The Bible has a casting problem

The husband and wife team behind History Channel's "The Bible" miniseries issued a statement in response to accusations that the actor cast in the role of Satan was chosen due to his vague resemblance to President Barack Obama:

“The actor who played Satan, Mehdi Ouzaani, is a highly acclaimed Moroccan actor. He has previously played parts in several Biblical epics – including Satanic characters – long before Barack Obama was elected as our President,” said Burnett and Downey.
“This is utter nonsense.”

Okay, I'm perfectly willing to assume that he was not chosen due to his resemblance to POTUS.  But you know what? You've still got a serious problem with the casting here.
Let's see if we can spot a pattern here:


Moses is played by British actor William Houston

 

You may have to answer him these questions three.

Abraham?



Another Brit, Gary Oliver.

Mary, mother of Jesus?



The very British Roma Downey.
 



Jesus Himself?

 

Portugese actor Diogo Morgado.

But Satan, the embodiment of evil?

 

Black guy!


I don't even care if he bears a resemblance to the President, why are you casting a black guy as Satan? Why would you assume that Satan would be black? Especially when you apparently assume that all of the ancient Hebraic characters would look like lily-white Europeans? You couldn't find anyone whose ancestors came from the Holy Lands?

 

 

A Jewish actor? Now I've heard everything!

So, yeah, maybe it's a coincidence that Mehdi Ouzaani sort of looks like Barack Obama in 20 years, but how are these casting decisions not just a teensy bit, oh, I don't know. . .racist?


Oh, and by the way, if this hand-hole is at all indicitave of your production values. . .

 
. . . I wouldn't be clearing out any space on your Emmy shelf.


Oh, wait, the Emmys are terrible! You'll probably need to add a shelf.

Happy St Padrick's Day!

I don't celebrate it myself, being neither Irish nor Catholic, but I do love the music and the dancing.

CPAC Crowd pretends Sarah Palin isn't a huge embarrassment

Sarah Palin was one of the stars of this year's CPAC, the only place in the world where she is considered relevant and Chris Christie is not. I don't know what the bulk of her speech was about, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it was about the Real America? But I did see this clip, in which she acts like a snotty 12-year-old boy to wild applause from the troglodytes.


First she does what any 12-year-old whose dad lets him have a gun would do, makes sure everyone knows she has it. "Hey, did I ever mention that me and Tahd have guns, 'cuz we totally do. I totally bought him a gun for Christmas. He totally bought me a gun rack for all the guns I have, you guys. I'm kind of a gun expert!"

Then she makes a juvenile dick and boob joke "he has the 'gun', you guys! Get it? 'gun?' But I have the 'rack!' Ha ha, you get it? 'rack?' Hmm? You know, 'rack?' like boobs?" Ugh! painful.

Then she acts like she's some kind of defiant rebel by sipping from a Big Gulp. In Washington, DC. Where there are ZERO restrictions on sizes of soda, so wow! You're really flaunting your bad-girl street cred, there. For the record, I agree that mayor Bloomberg's soda rule is a stupid rule. And it has already been tossed out by the courts. But you're not in New York. You're not exactly stickin' it to the man, there. It would be like me flying to Las Vegas and playing a slot machine and bragging about how I'm a total bad-ass because gambling is illegal in Georgia. Then I fly back to Atlanta and brag to everyone about how I broke the law and totally got away with it because I'm a rebel and I'll never be any good. I'm a rebel and I never ever do what I should!

But of course the mouth breathers in the CPAC audience erupt into wild ovations like she was Spartacus, brazenly defying the Imperial might of Caesar! Oh, my God, what a hero!



z

I know It's Caturday

But come on! Look at this little guy!

It's CPAC time again!

Yes, it's time once again for C-Pac, the annual gathering of right-wing lunatics that's like a conservative political version of Dragon*Con if the folks at Dragon*Con didn't know that their stuff was make-believe.



And were worse at making costumes.


I've seen a few quotes coming out of the cesspool to which ideas go to die, let's look at a few:

There was this gem from Mitch McConnell -
"Conservatives were never meant to be part of the crybaby caucus.”

Seriously? Have you ever seen a bigger bunch of crybabies that today's conservatives? Waah, the evil libr'rul media is against us! Waaaah, the mean gay people are trying to steal marriage! It never stops with these sniveling babies! Down the hall, they held a panel on "liberal bullying" in which they whined about how if you support voter ID laws, they call you a racist, and if you support traditional marriage, they label you a bigot, and oh, it's just so unfair, they're making it harder to be a raging cockhole all the time!

Oh, speaking of marriage equality and raging cockholes, Senator Rob Portman has had a change of heart on the issue. (The marriage issue, not the cockhole one)

 

 



"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage."

Wow, well that's terrific. What exactly led to all this soul-searching? Just wake up one morning and decide that maybe you should be less of a cockhole?

No, of course not. His gay son came out. Seriously. He changed his mind once the issue affected him personally. Now that there's a gay in my family, suddenly I'm a bit reluctant to persecute the gays so much. Mighty big of you, Senator!

Don't get me wrong, this is actually a positive reaction the Senator has had. Maybe not particularly sincere, but a hell of a lot better than the Alan Keyes "get your filthy gay butt out of my hose" approach to conservative parenting.

He said his decision to announce his new stance was not motivated by its potential political impact, and he was not sure what the fallout would be.

"Although, I can read the polls," he did not add.
Marriage equality is pretty popular and getting more so all the time, so a politician with his eye on the White House, might suddenly find it expedient to come out in favor of equality TWO YEARS after his son comes out. So, can we expect Sen. Portman to lead the charge for equality in DC?

Portman, who backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, said he now thinks parts of that bill should be repealed, though he hasn't considered introducing such legislation himself because economic policy issues are his specialty.

Oh, right. Because economic policy. . . um. . .does that seriously make sense to you? Gosh, I would love to introduce a bill to take my son out of second-class citizen status, but golly, I don't think I have the right form for social policy legislation. I suppose I could cross out here where it says "economic" and write in "basic human decency," but I don't know, it's not really my area of expertise.

Cockhole!


Texas crackpot Louie Gohmert weighed in with this bit of historical wishful thinking:

 "Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!"

(Artist's depiction)

Well, if by "winnable" you mean that we could potentially have turned the entire nation of Vietnam into a smoking, rubble-strewn post-apocalyptic nightmarescape a'la the Road Warrior, then sure. We probably could have done that. We probably could have killed every man, woman and child in the region then declared that region safe for democracy, so if that's what you mean, then sure!

And what would a wingnut conclave be without Donald Trump? 

I'm not even going to look up a quote from this gasbag buffoon, just look at this picture of his speech and feel slightly better about the world:



And most of those losers are probably on his payroll!



Marco Rubio said something that was probably even true:




“just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”

I believe you are right. It was probably tour upbringing that made you a bigot.

Opposing marriage equality doesn't make you a bigot. Being a bigot makes you oppose marriage equality.