The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Friday Frivolity: Time Warner Cable Announces That They Will No Longer Show “Gun Ads”

Of course what they mean by “gun ads” is explained as follows:

"We no longer accept ads showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people," Time Warner Cable said in a statement. "We stand by this policy. If it's essential to a business owner to show this kind of imagery in their commercials, there are other advertising options in the marketplace."

This was all in response to Sandy Hook.  So does that mean that Warner itself is going to re-cut own its ads?  Just as a sampling, I went over to their official website and browsed the trailers for their movies that are presently in theaters.  First up was Gangster Squad.  One thing to note is that there is a ton of non-gun violence.  Right in the beginning, for instance, you see a number of people burned alive, but not shot—so thank God for that, right?  And maybe you don’t see Sean Penn pointing a gun at a person, but he is pointing it at someone.

One split second later, he shoots.  So this is a kill shot.

And we have machine guns shooting at police cars (with officers inside).  You can see the gun in a blur on the far left:

We have this cop pointing this shotgun at a man who might very well be a janitor.  Er, I should say he is no longer a cop.  They officially stopped being cops and decided to fight as vigilantes, although possibly with official blessing (if not official cover if things go wrong).

And then the same “not a cop” shooting a shotgun.  In full motion and in context it is absolutely clear he is pointing a gun at a human being and he is committing cold blooded murder of a man he could have arrested.

Here’s the full trailer.  See for yourself:

Then I checked the trailer for Argo.  Given that it is about the Iran hostage crisis, it is surprisingly gun free.  At least until you get close to the end and you see a firing squad:

Yeah, you can’t quite see their guns, but come on.  Here’s the full trailer:

And then we had Man of Steel, which hopes to be the Batman Begins of Superman movies.  Surely there would be no icky guns pointing at...

Oh...  And in motion and in context, what it is, is Superman walking in front of those soldiers somewhere in some desert land (Iraq, maybe?), and they’re pointing guns at him.

Does it count if they are pointing the guns at a man who is bulletproof?  Inquiring minds and all that.  Here’s that trailer, which looks potentially sweet.

On a similar point, let’s not forget the previous Superman movie trailer, from Superman returns.  This beats most of them because the criminal is actually shooting Superman with a machine gun (because apparently he has never heard of Superman before*):

But then again maybe its appropriate to say it doesn’t count if the guy is bulletproof.

And then there are the TV shows by Time Warner.  Stuff like The Closer which is a police procedural.  I bet a few guns are pointed at a few people during that.  And there is Nikita based on a movie about a secret organization that trains people to be assassins.  I haven’t watched much of it, but there are guns pointed at people in it.  Revolution features actual firefights.  I have never been interested enough to watch Rizzoli and Isles but it’s a cop show, so...  I’ll go out on a limb and guess there are guns pointed at people.  And then there is their back catalog of movies which appears on television all the time.  Things like: Dirty Harry, Unforgiven, The Fugitive, Titanic, Men in Black, Blazing Saddles, Police Academy, Lethal Weapon, Frantic, Goodfellas, Tango and Cash, Batman, JFK, The Last Boy Scout, Falling Down, Passenger 57, Point of No Return, On Deadly Ground, The Pelican Brief, White Sands, Demolition Man, Wyatt Earp, Maverick, Natural Born Killers, Under Siege, Heat, Fire Down Below, L.A. Confidential, Soldier, The Postman, Wild Wild West, True Crime, The Matrix, Training Day, Swordfish, The Last Samurai, Starsky and Hutch, The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford, Gran Torino, Watchmen, and Jonah Hexx.  Now I have not seen every single movie on the list (and I am not going to bother to list every sequel, reboot, etc., etc.), but the few times I haven’t watched it, I figured the chances of them showing a gun aimed at a person was close to a certainty.  Like I avoided Jonah Hexx like the plague but when you see previews with him having two Gatling guns attached to his horse, you can feel safe assuming some guns pointing at people were involved.

So that is all entertainment that Time Warner has put out that features guns pointing at people and indeed mostly includes people killing each other with guns.  So if they are going to demand that ads be censored, there isn’t much point if you can still see those kinds of things on their various TV networks.  So is Warner going to censor all of that, too?

A few points, then.  First, if this is all they are going to do—demand ads be censored—then it is truly window dressing.  When you can turn on Warner TV and see outright murders, it’s kind of hard to explain why an ad merely pointing a gun is considered evil.  No, if that is all they are doing, then they are trying to get a little free positive publicity without actually changing their corporate culture in a way that means a damn.

Which is not to say I want them to change this corporate culture.  Personally I think grown-ups should be able to watch that sort of thing.  I mean don’t show an ad for Ganster Squad during the Animaniacs, but as long as some reasonable boundaries are respected, I have no problem with a little violence in these ads.  But if you are going to commit yourself to changing the culture, actually do it.  This is lip service.

Second, it’s a silly point anyway.  I do not think seeing Goodfellas makes you more violent, not even Natural Born Killers.  All it represents is the wussification of society and a refusal to recognize that people are not helpless sheep easily led, but they act largely on their own accord.

Third, regardless of all that, it is their company, their cable network, etc.  As hypocritical as it might be, as silly as it might be, this is their right.


* I always find it weird in a movie involving a superhero who is well known in his universe constantly encountering bad guys who have no idea what he is and what he can do.  Of course, a real superhero would try to keep his exact abilities and limitations secret the way the U.S. military generally doesn’t tell you exactly how fast a figher will go, what its turn radius, is, etc.  I mean I have given this a lot of thought.  If you are bulletproof but kryptonite will kill you, it’s probably not wise for the bad guys to learn either fact about you.  So in Superman Returns, why did that criminal think it was worth his time to try to shoot Superman?  Given that situation he should have just said, “f--- it,” and surrendered.

The best example of this might be in Justice League: The New Frontier.  At one point, Superman goes to find Wonder Woman somewhere in Asian—I think Vietnam.  There she had helped lead a bunch of women to rise up and defend their town from rapine men and these women had developed an understandable prejudice toward men.  When SuperMAN shows up, they all point their guns at him menacingly.  Superman looks at Wonder Woman with a look of almost boredom and says (paraphrase), “tell them they will waste their bullets.”

So why don’t I level the same complaint about The Man of Steel?  I mean why aren’t I saying it is stupid for American soldiers to point a gun at him?  Well, because maybe they don’t know it yet.  Superman Returns had its strange continuity where it was supposed to take place five years after Superman II, and pretending that Superman III and IV didn’t exist.  Which is understandable artistically, but is confusing to audiences.

But this one, The Man of Steel, I suspect is a complete restart on the series.  Yes, much like Batman Begins.  Remember how originally some people thought Batman Begins was a prequel to the Burton Batman movies, previously referred to as the good Batman movies until Nolan blew every prior Batman movie out of the water with his trilogy?  But if you paid close attention you knew a new continuity was started, such as how Nolan made it so Chill killed the Waynes, not a young Joker as had happened in the original Burton Batman.  Of course that kind of thing can be wrong.  For instance, the continuity is a complete mess in the X-men movie, so much so that I thought First Class was a new continuity.  I mean IGN has hit the highlights with this short video:

So I thought “aha! It’s a new continuity.”  But then I read (and I forgot where, sorry) that supposedly it is all one continuity.  Which if you watched the video above makes absolutely no sense.  Not that I get hung up overly much on issues of continuity, but I don’t ignore it completely.

So one can only guess right now, but that is my guess.  Man of Steel is a new continuity, just like Batman Begins.  And they are smart enough to give us Zod as the villain, that is someone who is as smart and powerful as Superman.  Superman Returns hinted at how awesome a Superman could be with modern technology if done right.  The problem is that the movie wasted all its potential on a scene saving a plane from crashing and with dealing with Lex Luthor’s latest hair-brained sceme.  There is hope that Man of Steel could deliver on that promise and deliver us the Superman movie of our dreams.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.

No comments:

Post a Comment