Execrable congressman Alan Grayson is filing for divorce from his wife ... because he claims she was married to someone else during their marriage. In other words, bigamy.
Doesn't this make Grayson a bigot? How dare he show intolerance towards his wife's alternative lifestyle!!
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters features how Salon.com yet again is obsessed with pure nonsense regarding the usual race and gender paradigm, this time regarding mainstream superhero films.
...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....
...[T]he chances of Peter Parker coming out in Amazing Spider-Man 3 are more or less nil. Hollywood is (sic) yet to produce a big-budget blockbuster with any kind of LGBT character in the lead role, never mind having an established hero come out after decades of heterosexuality....Considering the fact that white male geeks already have Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Charles Xavier to heroize their nerd cred on the big screen, it's difficult to argue that they still represent some kind of oppressed minority. It's probably time to give someone else a chance.
OK, here goes:
1) The films are "still decades behind the comics" because ... they're decades behind the comics. But that's only because the technology that allows such films to be made (and made well) is a recent development. You couldn't make Spider-Man in 1985. Well, you could, but the result would be like this. Or like the 1990 Captain America flick -- so bad it went straight to video even after being promoted in cinemas. Obviously not big money-makers. Speaking of which ...
2) Does this Salon writer (Gavia Baker-Whitelaw) seriously believe that studio execs would make a move like turning Peter Parker gay? Or any other [of Marvel's] major character(s)? Only if they want to lose a ton of dough. Which they obviously do not. This isn't because they're "homophobic" or cultural dinosaurs; it's because they simply want to make money. And Hollywood makes the vast majority of its cash with safe, don't-have-to-think-too-hard films like Spider-Man and The Avengers.
3) No Marvel movies have featured anything but a straight, white man in the lead role? Wrong. In 1998, Blade came out and was a surprise hit (especially since it was rated "R"). Its star, in case you didn't know, is Wesley Snipes. He's black:
4) Comicbooks (and their movies) don't actually represent real life. Or, they aren't supposed to for the most part. After all, hadn't you noticed that people don't actually acquire the powers of a spider after being bitten by one (radioactive and/or genetically modified)? Or, that we didn't actually have the means in the 1940s to transform a 98-lb. weakling into a superhuman powerhouse? The X-Men, of all superheroes, "represent" societal outcasts and/or oppressed groups. You can decide who that applies to ... and that's precisely the point. Marvel's mutants can relate to virtually anyone -- gays, racial minorities, bullied geeks/nerds, bookworm types, you name it.
Lastly, comicbooks are a much easier medium by which to introduce and/or promote traditionally underserved groups. I understand Baker-Whitelaw's point(s); however, you're not really going to "score any points" by pressuring film studios to make Spider-Man gay, or putting Tony Stark in polygamous relationship. Even altering something like the family of a staple character so as to "improve diversity" gets silly, as with Fantastic Four's rebooted Human Torch.
Unlike people like Baker-Whitelaw (by the way, that last name sounds "racist"), folks could really care less about racial bean counting. They're not "Hey! Johnny Storm needs to be black!" nor do they give a hoot that Blade is a black guy. (And the latter makes the point the best: A very fringe Marvel character with a minority protagonist in an "R" rated film which made a ton of dough.) They just want to be entertained.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
... then check out how Amazing Spider-Man 2 is actually lamer than some of the comics on which it's based.
Spoilers below the fold!
Namely -- the bad guys' origins. First, the Green Goblin is actually a disease. That's right, "a disease that makes your skin turn green and warty, and turns your fingernails into claws." Yep, this "occurs in nature," to further quote Topless Robot.
As for Electro (played by Jamie Foxx), his origin is even funnier: Instead of merely being a power company repair guy who happened to be zapped by a bolt of lightning while working on a power line, Foxx gets his abilities "by falling into a vat of mutant electric eels while holding a live power cord."
Man, I thought movies made things more realistic than the comics, not the other way around!
By going backward in time: Knicks exec calls for all-black basketball league.
UPDATE: Here's a Sterling-like Democrat, a'ight.
For Marvel Comics chief Joe Quesada stated that he thinks [General] Zod is the hero of the film Man of Steel. Y'know, the guy who wanted to essentially wipe out humanity to revive Krypton.
"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much,” he said. “I wanted to love it so much, and I didn’t love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me.”
“He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn’t let him,” Quesada continued. “Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of … he had a particular … he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot … again, correct me if I’m wrong … but he didn’t say, ‘I want to rebuild Krypton,’ and then come back and destroy this little planet. ‘All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I’m blowing everything to bits here is because you’ve got what I want, and you’re not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I’ll leave.’”
Uh ... yeah. WTF? So, how the hell does that make Zod THE HERO?? The movie I watched had Zod attempting to terraform (or is that "Kryptoform?") the Earth to, as I noted above, revive long-vanished Krypton. "Just" at the cost of billions of human lives. Which led to the controversial scene where Superman kills Zod. To stop his genocidal deeds.
Quesada isn't the brightest of bulbs, to be sure. When he was writing Iron Man he noted "the extensive A-bomb testing" that the United States did ... during World War II. He also knee-slappingly stated that "most of the US military is black" when discussing the controversial Captain America-related story The Truth. (The military is actually about one-quarter minority, with roughly 18% of those being black. Joe wasn't even close.)
To be fair, Bosch Fawstin was ahead of the curve on nailing Quesada on this.
And, natch, the local News Journal report.
Forum: Do You Agree With Piketty That Income Inequality Must Be Cured By Government Action?
Via Ace: Secretary of State "Lurch" Kerry explained to world leaders that Israel would become an "apartheid state" if it doesn't make peace with its neighbors. I wonder how anxious Lurch would be to "make peace" if his neighbors were lobbing rockets over the fence at his multi-million dollar mansion. But even more (sadly) is idiot State Dept. spox Jen Psaki who, fresh on the heels of "telling off Russia" via Twitter hashtag, "backs up" Kerry's claims by citing two far-left sources: The Daily Kos and Think Progress.
A bill unanimously passed the Cali State House that "encourages California schools to teach students about the racial significance of Barack Obama’s presidency." It also notes that Boss Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The original version indicated that he won the Prize, in part, merely because of his race. (Actually, the original wording seems to point out that the American people deserve the Nobel Prize for their "wisdom" in electing Obama.)
Since the bill uses the term "encourages," I don't see all that big a deal with it. However, I recommend checking this out, and then pondering if the current administration (and its acolytes) aren't following a more increasing "authoritarian patriotism" course ...
Boss Obama: Comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling were "racist."
Two weeks ago: Boss Obama speaks at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference.
UPDATE: Clippers owner Sterling is a -- wait for it! -- Democrat. Not only that, he was scheduled to receive -- wait for it, again! -- a Lifetime Achievement Award from the ... NAACP.
UPDATE 2: As commenter dan notes in the comments, it seems Sterling is a registered Republican. However, he has (as dan also notes via his link) donated
extensively to Democrats and Dem causes. Expect to hear the former a lot, now, in the MSM, natch.
The Philly Inquirer's Laura McCrystal wonders why the PPL Stadium, where the (soccer team) Philadelphia Union plays, hasn't led to "an economic renaissance for the struggling city of Chester."
As is often the case, one needs to refer to the comments (if they're actually available; they aren't always) to get an injection of some common sense.
At Dartmouth, at least:
This time, the fracas is over a fundraiser for cardiac care that the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority had planned to jointly sponsor, reports Campus Reform.
Problems arose because a single student, junior Daniela Hernandez, was offended by the party’s theme of “Phiesta.”
This hyper-sensitive dolt Hernandez also invoked the latest hot term "cultural appropriation" in her complaint. She was miffed, too, at the "Americanization" of Cinco de Mayo ... which is funny considering the "holiday" isn't all that big in Mexico.
I wonder if Hernandez has, or goes to, a barbecue on July 4. Or goes out for a few beers on March 17. If so, how dare that hypocritical cultural appropriator!!
As a result of Hernandez's bitching and moaning, the Greek organizations ditched the event. *Sigh*
Newsarama has a Top Ten list -- "10 Comic Book Deaths That Didn't Stick." To which I ask via the post title: Does any such perishing ever stay permanent? No. None. In fact, maybe someone can tell me a [major/semi-major] comicbook character that remained offed.
Even characters you'd never expect to be resurrected pop back up, usually to eye-rolling and slow head shakes. Take what Carl and I brought up in the comments here -- Marvel's Joe Quesada felt the need to reanimate Iron Man's very first nemesis, Wong Chu, in early volume 3 of Shellhead's book. Wong-freakin'-Chu. In addition, he revealed that Professor Yinsen's brain was still alive, and built an entire [armored] cult of personality around Yinsen and Stark dubbed The Sons of Yinsen.
And what about Norman Osborn? The original Green Goblin, after being impaled right through the torso by his own damaged glider in Amazing Spider-Man #122 (the scene captured fairly true in the original Spider-Man flick), managed to come back to life ... and become one of Marvel's most powerful villains in recent years. WTF. Speaking of Spidey, even friggin' Aunt May has "died" at least a couple of times and has been "brought back." Yeesh.
For me, the greatest dopey resurrection was that of Bucky Barnes, Captain America's sidekick. Bucky's death, for the longest time, was sort of the "gold standard" by which comicbook deaths could indeed remain permanent. That is, until writer Ed Brubaker decided to turn him into the Winter Soldier: Barnes, like Cap/Steve Rogers, was preserved via icy cold, and was discovered by a Soviet submarine. He was subjected to brainwashing and became a Russian super-spy. The latest Captain America film is largely based on this tale.
Check out how the geographical geniuses at the network spell the First State:
I can see the frequently botched Delaware resort of "Rehobeth" (actually "Rehoboth"), but really? "Deleware"???
Take a look at these 13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970. Then, tell me I should listen to the global war, er, um, climate change chicken little-ists. Here's a sample:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
These dudes sound exactly like the Al Gores of the present-day. Which means we shouldn't bite our fingernails down to nubs because all the ice on the planet will melt within a decade.
Sorry, comics guys, but you've made "death" more than a parody in your pages ...
Check out this State Dept. spokeschick's tweet and then slowly shake your head in despair:
The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn/The Spectator with The slow death of free speech.
Full results are here.
Via The Corner: It happened, way back in 1976. As you might expect, the dialogue is hokey as hell (I don't remember the writer, Ann Robinson), but the artist is immediately recognizable to any Spidey fan from that era: Ross Andru. The plot is this: An alien name Prodigy wants teens to wantonly have babies so that he can take them all back to his planet "Intellectia" as slave labor. He has a "magnetic" voice which influences young people.
Hey, I wonder -- did Critical Race theorist Derrick Bell get his idea for "The Space Traders" from this Spidey tale? They sure sound similar. Similarly dopey.
You can read the entire issue here.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada anti-government rancher who has garnered a lot of news the last couple weeks (and sympathy from the Right), let it all hang out on racial matters recently. And it ain't good:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
At least the usual "progressives" actually have a REAL instance of racism to go after. And rightly so. Just beware of the typical ridiculous extrapolations to the Nth degree, natch. Because they will happen. Y'know, something like this:
Whereas, back in 2008 when the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stories came to light:
Let the MSM swarm-fest commence!
Two thoughts: One, don't expect to hear much, if anything, from the MSM on this. Y'know, like how abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell was a "local story." Two, try bringing this story up (among others) the next time a "progressive" laments capital punishment and/or harsh treatment of al Qaeda terrorists. See what happens.
These days there is virtually nothing that "progressives" won't dub the R-word. Because, after all, 1) "progressives" aren't particularly bright, and 2) one thing they do know is that R-word is the modern day Scarlet Letter and an effective negative campaign tool.
But the ever-increasing problem for them is overuse. We all know this, but that doesn't stop them. Not at all. So, the first instance we see today as the latest in neo-racism is ... distrust of government. Yep. New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait (with a straight face) states that "America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable...from the legacy of slavery..." Chait claims this even as he denounces other [specious] claims of racism against the GOP by the likes of MSNBC. He says that the GOP is disintegrating before our very eyes:
It exposed a sense in which their entire party is being written out of the American civic religion. The inscription of the civil-rights story into the fabric of American history—the elevation of Rosa Parks to a new Paul Revere, Martin Luther King to the pantheon of the Founding Fathers—has, by implication, cast Barack Obama as the contemporary protagonist and Republicans as the villains.
Except that, y'know, "intellectuals" like Chait are largely responsible for this incorrect perception. I mean, really -- Republicans are the party of slavery abolition and of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
Chait claims that the dissolution of the GOP will be akin to -- wait for it! -- that of white rule in apartheid South Africa. Of course. All this, based on one study of "political habits and history in counties of the Old South."
Elsewhere via Douglas Ernst, Salon.com is at it again. Writer Reihan Salam says that if you're attracted to someone who looks like you, you're ... yep. Salam was "struck" by the considerable number of people who indicated on OkCupid's dating site (yes, the very same site which strongly objected to Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and his "intolerable" view on gay "marriage") that they'd prefer to date someone of the same race.
Well, my. God.
Mitch Albom has a conversation with Brooke Kimbrough, an outspoken advocate for racial preferences, er, diversity, especially at the University of Michigan where she was -- gasp! -- rejected. This comes on the heels of the recent SCOTUS decision upholding Michigan's referendum which ditched affirmative action in higher education.
MSNBC's The Grio, which specializes in African-American stories, has a profile of Kimbrough. Ironically, it notes that she is a member of her high school's debate team where she and a teammate "were the first African-Americans to win the University of California-Berkley tournament." Based on this, though, one wonders just how that debate was structured, right? Nevertheless, Albom tactfully demonstrates what a complete sham "diversophile" arguments for "needed" diversity are ... and how its proponents easily come apart when pressed:
When I asked Brooke why it's wrong for U-M to set a similar bar (she was denied admission with below the U-M averages of a 3.6 GPA and a 23 on the ACT) she said U-M needed to "represent the state. Blacks are about 14% of the population, so it should be 14% roughly."
I pointed out that whites were 79% of Michigan's population, but officially 57% of U-M's, so should we adjust that up? "That's ludicrous," she said, claiming it should only apply to minorities. I then noted U-M was 11% Asian American, but our state was only 2%. Should we adjust down?
"I don't understand what you're asking," she said.
Of course she doesn't. But if she cannot understand such a simple question, then I wouldn't be so miffed about being rejected by U of M.
Brooke feels that she has overcome a lot. "My essays were about, like, fighting racism," she said. "Getting into (Michigan) shouldn't just be about grades."
But when I told her many students write moving essays, overcome odds, have great extracurriculars (like her debate team position) and also don't get in to U-M — despite higher grades and scores than hers — she grew frustrated.
"I'm doing the best I can in this life," she said. "If it's not reflected in my academics, I don't know what else I need to do."
And it's here, as Albom notes, that the racial aspect becomes irrelevant. He writes that Brooke is just "one of countless kids today who feel that without their first college choice, their future is doomed." I'll add, too, that she is yet another of the current generation who possesses a vastly overgrown sense of entitlement, where rejection of any kind is not only seen as wrong and unjust, but, as Albom notes, Armageddon.
I wouldn't worry much if I were Kimbrough. She's obviously bright (yes, despite botching Albom's questions ... I seriously doubt she "didn't know" what he was asking; indeed, she most probably was seeking avoidance of the obvious and just didn't do it very well) and motivated, so there should be ample opportunities for her after college. At the very least, I'm sure the grievance industry will always have a spot available for her.
Edward Trimnell shreds leftist "feminism" in just a few short sentences.
Interesting quote today at Robot 6 which captures comic creator Greg Rucka's thoughts on the douche who thought this shirt was appropriate for a big [comic] convention. Of course, as the ever-lovin' Furious D points out, the comics industry isn't exactly blameless when it comes to gender insensitivity, now is it?. After all, they routinely churn out material like this. And here, is it possible that many creators' shitty attitudes online are due to having to deal with "fans" on a routine basis who would wear shirts like that? Or, the other way around -- many fans' shitty attitudes are merely emulating those of many creators?
But back to Furious who nails it here: "When I was just a fledgling nerd a woman having an interest in the same things that I was interested in was viewed as a gift from Heaven." Indeed! What sort of "guy" would wear a shirt at a huge convention that exemplifies pre-fifth grade male sensibilities? Y'know, the 'ol "girls are icky" schtick? Doesn't that mind-set disappear around age 13 or so when the hormones begin moving and all of sudden you notice that girls are the greatest thing ever? Apparently not, for some.
Furthermore, don't let dopes like this turn the case of one (or more) socially inept buffoons into a cause célèbre for feminism and gender parity. Seriously -- equating the term "fangirl" with "blacks," "Jews," "Asians" or whatever? Dude, WTF.
Lastly, does anyone think if the offensive shirt had "conservatives" instead of "fangirls" there would be such an uproar? Yeah, me neither.
UPDATE: Well well WELL! Looks like the company that made the offensive shirt also offers it with "fanboy" instead of "fangirl." And has so since a year ago. But don't let stop the self-righteous!! No, no, NO. Take writer Kieron Gillen, for instance:
I'm not sure that "we profit off all kinds of hate-speech!" is much of a defense: http://t.co/hrVcp3Q3if— Kieron Gillen (@kierongillen) April 23, 2014
"Hate speech." Ye gad.
Um, why? Because she got shot by a lunatic?
Chalk yet another one up to political correctness.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
UPDATE: I should have been more clear: The ban applies to higher education based on a Michigan case.
Be ready for the "progressive" onslaught of how the high court is "turning back the clock on civil rights" and other such nonsense.
High-Schooler Battles McDonald's Over Gender Stereotypes in Happy Meal Toys. High school junior Antonia Ayres-Brown wrote a column for Slate.com (of course!) in which she laments "McDonald's employees asking customers about toy preferences 'pressures innumerable children to conform to gender stereotypes.'" Since McD's corporate HQ stated that its employees are not trained to ask what gender toy customers prefer, Antonia conducted a study: She went to various McDs and discovered that "almost 80% of the time" employees used "gendered terms" to describe Happy Meal toys.
Best part? She then went to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to complain. Amazingly, the Commission labeled her complaint "absurd" and dismissed it. I'm surprised she hasn't yet filed a complaint with some other agency now for "psychological distress" ... due to the Commission's harsh choice of wording in its dismissal.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
Well, if your judges share the same idiotic philosophy, of course you'll score well.
Two black women won a recent debate on whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted; however, instead of actually addressing the topic, they changed it: "The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities."
Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.
This year wasn't the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.
Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, tells of instances where "... judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs."
Truly unbelievable. I wonder how these folks would feel. What's even more unbelievable is that this actually has to be said in 2014: “I think it is wildly reductionist to say that black people can’t understand debate unless there is rap in it—it sells short their potential.”
Uh yeah, 'ya think?
Forum: What Are Your Feelings on The GOP House Leadership Saying They Are ‘Hell Bent’ On Passing Immigration Reform This Year?
On a day when Spider-Man writer Dan Slott demonstrates he must be an obsessive-compulsive as he is still ranting about Douglas Ernst's post criticizing him from almost a year ago ... not to mention lecturing Israeli Avi Green about Muslim superheroes, we see Slott's fellow comic creator Erik Larsen retweeting the following, um, "sensitive" tweets:
Aren't these ... "lovely?"
Personally, as a non-practicing Christian and fervent believer in free expression, the above images don't bother me. What does bother me is -- you guessed it -- the brazen hypocrisy of these infantile "professionals." It just never ends. It truly is astonishing how several part-time bloggers (agree with them or not, and I don't always, for what it's worth) -- exhibit more professionalism and decorum than ... "people" like Slott and Larsen.
Erik Grove pens an op-ed today at Bleeding Cool which addresses, in part, a post of mine from yesterday. It's titled "8 Things that Need to Change in Comics – Threats, Harassment And Understanding," and not surprisingly, many of these changes need to occur from within. Let's take a look at these eight:
Grove's main point is sexual harrassment of females among the "comic community" spurred (in part) by this article regarding the supposed [in]appropriateness of a DC Comics cover. It's directed mostly at fans (the "community") but there's also this issue among the professionals. And Groves' point about hate speech and "endeavoring to understand" also needs to extend to the professionals. We've often documented here -- as have Doug Ernst and Avi Green -- how comicbook professionals (maybe I should put that term in quotes?) have often used, if not "hate" speech as it's typically defined, at the least vile speech ... and little-to-no inclination to "endeavor to understand."
Is Mark Waid telling me to "Go f*** myself" hate speech? Does it demonstrate an "endeavor to understand?" I mean, even if I was 100% wrong (I wasn't), what is up with a so-called professional responding in that manner? What about these comments?
There's also, of course, Ron Marz, Gail Simone, Erik Larsen and Dan Slott, among others. (Please venture over to Doug Ernst's place today to see how an insanely obsessed Slott is STILL ranting about Ernst's criticism of him. Check out the last update at the end of the post.) I wonder: Is a lot of their unreasonable attitude towards guys like Doug, Avi and me due to frequently dealing with ludicrous fanboy types who are completely irrational ... so that when one of us brings up a calmly worded criticism or question these guys are ready to rip our heads off? Maybe. I could see that. But, again, these guys are supposed to be professionals.
Alas, "progressivism" such as that practiced by these folks, is loaded with contradictions -- some (most?) of which aren't even noticed (or cared to be noticed). Like, for example, Grove not explicitly mentioning the comicbook professionals' behavior in "the community." And, even better, Ron Marz lamenting a lack of civility(!) regarding his article about boycotting Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. I mean, really??
Ultimately -- and ironically -- the online behavior of many of these "professionals" is astonishingly akin to that of "rabid [comicbook] fanboys" whose stereotypical image is that of egotistical, socially inept, creepy, and condescending quasi-nerds.
The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn with The First Amendment is Not an Area.
Full results are here.
... that there's a Six Million Dollar Man comicbook? I didn't until I read this Bleeding Cool article. Unfortunately, the comic looks as impressive as the 1970s TV show does with contemporary viewing. For instance, last night on the Me network (which plays old TV shows like 24-7), the SMDM was on with an episode titled "The Bionic Badge." Steve Austin (played by Lee Majors, who, the lucky bastard, was married to 70s bombshell Farrah Fawcett for a time) went "undercover" as a cop ... to sniff out who in the department is assisting with the smuggling atomic bomb components. Atomic bomb components! Talk about your suspension of disbelief.
Of course, if you're around my age, how can you forget Steve's first encounter with Sasquatch? This episode was on last week and brought back some (cheesy) memories. No, 'squatch ain't really a furry giant human hybrid of some sort; he's really a robot protector of some aliens who live in the forests of the northwest!
... before Steve casually rips his arm off.
And, this doesn't even address the utter crap that was using slow motion to depict the use of Steve's bionic limbs! I mean, the opening theme segment shows Steve running -- fast -- at his maximum 60 mph; why couldn't this be done in the show?
I had to chuckle at this Kurt Busiek retweeted response to politically correct scifi writer John Scalzi:
@scalzi And the point isn't "ALL men are menaces to women." The point is "ALL women have been menaced by men."— Molly Lewis (@Molly23) April 17, 2014
Now, while the "ALL" part of her second point is certainly debatable, I would certainly buy it if she said "A LOT." But this is beside the point. A tweet like this tweet is permissible among the Scalzis and Busieks of the [entertainment] world because it impugns a politically incorrect group -- men -- and "protects" a politically correct group -- women.
I wonder: Does anyone think Scalzi or Busiek would tweet (or retweet) something like "So again, let's say we don't pretend that terrorism isn't a issue MOSTLY about Muslims. Not ALL Muslims, but certainly too many of them"? Or, "And the point isn't "MOST Muslims are terrorists." The point is "MOST terrorists are Muslims"?
Nah. Neither do I. That subject ain't "incorrect" enough for them.
On the eve of what should be THE big summer blockbuster flick, X-Men: Days of Future Past director Bryan Singer has been accused of sex abuse:
The plaintiff, Michael Egan III, accuses Singer of forcing him into sex during parties in California and Hawaii when Egan was 17 years old in 1999, reports the Associated Press. Singer’s attorney, Marty Singer, said in a statement that the claims are "absurd and defamatory."
“The lawsuit claims Egan was lured into a sex ring with promises of auditions for acting, modeling and commercial jobs. He was paid as an actor for a digital entertainment company, but forced to have sex with adult men at parties notorious within Hollywood’s entertainment industry,” the AP reports.
Hollywood's record of such cases -- if this is true -- ain't great. Roman Polanski, anyone? But let's give Singer the benefit of the doubt, obviously. Innocent until proven guilty.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was "hurt" -- HURT, I tell you! -- about the "attacks" on her supposed Native American ancestry during her campaign:
Perhaps the most hurtful and high-profile attack thrown against Warren by Brown had to do with her heritage. At the height of the 2012 campaign, it was reported that Warren had listed herself as having Native American roots at Harvard University. Soon, there was a “full-blown campaign frenzy,” Warren recalls, with Republicans demanding that she prove her Native-American roots and accusing her of getting her job at the elite university by making false claims about her personal background.
Things only got worse when the Brown campaign asked whether her parents had lied to their children about her family. “He attacked my dead parents,” Warren writes. “I was hurt, and I was angry.”
Brown’s allegation that Warren had used her background to get ahead “simply wasn’t true,” she writes. “I was stunned by the attacks.”
First, she didn't use her supposed Native heritage to get ahead ... in the academic world?? That rates about a minus 5 on the Believability Meter. Second, she was only "stunned" by the attacks because she was so well insulated in said academic world where any such questioning of her background would have been met with accusations of "hate speech," and moves to subject the questioner to "re-education," "sensitivity" training, and even a disciplinary hearing.
RELATED: Funny, I don't remember hearing about this incident during the Warren-Brown Senate campaign. Surprise, that, eh?
That would be CNN's "National Security Analyst" Peter Bergen's contention that “U.S. right wing extremists [are] more deadly than jihadists.” To wit:
White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology.
OK, now let that sink in for a moment.
Ready? First, that "contention" is based on [supposed] figures from 9/12/2001 to the present. Pretty convenient that, wouldn't'cha say? Second, Bergen is a director for the George Soros-funded "progressive" New America Foundation which conducted the study from his "facts" are gathered. Also quite convenient. Third, the "political reasons" used for the "right-wing extremist" attacks are dubious. The study included "hate crimes" as "political" in its tally, and some of the killings are clearly questionable as to their "political" nature:
For example, they included a 2009 shootout in a Pittsburgh home where Robert Poplawski killed three police officers after his mother called the police during an argument. Later it was revealed that Poplawski had anti-Semitic views and was an alleged skinhead.
Yet the disparity in media coverage between even failed jihadist terrorist attacks and this latest incident in Kansas is emblematic of a flawed division in the public’s mind between killing that is purportedly committed in the name of Allah and killing that is committed for other political ends, such as neo-Nazi beliefs about the need to kill Jews.
What a riot. Bergen actually believes there's a paucity of media inclination to cover incidents like that in Kansas City the other day as opposed to jihadist-inspired violence. What freakin' planet do guys like Bergen live on?? Because it's certainly not the same planet on which its American mainstream media immediately pounces on any smidgen of evidence to link conservative/right-wing/Republican-based/Tea Partyesque groups to a terror-style attack. Just ask ABC's Brian Ross, for cripe's sake. This, not to mention, the reflexive MSM screaming of "Islamophobia" whenever [radical] Islam is questioned or implicated in a matter as if it's endemic, when in fact anti-Jewish hate crimes far outnumber those that are anti-Muslim. Not surprisingly, Bergen doesn't see fit to mention Muslim anti-Jewish hate, which is just as virulent -- and overall much more common -- than that of neo-Nazis.
The NARRATIVETM, natch.
And the non-Council submissions are here!
A panel on the execrable Al Sharpton's "Politics Nation" argued the usual swill about the GOP the other day, but this nugget upped the ante to the Nth degree: They (Republicans) want to make voting illegal.
RYAN GRIM, HUFFINGTON POST: I think it actually goes back to that old cynical bumper sticker that a lot of people have seen which says, it says something like, "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal." Well, voting can change things, and so they actually are trying to make it illegal.
You can give that insanity all the credence it deserves (aka zero), but more interesting regarding the voting issue is what I heard on the Dick Morris Show on Philly's WPHT 1210 yesterday while driving home. There's a movement out there which has garnered next to no mainstream media attention called the National Popular Vote. It's not what you may think at first glance; it's not a movement to abolish the Electoral College and elect the prez on a purely popular vote. What it is is a push to get states to agree to allocate all their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote -- not to the popular vote winner of an individual state. The mainstream media, natch, is more concerned about electoral college touch-ups such as this, where electoral votes would be cast on a proportional basis related to congressional districts. This, as the NY Times frets, has the potential to harm Democrats. Or so they argue.
But although the National Popular Vote website includes positive testimonials from Democrats and Republicans alike, what Morris pointed out on his radio show indicates a BIG worry for the GOP if NPV gets passed -- and NPV is very close to doing just that. Keep in mind, first, that no Constitutional Amendment would be necessary for the NPV to take effect as it does not constitutionally alter the nature of the Electoral College. But just as no amendment is necessary for the NPV, there is also no specific constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to vote. The 14th, 26th and 19th Amendments clearly mention citizenship and voting; however, there is actually no absolute constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to cast a vote. And, in fact, there is NO explicit right to vote for anybody enshrined in the US's founding document. Inherent right? Yes. Explicit? No.
And this is what Morris pounces on.
The Center for Immigration Studies offers up plenty of evidence on how individual states could allow non-citizens to vote. Most of the states that are "pro" non-citizen voting are blue states (surprise), and some of these states already allow non-citizen voting at the local level. Morris argues that if the National Popular Vote measure takes effect, blue states will be much more inclined to vote (via their respective state legislatures) to allow non-citizens to cast ballots beyond localities, i.e. for president. The reason for this is simple: Again, since the NPV would give all of a state's electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote (not an individual state's), and that non-citizens are much more likely to vote Democratic, it's all a pure numbers game. The GOP would never again see the White House, Morris argues.
While some scholars note that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment "clearly" grants states the right to impose a citizenship qualification (chee-yeah, tell that to Eric Holder), again, the numbers for the GOP just wouldn't cut it. Red state legislatures could impose such a requirement to vote, but it wouldn't be enough to overcome blue states that "opened up" voting to virtually every resident within their borders.
Naturally, one may wonder if blue states, even those dominated by Democrats in the governorship and state legislature (like my own Delaware), could get away with passing such voting allowances. They may be successful initially, but it's a good bet many independents and other moderates would subsequently object. The ensuing statewide races would have Democrats having to defend why they voted to allow non-citizens to vote. I think that would be quite a tough sell to anyone but a committed "progressive." In addition, even some advocates of non-citizen voting believe liberal states would be hesitant to allow what Morris fears:
To my knowledge no state has seriously considered extending the franchise to aliens during the past half century, and I very much doubt that any state would now make the move except at the insistence of the Supreme Court, says legal scholar Gerald Rosberg.
I tend to agree. However, this doesn't mean "progressives" won't be up to their usual electoral tricks while denigrating common sense measures like voter ID (supported by approximately three-quarters of the American public) as "voter suppression."
The former KKK nutjob who killed three Jewish folks the other day in Kansas City had some, well, "uncomfortable" (uncomfortable for the mainstream media, that is) influences -- notably that of Max Blumenthal, former writer for The Daily Beast, Al Akhbar, and Media Matters, and son of former President Clinton advisor Sid Blumenthal. The killer, Glenn Miller, quoted Blumenthal:
Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.
Like I’ve been saying, the k***s simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.
What's more, the "progressive" Nation's own publisher, Nation Books, put out Blumenthal's book to which Miller refers.
Do I think this really somehow "implicates" Blumenthal as a legitimate fellow purveyor of hate like Miller? Certainly not. Though I find Max's views preposterous, any clear-thinking person realizes that virtually any nutjob can find a quote from virtually anybody to suit his/her twisted purposes. But if Miller had quoted, say, Rush Limbaugh, you can bet your bottom dollar that this "connection" would be frontline news among the big three networks and CNN, and get 24-7 coverage on MSNBC.
No, not the usual LGOMB, but our 'ol pal Perry who has been banished from just about every right-leaning blog imaginable due to his perpetual inanity and threat-making. Amazingly, the proprietor of the First Street Journal has remained quite the gentleman, still donating bandwidth to this loser for his own blog. At any rate, check out this image recently put up by Perry to make his case about the "superiority" of "progressivism." Aside from the fact that several items on the list are certainly morally questionable (like "compulsory education?" ObumbleCare??), two can play at this game. For instance:
See a pattern here?
Well, it's the truth, isn't it?
Our pal Ron "STFU" Marz believes the now-deflated "stand off" between the feds and a Nevada rancher is a simply understood matter: The rancher is a deadbeat who owes the feds around $1 million, and the whole dispute is a conservative "plot":
The abject stupidity at Bundy Ranch is the natural result of the delusions peddled by Fox News and conservative talk radio.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 12, 2014
Now, keep in mind, again, that this "stupidity" that is "manufactured" by Fox News and talk radio warrants the attention and denunciation of dedicated "progressives" like Marz -- who are sooooo concerned about the rule of law and the obedience of such:
@OGTslay1974 No liking particular regulations is not legal grounds to ignore them. He's a deadbeat simpleton.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 12, 2014
Which leads one to ask: Where the f*** was Marz during the innumerable times Boss Obama unilaterally altered the "established" law known as ObumbleCare? Answer: Completely silent. Because shut up, you simpletons deluded by Fox News and talk radio.
Indeed. Much like LIVs like the ignorant and woefully uninformed Ron Marz. Guys like President Lemon NEED folks like you, Ronnie. Keep truckin', brotha!
Here's ABC's report on the apparently resolved situation.
UPDATE: Uh, Ron, "uber-conservative?" Just because someone points out what an LIV moonbat you are doesn't make him the same on the other side. Wrong once again. It's an on-going trend with you. Not too many "uber-conservatives" I know have this or this up on their websites/blogs.
Chris Hayes comes out and says what we all knew one helluva long time ago: That the network (and, increasingly, "progressives" in general) see everything through the "prism of race":
The racial prism I use to analyze American politics has grown sharper and I think in some ways more pessimistic in the Obama era. I will cop to that, unquestionably. Like, I do think, see things more thoroughly through the prism of race.
*Sigh* Who are the racists, again??
Despite his ultra-moonbattery (as we previously demonstrated), 'ya just gotta like Democrat Mike Dickinson, who's running for GOPer Eric Cantor's Virginia House seat. He is anything but shy and dodgy; indeed, he has absolutely NO qualms about offering up even possibly illegal "solutions" (via Twitchy):
Destroy a completely legal (and popular) group? Have the IRS go after a completely legal (and popular) political organization??
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
The non-Council winner was Matt Walsh with Hey gay rights militants: your fascism is showing.
Full results are here.
io9 has some updates regarding a few coming comicbook films, including X-Men: Days of Future Past. It seems the "pivotal event" that leads to the story's dystopian future is the murder of Sentinel creator Bolivar (not "Boliver" as io9 writes) Trask by Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. (In the comic, it was the assassination of Senator Kelly, featured in the first X-film.) I wonder, since it's been hinted that DOFP will "fix" the numerous continuity gaffes of the X-films, if it will be explained how this Trask (played by short guy Peter Dinklage) is related to the "Trask" of X-Men 3 played by Bill "I'm Gonna Have Me Some Fun" Duke. They'll probably not even address it, leaving us to assume they just shared a last name.
It seems my (and many others') fears about Amazing Spider-Man 2 are coming to fruition in that there are too many villains in the movie. Who couldn't see that coming? Electro, Rhino, and a new Green Goblin?? There's also news on the sequence of future Spidey flicks: A "Sinister Six" film, a Venom movie, and THEN Amazing Spider-Man 3.
One saving grace for ASM 2: Not having a scene like this:
Manufacturers will soon be required to "decrease footwear aerodynamic characteristics by 50% by the year 2017." The incident which served as the catalyst for this? A shoe tossed at Hillary Clinton.
History check: Remember this?
io9 has a discussion about it. Be sure to check out the comment section as there's a good convo about how both BSG series dealt with spirituality.
I certainly concur with several commenters about how the re-imagined series (2004) got so muddled with questions (like WTF happened to Starbuck? What about the Cylons' monotheism?). As I've often opined (most recently here) the newer series started out phenomenally, then withered to one big dud. But, at least that series did have an ending. We'll never know how the 1978 version could have closed; however, I have some neat [spiritual] ideas about how it could have. As I also noted in my most recent BSG-related post, a later season two-parter, "War of the Gods," featured a thinly-veiled Biblical analogy to God and Satan with the "Satan" character, Count Iblis (played by Avengers -- the British TV series, not the Marvel Comics movie -- star Patrick Macnee) using subterfuge and deviousness to convert many in the Galactica fleet to his "congregation."
I think it would have been very cool to have these two camps indeed be "God" and "Satan," on which Earth's main religions are based. After all, Earth is supposed to be the "lost" (13th) colony of BSG humanity. That 13th colony, Earth, had encountered these two all-powerful entities long before the Galactica did, and shaped its entire civilization around them. The original BSG could have ended with the Galactica discovering present-day Earth, and subsequently putting everything together about how Earth's population was affected by their beliefs in these omnipotent beings. Of course, we cannot forget the Cylons; how about Count Iblis -- Satan -- assuming control of the robotic race and leading an all-out assault on Earth and its new defenders, the Galactica fleet. The benevolent aliens appear before Earth, too, to aid in humanity's defense. This is the Second Coming prophesized by Christianity (or First, if you're Jewish). Earth and its defenders win in the end, thus fulfilling humanity's greatest legends/prophecies/sermons, etc.
What do you think?
Ah, Illinois. A Democrat minority legislator (I add the description as it's necessary for the whole report), a Ms. Linda Chapa LaVia, was busy ripping charter schools and "appealed to her fellow minorities within the chamber." She snarkily added “we’re all over on this side [of the aisle], right?” but Republicans took issue with that.
“Wait, we have a half. We have a half,” LaVia said. She was referring to GOP State Rep. John Anthony who is apparently half black. Isn't that soooo tolerant? Welcoming? Understanding? Empathetic?
Good thing our president is no longer in the Illinois legislature. He wouldn't rank very high in Ms. LaVia's notions of racial purity. Here's LaVia's yammering:
So, Boss Obama and his acolyte Democrats are planning to make "equal pay" an issue this year ... even though the White House itself pays its women employees less than men, and LIVs like comics guy Ron Marz fall for the oft-cited myth.
Not only would yesterday's mumble-mouthed Jay Carney presser be campaign ad gold, but so would these little nuggets:
(h/t to Insty for the last five examples.)
Boss Obama and co need LIVs to fall for this crap, but they'd better get their own talking points straight if they plan on going full force with the likewise mythical GOP "War on Women."
Those at Rolling Stone magazine, that is:
That's supposed to be the Constitution on Julia Louis-Dreyfus's back. Except that ... John Hancock never signed the Constitution. He signed the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution: For "progressives," a document so living, it grows on it signatures never before present ... like magic.
Our pal Ron "STFU" Marz shows off his prodigious intellect once more:
It strikes me that the GOP blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act might not play real well with, say, 51% of the population. #EqualPay— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 9, 2014
51%? Only if the female population were entirely comprised of LIVs, Ron. Y'know, like you. And that's what "progressives" like Boss Obama and the current Democrat Party rely on -- not knowing the truth. And cripes -- the freakin' White House doesn't even pay its women what it does its men ... arguing precisely what those against silly laws like "Paycheck Fairness" do!! You just can't make this sh** up.
But LIVs like Marz sure will try.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
The News Journal asks today: Why do Delaware parents pick charter schools? Twenty state legislators are apparently upset that one of New Castle County's "big four" districts is primed for five more charter schools. They worry that more charters will continue to drain resources from [traditional] public schools. As for parents, "What prompts them to leave? What attracts them to the charter schools?" the editors ask.
Occam's Razor, my friends. More discipline, less constant behavior issues, and a streamlined process to get rid of said problems.
While I certainly agree with the Journal's take that traditional publics have to have an "answer" for the competition of charters, the editors have to understand that the competition has to take place on a level playing field, as well as play by the same rule book. How is it fair that charters can establish guidelines as to who can get in, and can much more easily get rid of a student if he/she doesn't measure up? Traditional publics have to take everybody ... and have to jump through innumerable hoops before a student can be removed? This, not to mention, that traditional publics have a maximum number (per year) of kids who can be permanently removed from their schools, so they have to really "be careful" that they pick the most disruptive.
Oh, and special education students? They can only be suspended out of school for ten days maximum. Per year. No matter how disruptive they may be.
... and thankfully, it doesn't appear it will follow the "reimagined" SyFy series starring Edward James Olmos as Adama. Why do I say "thankfully?" Well, if you've been following Colossus since near the beginning you'd know I started out a huge fan of the "reimagined" series, but quickly lost interest around early season three when stories began to make little-to-no sense.
While the 2004 series was "grittier," the original 1978 series was much more optimistic (if you can call a series about the near-annihilation of humankind "optimistic"), with one of its last (two-part) episodes being a barely-veiled battle in the war between God and Satan. That, and the original wasn't a Terminator-esque "human created their own destruction" meme in that the Cylons were originally a reptilian race that had begun dying out, and hence created robotic replacements. The Cylon Imperious Leader was one of the few -- only, perhaps -- lizard Cylon remaining alive.
Count me in for a film based in the original BSG universe.
A member of national champion UConn men's basketball team, Shabazz Napier, claimed he "goes to bed starving" because he doesn't have enough money for food.
Let that sink in for a moment. A player on a full scholarship at one of the elite sports team universities in the country ... goes to bed "starving."
Anyone buying this BS? Be sure to read the comments at the article.
Of course, ideologues in the Connecticut state house jumped on Napier's remarks. State Rep. Matthew Lesser (party unidentified by CNN, of course; he's a Democrat) said he and others "are considering legislation that would allow athletes at the University of Connecticut to unionize."
"He (Napier) says he's going to bed hungry at a time when millions of dollars are being made off of him. It's obscene," Lesser said. "This isn't a Connecticut problem. This is an NCAA problem, and I want to make sure we're putting pressure on them to treat athletes well."
Since Lesser looks like the only sport he ever played in his life is Xbox, it's no wonder he actually buys into the utter garbage that Napier goes to bed "starving." This reminds me of the hilarious quote from former Philadelphia Eagle Terrell Owens when he said he needed a new contract from the team in order to "feed his family."
Let's be real: My daughter is a college sophomore on a partial academic scholarship. She's never once complained about "going to bed hungry." Her freshman year she often made that college student staple Ramen Noodles to satisfy any off-dining hall hours munchies she had. So,a guy on a full ride at one of the most prestigious sports colleges -- a member of a group who are notoriously pampered on campus -- goes to bed hungry??
Pardon my guffaws.
Marvel Comics' Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso on politics in comics: "We don’t take sides and we avoid raw politics. We focus more on ethics.”
Read Avi's take-down of Alonso here.
Forum: Have Your Views On Same Sex Marriage Changed Recently?
... of a Social Justice Warrior:
(Thanks to Nate!)
Was there an increase in destructive tornadic activity? We're in our third straight year of record low activity. Increase in hurricanes? Nope. Obama has the lowest hurricane frequency of any President. North Pole will be ice free? Nah, multi-year ice is growing. What exactly did come to pass then from that movie?
Hopefully, any sequel will be under the "fantasy" section of Netflix, etc.
What's more, his donations to the "controversial" cause were leaked by the IRS to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. Brendan Eich was recently named CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, makers of the popular Firefox web browser. What Eich did with his own money a few years back is what -- gasp! -- is so "controversial":
Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any“incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”
Upon being named CEO last Wednesday, Eich immediately put up another post which among other things pledged in direct terms first that he would ensure Mozilla continued offering health benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees; second that he would allocate additional resources to a project that aims to bring more LGBTQ individuals into the technology world and Mozilla in particular; and third that he would maintain and strengthen Mozilla’s policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s worth emphasizing that Eich made this statement prior to the storm of outrage which has since erupted, and that with these policies and others Mozilla easily ranks among the most gay-friendly work environments in the United States.
It wasn't enough. Eich resigned yesterday. Amazingly, numerous employees had taken to social media to call for Eich's ouster. How d'ya like that? The supposedly "tolerant" employees call for their boss and part founder of the company for which they work ... to leave??
Because he donated to a campaign promoting traditional marriage.
You see, it's not enough in today's society to believe as Eich does -- favoring traditional marriage yet simultaneously holding anti-discriminatory views about gays. I wonder if Eich has an issue with gay civil unions; I would doubt that he does, based on the quote and statements above. A Google search did not provide anything specific. Granting Eich has no issue with civil unions (and California's Prop 8 had nothing to do with [gay] civil unions, by the way, just the definition of the term "marriage"), that still would have been insufficient for the gay lobby. Don't agree? Then see here. Even though civil unions would [have] confer[red] precisely the same governmental benefits as traditional marriage, the gay lobby argues it would "relegate [gays] to second-class citizenship, maybe third-class -- and that's not enough." And it's about rights and not politics? Uh huh: "Being married and wearing a wedding ring sends a message to society," said Jeffrey Zarrillo, one of the plaintiffs who sought to overturn Prop. 8.
Lastly, here's Andrew Sullivan (who, if you don't know, is gay):
Will he (Eich) now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
I simply await the day when a socialist/leftist who harbors sympathies with, say, Maduro in Venezuela, or Castro in Cuba, or Morales in Bolivia is hounded and forced out of his/her job. Oh wait -- that sounds like 1950s McCarthyism?? BINGO.
Douglas Ernst has more on this.
UPDATE: Business Insider and Slate reporters call Eich's donation to Prop 8 as akin "to someone who 'donated some money to the KKK'" and said that "support of traditional marriage to supporting the 'the civil right to own slaves.'" I'm surprised they omitted that it was like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Sheesh.
UPDATE 2: James Taranto contradicts the earlier report that the IRS was the culprit behind the revelation of Eich's Prop 8 donation. He notes that Califorina law requires "disclosure of personal information–name, address, occupation and employer’s name–of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative."
The non-Council winner was Matthew Continetti/Washington Free Beacon with The Grandfather.
Full results are here.
And that is Helen Ubinas's Philly Daily News article "We allowed Bartram High fiasco to happen." The high (or low) light:
[The whole situation] should sicken and shame us. But if it did, we wouldn't have generations of young people more schooled in combat than chemistry.
Charles Williams, professor of psychology and education at Drexel University, calls it the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
"The message here is that we don't think poor and black [and] Latino kids can learn, that they ought to learn," Williams said.
"Soft bigotry says that Bartram High School is going to be off the hook because well, those are poor black and Latinos, so what do you expect? And so behavior that is not normal suddenly becomes normalized and accepted."
Uh huh. Isn't this the same high school that emphasizes so-called "restorative practices (or justice)," which is supposed to "build relationships" with chronically disruptive students instead of suspending or expelling them? How many times have schools all across the country been treated to inservices and workshops like these? How many times have teachers across the country been told that blacks and Latinos have their own "unique culture" and hence many "traditional" disciplinary measures enacted by teachers and/or administrators are "biased," "insensitive" and ultimately ... "racist?" And, perhaps "best" of all, our own president has issued edicts to address the "disparate" (and "racist") disciplinary rates in our schools.
Astonishingly, Ms. Ubina didn't even once mention what Bartram's students' home lives are like. Now, why would that be? Given all of this, please enlighten us, Ms. Ubina, how exactly -- and realistically -- would you remedy a situation like that at Bartram High?
You say we allowed Bartram High to happen. True. And it happened virtually purely a result "progressive" policies and theories.
Weird Salon interview with @suey_park where she says intelligent things and every attempt is made to make her seem incoherent. Point?— Gail Thorkenstonen (@GailSimone) April 3, 2014
OK, well, I lied about "no comment." Go to Doug Ernst's to see why Ms. Park certainly needs NO help (or "editing") to sound incoherent. And besides, why would Salon.com, of all places, do such a thing? I mean, this is the site that gave us this masterpiece!
And surprisingly, it has nothing to do with politics!
Hey Lar -- good luck selling that dreck. Rob Liefeld's volume 2 (or "Heroes Reborn") Captain America stands among the most awful comics ever put to print.
Look! It's Ron "STFU" Marz showing his keen political intellect once again:
The Koch Brothers are REALLY happy right now. That should make you REALLY uneasy. #SCOTUS— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 2, 2014
This is in response to a US Supreme Court ruling today basically affirming the Citizens United decision.
Of course, the stunted IQ of idiot Marz omits the fact that it certainly won't be only those dastardly Koch bros who will "benefit;" there's also a guy named George Soros. But since Ronnie agrees with his politics, that isn't worth mentioning. (But thankfully, several Twitter commenters did, with no reply from 'ol "STFU.") What's further amazing is that this decision (and the Kochs) are of such import; Boss Obama repeatedly lying to us day after day about virtually everything, IRS abuses, spying on American citizens ... these garner nary a mention from this pathetic blowhard.
What's the notable difference? Anyone?
"What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?" Yes, this was more-or-less the title of a workshop at the 15th Annual White Privilege Conference hosted by Madison, Wisconsin this year. It was led by Kim Radersma, a former high school English teacher in California and Colorado. who's "currently working toward her PhD in critical whiteness studies at Brock University in Ontario, Canada." Critical. Whiteness. Studies. You can get a doctorate in that. And the only job available is in the Perpetual Grievance Industry.
Radersma compared being white to being an alcoholic: "What's the first step? Admitting you have a problem." The problem? Whites "carry within [themselves] ... dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions." She became "enlightened," so to speak, while teaching a lower-level English course which was composed entirely of "student of color." The Advanced Placement English course, was composed of all whites and Asians. (Remember, Asians do not count as "people of color" to these nimrods.) She notes,
That experience, and the fact that her boss did not know how to tackle the problem, led her to leave the classroom and work toward her Ph. D. Radersma told the group she realized the problem was the institutionalized racist structure of education and her white privilege was causing the racial achievement gap.
Naturally, the fact that the students in her class weren't prepared for an Advanced Placement class has absolutely nothing to do with what she saw at that school. And, natch, the real reasons for such a lack of preparation.
The rest of the article is an endless stream of far-left racialist garbage. If you can stomach it by all means read the whole thing. I almost became physically ill knowing there are actually people out there like this Radersma buffoon. I'll leave you with this lovely quote from her:
"If you don't want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education," Radersma said. "If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure."
This moron -- Michael Smerconish, long-time Philly talk radio host -- lost me long ago when he voted for President Lemon. He's now on CNN (where I'm sure he'll be a ratings smash ... /sarcasm) and happily proclaiming he's a "card carrying member" of ObumbleCare. Fellow CNN host Erin Burnett claimed yesterday was a "major achievement" for the Boss Obama administration ... but then stated the OBVIOUS:
What we still don't know about the numbers, though, is how many people have actually paid for health insurance. Because you can sign up without yet paying. And how many young people are enrolled. Of course, that's going to be the key to future success as well as things like how much will premiums, in many cases set low to encourage people to sign up, surge in the coming year.
Uh, gee, 'ya think? There's also the matter of how many people were actually previously uninsured. Not-at-all surprisingly, you won't get those answers from the administration. Along those lines, Charles Krauthammer:
If it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the so-called 7.1 were people who had health insurance, liked their health insurance, were renewing their health insurance, and got kicked off their health insurance, whose lives are disrupted, premiums are raised, deductibles are raised, and lost their doctors are now among the 7.1 . . . it’s a net negative.
Elsewhere at CNN, reporter Jim Acosta stated that yesterday the White House was "reacting with a lot of glee and happiness" over the "enrollment" numbers. Well, yeah, that typically happens when you live in a world of perpetual delusion. Reality tends to set in eventually, however, like in November of an election year.
Most infuriatingly of all is Boss Obama himself at his "victory" presser: “The debate over repealing this law is over. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Imagine if President Buchanan had said regarding the infamous Dred Scott decision that "The debate over whether blacks are property is over. Slavery is here to stay." It's amazing it has to be said but debate is never over about ANY law, Supreme Court decision, or whatever. That's the very nature of a free society. Or, what's supposed to be a free society. Nevertheless, it's also amazing that Boss Obama even called the ACA a "law" considering how many times he's unilaterally altered it. Should we redub it an executive order? A dictatorial edict? You tell me.
The Cape Gazette has more on the efforts by some on the Cape Henlopen (Delaware) school board to ditch the classic novel Brave New World from an Advanced Placement English curriculum. Previously noted board members Sandi Minard and Jen Burton say in this article that they don't want to ban the book, just give parents a choice: “If we have a choice, why can't we chose something that's not sexually explicit,” Burton said. “We can choose other books to show a dystopic society.”
Board Vice President Roni Posner defended the novel, but said that if parents don't want their kids reading the book, they should be able to opt out.
As I noted in my earlier post, the irony really is lost on some of these people. As Lea Tomer, young adult services librarian for the Lewes Public Library, notes in the article,
The overwhelming theme of the book is the loss of the individual and government control. While sexual promiscuity is portrayed in the novel, it is part of Huxley's negative description of a futuristic society. It's a small piece of the overall picture.
This is what I do not understand -- as conservative a place as Sussex County, Delaware is, Brave New World should, if anything, appeal to their political philosophy (as Ms. Tomer notes above).
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Here we go again: The mainstream media is hyping a "new warning" about the "extreme consequences" of ... global war, er, uh, climate change. Here's ABC News's Jim Avila: "And while global warming is easiest to see at the poles, this new report by a United Nations science panel says there is no more debate. Global warming is real, here now, wreaking havoc worldwide and is caused by humans." And that's just for starters.
Need I remind you what all these "debate is over" folks have screamed about previously: Snow a "thing of the past." The polar ice caps would be gone by now. Etc. We're told you can't look at cold weather instances as proof that global war, er, climate change isn't happening, yet hot weather instances are utilized constantly to make the climate change case.
You know what? Shut up. The climate may indeed be changing and man may indeed be [even largely] responsible. But the constant chicken-littleling has grown beyond tiresome. As some of the newscasts indicated, the United States's greenhouse gas emissions have declined over the years, but those of countries like China and India have gone up. So, WTF are we supposed to do about that? Tell them they can't industrialize after we have already done so? And isn't that what Boss Obama is about, after all -- letting other countries know that the United States isn't special, that we're just another country among all the rest in the world and that we have no right to demand anything of a country we wouldn't demand of ourselves? Further, aren't Boss Obama and "progressives" also all about science? They constantly tell us this, especially regarding the topic at hand. Yet, what happens when a State Dept. study concludes that the Keystone Pipeline will have virtually no effect on global war, er, climate change? Boss Obama sits on his hands. Same for so-called fracking. And why isn't the US going all-out on natural gas development?
Yeah, we can also continue to develop even cleaner options, but it makes zero sense not to develop resources that we have plenty of (which will benefit us greatly in the piss-poor economy) and are less GHG-intensive than oil and coal. But, alas, recall the Victor Davis Hanson maxim.
Check out the quote from Kelly Sue DeConnick, writer of Captain Marvel and Pretty Deadly, made at the Emerald City Comicon:
The message that we send when we don’t represent the broader culture in our stories is that ‘You are other.’ … As a community, as an organism, it is a thing that makes us ill. It is actually bad for us.
*Sigh* Of course, the clamor for "diversity" for folks like contemporary comics creators does not include political diversity. Or diversity of certain types of religion, like, say, Mormon. Are these folks "The Other," Ms. DeConnick? Am I, as a right-leaning comicbook fan, "made ill" by, the not only omission of [positive] role models, but the denigration of those like me in your medium's stories?
Like college/university "diversity," comicbook diversity is only concerned with skin hue and the "right" beliefs. Political ideology, and certain religions and ethnicities are exempt from the interminable demands for diversity. But for comicbook creators, maybe you should take a bit of advice from this commenter: Instead of a paroxysm over diversity, " 'the message we send' when publishers put out crappy comic books is that they don’t care about their characters and they don’t care about their readers."
Well, maybe I should've used "correct." The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB): “Delaware Judge enshrines unequal outcomes for child rapists based on wealth” continues to be a national story.
... well, let's just say "you're a true believer." From the AP today: Obama Plans Statement, 7 Million Sign-Ups Reached Key sentence of the article, left for the end, natch: "The administration has not said how many of those who signed up closed the deal by paying their first month's premiums."
Reminder: The 2013 Lie of the Year.