I'm skeptical you all have watched these movies at least 10 times. 3 or 4, maybe, plus catching parts on cable.
Anyway, the only one I'm certain I've seen at least 10 times (though admittedly without my full attention every time) is Raya and the Last Dragon. And maybe Shawshank.
If we relax it from 10 times, my list of many viewings:
LA Confidential, Wag the Dog, Good Will Hunting, Aladdin, Lion King, original Star Wars trilogy, Raiders and Last Crusade, the Matrix, Clue, Donnie Darko, Holy Grail, Naked Gun, and Supertroopers.
And Rounders. Can't believe I forgot Rounders.
Writing this list, I realize the many viewings thing happened for me mostly:
-kid watching VHS over and over
-high school, during my film nerd peak
-college late night rewatch or me wanting to show a new movie I liked to everyone
I've also seen T2 and Ferris a lot. Not sure if 10, but at least 5.
I knew I'd forget some.
And Lebowski. (I graduated high school in 1999). That was a big throw on in the background while hanging out with friends (and occasionally stopping to laugh at something) movie for me.
I left off Independence Day.
Had it on VHS, watched it so much that I had a hard time seeing James Rebhorn in any movie without immediately distrusting him.
Jared Kushner got the US to give advanced weaponry to Middle Eastern autocrats, including some he was trying to get to give him money for his private business, and got something Team Trump could falsely claim constituted Middle East peace. So they accomplished their main goals.
The Abraham Accords aren't bad, they just did little. Took de facto Sunni-Israeli anti-Iran coalition public, greased by US weapons transfers.
But Trumpists had to declare it a Nobel-worthy transformative achievement, and anti-anti-Trump had to denounce anyone who said it wasn't.
This highlights a discourse problem: proponents of something exaggerate the achievement, their opponents exaggerate the downsides, and both insist there are only two possible positions, such that "actually, it's X, which is neither great nor awful" is seen as an enemy by both.
Kyrsten Sinema says Dems should let a GOP minority block popular legislation because if it passes, and the American people don't like it, they'll vote GOP, who will be able to reverse it, and stopping them from hypothetically reversing a policy that never passes takes priority.
On voting rights, Sinema says a majority in Congress must allow simple majorities in red states—in some cases, not real majorities but gerrymandered legislatures—to manipulate elections because otherwise a future Congressional majority might do what those states are already doing
Sinema's claim that the "filibuster compels moderation" is empirically false.
And her examples of bipartisan legislation—e.g. trying to reduce military suicides, boosting manufacturing—are uncontentious, not difficult compromises compelled by the filibuster.
This is so naive, and, whether deliberately or not, functions as an apology for Jan. 6.
The US couldn't nuke al Qaeda and rightfully didn't try. It doesn't have a capital city; a lot of it is on the internet. And the US surely isn't going to use F-22s against domestic extremists.
Throughout history, revolutionaries that seize the seat of national power (Russian, Iranian, etc.) were a lot weaker than the government. Didn't matter. By replacing leadership, they captured state capabilities.
More importantly for the current situation in the US...
Democratic backsliding in which elected leaders dismantle rule-of-law and checks-and-balances from within (eg Turkey, Hungary, Poland) isn't military. It involves leaders putting their thumb on the scale, tilting the rules in their favor, and holding onto/accumulating power.
Good thread on comedy and "can't joke about that anymore." Distinction between "shock comics," and "perpetual victims" is a good one.
Maybe a 5th category is comics who effectively push boundaries because stuff that's normal to them wasn't talked about (eg Ali Wong on pregnancy).
Related thought: The culture could use a sketch show that tackles gender identity as well as Chappelle's Show and Key & Peale tackled racial identity.
I fully recognize this wouldn't be easy to do well. (You think what Chappelle and Key & Peale did was easy?)
One reason I like comedy is it changes cultural boundaries.
Classic greats (Bruce, Pryor, Carlin), newer greats (Chappelle, Jeselnik), and I'd add Eddie Izzard on gender identity, Michelle Wolf et. al. on abortion, and others who joke about taboo subjects that shouldn't be taboo.
Wrote this about COVID lab leak theory a year ago, reiterating it today.
Big difference between (1) a virology lab was studying a virus it found & some sort of mistake let it out, and (2) created by humans in a lab.
Unfortunately, many who focus on this topic blur the distinction
I remain extremely skeptical of the Chinese government's pronouncements on COVID. Not that everything they say is a lie, but it's not exactly the most trustworthy regime, and blocking or hindering international efforts to investigate the pandemic's origins rightly raise eyebrows.
I'm also skeptical of COVID-China conspiracy theories, especially from people who (1) wanted confrontation with China pre-COVID, (2) want to downplay how the US or other govts screwed up w/ COVID, (3) often conspiracy theorize.
Non-conspiratorial screw up➡️govt lie
That's normal.
"Conservatives" like Tucker Carlson and Josh Hawley have been crying "cancel culture" in bad faith, and will keep doing so.
But I've also seen many of the most vocal cancel culture critics—@robbysoave@thomaschattwill@CathyYoung63@TheFIREorg plus more—criticizing UNC and/or AP.
Two high profile cancelations of people who expressed left-wing views, involving their current or about-to-be employers facing pressure from right-wing activists, strikes me as a good opportunity for some culture war detente.
For one, recognize that there are more than two sides.
I get that few know how academic hiring and promotion works (it's highly unusual for trustees to overrule a faculty + admin decision) and don't know the specifics of this position (specifically for a practitioner, not a PhD researcher), but... (cont.)