"A History of Green Lights Gone Bad"...

...perhaps that would work as the title of the documentrary that Roger Ebert suggested in 1996 which would consist of segments devoted to chronicling indivual cases of mind bogglingly bad desicions on the part of film studios. This would means that you would take maybe 5-7 terrible movies with the worst/dumbest plots and try to answer for each movie in the course of maybe 15-30 mineutes segments, the question: how did this move get the green light?
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.

Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).

The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.

Dumbest theory of the Aughts (2000-2010)?

It's a dead heat between "sterotype threat" & "dispirate impact theory".

1. “Stereotype Threat”, of course is the currently popular theory that African Americans average lower scores on cognitive tests in response to stereotypes held by the testers (or, as is sometimes argued, by the "society" writ large).
One cannot truelly touch on "Sterotype Threat" without quoting the one and only Steve Sailer,

"Yet, the facts about IQ tend to be so one-sided that the anti-IQ case has been largely left to be argued by lightweights, such as business book author Malcolm Gladwell. (See his New York Times dispute with Harvard cognitive science heavyweight Steven Pinker, in which Gladwell is left with little ammunition other than ad hominems, including an attack on me).[ Let’s Go to the Tape, Letter By Malcolm Gladwell, NYT<>

Over the last 15 years, the most popular theory about IQ has been “Stereotype Threat”. The New York Times summarized it in its 2009 Year in Ideas featurette on the purported “Obama Effect”—the widespread assumption that the politician’s success might raise black test scores:

“In 1995, two Stanford psychologists, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson, demonstrated that African-American college students did worse on tests of academic ability when they were exposed beforehand to suggestions that they were being judged according to their race. Steele and Aronson hypothesized that this effect, which they labeled stereotype threat, might explain part of the persistent achievement gap between white and black students. In the years since, this idea has spread throughout the social sciences.”

S-u-r-e it has!

I summarized the logic behind this extrapolation in my 2004 VDARE.com article, Occam's Butterknife:

“At some point back in the mists of time, a stereotype somehow emerged that blacks do less well on the SAT. So, now, blacks are seized by panic over the possibility they might mess up and score so poorly that they validate this stereotype. And, indeed, this nervousness makes them score exactly as badly as the stereotype predicted they would.”

Stereotype Threat is a beautiful theory. Indeed, I myself have often felt there might even be a little bit of truth to the idea that expectations matter—even though common sense suggests that incentives matter more."

2. The message of "disparate impact" theory is if minorities fail tests at a higher rate than whites, it’s the test that’s wrong." The theory of “disparate impact” is also the keystone of the government’s anti-discrimination enforcement since the 1970s assumes that differences in achievement among the races should be minimal—otherwise the employer must rigorously justify itself. (Or, to be safe from lawsuits, the employer can impose quotas on itself, as New Haven did in the Ricci firemen case now before the Supreme Court).

3. The wildcard for dumbest theory: "discriminatory results". This is tied up with dispirate impact but it seems to stand on its own as a incredibly dumb theory. This theory was pioneered by judges this decade especially and has been employed recently in such cases such as Vulcan Society v. New York, wherein judges cited as proof of discrimination in the New York Fire Department's entrace exam not any test questions that are in any way discrimatory but the very results of the tests themselves divided by racial lines. Therefore if a test chronically produces test results that put black testtakers at the bottom of the barrel (to an extent deemed unacceptable), then, according to the liberal judges who favor the concept of "discrimatory results", they're surely must be something racist about the test for there is no way that black testtakers could have just gotten the worst test scores on average on a entrace exam because of there own merits. One would think that then the next question would be to see if there was something indeed actually "racist" about the test in question but Judges today don't take the effort to prove the existence of any discriminatory questions in tests they just deem that any test that doesn't produce sufficiently diverse results is legally "discrimatory". Meaning that if a city doesn't throw out a test with the wrong racial outcome (according to the EEOC) is making itself as a city and/or its fire department or police department liable for a massive discrimination lawsuit from the EEOC or the SPLC or indivual blacks who took the said civil service exam and didn't get a passing score.
Essentially if anybody truelly took this idea seriously it would mean suing every school in America for discrimination for almost every nation wide test, such as SAT's, always produce a result inwhich whites come out on top and black far at the bottom which according to this absurdist theory would be absolute proof of disciminatory tests. Even, as in the case of the New Haven Fire Fighters, if the exam in question has been checked not once but twice by proffesional testing companys that are paid to check if a civil service exam is diversity friendly enough, it doesn't matter.

Anybody got Jesse's number?

Jesse Jackson, the 5 time winner of the cat fish-look-alike award (awarded by me annually ever since my sister let me in on the fact that Jackson looks like a catfish) should write a book called, "The Art of Being Offended"

If Jesse's to busy extorting Toyota or whomever it is these days, then i'm sure Al Sharpton or Illinois Rep. Luis Guiterez (the slimy author of the new amnesty bill) or any body working at the Southern Poverty Law Center, CAIR, LA RAZA, the ACLU, the NAACP or MediaMatters.com can write this potential best-seller which i foresee as trailblazing a new sub-genre in self help racial grievance-mongering.

They publish dozens of how to get rich quick books a year, but why not a "Getting your slice of Social Justice, now!: How to get rich suing for Discrimination". That could be written by the shameless black guy who sued the New Haven fire department after the Ricci ruling cause no blacks passed the test (which was checked twice and shown to not be "culturally bias" each time) and Frank Ricci received the promotion to Captain he earned. Whatever happened with that lawsuite?

And finally, who shall write "White Guilt: How to make it pay (on that pink slip day)"?

If there where alot of afro-centric bookstores i think "The Art of Taking Offense" could actually sell, seriously.