Monthly Archives: April 2011

Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!

Originally posted at DRScoundrels April 18, 2011

The premiere of Atlas Shrugged was Friday, April 15th to mixed reviews (not surprising giving Hollywood’s extremely leftist slant) but one stood out that must be ripped apart – not for the opinion – but for the blatant inaccuracies in the review.  This review was written by the know Left Winger Roger Ebert.  No one in their right mind would expect Ebert to write an unbiased review when it comes to a non-liberal leaning movie – it is after all his opinion.  He gets paid to sit on his ass, watch movies and then write his opinion about them.  The problem with Ebert’s review is that he apparently didn’t pay attention to the movie.  He distorts facts and clearly targets ridiculous things in the movie that make him look biased and unprofessional.

Ebert:  I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

Apparently Ebert didn’t actually talk to anyone who had never read the book.  Many people I talked with who never read the book understood what was going on completely (kind of easy since we are basically on the verge of living it in real life).  Everyone I spoke with who had read the book enjoyed the movie – the biggest complaint was that the characters and storylines weren’t developed like in the book but that would have been physically impossible given time constraints.   You’ve got to love Ebert’s injection of his liberal hatred of capitalism and business when he mentions the Robber Baron (this is an entirely different area for which he could be lambasted about as well but would take entirely too long in this space).

Ebert: During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, “What did they just say?” The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

People sip wine at parties and dinner just like in ‘real life’.  They are shown responsibly sipping wine at appropriate times.  Unfortunately for Ebert being outright drunk or drugged up like many Hollyweirdo movies today just isn’t acceptable.  Clearly Ebert doesn’t understand business chatter – that’s why he sits on his ass as a movie reviewer.  Even people who aren’t in business had no complaints about any of this.

Ebert: But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at. When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. “Atlas Shrugged” seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains. Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Clearly Ebert missed the part in the movie where gas prices were almost $40/gallon making train transportation much cheaper than any other form.  This is where he starts to go off into la-la land with his facts.  Because of the insane gas prices, which are hurting all forms of the economy, trains are considered the saving grace which is why it is deemed so important by the news outlets in the movie (mind you, he’s exaggerating this point as it is).

Ebert:  There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

Earth to Ebert – All of the women that I know who watched Atlas Shrugged absolutely noticed that Hank Reardon (Grant Bowler) took his shirt off in the sex scene.  How could anyone miss that?  Another fact that is incorrect from this ‘professional movie reviewer’.  Maybe Ebert is used to the soft porn that comes out of Hollywood such that a sex scene not showing pubic hairs or boobs is deemed abnormal.  Probably a disappointment in Ebert’s case since I’m sure that’s the most action he gets.

Again – it’s Ebert’s opinion and that is his job to provide.  He is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to changing the facts which is exactly what he did.  In a job as tough as his, you’d think he’d get that one little detail correct.  Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!

Ryan responds to Obama’s ridiculous budget ‘solutions’

If you had the stomach to listen to Obama’s latest debacle of a speech, you would have heard the usual – class warfare, compassion, inherited from Bush, tax increases, fair share yada, yada, yada – yawn (Joe Biden even fell asleep).  The same typical progressive b.s. that Obama spews during any of his speeches only his new buzz word is ‘Winning The Future’.  Of course, most  Americans know that we won’t be winning the future until 2012 when Obama is voted out of office.  It’s really simple – Obama came up with a 2012 budget that increased the deficit by over $1 trillion alone.  There were no serious considerations of budget cuts or entitlement reforms.  There were no serious reforms of any kind even thought we are on the tipping edge of disaster when it comes to spending and outrageous debt and deficit.Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan delivered a plan that will decrease the deficit by $6 trillion over the next 10 years.  While the plan may not be perfect, at least he actually came up with a plan that delves into the real issues causing some of the huge and unsustainable spending in this country.  Obama figured he’d have to pretend to actually care about our unsustainable spending so came out (sort of) with some his own ‘progressive’ ideas on how to cut the federal budget. Of course Obama uses the word ‘scalpel’ which as most know is a tiny instrument to make tiny incisions.  What this country needs, in the words of Republican Tom Coburn, is a ‘chainsaw’ to attack the budget.

Ryan’s response is below in full:

Paul Ryan Responds to President’s Disappointing, Partisan Speech

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan made the following statement after attending the President’s speech on deficit reduction:

When the President reached out to ask us to attend his speech, we were expecting an olive branch. Instead, his speech was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our fiscal crisis. What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.

Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. He then ignored its recommendations and omitted any of its major proposals from his budget, and now he wants to delegate leadership to yet another commission to solve a problem he refuses to confront.

“We need leadership, not a doubling down on the politics of the past.  By failing to seriously confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, this President’s policies are committing our children to a diminished future. We are looking for bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about confronting this challenge, we’ll be here.”

Key Facts About the President’s Speech


  • Counts unspecified savings over 12 years, not the 10-year window by which serious budget proposals are evaluated.
  • Postpones all savings until 2013 – after his reelection campaign.
  • Runs away from the Fiscal Commission’s recommendations on Social Security – puts forward no specific ideas or even a process to force action.
  • Calls for the appointment of another commission, after mostly omitting from his Fiscal Year 2012 Budget any of proposals submitted by the commission he appointed last year.
  • Non-specific framework fails to meet his Fiscal Commission’s own deficit-reduction goals.


  • Proposes to raise taxes on the American people by more than $1 trillion, devastating our fragile economy and stifling job creation.
  • Endorsed the Fiscal Commission’s ideas on taxes, which specifically called for lower tax rates and a broader base, but then called for higher tax rates. Which is it?
  • Government health and retirement programs are growing at more than twice the speed of the economy. At the current rate of spending, revenue would have to rise “by more than 50 percent” just to keep debt at its current level, according to the Government Accountability Office. That means tax increases across-the-board, now and in the future.  


  • Instead of proposing structural reforms that would actually reduce health care costs, the President proposed across-the-board cuts to current seniors’ care.
  • Strictly limits the amount of health care seniors can receive within the existing structure of unsustainable government health care programs.
  • Gives more power to unelected bureaucrats in Washington to determine what treatments seniors should or shouldn’t get, against a backdrop of costs that continue to rise.
  • Conceded that the relentlessly rising cost of health care is the primary reason why the nation is threatened by debt, and implicitly conceded that his health care law failed to solve the problem.
  • Eviscerates the only competitive element anywhere in health-care entitlement programs – the competition amongst Part D prescription-drug plans – which allowed the drug benefit to come in 41 percent under budget.


  • Acknowledges that the open-ended financing of Medicaid is a crippling financial burden to both states and the federal government, but explicitly rejected the only solution to this problem, which is to give states the freedom they need to design systems that work for the unique needs of their own populations.


  • Proposes more cuts on top of $78 billion in cuts included in his own defense budget, which he proposed just two months ago – all at a time when he continues to task the military with new missions.
  • Secretary Gates has said that the military needs 2 percent – 3 percent real growth just to keep executing the missions that DOD has already been assigned.
  • Secretary Gates described deficit reduction plans that let budget targets drive defense policy as “math, not strategy.”


Since it has become pretty clear that Obama knows absolutely nothing about the economy other than how to make it worse for the middle class and Americans in general, it’s pretty easy to see who will be ‘winning the future’ and it certainly isn’t the Democrats.  They’ve had since 2007 to actually prove they are useful but have done everything to prove they are not.  When they controlled both the Legislative and Executive branches over the past 3 years, they did absolutely nothing but increase the deficit and make our economy worse.  For any American to believe that Obama and the Democrats will do an ‘about face’ now and actually do anything to ease the spending in this country is complete and utter lunacy.

Note to Obama and pals like Paul Krugman:  FDR’s spending policies turned the Depression into the GREAT Depression.