean and released a director's cut version called It's a Magical Fight Club, or perhaps Fight Club is Under the Bed and Drooling; a special edition that will include, among other things, actual video footage of C&H creator Bill Watterson making a rare venture away from his hermitage so he can go to the 20th Century Fox offices and grumpily tear up his royalties check. Hey, if a stuffed tiger can start a bloody underground ring of would-be pugilists, anything can happen.

Patterico's Pontifications » Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism

Patterico's Pontifications » Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism


You’re about to listen to one of the most bone-chilling pieces of audio you will ever hear. At least, it was to me when I first heard it.

It’s a phone call that could have gotten me killed.

In this post you will hear that audio clip. You will also read about a months-long campaign of harassment carried out by at least three individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin — much of it directed at critics of Brett Kimberlin. This harassment includes repeated references to critics’ family members, workplace complaints, publication of personal information such as home addresses and pictures of residences, bogus allegations of criminal activity, whisper campaigns, frivolous legal actions, and frivolous State Bar complaints.

And finally, you will hear a comparison of one of those men’s voices to that of the man who made the call that sent police to my home. And you’ll read a declaration from a forensic audio expert comparing those two voices.

BREITBART TOLD THE STORY JUST BEFORE HE DIED



In the last radio interview Andrew Breitbart ever gave, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Breitbart talked about a new ruthless tactic used by thugs against political opponents:

[O]ne of the things they’ve done to people who have worked with me in the past, including an L.A. prosecutor, is to “SWAT.” That means that they’re spoofing phones, pretending to be somebody else’s phone, calling 911, and saying “I killed somebody” and then the person’s home is met with the guns drawn, the SWAT and the helicopters, in a horrifying act. It’s happened twice: once in New Jersey, once in Los Angeles, with an L.A. County . . . prosecutor who [is] associated with me.”

I am that L.A. County prosecutor. And in this post, you’ll hear the hoax call that sent police to my house, pointing loaded guns at me.

THE NIGHT I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE OF MY BLOGGING

At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.

When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air. I had a cell phone in my hand. Fortunately, they did not mistake it for a gun.

They ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. They handcuffed me. They shouted questions at me: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE? and WHERE ARE THEY? and ARE THEY ALIVE?

I told them: Yes, my wife and my children are in the house. They’re upstairs in their bedrooms, sleeping. Of course they’re alive.

Deputies led me down the street to a patrol car parked about 2-3 houses away. At least one neighbor was watching out of her window as I was placed, handcuffed, in the back of the patrol car. I saw numerous patrol cars on my quiet street. There was a police helicopter flying overhead, shining a spotlight down on us as I walked towards the patrol car. Several neighbors later told us the helicopter woke them up. I saw a fire engine and an ambulance. A neighbor later told me they had a HazMat vehicle out on the street as well.

Meanwhile, police rushed into my home.

 They woke up my wife, led her downstairs and to the front porch, frisked her, and asked her where the children were. Then police ordered her to stand on the front porch with her hands against the wall while they entered my children’s bedrooms to make sure they were alive.

The call that sent deputies to my home was a hoax. Someone had pretended to be me. They called the police to say I had shot my wife. The sheriff’s deputies who arrived at my front door believed they were about to confront an armed man who had just shot his wife. I don’t blame the police for any of their actions. But I blame the person who made the call.

Because I could have been killed.

The weirdest part of the whole thing was that I halfway expected this might happen. Because I was not the first one it had happened to.

I think it’s about time you heard the call that sent police to my home.

Is this why Breitbart died? 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'


Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.
Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

Blog: 'We hid this during the election': Latest Breitbart tapes debut

Blog: 'We hid this during the election': Latest Breitbart tapes debut

 Breibart promised before his death to finally vet Obama. What the mainstream media will never admit is that the public persona of Obama they have collaborated in producing is a mere facade. We live in uneasy times, leading to skepticism about whether we are being told the truth. Certainly the public overwhelmingly distrusts the media.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/we_hid_this_during_the_election_latest_breitbart_tapes_debut.html#ixzz1thAxzdeW

Once could be accident. Twice could be coincidence. One more... And Breitbart was murdered.

Andrew Breitbart’s coroner dead from suspected poisoning | Fellowship of the Minds
 
Mere days after the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office issued its final autopsy report on the sudden death of bane-of-the-Left Andrew Breitbart (he died of “heart failure”), news came last Friday that a forensic criminalist at the L.A. County Coroner, Michael Cormier, had suddenly died from suspected arsenic poisoning!

In his article for WND, titled “Breitbart’s Coroner Poisoned to Death?,” Joe Kovacs writes: “Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart.”

 

Andrew Breitbart (l); Michael Cormier (r)

The Vetting: Obama 1995: ‘Scapegoat’ the ‘Top 5%’

The Vetting: Obama 1995: ‘Scapegoat’ the ‘Top 5%’

In a newly-uncovered interview from the Hyde Park Citizen newspaper circa December 28, 1995, Barack Obama explains his philosophy on income inequality in the United States, especially in light of economic difficulties:

In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.

In that interview, Obama explains that his perspective on the “top 5%” was shaped by his experiences abroad:

It's about power. My travels made me sensitive to the plight of those without power and the issues of class and inequalities as it relates to wealth and power. Anytime you have been overseas in these so-called third world countries, one thing you see is the vast disparity of wealth of those who are part of power structure and those outside of it.

These comments are reminiscent of both the most radical Occupy Wall Street rhetoric and Obama’s infamous comments in San Francisco in April 2008 in which he stated that Americans suffering difficult economic times “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

***

DIA / CIA script- dust it off use it again.

And why DID Barry have so many fake social security numbers? Why hasn't his fake selective service documentation not been the subject of FBI and state probes?

Why do all his gay lovers keep shooting themselves through the back of the head in clear cases of suicide?