JOKER

I tell ya....When I first learned that Heath Ledger was going to be cast as the joker....I had my jokes like everyone else. "broke back batman" yada yadda yadda..
But man..When that teaser trailer came out at comic con....No visual other than the sparks bustin up the bat symbol, but over it was dialogue. The end was that of Heath ledgers rendition of the Joker.
It really made you stop. It sounded great! And the laugh was SPOT ON! PERFECT! Made me actually shiver.

I thought to myself. "HUH..maybe? NAW!!.....maybe???????"
When the real actual trailer came out a few weeks ago, Actually showing Heath ledger as the Joker ...in action. OH CRAP! It was beautiful! Just FRICKIN BEAUTIFUL!!!
He was amazing! If you haven't seen it (as if your hiding under a rock), check it out in hi def:

http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm


Brilliant. I'm begining to think that Nolan is a Genius.
The way the joker doesn't flinch when the pod is coming right at him and just turns his head to watch it go by him....Oh man. Thats good stuff.
Enjoy. And count the days right along with me....... till showtime!


"LETS PUT A SMIIILE ON THAT FACE!!!"

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Luke 2:8-14

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Well this is just too yummy. I say.....Keep it up Dems. Your doin swell! Now go and get me a samich dammit! Bark for me! Bark I say!!

Dems to back down on war money

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - After weeks of tough talk, Democrats appear resigned to back down again on providing money for the Iraq war.

What happened?

"Republicans, Republicans, Republicans," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The real problem here is the president and his Republican backers" who have "staked out an increasingly hard-lined position."

Indeed, with Democrats holding a razor-thin majority in the Senate and with 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles, Senate Republicans were in a plum negotiating spot this month.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., insisted that if Democrats want legislation paying for government operations this year, they will have to include money for the Iraq war.

"Do Republicans have a tough stance on funding the troops in the field? Yes," said McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart. "Because we made a commitment to the troops overseas to give them the training and equipment and support that they need."

Democrats now are expected to allow Senate Republicans to attach tens of billions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a $500 billion-plus government-wide spending bill. That move would be in exchange for GOP support on the huge spending measure.

The war money would not be tied to troop withdrawals, as Democrats want. But it would let Democrats wrap up their long-unfinished budget work and go on vacation before Christmas. It also would spare them from criticism during the holiday recess by President Bush for leaving work without providing money for the troops.

Without the money, the Defense Department said it would start delivering pink slips to thousands of contractors this month.

The plan caps off a disappointing year for Democrats on Iraq. The party had taken control of Congress for the first time since 1994, seizing on the public's frustration with the war. Even with their election victory, the slim margins in the Senate have rendered Democrats powerless in trying to bring troops home.

"We've tried maybe a dozen times" to bring troops home, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "And when we do try and we don't succeed, we still provide funding for the troops."

Such talk runs contrary to the rhetoric just three weeks ago by other Democratic leaders.

Senate Republicans were blocking a $50 billion bill that would have paid for combat operations and set a goal of bringing troops home by December 2008. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters the House would not respond by sending Bush the bill he wanted, without conditions on withdrawal.

If efforts fail in the Senate, "we're not going to be taking it up anymore over here," she said at a Nov. 15 news conference.

The measure fell by a 53-45 vote in the Senate, seven short of the 60 needed. Afterward, Reid said the House "has made their position clear" and suggested the Senate would not revisit the issue.

"We're going to continue to do the right thing for the American people by having limited accountability for the president and not a blank check," he said. Because the Army has enough money through mid-February, he said, "everyone should rest with a good conscience."

Other Democrats stuck to that line.

"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said: "If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is to call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it."

But facing an uphill battle, the House is now expected to vote as early as Tuesday on the catchall spending measure and an estimated $30 billion for Afghanistan and some domestic military requirements. The bill would not initially include money for Iraq, until it makes its way to the Senate and faces the threat of a GOP filibuster. That is when Reid is expected to allow a vote on a Republican amendment to add the Iraq money.

The House is expected to accept the deal.

"Certainly the Senate remains an obstacle," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami. "We hope the Senate takes up and passes the bill as approved by the House."

I'm back, so lets talk "WRITERS STRIKE"

Writers strike.

Well it looks as if the studios are trying to rip off the writers. The beef is (partially) that the writers don't feel as if they are getting their fair share of the pie when it comes to things like the fees that writers receive when the content they create is distributed on the Internet.

And the studios are chincing where they can.
question?

Do ya care? Do ya?
Let me see if I totally understand this. The writers are complaining that they are not getting enough ducket when things go internet. So the Union says strike. Let me tell you who I do feel bad for. I feel bad for the folk, good decent folk that are caught between bastard #1 (studios) and Bastard#2 (writers)
People such as the craft folk. People that don't have anything to do with the writers or studio heads. Those are the people that are totally screwed.

Now I know that there are writers that make the high end of the money scale and there are writers that are at the low end of the pay scale. As with ANYTHING. But let me tell you, IF you are living in California and you have any sort of benefits package with the studio that you are working for...that covers you and your family...
What in the hell are you doing by going on strike?

But Handel...shouldn't the writers FIGHT to get what they deserve?
Well sure. But one problem that I have with unions, is that they are every bit as self serving and asinine as the studios they go up against. They are bull headed, stubborn and push too far.
Who are the people hurt?
Well they are the very people that they (Unions) are supposed to represent.
Who is the brain child that said..."Guh huh! I think that it would be a great idea to go on strike right BEFORE CHRISTMAS?"

Ooooo thats smart. Thats good thinkin'. Thats a Union head.

The writers:

Now how bout the writers. You have a job that tons of people would look at as a dream job. Your bitching because you aren't getting some extra ducket based off internet distribution.
As I said, If you are at the top of the pay scale of writers and you have benefits through your studio, you are blessed. IF you are at the middle to lower end and you have benefits, You are blessed. If you get paid on time you are really really blessed! If you really are ticked at how things are done in Hollywood. Well.....WELCOME TO HOLLYWOOD! Are ya new here?

I personally don't think that this is coming from the middle to lower end of the pay scale writer. I think those people are more concerned about getting and keeping the jobs and going up in pay with experience and time. I think this comes from the union heads, who are looking at everyone that this strike will effect and thinking that they can use this for leverage.
A sort of hostage type of scenario.

And those craft people, gaffers, light people, make up, set and props, etc....are the ones that are feeling it.

My solution?:

FIRE THEM ALL. Give those writers that want it, a chance to get back in studio and get to work..If they opt not to, ....out.
Get new writers. Writers are a dime a dozen. There are some great ones out there just waiting for their clarion call. Waiting for their shot. Their moment to prove themselves.
IF you cant find great writers, then......well get crappy writers. Its tv for petes sake. Whose going to notice?

Which leads me to this.

Tv is so awful. Most of the stuff on there is just plain crap. Crap. As far as I'm concerned the longer the strike goes on, the less new crap will be out there. Maybe it will force us to get off of our fat butts, put the cheetos down and...Oh I don't know. Heres a novel idea...GO OUTSIDE?
RIDE A BIKE?
TAKE A WALK?
REDISCOVER WHAT YOUR FAMILY LOOKS LIKE?

I mean really? Who really needs tv? When studies show that we are spending upwards of 24 hours a week in front of the tube??? 24 hours A WEEK???

Jeeeze.

The "STARS":

So I see that the stars are coming up to bat for the struggling writers. Danny Glover, Tim Robbins, etc etc etc. All there to lend their support.
Heres what I find kinda funny. Most of these clowns are the ones out there complaining about the rich and wanting to redistribute wealth. They're socialists.
Why don't they give a little? Give some of THEIR money to offset the writers plight.
Follow your own philosophies.
They wont. Because they are Hollywood, and they don't really believe the crap that they spew. And as for standing with the writers. Well thats nonsense. Its just another role for them. Another "part". It is another act of TYPICAL narcissism. Just to look THE PART of someone that gives a damn. (they don't).

I dont know folks. I say the less tv the better.
Now I have my favorites. "24", "hero's", "lost", etc...but, I can give it up if need be.

Maybe its a good thing for the country. To turn it off. And discover, that life..REAL life is so much more interesting than life in the lil box.

Certainly better written.

Well Happy belated THANKSGIVING!

Yeah been away for a little while..Its the holidays and all. Now its on to Christmas.
Lots to say about things and I'm trying to work up some fun stuff. So bear with me.

See ya in a day or so.

HaNdEl