Who does Ricky Sanchez think he is? A better question-what does he think liberals are?
CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was fired Friday by the news network after he went on a tirade during a radio interview calling Jon Stewart a “bigot” and accusing the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals” of labeling him as “second-tier” because of his Cuban-American background, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company," the statement from CNN said. "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well," it added.
The TV host, who was born in Cuba and raised outside Miami, said that racism in the media comes "not just [from] the right," but also at the hands of the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals," during a Thursday interview on the "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" SiriusXM radio show.
"Deep down, when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier, and not the top tier," the 52-year-old said.
That pretty much says it all. Too bad he had to become a victim of leftist hypocrisy before he grew the balls to call it like it is. But let's enjoy it for what it is-the poster boy for the left's ideal Cuban American pretty much performed the equivalent of walking into the boss's office and calling him a stupid fucking price in front of the secretary, the visiting family, and a potential client. He had to have known there was a chance he would be sacked. After all, he's not black. Or Jewish. Speaking of which, he also stated without much equivocation that the northeastern liberal establishment is pretty much dominated by Jews.
I learned quite a long time ago, anytime anyone on the left screams racism or any similar type ism at conservatives, Republicans, or the Tea Party, its nothing more or less than a simple case of projection.
Hat Tip to Babalu
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
A Hiccup From Ecuador
Ecuador has just recently gone through what appears to have been a coup attempt, its president temporarily a guest of the nation's police force. The coup seems to have been swiftly contained and defeated, however, which is not really such a surprise, seeing as how the attempt seems not to have had any wide-spread popular support to speak of.
The whole attempt was the result of austerity measures aimed primarily at the police force, who naturally rebelled at the prospect of benefits cuts, doubly resenting the idea that the budget of the nation should be balanced on the backs of those charged primarily with keeping the peace. Social services were not cut, apparently, nor was the military budget, nor it is safe to assume was the bureaucracy.
As such, the coup was destined to fail-the military put it down quickly. Nor is there is any need in looking towards the United States for a scapegoat here. If anything, the US State Department and the CIA were probably, at most, disinterested observers. If they were involved at all, it would be just as likely on the side of the leftist junta as against it, but I repeat, as of now, there is no credible evidence of US involvement one way or another.
Of course, the day is still young. What is most certain is that, after the coup plotters have had their day in kangaroo court and are sent packing to Ecuadoran Club Med (Gitmo without the bells and whistles) things will probably settle back to "normal", and the Ecuadoran leftist regime, which has ties to Hugo's Venezuela and Morales's Bolivia, can get back to the business of planning and building a new socialist state, manned at some indeterminate date in the future by the new Socialist Man.
Of course, this will take a couple of centuries at the very least, during which time, as is almost always the case, this artificially planned offshoot of homo sapiens will be superseded by the more natural evolutionary offspring of almost all such experiments-
Bureaucratic Man.
The whole attempt was the result of austerity measures aimed primarily at the police force, who naturally rebelled at the prospect of benefits cuts, doubly resenting the idea that the budget of the nation should be balanced on the backs of those charged primarily with keeping the peace. Social services were not cut, apparently, nor was the military budget, nor it is safe to assume was the bureaucracy.
As such, the coup was destined to fail-the military put it down quickly. Nor is there is any need in looking towards the United States for a scapegoat here. If anything, the US State Department and the CIA were probably, at most, disinterested observers. If they were involved at all, it would be just as likely on the side of the leftist junta as against it, but I repeat, as of now, there is no credible evidence of US involvement one way or another.
Of course, the day is still young. What is most certain is that, after the coup plotters have had their day in kangaroo court and are sent packing to Ecuadoran Club Med (Gitmo without the bells and whistles) things will probably settle back to "normal", and the Ecuadoran leftist regime, which has ties to Hugo's Venezuela and Morales's Bolivia, can get back to the business of planning and building a new socialist state, manned at some indeterminate date in the future by the new Socialist Man.
Of course, this will take a couple of centuries at the very least, during which time, as is almost always the case, this artificially planned offshoot of homo sapiens will be superseded by the more natural evolutionary offspring of almost all such experiments-
Bureaucratic Man.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
A Great Man Helps A Great Cause
I've had my problems in the past with Bengals Wide Receiver Chad Ochocinco. He's a great receiver and all around player, but he comes across as full of himself. He seems to be one of these guys who is obviously out for himself, a master of self-promotion. He has appeared on Dancing With The Stars, is a showboat on and off the field, and not too long ago introduced his own line of condoms.
Although he was born Chad Johnson, he had his name legally changed to Chad Ochocinco, which is the Spanish language spelling of his team number-85. Lately, he has publicly mused about changing his name yet again, to reflect the number on his team jersey in Japanese.
These are the kinds of antics, in addition to his gregarious nature on the field, that lends many to view him as-well, a show-off. It leads you to wonder how he could possibly get along with such a person as Terrell Owens, who recently joined the Bengals. Talk about a clash of personalities.
But now I have come to think I might have misjudged the man. He has lately come out with his own brand of breakfast cereal, named, of course, Ochocinco's. My initial reaction was, "there he goes again". But come to find out, a portion of the proceeds from sales of the cereal will go to benefit the Feed The Children Foundation.
Now I have to admit, I am impressed. And, having taken the time to call the toll-free number of the foundation, I am also quite touched.
And believe it or not, if you take the time to call the number of this fine organization, I promise you that, unless you have a heart of stone and ice-water coursing through your veins, you will also be touched and impressed.
1-800-HELP-FTC
You will be under no obligation whatsoever. But I promise, you will be moved.
Although he was born Chad Johnson, he had his name legally changed to Chad Ochocinco, which is the Spanish language spelling of his team number-85. Lately, he has publicly mused about changing his name yet again, to reflect the number on his team jersey in Japanese.
These are the kinds of antics, in addition to his gregarious nature on the field, that lends many to view him as-well, a show-off. It leads you to wonder how he could possibly get along with such a person as Terrell Owens, who recently joined the Bengals. Talk about a clash of personalities.
But now I have come to think I might have misjudged the man. He has lately come out with his own brand of breakfast cereal, named, of course, Ochocinco's. My initial reaction was, "there he goes again". But come to find out, a portion of the proceeds from sales of the cereal will go to benefit the Feed The Children Foundation.
Now I have to admit, I am impressed. And, having taken the time to call the toll-free number of the foundation, I am also quite touched.
And believe it or not, if you take the time to call the number of this fine organization, I promise you that, unless you have a heart of stone and ice-water coursing through your veins, you will also be touched and impressed.
1-800-HELP-FTC
You will be under no obligation whatsoever. But I promise, you will be moved.
Clean Air And Poverty
Moonbattery has a report that is so hard to believe, I can't really vouch for it at face value. But it wouldn't really surprise me to learn that the EPA is poised to initiate a series of regulations that might well result in the elimination of potentially 800,000 American manufacturing jobs. There could never be a good time for something like this to happen, and as of right now, there could not be a worse time. I really hope they don't go through with this, that somebody somewhere sees reason and reins them in.
But if they don't, and if they do go through with this insanity, I damn sure hope it happens now, so people can feel the effects long enough before the election to make a new GOP congressional majority not merely a probability, but a foregone conclusion, and in the meantime swell those Republican numbers far more than what they might ordinarily be.
After all, the best thing Democrats can do to help Republicans is simply be Democrats, proudly and openly.
The proposed rule has to do with emission standards. Old furnaces and boilers will have to be retrofitted, retooled in order to meet the new standards and guidelines. What this means is there will be layoffs in some cases, a near freeze on new hiring in others, and in some instances, no more nor less than a complete halt in production.
Way to lead us into the Third World, EPA. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.
But if they don't, and if they do go through with this insanity, I damn sure hope it happens now, so people can feel the effects long enough before the election to make a new GOP congressional majority not merely a probability, but a foregone conclusion, and in the meantime swell those Republican numbers far more than what they might ordinarily be.
After all, the best thing Democrats can do to help Republicans is simply be Democrats, proudly and openly.
The proposed rule has to do with emission standards. Old furnaces and boilers will have to be retrofitted, retooled in order to meet the new standards and guidelines. What this means is there will be layoffs in some cases, a near freeze on new hiring in others, and in some instances, no more nor less than a complete halt in production.
Way to lead us into the Third World, EPA. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Outlaw
Outlaw is one of those television series that will tell you exactly what the liberal media thinks about conservatives. Or, perhaps more succinctly, it will tell you what they want you to think about them.
It's really simple. Not all conservatives are bad people. Sometimes, they are just deluded, and always wrong, about everything. Many if not most of them, however, are pure evil incarnate. In the world of Outlaw, you can't become a conservative leader without being evil. If you are not outright evil, then you are at least amoral, or at the very best, ambivalent.
Then there is Cyrus Garza who, as portrayed by Jimmy Smits, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court. When he is not spending his time upholding conservative legal precedent-for no other reason than the curious belief that no former Supreme Court decision should ever be overturned (how this squares with the many established liberal legal precedents is fairly unclear)-he spends his days and nights drinking, gambling (while getting kicked out of casinos for cheating, and running up massive debts), and womanizing. This will in all likelihood eventually be revealed as a means ofattracting lonely, fantasy-craving, sex starved middle-aged female viewers numbing his raging conscience, which has been nagging and torturing his innermost soul. Despite all his best efforts, of course, his conscience is winning. Which means, by definition, there is no way he can possibly remain a conservative.
The turning point comes when he decides to chuck his Supreme Court position and re-enter the legal profession to fight for the little guy. In doing so, he has earned the ire of his highly placed former conservative supporters and backers, who are already thoroughly pissed at him for, in the series premiere episode, his vote to allow a retrial of a Black Criminal who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Why does this piss them off so much? Apparently, conservatives are so ideologically attached to the death penalty, they don't care if a condemned man is or is not innocent. He has been found guilty, and so must die. Period, end of story. Smits character is a turncoat, and now, the conservative movement is out to destroy him. After all, if Cyrus Garza has the temerity to rule that a Black Man should be granted a retrial, who's to say he might not one day vote to overturn the death penalty all together? They should be glad that he left the Court, but remember-in addition to evil, conservatives are fairly stupid.
But you would think even they would not be so stupid as to miss the disturbing signs of Garza's nascent liberal leanings. His late father was a liberal attorney, who loved him and nurtured him, while reminding him daily what a schumck he was. It even turns out that Garza has a Black Friend, also a liberal attorney, who was responsible for involving him in the case of the condemned felon previously mentioned. The Black Friend also has a Black Teenage Daughter who hates conservatives and openly calls Garza a Fascist-to his face. He has a vaguely Gothish, somewhat whorish assistant who makes life difficult for his squeaky clean conservative assistant. He even has a younger, liberal admirer who blurts out her feelings of love to him.
The only thing that has kept Garza hanging on to his conservative credentials by the skin of his teeth is his amoral lifestyle. But even here, the handwriting is on the wall. After all, if he were really a conservative, he would be an accomplished hypocrite and expert at hiding his personal flaws, like all true conservatives.
Of course, the entire premise of the series is nonsense. For just one example, even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty would be loathe to see an innocent man sentenced to die, as this gives the anti-death penalty movement their most legitimate complaint. They should be at the forefront in demanding fairness for all defendants, and in demanding not only fair trials, but in seeing unjust verdicts overturned whenever one turns up.
This series unfortunately was not intended as a thoughtful exposition of competing American political philosophies, it was meant pure and simply as liberal propaganda.
Jimmy Smits probably has a year or two left on his NBC contract. What better way to burn it out than to give him a vehicle on a Friday night at ten pm, a night and time when the television viewer demographic is dominated by those middle aged and elderly voters, many of whom might be on the fence politically and who might well be swayed by a popular television actor portraying a character in the midst of finding his soul by turning from his past indiscretions and fighting for what is right.
Which is, to be sure, all that is left. I watched this show hoping for the best, but fearing the worse. My fears were well founded. The only surprise this show might offer is if, at some point, Garza's father does not turn out to have been murdered by his, and now his son's, conservative enemies.
There are some things in life you just can't make up. Then there are things like this you just shouldn't bother to watch.
It's really simple. Not all conservatives are bad people. Sometimes, they are just deluded, and always wrong, about everything. Many if not most of them, however, are pure evil incarnate. In the world of Outlaw, you can't become a conservative leader without being evil. If you are not outright evil, then you are at least amoral, or at the very best, ambivalent.
Then there is Cyrus Garza who, as portrayed by Jimmy Smits, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court. When he is not spending his time upholding conservative legal precedent-for no other reason than the curious belief that no former Supreme Court decision should ever be overturned (how this squares with the many established liberal legal precedents is fairly unclear)-he spends his days and nights drinking, gambling (while getting kicked out of casinos for cheating, and running up massive debts), and womanizing. This will in all likelihood eventually be revealed as a means of
The turning point comes when he decides to chuck his Supreme Court position and re-enter the legal profession to fight for the little guy. In doing so, he has earned the ire of his highly placed former conservative supporters and backers, who are already thoroughly pissed at him for, in the series premiere episode, his vote to allow a retrial of a Black Criminal who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Why does this piss them off so much? Apparently, conservatives are so ideologically attached to the death penalty, they don't care if a condemned man is or is not innocent. He has been found guilty, and so must die. Period, end of story. Smits character is a turncoat, and now, the conservative movement is out to destroy him. After all, if Cyrus Garza has the temerity to rule that a Black Man should be granted a retrial, who's to say he might not one day vote to overturn the death penalty all together? They should be glad that he left the Court, but remember-in addition to evil, conservatives are fairly stupid.
But you would think even they would not be so stupid as to miss the disturbing signs of Garza's nascent liberal leanings. His late father was a liberal attorney, who loved him and nurtured him, while reminding him daily what a schumck he was. It even turns out that Garza has a Black Friend, also a liberal attorney, who was responsible for involving him in the case of the condemned felon previously mentioned. The Black Friend also has a Black Teenage Daughter who hates conservatives and openly calls Garza a Fascist-to his face. He has a vaguely Gothish, somewhat whorish assistant who makes life difficult for his squeaky clean conservative assistant. He even has a younger, liberal admirer who blurts out her feelings of love to him.
The only thing that has kept Garza hanging on to his conservative credentials by the skin of his teeth is his amoral lifestyle. But even here, the handwriting is on the wall. After all, if he were really a conservative, he would be an accomplished hypocrite and expert at hiding his personal flaws, like all true conservatives.
Of course, the entire premise of the series is nonsense. For just one example, even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty would be loathe to see an innocent man sentenced to die, as this gives the anti-death penalty movement their most legitimate complaint. They should be at the forefront in demanding fairness for all defendants, and in demanding not only fair trials, but in seeing unjust verdicts overturned whenever one turns up.
This series unfortunately was not intended as a thoughtful exposition of competing American political philosophies, it was meant pure and simply as liberal propaganda.
Jimmy Smits probably has a year or two left on his NBC contract. What better way to burn it out than to give him a vehicle on a Friday night at ten pm, a night and time when the television viewer demographic is dominated by those middle aged and elderly voters, many of whom might be on the fence politically and who might well be swayed by a popular television actor portraying a character in the midst of finding his soul by turning from his past indiscretions and fighting for what is right.
Which is, to be sure, all that is left. I watched this show hoping for the best, but fearing the worse. My fears were well founded. The only surprise this show might offer is if, at some point, Garza's father does not turn out to have been murdered by his, and now his son's, conservative enemies.
There are some things in life you just can't make up. Then there are things like this you just shouldn't bother to watch.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Archetype Nikita
Last night I watched the series Nikita on the CW, and while I can't say it was a complete waste of time, I wasn't unduly surprised. It was actually good in some respects, as far as the acting and the production values. The overall story line and plot was good, and even the dialogue, while not grade A, was not that bad either.
But-sorry, it just wasn't Nikita. Neither was the older version that aired once upon a time on FX. Both seem to owe more to Alias than to the original French film version which became an overnight cult classic.
Yet, it was by no means universally lauded. It received mixed reviews, and while it did respectably good box office, it was not Star Wars, or Iron Man.
So the question is, why do they keep remaking Nikita? There have been three film remakes alone. The current series is the second television version. There must be something seemingly magical about the concept.
Long time readers are of course familiar with the avatar at the top of the blog. It is the goddess Artemis aiming her bow. I have had other pics at the top. Once I had Aphrodite, another time Odin. These are all archtypes. Although I haven't gone out of my way to advertise it, I tend to view all deities from a Jungian perspective. They are archetypes. They represent universal forces that permeate nature, and by extension, all mankind. They speak to the human experience. That is why they are so powerful, and have, in one sense of the word, ALWAYS been worshiped, albeit in differing forms, from one culture and time to the next. Through the heyday of the Christian era, they have been with us. Sometimes they work to our benefit. There have also been times when they have manifested to our detriment. Whether they manifest of good or for bane to a large degree this depends on us.
But whatever the case, they are always with us.
Nikita, in my opinion, represents one of these archetypes, albeit in fictional entertainment form. That explains why she is so powerful, why she exerts such a pull on the popular imagination to such an extent Hollywood keeps trying to recreate the magic of the original, and so far, without exception (including the current incarnation) has always come up somewhat short, in some cases woefully short.
Nikita was a feral child, a girl of the streets, a heroin addicted youth incarcerated for the murder of a policeman, who was taken out of prison, her death faked, and then trained to be an assassin. She was trained in all the ways a culturally astute woman would be trained. She was instructed in the ways of seduction, and all the different ways to please a man. And, of course, she was trained in the ways of espionage, and murder.
But at heart, she was Nikita, the wild, feral child of the streets. She only wanted to live, to survive, and did what she had to do. But when she got the chance, she exerted her need to live free.
Before she did so, she moved in with a young man who worked as a store clerk. He was an unassuming sort, with little to no ambition of which to speak. She was comfortable with him, not so much because he was easy to control, but because she was not threatened by him.
Although she loved him in a sense, it seemed to have been more in the way one might love an adoring pet than a lover one might see as an equal. But she loved him nevertheless, and was forced to leave him, and her new/old life, when it became obvious her former handlers and controllers would not, or could not, let her just walk away from what they saw as her "contractual" obligations.
We were left at the end to wonder, how would she ever make it. She was a survivor, but could she thrive living on the run, always trying to stay one step ahead of the French Intelligence service that saved, then created, and then manipulated her. But of course, we knew the answer to that. She would survive because she was Nakita. That was, after all, what she was, a survivor, a fighter, and when necessary, a killer, a destroyer of lives and souls. If anything, a better question might be, how can they survive without her.
The new series takes it a step further. They have her now on the offensive against the company (in this series, now a secret American agency), whom she is determined to destroy, even as they are in the process of training new "recruits" to carry on the cause, which they describe to them in patriotic terms (though of course there are shady, sinister overtones to the agency).
Yet, as good as Maggie Q is in the role, we see little of the original Nakita. Just another trained assassin. Admittedly, the show could evolve over time and we might see more of the wild, feral child Nikita. We do see some hints of it in the younger recruits of the agency. But so far, the magic is contained inside the allure of sophistication and CW production values. One would expect as much, since the CW is primarily geared to a youth market. As such, Maggie Q as Nikita, while suitably vengeful and violent, is yet much too restrained, much too lacking in blood lust, and far too merciful.
Toward the end of the debut episode, she stopped short of killing the man who was in charge of the mission to capture and kill her, electing to just wound him to make it look good. He himself had stopped short of killing her when he had her in his sights, admitting that he had a thing for her. He let her go with the warning that the next time they met, it would end differently.
That promise would have been the only inducement the old Nikita would have needed to blow him away on the spot. Granted, one can make the argument that this is an older and ostensibly wiser version of Nikita, one that might see him as a potential ally.
Even so, its still not Nikita.
But-sorry, it just wasn't Nikita. Neither was the older version that aired once upon a time on FX. Both seem to owe more to Alias than to the original French film version which became an overnight cult classic.
Yet, it was by no means universally lauded. It received mixed reviews, and while it did respectably good box office, it was not Star Wars, or Iron Man.
So the question is, why do they keep remaking Nikita? There have been three film remakes alone. The current series is the second television version. There must be something seemingly magical about the concept.
Long time readers are of course familiar with the avatar at the top of the blog. It is the goddess Artemis aiming her bow. I have had other pics at the top. Once I had Aphrodite, another time Odin. These are all archtypes. Although I haven't gone out of my way to advertise it, I tend to view all deities from a Jungian perspective. They are archetypes. They represent universal forces that permeate nature, and by extension, all mankind. They speak to the human experience. That is why they are so powerful, and have, in one sense of the word, ALWAYS been worshiped, albeit in differing forms, from one culture and time to the next. Through the heyday of the Christian era, they have been with us. Sometimes they work to our benefit. There have also been times when they have manifested to our detriment. Whether they manifest of good or for bane to a large degree this depends on us.
But whatever the case, they are always with us.
Nikita, in my opinion, represents one of these archetypes, albeit in fictional entertainment form. That explains why she is so powerful, why she exerts such a pull on the popular imagination to such an extent Hollywood keeps trying to recreate the magic of the original, and so far, without exception (including the current incarnation) has always come up somewhat short, in some cases woefully short.
Nikita was a feral child, a girl of the streets, a heroin addicted youth incarcerated for the murder of a policeman, who was taken out of prison, her death faked, and then trained to be an assassin. She was trained in all the ways a culturally astute woman would be trained. She was instructed in the ways of seduction, and all the different ways to please a man. And, of course, she was trained in the ways of espionage, and murder.
But at heart, she was Nikita, the wild, feral child of the streets. She only wanted to live, to survive, and did what she had to do. But when she got the chance, she exerted her need to live free.
Before she did so, she moved in with a young man who worked as a store clerk. He was an unassuming sort, with little to no ambition of which to speak. She was comfortable with him, not so much because he was easy to control, but because she was not threatened by him.
Although she loved him in a sense, it seemed to have been more in the way one might love an adoring pet than a lover one might see as an equal. But she loved him nevertheless, and was forced to leave him, and her new/old life, when it became obvious her former handlers and controllers would not, or could not, let her just walk away from what they saw as her "contractual" obligations.
We were left at the end to wonder, how would she ever make it. She was a survivor, but could she thrive living on the run, always trying to stay one step ahead of the French Intelligence service that saved, then created, and then manipulated her. But of course, we knew the answer to that. She would survive because she was Nakita. That was, after all, what she was, a survivor, a fighter, and when necessary, a killer, a destroyer of lives and souls. If anything, a better question might be, how can they survive without her.
The new series takes it a step further. They have her now on the offensive against the company (in this series, now a secret American agency), whom she is determined to destroy, even as they are in the process of training new "recruits" to carry on the cause, which they describe to them in patriotic terms (though of course there are shady, sinister overtones to the agency).
Yet, as good as Maggie Q is in the role, we see little of the original Nakita. Just another trained assassin. Admittedly, the show could evolve over time and we might see more of the wild, feral child Nikita. We do see some hints of it in the younger recruits of the agency. But so far, the magic is contained inside the allure of sophistication and CW production values. One would expect as much, since the CW is primarily geared to a youth market. As such, Maggie Q as Nikita, while suitably vengeful and violent, is yet much too restrained, much too lacking in blood lust, and far too merciful.
Toward the end of the debut episode, she stopped short of killing the man who was in charge of the mission to capture and kill her, electing to just wound him to make it look good. He himself had stopped short of killing her when he had her in his sights, admitting that he had a thing for her. He let her go with the warning that the next time they met, it would end differently.
That promise would have been the only inducement the old Nikita would have needed to blow him away on the spot. Granted, one can make the argument that this is an older and ostensibly wiser version of Nikita, one that might see him as a potential ally.
Even so, its still not Nikita.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Still Waiting, In A Haze Of Smoke
When everything goes to hell in a handbasket, all you can do is bitch. People will tell you it doesn't do you any good, but it does help you to vent. Right now, I do need to vent. I got my car fixed, then came a plumbing problem. I'm still waiting for the bill on that one. On top of that, now that my car has had new valves put in, it still runs hot, so I'm still not out of the woods. I have a family medical drama on-going that I'd rather not go into right now. And, since my computer broke down and I have too much of this other crap going on to get it fixed, I have been smoking like the proverbial freight train. Seriously, I had cut down to a half pack a day, with little problem. Now, since I have all this other crap going on, and nothing to occupy my time with in a constructive way, other than a few minutes at the local library computer every once in a while (yes, Sonia Belle, they do have libraries in Kentucky, I've been smoking worse than Obama in the White House men's room.
What I need is some good fucking drugs, but who can afford that?
What I need is some good fucking drugs, but who can afford that?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Cordoba
Computer still down, still posting from the library, just stopped by to check things out. Should have things squared aqay in another two or three weeks, hopefully.
In the meantime, here's some thoughts about the so-called Cordoba Mosque project slated for Manhatten near the site of 9/11.
1. The Muslims who own the land certainly have the right to build the Islamic Center and Mosque at the site.
2. It's still a pretty shitty idea.
3. That being said, I think well over half the controversy would be put to rest if they named it something other than after the area of an Islamic conquest.
Any thoughts?
In the meantime, here's some thoughts about the so-called Cordoba Mosque project slated for Manhatten near the site of 9/11.
1. The Muslims who own the land certainly have the right to build the Islamic Center and Mosque at the site.
2. It's still a pretty shitty idea.
3. That being said, I think well over half the controversy would be put to rest if they named it something other than after the area of an Islamic conquest.
Any thoughts?
Friday, August 06, 2010
Bear Attack-In The Red River Gorge
Still posting from the library, and probably will be for some time (and rarely) but I wanted to do more now than just check in. I had intended to go into some detail about the recent bear attack that necessitated the closing of Red River Gorge. Here we go with what amounts to another Democratic Party boondoggle. Bears are put on the endangered species list. Fine. It is decided that we need to preserve the species and we need to keep their numbers up to sufficient levels in order to do what we can to help preserve the "balance of nature". That's fine too.
But when it gets to the point that a man is prosecuted for killing a bear who has tried to break into his own home, which he did in an effort to protect his beloved pet dog, I say its time to start taking out Democrats. Don't get excited now, I'm talking about at the polling stations during elections now (ie, that's what I'll say if the law asks me what I meant).
I didn't just not provide a link to that story, by the way, because I'm lazy or because I'm pressed for time. I challenge you to find the story on-line anywhere. It's been removed from any web-site, I assume, because its an embarrassment to Kentucky politicians and to the environmental lobby, which is pretty strong in Kentucky. Since most journalists in Kentucky are somewhat to the left of Leon Trotsky, its easy enough for me to see why they would obligingly agree to install this cone of silence on a story they once jumped all over themselves to report, probably on the assumption that most Kentuckians would support the bear, and the environmentalists story, that particular year being a Democratically trending one and all.
Now, you won't find any mention of the story, but then again, there's hardly a week that goes by that you won't hear of a bear being hit by a car on a highway, or rummaging through someone's trash can, etc. In Rockcastle County, one woman chased off a young black bear with a broom.
You are never advised to do that, of course, nor are you encouraged to shoot them. There are limited hunting seasons for that, and even then, the environmentalists fought tooth-and-claw to insert terms favorable to the bear, such as limitations on types of weapons. During the one period of time that was mandated as "bear hunting season", the weather was so bad, near blizzard conditions, the hunt produced not one bear casualty.
Then came the recent Red River Gorge incident, which necessitated the closing of the Gorge, a state park and major tourist attraction, for close to a week. Since then, the park has opened and the bear finally caught, and relocated.
The best part of this story, though-and yes, it is a bright spot-is that the man who was attacked was himself an environmentalist whack job, and actually defended the bear who attacked himn while he stood there filming the damn thing.
That would be a dream scenario for me. Here I go walking through the forest with my camcorder or video camera, and I hear the horrified screams of what turns out to be a rabid environmentalist in the process of being mauled by an angry, or hungry, black bear, the very kind he was worked hard to make sure I can kill only under the most limited circumstances.
"Hellllp, Oh God, Pleeeasaaase Helllllp!"
"Wish I could help you pout there buddy," I'd shout while holding up my trusty rifle. "But there's really nothing I could do. I would shoot him with this gun, but damn, that would be against the law".
Then from a safe distance, I'd film the event for posterity, maybe post it to YouTube under a suitable title. "Just Desserts", or something equally clever.
Is that wrong? Not in the least. These people are creating an environment where bears are going to lose their natural fear of humans, and the more of them there are, the hungrier they will be, and the more widespread will become their range. After so long of people going out of their way to avoid them, even when they intrude upon a human habitation, they are only going to get even more bold. Eventually, they will go from killing pets and livestock, to killing people, including children. It is so obviously going to happen one of these days, its a matter of when, not if, And when it does happen, Democrats and their environmentalist owners will be the ones who helped make it happen.
So no, if any of them, or their families, end up reaping the results of what they helped bring about-like almost happened to one environmentalist loon in Kentucky's Red River Gorge-not only do I not care, I hope it happens to one sooner rather than later. After all, if bad consequences only happened to those who pass bad laws, well, there wouldn't be very many bad laws for very long.
For now, they've just succeeded in making people think twice before going to Red Rover Gorge, one of the most beautiful areas of Kentucky. I'd like to think the economic ramifications of that alone might be enough to make Kentucky legislators revisit the issue in a more comprehensively SANE manner. But I'm not counting on that either.
But when it gets to the point that a man is prosecuted for killing a bear who has tried to break into his own home, which he did in an effort to protect his beloved pet dog, I say its time to start taking out Democrats. Don't get excited now, I'm talking about at the polling stations during elections now (ie, that's what I'll say if the law asks me what I meant).
I didn't just not provide a link to that story, by the way, because I'm lazy or because I'm pressed for time. I challenge you to find the story on-line anywhere. It's been removed from any web-site, I assume, because its an embarrassment to Kentucky politicians and to the environmental lobby, which is pretty strong in Kentucky. Since most journalists in Kentucky are somewhat to the left of Leon Trotsky, its easy enough for me to see why they would obligingly agree to install this cone of silence on a story they once jumped all over themselves to report, probably on the assumption that most Kentuckians would support the bear, and the environmentalists story, that particular year being a Democratically trending one and all.
Now, you won't find any mention of the story, but then again, there's hardly a week that goes by that you won't hear of a bear being hit by a car on a highway, or rummaging through someone's trash can, etc. In Rockcastle County, one woman chased off a young black bear with a broom.
You are never advised to do that, of course, nor are you encouraged to shoot them. There are limited hunting seasons for that, and even then, the environmentalists fought tooth-and-claw to insert terms favorable to the bear, such as limitations on types of weapons. During the one period of time that was mandated as "bear hunting season", the weather was so bad, near blizzard conditions, the hunt produced not one bear casualty.
Then came the recent Red River Gorge incident, which necessitated the closing of the Gorge, a state park and major tourist attraction, for close to a week. Since then, the park has opened and the bear finally caught, and relocated.
The best part of this story, though-and yes, it is a bright spot-is that the man who was attacked was himself an environmentalist whack job, and actually defended the bear who attacked himn while he stood there filming the damn thing.
That would be a dream scenario for me. Here I go walking through the forest with my camcorder or video camera, and I hear the horrified screams of what turns out to be a rabid environmentalist in the process of being mauled by an angry, or hungry, black bear, the very kind he was worked hard to make sure I can kill only under the most limited circumstances.
"Hellllp, Oh God, Pleeeasaaase Helllllp!"
"Wish I could help you pout there buddy," I'd shout while holding up my trusty rifle. "But there's really nothing I could do. I would shoot him with this gun, but damn, that would be against the law".
Then from a safe distance, I'd film the event for posterity, maybe post it to YouTube under a suitable title. "Just Desserts", or something equally clever.
Is that wrong? Not in the least. These people are creating an environment where bears are going to lose their natural fear of humans, and the more of them there are, the hungrier they will be, and the more widespread will become their range. After so long of people going out of their way to avoid them, even when they intrude upon a human habitation, they are only going to get even more bold. Eventually, they will go from killing pets and livestock, to killing people, including children. It is so obviously going to happen one of these days, its a matter of when, not if, And when it does happen, Democrats and their environmentalist owners will be the ones who helped make it happen.
So no, if any of them, or their families, end up reaping the results of what they helped bring about-like almost happened to one environmentalist loon in Kentucky's Red River Gorge-not only do I not care, I hope it happens to one sooner rather than later. After all, if bad consequences only happened to those who pass bad laws, well, there wouldn't be very many bad laws for very long.
For now, they've just succeeded in making people think twice before going to Red Rover Gorge, one of the most beautiful areas of Kentucky. I'd like to think the economic ramifications of that alone might be enough to make Kentucky legislators revisit the issue in a more comprehensively SANE manner. But I'm not counting on that either.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Not Much To Say, Except ^*#&^@T#*()!!!
I won't be posting for a while, because my computer crashed on me. I think its finished, but if not, it will still take some time to get it repaired, or to get a new one. I have a major auto repair coming up that must come first, and its a doozy too. I'm lucky its in good enough shape for me to be able to drive up here to my local library and post this. I'll be checking in maybe once or twice a week, but I won't be posting to nearly as great an extent as usual, nor will I be commenting very much on any of your blogs for some time to come.
Anyway, for those of you who follow Kentucky politics, particularly those who are interested in the up-coming Senate race between Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jeff Conway, be aware that this coming weekend is the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Western Kentucky, which traditionally kicks off the start of the Kentucky political season.
I won't be attending, but I'll be keeping my ear to the ground for any interesting information that comes out and will try to post my thoughts on the festivities sometime next week, if at all possible. This is an important race, because its by no means in the bag for Paul, whose libertarian ideology trumped his common sense and caused him to stumble coming out of the starting gate. If Conway pulls it out, it might well be the one single pick up for the Democrats in the Senate. It won't be that easy though, because Conway has still failed to pick up an endorsement from former Democrat primary rival Daniel Mongiardo. This will be what I will be looking for from Fancy Farm. If Mongiardo appears and makes a surprise endorsement, it oould be ther shot in the arm needed for Conway to win Eastern Kentucky, and Western Kentucky as well.
If Mongiardo doesn't endosre Conway, then Paul will more than likely win.
I would love to go to the Fancy Farm Picnic, not just for the political theater, but for the overall event. But that's just not a realistic part of my planned schedule. I'm doing good to be able to have a good Lughnasadh.
For now, I'll just wish all a Blessed Lughnasadh. Even if you're not a pagan, get out and about and try to enjoy nature's beauty and bounty. Try to see the ghod things in lifel. It will help you think right.
Anyway, for those of you who follow Kentucky politics, particularly those who are interested in the up-coming Senate race between Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jeff Conway, be aware that this coming weekend is the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Western Kentucky, which traditionally kicks off the start of the Kentucky political season.
I won't be attending, but I'll be keeping my ear to the ground for any interesting information that comes out and will try to post my thoughts on the festivities sometime next week, if at all possible. This is an important race, because its by no means in the bag for Paul, whose libertarian ideology trumped his common sense and caused him to stumble coming out of the starting gate. If Conway pulls it out, it might well be the one single pick up for the Democrats in the Senate. It won't be that easy though, because Conway has still failed to pick up an endorsement from former Democrat primary rival Daniel Mongiardo. This will be what I will be looking for from Fancy Farm. If Mongiardo appears and makes a surprise endorsement, it oould be ther shot in the arm needed for Conway to win Eastern Kentucky, and Western Kentucky as well.
If Mongiardo doesn't endosre Conway, then Paul will more than likely win.
I would love to go to the Fancy Farm Picnic, not just for the political theater, but for the overall event. But that's just not a realistic part of my planned schedule. I'm doing good to be able to have a good Lughnasadh.
For now, I'll just wish all a Blessed Lughnasadh. Even if you're not a pagan, get out and about and try to enjoy nature's beauty and bounty. Try to see the ghod things in lifel. It will help you think right.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
What Sharron Angle REALLY Said About The 2nd Amendment
Here is the statement by the Nevada Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, whom her opponent, Democratic incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, claims is "out of the mainstream"-
‘Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,’ Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. ‘In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.’
Out of the mainstream? This would come as shocking news to the Founding Fathers, compared to many of whom-Jefferson for one-Angle would appear quite moderate.
I know its fashionable nowadays for Democrats to want to focus on the "regulation" and "militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment, but the fact is, if you are a law-abiding citizen of the United States, you are automatically a member of that state militia, according to the constitution, and you are duty bound to supply your own weapons, including standard rifles and/or sidearms-in other words, handguns. In order for you to have them at the ready, you must do just that-have them where they are immediately available at a moments notice. That would be your home, place of business, etc.
What is the reason for this? Let's put it this way-it doesn't have a damn thing to do with duck hunting. We fought a rebellion against the British for a reason. Actually, for quite a number of reasons. We won, and in our constitution, the urge for us and our elected representatives (you know, what Democrats and Liberals call "leaders")to guard against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually means something. In other words, exactly what it says.
If our elected politicians put themselves in the position where they can legitimately be viewed as a domestic enemy of the people, then up to a point, yes, that is the fault of the people who voted for them, but more to the point, the onus is on them, once they are in office, to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. If they fall short of their duties, and they become tyrants along the lines of King George and the old British Empire-or worse-then they have only themselves to blame for the potential consequences.
I don't know everything about Sharron Angle. Perhaps in some regards, she is as radical as her opponents claim she is, although I tend to think that what you are hearing about are examples of Democrats twisting words and taking them out of context. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Sharron Angle wants to impose a new kind of Prohibition on alcohol.
I should also point out that, as someone recently told me, the NRA is supporting Reid, who has actually prevented gun control legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate. This is something that neither Dick Durbin nor Charles Schumer would be likely to do should Harry Reid lose his re=election bid, and yet the Democrats manage to maintain their majority status in the Senate.
This is all something that is worthy of consideration. But one thing is a definite fact. Sharron Angle's views on the 2nd Amendment might be, in our modern era, "out of the mainstream". If so, that's a shame, because her views on the 2nd Amendment are exactly what the founding fathers intended.
‘Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,’ Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. ‘In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.’
Out of the mainstream? This would come as shocking news to the Founding Fathers, compared to many of whom-Jefferson for one-Angle would appear quite moderate.
I know its fashionable nowadays for Democrats to want to focus on the "regulation" and "militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment, but the fact is, if you are a law-abiding citizen of the United States, you are automatically a member of that state militia, according to the constitution, and you are duty bound to supply your own weapons, including standard rifles and/or sidearms-in other words, handguns. In order for you to have them at the ready, you must do just that-have them where they are immediately available at a moments notice. That would be your home, place of business, etc.
What is the reason for this? Let's put it this way-it doesn't have a damn thing to do with duck hunting. We fought a rebellion against the British for a reason. Actually, for quite a number of reasons. We won, and in our constitution, the urge for us and our elected representatives (you know, what Democrats and Liberals call "leaders")to guard against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually means something. In other words, exactly what it says.
If our elected politicians put themselves in the position where they can legitimately be viewed as a domestic enemy of the people, then up to a point, yes, that is the fault of the people who voted for them, but more to the point, the onus is on them, once they are in office, to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. If they fall short of their duties, and they become tyrants along the lines of King George and the old British Empire-or worse-then they have only themselves to blame for the potential consequences.
I don't know everything about Sharron Angle. Perhaps in some regards, she is as radical as her opponents claim she is, although I tend to think that what you are hearing about are examples of Democrats twisting words and taking them out of context. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Sharron Angle wants to impose a new kind of Prohibition on alcohol.
I should also point out that, as someone recently told me, the NRA is supporting Reid, who has actually prevented gun control legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate. This is something that neither Dick Durbin nor Charles Schumer would be likely to do should Harry Reid lose his re=election bid, and yet the Democrats manage to maintain their majority status in the Senate.
This is all something that is worthy of consideration. But one thing is a definite fact. Sharron Angle's views on the 2nd Amendment might be, in our modern era, "out of the mainstream". If so, that's a shame, because her views on the 2nd Amendment are exactly what the founding fathers intended.
Desperation
The Democrats have cooked up a new strategy, if you want to dignify it with that term, that seems like its based on two-thirds perspiration and one third desperation. If they would wipe the sweat out of their eyes, they might see that the Tea Party is more popular with more people than either the Democratic or the Republican Party. Once they saw that clearly, they might realize it might not be the best idea in the world to pursue a strategy of identifying the Tea Party as part and parcel of the Republican Party. I mean, most of the people who are planning to vote are, judging by most polls, planning to vote Republican anyway. All this tactic will accomplish is allow more people to vote Republican without holding their noses. The ones that will still hold their noses and vote will possibly be slightly disappointed in the Tea Party, or maybe not-they'll still vote GOP, just not because they love the party.
The real target of this strategy independent voters, and the goal is not to convince them to vote Democratic. It's to make them want to stay home. That just goes to show you that Democrats are expecting a shellacking at the polls this November.
It's going to take more than pointing to a few questionable statements from candidates like Sharon Angle and Rand Paul to tar the GOP, or for that matter the Tea Party, with the same broad brush. But the Democrats are welcome to try anyway. Hopefully they will only make matters worse for them.
The real target of this strategy independent voters, and the goal is not to convince them to vote Democratic. It's to make them want to stay home. That just goes to show you that Democrats are expecting a shellacking at the polls this November.
It's going to take more than pointing to a few questionable statements from candidates like Sharon Angle and Rand Paul to tar the GOP, or for that matter the Tea Party, with the same broad brush. But the Democrats are welcome to try anyway. Hopefully they will only make matters worse for them.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Obama Agenda
Don't believe the lies. Just because Obama is not going to attend the Boy Scouts 100th anniversary Jamboree doesn't mean he is dissing the Scouts. He has a speech on the economy to give before he appears on The View, but in the meantime, he will be addressing the Scouts via teleconference.
In fact, he's already met with the Scouts. Here's a picture of the meeting that occurred earlier this year.
I guess you know what this means, don't you? Don't look now, but here comes another Cabinet Department.
In fact, he's already met with the Scouts. Here's a picture of the meeting that occurred earlier this year.
I guess you know what this means, don't you? Don't look now, but here comes another Cabinet Department.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A Dish Of Excrement Even JournoList Wouldn't Touch
The JournoList scandal is still unfolding even as we speak, and who knows what revelations are yet ahead. The Daily Caller, which broke this story, is doing Yeoman's work putting all the pieces together, and you can keep abreast of all past and future developments here.
Not all the journalists on JournoList was involved with the attempt to subvert the electoral process in order to aid in the election of their favored candidate, Barak Hussein Obama. They considered it unethical. Many other mainstream journalists and commentators feel the same, and the ones who were involved in the controversy have been greatly criticized. One of their critics has been The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who recently blogged about it at The Daily Dish.
Unfortunately, in Sullivan's case, the criticism isn't based on the ethics of the endeavor. He is pissed off because they didn't go far enough. He is incensed, in fact, that they did not devote any time to the Sarah-Trig Palin controversy. Oh, they discussed it at some length. What has Sullivan so angry is they seem to at least have had enough sense to know such dirty, underhanded tactics might actually have backfired on them-or more importantly, on Obama.
Andrew Sullivan's obsession with the birth of Trig Palin is obviously based on Palin's politics. She has stated her opposition to gay marriage for one thing, and she has a long-standing affiliation with an evangelical, apostolic Christian Church. She is obviously a social conservative. In Sullivan's world view, this leaves her automatically unfit and unqualified for any high office, especially a high national office, and most especially the Presidency. Had she been elected Vice-President, she would only be a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land, the most powerful position in the world. Sullivan could not abide by that, so he went to work, and promptly rolled in the gutter. The stench of that experience is still with him, and he can't seem to shake it. But then, he doesn't want to. He is now securely on the same level as the Alaskan blogger Gryphen, who seems to have been the originator of the story of how Palin's oldest daughter, presumably, gave birth to Trig, whereupon Sarah, for some inexplicable reason, claimed him as her own. This was done apparently to avoid the scandal of a daughter who had given birth to one illegitimate child, giving birth to yet another illegitimate child, this one afflicted with Down's Syndrome.
Since there might be a time disparity involved in the two births, it was soon posited that Trig may have been premature. Also, Sarah didn't look pregnant enough at seven months, and besides, what kind of woman would get on a plane while pregnant and close to going into labor. Then there were the ears. Trigs ears were gnarled in one old photo, but seem to have underwent a drastic, noticeable improvement in later photos. Something strange is going on here. Maybe there have actually been two, or three Trigs.
Whatever the case, Sarah Palin could not have given birth to the child, so somebody else must have. If not the oldest daughter, then maybe the middle one. But since Palin seems unconcerned enough about the other illegitimate child that she didn't try to hide its birth to her unwed daughter, why would she go out of her way to hide this one by claiming maternity of the child when she obviously is not and could not be the mother?
What this is all leading up to is of course blatantly obvious, and in fact it has even been stated, albeit in the closed circles of Gryphen's blog. Palin's husband is the father of Trig-by his own daughter. They just don't know which one yet. Once they figure that out, then they can go on from there to determine how culpable Palin was. When did she learn the truth about the pregnancy, and did she know about the alleged relationship of father to daughter. Was it a one time thing, the act of a drunken Todd acting out in frustration after a period of marital discord, or was it an on-going act. And was Sarah a willing enabler of all this?
These are the kinds of people who swim in the cesspool of the American political left. This is the kind of thing they dream up. They will go to any lengths to damage, and hopefully destroy, a political opponent.
It's nothing new. It's been on-going since the earliest days of the Republic, with both sides aligned with their advocates among the special interest groups, and among the news professionals. Adams, Hamilton, Burr, and Jefferson all had their supporters amongst the press who doled out propaganda. But at least then, there were no pretenses as to objectivity. We've almost come full circle, with only the slightest facades of that pretension of objectivity, with the lions share of the support of "objective" journalists going to the left.
The JournoList people excoriated George Stephanopolis for daring to question Obama, during the debates, for his associations with the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. It should be pointed out of course that Stephanopolis worked in the Clinton White House, and may not have been entirely objective himself during the primary contest between Obama and Clinton.
But the JournoList members had no such compunctions about the unfair allegations against Palin-except in this one brief instance, where even the people who made up JournoList knew that such allegations might result in a popular uprising at the polls in favor of the GOP ticket. In other words, the concerns were not ethical, but pragmatic ones.
On most other given days, the journalistic profession in general comprises the largest collection of garbage, and in some cases raw sewage in the entirety of the public sphere.
Sometimes one can find Andrew Sullivan clawing his way to the top of the heap. But at other times, he is to be found happily swimming at the bottom of the cesspool.
Hat Tip to Jenn Q Pulic-on Twitter
Not all the journalists on JournoList was involved with the attempt to subvert the electoral process in order to aid in the election of their favored candidate, Barak Hussein Obama. They considered it unethical. Many other mainstream journalists and commentators feel the same, and the ones who were involved in the controversy have been greatly criticized. One of their critics has been The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who recently blogged about it at The Daily Dish.
Unfortunately, in Sullivan's case, the criticism isn't based on the ethics of the endeavor. He is pissed off because they didn't go far enough. He is incensed, in fact, that they did not devote any time to the Sarah-Trig Palin controversy. Oh, they discussed it at some length. What has Sullivan so angry is they seem to at least have had enough sense to know such dirty, underhanded tactics might actually have backfired on them-or more importantly, on Obama.
Andrew Sullivan's obsession with the birth of Trig Palin is obviously based on Palin's politics. She has stated her opposition to gay marriage for one thing, and she has a long-standing affiliation with an evangelical, apostolic Christian Church. She is obviously a social conservative. In Sullivan's world view, this leaves her automatically unfit and unqualified for any high office, especially a high national office, and most especially the Presidency. Had she been elected Vice-President, she would only be a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land, the most powerful position in the world. Sullivan could not abide by that, so he went to work, and promptly rolled in the gutter. The stench of that experience is still with him, and he can't seem to shake it. But then, he doesn't want to. He is now securely on the same level as the Alaskan blogger Gryphen, who seems to have been the originator of the story of how Palin's oldest daughter, presumably, gave birth to Trig, whereupon Sarah, for some inexplicable reason, claimed him as her own. This was done apparently to avoid the scandal of a daughter who had given birth to one illegitimate child, giving birth to yet another illegitimate child, this one afflicted with Down's Syndrome.
Since there might be a time disparity involved in the two births, it was soon posited that Trig may have been premature. Also, Sarah didn't look pregnant enough at seven months, and besides, what kind of woman would get on a plane while pregnant and close to going into labor. Then there were the ears. Trigs ears were gnarled in one old photo, but seem to have underwent a drastic, noticeable improvement in later photos. Something strange is going on here. Maybe there have actually been two, or three Trigs.
Whatever the case, Sarah Palin could not have given birth to the child, so somebody else must have. If not the oldest daughter, then maybe the middle one. But since Palin seems unconcerned enough about the other illegitimate child that she didn't try to hide its birth to her unwed daughter, why would she go out of her way to hide this one by claiming maternity of the child when she obviously is not and could not be the mother?
What this is all leading up to is of course blatantly obvious, and in fact it has even been stated, albeit in the closed circles of Gryphen's blog. Palin's husband is the father of Trig-by his own daughter. They just don't know which one yet. Once they figure that out, then they can go on from there to determine how culpable Palin was. When did she learn the truth about the pregnancy, and did she know about the alleged relationship of father to daughter. Was it a one time thing, the act of a drunken Todd acting out in frustration after a period of marital discord, or was it an on-going act. And was Sarah a willing enabler of all this?
These are the kinds of people who swim in the cesspool of the American political left. This is the kind of thing they dream up. They will go to any lengths to damage, and hopefully destroy, a political opponent.
It's nothing new. It's been on-going since the earliest days of the Republic, with both sides aligned with their advocates among the special interest groups, and among the news professionals. Adams, Hamilton, Burr, and Jefferson all had their supporters amongst the press who doled out propaganda. But at least then, there were no pretenses as to objectivity. We've almost come full circle, with only the slightest facades of that pretension of objectivity, with the lions share of the support of "objective" journalists going to the left.
The JournoList people excoriated George Stephanopolis for daring to question Obama, during the debates, for his associations with the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. It should be pointed out of course that Stephanopolis worked in the Clinton White House, and may not have been entirely objective himself during the primary contest between Obama and Clinton.
But the JournoList members had no such compunctions about the unfair allegations against Palin-except in this one brief instance, where even the people who made up JournoList knew that such allegations might result in a popular uprising at the polls in favor of the GOP ticket. In other words, the concerns were not ethical, but pragmatic ones.
On most other given days, the journalistic profession in general comprises the largest collection of garbage, and in some cases raw sewage in the entirety of the public sphere.
Sometimes one can find Andrew Sullivan clawing his way to the top of the heap. But at other times, he is to be found happily swimming at the bottom of the cesspool.
Hat Tip to Jenn Q Pulic-on Twitter
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Beakerkin Group And Our Anti-Yeagleyist Agenda
We were hoping to keep it a secret for a while longer, but the cat's out of the bag, so it looks like we have no other choice-The Beakerkin Group is henceforth going public. I guess its only right. We have worked behind the scenes for years now in our attempts to subvert the Constitution of the United States in order to bring about an irrevocable end to, and total destruction of, the white race. In the past, we have sought to achieve our goal in this regard by way of the promotion of the process of miscegenation. We have generally used the media as our main tool in this endeavor, but we have also used political advocacy as well.
We have done this in the background of course, trying to stay hidden, keeping our true natures concealed while we publicly have always adopted a hypocritical persona of supposed adherence to the values of conservatism, liberty, and the constitution. Ours is, after all, a secret society, and as such, our public faces have concealed a diabolical set of priorities revolving around eventual world domination.
You see, we understand full well that a mixed race of humans would be intellectually inferior, and easy to lead and control. We are also well aware that blacks in particular have a savage nature, being more or less straight out of the jungle. They are sexual beasts, whom most white women secretly desire to be ravaged by. Over time, this would be an important tool by which our eventual goal of a muddled and mixed race of humans would be achieved. It would by no means be our only strategy. There would be others, such as encouragement of the crushing burden of white guilt and liberal angst. We have also promoted acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, lax moral living in a variety of ways, such as drug and alcohol abuse, all in an attempt to undermine the family structure of society and the underpinnings of the Judaeo-Christian values that have been the bedrock of its strength.
Our most deliciously evil tactic, however, has been in persuading gullible Americans that competent consenting adults have the right to engage in romantic, sexual, and marital relationships with whomever they want so long as it is by mutual consent. Some of the biggest laughs we get when we are having our secret meetings is when we see pictures and videos of mixed race couples, obviously deceived by our propaganda. And when we see the mixed race product of one of these unions, we laugh and howl with demonic glee.
Naturally, we could not be open about such beliefs, about our true feelings and actual agenda. It cannot be stressed too often, we are-or we were-a secret cabal bent on world domination. But then it happened-Dr. David Yeagley exposed The Beakerkin Group.
I'm glad its over. I can breathe a sigh of relief now. In a way, I owe Doctor David Yeagley a debt of gratitude for revealing our secret, nefarious agenda to none other than Monica Crowley. I guess I went a little too far. I had assumed that Ms. Crowley would be easy to subvert to our cause, so I have been working on her. Unfortunately, Yeagley seems to have targeted her for conversion to his own philosophy, to his devotion to what he and his followers, the Yeagleyists, would tell you are the truly conservative American values of segregation and racial purity.
I overreacted to his propaganda, and in so warning the other denizens of Ms Crowley's blog as to his intentions, by trying to play off their sense of white guilt as I have so often successfully done with countless other naive and gullible white Americans, I inadvertently enabled Yeagley to expose our existence, and our agenda.
But while this battle has been lost, the war is by no means over. In fact, The Beakerkin Group will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever. Now, we have no reason to hide, and can openly and forthrightly stand against the Yeagleyist forces wherever we might find them.
No matter how long it takes, we will stand forever strong against Yeagley. And if he dares use his rights of free speech to oppose our goals of unlimited racial mixing and hybridization of the human species, we will do everything within our power to deny him his rights of freedom of speech and expression, and the rights of others to free association with him. We will do this by way of the deceitful, hateful, insidious and diabolical tactic known as "disagreement".
The Beakerkin Group will-we must-prevail.
Our new slogan must now be-
ONWARD, TO A MULTI-CULTURAL, MIXED RACE AMERICA!
I'm just glad now we can be open, and that the Beakerkin Group can now be made known to all-including Beakerkin.
We have done this in the background of course, trying to stay hidden, keeping our true natures concealed while we publicly have always adopted a hypocritical persona of supposed adherence to the values of conservatism, liberty, and the constitution. Ours is, after all, a secret society, and as such, our public faces have concealed a diabolical set of priorities revolving around eventual world domination.
You see, we understand full well that a mixed race of humans would be intellectually inferior, and easy to lead and control. We are also well aware that blacks in particular have a savage nature, being more or less straight out of the jungle. They are sexual beasts, whom most white women secretly desire to be ravaged by. Over time, this would be an important tool by which our eventual goal of a muddled and mixed race of humans would be achieved. It would by no means be our only strategy. There would be others, such as encouragement of the crushing burden of white guilt and liberal angst. We have also promoted acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, lax moral living in a variety of ways, such as drug and alcohol abuse, all in an attempt to undermine the family structure of society and the underpinnings of the Judaeo-Christian values that have been the bedrock of its strength.
Our most deliciously evil tactic, however, has been in persuading gullible Americans that competent consenting adults have the right to engage in romantic, sexual, and marital relationships with whomever they want so long as it is by mutual consent. Some of the biggest laughs we get when we are having our secret meetings is when we see pictures and videos of mixed race couples, obviously deceived by our propaganda. And when we see the mixed race product of one of these unions, we laugh and howl with demonic glee.
Naturally, we could not be open about such beliefs, about our true feelings and actual agenda. It cannot be stressed too often, we are-or we were-a secret cabal bent on world domination. But then it happened-Dr. David Yeagley exposed The Beakerkin Group.
I'm glad its over. I can breathe a sigh of relief now. In a way, I owe Doctor David Yeagley a debt of gratitude for revealing our secret, nefarious agenda to none other than Monica Crowley. I guess I went a little too far. I had assumed that Ms. Crowley would be easy to subvert to our cause, so I have been working on her. Unfortunately, Yeagley seems to have targeted her for conversion to his own philosophy, to his devotion to what he and his followers, the Yeagleyists, would tell you are the truly conservative American values of segregation and racial purity.
I overreacted to his propaganda, and in so warning the other denizens of Ms Crowley's blog as to his intentions, by trying to play off their sense of white guilt as I have so often successfully done with countless other naive and gullible white Americans, I inadvertently enabled Yeagley to expose our existence, and our agenda.
But while this battle has been lost, the war is by no means over. In fact, The Beakerkin Group will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever. Now, we have no reason to hide, and can openly and forthrightly stand against the Yeagleyist forces wherever we might find them.
No matter how long it takes, we will stand forever strong against Yeagley. And if he dares use his rights of free speech to oppose our goals of unlimited racial mixing and hybridization of the human species, we will do everything within our power to deny him his rights of freedom of speech and expression, and the rights of others to free association with him. We will do this by way of the deceitful, hateful, insidious and diabolical tactic known as "disagreement".
The Beakerkin Group will-we must-prevail.
Our new slogan must now be-
ONWARD, TO A MULTI-CULTURAL, MIXED RACE AMERICA!
I'm just glad now we can be open, and that the Beakerkin Group can now be made known to all-including Beakerkin.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Homespun Humor Of Fred Thompson-Via Twitter
If I didn't know better-and really, I don't-I would swear Fred Thompson is toying with the idea of making another run for the Presidency, or possibly entering the political sphere in a different capacity. If not, he must just be bored, or maybe angry, and he's using Twitter as a release. But his tweets aren't boring, and they really don't come across as angry in a petulant, hateful kind of way-but Thompson sure does have a gift for the sarcastic jibe. Most politicians that Twitter put out kind of run-of-the-mill observations, or announcements of appearances, sometimes you'll get a link to a news story, etc. In other words, to most politicians, Twitter is a tool.
Fred Thompson, by contrast, looks as though he's actually having fun with Twitter.
Some examples-
Obama's recovery plan: taking money from people who create jobs, then giving it to people who can't find work.
Geithner: economic crisis due to people "living beyond their means". Yup, that's why those people won't get re-elected in 2010.
Biden: Pelosi is "the mother of health care". If that's true, then we need to report her to Child Protective Services.
Black USDA employee fired for not helping white farmer. Outrageous! All colors deserve equal level of surly, resentful govt help
Pelosi: Bush tax cuts "did not create jobs". Sure. Low unemployment rate was from all those temporary census workers Bush hired
Geithner: "every business better off now than 18 months ago." Wonder if that includes the ones that aren't in business any more?
Rangel charged w/ violating House ethics rules. No doubt accusing him of not having enough violations to meet his quota.
Greens say spill clean-up efforts hurt environment. Guys, go holler that in front of a windmill & make some clean energy
Navy uses laser to shoot down drone. Obama to only authorize its use on terrorists for corrective eye surgery.
Biden fined $219K for 2008 campaign violations. He probably figures it's worth that much just to not be President right now.
Gingrich: Obama like a "teenager with a credit card". Yup. And the 2010 elections are going to be like a big pair of scissors
Russia to spend $800M on new space center. Maybe we should sell them Cape Kennedy. Not like Obama plans to use it for anything
3.6-magnitude earthquake hit DC. President Obama said it was due to 8 years of Bush failing to regulate plate tectonics
Obama: fin ref bill would end "era of irresponsibility". Huh... I didn't know it moved election day up to July
Poll: 73 % oppose Obama's offshore drilling ban. Other 27% think oil should only come from quart bottles marked Quaker State.
Axelrod: Medicare Czar "not coming to implement the British system". Good. Obama would look silly wearing a dress and a crown.
Biden to visit flood damage in TN. I'll bet the first thing he says is "great clean-up job. I don't see a single tar ball!"
Cuomo: Ground Zero mosque opponents Islamophobic. Yeah, should be grateful. If not for radical Islam there'd BE no Ground Zero.
Hezbollah: CNN firing editor for terrorist-praising is "intellectual terrorism". Guess he's offended by the "intellectual" part
There's much more, some of it going back some time before I discovered he even had a Twitter account. One things for sure, if Thompson isn't planning on returning to politics, he would sure make one hell of a great speech writer
Fred Thompson, by contrast, looks as though he's actually having fun with Twitter.
Some examples-
Obama's recovery plan: taking money from people who create jobs, then giving it to people who can't find work.
Geithner: economic crisis due to people "living beyond their means". Yup, that's why those people won't get re-elected in 2010.
Biden: Pelosi is "the mother of health care". If that's true, then we need to report her to Child Protective Services.
Black USDA employee fired for not helping white farmer. Outrageous! All colors deserve equal level of surly, resentful govt help
Pelosi: Bush tax cuts "did not create jobs". Sure. Low unemployment rate was from all those temporary census workers Bush hired
Geithner: "every business better off now than 18 months ago." Wonder if that includes the ones that aren't in business any more?
Rangel charged w/ violating House ethics rules. No doubt accusing him of not having enough violations to meet his quota.
Greens say spill clean-up efforts hurt environment. Guys, go holler that in front of a windmill & make some clean energy
Navy uses laser to shoot down drone. Obama to only authorize its use on terrorists for corrective eye surgery.
Biden fined $219K for 2008 campaign violations. He probably figures it's worth that much just to not be President right now.
Gingrich: Obama like a "teenager with a credit card". Yup. And the 2010 elections are going to be like a big pair of scissors
Russia to spend $800M on new space center. Maybe we should sell them Cape Kennedy. Not like Obama plans to use it for anything
3.6-magnitude earthquake hit DC. President Obama said it was due to 8 years of Bush failing to regulate plate tectonics
Obama: fin ref bill would end "era of irresponsibility". Huh... I didn't know it moved election day up to July
Poll: 73 % oppose Obama's offshore drilling ban. Other 27% think oil should only come from quart bottles marked Quaker State.
Axelrod: Medicare Czar "not coming to implement the British system". Good. Obama would look silly wearing a dress and a crown.
Biden to visit flood damage in TN. I'll bet the first thing he says is "great clean-up job. I don't see a single tar ball!"
Cuomo: Ground Zero mosque opponents Islamophobic. Yeah, should be grateful. If not for radical Islam there'd BE no Ground Zero.
Hezbollah: CNN firing editor for terrorist-praising is "intellectual terrorism". Guess he's offended by the "intellectual" part
There's much more, some of it going back some time before I discovered he even had a Twitter account. One things for sure, if Thompson isn't planning on returning to politics, he would sure make one hell of a great speech writer
Friday, July 23, 2010
Fair Game
The Guardian has a story of Arab-Jewish relations that has a bit of a twist. An Israeli Jewish woman filed charges against a Palestinian Arab of East Jerusalem, who seduced her after claiming that he, too, was a Jew.
I hope that was some good pussy, because he's been sentenced to eighteen months in jail for rape by deception. Originally he was charged with rape by coercion and indecent assault, but the charges were downgraded in the course of a plea bargain.
According to the judge who tried the case, he has an obligation to protect the innocent from coercion by such smooth talking rakes, implying that he hoped to send a message that such behavior would not be tolerated or greeted with a mere slap on the wrist.
A liberal Jewish attorney, however, pondered whether the judge would have levied such a harsh sentence had the woman been an Arab and the offending male a Jew.
I'm going to be criticized by certain people no matter what I say. I will be accused of Islamophobia or sexism, one of the two, so I might as well opt for both.
On the one hand, I have to point out that, in the example given by the liberal attorney, were this to happen in an Arab or Muslim country, I can assure him the offending Jewish male would not only be sent to prison, he would be there for the rest of his life, which would be a brief one. He would soon be executed and, by the way, so would the Arab or Muslim woman.
Having said that, now allow me to doff my Islamophobic hat and don my sexist one. This woman is an obvious slut who will seemingly sleep with any male she finds attractive or in some manner desirable, provided he tells her what she wants to hear. She further displays a remarkable lack of dignity and self-respect by advertising her whorish behavior in public by filing a criminal charge.
This could set a dangerous precedent anywhere it might be adopted. Like it or not, the average male has within his DNA the genetic coding of the hunter-gatherer. In this particular case, the man in question didn't have to do a lot of hunting, she just lay down and he gathered the goods. No, its not admirable behavior, but it is entirely human. Any time a woman is faced with such potential seduction, she owes it to herself to take the time to consider the prospect that all people, male and female, present themselves with a public face designed to help them best achieve their goals, however worthy or unworthy they might be.
The onus is on her to take the time to check out the man's story. Bear in mind, this incident took place over the course of one day-the day she met him in downtown Jerusalem, where he worked as a construction worker and told her he was a Jew who was interested in a serious, long-term relationship. They went that day to the nearest hotel.
A cruel person would assert that she got exactly what she deserved-so I will assert just that. A smart person would learn from the experience and consider that maybe, just maybe, she should be a little more careful about spreading her legs for any good looking guy with a gift for gab.
Maybe the judge of this case should consider that as well, as this does not seem to me to be a case fit for any court docket anywhere. If a pregnancy resulted, or the man made unwarranted promises of marriage, or acted in such a way that proved an intent to humiliate (and no doubt he bragged to all his friends of his conquest of a "Jewish slut", but that's beside the point), then the woman might have a case, depending on the circumstances as demonstrated and proven. But so far as I know, none of that transpired. He didn't even promise her a long-term relationship. He merely claimed he was interested in one.
This is nothing but the case of a woman who is far too easy to fuck, and a man who fucked her. End of story.
Hat tip to Sonia Belle, who is having one hell of a hard time believing me when I tell her, with all the sincerity I can muster, that I, too, am a lesbian.
I hope that was some good pussy, because he's been sentenced to eighteen months in jail for rape by deception. Originally he was charged with rape by coercion and indecent assault, but the charges were downgraded in the course of a plea bargain.
According to the judge who tried the case, he has an obligation to protect the innocent from coercion by such smooth talking rakes, implying that he hoped to send a message that such behavior would not be tolerated or greeted with a mere slap on the wrist.
A liberal Jewish attorney, however, pondered whether the judge would have levied such a harsh sentence had the woman been an Arab and the offending male a Jew.
I'm going to be criticized by certain people no matter what I say. I will be accused of Islamophobia or sexism, one of the two, so I might as well opt for both.
On the one hand, I have to point out that, in the example given by the liberal attorney, were this to happen in an Arab or Muslim country, I can assure him the offending Jewish male would not only be sent to prison, he would be there for the rest of his life, which would be a brief one. He would soon be executed and, by the way, so would the Arab or Muslim woman.
Having said that, now allow me to doff my Islamophobic hat and don my sexist one. This woman is an obvious slut who will seemingly sleep with any male she finds attractive or in some manner desirable, provided he tells her what she wants to hear. She further displays a remarkable lack of dignity and self-respect by advertising her whorish behavior in public by filing a criminal charge.
This could set a dangerous precedent anywhere it might be adopted. Like it or not, the average male has within his DNA the genetic coding of the hunter-gatherer. In this particular case, the man in question didn't have to do a lot of hunting, she just lay down and he gathered the goods. No, its not admirable behavior, but it is entirely human. Any time a woman is faced with such potential seduction, she owes it to herself to take the time to consider the prospect that all people, male and female, present themselves with a public face designed to help them best achieve their goals, however worthy or unworthy they might be.
The onus is on her to take the time to check out the man's story. Bear in mind, this incident took place over the course of one day-the day she met him in downtown Jerusalem, where he worked as a construction worker and told her he was a Jew who was interested in a serious, long-term relationship. They went that day to the nearest hotel.
A cruel person would assert that she got exactly what she deserved-so I will assert just that. A smart person would learn from the experience and consider that maybe, just maybe, she should be a little more careful about spreading her legs for any good looking guy with a gift for gab.
Maybe the judge of this case should consider that as well, as this does not seem to me to be a case fit for any court docket anywhere. If a pregnancy resulted, or the man made unwarranted promises of marriage, or acted in such a way that proved an intent to humiliate (and no doubt he bragged to all his friends of his conquest of a "Jewish slut", but that's beside the point), then the woman might have a case, depending on the circumstances as demonstrated and proven. But so far as I know, none of that transpired. He didn't even promise her a long-term relationship. He merely claimed he was interested in one.
This is nothing but the case of a woman who is far too easy to fuck, and a man who fucked her. End of story.
Hat tip to Sonia Belle, who is having one hell of a hard time believing me when I tell her, with all the sincerity I can muster, that I, too, am a lesbian.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Avengers Assembe!
It seems that every time you turn around there's a Comic-Con going on somewhere, but the latest one produced a bit of news that will have millions of comics fan boys the world over masturbating frantically as they gaze at their newest Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man poster.
Are you ready? Joss Whedon is set to direct the up-coming Avengers movie. Who said so? Why, Joss himself, in what seems to be a bit of a high pressure power play. He's calling dibs on the project, even though Marvel Studios has yet to issue a press release.
I think Whedon's talents are wasted here, frankly, but I can understand how this might be a dream job for Joss. Although I never bothered with Buffy, Angel, or Firefly, I did enjoy Dollhouse to the extent it made me sorry that I never bothered to tune in to these earlier offerings. But the Avengers? Unfortunately, Whedon is a little bit too suited for the project.
One of the things about Dollhouse that I disliked, that drove me nuts about it-in fact it was the only thing that marred what was otherwise a great series-is Joss's penchant to have his characters engage in snappy repartee'-whilst in the midst of combat. Can you spell C-O-R-N-Y? We're talking Adam West and Burt Ward Batman and Robin style camp. It ruined some episodes of Firefly as much as George Harrison Hindu mysticism songs ruined some Beatles albums for many people. You still loved the albums, you just wished you could forget about that annoying sitar and whiny vocal.
Well, maybe Joss will reign in that tendency in the Avengers, but I wouldn't count on it. He is just now in the process of outlining the script. He claims he sees the Avengers as a kind of family. He then goes on to explain that to him, a family is made up of people that probably shouldn't be together under the same roof.
Such is extent of Whedon's bona-fides with the realm of nerddom, he might be the only one that can hold that comics fan world together long enough to pull in big numbers for this probably ill-advised venture. But if anyone can pull it off, he can.
Whedon's challenge will be to produce a script and direct it in such a way as to maintain an expanded audience over the course of weeks, while hoping for a big enough opening weekend to more than offset any disappointing follow-up.
Big, muscular men in tight-fitting costumes are sure-fire crowd pleasers on any day, so there's already a ready-made base audience of comic books fans. If they pick the right actors, they might pull in a respectable number of female viewers as well.
Of course, I'll be going to see The Wasp.
Are you ready? Joss Whedon is set to direct the up-coming Avengers movie. Who said so? Why, Joss himself, in what seems to be a bit of a high pressure power play. He's calling dibs on the project, even though Marvel Studios has yet to issue a press release.
I think Whedon's talents are wasted here, frankly, but I can understand how this might be a dream job for Joss. Although I never bothered with Buffy, Angel, or Firefly, I did enjoy Dollhouse to the extent it made me sorry that I never bothered to tune in to these earlier offerings. But the Avengers? Unfortunately, Whedon is a little bit too suited for the project.
One of the things about Dollhouse that I disliked, that drove me nuts about it-in fact it was the only thing that marred what was otherwise a great series-is Joss's penchant to have his characters engage in snappy repartee'-whilst in the midst of combat. Can you spell C-O-R-N-Y? We're talking Adam West and Burt Ward Batman and Robin style camp. It ruined some episodes of Firefly as much as George Harrison Hindu mysticism songs ruined some Beatles albums for many people. You still loved the albums, you just wished you could forget about that annoying sitar and whiny vocal.
Well, maybe Joss will reign in that tendency in the Avengers, but I wouldn't count on it. He is just now in the process of outlining the script. He claims he sees the Avengers as a kind of family. He then goes on to explain that to him, a family is made up of people that probably shouldn't be together under the same roof.
Such is extent of Whedon's bona-fides with the realm of nerddom, he might be the only one that can hold that comics fan world together long enough to pull in big numbers for this probably ill-advised venture. But if anyone can pull it off, he can.
Whedon's challenge will be to produce a script and direct it in such a way as to maintain an expanded audience over the course of weeks, while hoping for a big enough opening weekend to more than offset any disappointing follow-up.
Big, muscular men in tight-fitting costumes are sure-fire crowd pleasers on any day, so there's already a ready-made base audience of comic books fans. If they pick the right actors, they might pull in a respectable number of female viewers as well.
Of course, I'll be going to see The Wasp.
Some Of My Best Friends Are Colored People
And the same with Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the US Senate from Kentucky, who is maintaining a lead in the polls over Democrat Jeff Conway by a margin of 49% to 41%. That's up about three percent from the last poll taken, which had Paul up 47% to 42%. Looks like one percent of the undecideds went firmly into the decided column for Paul, while another one percent of Conway's weak support abandoned him for the Republican candidate.
Thank you National Association For The "Advancement" Of Colored People.
Thank you National Association For The "Advancement" Of Colored People.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)