Leading Question of the Day (From a Few Days Ago)

Scott Adams posed this question:

If you took these three people and morphed them together, who would you get?

1. Frank Sinatra (from the skinny Rat Pack years)

2. Sammy Davis Junior

3. Bobby Kennedy

I think I see where he's going with this.

Must be none other than Rufus Jones.

Rufus Jones for President
Uploaded by redhotjazz

Poking around with Google found this well stated defense of the above video, along with a better quality version for download, as well as a ton of stills.

While poking around Wikipedia, noted this interesting bit(grain of salt should be taken, but it is footnoted, and it's consistent with the Kennedys' behavior) about Sammy's treatment by Pres. Kennedy

Although Davis had been a voting Democrat, he had felt a distinct lack of respect from the John F. Kennedy White House. He had been removed from the bill of the inaugural party hosted by Sinatra for the new President because of Davis's recent interracial marriage. Davis had married Swedish actress May Britt (pronounced "My Brit") on November 13, 1960.

Talk about bringing everything around for the big finish, that bit includes the Presidency, the Kennedys, Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis.

"People of average intelligence have more intercourse, sure, but I’ll bet the Mensans are winning the orgasm competition by about ten to one"

No comment, just a link.

"Did I just accidentally write a script for the next Adam Sandler movie?"

Recast it with Jack Nicholson instead, and I'd go see it (more age appropriate, anyway).

I'm thinking an About Schmidt that's actually funny, sans naked Kathy Bates, though Kathy Bates could play the wife he leaves at home who threatens to uncover the whole scheme. For the truckstop prostitute with the heart of gold (this film couldn't be done without that character), I'd go with her, or her, or her, but definitely not her.

Way To Build An Audience?

Insult your most avid fans:

In yesterday’s post I dared to say Paris Hilton entertains me, and I confessed I liked her because she works when she doesn’t need to, she has a sense of humor, and I’ve never heard of her being mean. This caused a Category 5 irony storm in the comments.

My favorite comments came from people who believe Paris Hilton’s television show on E!, The Simple Life, is a reality show about two stupid rich girls who do mean things. I hate to be a spoiler, but it’s a show produced by smart people, starring two rich girls who pretend to be mean and stupid. Their target audience is people who aren’t bright enough to know the show is staged.

And people wonder how I can be entertained by Paris Hilton. Good lord, the woman gives and she gives. This is performance art, and you’re part of the show, even if all you’re doing is strenuously denying its entertainment value and causing me to write this post that you are now reading.

My other favorite comments came from people who angrily point out how wrong it is to be entertained by something as trivial and unimportant as Paris Hilton’s life. This raises an interesting question: What the hell are you doing that’s so important? You’re not only reading The Dilbert Blog, but you’re leaving a frickin’ comment. How can you afford to take time out from your primary activity of performing free heart surgery on poor African babies?

In Scott Adams defense, the folks who feel compelled to comment on the blog, aren't all there as fans of his strip. Some might comment just to fling poo, others comment to vent, others comment cause others are commenting. So insulting the lot of folks who come there just to feel better about themselves by insulting the blog host for voicing his own personal opinion, will at the very least not drive away anybody who was actually a fan, and possibly even shore up his credibility with people that are fans. Plus more importantly, it probably feels satisfying on a personal level to ridicule the idiots who think their snide comments are comic gold, or worse yet, the sanctimonious jerks who think they've caught Adams in some sort of moral failing.

So insult away, Mr. Adams. I don't find the Paris Hilton act entertaining personally, but I do believe that the folks that pile-on in the Paris Hilton hating department have some mighty big problems themselves.

A Peek Behind the Curtain

Scott Adams gives us a peek behind the curtain to see the exciting behind the scenes world of Cartooning.

Turns out the list of requirements is short.

1. Banana
2. Diet Coke (substituting Diet Pespi while acceptable may effect the quality of the outcome)
3. Cat (hopefully purely optional, if one were to need a pet by your side, seems a dog (non-evil non-Dogbert variety) would be preferable)
4. Computer with Wacom 21sx Monitor (*xwl drools*, their latest, the Cintiq 21ux looks even juicer, though the price tag is gobsmacking)

Talent and brains aren't anywhere on this list, interesting, best to start saving up for one of those monitors, then, I think I smell a career change coming . . .

Is Ron Livingston Available?

Scott Adams posted the following:

Suppose there was a Dilbert movie with live actors, not animation. Who would you cast for the main characters?

There's more, but that's the gist.

My answer is in the title, though it might feel a bit of an Office Space remake, but that film is so good, I'd see it again under a different name, anyway.

Kal Penn would be an excellent Dilbert as well. A tech guy being South Asian would be more believable, and nothing about Dilbert in the comics precludes the actor playing him having a non-white background.

The other key role would be the Pointy Haired Boss, that's a tough role to fill, they'd have to be funny looking and short. Jon Lovitz might work but might be a bit old, Jack Black might be a bit too manic, but then again, who knows, he could work out pretty well.

But most importantly, Jeff Bridges would have to be the Garbage Man, no other could do that role justice.

"When it comes to romance, the important thing is to win the argument.

And the winner, as well as sole nominee for "worst advice, ever", goes to Scott Adams.

Congratulations Mr. Adams, that degree of wrongness is rarely achieved.

Your wife must be a lovely, patient, and understanding soul (or a gold-digger, but I prefer to assume the former rather than the latter).

"Once in a while you see a movie that doesn’t have too many downer scenes until the end when the puppy gets crushed by a bulldozer."

The rest here.

Scott Adams reflecting on his personal taste in films.

He applies a formula to anticipating whether or not a film is worth his time.

I'm always more suspicious of the quality of films that get better than 85% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, when films are that well critically received it's usually for the wrong reasons.

A not entirely unrelated discussion regarding Little Miss Sunshine broke out on Althouse.

There was a time that I sought films that were far more than 25% downer (to use Mr. Adams' formula), but lately not so much. I don't need slapped on happy endings to enjoy a film, but the slapped on horrendous car wreck of an ending is even more insulting and disorienting than the slapped on happy ending.

Scott Adams is Having a Very Good Day

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has a rare condition that effected his ability to speak in normal social situations.

Through personal effort and what sounds like some mild self hypnosis he's 'remapped' his brain and kickstarted his ability to speak.

He chalks it up to his personal optimism.

Good for him, and it makes for some interesting blog posts (from Last December and from March) go read his, I can't add anything, so I'll just play traffic cop (always keep white gloves in your blogger kit for just such an occaision).

And his Wiki has already been updated with the information contained in today's post.

Someone more spiritually inclined than Scott Adams (or myself, for that matter) might have thrown around the term, "miracle".

That Dilbert Fella Ain't Wrong, Either

Scott Adams talks much sense about Iraq, I'll just steal his conclusion

Personally, I would consider the war in Iraq a success for America if the troops were withdrawn now, even if the Iraqi democracy collapsed. While this sounds like a joke, I am serious when I say it’s highly useful to find out for sure where the WMD are NOT. Unfortunately, this costly war was the only way to know for sure. You could argue that it wasn’t worth the price to find out, but you can’t say it isn’t better to be sure.

Second, my guess is that America has improved its terrorist fighting knowledge and skills considerably as a direct result of things learned in this war. That is the sort of indirect benefit that can end up dwarfing all of the costs. Every modern war has created that sort of benefit. This one should be no exception. It could take decades before those benefits are clear.

I reiterate that the argument above is riddled with ignorance because I get my information from the media. That’s the point of this exercise. It’s your job to fill in the gaps and critique the reasoning. Sometimes the best way to get to a good opinion is by fixing a bad one that’s clearly stated.

I'm sure he'll get pounded in the comments, but he's right that knowing for certain about WMD was worth the cost, and he's also right that our military is better prepared to fight these kind of engagements, even if it may take some years before that becomes absolutely clear. I also like the part about admitting ignorance due to his sources.