Saw the new Bond movie "Quantum of Solace." This is nowhere close to the great Bond movies of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Daniel Craig is a boring Bond...he has none of the sly sense of humor that Sean Connery and Roger Moore had; in fact "Quantum" may be the most humorless Bond movie I've seen.
Now, the era that started with "Casino Royale" is supposed to take us back to his early days in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Craig's Bond is said to be closer to the character introduced in Ian Fleming's Bond novels. But it doesn't work.
The chase scenes (car, boat, foot, airplane) are just adequate, the romance non-existent.
The good: Nice environmental message; good portrayal of a two-faced villain; wonderful performance by Judi Dench as "M"; and a stunning theme song by Alicia Keys and White Stripes' Jack White.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
There but for the grace of God
Buffalo News sports writer Tom Borrelli died last week from injuries sustained on Nov. 8 when he fell off the ladder leading to the press box at Buffalo's All High Stadium. He was covering a high school football game at the time. And high school football wasn't even Borrelli's main beat. He was a highly respected lacrosse writer. The National Lacrosse League even named its "Writer of the Year" award after him.
The story is at http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/499559.html
Those of us who are old enough to have covered Texas high school football in the late '70s, early '80s, probably remember the type...it's like the ladder to the top of an RV. The stands don't go all the way up to provide access to the press box, so you have to climb the ladder to get there. Perhaps some really small schools still have this. The worst I've seen recently was at Class 1A Blue Ridge High School, where a metal staircase led to the press box.
The weird thing about Borrelli's death: The stadium was renovated in 2007, but a new press box was not installed for budgetary reasons. How different from Texas, where a new press box is among the priorities, so the superintendent and school board can have a suite to entertain VIPs, and so scouts can have more room.
Feel very lucky that most of these new/renovated high school stadiums are solidly built structures, with elevators, electrical outlets for laptops (most places), free food and drink, etc. Even those that don't have elevators have easy access to the press box from the grandstands.
So don't complain when you're shunted off into a small little corner of the press box; or when Coppell makes you go to the auxiliary press box on the visitor's side because the main box is used for entertaining; or when you have to pay for your food at Texas Stadium during playoff time; or when a 3A press box isn't air conditioned, or even has windows.
Those are minor inconveniences.
The story is at http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/499559.html
Those of us who are old enough to have covered Texas high school football in the late '70s, early '80s, probably remember the type...it's like the ladder to the top of an RV. The stands don't go all the way up to provide access to the press box, so you have to climb the ladder to get there. Perhaps some really small schools still have this. The worst I've seen recently was at Class 1A Blue Ridge High School, where a metal staircase led to the press box.
The weird thing about Borrelli's death: The stadium was renovated in 2007, but a new press box was not installed for budgetary reasons. How different from Texas, where a new press box is among the priorities, so the superintendent and school board can have a suite to entertain VIPs, and so scouts can have more room.
Feel very lucky that most of these new/renovated high school stadiums are solidly built structures, with elevators, electrical outlets for laptops (most places), free food and drink, etc. Even those that don't have elevators have easy access to the press box from the grandstands.
So don't complain when you're shunted off into a small little corner of the press box; or when Coppell makes you go to the auxiliary press box on the visitor's side because the main box is used for entertaining; or when you have to pay for your food at Texas Stadium during playoff time; or when a 3A press box isn't air conditioned, or even has windows.
Those are minor inconveniences.
Ashton of the opera?
Saw "The Marriage of Figaro" by the Dallas Opera on Saturday night. One scene had a cool similarity to a recent MTV phenomenon.
After much plotting, quick thinking and scheming, the heroine (Susanna) was hiding in the closet in the Count and Countess' bedroom. The royal couple both thought it was a hormone-driven teenager (Cherubio) who had designs on the countess. The count hammered the door open, and out came Susanna.
She should have said, "You've both been Punk'd!"
After much plotting, quick thinking and scheming, the heroine (Susanna) was hiding in the closet in the Count and Countess' bedroom. The royal couple both thought it was a hormone-driven teenager (Cherubio) who had designs on the countess. The count hammered the door open, and out came Susanna.
She should have said, "You've both been Punk'd!"
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Fairness is the marketplace
Talk is rampant that the new Congress and president will try to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," which would force radio and TV stations with federal licenses to give equal time to all candidates/all sides of an issue.
Many believe that this is an attempt to silence conservative talk radio, and it probably is. If a station carries Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc., it may also have to carry an equal amount of liberal programming.
I listen to Rush and Sean -- and watch Keith Olbermann -- purely for comedic purposes. But face the facts: The conservatives draw ratings, and therefore advertisers. Liberal talkers don't draw ratings. Air America went into bankruptcy, lost most of its best talent and is a blip on the Arbitron screen.
A revived Fairness Doctrine may placate those who don't have the thick skin to take the childish rants of conservatives who think that those who oppose their views are anti-American or idiots. But it would destroy many top-rated radio stations.
If liberal talkers want to be heard, find a way to get ratings.
Many believe that this is an attempt to silence conservative talk radio, and it probably is. If a station carries Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc., it may also have to carry an equal amount of liberal programming.
I listen to Rush and Sean -- and watch Keith Olbermann -- purely for comedic purposes. But face the facts: The conservatives draw ratings, and therefore advertisers. Liberal talkers don't draw ratings. Air America went into bankruptcy, lost most of its best talent and is a blip on the Arbitron screen.
A revived Fairness Doctrine may placate those who don't have the thick skin to take the childish rants of conservatives who think that those who oppose their views are anti-American or idiots. But it would destroy many top-rated radio stations.
If liberal talkers want to be heard, find a way to get ratings.
Everyone should be in a gay marriage
Thought that would get your attention! Of course I mean gay, as in happy. If you're not in a gay marriage, you shouldn't be married.
OK, OK...I know that's too cute.
Now, those who love one of their own gender should be in a gay gay marriage, and....Fine. I'll stop. On to the real subject...gay marriage.
Many throughout the country have taken to the streets to protest voter passage of California's Proposition 8, which constitutionally defines marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. That definition is known throughout the homophobe community as "traditional marriage."
It is quite true that both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament lay down the law against homosexuality. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say that one must follow the Bible. One great thing about America is that we have the freedom to NOT follow the Bible's teaching. Yes, many of our laws do stem from Biblical law. But if the founders wanted the Bible to be the law, the U.S. Constitution would comprise only five words: "The Bible is the law."
I choose to be straight. I follow the teachings of the Torah and find the prospect of making out with a man disgusting (not necessarily in that order). But the measure of a man -- STOP THOSE THOUGHTS! -- or a woman is not what he or she does in a bedroom. It's how they contribute to society.
And in true Consistency Party fashion, explain this paradox: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments, while we wait a whole 'nother book in the Torah to get to the ban on homosexuality.
Those who believe gays should not be given the right to wed should, for consistency's sake, also believe that a marriage is automatically dissolved upon the first consummation of an extramarital affair. If gays can't be married, adulterers shouldn't be allowed to either.
OK, OK...I know that's too cute.
Now, those who love one of their own gender should be in a gay gay marriage, and....Fine. I'll stop. On to the real subject...gay marriage.
Many throughout the country have taken to the streets to protest voter passage of California's Proposition 8, which constitutionally defines marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. That definition is known throughout the homophobe community as "traditional marriage."
It is quite true that both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament lay down the law against homosexuality. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say that one must follow the Bible. One great thing about America is that we have the freedom to NOT follow the Bible's teaching. Yes, many of our laws do stem from Biblical law. But if the founders wanted the Bible to be the law, the U.S. Constitution would comprise only five words: "The Bible is the law."
I choose to be straight. I follow the teachings of the Torah and find the prospect of making out with a man disgusting (not necessarily in that order). But the measure of a man -- STOP THOSE THOUGHTS! -- or a woman is not what he or she does in a bedroom. It's how they contribute to society.
And in true Consistency Party fashion, explain this paradox: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments, while we wait a whole 'nother book in the Torah to get to the ban on homosexuality.
Those who believe gays should not be given the right to wed should, for consistency's sake, also believe that a marriage is automatically dissolved upon the first consummation of an extramarital affair. If gays can't be married, adulterers shouldn't be allowed to either.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Jumped the shark
The hit CBS sitcom "Two and a Half Men" has nothing left.
This Charlie Sheen/Jon Cryer vehicle -- re-creating the obvious chemistry the two displayed in the movie "Hot Shots" -- has always been a sex-obsessed show, but has had some great moments in the past. The show that combined Alan (Cryer) dating Kandi; Charlie (Sheen) dating Kandi's mom, Mandi; and Alan's ex-wife Judith dating Kandi's dad/Mandi's ex-husband Andy was one of the best TV episodes of this decade.
But Monday's episode, in which the focus was Charlie's difficulty in sleeping over at his girlfriend's house, was sad. We get it: Charlie's a narcissistic sport-****er; Alan has no backbone; Jake is a dummy.
If this kind of inane story continues, hopefully CBS will put the well-written, non-sex-obsessed "How I Met Your Mother" in the Monday night money slot of 9 p.m. Eastern Time, 8 p.m. Correct Time.
This Charlie Sheen/Jon Cryer vehicle -- re-creating the obvious chemistry the two displayed in the movie "Hot Shots" -- has always been a sex-obsessed show, but has had some great moments in the past. The show that combined Alan (Cryer) dating Kandi; Charlie (Sheen) dating Kandi's mom, Mandi; and Alan's ex-wife Judith dating Kandi's dad/Mandi's ex-husband Andy was one of the best TV episodes of this decade.
But Monday's episode, in which the focus was Charlie's difficulty in sleeping over at his girlfriend's house, was sad. We get it: Charlie's a narcissistic sport-****er; Alan has no backbone; Jake is a dummy.
If this kind of inane story continues, hopefully CBS will put the well-written, non-sex-obsessed "How I Met Your Mother" in the Monday night money slot of 9 p.m. Eastern Time, 8 p.m. Correct Time.
Another few bite the dust
People Newspapers in the Dallas area yesterday closed three of its six newspapers and laid off a bunch of people -- including two friends with whom I had previously worked. This group is owned by D Magazine (the local city magazine), which also experienced its own reduction in force, and remaining staffers took a pay cut.
One of those laid-off friends had the right attitude. She said this was a good thing for her, and she walked out feeling confident. She was re-thinking her desire to be in the newspaper industry, anyway.
Though these few layoffs don't approach what Citigroup said it would do yesterday -- 53,000 more job cuts -- or the carnage expected at NASCAR this week -- possibly 1,500 losing their jobs because of sponsorship woes, team mergers, etc. -- the People Newspapers cuts are more slices in the industry that I've been a part of since high school.
I know that People publisher Jason Heid, with whom I worked and whose rise makes me very proud, must be heartbroken about having to lay off these people and close newspapers that he helped build. His papers were well-reported and well-written, beautifully designed and had excellent photography. They also paid a lot more than the average community newspaper, which is one reason they attracted many reporters from my old company.
Multiple sources said, however, that the layoffs might not have been handled so well. One account was that people were packing up and leaving last week, without remaining staff being told what was going on. The Dallas Morning News reported that the D/People blogs were taken down through late Monday because comments were posted about who was getting the boot before the staff was even told.
It's getting bad out there folks. A former TV reporter told me yesterday that news directors are looking only for people who look presentable on television and will work on the cheap -- journalism experience be damned.
But, as I said in a previous post, we're not dead yet. My wife's boss, the great John Salustri, real estate editorial director for Incisive Media, told her that newspapers will be greatly changed when they find their new footing. Whether that's for the good or the bad remains to be seen.
Amen, John.
One of those laid-off friends had the right attitude. She said this was a good thing for her, and she walked out feeling confident. She was re-thinking her desire to be in the newspaper industry, anyway.
Though these few layoffs don't approach what Citigroup said it would do yesterday -- 53,000 more job cuts -- or the carnage expected at NASCAR this week -- possibly 1,500 losing their jobs because of sponsorship woes, team mergers, etc. -- the People Newspapers cuts are more slices in the industry that I've been a part of since high school.
I know that People publisher Jason Heid, with whom I worked and whose rise makes me very proud, must be heartbroken about having to lay off these people and close newspapers that he helped build. His papers were well-reported and well-written, beautifully designed and had excellent photography. They also paid a lot more than the average community newspaper, which is one reason they attracted many reporters from my old company.
Multiple sources said, however, that the layoffs might not have been handled so well. One account was that people were packing up and leaving last week, without remaining staff being told what was going on. The Dallas Morning News reported that the D/People blogs were taken down through late Monday because comments were posted about who was getting the boot before the staff was even told.
It's getting bad out there folks. A former TV reporter told me yesterday that news directors are looking only for people who look presentable on television and will work on the cheap -- journalism experience be damned.
But, as I said in a previous post, we're not dead yet. My wife's boss, the great John Salustri, real estate editorial director for Incisive Media, told her that newspapers will be greatly changed when they find their new footing. Whether that's for the good or the bad remains to be seen.
Amen, John.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Cool soap
Found out about this bar of soap called the Obama Bar. It's the kind of soap you find at Whole Foods and places like that. Their slogan is "The Audacity of Soap," and it is meant to celebrate our new president-apparent(he is not officially president-elect until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 15).
The cool thing is, even Republicans can like it: A portion of the proceeds go to the Yellow Ribbon fund, which helps support injured troops hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the U.S. Naval Hospital.
If you want to try it, visit www.myobamabar.com
Maybe President-apparent Obama can use the soap to symbolically wash away all those Bush executive orders and "signing statements."
Thursday, November 13, 2008
We're not dead yet
A couple of weeks ago, my former company began running display ads in the middle of the front page, above the fold.
No, these weren't "banner" ads at the bottom of 1A that we lived with, reluctantly, for six years prior...even when house ads ran in those spots to basically yell out to the business community, "This space is for sale."
These were ads that affected the presentation of the top news of the day/week. How can you run a dominant photo, the lead story and a secondary story above the fold when you have you have about 24 column inches of space between the top of the ads and the bottom of the nameplate?
Good thing I was gone at the time. I'm sure my ex-bosses and friends in ad management were, too. They had extensive experience with my rants about advertising encroaching on editorial credibility, and those would have been tame in comparison to my lecture about the floating front page ads.
It's all about the money. The newspaper industry is in deep trouble...probably more trouble than the auto industry and AIG, and just less than the credit markets and small banks. Simply put, readers -- especially young readers -- get their news from the Internet, talk radio and CNN/Fox News/MSNBC. Not to mention The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (That's col-BEAR re-POR).
That means advertisers are leaving newspapers because of their own economic misery and because the falling readership. Shareholders or private investors call the shots, meaning journalistic integrity is the least if their priorities.
So, newspaper companies large and small are laying off hundreds. Some media companies such as Gatehouse Media, the Journal-Register Company and American Community Newspapers (my old stomping ground) have de-listed their stock. In my former company's case, the de-listing came about 16 months after we went public.
(By the way, they treated me very well during my tenure there, we had a very friendly parting, and I still cover high school sports for them. So I'm not trying to knock them.)
The Christian Science Monitor recently announced it would end its print edition and concentrate on the Web. Another paper in Madison, Wis. is now focusing its daily efforts online, while putting out a weekly publication.
The problem is, readers are turning to the Web, but newspapers do not know how to adapt to it or how to monetize it. Many journalists -- especially community, weekly journalists -- are so embedded in the weekly deadline/who cares if we're an hour late to press mentality, that the daily/get it up now paradigm is completely foreign.
Some of my ex-coworkers had to be told time and time again that we needed their council story right after the meeting Monday night so we could post it online. They were so set in their ways that they still didn't write it until Wednesday for the Thursday paper.
Still, no one has found the holy grail of transferring print ad revenue to Web as revenue. Many have tried, many have failed. Unless you simply put the print product up as a PDF, we still don't know the online equivalent of a full- or half-page ad -- without being annoying as a pop-up or pop-under ad (which in themselves are sabotaged by pop-up blockers).
If you're reading a story online, you have to actively click on a banner ad to get the full ad. In a newspaper, you're reading the Page One jumps, and you see the full-page ad right next to them. It's a passive view.
And the 2x2 ad on the side of the Web site costs less than the 2x2 inside a paper.
Newspapers must change their methods if they are to succeed in any form. For example:
*Make the investment in journalism. Small, community papers expect excellence for the cost of crap, and because of pride of craft, get mediocrity. They pay the same as seven years ago, but then it was paying for mediocrity and getting excellence. The investors don't like that investment because it will take a couple of years to really see the results.
*Realize the news is the product. We've seen sections and features taken away from top-notch papers -- The Dallas Morning News had excellent religion, science and health sections, but they've been minimized and absorbed into other sections. The size of the actual newsprint has shrunk (I won't bore you with technical terms, but today's page is roughly 2 inches narrower than it was a couple of years ago). Today's newspaper office more resembles a direct-sales call center than the creative tension of the "All the President's Men" Washington Post.
*Find the Web answer. Newsroom folks are being asked to do more and more to pump up the Web product. Editor & Publisher recently compiled a mobile news setup that included laptop, digital camera, digital video camera, iPhone and, oh yeah, notebooks and pens. I suggested at my company that all future photography hire be videographers. So now the executive office and the ad staff have to find the way to monetize the Web.
Nobody's found it yet. If I knew, I'd be a publisher right now.
No, these weren't "banner" ads at the bottom of 1A that we lived with, reluctantly, for six years prior...even when house ads ran in those spots to basically yell out to the business community, "This space is for sale."
These were ads that affected the presentation of the top news of the day/week. How can you run a dominant photo, the lead story and a secondary story above the fold when you have you have about 24 column inches of space between the top of the ads and the bottom of the nameplate?
Good thing I was gone at the time. I'm sure my ex-bosses and friends in ad management were, too. They had extensive experience with my rants about advertising encroaching on editorial credibility, and those would have been tame in comparison to my lecture about the floating front page ads.
It's all about the money. The newspaper industry is in deep trouble...probably more trouble than the auto industry and AIG, and just less than the credit markets and small banks. Simply put, readers -- especially young readers -- get their news from the Internet, talk radio and CNN/Fox News/MSNBC. Not to mention The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (That's col-BEAR re-POR).
That means advertisers are leaving newspapers because of their own economic misery and because the falling readership. Shareholders or private investors call the shots, meaning journalistic integrity is the least if their priorities.
So, newspaper companies large and small are laying off hundreds. Some media companies such as Gatehouse Media, the Journal-Register Company and American Community Newspapers (my old stomping ground) have de-listed their stock. In my former company's case, the de-listing came about 16 months after we went public.
(By the way, they treated me very well during my tenure there, we had a very friendly parting, and I still cover high school sports for them. So I'm not trying to knock them.)
The Christian Science Monitor recently announced it would end its print edition and concentrate on the Web. Another paper in Madison, Wis. is now focusing its daily efforts online, while putting out a weekly publication.
The problem is, readers are turning to the Web, but newspapers do not know how to adapt to it or how to monetize it. Many journalists -- especially community, weekly journalists -- are so embedded in the weekly deadline/who cares if we're an hour late to press mentality, that the daily/get it up now paradigm is completely foreign.
Some of my ex-coworkers had to be told time and time again that we needed their council story right after the meeting Monday night so we could post it online. They were so set in their ways that they still didn't write it until Wednesday for the Thursday paper.
Still, no one has found the holy grail of transferring print ad revenue to Web as revenue. Many have tried, many have failed. Unless you simply put the print product up as a PDF, we still don't know the online equivalent of a full- or half-page ad -- without being annoying as a pop-up or pop-under ad (which in themselves are sabotaged by pop-up blockers).
If you're reading a story online, you have to actively click on a banner ad to get the full ad. In a newspaper, you're reading the Page One jumps, and you see the full-page ad right next to them. It's a passive view.
And the 2x2 ad on the side of the Web site costs less than the 2x2 inside a paper.
Newspapers must change their methods if they are to succeed in any form. For example:
*Make the investment in journalism. Small, community papers expect excellence for the cost of crap, and because of pride of craft, get mediocrity. They pay the same as seven years ago, but then it was paying for mediocrity and getting excellence. The investors don't like that investment because it will take a couple of years to really see the results.
*Realize the news is the product. We've seen sections and features taken away from top-notch papers -- The Dallas Morning News had excellent religion, science and health sections, but they've been minimized and absorbed into other sections. The size of the actual newsprint has shrunk (I won't bore you with technical terms, but today's page is roughly 2 inches narrower than it was a couple of years ago). Today's newspaper office more resembles a direct-sales call center than the creative tension of the "All the President's Men" Washington Post.
*Find the Web answer. Newsroom folks are being asked to do more and more to pump up the Web product. Editor & Publisher recently compiled a mobile news setup that included laptop, digital camera, digital video camera, iPhone and, oh yeah, notebooks and pens. I suggested at my company that all future photography hire be videographers. So now the executive office and the ad staff have to find the way to monetize the Web.
Nobody's found it yet. If I knew, I'd be a publisher right now.
I may not be a believer
Just got back from an open house at a junior high school my son probably won't attend. Among the attractions was the school's choir singing "I'm A Believer."
The kids were wonderful. They gave it their all and sounded great. The only problem was, as Randy Jackson would say, song choice.
I kept picturing the Monkees' Mickey Dolenz and Smash Mouth lead singer Steve Harwell downing shots together and thinking, "We are in the afterlife."
The kids were wonderful. They gave it their all and sounded great. The only problem was, as Randy Jackson would say, song choice.
I kept picturing the Monkees' Mickey Dolenz and Smash Mouth lead singer Steve Harwell downing shots together and thinking, "We are in the afterlife."
The Consistency Party
The obituaries for the Republican Party are starting to be written, just as they were for the Democratic Party in 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994 and 2004.
The GOP will survive, but a third party needs to be established: The Consistency Party.
(I wanted to use More Taste League, but Miller Lite took it. And what about the Bud Light ads that copy the theme but doesn't have a central character like Dr. Cox from "Scrubs" as the Commish? But I digress.)
Let's face it: Both major parties and its members are hypocrites.
Why, conservatives, do you preach limited government and adherence to the 10th Amendment (state power), but try to get the federal government involved in the Terri Schiavo pull-the-plug case? Or try to get state assisted-suicide laws overturned?
Why, liberals, do you oppose school vouchers for the not-so-well-off but send your own kids to private school? You believe in higher levels of welfare to boot. Why not give kids who want a better education a chance?
Why, Republicans, do you believe in keeping hands off of businesses who pollute the air and water, but want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Oh, wait. Polluters are just destroying the planet; gays and lesbians who want to make a loving, monogamous relationship legal are destroying...what, exactly?
Why, Democrats, do you oppose the death penalty but support abortion? They're both murder. The difference is, the guilty victim of the death penalty killed somebody brutally. Most innocent victims of abortion are helpless souls who were created because a couple wasn't responsible enough to use protection.
You get the point.
The Consistency Party would run candidates who were consistent in all their views. You're either a strict constitutionalist, or you believe the constitution changes with the times.
(And my wife voted last week. She couldn't do that in 1787. And my former co-worker also voted. Back then, he would have been seen as three-fifths of a person, and he lives in an apartment, so is not a property owner. What was the founders' intent again?)
I'm a member of the Consistency Party. This post proves it. My conservative brother and my liberal sister will both think I'm a blithering idiot.
Later.
The GOP will survive, but a third party needs to be established: The Consistency Party.
(I wanted to use More Taste League, but Miller Lite took it. And what about the Bud Light ads that copy the theme but doesn't have a central character like Dr. Cox from "Scrubs" as the Commish? But I digress.)
Let's face it: Both major parties and its members are hypocrites.
Why, conservatives, do you preach limited government and adherence to the 10th Amendment (state power), but try to get the federal government involved in the Terri Schiavo pull-the-plug case? Or try to get state assisted-suicide laws overturned?
Why, liberals, do you oppose school vouchers for the not-so-well-off but send your own kids to private school? You believe in higher levels of welfare to boot. Why not give kids who want a better education a chance?
Why, Republicans, do you believe in keeping hands off of businesses who pollute the air and water, but want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Oh, wait. Polluters are just destroying the planet; gays and lesbians who want to make a loving, monogamous relationship legal are destroying...what, exactly?
Why, Democrats, do you oppose the death penalty but support abortion? They're both murder. The difference is, the guilty victim of the death penalty killed somebody brutally. Most innocent victims of abortion are helpless souls who were created because a couple wasn't responsible enough to use protection.
You get the point.
The Consistency Party would run candidates who were consistent in all their views. You're either a strict constitutionalist, or you believe the constitution changes with the times.
(And my wife voted last week. She couldn't do that in 1787. And my former co-worker also voted. Back then, he would have been seen as three-fifths of a person, and he lives in an apartment, so is not a property owner. What was the founders' intent again?)
I'm a member of the Consistency Party. This post proves it. My conservative brother and my liberal sister will both think I'm a blithering idiot.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
