A Waco man was sentenced to 50 years in the Big House for a heist of ... spare ribs:
Forty-three-year-old Willie Smith Ward was convicted and sentenced on robbery charges Wednesday. The Waco Tribune-Herald reports that Ward's theft of the $35 rack of pork ribs turned into a robbery after he threatened a grocery store employee who tried to stop him in 2011.
The employee testified that Ward told him he had a knife.
The jury recommended Ward be sentenced as a habitual criminal. Ward has previous felony convictions for burglary, attempted robbery, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident and possession of cocaine, and four misdemeanor convictions, including two thefts.
(Pics from the classic M*A*S*H season three episode "Adam's Ribs.")
Via Ace: We've already seen the lengths to which this clownish administration will go to snoop on people; now a US attorney suggests that anti-Muslim comments on social media might be a federal crime:
[US attorney Bill] Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”
Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.
“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
Except that, aside from incredibly bad taste (which isn't a crime), what [Muslim] civil rights were violated in that case? Is this yet another instance of Boss Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform" America -- here being an example of how the First Amendment will be curtailed further by an expansion of "hate speech" statutes? Hell, we've already seen what happened to that sap who made the YouTube vid which Boss O., Hillary, Susan Rice and others blamed for Benghazi: He was arrested ... and is still in the clink.
In Westchester County, NY north of New York City, another Boss Obama cabinet department is drastically overreaching its authority by demanding rather affluent areas build "affordable housing" to supposedly "eliminate" discrimination/racism:
At issue is a 2009 settlement with HUD in which Westchester committed to develop 750 public housing units in mostly white neighborhoods over seven years. County executive Rob Astorino has financing for 305 units (110 of which are already occupied), putting Westchester ahead of schedule. HUD could have declared victory and moved on to a real mess like, say, Detroit.
Instead, the agency is interfering with local zoning in Westchester to force more racial diversity on suburban neighborhoods. Last week, HUD New York's Director of Community Planning and Development Vincent Hom wrote Mr. Astorino and threatened to cancel $7.4 million in unrelated housing and community development funds. To keep the cash, Westchester must produce "a satisfactory zoning analysis and plan to overcome exclusionary zoning practices."
HUD ignored the county's research into discriminatory practices (which found zippo evidence of such) as well as Pace University law professor John Nolon's analysis of the county's findings (which just so happened to agree with the county). HUD feels that "if neighborhoods are majority white they are ipso facto discriminatory." HUD is also "pressing" the county to pass legislation which would force landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. Yeah, that will be a boon for well-to-do neighborhoods, won't it?
Sadiki Kambon, who said he represents a group called Friends of Roxbury Community College, sent Patrick a letter Monday demanding that Gerald Chertavian, who was named board chairman last week, be replaced by “another qualified candidate (Black).”
“It’s important for our young people to see someone who looks like us who is the position of leadership in our academic community. We feel that someone from our community has the skill set necessary to run that institution,” Kambon told the Herald.
The college is predominately black, therefore, Kambon says, it requires a black leader. Of course, if you applied this ridiculous standard across the board, then there would be a lot less blacks in positions of leadership. But as usual, no one ever seriously argues that racial bean counters/diversophiles are very strong in the logic department.
I read that former prez Bill Clinton has endorsed a comic written by long-time US representative -- and noted civil rights activist -- John Lewis titled March. The book "focuses on his (Lewis's) youth in rural Alabama and the start of the Nashville Student Movement." Unfortunately, Lewis was one of those who claimed members of the Tea Party shouted racial epithets during the 2010 Obamacare vote ... epithets that were never proven, despite innumerable recording devices at the scene (press, individual cell phones, etc.) and a $10K award for such proof by the now-deceased Andrew Breitbart. Nevertheless, Lewis, of all people, deserves some slack about that given his history.
The little-known TV network The Hub will be featuring a cartoon titled "SheZow" starring a tranvestite superhero. No sh**. Newsbusters' Randy Hall explains:
The 26-episode Australian-Canadian animated series begins with the death of the boy's Aunt Agne, who was the previous SheZow. The ring was meant for Guy's twin sister, Kelly, but her brother decided to put it on himself as a joke.
Once on his finger, the ring won't come off, and since it was intended to be worn by a female, Guy must wear a large wig, a purple skirt and cape, pink gloves and white go-go boots to gain access to the many powers it bestows, including tremendous strength, speed, flight and his strongest ability, a sonic scream. (Yeah, no gender stereotypes here.)
Whenever trouble arises, the boy says the magic words “You go, girl!” to become the cross-dressing superhero and returns to his secret identity by shouting “She-yeah!”
He/she also has a "beautility belt" which includes items such as "laser lipstick" and "vanishing cream." Uh ... right.
I still say that it would have been better to have Shezow be a girl because there aren't enough female superheroes, but does it promote transgender? I don't think so. Barely promotes drag queens at best, but I'm only judging by one episode.
Here's the opening of the 'toon, FWIW.
Comics guy Erik Larsen, a big lefty who believes the GOP "stole" the 2000 and 2004 elections (but thus far, no word from him on how the IRS shenanigans may have aided Boss Obama in stealing 2012's), apparently is not a big fan of comics legend John Byrne. A while back, the duo had a bit of a feud regarding artwork, which Byrne turned into a topic at his website. A couple days ago, Larsen tweeted the following about Byrne:
@tombrevoort but the big difference is that you would like him to work on Marvel books. I have no interest in him working on mine.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) May 30, 2013
So Larsen doesn't want Byrne working on his books. Oooooh, golly. But here's the thing: Larsen is nowhere near Byrne when it comes to comicbook talent. In a discussion of comicbook greats, Byrne should certainly occupy some air time if you're at all serious about the topic. The "Dark Phoenix" saga. "Days of Future Past." The re-imagining of DC's Superman. Memorable run on the Fantastic Four. Larsen, on the other hand? He'd probably raise a few "Who??" He did average artwork on Spider-Man. Created a character called the Savage Dragon. Whoopee-freakin'-do.
Perhaps the bloated, overhyped entity that is Image Comics has done "wonders" for Larsen's ego.
What's the one question that can derail any Democrat running for office:
The answer is ALWAYS bigger government and MORE taxes. Nothing but nothing is ever left to the people or the market. It's all about control folks.
Adana El Nusra operation: 2 pounds sarin gas found: "Adana Security Directorate, which began after the massacre of Reyhanlı connected with the organization Al-Qaeda and the accused is detained in an operation against Al Nusra Front and addresses of two kilograms were seized in the sarin gas."
OK so Al-Qaeda linked groups are now taking WMDs out of Syria. They keep crossing that red line and nothing changes.
A few sad stories in the education realm today. For starters, Tippecanoe Elementary School in Milwaukee planned to host a "Gender Bender Day." An elementary school. A school board member didn't care about parents' concerns "saying they were 'using the kids for political purposes.'” That's right, the parents were. At any rate, to assuage these parents, the name of the day was altered to “Switch It Up Day.” Yeah, that's so much better. The result was probably not what the school's "enlightened" staff wanted; it seems mostly teachers and other school staff participated, not students.
Down Under, a college newspaper's satirical piece on Islam was forcibly retracted because ... of fear of "violent reprisals from radical Muslims." That's right -- the paper already did similar pieces about Christians, Jews, Mormons and Scientologists, but only Islam got special treatment:
Administrators claimed the piece of satire violated the university code of conduct. They also feared it could inflame radical Muslims.
“In a world of social media, [there is] potential for material such as the article in question to gain attention and traction in the broader world and potentially harm the interests of the university and the university community,” said a statement from the Chancelry of the university.
But again, apparently the code of conduct wasn't violated when those other religions were satirized.
But here's the message for non-Muslims: Just threaten to rampage, inflict harm or worse if someone "offends" you, and our societal "enlightened" will make sure the offenders are stopped. I mean, if it works for them ...! It would do well for the West to remember Liam Neeson's words from Taken: "You come to this country, take advantage of the system and think because we are tolerant that we are weak and helpless. Your arrogance offends me."
In the annals of asinine "zero tolerance" policies, in Massachusetts a six year-old boy was given detention (later dropped) and made to write an apology to his bus driver after he -- wait for it -- brought a G.I. Joe action figure's toy gun on the bus. A gun that measures less than two inches in length.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
That's "Low Information Voters," natch. Conservative guy Caleb Bonham journeyed to Colorado University and "asked several people to sign a 'thank you' card to thank the IRS for unfairly targeting conservative groups." Here's what happened:
Hey, you know the drill by now: Because absolutely no one demanded it, here's Hube's picks for the top of each Trek TV show. The five in each category are in no particular order either, for what it's worth.
Disagree with me? Let me know in the comments. Hell, let me know if you agree, too, dammit! Here we go ...
THE ORIGINAL SERIES
THE NEXT GENERATION
DEEP SPACE NINE
But remember -- it's Fox News that is the "shoddy" journalism, making a "big deal" about stuff like the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and the AP/Fox News spying stuff.
Indeed where is the lefty outrage at Apple? There isn't any. Why? This, to me, is the perfect encapsulation of the left's ignorance of economics. They allow for huge salaries and bonuses by people like Steve Jobs and don't grumble at Apple's tax avoidance because of one reason. Value. They understand the value of the iProducts. They are extremely well made and very powerful devices that many consider invaluable. Given that, they understand why so many people want them, pay handsomely for them and why men like Jobs make a fortune from them. Conversely, they do not understand the value of the CEO of a bank or the hedge fund manager or the average Wall Street grunt. Most of them have never met any of these people and have no idea how hard their jobs are and just how smart and talented many of them are. They are the guys who are going to and from work in the dark. They know their industry and what drives it. They know more about economics and markets and financial instruments than you could ever dream of. That knowledge gap is why "Occupy Wall Street" was formed and why it exists. OWS is not about preventing bailouts. Hell, most Americans agree with them. I never thought we should have bailed out any of them. They have been socializing losses since Carter bailed out the auto industry. Hell, JP Morgan himself once bailed out Uncle Sam and now his name is practically a dirty word.
I normally say that we need to teach economics in high schools but that would only make them Keynesian Indoctrination Centers because teachers (Sorry Hube) are almost universally bereft of even the most basic understanding of market capitalism. Those that do understand it are hostile towards it.
I just had to laugh softly and shake my head at this story today at Philly.com. A dad is suing the "coach, athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board" of Sterling Regional High School in Camden County. Why? His son was booted from the track team. Dad thinks his son is a total track stud and as such should be able to run whatever the hell he wants.
I just loooooove that. A perfect example of WTF is wrong with our modern culture.
Let's take a gander at some of dad's moronic statements:
Uh, no they don't. That's why they're children. They can't vote, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive, etc. This isn't to say they have no rights, just not "like any adult."
Uh, no it's not unfair, especially in the sport of track and field. As noted in the article, track coaches always have to balance the needs of individuals on the squad with that of the entire team. After all, the ultimate goal is for the team to win.
A total crock. Participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, nothing more. If one does not want to do as the coach asks, then that person should either not try out or, if already on the team, quit/resign.
Hilarious. I wonder if the coach (and/or school, et. al.) have thought about counter-suing daddy on the same grounds.
Translation: Coach didn't do precisely what I wanted, so now I'm gonna act all pouty.
This may be the "best," however: Dad also says that his son was "'undefeated champ' in the 200-, 400-, and 800-meter runs as an eighth grader at a Catholic school in 2010." Which, for dad, "should have translated into a key spot on the team when, as a ninth grader." Whaaaa ...? As a runner myself, I was undefeated in the 400 and 800 while in middle school, much like this kid. Did I -- and my dad -- demand that, upon entering high school, I get a "key spot" on the track team? Hell no. And when track season (in the spring) arrived, it was soon apparent that there were many on the squad -- sophomores, but especially juniors and seniors -- who were better than me. And that's a key aspect not mentioned in this article; what were Mawusimensah's times compared to those of his teammates? Was he better in the 200, 400, and 800 meters than all, most, or even some of his peers? The article states the son wasn't permitted to run "even though he may have been faster than some seniors who raced." What does that mean? Was he or wasn't he? And if he was, does anyone buy that this track coach would not enter him to run in those events during meets?
Being a long-time educator and coach, my [educated] guess is this: Dad constantly complained to coach (and others) about what he perceived as "slights" to his son because of not getting what he wanted based on his [now-irrelevant] performance in middle school. When dad didn't get "satisfaction," he told his son (or implied it) to bag a few practices to "show the coach." (After all, the official reason Mawusimensah was booted from the team was unexcused absences. Dad claims there was a family death and an injury to his son. If so, where were the notes to that effect?) These absences then became the official means (or, if you prefer, "excuse") by which to dismiss Mawusimensah.
I also wonder why the Philly Inquirer ran a story like this. Well, not really. After all, as easily predicted, it is guaranteed to elicit a ton of comments, the vast majority of which side with the school and coach. (In fact, I haven't yet seen one siding with the dad and his son.) From a purely business POV this makes sense for the paper. But, I can't help but wonder if the paper ran with it out of a degree of sympathy for this family's "plight." Admittedly, there's really nothing in the narrative to indicate such (at least to me), but what is the reason for granting this dad the exposure?
UPDATE: Yesterday Philly.com switched article pictures to a more "plaintiff-friendly" one. The new one remains on the site's main page today; however, the actual article page has put back the original. Also (telling), the site has discontinued comments for the story. No surprise there for, as noted above, the comments were incredibly one-sided against the father and son.
Forum: On this particular Memorial Day, what are your thoughts about the future of our country?
Five days ago I wrote about Star Trek Into Darkness:
But preparing for conflict against the Klingons? Remember that in this era the Federation is pretty much constantly at war with them. The Klingons are troublemakers to the extreme, brutal warriors who have moved away from reason and enlightenment (as described in an episode of the prequel show Enterprise). Even in the sixth Trek film, Capt. Kirk's own words came back to haunt him ("I never trusted Klingons, and I never will"), not to mention he explicitly told Spock to "Let them (the Klingons) die" when Spock informed a Federation confab about the Klingons' desired peace initiative. (Brought about, of course, because their empire was dying.) Thus, what is so wrong about preparing for what is almost a certain conflict with the Klingons? In fact, it makes a helluva lot MORE sense in Into Darkness's case what the Federation (Section 31) was doing than what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney actually did, since, as I noted, Khan and the Klingons are much greater threats.
Jonah Goldberg in his (e-mailed) G-File from yesterday:
In Star Trek Into Darkness a major plot driver is the notion that any "militarization" of Star Fleet is an unthinkable outrage. This is crazypants. We know that the Federation is in fact destined for a brutal and devastating war with the Klingons -- the idea that the Federation should be better prepared for it isn't fascistic; it's common sense.
As my daughter finishes up her freshman year at college, I must admit I've taken yet another look at how bad many college professors are ... in terms of delivering their material. Looking at it from a lower ed. teacher's perspective, it is more than apparent that if I -- or any (in particular) middle or high school teacher -- taught the way college profs teach, there would be 1) utter chaos in the classroom, and 2) little learning going on. Not to mention, when the instructor's first language is something other than English (a situation my offspring encountered in her fall semester to her dismay), and the conveyance of his/her second language is quite a bit less-than-optimal, not only is this ridiculous considering what parents are paying for college, but it's totally unfair for learning.
I never really had an issue with a professor who couldn't speak English; IIRC only my sophomore year physical science prof had a really bad accent. TAs were a different story. One TA in particular was virtually unintelligible at what was supposed to be a study session, and I ended up feeling bad for him when students began throwing up their hands and then walking out. But ... what were they supposed to do?
My first two years of college featured profs who mostly stood there and lectured. Bo-ring. Two notable exceptions were a sociology prof who taught a course on collective behavior, and a microeconomics prof (both sophomore year). Both delivered their lessons like a good lower ed teacher, engaging their classes and requiring a lot of student input. (Most upperclassman classes aren't like the common freshman and sophomore class because they're smaller and more intimate.) One of the worst profs I had was a professor of Russian history who just stood at a lectern and read his notes. Then, virtually none of the material was on his exams. You could tell he didn't like Americans much (he was Russian himself), and one student in the class led the prof to showcase some classic disparaging humor during exam days. This student forgot to bring a blue book to a test, whereupon he asked the prof if he had one. The prof sighed loudly, then asked the class (in his typical, but very understandable, Russian accent) "Does anybody have an extra blue book for this student with NO MIND??" Then, during the exam, this dude asked the prof how much time was left in class. The prof's retort? "Instead of buying those frisbees you throw around all the time, why don't you use some money to buy a watch?"
And anyone who attended University of Delaware: Did you ever have physics professor Harry Shipman? He was easily the best prof I had while at UD, and I only took two of his "non-major" science classes. He taught like one of the best high school teachers you ever had. The one thing I'll always recall is when he wore a t-shirt that was blue in front, and red in back ... and ran around the room. Why? To illustrate the Doppler Effect -- things moving towards you are blue-shifted in the color spectrum, and things moving away from you are red-shifted. Great stuff.
A Spanish teacher in the Bronx claims she was axed because she -- wait for it -- used the word "negro" in class:
A Bronx teacher says her language lesson was lost in translation when she was fired for calling a student “Negro” — though she claims she was simply using the Spanish word for the color “black” at the time, according to a new lawsuit.
The non-tenured junior high instructor, Petrona Smith, 65, was booted from the bilingual PS 211 in March 2012 after a seventh-grader reported the alleged insult.
Smith, who is black and a native of the West Indies, has been unemployed since her ouster.
“They haven’t even accounted for how absurd it is for someone who’s black to be using a racial slur to a student,” said Shaun Reid, Smith’s attorney. “Talk about context! There’s a lot of things wrong here.”
The instructor took a hiatus from teaching special education in 2005 to learn Spanish in South America, because she was passionate about learning the language in a cultural context, Reid said.
She denied calling the student a “Negro,” and explained to investigators that she was teaching a lesson about how to say different colors in Spanish and said the word “negro,” which is Spanish for the color black. She told her students that it was not a derogatory term and that the Spanish word for a black person was “moreno.”
That last paragraph is what I more or less am referring to in the title. Some time ago when I taught the subject, I too was covering the colors in Spanish, and in my case a student -- an African-American for what it's worth whose last name happened to be Black -- asked me if his last name would then translate to "Negro." (And by the way -- the Spanish word is pronounced "nay-gro," not "nee-gro.") I responded that technically that was accurate, but that proper names don't necessarily translate.
To my surprise, the next day I had a voice-mail from a parent of a different kid from that class, concerned about me using the word "negro." When I spoke with her, she said her child said I called the boy who asked about his last name "negro." Despite my [perfectly logical and common sense] explanation, the mom sounded quite skeptical. Nevertheless, though I awaited an eventual follow-up from an administrator (because of my belief that my explanation to the parent "wasn't sufficient"), it never came. I was so certain it would, too, that I typed up an almost two-page report of the whole deal just in case.
Though the teacher in this story was accused of calling a student "negro" (again, she denies it), this would in no way be considered offensive in any Latin American country. But while it obviously makes sense to convey this fact to American students, a teacher with just a bit of common sense has to recognize the history of that word in our own country, and be sensitive -- and cautious -- about the lesson approach.
From the Next Generation episode "The First Duty":
The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn with The Autocrat Accountants.
Full results are here.
We have a couple here today, the first a bit less dopey than the second. William E. Anderson of New Castle is a bit miffed at "right-wing gun nuts" who deify the Founding Fathers:
When these right-wing gun nuts attempt to justify their opposition to reasonable criminal background checks at gun shows, they always seem to refer to the Founding Fathers of our country as if they were gods. Well, let me enlighten you.
The Founding Fathers believed in freedoms for some, but not all Americans. Black Americans were not included in the liberty for all declaration. Let’s take a good hard look at some of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry all owned slaves. They were all great men in some ways, but keep them in prospective. They were products of their time, and when we give them credit for our freedoms, please remember those freedoms were not meant for everyone ...
First, learn the correct vocabulary.
Next, Bill, if the Founders were products of their time, then why do you also simultaneously judge them via modern values and mores? There's a plethora of material regarding the Founders and slavery; perhaps you need to become a bit more enlightened. The true greatness of the Founders is that the system they set up is still with us well over two centuries later. Of course they weren't perfect; that's why the Constitution they devised includes provisions to allow changes.
And as for the whole "gun nuts/reasonable background checks" stuff, I'd really like to know who exactly is claiming that the Founders would be aghast at reasonable checks and/or restrictions. That said, many anti-Second Amendment types (and even some who support it) scoff at the notion that arms in the hands of ordinary citizens are still needed to prevent government tyranny. I find this fascinating. Part of these folks' argument is that the government "has all the heavy artillery" which your average joe "has no chance against." This is a silly point. It presupposes 1) that the people in the military will support a tyrannical government, and 2) even if most in the military did go along with what the government wanted, they'd have an exceedingly difficult time against an armed populace.
And to those who don't believe the government would ever act tyrannical, well, just check the latest headlines about the Boss Obama administration!
Second, there's William Boyle's moronic letter where he attempts to "correct the record" about a previous letter writer:
I can fully imagine his anger building as he spends his morning gratifyingly stroking his favorite firearm while watching “Fox and Bimbos.” Of course this would be followed by an hour of “ditto-head” regurgitated bile from his idol, the great bloviator “Druggie Limpbaugh.” Following an afternoon and evening of being force-fed right-wing, tea-party lies and propaganda by the rest of the squawking heads on the “False and Bigoted” network, I would suppose his anger has reached volcanic levels.
My suggestion to him would be that he quit watching “faux news” for reaffirmation of what he already believes. He could then broaden his knowledge base by first admitting he needs rehabilitation, and then by learning from the “leftist mainstream print and broadcast media” he denigrates. If you glean every iota of your information from one source, how can you possibly think that people that use many sources are the “low-information voters”?
Boy, Billy, what good original stuff! "Faux News!" "Druggie Limpbaugh!" How do you do it? The thing is, natch, that those very outlets ARE the "other sources" of news to "broaden one's knowledge." The mainstream media are all the same by what they cover ... and how they cover it. But I won't bore Colossus readers by what I've covered a thousand times before ...
Very classy move by several restaurateurs. But where's McDonald's here?
"Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal" by -- wait for it! -- ProPublica.
Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker inadvertently understated a portion of her income by at least $80 million in a disclosure form required for her nomination to be U.S. Commerce secretary and has amended the document. Forms released online last night by the Office of Government Ethics show that Pritzker earned additional income for consulting work on hundreds of trusts, including family trusts, beyond what she disclosed last week. The omission, discovered by Pritzker’s financial advisers, was due to a clerical error, said Susan Anderson, the nominee’s spokeswoman.
If confirmed to run the Commerce Department, Pritzker Realty Group LLC Chairman Penny Pritzker would be among the wealthiest cabinet secretaries in U.S. history.
“It is a substantial amount and we moved to correct the mistake as soon as it was discovered,” Anderson said in an e-mailed statement. Documents released last week show Pritzker received $32.2 million for a decade’s worth of consulting on the restructuring of domestic trusts. The filings released yesterday show she earned at least $80 million for that work, according to Bloomberg’s compilation of the data. The revised total is in addition to the amount reported last week, according to Anderson.
Yeah, I remember the time that I forgot all about that $80 Million dollars I made.
Seriously, either she lied or she makes so much money that she just forgot about $80 million of it. What happened to the idea that we don't need millionaires and billionaires controlling our country. Guess that only applies to Mitt.
Alan Dershowitz: "The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."
Either this was some quick thinking by the committee member or they figured it out before she testified. It's probably the former b/c they adjourned before he made the point of order.
Also, there's this, "Did Trey Gowdy spring a trap?"
Check out the horrific paper headlines from the UK.
And the non-Council submissions are here!
There's a fairly sympathetic portrayal today in the Philly Daily News of a family who recently lost a loved one to cancer. It's what they did next that is causing a stir:
For many days before, and almost every day since, her children - Makia Underwood, 32, Zakia Clark, 29, and Tasha Clark, 27 - have worn hats and shirts that read "F--- CANCER," with the "C" in "F---" replaced by a breast-cancer-awareness ribbon.
They wore these to the King of Prussia Mall and were eventually asked my security to leave. I completely understand these folks' pain, but it's really beyond me how they feel wearing these to a very public forum -- where there are many children around -- is appropriate. And it seems the overwhelming vast majority of commenters at the article agree with me.
Hey Jay Carney, what's the definition of a scandal?
Just like the villain of the new Trek stated last week, new "Scotty," Simon Pegg, had this to say about the film's theme:
"In the face of overwhelming militaristic might, you can argue John Harrison is in fact kind of a strange dichotomy between freedom fighter and terrorist, and the militarized Starfleet is slightly more the heavy handed aspects of American foreign policy," Pegg says. Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller) has weaponized the Enterprise because he thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable, and Pegg believes there's an argument to be made for his view. But, he adds, "There is always diplomacy, and there is always an alternative to violence...."
There is a parallel with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing proven to do with 9/11, and yet [President] Bush used that as an excuse to start a war with those people. You can always see the Klingons as like Iraq and John Harrison the proxy for Osama bin Laden."
Admiral Marcus certainly seems like a stand-in for former Vice President Cheney. "Absolutely," Pegg laughs. "He's definitely a Republican."
Wow. How "brave." Hell, why not make it a Vietnam War parable, then? Y'know, an internal struggle between two factions of Vietnamese which had nothing to do with the US, yet [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson staged a military incident to thereby allow the US to get involved ...
It's become quite tiresome to point out the stupidity of these comparisons, especially given Trek lore and canon.
SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD.
(Keep in mind what follows is stated without my having seen Star Trek Into Darkness as of yet. I'm not certain I will see it, either.)
The film's villain, "John Harrison," is actually Khan -- the classic villain from the Original Series and the second Trek film (and played by Ricardo Montalban). It is hard to see how Khan could ever be considered anyone's "freedom fighter." However, an in-depth synopsis of Into Darkness can be found here, and even with some differences (the new Trek is set in an alternate reality), I still think the connection to big 'ol bad Bush and Cheney is questionable. Indeed, the one connection to the "real" Trek universe -- Ambassador Spock -- fills in Kirk and co. all about the evil that is Khan in this sequel. So, consider:
Hmm. OK, I say make the comparisons to Bush/Cheney! The only really objectionable facet to this whole scheme in my view is Section 31's attempts to recruit Khan for its own ends. But preparing for conflict against the Klingons? Remember that in this era the Federation is pretty much constantly at war with them. The Klingons are troublemakers to the extreme, brutal warriors who have moved away from reason and enlightenment (as described in an episode of the prequel show Enterprise). Even in the sixth Trek film, Capt. Kirk's own words came back to haunt him ("I never trusted Klingons, and I never will"), not to mention he explicitly told Spock to "Let them (the Klingons) die" when Spock informed a Federation confab about the Klingons' desired peace initiative. (Brought about, of course, because their empire was dying.) Thus, what is so wrong about preparing for what is almost a certain conflict with the Klingons? In fact, it makes a helluva lot MORE sense in Into Darkness's case what the Federation (Section 31) was doing than what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney actually did, since, as I noted, Khan and the Klingons are much greater threats. If we're making a comparison, then, it seems to me to justify the former president's actions.
Of course, it can always be argued that what Bush/Cheney did was perfectly reasonable based on several rationales (most of which I still disagree with), but certainly some of them include not allowing a despot like Saddam Hussein to continue to thumb its nose at the international community especially in a post-9/11 world ... to permit him to become an even greater threat.
RELATED: Since guys like Pegg and Cumberbatch want to make present-day comparisons, let's make some of our own. How does our present political world compare to the Federation's of Kirk's time? Here's what I say:
THE FEDERATION: Essentially the First World -- the US, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea.
THE ROMULANS: China and North Korea.
THE CARDASSIANS: Russia.
THE KLINGONS: The Muslim Middle East.
THE FERENGI: Switzerland.
Loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory has did up his very first YouTube video, and it's a good one. Check it out!
Then there's this from earlier today:
Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller said indicated he did not know who was responsible for the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents. ”I don’t have that name, sir,” he told GOP congressman Dave Reichert in today’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the scandal, which came to light last Friday.
Reichert persisted, “Did you ask anybody?”
“Yes,” Miller responded — he asked the senior technical adviser, Nancy Marks.
“And what did Nancy tell you, who’s responsible?” Reichert asked.
“That I don’t remember, to be honest with you,” Miller said.
Hopefully, next year and in 2016, much more "won't remember" to vote for any of these associated peons.
The non-Council winner was Zombie/PJ Media with Progracists.
Full results are here.
Valerie Jarret : "After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”
Then there's this:
Notice the parsing. He narrowed it from "anyone in the Whitehouse" to "I" and from "the IRS actions" to "the IG report before it was leaked". That was as big a sidestep as I've seen. Frankly it's an insult to the Clintons who are much more deft at these things.
The cover up is very real. When asked in 2010 for Tea Party related documents and emails as part of an FOIA request they lied and said there were none.
Sure, they're going to try and chalk it up to incompetence but that doesn't help either. They have two of three narratives to go with:
1. It wasn't intentional it was just incompetence
2. It was intentional and we're sorry about that
3. Obama didn't know.
Rest assured #3 is going to be the drumbeat. The GOP and moreover, the Tea Party has them either way. Either they're incompetent and should be downsized/eliminated or everyone gets fired. Or, it was on purpose and you're all going to jail.
I have little faith the GOP won't either screw this up or just take the political points in the press and leave well enough alone. If Rand Paul were smart and capable enough he'd use this as a chance to gut the power of the IRS and move toward a flat tax with transparent enforcement. I doubt that will happen. Both sides of the aisle like using the tax code to reward and punish as they need to.
I think Obama is just happy the IRS thing has pushed Benghazi off the front page because that's where the heat is. The only reason I can think of the IRS thing getting put forward was to get away from Benghazi.
The "progressive" foul-mouthed comics writer, like Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and Emanuel Cleaver, apparently believes the only scandal surrounding the president currently is that the GOP is showing its racism -- they're just being "clever" as to how they hide it:
Boehner scrambles for a way to say "uppity" without actually using the word: livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-…— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) May 16, 2013
Gosh, what did the Speaker of the House actually say? That Obama is "displaying an 'arrogance of power.'"
Nice to know that Waid is yet another of those limousine libs who believe that the formerly oppressed need their special "protection" from consequences for which others are not so entitled.
... and not at all for something political. Check it: He yanked a cell phone out of a rude theatre-goer's hands, and threw it across the room!
And once the performance resumed, the woman sitting to [Kevin] Williamson's right on his bench would not, he says, stop using her cell phone. "It looked like she was Googling or something," Williamson tells us. "So I leaned over and told her it was distracting and told her to put it away. She responded, 'So don't look.' "
Blood boiling, Williamson says he then asked her, sarcastically, "whether there had been a special exemption for her about not using her phone during the play. She told me to mind my own business, and so I took the phone out of her hands. I meant to throw it out the side door, but it hit some curtains instead. I guess my aim's not as good as it should be." Asked if the phone was damaged, Williamson says, "It had to be; I threw it a pretty good distance."
Who hasn't felt like doing that in such a situation (usually a movie theatre)?? Williamson says he was briefly detained by theatre management as the woman threatened to file charges against him (hilariously, too, considering she slapped Williamson after he chucked the phone), but when he asked if the one bouncer was a cop, and the answer was "no," he was permitted to leave.
I don't know if I'd ever go as far as Williamson did; more likely (as I've done a few times) I'd merely yell out "PUT THE PHONE AWAY!" or something similar. If that didn't work, I'd probably throw something at them. But 'ya gotta be careful; someone who doesn't give a sh** about anyone else in a crowded theatre probably ain't gonna give a sh** about telling you to "F*** off" and/or attempt to kick the crap out of you for saying something.
It's always fun to occasionally stop by the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' place to see what the 'bats are thinking. As could easily be predicted, we see this from yesterday:
Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times has written what I think is the definitive piece on the IRS problems — making the case that the real scandal in all of this is that the IRS isn’t functional enough to have stopped the bastardizing of the C(4) organizations in the first place. As usual, you have to go read the whole thing.
Yep. The REAL scandal isn't that -- what essentially is America's own secret police (with them you're guilty until proven innocent) -- did by selectively targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status ... nope. It's that the agency hasn't been "functional enough" to do some in-depth investigations of groups applying for that status. Somehow, that brainiac 'bat cassandra doesn't ponder how a "non-functional" organization apparently had enough functionality to weed through the applications based on various keywords and then proceed to ask ridiculously invasive questions of these groups!
The quoted LA Times piece, of course, blames the GOP for some of the problem: "Nor is Congress innocent. The lawmakers have dodged their responsibility to make the rules crystal clear." *Yawn* Sounds just like "The Republican Congress scaled back funding for embassy security" excuse regarding Benghazi, doesn't it? Of course.
The comment section is even better. Here's "socialistic ben":
I think this proves that the MSM has no liberal/dem bias. They are just biased to their own thin skin. Notice how this is a problem created by republicans…. refusing to properly staff the IRS, refusing to clarify rules, creating a sub-party who’s goal is to dodge taxes…
There we go again -- an "improperly staffed" IRS that still managed to do what I noted above!
"Scritchy's" is even better:
As far as I’m concerned, it makes perfect sense that right-wing orgs would be audited more frequently. They don’t believe in taxation and are far more likely to cheat.
At least the cat is out the bag with this guy. No beating around the bush -- he doesn't like right-wingers so, dammit, who cares if they're subjected to government law-breaking!
Ahhh ... well, hope you got a good moonbat-induced chuckle today.
Because when you say sh** like this, it's gotta be proof that there's no more actual racism:
And here's Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) for good measure, claiming that Boss Obama's “'pigmentation' [is] the driving force behind Republicans’ outcry over the scandals ..."
Let's face it, folks -- Barack Obama could be on videotape murdering someone and moonbats like Matthews, Sharpton and Cleaver would blame racism/white supremacy/bigotry for it. I mean, after all if a black man cannot legitimately be held accountable for his actions ... and this is precisely what Chrissy and Big Al are saying.
Considered one the classic Silver Age/Bronze Age stories in Marvel history, "The Secret Empire" from the early 1970s in the pages of Captain America had the star-spangled hero on the trail of a "high government official," and led to Cap resigning his role for a time. Writer Steve Englehart used Watergate as the basis for his tale (in 1973, mind you, at least six months before Richard Nixon resigned), and the connections were less than subtle in most cases. For example, there was the Committee to Regain America's Principles (C.R.A.P.) (instead of C.R.E.E.P. -- the Committee to Re-Elect the President), and the devious Quentin Harderman (instead of H.R. Haldeman).
As I noted here, Englehart said about his story "I could not see any way that a character named Captain America could not react to something like Watergate." About which I tweeted this morning: "I wonder if any comics writers out there would be brave enough to have Capt. America fight the Secret Empire again ... but this time with Barack Obama as Number One?" Y'know, because of a little thing like the IRS under his watch is going after political enemies? Because Obama's Justice Dept. is snooping at reporters' phone records ... and even the Capitol? Because the administration concocted a totally phony story to blame for an attack on one of our embassies?
Think there'll be any takers? Who wants to be the one creator to really go out on a limb? Y'know, instead of taking the easy, PC and let's-pat-ourselves-on-the-back route like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Etc.
I won't hold my breath.
As usual, because no one demanded it, it's time to take a peek into what cracks Hube up. And the following Saturday Night Live sketches do just that. First, Hube's Top Six, followed by some Honorable Mentions. In no particular order:
MORE COWBELL. Possibly Will Ferrell's funniest skit during his SNL tenure, he cracks up virtually all his companions, especially Jimmy Fallon. Christopher Walken is classic yet again as producer Bruce Dickinson (yes, the Bruce Dickinson):
JAMES BROWN CELEBRITY HOT TUB. Eddie Murphy had a gazillion funny sketches while a part of SNL; there is none funnier than this one. Whoever thought up this idea is my kind'a writer. So hilarious, Murphy even cracks himself up:
ARSENIO BECKMAN. Host Rob Lowe's best-ever sketch, here he mocks former late-night host Arsenio Hall. Note the finger extensions on Lowe's hands, and especially the audience as the skit progresses:
DICK IN A BOX. Cast member Andy Samberg's and host Justin Timberlake's "SNL Short" classic about the perfect gift for anytime, anywhere:
THE RESTAURANT ENTERPRISE. One of the best offerings from the early Phil Hartman and Dana Carvey era, host William Shatner becomes the proprietor of the now-drydocked USS Enterprise ... which has been converted into a restaurant. Carvey as villain Khan absolutely steals the show:
STEVIE WONDER & FRANK SINATRA. Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo do up a gut-busting bit with an "alternate" version of "Ebony and Ivory":
SEE BELOW THE FOLD FOR SOME HONORABLE MENTIONS ... !!
MR. NO DEPTH PERCEPTION. Kevin Nealon was never my favorite cast member, but this may be his best bit:
GERMANY'S MOST DISTURBING HOME VIDEOS. I loved just about every "Sprockets" offering; this one is my fave. This is my favorite Mike Myers character by far, and this is a rip on "America's Funniest Home Videos," natch:
DEBBIE DOWNER. Rachel Dratch's character had a few follow-ups, but none tops this debut. All the cast members cannot keep a straight face:
SPACE THE INFINITE UNIVERSE. Will Ferrell (as Harry Carey) perplexes host Jeff Goldblum with his constant -- and hilarious -- ad libbing:
THE McLAUGHLIN GROUP. Only political junkies will find this funny, and as I am -- and as a fan of this show -- I threw up a lung the first time I saw this. Dana Carvey's show host John McLaughlin is so spot-on it's scary, and each of the guests nail their real-life counterpart as well:
SAMURAI DELICATESSEN. The only entry I have from the original SNL cast, this John Belushi-helmed skit always kills me. There are several other "Samurai" skits; this, however, is the best:
JIZZ IN MY PANTS. Coming off the success of "Dick in a Box," Samberg, Timberlake and crew at the very least equaled their success with this raucous video short:
Boss Obama's second cousin, who is a conservative writing for the Washington Times and an outspoken critic of ObamaCare ... was targeted by the IRS back in 2010:
Milton Wolf is a physician practicing in Kansas City, and he’s also President Barack Obama’s second cousin. During the health care debates of 2010, Dr. Wolf began speaking out against the ObamaCare proposal. Because he is an articulate, knowledgeable, passionate conservative, he began getting national attention, appearing on outlets including PJTV and Fox News. He also became a regular columnist for the Washington Times.
During the 5/14/2013 White House press conference, Dr. Wolf tweeted:
The same year the #IRS held up my tax refund for months w/o ever saying why, the WH urged the @WashTimes to drop me.
I asked him for more details. He explained what happened back in 2010 (quoted with his permission):
They called my editor and feigned concern that the Washington Times was taking advantage of me… by publishing my op-eds critical of Barack Obama. Around the same time the IRS put a hold on our tax refund that required an arbitrator and several months to resolve. We finally received our refund (and interest) but never an explanation. The local IRS office and the arbitrator seemed genuinely confused by the ordeal using terms like “very strange” and “unusual” but never could explain why it happened. One wonders.
Oh. gosh, did I neglect to note before the blockquote that the White House wanted him canned by the Times? Chicago politics at its "finest." And it now inhabits the White House ...
*Sigh* Via Big Hollywood:
In the film there’s a debate among Starfleet personnel over how best to extract an enemy in a distant part of the galaxy — and whether that enemy should be subjected to due process.
The British actor (the film's villain, Benedict Cumberbatch) says: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era.”
Hmm. Given that I recall reading somewhere that the Federation's own "secret police," Section 31*, is mentioned in this sequel, you can probably bet there will be connections made to the CIA, Gitmo, and anything else from 2001-2008. Which is fine, of course; however, you can bet virtually none of that will be displayed positively.
This comment nails it regarding such "brave" commentary:
How does it take a backbone to criticize Bush and Cheney? Hollywood's been doing that for ten years. If everyone around you is doing that, it requires no backbone to join in, especially ten years after the fact.
Standing up for Bush and Cheney's interventionist policies would show actual backbone.
Not that I agree that Bush's foreign policy was right-headed, but this guy's point is spot-on. Hollywood ain't brave in regurgitating this stuff; it'd have a lot more cojones if it did something like make a direct connection between the Klingons and radical Muslims.
Who knows -- maybe we'll be lucky and Into Darkness WILL explore the notion that a constitution is not a suicide pact. Ultimate survival will always take precedence over playing by the rules, whether we like it or not. And let no one fool you -- anyone who says differently is blowing smoke.
*Section 31 debuted in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Inquisition." According to its Wikipedia entry, it "exists outside Starfleet Intelligence's influence," and its "authority stems from a provision of the Starfleet charter—Article 14, Section 31, from which its name is derived—that makes allowances for 'bending the rules' during times of extraordinary threats."
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Axelrod: ‘Impossible’ for Obama to have known about IRS targeting: "Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you because the government is so vast,” he added. “You go through these [controversies] all because of this stuff that is impossible to know if you’re the president or working in the White House, and yet you’re responsible for it and it’s a difficult situation.”
YES! This is what libertarians have been saying for years. The government is so vast and intrusive it is impossible to be managed well (if at all) and even the best of intentions can go very very wrong and the answer to all of it is smaller government. Less regulation and more liberty. Let California be California and let Utah be Utah. Push the 10th Amendment and make it count. Encourage California and Colorado's marijuana laws even if you don't agree with them for your state. It is about constraining the Feds to their proper federal role and not having them insert themselves in every aspect of your life.
To these women, this man's life is not:
The issue more than the money is about entitlement. They wanted to smoke and he told them no. They believe they are entitled to do whatever they damn well please. They were likely drunk and they were perfectly willing to accuse this guy TO THE POLICE of sexual assault just to fuck with him. If you ever wonder why Men's Rights movements go ballistic about this issue, this is Exhibit A. The key point here is when the man wants the women charged and the officers said no. Either they didn't want to deal with this or they didn't think there was a law against what they did. How is falsely accusing someone of a crime not a crime? Unless or until women are called to account for exactly this type of behavior things are not going to improve.
Tar and feathers, name and shame.
So BitCoin appears to be holding its value (~$111 at this posting) even in light of the DHS seizing Mt. Gox's Dwolla account. The fact that DHS is interested and now actively making moves against BitCoin and Mt. Gox tells me it may be over as an exchange mechanism domestically. The problem with bitcoin is that eventually people want to turn it into physical dollars. If people start going bitcoin to bitcoin exchanges via Square or something similar it will be interesting. I fear that if more and more governments start preventing the exchange of bitcoins into fiat money it will kill bitcoins. The end run would be a company that exchanges bitcoins for precious metals but then they must figure out a way to get even larger amounts of bitcoins into dollars or otherwise barter them for services etc.
I'm hopeful but I would not be putting too much money in bitcoins now and mining is effectively the provenance of very large pools of miners.
The only sure thing is that many successors will follow and hopefully learn from Bitcoin and somehow not fall into the same traps.
Avi over at FCMM points to an article which -- surprise! -- excoriates American "bigotry, nativism and xenophobia" for the creation of Iron Man arch-villain the Mandarin. Avi does what he does best -- dissecting the unspoken hypocrisy and one-sidedness of the article -- and I largely agree with him. He notes that, by far, the US is hardly alone when it comes to offensive and stereotypical portrayals of [foreign] characters. This isn't to excuse what has transpired before in this country; however, it needs to be noted that 1) The US has largely excised such characterizations from its entertainment outlets, and 2) Marvel was actually at the forefront of combating prejudice and bigotry in the comics field. Article author Andrew A. Smith fails to note the irony, too:
Speaking of Marvel, that publisher introduced the Yellow Claw in the 1950s, but also — perhaps indicating changing times — heroic Asian-American FBI agent Jimmy Woo. And Marvel gave us the Mandarin. A Chinese mastermind with long fingernails and longer mustache, he was just another Fu Manchu clone for years.
In the 1950s Marvel intro'd an Asian-American FBI agent ... yeah. Not only was that "indicating changing times" (not "perhaps"), it was actually very forward-thinking. And Marvel did a lot more in the following decade, too, in the realm of [racial/ethnic] inclusion.
Marvel has tried updating him (Mandarin) now and again to excise the racism element (and make him more relevant), but because that’s the character’s core, it never really works.
I beg to differ. Mandy has never been my favorite Iron Man baddie, but his constant "updates" through the years have certainly moved away -- excised -- the "racism element." That is, unless you believe (like Smith seems to do) that simply because he is Asian -- and a villain -- that that in itself is racist.
Smith wants Mandy "retired" as a villain, and on that I agree. But I think that's Marvel has pretty much done all it can with the guy.
I haven't yet seen Iron Man 3 (I know, can you believe it??), but from what I've read from hardcore IM fans, the Mandarin characterization is pretty pathetic.
RELATED: Some of the Mandarin's stand-out moments in Iron Man history:
In Mandy's first-ever appearance (Tales of Suspense #50), we see Stark -- in the heat of battle! -- calculate how to deflect one of Mandy's karate chops ... using his "built-in slide- rule calculator!" Also note the classic insult: "Who's laughing now, Sunny Jim?"
One thing I've always pondered: Why in the world is there a big "M" on Mandarin's chest? Ya'd think there'd be his name in Chinese characters, right?
Iron Man #100 was the climax of yet another IM-Mandy scuffle, and it's one of the better ones by far. Mandy's plot involved political subterfuge, nuclear weapons, the giant robot Ultimo, and an incredible all-out action 100th issue (with great art by the late George Tuska):
One of the sillier Mandarin moments came in the late #50s of IM's book when Mandy attempted to ... take over the union that organized Stark Industries' workers?? (His stage name was ... Gene Khan.) Not too big a goal for a wannabe world dictator, huh?
In John Byrne's "Dragon Seed" saga, the origin of Mandy (and Iron Man, to a degree) was retconned. It involved original IM bad-guy Wong Chu and the very Chinese myth about dragons:
In the [lame] 1994 Iron Man cartoon, apparently Marvel wanted to move way away from the Chinese origin, so they gave Mandy ... green skin:
Possibly even sillier than the #50s Gene Khan schtick was when Mandy assumed the role of some businessman and wanted to ... make a movie where he (as Mandarin) battled Iron Man. Cool new battle armor for the villain, but c'mahn:
Then there was the WAY overly drawn-out cross-over title tale where Mandy attempted to stop all of the world's technology (from functioning) and turn the planet into a battle of the feudal warlords. Could have been done in two issues but took a lot more than that to conclude. Lame Tom Morgan artwork doesn't help either:
Finally, one of the BEST Iron Man issues comes in the form of one #69 -- my first-ever comicbook and an incredible all-out slugfest between 'ol Shellhead and Mandy. Yes, Iron Man has his infamous nose in this issue, but penciller George Tuska is at his best here. George is always great when it comes to action sequences, and oh man does he not disappoint here! Take a gander at some the panels.
OK, again, here's what I don't get: Comics creators take to social media to decry gun violence, the NRA, Republicans and conservatives in general, yet -- while deflecting/ignoring queries about their own business -- we see defenses of actions such as this:
A Nebraska public library has rejected a request to either remove Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s Batman: The Killing Joke from shelves or move the 1988 DC Comics one-shot out of the young-adult area.
“I don’t find it worthy of being removed from the shelf,” the Columbus Telegram quotes Columbus Public Library board member Carol Keller as saying at last week’s meeting.
A patron had objected to the comic, saying it was “very adult” and “advocates rape and violence.” However, in a 3-0 vote (two members were absent), the board disagreed, contending that many prose books and comics depict violence, and that the patron’s interpretation of rape was “misconstrued.”
While I certainly agree that a public library should not remove [just about] any book, including The Killing Joke, I certainly believe that this patron's concern over it being in the "young adult" section could be justified. If you've read the book you'd have to at least consider it, even if you do not agree. While the book actually doesn't "promote" violence, it is quite violent, especially the point-blank range shooting of Barbara Gordon (Commissioner Gordon's daughter and former Batgirl):
An outlet like CBR's Robot 6, which goes out of its way to promote politically correct stories (like this one, also from today) would be hard-pressed to complain about the removal of, say, an graphic novel that promoted traditional marriage because it was "homophobic," let alone report on it at all. And again, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre when comicbook types took to social media and screamed about guns and violence, why can't we be just a little more vigilant about violence in terms of age appropriateness?
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters notes how the New York Times refused to use the term "baby" or "infant' in its coverage of the Kermit Gosnell verdict, instead always using the term "fetuses" to describe even the delivered er, um, "individuals" whom he later executed.
What a [sad] laugh.
Even sadder -- but totally predictable -- is our own Wilmington News Journal following suit:
In the five weeks of trial testimony, jurors heard the requisite proof in details of shoddy and careless medical practices in a Philadelphia lab that drew mostly poor and minority young girls and women to Gosnell’s evening and nighttime services. Gosnell’s final solution was to cut spinal cords or snap necks of fetuses at such signs of life, workers said.
Police found 47 fetuses at the clinic, which staffers described as traditionally dirty and below the sanity standards of a legitimately-run medical facility.
To be fair, the WNJ does use other terminology -- for what some of the witnesses in the trial said: "The co-workers gave credible testimonies of babies moving limbs, bodies curled in a fetal position and hearing baby whimpers after completed abortions."
One may wonder how a "fetus" could utter a "baby" whimper, or how a "fetus" could move its limbs after an abortion. Only our ever-politically correct News Journal could answer that. Or maybe not.
Culled from the comment section at Newsbusters:
REV WRIGHT racist statements - "didn't know"
BILL AYERS - "didn't know him from that era"
AIG EXECUTIVE BONUSES - "didn't know"
SOCIAL SECURITY SCANDAL lavish parties- "didn't know"
VAN JONES resignation - "didn't know his radical past"
ACORN wide-spread scandals - "didn't know"
SECRET SERVICE scandal - "didn't know"
ALIAS EMAILS / EPA - "didn't know"
EPA RADICAL ARMENDARIZ, RESIGNATION - "didn't know"
FAST & FURIOUS - "didn't know"
BENGHAZI - "didn't know"
IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVES - "didn't know"
AP PHONE WIRETAPPING scandal - "didn't know"
Click on this link to see the photo. I got one and that was only after looking closely.
And then some: Justice Department secretly obtained AP phone records.
UPDATE: Via Insty:
So says director John Carpenter:
So a lot of the ideals that I grew up with were under assault, and something called a yuppie came into existence, and they just wanted money. And so by the late ’80s, I’d had enough, and I decided I had to make a statement, as stupid and banal as it is, but I made one, and that’s ‘They Live.’ … I just love that it was giving the finger to Reagan when nobody else would.
'Ya just gotta love that nonsense "when nobody else would" line. Yet another example of how limousine libs live in a cuddly bubble. That, or totally devoid of actual reality. I mean, really -- anyone who lived through the 1980s was treated to a daily barrage of anti-Reagan messages, whether serious or via satire. As Christian Toto notes, Saturday Night Live regularly had a field day with The Gipper. And does anyone recall the "special" Nightline broadcast where Ted Koppel and a bunch of other MSMers sat around dissecting a Reagan speech? It was an Old Media bias extravaganza. And the comicbook field was certainly another part of the bandwagon:
Ah yes, the 'ol "Nancy is REALLY the one in charge" bit. But that ain't nuthin':
And just a little bit of anti-Semitism mixed in for good measure ...
And these are just the panels I could find on Google. There's many more, including Frank Miller (in his old liberal days) with The Dark Knight Returns, and I know there's a "funny" panel in What If? (vol. 2) #19 where a member of Reagan's staff informs The Gip that the android Vision has taken over all the world's computers ... to which Ron asks "He's taken over all the world's pewter??" Yuk yuk.
The writer of the "Hey! I'm hip!" The Movement, Gail Simone, sets up her own straw man to "make a point":
One of the meanest things going on politically is the demonization of single moms.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 12, 2013
A parent takes responsibility for their child under tough circumstances, and that makes them bad? Poop on that.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 12, 2013
But here's what worries me as to what Simone is intimating: That it's not OK to criticize woman who knowingly chooses to have children (out of wedlock) ... whose life situation is far from optimal. For every dopey situation we see on Maury, how many more thousands of like situations are out there in the world? Are we really supposed to say to these people "Aww, don't worry -- it's OK! We'll take care of you, no problem"? Are such folk really not due for a "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING??"?
Alas, such is the PC environment we currently all inhabit, and Simone is one of the greatest purveyors of the philosophy. It's also a side effect of the ever-expanding definition of "choice," and the ever-expanding no-consequences society.
Forum: Should Rape Be A Capital Crime?
Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott is proving to "grow" more infantile every day. If he isn't sarcastically denigrating fans who dislike the direction of his book (check the comment section), he's trying to get them booted off Twitter:
When a "fan" sends tweets like that to assistant editors, PLEASE that show "fans" like @orobles1 do NOT represent ALL fans. Report for spam.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 13, 2013
A real professional (and grown-up) would either ignore the comment altogether, or simply say something like "Wow, sorry you feel that way. Not every story will be everybody's cup of tea" and leave it at that. But not Slott. You say something like this and you must be STOPPED! Fortunately, in the midst of all the swooning fanboys who jumped in to report Mr. Robles at Slott's behest, there was a voice of reason:
@danslott granted, he shouldn't be saying that where he is, it's not spam, and it's not right for you to falsely get someone in trouble for— Ryan Bieri (@ChestoBerry) May 13, 2013
@danslott a message that doesn't sit well with you.— Ryan Bieri (@ChestoBerry) May 13, 2013
Superior Spider-Man writer offers up some more profound thoughts:
Couldn't you also say "The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun"? Less guns would be better for good guys.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 11, 2013
Do dolts like Slott ever stop for a second and wonder why NRA types are so wary of [further] gun "control" measures, sensible or otherwise? Gee, I don't know. And then there's our lunkhead vice-president opening his 100x worse-than-Dan Quayle mouth. And, of course, the scattered legislators across the land who say stuff like this.
But just remember to never ask guys like Slott how they contribute to the "culture of violence" via their careers ...
The non-Council winner was Iowa State Daily/Barry Snell with Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned.
Full results are here.
The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.
[Lois] Lerner (who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups) said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. (Uh huh.) After her talk, she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. She did not say when they found out.
About 75 groups were inappropriately targeted. None had their tax-exempt status revoked, Lerner said.
Anyone buying the "coincidence" BS raise your hand. Anyone? Bueller?
Hispanic janitors have filed suit -- claiming discrimination -- because they don't speak the primary lingo of the country:
[Bertha] Ribota said she was injured at work because she couldn’t read a warning sign that was in English.
“If I could speak English I wouldn’t have the problems that exist,” said Ribota.
So, the remedy isn't to freakin' learn the language of your current home; no, it's to SUE to make others cater to YOU.
Unfortunately, based on past law, the campus is likely to lose since that's the way we roll in the Age of Obama. (But to be fair, this sort of legal nonsense existed before him ... it's just has his executive blessing now).
The kid probably has a point if he's saying that all they've done is "packets" since he arrived and the teacher is yelling at kids for not getting it. I think he's probably right. My question: was he disrespectful? What's the right way for a student to handle this?
How do I know? Because the man who's 100% wrong on everything just said the opposite:
Dick Morris: "This attempt is, of course, doomed to fail. Once we learn — as we have already — that the intelligence reports were doctored, and that the military actions were aborted, it is only a matter of time until the blame filters up to Obama and Clinton, ruining one presidency and possibly preventing another."
Crap! If they both skate on this one we are truly a banana republic and we ain't coming back.
Comics writer Ron Marz tweets:
Won't be seeing "Ender's Game." Won't have anything to do with @dragoncon. Because I think what you choose to support matters.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 8, 2013
He won't see Ender's Game because Orson Scott Card wrote it and we saw what his now-aborted writing gig on Superman led to. Marz won't have anything to do with DragonCon because an accused pedophile still collects money from it.
And I have no problem with either. But as I replied to Marz on Twitter, his reasoning is the main factor in MY not having purchased a new comic in about seven years. That is, I detest the less-than-subtle [leftist] politicking in comics' pages, not to mention the [leftist] outspoken-ness of contemporary creators (and corresponding nasty responses to criticism) on social media.
I think this piece by Tim Graham at Newsbusters today perfectly encapsulates how many right-leaning folk (like me) feel about the mainstream media. Oft times it's not what they cover, but how they cover it. Check it out:
From 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. Tuesday, morality and conscience did quiet battle with protocol and budgets in Courtroom 1A of U.S. District Court, to which dozens of supporters marched that morning through downtown Knoxville, led by two Buddhist monks chanting a Japanese prayer for peace.
“They had white roses, Bibles . . . no dynamite, no machine guns . . . none of the tools you’d anticipate someone having to hinder the national defense.”
What are the above quotes about? Oh, just some protesters who broke into a nuclear weapons production facility, hammered down a wall and smeared human blood all over the place, you see.
Graham ponders how article author Dan Zak would feel if someone broke into his house and did same. Hell, I wonder how Zak would cover a similar incident at an abortion clinic. Think the terms "morality" and "conscience" would be used to describe the protesters? Think it'd be pointed out that they had no weapons, and only held onto Bibles and said prayers? Keep dreaming.
It's like yesterday's post about disgraced newsguy Dan Rather. There's Rather -- actually bitching about how President Obama is treated (by his opponents and, presumably, by the press) -- yet there he was, as combative as can be with Richard Nixon, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush ... suddenly cutting off the interview with Bush the Father (then vice-president), and then attempting to influence the 2004 election with a story about Bush the Son that was based on phony documents. As I noted in yesterday's post, only IF there was someone like then-Rather asking the tough questions to Boss Obama, just like Rather did with Nixon and Bush the Father. After all, nobody died with Watergate like they did at Benghazi, eh?
And what will happen if Boss Obama or, more likely, Hillary Clinton, goes down (or at least takes a huge hit) due to Benghazi? How will the reporter (or reporters) responsible for this story be treated? Dennis Miller weighs in:
And the press isn't going to go after this story, Bill. A lot of people in the press. Maybe some guy on the internet will break it eventually. But you realize Woodward and Bernstein became Woodward and Bernstein because what they did to Nixon. The key thing in that equation was Nixon. You had a free rein on him.
You can't go after this guy. You won't get Woodward and Bernstein status. You’ll be out of the game. If you’re the one who brings down Barack Obama, you will be out of the game. And if you go after Hillary, who’s going to run the next eight years, you’ll be more out of the game. So, in this case, it’s, you know, it's not going to happen. The press isn't going to dig on on this.
As sad as this is, thank goodness there exists a right-leaning network -- Fox News -- to counter what Miller says. Twenty years ago this situation wasn't around. We still really had only the Big 3's nightly newscasts and CNN on cable to filter our news to us. The problem here, though, is that all these old media outlets will join the Boss Obama administration in ripping Fox as "politically motivated," "in the pocket of the Koch brothers," etc. Still, without FNC, the word "Benghazi" wouldn't even be known at all. As if to make this point, the Washington Post does a portrait of one of the only MSM reporters (outside of Fox) following the Benghazi story, Sharyl Atkisson. But they include a ridiculous quote from the ridiculous Media Matters that she's only doing so because she's a "tool of the Right":
“I think Attkisson has completely given herself over to the right and is very happy to be their champion,” says Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at the liberal Media Matters for America organization.
The article also notes how Boss Obama minions hassled her and screamed at her, notably for her reporting on another Obama boondoggle, "Fast and Furious." She says such doesn't worry her, 'tho I'm not so sure she shouldn't be concerned. After all, the poor dude who made that campy anti-Islam video on which Boss Obama and company blamed -- knowingly falsely -- the Benghazi attacks is still in the klink. And for what?
RELATED: The WaPo also features a blog titled "Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers." How 'bout that, eh? It should only matter, somehow, to that demographic that Boss Obama and crew abandoned our embassy in Libya.
Unbelievable. If blogs existed back in the early 1970s, would this same paper have put up a post titled "Who's tweeting about Watergate? Radicals, hippie college kids, and limousine Marxists."
And the non-Council submissions are here!
Forum: How do you feel about minors being able to buy the Morning After pill without prescription or parental notification?
California approves medical marijuana and Colorado ups the ante with recreational weed. Kansas is pushing back on guns. Their claim is that any gun produced within the state that does not leave the state is not subject to Federal purview. IANAL but this one seems legally sound but it is in contravention of Gonzales v. Raich in which Justice Thomas in the dissenting opinion notes that
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
The thing about this is the Feds have a tremendous amount of power but even that is finite. If they push the issue they cannot win against the states. California alone is large enough to tell the Feds to pound sand.
Interesting times ahead.
Here is Chairman Zero getting all ornery and outraged at Romney for stooping so low as to tell the truth about Benghazi:
He stood with Hillary Clinton in front of the bodies of the murdered while she flat out lied and said this was an unplanned "protest" about a video.
Meanwhile, on day three after the attack:
PROTESTS with no suggestions it was PRE PLANNED
Not a reaction to 9/11 or US Policy ...
Someone is taking a hit for this one. Clinton avoided testifying by getting the sniffles and then bumping her head and other stalling tactics until she figured out the way to play this was to get all histrionic and crocodile tears and "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" It looks like that one is going to bite her in the ass.
Here's the thing. The Clintons are the most deft political team I've seen in memory. They have a way of weaseling out of everything. Obama's team is schooled in the Rahm Emmanuel school of Chicago politics which is as bare knuckle as anything the Clintons have done. This is going to be one of the finest red on red political fights we've seen in a LONG time.
"Over-commercialisation and its resulting restrictions and limitations can be very damaging and distorting to the inherent nature of the individual."
During her trial, Hill claimed she is still forced to live under the pernicious economic hierarchy imposed by the slave trade.
She told the court: "I am a child of former slaves who had a system imposed on them. I had an economic system imposed on me."
Hmm. I suppose anyone born after the ratification of the Constitution could claim they had an economic system "imposed" on them, couldn't they? I wouldn't try it in tax court, though. And, of course, I am wondering how it is "pernicious" that our economic system made Hill ... a millionaire?
... if you're cut it's not because you pretty much suck, but because your views "aren't accepted." Or, at least, that's what idiot Yahoo! writer Les Carpenter thinks:
But the NFL doesn't always respect reliable players who are role models off the field. Not when those players are smart and have opinions and dare to speak those opinions on places like the Internet. In the past year, [Chris] Kluwe's activism has gone from complaints about labor issues to the third rail to sports executives: gay rights. Suddenly the skilled punter who tees the ball perfectly for his field goal kickers is the great threat to the fabric of football.
Indeed -- gotta have a multi-millionaire field goal ball-placer! And "skilled punter?" Carpenter praises Kluwe further throughout his article ... but is it true that he's so skilled? Not according to ESPN:
Carpenter thinks that because Kluwe is outspoken about his gay rights beliefs, that is what is ingratiating to his fellow players and coaches. Even though Kluwe said no one complained, Carpenter quotes one coach who said Kluwe's antics were "getting old." And y'know what? He'd be right. A football team is about football. When any one player becomes too much of a distraction either on or off the field, the team pays a price. Don't believe me? Terrell Owens. Michael Vick. And Tim Tebow. (Ironically, though, Tebow is much more a manifestation of the media making a big deal about him rather than him bringing unwanted attention onto himself. All the guy did, pretty much, was get down on one knee in a signature pose, for heaven's sake.)
Speaking of Tebow, where was Carpenter when Tebow was cut from the Jets? Why doesn't he think that was due to Tebow's Christian beliefs, hmm?
'Ol Dan Rather offered up a beefy defense of Boss Obama the other day on -- you guessed it -- The Chris Matthews Show:
All of these things we’ve said about what the president could do, should do, might have, could have, but the central thing to keep in mind is his opponents - you talk about taking them out to dinner, making nice with them - these people politically want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs. That does make it very, very difficult to come on nice to them.
If the current press corps showed even a fraction of the resolve you showed in the above instances (sans, of course, the fraud in the last example) towards Boss Obama, we might finally get some straight answers about things like Benghazi. Ironically, the only MSM outlet doing any real reporting on that issue (aside from Fox News) is CBS.
Image up at Bleeding Cool today:
Look at that glorification of guns!! Of violence! Pro-NRA symbolism!! But I won't hold my breath looking for any Tweets denouncing Vaughan, Martin, et. al. ...
I'm not exactly shocked but I am surprised that it's been going in earnest for 2 years. I do take issue with the "perfectly secure" as I don't think anything is completely secure (at least not for long). The implications of such a network are amazing and frankly I wonder how long they can keep the genie in the bottle. How long before strong crypto is the norm on the internet. If it is the norm, what will that mean? The internet is history's greatest disrupter but I think the distortions will be even more pronounced. I am hopeful but leery.
Comic Book Resources has the Top 25 Greatest Iron Man Stories Ever up, and thank goodness the fans showed some plain 'ol good common sense. Well, for the most part, that is. As the post title notes, Iron God-Men David Michelinie and Bob Layton claim the top three spots with "Demon in a Bottle" (#1), "Armor Wars" (#2) and "Doomquest" (#3). Admittedly I haven't read any of the recent entries (approx. 2005-present) so I cannot make an informed judgment. I have heard a good amount of praise for writer Matt Fraction's run on the title, and he has a few spots on the list.
But here's some that had me shaking my head a lot (or a little):
But LOOK! Layton's (and Michelinie's) "AW2" has now seen print!! (I'd get it, but Layton filled me in on the entire plot many years ago ...!)
In gun-control argument, Obama blames Americans for Mexican deaths: 'Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States': "Obama blames American guns for Mexican deaths: ‘Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States.’
The president omitted mention of Operation Fast and Furious, his Department of Justice’s program that ‘walked’ thousands of guns across the border."
Even the Brits see it now.
Here's an interesting group of anti-war posters from the 1930's. They are using the last war to turn public opinion against the next war. Interesting to see how much overlap there is between then and now.
Scroll down if you will to the picture with the chair. See that hole? Can we have a little better fire discipline? How is this whole escapade going away with not even liberals squawking about it? They put an entire city under martial law because two guys were on the loose. They imprisoned people in their homes, then raided those same homes at gunpoint and threw people out of their houses and nobody makes a peep. They put that raid together awfully quickly. How did they coordinate so many assets so quickly. They must have previously trained for this. I know I sound like I'm veering close to tin foil hat territory but this has me concerned.
That is, the Firemen from Fahrenheit 451. Oh, wait -- these profs must be members:
These are San Jose State University Meteorology Dept. Profs Bridger and Clements burning a book because, y'know, they disagree with it. Un-freakin'-real. University professors. Can we call them Nazis? One of the best-ever TV shows did:
TRAPPER: Frank! What are you doing?
FRANK BURNS: Burning books.
HAWKEYE: Oh. Any special reason, Dr. Hitler?
FRANK BURNS: One of the greatest living Americans is coming and I'm not going to let him see some of the trash that's read around here.
Here's Amazon's page about the book.
What an asshole. Wayne LaPierre: 'How Many Bostonians Wished They Had A Gun Two Weeks Ago?' huff.to/YvjFub no sense of reality.— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) May 4, 2013
One of his followers comments "And how exactly do you fight a concealed bomb with a hand gun?" To which Palmiotti responds "Exactly."
"No sense of reality," eh Jimmy? Earth to both of you: No, a gun wouldn't stop a concealed bomb; however, if you were watching the news following the bombing, the two bombers were running rampant through the city, seeking escape. That's why, y'know, there was a manhunt after them. LaPierre is right -- I bet a lot of Bostonians would have felt safer in that post-bombing situation.
Palmiotti apparently is just another Dan Slott -- curled up inside his "progressive" bubble where it's hip and cool to spew sh** at guys like LaPierre ... and same to be in favor of, say, fundamentally altering a long-standing comic history for the sake of their god: political correctness.
The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn with The Collapsing of the American Skull.
Full results are here.
So say the rumors. Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle and Friday Night Lights) is in the running. To which comics guy Ron Marz makes yet another interesting Tweet:
All those movies with a black guy playing Nick Fury were box-office disasters, and no fun to watch, right? #Torched— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 2, 2013
Well duh, Ron. Maybe that's because the African-American Nick Fury was already well established in comics continuity before the latest crop of Marvel films came out (that featured the character). Marvel's popular Ultimate Universe is where the Samuel L. Jackson-based character began -- over a decade ago at the turn of the milennium.
On the other hand, where has there been a black Human Torch/Johnny Storm in comics? I haven't bought a new book in some time, but I keep up with what is going on regularly. I don't recall ever seeing an African-American Torch. Spinoff's article author Steve Sunu indicates same. Such a deviation certainly doesn't mean the reboot FF film won't be successful; however, it could be problematic if there's a decent amount of concentration on the team's origin. Maybe one way around that is to make Sue and Johnny half-siblings, or one adopted. That sounds easy enough. And a new FF film, however altered, certainly can't be much worse than the original two!
That all said, why the change in the first place? Is this just another example of needless political correctness for the sake of ... political correctness?
UPDATE: The ultra-PC creator Gail Simone chimes in with her "coherent" thoughts:
I swear to god, I am NOT going to listen to a bunch more dumb outrage about a black actor being cast in a superhero movie. GOOD. #FuryRules— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 3, 2013
Why the hash-tag "FuryRules"? Is there really a pissed off fan base out there regarding Samuel L. Jackson being cast as Nick Fury? If so, where? As I noted, at least this Fury actually has a basis in the comics. A black Johnny Storm does not. I really wonder what Simone's reaction would be if, in the upcoming Captain America sequel, a white guy was cast as the Falcon. Or, what if a movie studio took one of her characters ... and completely altered him/her?
I've opined in the past already that I could care less if African-American actors are cast as characters that were originally portrayed as white (or something else) in the original comics -- because most of the most popular characters in the biz were created when blacks were still considered second-class citizens. We've seen Heimdall portrayed by a black actor in Thor; Jamie Foxx is slated to play Electro in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2. And big deal. But, again, the Fantastic Four is a bit different. It's a major property of one of the Big Two comics companies with a rich (and immense) continuity history. It'd almost be akin to putting out a film with a black guy playing Superman ... just for the sake of having a black guy playing Superman. In other words, it really makes no sense.
But whoever said political correctness ever made sense?
And the non-Council submissions are here!
Saudi Arabia ‘warned the United States IN WRITING about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012.’ Hmm ... Russia and Saudi Arabia warned us?? The DHS claims it never got the Saudi tip. Maybe that's because it's been too focused on ways to tie groups like the Tea Party to virtually any act of domestic violence.
Funny, the insane Left wants to hold George W. Bush solely culpable for "allowing" the 9/11 attacks to occur because of a general warning about an al Qaeda attack presented to his then-nascent administration -- and despite Bush's predecessor turning down an opportunity to capture the 9/11 mastermind -- but somehow specific warnings and clues regarding Boston will, I'm sure, have some sort of "logical explanation."
So say some folks in this Philly.com article. Ironically, the two major political parties have sort of "switched" when it comes to this issue -- at least socially/culturally. The GOP has always been the one spearheading the privatization efforts in the state, whereas the Democrats have traditionally shot the idea down. Those against privatization list a litany of social ills that will befall the state should liquor stores become private -- more underage drinking, child abuse, higher divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc.
Here's what I say: *YAWN* Grow up, people. Pennsylvania is only one of TWO states in the whole freakin' Union to so regulate the sale of alcohol. The other is ... Utah. That's right, Mormon-dominated Utah. Pennsylvania wants to be like that state. Or, so it has for decades now. And make no mistake -- Democrats do not oppose privatization because of all the supposed social ills that will overwhelm the state; they oppose it because they're in the pocket of the powerful union that has run state stores for like ever. And the GOP, which typically supposedly cares about such social ills, is too focused on the economics and free market aspect of privatization.
A few days ago, the Philly Inquirer -- surprise! -- featured an article highlighting why privatization is bad. Who'da thought, right? Unions, Democrats ... which side you think the Inky will come down on, eh? At any rate, said article points to a 2011 study by a group called the Community Preventive Services Task Force which concluded "privatization results in increased per-capita alcohol consumption." Yet, somehow, 48 other states have all said "no way" to state control. Why is that? Maybe it's because, as the article thankfully points out, what Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, says:
... the evidence is not strong enough to support the task force's conclusion. Pennsylvania, for example, has a high rate of binge drinking relative to other states.
Davies compared states that have government sales against those with privatized systems and found that state control does not correlate with lower rates of alcohol-related problems.
"The question we really want to ask is, 'Does state control lead to better outcomes?' " Davies said. "That research shows no significant relationship."
So, hopefully we'll soon say "Welcome to the 21st century, Pennsylvania" quite soon.