That is, according to that Einstein of the House of Representatives, Maxine Waters:
Yep -- 170 million jobs will be lost. Currently, around 150 million Americans total are working.
Here's how "illiterate" I am:
1) Waid says "I NEVER said you can't have guns." In my post I wrote "Are the many comments made by your colleagues (and perhaps yourself) regarding, say, the NRA "hateful" and "bullying," Mr. Waid?" I [clearly] added the "perhaps" there because unlike other outspoken comics creators, I haven't yet encountered any specific anti-gun comments by Waid.
2) Waid then whines "... and the quote YOU RAN shows it DOES cut both ways." But he's only talking here about a person's held beliefs. He said a person's actions are what make the difference. (Addendum: To be clear, Waid ALSO means actions apply to people of both political stripes. But he has a narrow VIEW of what constitutes "actionable actions." Just to be clear and thorough. -- Hube)
To which I wrote:
What substantive difference is there between Card serving on a board of a group like the National Organization for Marriage (his so-called "actions") and/or his writing about topics like gay marriage, and you opining on matters political/cultural via myriad social media outlets? You are a high-profile writer just as Card is. His avenues of expressing his opinion(s) are not significantly different from yours.
So, contrary to Waid's assertion, I clearly did read what he said about Mr. Card and responded accordingly. If Waid wants to clarify that Marvel, DC or whoever can can him for what he says about controversial matters political/cultural in social media, blogs or wherever, then fine. Again, there's little substantive difference between Card sitting on a board of an organization that advocates something and him writing about the same subject, and Waid or anyone else using their high profile status to communicate about issues via whatever avenue they utilize.
Let's face it: Among most contemporary comics creators (and "progressives" in general) there are some issues which are perfectly acceptable to criticize with little repercussions. Gun control/hatred of the NRA (National Rifle Association) is one of these. Being against gay marriage like Orson Scott Card is, however, anathema. This is why I Tweeted to Waid in response to his foul-mouthed reply that he simply "wants his cake and eat it too."
Injecting "progressive" politics into comics stories is perfectly legit -- it's "topical" and "relevant." We've documented countless examples here at Colossus (and elsewhere). And most recently, writer Gail Simone is working on a comic dedicated to the Occupy movement. On the other hand, Orson Scott Card's views are a "dire emergency," and even accomplished creator Frank Miller's desire to have Batman take on al Qaeda was met with criticism and controversy.
UPDATE: Carl reminds us how "tolerant" Waid was back when some Captain America issues disparaged the Tea Party: "[Waid] is humiliated and mortified on behalf of my entire industry that Fox News is able to bully us into apologizing to lunatics."
"Teachers not gung-ho on guns at school" is the headline, but what they should have said is that "Teachers not gung-ho on bringing own guns to school."
Why? Because as the second-to-last paragraph says, "Nearly 90% say having an armed police officer in school would improve safety, while (only) 12% say armed cops in schools would make schools less safe." Notice it says "armed police officer." Which, y'know, means he has a gun. Which means the headline is pretty damn misleading.
Yet another "progressive" comics writer has come out (no pun intended) against DC's hiring of anti-gay marriage Superman scribe Orson Scott Card. Here's what Mark Waid says in the comments section of a recent Comics Alliance article:
... we're not talking about a writer's beliefs, we're talking about his actions. I'd never advocate a writer losing a gig based on his personal or political beliefs. We're not discussing that. We're discussing someone who is a high-profile activist for what many, MANY people would consider a hate group spewing hate speech, and I fail to understand how that behavior should be condoned or rewarded. It cuts both ways -- I'm a vocal liberal, and if I likewise became a spokesperson for an activist group that could fairly be accused of attacking or bullying a minority group and my publisher felt my affiliations would reflect poorly on them, they'd have every right to let me go. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom of consequence.
I've said it before here and there, so I'll say it again for Mr. Waid: What substantive difference is there between Card serving on a board of a group like the National Organization for Marriage (his so-called "actions") and/or his writing about topics like gay marriage, and you opining on matters political/cultural via myriad social media outlets? You are a high-profile writer just as Card is. His avenues of expressing his opinion(s) are not significantly different from yours. Thus, DC, Marvel or whomever should have the right to dismiss you from their payroll based on controversial things you may say online or elsewhere, right?
Are the many comments made by your colleagues (and perhaps yourself) regarding, say, the NRA "hateful" and "bullying," Mr. Waid? Why or why not? How is wanting to deny an actual written constitutional right to Americans any different from wanting to prevent gays from getting married? Most Americans believe people should be allowed to own a gun, and about half the public believes that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Sorry, Mr. Waid, but you want your cake and eat it too.
You ought to take a page from your buddy Mark Millar, Mr. Waid. He said on Twitter basically what I did above. That is, who's to say you won't be the next target of an outcry based on what you believe ... and advocate?
Some of Waid's Tweets relevant to this can be found here.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, is from Taiwan. And she recently was the target of some racist Tweets from a "progressive" super-PAC in Kentucky:
In a Feb. 14 Twitter message, Progress says: "This woman has the ear of (Sen. McConnell)—she's his wife. May explain why your job moved to China!"
The Tweet links to a website run by conspiracy theorist and radio host Jeff Rense, alleging Chao, who was born in Taiwan, discriminated against American workers during her tenure.
Other messages from Progress’s social networking account about Chao have run for the past several days, saying her "Chinese (money)" is buying state elections.
The group has since "apologized" for the statements, but one can easily wonder why. It's a "progressive" group so their racism doesn't matter. And the fact that McConnell is married to an Asian woman doesn't make him any less racist. Simply because he's a Republican.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
How does Star Trek deal with the issue of homosexuality? Easy: Create a genderless society where an inherent disposition towards one gender or the other ... leads to social ostracism! Such was the case in "The Outcast," from Star Trek: The Next Generation's fifth season. The Enterprise is assisting the J'naii, the aforementioned genderless race, in resolving a "null space" issue where a shuttle has vanished. Commander Riker is teamed up with Soren who proves to be quite inquisitive. The two take an instant liking to one another, and Soren reveals that "she" has an affinity for males ... meaning, she leans towards the female gender.
Soren informs Riker that no one among her society must know for she would be sent away for "psychotectic treatments." Riker, being from the highly enlightened Federation, says that such is stupid, cruel, and inhumane, and that it won't stop their budding relationship. Unfortunately, Soren is spotted showing affection for 'ol Number One, and later when Will shows up to work with his new squeeze, he's informed that "she's" been taken away for treatment.
Riker plans on a rescue, and Worf pops by the commander's quarters to inform him that he'll assist. The two clandestinely beam down to the surface of Soren's planet, scrap with a few of the genital-less guards, and as Riker whisks Soren away, she pleads for him to stop. "Why? What's wrong?" Riker asks. It's too late: Sorin has already been "treated." She says "she" knows what "she" did was wrong, and that "she" is "better now." Despite a "But I love you!" from Riker, Sorin remains umoved. "She" tells Will that "she's" sorry, and runs away. The commander and Worf transport back to the Enterprise.
This episode is really Trek's first attempt at addressing homosexuality. Which does and doesn't make sense: Does in that the then-current social climate probably made it too risky to produce such an episode. Doesn't in that you'd expect a society like 24th century Earth to have plenty of homosexuals, with many serving openly in Starfleet. At least Riker's reaction to the J'naii's "solution" to people like Sorin indicates revulsion and horror. Which brings up another point: You'd think a society with whom the Federation does business -- meaning, basically as enlightened as the Fed -- would have eradicated such "treatments" for "deviants" like Sorin long ago.
The Atlantic has a discussion about the latest happenings in the hit show The Walking Dead. Two of the participants argue that the show is a showcase for political conservatism. Take Jeffrey Goldberg:
Andrea, the civil-liberties lawyer of dubious character, ventures to the prison from Woodbury on a misguided mission to make peace between Rick and the Governor. Andrea, like any good liberal, believes that dialogue between two warring parties will inevitably lead to understanding and compromise. "I cannot excuse or explain what Phillip has done but I am here trying to bring us together," she tells Rick, who answers, "There's nothing to work out. We're going to kill him." This exchange echoes a common debate we have in post-9/11 America: Can we come to agreement with Iran/the Muslim Brotherhood/the Taliban -- take your pick. These debates are interesting, in part, because, though we can have our obvious suspicions (as I do) about the incapacity of, say, the Iranian regime to compromise with the United States, we cannot know with 100 percent certainty whether such compromise is, in fact, impossible, because we have only an imperfect understanding of Iran and its leaders.
While it is true that we can't say with 100% certainly that any negotiation/compromise is "impossible" with groups like the Iranian government, what we can ascertain very well is that, at least with groups like the Iranians, is that their rhetoric towards other countries needs to be met with counters of a similar nature. For instance, when Iran says that Israel should be "wiped off the map," why would it be impolitic to respond thusly: "Any move to make good on that statement will result in the utter destruction of you, your regime, and your nation"? Obviously, such a statement would be anathema to Boss Obama. or any contemporary "progressive." To them, groups like the Iranian government are just "misunderstood," and/or act the way they do because it's our fault (usually for meddling in their affairs in the past).
When it comes to outfits like al Qaeda, this is where the attitude of Rick and his group should prevail. There is no redeeming value of such orgranizations. They exist solely to effect terror on populations, to ward over women, children and the meek with complete and harsh authority, and to kill anyone who would challenge them. Period. I happen to think the Governor is more akin to the Iranians (crazy, but possibly able to be dealt with on nakedly self-interest concerns only); however, the world situation with the undead lumbering about everywhere clearly alters this equation. It's kill or be killed. Ironically, Boss Obama has [hypocritically, mind you] adopted this attitude in numerous ways: keeping Guantánamo Bay open, maintaining rendition, continuing US military efforts in Afghanistan, and most controversially, with unmanned drone strikes.
As two of the article writers ponder, all this may be moot. The show's writers may not even be cognizant of any of the above. Goldberg says "I think there's a reasonable chance that they've simply lost control of their characters, and are simply winging it, minute-to-minute." Which I can certainly see ... and which would be a crying shame. This is precisely what occurred with Battlestar Galactica after its first couple seasons. Like TWD, BSG was an immense hit. But then it got silly. (In fact, I wrote a post about this.) TWD hasn't reached the levels of BSG absurdity -- yet -- but it sure might. Rick seeing visions of his wife? Ugh. Little-to-no concern about the copious quantity of blood spatter when zombies are attacking? Yeesh. Zombie found in drinking water well? Let's get it out despite the fact that doing so won't make the water drinkable. Uh huh.
You may recall the insanity surrounding some of the Galactica crew by them not wanting to wipe out the enemy Cylons when they had a chance ... not to mention the very motivations of the Cylons changing midway through the series (apparently the writers weren't prepared for further seasons). Oh, and how about the "revelation" that several of the Galactica crew were humanoid Cylons who had infiltrated the Colonial Military many years before? Funny how even the recent Blood and Chrome movie revealed that the final development of the humanoid versions of the Cylons was still way off. *Sigh*
Ah well. I'll be staying with The Walking Dead ... but I have been losing interest. By BSG's fourth season, I had barely tuned in. I hope this is different.
Embattled NJ Senator Bob Menendez is using the RACE CARD to blame all his woes on the GOP:
At a Black History Month event held at a Trenton, N.J. church on Sunday, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez blamed conservatives for his ethics scandals, framing them as a racial attack on him because of his Hispanic heritage. “I have felt the sting of discrimination,” he told approximately 300 worshipers, according to the Bergen Record. ”It has never been easy.”
“Now we face anonymous, faceless, nameless individuals from right-wing sources seeking to destroy a lifetime of work,” Menendez said at Shiloh Baptist Church.
*YAWN* Hey Bob, at least Anthony Weiner had the dignity not to claim his accusers were anti-Semitic.
Forum: Are anti-sharia laws are constitutional?
We've written about Canada's nutty "human rights commissions;" here's yet another example of the type of insanity they foster:
Earls’ “Albino Rhino” is officially extinct.
Earls Restaurants will take beer sold under the 25-year-old brand off the menu after a Vancouver woman with albinism filed a BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the chain in 2012. The same craft beer will still be sold, but just as “Rhino.”
Ikponwosa (I.K.) Ero, representing a group with the genetic condition that causes a lack of pigmentation in skin, hair and eyes and often blindness, accused the popular restaurant of discrimination based on physical disability and colour.
Yeah, never mind that the beer was named after an actual animal. And exactly how did the chain "discriminate" by selling this brew? Peter Ash, CEO of an albino advocacy organization, said “It would be like saying, let’s put in some Alzheimer appetizers, Down syndrome daiquiris or cerebral palsy cocktails." Uh, yeah, right.
I like this from the comments section: "Green Giant brand should be wary of offending tall individuals, and Sunny-D of those who might be depressed."
And so it goes.
Loyal Colossus reader Fred G. sends word of a new idea a state is using (in this case, North Carolina) to combat, among other things, voter fraud:
Newly designed North Carolina driver’s licenses coming this summer will be used to distinguish people who are not U.S. citizens, a measure that state transportation officials describe as a safeguard against voter fraud and civil-rights advocates describe as an avenue for discrimination.
Already in the works is a license that will be issued starting March 25 to one class of non-U.S. citizen: recipients of the federal program implemented by President Barack Obama in August to give a two-year reprieve from deportation for immigrants who meet certain conditions, mostly those brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents.
Across the top of the new license is a pink strip. In the center, red capital letters say, “NO LAWFUL STATUS.”
On the side, another set of red capital letters say, “LIMITED TERM,” referring to the license holder’s two-year reprieve from deportation.
Which makes sense to me as a whole, although the "No Lawful Status" line would have to be changed as under the new federal these folks would have lawful status . Nevertheless, of course, the usual ridiculous analogies are being spewed forth by the usual suspects:
According to Moises Serrano, a Yadkin County immigrant activist who has applied for deferred action, the design is similar to the Star of David that Jews were forced to wear in Germany under the Nazi regime.
“This singles me out,” Serrano said. “Imagine trying to get on a flight at the airport, and you have to use this license. It’s an invasion of my privacy. I am undocumented and unashamed, but I say that on my terms.”
Yeah, makes sense ... except that, y'know, Jews in Europe were actually legal citizens of the nations they lived in and were singled out simply because of their religion. And then rounded up. And then murdered. Other than that, Serrano has a point.
Jay Nordlinger: "So, a lesson is reinforced: When it comes to comedic frontiers, the [Three] Stooges can be expected to have arrived first."
Let's face it: If you're a guy, you probably dig the Stooges. If you're a chick, you don't. It's highly doubtful that the trio could thrive in today's "hyper-safe, politically correct" environment ... which is what makes them all the more funny (get this) ... eighty years later (from the earliest shorts). Their physical slapstick just cannot be topped. Take the first three-or-so minutes of this part of "Rhythm and Weep":
Or this insanely hilarious Curly moment when his head gets caught in a mine shaft (from "Cactus Makes Perfect"):
Or the crowded car scene from "False Alarms":
I could go on and on and on ... nevertheless, this is comedy. Anything that is still funny 80 years later is the real article, folks!
The Atlantic reports on a teacher satisfaction survey done by the MetLife Foundation. It's titled "Teacher Job Satisfaction Hits 25-Year Low." Unfortunately, it asks the wrong questions and/or glosses over one of the main culprits for this: student behavior. Consider the article:
Only 39 percent of teachers described themselves as very satisfied with their jobs on the latest survey. That's a 23-percentage point plummet since 2008, and a drop of five percentage points just over the past year. Factors contributing to lower job satisfaction included working in schools where the budgets, opportunities for professional development, and time for collaboration with colleagues have all been sent to the chopping block.
Stress levels are also up, with half of all teachers describing themselves as under great stress several days per week, compared with a third of teachers in 1985.
No mention of deteriorating student behavior and increased student disrespect, cited by teachers as their number one difficulty. Why is that? Is it because it is just too politically incorrect to say ... let alone write about? Consider:
So what's the solution? The way to get more effective teachers into higher-poverty schools "is making those schools places good teachers want to go and stay," [the Education Trust's Sarah] Almy told me. "Some of the reasons why teachers are dissatisfied (on the survey) relate to opportunities for leadership and collaboration -- things we know are really important, and things that high-poverty and low-performing schools can and should be addressing."
Really? The way to retain good teachers in high-poverty schools is to provide "opportunities for leadership and collaboration?" Are you kidding me?? This is why this survey is laughable. Even substantial monetary incentives alone aren't sufficient to keep [good] teachers in (or attract good teachers to) high-needs schools, which are bastions of discipline problems. And as the Center for Teaching Quality notes,
The Massachusetts experience illustrates Richard Ingersoll's analysis of national teacher survey data. He found that teachers who leave because of job dissatisfaction do so not only because of low salaries, but also as a result of poor support from school administrators, lack of student motivation, little teacher influence over decision-making, and student discipline problems.
The MetLife survey does touch upon a current hot topic -- student testing and correlated teacher accountability -- and indeed in Delaware this is a continued concern among educators. No doubt that the increased workload associated with the additional record-keeping, [many useless "data"] meetings, and test administration have played a role in teacher dissatisfaction ... especially since the manner in which the state hauled out its testing and accountability scheme was prodigiously head-scratching. If "professionals" like those at the state education department did the job they did with DPAS II, one can only imagine how the upcoming Common Core State Standards will be utilized. My guess is that The Atlantic's story is only the beginning.
The non-Council winner was Sultan Knish with It’s Not Easy Being Red and Green.
Full results are here.
Via the New York Post: Homeless man sues parents for ‘too little love.’
A Brooklyn man slapped his mom and dad with a $200,000 lawsuit that blames them for leaving him homeless and destitute because they allegedly raised him and his sibling in a poor household — and didn’t love him enough.
Bernard Anderson Bey, 32, claims he never got enough affection or support from parents Vickie and Bernard Manley — so now he wants them to mortgage their share of a Bedford-Stuyvesant home so their family can buy two Domino’s Pizza franchises to employ them all, according to the bizarre suit.
“Our whole family is really poor, and my father doesn’t care about the situation,” Bey said yesterday. “I feel unloved and abandoned.”
Domino's?? Dude, at least do a Papa John's for heaven's sake. Domino's pizza blows!
Looks pretty good. Let's see how many titles they can wrangle by launch day and see what other features it will have.
Discovered this gem while searching Google for various items: It's a doctoral dissertation titled Comics and Conflict: War and Patriotically Themed Comics in American Cultural History From World War II Through the Iraq War.
... for his taking on "progressive" Erik "I Block People on Twitter Who Disagree With Me" Larsen in this three year-old political Twitter battle.
Why is it that "progressive" comics creators routinely question(ed) things like the Patriot Act via superhero power registration as morally repugnant ("under the guise of controlling terrorism, [they] need to restrict the freedoms that Americans regard as their birthright"), yet now have no qualms about doing just that with regards to the Second Amendment?
Ironically, these short memory hypocritical elitists want gun control NOW because of dead children (Ron Marz tweeted "Please, don't bother tweeting at me about your right to bear arms and how it's "people, not guns." Dead children. Again. Just STFU."); yet, in Marvel's "Civil War" series from a half-decade ago, the villain Nitro blew up a sizable portion of a Connecticut town -- including an elementary school. Yet creator Mark Millar opined that the tale was "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag (Capt. America) is in chains as the people swap freedom for security."
In other words, Marvel's most morally incorruptible symbol and ultimate patriotic icon -- Captain America -- becomes the emblem for lost rights, because a [supposedly] irrational public, as Millar stated, wants to trade freedom for security.
Get it? Our contemporary cadre of "progressive" comics gurus would chide the [Marvel] public for demanding something be done about super-powered individuals -- whose powers dwarf that of modern firearms permitted to be owned by the populace -- yet at the same time they ridicule the [real] public for sticking up for Second Amendment rights provided for by the Constitution, and affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
Because, y'know, "it's for the children."
And the non-Council submissions are here!
Via Robot 6: Brazilian pop artist Butcher Billy has created a "real life" Legion of Supervillains, and guess who made the list alongside such notorious figures as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Osama bin Laden? Yep, George W. Bush.
Article author Mark Kardwell [rightly] questions the inclusion of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg too ("[He] isn’t exactly a genocidal tyrant"), yet -- nary a word about our last president. Say it with me: BOOOR-INGGG.
Commenter Brian's sarcasm nails it: "Painting George Bush Jr as villain. That’s edgy and inventive :-p"
Fans of The Terminator films and The Matrix trilogy would do well to seek out 1970's Colossus: The Forbin Project. Way ahead of its time in scope, it deals with a massive supercomputer (which has been put in charge of the US's defenses) who hooks up with its Soviet counterpart to ... literally take control of the planet. Unlike Terminator's Skynet, however, Colossus doesn't want to eradicate humanity -- it merely demands it do its bidding in order to survive. (Which may be due to the era in which the film takes place -- Colossus may actually need humans for maintenance and upkeep.)
Younger viewers may chuckle at the huge screens, printers, and the mountain in which Colossus is housed (indeed, miniaturization doesn't seem to have been considered in the early computer age), but figuring that an Einstein-like genius like Forbin would have to utilize the technology of the era to construct what he wants, it makes perfect sense.
The "eerieness" quotient soars when Colossus demands to keep a 24-7 watch over Forbin, and when the computer belches schematics for humans to build its "voice" (see above pic). The now-anachronistic "vocoder" Colossus voice still chills to the bone -- especially when it lectures Forbin that "freedom is an illusion," and how Forbin "will come to love" Colossus eventually.
The flick stars Eric Braeden, probably best known for his long stint on "Young and the Restless," but whom I'll always remember as the bad guy from Escape from the Planet of the Apes. Colossus is based on a novel by the same name, but what I didn't know is that the novel has two sequels: The Fall of Colossus and Colossus and the Crab. These sequels appear to be a bit silly after reading their synopses, but who knows. I've ordered the original, at least, because the novels are usually always [a lot] better than the film versions.
Oh, and if you didn't already figure it out, yes -- this very blog's name and images are [partly] an homage to this great film.
Newsarama's Graeme McMillan does it again with his famed Top Ten lists, this time hitting upon a topic of most interest to yours truly! Here is his list, with any comments by me to follow:
#10. The Legion of Super-Heroes. Featured Superboy traveling to the future to assist. And when he returned to the present, he lost all memory of what he had just did. Was never highly impressed by any of these stories.
#9. Prisoners of Doctor Doom! The first-ever appearance of the evil Doc in FF #5 made use his notorious "time platform" to send three of the quartet back to Blackbeard's time to nab some treasure. The Thing wanted to remain, but he couldn't, natch.
#8. Lost In Space-Time. Being an Avengers fan and a time-travel fan, I simply cannot believe I haven't read any of these stories. So, I promptly rectified that and ordered the TPB on Amazon yesterday!
#7. Doomquest. David Michelinie, Bob Layton and John Romita Jr.'s masterpiece, Shellhead and Doc Doom travel back to King Arthur's time. Was reprised -- in reverse -- almost a decade later (and exactly 100 issues later) when IM and DD go forward to the year 2093. Michelinie/Layton concluded the trilogy many years hence with Iron Man: Legacy of Doom.
#6. Armageddon 2001.
#5. Legion Quest / Age of Apocalypse.
#4. DC One Million.
#3. Avengers Forever. I'd have this at number one, hands down. And here's why.
#2. The Return of Bruce Wayne.
#1. Days of Future Past. The easy choice, I suppose, for the top spot because as it says the tale "changed everything for the X-Men, and created literally decades of stories ..." And, as you probably know, it'll be a major motion picture next summer!
One of the best science fiction series of all time (and true to creator Gene Roddenberry's "positive" vision of the future), I am intimately familiar with each and every episode of this late-80s/early-90s syndicated show. Each week I'll be dissecting an episode, good or bad, which will, if you're not a fan, will spark interest in you.
Our debut post is dedicated to one of the very best episodes of the entire series -- voted on by fans in 1994 as one of the Top Five TNG offerings ever. It comes from what is arguably TNG's finest season, season three: Yesterday's Enterprise.
The Enterprise-D encounters a disruption (rift) in the space-time continuum and while observing it a ship comes through the rift. We then see the bridge of the Enterprise-D undergo a massive change -- it's noticibly darker, Worf is missing, the Starfleet uniforms are different, and ... Tasha Yar is back as security chief. The timeline has been altered by the arriving ship. Yar announces to the incredulous crew that the ship that came through the fissue has Starfleet registry NCC-1701 ... C -- the Enterprise-C. Picard's vessel's predecessor was believed destroyed defending a Klingon outpost from a Romulan attack some 22 years prior. But that was in the timeline we know -- not this altered one.
The Enterprise-D away team transports over to the C and discovers that, though heavily damaged, the ship is salvagable, and there were many survivors of its [obvious] last battle. Wait -- "salvagable?" Why is that important? Because in this altered timeline, the Federation has been at war with the Klingon Empire for years ... and is losing. The C's Captain Garrett informs Capt. Picard that her vessel was in the middle of a battle against the Romulans in defense of that Klingon outpost. Picard informs Garrett that there is no record of her ship's battle, and more importantly, of it defending the Klingons. Data hypothesizes that had the Enterprise-C battled the Romulans on behalf of the Klingons (and most probably destroyed, as it was the C against four Romulan Warbirds), it would have been considered an honorable act by the Klingons ... and possibly prevented the war in which they're now engaged. As it is, it probably appears to the Klingons that the C fled the battle, even though it actually -- accidentally -- vanished in the space-time continuum fissure, brought about by high-energy weapons fire and explosions.
There's one crew member that definitively knows something's up: Guinan. As Data states in the episode, "Perhaps her race has a perception that goes beyond linear time." Indeed. Though she can't put a concrete finger on what is amiss, she frantically tells Capt. Picard that something is wrong -- that "all this" is wrong, and that Tasha Yar shouldn't even be here. She convinces Picard to have the Enterprise-C return through the space-time fissure, even though it will mean certain death for them. The stakes are huge: The lives of the crew of one Federation vessel vs. that of countless billions killed in the war with the Klingons.
Despite the opposition of officers like "Numbah One" Will Riker, Picard discusses the issue with Capt. Garrett and it's decided the C will return through the rift. However, just when things get started, several Klingon vessels show up and attack!
Capt. Garrett dies in the first wave of the attack, leaving Lt. Castillo to lead the C back to its proper time. However, Tasha Yar, who has become infatuated with Castillo, asks Capt. Picard to allow her to beam aboard the C to assist in its return -- since she's not supposed to be alive anyway. Picard agrees, and the 1701-C enters the rift as the Klingons return and pound the living sh** out of the Enterprise-D.
Suddenly, we see things as they were at the very beginning of the episode: Work informing Picard of a space-time disruption ... but now it has disappeared. The timeline has been returned to normal.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" is a gem of the Next Generation series. Five out of five stars, easily.
The non-Council winner was Amity Schlaes with The Small Presidency.
Full results are here.
Robot 6 reports that a openly gay author, David Gerrold (who indeed has an impressive resumé), has asked "DC Comics for balance — and a job."
“I see that you have hired a writer for Superman who has written strongly of his opposition to equal rights for LGBT people. And I see that there is an online petition protesting that move,” he wrote on Facebook. “Perhaps you could balance that decision by hiring an openly gay writer to draft a Superman story for a future issue.”
Which is just plain dumb. Is Card injecting his politics into his story? There's no indication of that, not to mention there's been none in his past stories that I'm familiar with. If you don't like Card's views and politics, don't buy his stuff. But this is pure politically correct bullsh** -- a quota, if you will. If "progressives" like Gerrold were so concerned about balance, what about political balance in comics stories? We've documented myriad instances of outright leftist politicking within the pages of contemporary comics, so why not "equal time" for conservative views, hmm??
Ah, but y'see, just like on American campuses, "diversity" only applies to skin color and sexual orientation. Diversity of viewpoint for "progressives" is 100% completely anathema ... as it always has been.
Moron CNN reporter Martin Savidge is shot down by an exiting passenger from that disabled cruise liner after he ludicrously compares what happened on the ship to ... Hurricane Katrina:
More of this, please.
Grammys? What Grammys? Since music pretty much sucks these days, I opted to watch Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome this past Sunday, a prequel one-shot movie featuring a young Will Adama as a pilot in the Colonial Defense Forces. It's ten years into the Cylon War, and things haven't been going so great for the Colonials. Adama is cocky and enthusiastic, but his first experiences aboard the Galactica show him to be in the clear minority when it comes to vigor in destroying the robotic enemy. And why is that? Well, keep in mind that in this "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica, the human race created the Cylons to serve them. (In the original 1979 series, the Cylons were "replacements," so to speak, of a near-extinct reptilian species.) It seems many Colonials aren't too hip to go to war with something created by them -- and subsequently treated rather despicably by them.
Adama and a colleague are ordered to transport a computer specialist to a remote ice planet on a secret mission. Supposedly, this specialist will upload a virus into the Cylon systems diabling their communications and defenses, thereby allowing the Colonials to mount a massive offensive. But OOPS! The specialist turns out to be a Cylon sympathizer whose "virus" seems to be akin to that which we saw in the original 2004 BSG [re-imagined] mini-series (which allowed the Cylons to shut down Colonial defenses thereby allowing them to decimate the twelve Colonial worlds), in this case it would reveal the location of a hidden "ghost" Colonial strike force. The specialist, wounded, informs Adama that the Cylons "were only defending themselves" (why they went to war), that the Colonials should negotiate with the Cylons, and that robots seem to value life more than humans.
OK, that's enough since there's really nothing new here from the original [re-imagined] BSG, which contained much of the same overall theme. And how many times have we seen this before? The Matrix. The Terminator. I, Robot. And part of this blog's moniker, Colossus: The Forbin Project. That aside, I'll bring up what was bandied about when the new BSG hit the airwaves -- that almost everything we're treated to these days in entertainment and in particular, sci-fi, is "dark," where humans are always to blame for their own predicament, where the line(s) between good and bad (or evil) are blurred beyond recognition ... or are non-existent altogether.
Was the original Battlestar Galactica too morally unambiguous? In it, the Cylons were created by a human-hating reptilian race which was now all but extinct. The robots wiped out the twelve human colonies mainly due to the traitorous Baltar (who, in the new series, was essentially seduced into revealing defense secrets to a humanoid Cylon), and from there the surviving Galactica led that "rag-tag fugitive fleet" to the mythical Earth. Producer Glen Larson is a Mormon, and wove Mormon themes into the series (many of which remained in the newer version, at least in name). In the middle of its only season in a two-parter, the Galactica comes upon a mysterious being named Count Iblis to whom it is strongly hinted is the Devil. This Iblis is fearful of a group of mysterious white lights that have been tracking him, and now, the Galactica. In the second part, Apollo and Starbuck see something frightening in Iblis' ship (supposed proof of his real ID), and subsequently Iblis kills Apollo. The white lights appear again with an adjacent ship, and angelic-like beings all dressed in white take Starbuck to Apollo -- where he is brought back to life. The battle between good and evil, God vs. Satan is so obvious it'll hit you over the head with a hammer. But is that bad?
Probably the most obvious -- and popular -- of "just plain good (guys)" is Star Trek. Especially with The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of humanity among the stars is simply hard to top. Only Earth and United Federation of Planets appear to have their collective act together in the Trek-verse; everyone else has major issues, whether it's the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, or the Borg. The instances of Capt. Picard trotting out treaties and principles that must be upheld despite questionable circumstances are too numerous to mention. Picard threatening to expose a Starfleet admiral because he clandestinely developed a cloaking device in violation of treaty ("The Pegasus")? Check. Picard threatening to expose a Starfleet admiral because he's forcibly removing a population from their planet ... because Starfleet wants the special radiation that surrounds said planet (Star Trek: Insurrection)? Check. Picard rhetorically beating down an over-zealous Starfleet admiral who sees a conspiracy in everything ("The Drumhead")? Check. That was Roddenberry's vision, and he was very protective of it.
Then there's one of my favorite novels, Starship Troopers. Robert Heinlein's masterpiece has a mathematically-derived moral humanity battling it out with a race of intelligent insects in a more-than-obvious Cold War parable. We never doubt who the good guys are; indeed, Heinlein quite often in the book shows us where we were as a species, and why it's so much better now (then, actually, since it takes place in the far-future); in other words, "good." Frequently dubbed fascistic by some critics because of its militaristic tone, the book actually should satisfy left wingers due to its message of "doing what's best for the greater good of all." Except that, the manner in which the sci-fi master gets to that greater good is the issue: Only through a term of military service does one become ingrained with the necessary moral compass to know what's best for all. Or, to put it more simply (as was quoted several times in the not-at-all-like-the-novel film), "Everyone fights, no one quits." And that meant everyone. Generals fought right alongside privates in the trenches. No special privileges were permitted, which was one of the major downfalls of the "old militaries" of the past.
The new BSG, like much of what we've seen in scifi over the last few decades, is awash in conspiracy, intrigue, hidden agendas, and corporate villainy. After a while, it becomes a real downer, frankly. People want to feel good too, which escapism like science fiction can do well ... if you let it. They want to see the future optimistically, to know we can grow ... and do better.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
The MSM, in its abject silliness, is trying to sink Marco Rubios political chances because, wait for it, he drank water. No, I am not making this up. Senator Menendez out of my home state of New Jersey is currently in the middle of a maelstrom of allegations of corruption, underage prostitutes and more. That is not mentioned as a career ender. No, that is not mentioned at all. If there was ever a more clear indication that they are in the tank for the Democrats I've yet to see it. No honest broker could look at those two stories and come to a different conclusion.
As for the horrors of water drinking, the Interwebs remembers all:
Got that? Obama drink water = free advertising. Rubio drinks water and he's political dead.
Raphael Rosa of Wilmington makes a strange comparison:
One must wonder whether or not, in their zeal to prevent abortion, these men would volunteer to cede control over their bodies to society, as they ask women to do. For example, would they agree to vasectomies after having frozen and secured their semen (for future reproduction)? Would they concur that this be made mandatory for all men after reaching puberty? With future reproductive ability assured by freezing gametes, but also making unintended and unwanted pregnancies impossible, wouldn’t this eliminate all abortions?
I understand the point that doing the above would do away with any unwanted pregnancies. However, in his letter he also engages in the usual "it's the woman's body" (so she can do what she wants with it) stuff, as if the man had nothing to do with any pregnancy. The way the system is set up now is inherently unfair to men. That's right -- the man has absolutely NO say in whether his baby should be born or not. If he doesn't want it but the woman does, tough sh**. The man is liable for child support. If he wants the child but the woman doesn't, tough sh**. The woman just gets an abortion.
I tell 'ya what, Raphael -- if "choice" is the word of the hour, how about choice for the man, too? Let him have the choice to financially support the child. We hear so much about equality and all, stuff like "equal pay" these days -- despite the fact that much of the "pay gap" is complete fiction -- so what about complete equality when it comes to reproductive "choice?"
Curious Malians flock to scene of Gao clashes: ""It's disgusting but wonderful to see. These people tortured us, they did nothing but damage here," said Mahamane Tandina, 24, cheered on by the crowd.
"We like this, frankly," he said with a smile."
Looks like France is finally doing some good on the world stage. They've courted the Arabs/Muslim world for a very long time (c.f. Tunisia) and they're finally realizing that they need to be very careful whom they call friends.
FWIW, I've previously noted concerns about a hard right turn in France due to domestic unrest and faltering economy. France responded to my concerns by electing a socialist thus ensuring things will be drawn out further and get much worse in the process.
Russian foreign minister won’t return Kerry’s call: ""Maybe you could text him," one reporter joked."
Awesome. Wish they told me who it was, I'd buy him a beer.
It's truly amazing how anyone believes this hack anymore ...
DC Comics has issued a statement in response to gay groups' protests against the anti-same sex marriage creator:
“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
Many of the commenters at the above link are less-than-satisfied, however. Which, again, in my opinion, is just plain hypocritical. Some stated that being against gay "marriage" means you're a bigot, plain and simple. If this is truly the case, then approximately half the US population is comprised of bigots. Not to mention myriad religious groups.
As often as I've opined about the preachy leftism in comics today, I've never called for a creator to be fired for his/her political views. As Siskoid and I agreed in the comments here, if you don't like the creator, just don't buy his/her stuff. It's that simple.
Remember this man. Remember all who served and sacrificed.
... and as such, he is under fire from the ever-hypocritical intolerant tolerant Left:
Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card, author of the award-winning and best-selling Ender's Game sci-fi series, to write for DC's Adventures of Superman series. The digital comic is set to be published in April.
The news has sparked a furious backlash from Card's critics. Card is a long-time critic of homosexuality and has called gay marriage "the end of democracy in America". In 2009 he became a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that campaigns against same-sex marriage.
"Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to," said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. "It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice."
Fellow comics writer Gail Simone has publicly called out Card on Twitter, saying "I have no use for Card or his anti-gay activism whatsoever, period." Which is perfectly fine. But a lot of folks don't have use for your views on certain matters, Gail -- like gun control, for instance.
The aforementioned Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, wants Card off the Superman book:
"If this was a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist, there would be no question. Hiring that writer would be an embarrassment to your company. Well, Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC. And of all the characters Card could have been hired to write, you give him Superman? The character that taught me to lead by example? To do the right thing, even when it was hard? To keep going, even when it seemed hopeless? What an insult. Kids are killing themselves. They are killing themselves in a climate of intolerance and homophobia publicly fostered by people like Orson Scott Card. You don't have to contribute to this. You shouldn't. You mustn't."
Ah yes, the insanely ridiculous comparisons come forth. Holocaust denial? Puh-lease. Yes, Card is opposed to gay "marriage." Does this mean he hates gay people, though? I don't know if he does or not (I doubt it; the Left, however, always has a predilection to conflate opposition to something they favor as "hatred") but a sizable portion of the American public feels as Card. Are these people entitled, say, to employment for feeling as they do, Mr. Jarrett? How is opposition to gay "marriage" but being for civil unions with the same rights as "marriage" "homophobic?" Further, is Gail Simone also "intolerant" and an "embarrassment" for her views ... on the Second Amendment? Why or why not?
The last couple of days I've traded some tweets with a gent who thinks it's silly to refuse to buy comics from outspoken creators and/or creators who infuse their titles with preachy politics. As I've stated here and elsewhere, I will buy a good story from a creator whose views differ from mine (like Mark Millar's Superman: Red Son of Kurt Busiek's Avengers Forever); however, when such political preachiness in the comics and/or in social media becomes such that it essentially calls you stupid for the [contrary] views you hold, then that's when I'll keep the $3.99 in my pocket.
Carl's Comics has more.
This post has been updated to include a Twitter conversation from today with the writer of The Superior Spider-Man, Dan Slott.
Seriously. Via Watts Up With That?:
No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming? Dr Tom J. Chalko 1 , MSc, PhD Submitted on 8 April 2001, revised 30 October 2004. Published in NU Journal of Discovery ISSN 1444 1454 Publisher: Natural University
Abstract: The heat generated inside our planet is predominantly of radionic (nuclear) origin. Hence, Earth in its entirety can be considered a slow nuclear reactor with its solid ”inner core” providing a major contribution to the total energy output. Since radionic heat is generated in the entire volume and cooling can only occur at the surface, the highest temperature inside Earth occurs at the center of the inner core. Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion. Paper here: http://nujournal.net/core.pdf
Curious, of course, I did a brief Google search of Dr. Chalko. If this is the same guy (a good bet, I'd say), here's a brief bio:
He plays classical guitar exceptionally well, enjoys windsurfing (he calls himself a speed addict here), takes time to practice meditation, telepathy and astral travel. His hobbies include challenging paradigms and paradoxes in geophysics, studying puzzling properties of electro-photonic glow (Auras) using Kirlian camera, learning to see human aura, discovering purpose of life, as well as organizing controversial seminars.
UPDATE: Oh. My. God. This is so much better: A CNN dope actually asked the following: “Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?”
The idiocy known as MSNBC and Krystal Ball (who the f*** is she anyway?) admit their brazen hypocrisy regarding the drone targeting of Americans by claiming that Boss Obama is "more trustworthy" than George W. Bush, and make analogies as to "who would you trust" using folks like Dr. Ruth or Todd Akin for sex advice. Ball continued:
“How would you feel about a Madeline Albright panel about women and body image?” Ball asked hypothetically. “Now, how do you feel about the Larry Flynt panel on women and body image?”
“Do you feel different about Warren Buffet setting standards for financial ethics versus Bernie Madoff?”
I kid you not.
To say such a rationale is flawed does a great disservice to the term. Such ridiculous analogies do not even come close to addressing the legality of the whole issue (which "progressives" screamed about for years during the last administration), nor how Boss Obama has upped the ante on this whole matter in ways that Bush never did.
Just like her idiot co-host Touré, there is no way Ball can escape the common sense rational judgment of thinking people ... which says she is a pea-brained hypocrite of the highest order. And, just keep in mind her "rationale" for the future -- when the GOP has the White House again: Whenever a "progressive" brings up the "hypocrisy" issue, just guffaw at him and say "[The current president] is much more trustworthy. So there's no hypocrisy."
BREAKING: @BrianRoss to reveal that "Christopher Dorner" spelled sideways is "Tea Party", tonight only on @ABC.
The non-Council winner was Powerline with David Horowitz: How Republicans Can Win.
Full results are here.
Just as the crickets keep chirping in the MSM and locally here regarding the insanely preposterous 180s in which our president keeps engaging, Boss Obama minions keep falling in line by either outright contradicting themselves, or by outright lying. First we see gun grabber Diane Feinstein laughingly claiming that due to US drone strikes, "the number of civilian casualties from drones strikes 'each year has typically been in the single digits.'” Uh, yeah. Riiiiiight. And gas prices have fallen to a $1.50/gallon. A studey by Columbia University estimates that upwards of 155 civilians were killed in 2011 alone.
Elsewhere, John Brennan, Boss Obama's nominee to head the CIA, said in testimony the other day that
... waterboarding is “reprehensible” and “never should’ve taken place in my view." "As far as I’m concerned, waterboarding is something that never should’ve been employed,” Brennan told Senator Carl Levin, “and, as far I’m concerned, never will be if I have anything to do with it.”
Except that, y'know, he said just the opposite back in 2007:
... the practice was a useful means of gathering intelligence, but that it saved American lives. “There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists,” Brennan said. “It has saved lives.”
Wow. What's next? Obama stating that WMDs really were in Iraq? At this rate I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
It'll still be George W. Bush's fault, natch.
Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!
Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family."
He said just before he went on a murder spree that I'm pretty sure is going to have more than a few people, public officials or otherwise, saying their thoughts and prayers are with the families.
Remember: Only trained professionals like police officers need guns for their safety. They are the only ones we can trust with guns.
Avi Green informs us of an article where former Iron Man writer Denny O'Neil claims that Tony Stark is one of nine comicbook characters he considers atheists:
...Larry’s Google search revealed that there are at least 17 atheist characters on series television and – here comes the shocker! – nine in comic books. Among them is a fella I thought I knew pretty well because, for three years or so,I was his chief biographer. Tony Stark’s the name, and Iron Man’s the game.
Avi takes issue with O'Neil's characterization:
Oh good grief. So now Tony's been turned into an atheist? Now that is definitely contrived. If he doesn't believe in God, then he doesn't believe he worked alongside Thor in the Avengers, nor does he believe in Asgard. What next, will the Marvel staff claim he hired Bambi Arbogast as a secretary because she's an atheist too?
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't it been established that Thor, and hence his homeland of Asgard, is/are actually "just" an advanced race of aliens? The Universe X series (a sort of future history of the Marvel Universe) used this premise, as did clearly the Thor and The Avengers films. Therefore, Avi's defense is moot. That, and it has been clearly noted many times throughout Iron Man's/Tony Stark's long history that he hates magic. Stark is the epitome of a pure scientist -- he defines reality with science. And, I cannot recall any explicit reference in Iron Man or The Avengers where Stark engaged in something religious. Feel free to correct me if I am in error, of course.
To me it is perfectly logical that Tony Stark is an atheist. And I've no problem with that. That is, until some hack "progressive" writer comes along and decides to turn Stark into what too many atheists seem to be today: Whiny, arrogant, holier-than-thou (an oxymoron, I know) quasi-sages who simply know better than you. Merely because they do not believe in a supreme being.
In today's News Journal article titled Mom faces hard truth as son tied to cop shooting, said mom says, “I didn’t give birth to a murderer. I didn’t give birth to a monster. I didn’t give birth to a thug.”
Uh, yes, you did. To the latter two, and if convicted, all three. Face the facts. I mean, c'mahn:
When her son was 16, he was involved in a shooting on Dec. 30, 2007, at 39th and Shipley streets. Though a juvenile, he was prosecuted in adult court and convicted of first-degree assault, conspiracy and a weapons charge.
In addition to the attempted murder charge Frederick Gray is facing, officials charged him Tuesday with robbing a gas station a day before the shooting.
But "he's not a thug."
Next, mom echoes the usual "progressive" "not totally [our] fault / result of being too dependent" BS:
“There is nothing for these kids to do,” she said. “I respect our mayor, but he can jump out of vans, he can do all he wants to do, but until he gives these kids something to do, it’s going to be a recurring thing.
Nice attitude there, "mom." How utterly ridiculous is this -- since government won't give kids something to do, then naturally we should expect them to succumb to a life of thievery and murder.
Un. Real. Civilization continues to crumble.
... I actually agree with Boss Obama's drone strikes against al Qaeda (and whatever other radical Islamist terror groups), even if they include American citizens. Why should it matter what your current citizenship is if you freely decide to join a bunch of illegal combatants in order to do violence to innocent people? It shouldn't, in my opinion (and in that of many others, too).
The issue is the brazen, unadulterated hypocrisy of the mainstream media and the Left as a whole on this matter. When the previous administration went to great lengths to justify how they waged the war on radical Islamists, it was pilloried on a daily basis by the MSM, and "progressives" staged "peace" marches and complained hourly about human rights abuses.
Now, we see this: New York Times and Washington Post Knew About Secret Drone Base In Saudi Arabia and Agreed Not to Report It. And this. And this -- the NYT puts the story on page eleven. And this. The liberal Kirsten Powers nails it: "They're clearly hypocrites. They clearly don't really care about human rights. They only care if it helps them politically."
Meanwhile, locally, our Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers -- who bitched and moaned daily when George W. Bush was offering legal opinions much less controversial than Boss Obama's -- is now concentrating on the great import of stuff like Chris Christie's weight, Karl Rove and GOP infighting, and Fox News ditching Dick Morris.
This is actually pretty cool (if you skip the first one which is an abomination). It's a list of 10 mashup DC/Marvel characters. A one-off book for some of these would be pretty cool.
It's "funny" that a sizable portion of the populace believe God has a stake in something like the Super Bowl; however, it's legitimate "karma" that anti-gay slurs led to one of the teams (the 49ers, in this case) losing the game:
“We were nervous and worried and scared, at least us Ravens’ fans. We were talking in the studio about, just karma … karma, after one of the 49ers players made a disparaging remark and we all started rooting for the Ravens, and I think everyone knows what I am talking about. Karma is a … you know what,” according to CNN’s Don Lemon, who previously equated Mitt Romney’s support of traditional marriage to George Wallace’s “segregation forever” speech.
To put it much simpler, politically correct "gods" are genuine; traditional ones are for "doofuses."
And the non-Council nominations are here!
As JWF says, "Floyd Corkins would be a household name by now if he attacked a liberal group." As such, no one cares because he "only" attacked the Family Research Council.
The ridiculous mainstream media -- which will immediately pounce on ANYTHING remotely related to a conservative group when there's any sort of seemingly politically related violence -- could care less that this Corkins guy said he picked his target from the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate map."
Gee, remember when Sarah Palin was to blame because she had a "target" map designating Democrats who the GOP should try to beat in Arizona ... and how said map was "responsible" for the nut who shot Gabby Giffords?
F*** you, MSM.
Here’s what [MSNBC's Touré] said about drone strikes back on December 20th, 2012, seven weeks ago:
Touré insisted that torture, and drone warfare, are not making America safer. Nor, he said, do those tactics provide defense officials with actionable intelligence. “It wrecks the soul of America,” Touré said.
Drone strikes aren’t making us safer. They wreck the soul of America.
Now that we’ve learned that the Obama administration is calling the killing of American citizens without due process “legal, ethical, and wise,” Toure has changed his tune.
TOURE NEBLETT: We’re at war with al Qaeda right now, and if you join al Qaeda, you lose the right to be an American. You lose the right to due process. You declare yourself an enemy of this nation, and you are committing treason. And I don’t see why we should expand American rights to people who want to kill Americans, who are working to kill Americans, who are committing treason. This is not criticizing the United States. This is going to war against the United States.
That is what you call “hackery.”
And, as RB at The Right Sphere notes, "I really like the part where Toure talks about expanding American rights to people who want to kill Americans. Because that’s what HE and his ilk wanted to do with the people we captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
When George W. Bush was president, I might add.
We might also note the insanely ridiculous hypocrisy of another bunch of moonbats on this matter, too. Merely check out idiot "El Somnambulo's" gravatar. Yep, still has it; if he changed it to Boss Obama, he'd not only be dubbed a racist, he'd be booted off that blog, without a doubt.
RELATED: Imagine the [mostly faux] outrage of the LGOMB if George Bush had ordered the drone strike which killed this 16 year-old American citizen. But since a Nobel "Peace" Prize winner has done it, it's all good! So, let's just keep talking about gun control, paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and green energy, all the while the economy continues to tank, and Obama makes George W. Bush look like Dennis Kucinich in comparison.
“It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack,” it says. “Delaying action . . . would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.”
I see. Now change he word "state" to "individual" or "citizen" and that becomes wildly out of true with our current laws.
UPDATE: I just found this video.
So by his logic, any weapon with greater than 10 rounds in the magazine is a weapon of war. If that is so, why do the police have them? Are they at war? If so, with whom?
Am I to believe that a criminal who possesses a gun illegally or who will willingly commit a crime will comply with the part of the law that prohibits magazines with greater than ten rounds?
There is always talk about one party or the other splitting. Each time it looks pretty serious. The Republicans crushing defeat last election has created a bifurcated GOP. The GOP Establishment as they are called is seen as elitist and out of touch and driven mainly, if not exclusively by self interest. I confess this is a view I share. I am not a Republican. I left them long ago when they decided to be the Party of the Preachers (c.f. Goldwater's Admonishon)
The Right Scoop has a (very) long audio clip of Mark Levin in full rant mode about Karl Rove:
Listen to the whole thing but it can be boiled down to this:
1. Rove has a poor track record in getting GOP candidates elected.
2. The candidates he favors are often not conservative
3. They are invariably of the GOP Establishment
4. Rove did nothing to curb Bush's Big Government programs
5. Rove is interested in being a power broker and little else.
Me? I've been saying as much since the prescription drug plan was born. I am of two minds on this. I'm not sure I can see the GOP splitting (which means they probably will). Rather, I see this as a big opportunity for the Libertarian Party if they ever got their act together. Not to worry though, they won't.
I think there will be some back and forth but the soul of the party is what's at stake here. The Democrats went through this after Bush was re-elected and the radical wing of the party won. They were more devoted and were able to organize their online effort to put the DLC out of business and purge the Blue Dogs from their ranks. Perhaps the GOP is going through the same thing? Who wins the GOP? The Social Cons? The Tea Party? If the GOP does split into a Conservative party and Tea Party (using whatever names they use) it will put both of them in the minority for the forseeable future. I don't know how this is going to go but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
You can decide for yourself if this is actually a big deal; personally, I'd just like the companies to hire good writers without an agenda of some kind. But what cracks me up about this is we see this same complaint in Hollywood and in network news -- like comics, bastions of "progressivism." So, if skin color diversity is of such import, then why don't those who clamor most about it ... do something about it?? Why doesn't NBC's Brian Williams step aside for a black man? (Or better yet, a black woman?) Why doesn't ABC's Diane Sawyer do same? Ditto for CBS's Scott Pelley?
Why don't the actors of some of Hollywood's hottest TV shows and movies also step aside for more minorities? The cast of The Big Bang Theory can be replaced with all African-Americans. What? "That's silly!" you say?
Maybe now you're catching on ...
... well, you know well by now: Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.
Just remember, though: Waterboarding is still 100 times worse. Because it happened under George Bush. Or something.
And why might that be? It's slowing climate change!!
Ye gad ...
So writes the WaPo's Krissah Thompson:
The first lady’s critics “are reacting to the culture in which they’ve grown up or they are using it as a code to racialize Michelle Obama and remind people that she’s black,” says Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University. “It is unreasonable to expect a nearly 50-year-old woman to have the body of a 25-year-old. She looks great for her age.”
Who knew? Everyone I know who says Michelle Obama has a fat ass says so because ... Michelle Obama has a fat ass.
Once again, we see how so-called "progressives" are uniquely "qualified" to ferret out the clandestine racism of the body politic. Whether it's using golf to equate Boss Obama to Tiger Woods' extra-marital dalliances, or noting how referring to the president as "cool" is racist, to claiming peanut butter sandwiches are racist ... the typical garden variety American hears all this and goes "WTF??"
And here's a little advice for Boss Obama and crew, and the racer mainstream media: Obama and co. are from Chicago, for cripe's sakes. So grow up. If you can't stand the legitimate political heat and political comedy, make way for someone who can.
Since they have them on video, I'm not sure how this falls under the category of "allegedly". I know it's a legal hedge but give me a break. This is about as concrete proof as you get. The fact that they were fired should tell you something.
Bookmark this page and show it to the next idiot who tells you to "just call 911" when you have a problem like an unconscious 5-month-old or a burglar breaking into your house.
First up: In Michigan, the Union equivalent of the Eye of Sauron, they're trying to do an end run around the will of the people. They were resoundingly defeated in their attempts to continue taking money from people at gunpoint for the privilege of working. From the WSJ:
Michigan Union Tell-All: "Yet the most revealing news in the Cook memo is how little the union discusses assisting workers so more will voluntarily join unions. Instead the focus is how to continue coercing workers to keep paying dues. No wonder that the percentage of government workers who belong to unions fell last year. The Cook memo is damning proof that the main goal of union leaders is to enhance the power of union leaders, not of workers."
They know they no longer have a case for joining a union. The days of brickbat wielding Pinkertons are long over. Hell the days of the UAW are nearing an end. I think they finally know it. The Big Three aren't alone any more. The US isn't the epicenter of manufacturing nor the only market for cars. My brother had the misfortune of being in that automotive world for over a decade. The shit he had to put up with was beyond me. I would have left the industry long before he did. I have no idea how much they paid him but it had to have been a king's ransom to keep him.
I love John Scalzi. I read Old Man's War and loved it. I've been a lurker at his website for quite some time. I like him because he disagrees with me. Not me personally but he's pretty far left (from where I stand.) That said, he's also a fair guy and a rational one. This makes him about as rare as a Swiss combat medal. He's also got this mad judo ability to win without fighting. Witness: Solving My Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit Problem. Essentially he has a problem with someone called "Vox Day" (this is a name? -ed) who he describes as above. I don't know this guy or if he's really as risible as that but John's solution is the perfect one. In fact, it is both perfect and liberal. This is how liberals (and, frankly everyone else) should behave in the face of speech they don't like. He's created the perfect trap for this guy. Every time he spouts off some horrible crap he's funding the people he hates. Scalzi, you are a genius.
Ed Koch shows why he is the last great liberal: Ed Koch: What's on My Tombstone, and Why: "On my tombstone, which awaits me at the Trinity Church nondenominational cemetery at 155th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, I had inscribed the last words of Daniel Pearl -- uttered at his publicly viewed murder -- which were, "My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish." I believe those words should be part of the annual services on the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur, and should be repeated by the congregants."
Exactly so. Recognize that this is not an issue of tolerance and diversity but one of an eliminationist ideology that must be fought with both pen and sword.
I was going to write about Argentina's latest insanity yesterday but ran out of waking hours. Taking a page from Joe Biden's book:
: "“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.” "
wasn't enough. No, now Cristina Fernandez continues her war with reality by instituting
shortages price controls. Perhaps she's been taking advice from my favorite local punching bag and economically illiterate blogger.
ZeroHedge piles on and notes that the real inflation rate is somewhere around 30% with no signs of slowing. They plan to print their way out this problem because that has proven so wildly effective the previous dozen times it's been tried. Sadly, Argentina is just the US writ small.
China continues its lying by statistics as is their M.O. Tom Friedman will likely have some fascinating articles from La La Land once China implodes. Given the excuses for the abject dishonesty I think they are half right and half wrong. Since I started working for Big Data, I now know how they work and what they deem important. I can assure you that "smoothing" is a word I hear very often. "Smoothing" is good and it indicates reliable data. "Bounce" is the opposite and that's bad. Very bad and should be avoided. If I had to guess the capital flight is far worse than they want to admit, the stratification is far worse than we know and they have demographic problems that make collapse inevitable. Basically they're smoothing as fast as they can and trying to trend upwards to stave off The Big Bath. Rather they want to limp along until they regress to the mean and then reset from there. Unfortunately, I don't know where their mean is or what their reset is going to look like. Reader(s) are welcome to speculate.
... is that their quarterback -- Joe Flacco -- is a graduate of my alma mater, the University of Delaware!
Bonus points: Who can name the other U of D quarterback who made it to the Big Game, but lost?
Howie nails it: Obama, Gore, stop whining about right-wing media. The money quote:
What liberals sometimes forget is that the conservative media took root because many Americans felt the fourth estate was too left-wing. ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, The New York Times and The Washington Post all strive for fairness, in my view, but there is little question that they have a social and cultural outlook that leans to the left. Collectively, they have far more weight than Fox, talk radio and The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The Increasingly Irrelevant Jesse Jackson: Assault/semi-automatic weapons can shoot down planes, blow up railroads.
... or they may block you.
That is, comics creators and their "progressive" views. Avi Green has been busy keeping tabs on a few of them of late, most notably Dan "Violent Media Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Gun Violence" Slott, who currently writes Spider-Man. While making some sense in one tweet where he says "We need new gun control laws. That DOESN'T mean taking away anyone's guns. It means sensible restrictions, background checks, & enforcement," he follows up by denying any connection between the violence prevalent today in mass media, and violence in real life:
Movies/video games AREN'T the problem. Our gun culture is the problem. Other countries have the SAME movies/games & DON'T have this problem.
There's a difference between FANTASY and REALITY. Gunplay in movies, TV, books, comics, and video games is NOT the problem. REAL guns are.
I don't play FPS games. But I don't care if someone plays 'em EVERY waking hour of their life. It's not REAL. Video game bullets don't kill.
I love how Slott rants about "gun culture," but somehow violence in video games and in his own medium aren't part of it. He also claims that focusing on mental illness is a "scapegoat" in the whole gun debate. Riiiiight. But perhaps dopiest of all, he states that politicians who get backed by the NRA should be required to attend the funerals of anyone killed in a shooting. That's right, a perfectly legitimate and legal organization which exists to protect the very second amendment added to our Constitution (not third, fourth or fifth), should be held responsible for those who misuse what that amendment protects.
At least creator Jimmy Palmiotti is honest about it all: He comes right out and says that there should be "small steps" toward stricter gun control laws, and that the Constitution should be "re-written" (amended). Though I vehemently disagree with the views of someone like Palmiotti, I greatly respect that he doesn't bullsh** us and is forthright about his opinion.
Hopefully, unlike Slott and Kurt Busiek who block those on Twitter who disagree with them, guys like Palmiotti will be willing to stand up to some [fan] push-back if they insist on being outspoken on matters political.
UPDATE 2/10/13: Slott apparently is more like Palmiotti. After I queried the Superior Spider-Man writer on Twitter about creators being outspoken in their views, he replied:
I have my personal views AND free speech. Speaking out about an issue (like gun control and the need to ban assault rifles) is my right. More than that, it's something I feel I NEED to do.
If I sat silently back and said nothing-- for fear of "losing readers"-- that would be selling myself out. I need to be able to sleep at night-- or I'm not going to much use to anyone as a writer, employee, friend, person, whatever. I need to be true to myself and my values.
I understand how, on a business level, it's not a smart practice. But there are some things that are more important to me than comic sales and how much I, personally, succeed on a financial level.
Who can really argue with that? You gotta respect the guy for taking that stand. If he goes overboard on social media and/or in the pages of the Wall Crawler and pisses people off, at least he'll blame no one but himself (we hope). It still doesn't explain why he Twitter-blocked Doug Ernst, but it appears Mr. Slott is one of the few left-leaners who understands that free speech does not mean one is free from consequences for that speech.
RELATED: I wonder when some of these big brain creators will break out their politically correct shells and mention a huge factor in crime and [gun] violence:
Still, I suspect you will find a much stronger causal link in the high correlation of gun violence to the prevalence of welfare and other antipoverty programs. Where government programs have eliminated the need for a father in the household, and virtually all children are born to poor, deeply uneducated unwed mothers, the breakdown of the family has had intractably catastrophic consequences. Thousands of neighborhoods and indeed whole cities have been trapped in a tight, vicious spiral of abysmal educational attainment and terrifying crime rates.
Focusing our national discussion of gun violence on assault weapons is not just childish but shameful — virtually none of the gun violence in America comes out of the barrel of an assault weapon. Meanwhile, virtually all of the 100 gun murders per day that nobody talks about (or, apparently, cares about) occur among the urban poor, where antipoverty programs continue to offer a horrifying exposition of the law of unintended consequences, in what has become practically a massive descent into barbarism.
Forum: What Is Your Reaction To The Obama Administration’s Recent Policy Change To Allow Women In Combat ?
Karl Rove and rich GOP donors wage war on Tea Party: "The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election."
This is the end. Anyone who thinks they can vote for the GOP in hopes they will do anything to further the cause of liberty is at odds with reality. There was a time when the GOP, at least nominally, was the party of individual liberty. They are not. Karl Rove is interested in exactly one thing: Power. He does not want anyone not coming from the GOP Establishment ranks to be in any position of power or influence. He means to see the Tea Party destroyed as they are a threat to his Grand Plan. I suspect that there is a healthy strain of isolationism in the Tea Party he fears nearly as much as the financial sanity part. Rove knows that in order to curb our insane spending, the military is going to have to take some cuts. Probably significant ones. That won't do. How else are we going to bend the globe to our will? We can't possibly keep our selves neutral and friendly with everybody through trade, right? That would be crazy.
If this goes forward I could see this splitting the GOP into a Conservative party of largely social conservatives and interventionalist neocons. The other wing becomes the Tea Party that is largely concerned with fiscal issues and pushes towards federalism and away from Washington. That would likely mean dominance by the Democrats at the national level for a very long time.
I am notoriously bad at political pontificating (as seen by my last two electoral college predictions) so take all of this as wild conjecture.
Can anyone see this another way? What other motives could Rove have?
I've often thought atheism is really a form of faith. You cannot prove there isn't a god (or gods) so you have to have faith that there isn't one. Taking that a step further, atheism becomes a religion. A moral philosophy shared by a community that seeks to explain (or at least understand) mankind and it's place in the universe. That they are gathering in the same place, at the same time as the religion they reject is rather curious. They seem to be trying to co-opt the church rather than avoid it.
If someone revealed this all to be an elaborate hoax or prank I wouldn't be surprised.
Liberal logic: You cannot blame violence on movies unless we're talking about Benghazi because that was totally due to a movie nobody had ever seen.
I went on Twitter a little bit ago to follow some comics creators. One, however, had blocked my account: Kurt Busiek. I frantically started wondering ... why? The only thing I can think of is that he was miffed at these posts; however, since those, I've written an incredibly favorable review of his epic Avengers Forever ... to which he linked on his Facebook page!
What's sad (and, unfortunately, hypocritical) about this is that many years ago in an e-mail exchange, Kurt said he vehemently disagreed with people expressing their displeasure with a [comics] creator via boycott. He opined, essentially, that it is better to "fight speech with more speech." I had responded that an individual boycott to protest a creator "spitting in the face" of those with whom he disagrees is speech. That, and how does an average guy have the "same degree" of speech that a joe like Busiek possesses? (Of course, that was then, and this is now -- where social media and blogging have flourished to "equal things out" somewhat.)
So, Kurt, is this "battling speech with more speech"-- by preventing someone from reading what you post on social media? I've never been unfair in my criticisms of you; indeed, I've gone out of my way to be as fair to you as humanly possible ... not to mention utterly praise your creative works on this blog and in social media.
Well, I was one-for-two on Championship Sunday, again with the Ravens proving me wrong. So ... we're not gonna do that again! Look for Baltimore to defeat the Niners in a squeaker, 24-21.
The non-Council winner was David Mamet with Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm.
Full results are here.
Love Gore's rationale: "B-b-but Aljazeera has won awards and their climate change coverage is second to none." Good on Stewart for pointing out to Gore that he asks us [peons] to buy expensive light bulbs, but he then goes and sells his network to a major fossil fuel producer.
Speaking of which, National Review's Jonah Goldberg picks up on what I wrote about three weeks ago -- namely, that Gore wouldn't even entertain an offer by Glenn Beck for his Current TV, instead choosing "a petro-state and anti-American news network." Here's a great compilation of head-scratching liberals questioning Gore's move:
This story is all too familiar: another cheap, moronic restaurant patron at work.
As I noted in-depth here, tipping at a restaurant (or bar) is part of the cost of doing business. It's rare that service will be exceptionally bad; if that is the case, be sure to inform a manager. But a minimum tip of 15% for decent/good service and 20% or higher for exceptional service is the norm. If this is a problem for you (like it is for commenter "Springs1" in the comments here), stay the hell home, please.
(Oh, and I don't condone what the waitress did -- publishing a copy of the receipt on Reddit -- by the way.)