July 16, 2004
In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night...Aw, damn!
 |
Cover image of October's Green Lantern: Rebirth #1 |
Comic book movies have hit their stride as serious, albeit fantastical, entertainment.
Spider-Man 2 is the number one motion picture in the nation this week, and is arguably the pinnacle of the genre.
But when you think all is right in the world, someone comes along and takes a whiz in the punch.
According to Moriarty at AintItCool, Jack Black will be playing Green Lantern in a "zany comedy version a la THE MASK."
As I understand it, DC Comics tried desperately to dodge this bullet, but ultimately, they don’t have the right to veto something if Warner Bros. really wants to make it happen. This is the problem with the way DC’s deal with their corporate overlords is structured. Their hands are tied. As much as they are aware of the problem with this approach to the material, they just have to sit back and watch it happen along with fans of the character and the rich mythology that has been established over the long run of the various GREEN LANTERN titles.I like Jack Black. I really do. I’m dying to see what he does in KING KONG because I trust the director and the rest of the creative team, and I have a feeling they’ll find the right way to harness his energy. But this GREEN LANTERN gives me gas right away. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong. Maybe they’ll find a way to make it funny without totally trashing everything that’s ever made the title great. And maybe this’ll be exactly as godawful as it sounds. Either way, this one just passed from “rumor” to “confirmed news,” so brace yourselves, comic fans. It’s coming...
We just got rid of the notion of McG destroying
Superman; I just found out that Hal Jordan is taking back the ring in
GL: Rebirth and then all of a sudden we've got this.
Just damn.
Posted by: mhking at
01:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I never thought of GL as being as dark as Batman but I didn't think he was a joke fest either. I hope they don't trash it. Heck GL has a lot of different ways it could go...but comady along the lines of the mask isn't it.
Now if they would just come out with a film noire version of "The Shadow"....That would be cool (and not campy either).
Posted by: Guy S. at July 16, 2004 07:12 PM (6aoDM)
2
I've always thought that a GL movie, Hal Jordan, Kyle Raynor or (preferably) John Stewart could be fantastic, a combination of super-hero and space opera. The visuals alone, if done right, could be worth the price of admission. This debacle in the making is intolerable.
Posted by: frinklin at July 16, 2004 11:25 PM (7VjNn)
3
Aw jeez! I like Jack Black, but really.
Personally, I have long had in my head the notion of a good Green Arrow film being possible. People I've mentioned it to generally don't agree.
Posted by: Jay Solo at July 17, 2004 05:35 AM (ECWEx)
4
I totally agree about Green Arrow. Base it on the Mike Grell work like Longbow Hunters and it would be terrific
Posted by: frinklin at July 17, 2004 11:24 AM (7VjNn)
5
I could see Black playing Guy Gardner.
Posted by: Gib at July 18, 2004 12:32 PM (HQJL2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MoveOn.org to sue Fox over term "Fair & Balanced"

Liberal political action group MoveOn.org is planning a Monday morning news conference in New York City, where they
plan to file suit against Fox and Fox News Channel. The suit will claim that Fox is misleading the public by using the term "fair and balanced" to describe it's network coverage.
At a press conference that will begin at the Warwick Hotel and conclude with the delivery of legal papers to FOX News’ NYC studio this Monday, representatives from MoveOn.org and others will unveil their next step in the campaign to hold FOX News accountable.Two major legal actions challenging the network’s use of the tagline “Fair and Balanced” will be announced. Chellie Pingree, President of Common Cause will lead the news conference.
The war of words continues.
Posted by: mhking at
01:30 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Sissy Willis at July 16, 2004 02:36 PM (Low+y)
2
I would love to say that this has a snowball's chance of succeeding, but with some of the ridiculous rulings courts have made of late, you never know.
Posted by: S Michael Moore at July 16, 2004 02:41 PM (8OqrX)
3
Boy, these stupid liberals will fund anything. You would think they learned a lesson from FOX when they sued Franken. These "silly suits" only help the opponent by giving free publicity. There is actually a study that says that Fox Special Report is the most balanced news program on TV.
RE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158002/posts
These moveon.org folks are
a) Foolish
b)desparate,
c)have too much money or
d)all of the above
Posted by: vanyogan at July 16, 2004 07:24 PM (v3UpT)
4
Will Michael Moore ever get sued for his horrendous misuse of the word documentary?
Posted by: Watcher at July 16, 2004 10:17 PM (NZ6Md)
5
Anything to keep the lawyers busy!
Posted by: Fausta at July 17, 2004 03:16 AM (WhoVr)
6
Folks, this is good news.
MoveOn feels threatened by the slogan! I like that. Plus, the negative publicity generated for MoveOn will be priceless.
Posted by: cole at July 17, 2004 07:07 AM (TZj70)
7
FOX should counter-sue for wasted time. This is one of those cases where the plaintiff should be liable for the defendant's legal bills if the plaintiff loses. Plus a penalty for filing a frivilous suit.
Posted by: Richard at July 19, 2004 01:32 PM (YwdKL)
8
L O LLL. With umpteen other organizations coaching Kerry for sound bytes and MoveOns chasing Fox. Free speech my ASS. "your free to speak if you side with me!" isn't that LLL's slogan?
Posted by: nochizmo at July 19, 2004 05:20 PM (Uyy5b)
9
There is no such thing as integrity anymore. This only proves to justify Fox News and lets me know that they really are fair and balanced if such unfair and unbalanced organizations are threatened by their news coverage. If FNC isn't really fair or balanced then how do they explain shows like Hannity and Colmes or The O'Reilly Factor? Whose display of both liberal and conservative guests, views and the like are a staple of the shows. Why not go after ABC, CNN, or NPR? The hypocrisy is overwhelming!
They(FNC)are the big kid on the block now and so are receiving the brunt of attacks, making them out to be the media bully, no doubt spawned or encouraged by their competition.
Posted by: Jerry McClellan at July 20, 2004 05:27 AM (CZqUa)
10
Those observant types among you will note two things:
1) that the first part of my message is missing - yes I was too long winded.
2) more importantly the democracy now dot org link appears to have been included in my post even though I state that such things are censored and not allowed in posts here. FYI, I added a tag in between "democracy" and "now" with the words "take this out" inside it. This tag allowed my post with the URL intact to pass by the censoring check but sometime after the censor was passed my post was run through a filter which removed html tags from it. That's why the supposedly prohibited link appears here.
Providence has apparently cast some light in my direction but only for so long as it takes one of the bookburners here to have my post stricken from the record. You who go on and on about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, prove it by keeping my post up.
PMJ
Posted by: Paul Jimerson at July 28, 2004 04:28 AM (7lq2z)
Posted by: mhking at July 28, 2004 04:54 AM (bJ0qq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Terror In The Sky" -- something doesn't sound right...

Anne Jacobsen's story,
"Terror In The Sky" from WomensWallStreet.com and FrontPageMagazine.com is being scrutinized pretty heavily across the blogosphere today.
The gist of the story is that Anne, her husband and son recently flew cross-country from Detroit to Los Angeles on Northwest Airlines. 14 men of Middle Eastern origin boarded that flight as well. A series of bizarre events occured on the flight, including the "congregating" of the men in the rear of the plane, musical instrument cases and a non-descript McDonald's bag that went missing.
Supposedly, the pilot was aware of these activities; supposedly there were multiple sky marshalls on the flight.
The flight flew unimpeded to Los Angeles.
The men were supposedly detained by federal authorities, and everyone else rather quickly and suspiciously "dummied up."
The story smells. I'm not going to go as far as to say that it is completely trumped up, but I have to ask whether author Jacobsen took some literary license with at least portions of the story. After all, that sort of embelishment would certainly draw more attention to an air security system that is obviously lacking across the board.
Many other folks are watching this story today; Michelle Malkin is head and shoulders ahead of everyone else in covering it.
UPDATE: I'm still cynically skeptical, but Michelle has done some additional sleuthing (and thank you, Michelle, for your dilligence! If my I'm wrong in my skepticism, your work may well save lives!).
I asked Jacobsen if she talked with other passengers. She said no. I also asked if she had heard from other passengers from her flight in response to her story. She said she hasn't. If anyone else out there was on Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles Flight on June 29, 2004, departing at 12:28 p.m., we'd love to hear from you.
(More coverage from
Brain Shavings,
Pink Flamingo,
Jessica's Well,
Patterico,
Small Victory,
The Galvin Opinion,
Daniel Dreznor,
Spoons Experience,
Captain's Quarters,
Ace of Spades, and others)
Posted by: mhking at
10:57 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Far be it from me to poo poo healthy skepticism, but I think you're wrong here. Per Michelle Malkin, big portions of this story have been confirmed by TSA. The WaPo and the Networks (at least NBC), are working on stories. The author is a financial reporter for a business website, not a political activist. The website apparently thought long and hard about publishing.
This thing rings very true to me.
Posted by: Spoons at July 16, 2004 11:09 AM (F3d90)
2
You know me -- If I'm wrong, I'll 'fess up and take my lumps.
Of course, this go 'round, I pray I'm right, 'cause if I'm wrong, then we've got a whole hell of a lot to worry about in the near future.
Posted by: mhking at July 16, 2004 11:13 AM (D6dSO)
3
I'm hoping that they were just praying. I say hope because the Muslims that I knew from college and from work wouldn't dream of praying in a none too sweet airplane bathroom but you never know or maybe this really was test run.
Posted by: kimberley at July 16, 2004 05:52 PM (PcgQk)
4
Here is a great parody from Scrapple Face.
Visit them at:http://www.scrappleface.com/
--------
Terror in Skies: Muslim Man Recounts 4 Hours of Fear
(2004-07-17) -- A harrowing story of one man's experience with "terror in the skies" reached a global audience this week, as web surfers and bloggers circulated it, commented on it and challenged its authenticity.
The first-person account starts before the unnamed man and 13 of his friends boarded Northwest Airlines flight #327, bound from Detroit the Los Angeles, on June 29.
"We were just going about our business during the flight," said the man who was born in an unnamed, predominantly Muslim country. "You know, we were just reading the Koran aloud, carrying objects about the cabin and gathering near the restrooms to chat in our native tongues about the ultimate peace we'll find in Allah. Suddenly, I noticed this white woman staring at me. It really freaked me out. It made me and my friends so nervous that we had to use the restroom more, and of course take our digital cameras and other objects in there with us."
The anonymous victim said he began to receive unwanted attention from the flight crew, and saw people passing notes to each other and exchanging glances.
"My legs were like rubber," he said. "I don't know how we endured four hours of this kind of fear. Me and my whole cell group--you know, my friends--finally understood how the great martry Mohammed Atta must have felt during his final hours."
The unnamed man said his only comfort came from knowing that he had "official permission from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to be aboard that plane. I knew that they respect our religion and were protecting us."
by Scott Ott | Link | Comment (17) | TrackBack (1) | Donate | Email Story | Top
Posted by: Vanyogan at July 17, 2004 08:02 AM (v3UpT)
5
Presuming that Jacobson's story is accurate -- and I believe it is -- my trick knee tells me that what she witnessed was 14 US agents who were testing the response and reactions of the airline, the sky marshalls and the passengers.
Think about it; 14(!) muslim men acting very very VERY suspiciously. They wouldn't send 14 terrorists on a suicide mission (or a dry run-through of a suicide mission) when only a handful are neccessary. And they wouldn't be so dang OBVIOUS about their movements and gestures.
I believe now that Jacobson and her fellow passengers, the flight crew and the air marshalls were guinea pigs for a government inquery into how they all might respond to a possible threat.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 17, 2004 11:30 AM (ydj2u)
6
TS,
I'm not one to poo poo a theory when we just don't know the answer but I would like to point out one fact that has some consensus. There is a policy at the Air Transportation Dept. that says you can't "randomly" search more than two Arabs(that racial profiling thing) from a group... Yes, this sounds dumb and stupid, but this is what people are saying is the case. So putting 14 militant terrorists on one flight isn't completely beyond reason.
Later,
Posted by: Vanyogan at July 17, 2004 12:01 PM (v3UpT)
7
Vanyogan,
Yep, I'm well aware of the two-middle-eastern-man-limit on the random searches. But, with 14 men acting so suspiciously, the crew and/or air marshalls could question/intervene at any time because it wouldn't be a "random" search at that point -- they had
probable cause to act.
Still, 14 is a lot of men to throw away on a suicide mission when only 3 or 4 or 5 would do -- even IF two of 'em were searched and "disarmed" before boarding.
Michael's right that something about the story seems out of whack, and I think it's that the "terrorists" were so many and so blatantly acting like terrorists.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 18, 2004 06:26 AM (bF/8i)
8
Agreed that something isn't right about it. My impression is that the agents knew this was not a threat. Otherwise why would they not intervene on board the flight?
Posted by: vanyogan at July 18, 2004 10:03 AM (v3UpT)
9
Turning Spork, I think you might have the answer.
Posted by: kimberley at July 18, 2004 10:28 AM (My8fB)
10
"Per Michelle Malkin, big portions of this story have been confirmed by TSA."
Big portions?
Hardly. Malkin didn't claim that either. Context people.
More like general theme. (ie 14 Syrians were indeed on that flight, they were questioned at LAX, story checked out, let go. That's all).
Posted by: DT at July 18, 2004 10:21 PM (xYz8r)
11
What do we know about Al Quida?
We know they do their homework. How many of us knew you could bring a knife smaller than four inches on a plane before 9/11??? I certainly didn't, and I fly all the time... BUT THEY DID... Because they studied the weaknesses of the system, found one, and exploited it. We also know those teams took "dry runs" in the weeks before 9/11 to see how many passengers were flying particular flights, what they could get away with, and what the response would likely be...
We know AQ is persistant. They re-attack targets until they acheive the goal.
We know they are patient. They will "sleep" agents in country FOR YEARS, where they learn to blend in, become respected, and establish identities before they are activivated.
Applying this background, we know that AQ used teams of five for 9/11, and one of the planes still didn't make it to the target (failed).
THEY KNOW that the rules of hijacking have changed, and that the passengers will no longer assume that their best chance to survive is if they cooperate, hoping they'll land in Beirut and be let go two weeks later. Passengers now operate under the assumption that if somebody tries to take over the plane, their only hope of survival is to take it back before it plows into another target. Thus, if the bad guys are planning, and thinking they would of COURSE use more than five hijackers next time, because the planes occupants HAVE TO BE SUBDUED BY FORCE... Tripling their efforts would not be unheard of towards this problem.
They also know that planes now carry ANONYMOUS ARMED MEN in the form of Air Marshalls. The air marshalls MUST BE DEALT WITH prior to any take-over attempt's success. What better way to find out what the air marshalls will react to, and what they wont, than cause a disturbance (one clearly troubling enough that the flight deck radiod ahead for the police to meet the plane in L.A.)?
They also know that there is now a steal reinforced door between them and the flight deck... They have to solve the problem of how to get past it? Perhaps if they cause a commotion, the pilot will come back to see what's going on? This ploy WAS USED on 9/11 to gain access to at least one of the flight decks.
Perhaps it wasn't a dry run. Perhaps it was an actual attempt that was aborted BECAUSE the air marshalls didnt jump up and reveal themselves, making it possible for yet others lying in wait to attempt to disarm and overpower them?
Perhaps they were WAITING for the pilot or co-pilot to need to use the Lav. where there would be 2 or three of them waiting for the opportunity to rush the cockpit? Maybe they were simply trying to see if anybody would interfere if 14 guys made multiple trips to the lav., as would be required to assemble an improvised munition device onboard, or what would happen if they simultaneously jumped up once the "were within 30 minutes of landing, sit your butts down for security reason" light comes on. In this instance, if they WERE badguys (or even if the bad guys are reading this report), with bad intentions, they learned that they WOULD NOT be interfered with UNTIL the plane landed...
Posted by: Thinking Like A bady guy at July 19, 2004 09:35 AM (sA2Bc)
12
Yes, they could have been acting so blantantly like terrorists just to find out what response they'd get. Excellent points, TLABG.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 19, 2004 02:36 PM (1/f73)
13
I thought it was a legitimate story at first. But think about it. The flight crew and the onboard air marshals were aware of the situation, and they did NOTHING? Didn't even ask the men to stop congregating around the lavatories? Something doesn't ring true. I think there's more to the story than we know.
Posted by: Mmmm Yeah at July 20, 2004 04:39 AM (eHWy7)
14
MMMMM Yeah-
I disagree. The air marshals WOULD NEVER intervene UNLESS an overt attempt to take over the plane was being made. They are not bouncers... or hall monitors... The FAA policy is for them to not get involved or reveal themselves unless the plane is in imminent peril. After all, what could they do? They couldn't even arrest the men as no crime had even been committed. ANd if the bad guys were up to something, they now know who they have to kill FIRST... That doesn't make their behavior any less suspicious.
The flight crew also did what it was supposed to do. They radioed ahead that something 'weird' was happening, had police standing by at arrival, and STAYED IN THE COCKPIT.
I agree. I think the flight attendants could have done more. The fasten seatbelt sign could have been illuminated, and a general announcment to "take your seats" could have been issued. However, they may have been trying to AVOID an unneccesary confrontation, which when the other side numbers at least 14, could have turned very ugly, very quickly. What if they asked the suspicious people to knock it off... Or to take their seats... and they responded "no." ??? How many flight attendants does a plane that size carry? 6? 7? That's still 2 possible bad guys for every flight attendent... Which means you're INSURING that if you pick a fight with them, and it turns bad, passengers HAVE to get involved to help you. The flight attendents FIRST responsibilty is passenger safety, which puts them in a "no win situation". I think if I were in that situation, I would have allowed them to carry on the way they were, while keeping a close eye on them... Given the fact the plane landed safely, with nobody getting hurt, this time they clearly made the right decision. They let the folks on the ground deal with them, rather than instigate a mid air bar brawl at 39,000 feet... Unless and until they did something REALLY OVERT, (like screaming "this is a Hijacking Allah Ackbar!") I think that was the best policy giving how outnumbered the crew was. Of course, none of that means that next time, letting them carry on, wont result in a take over attempt... or worse... Its a tough position to be in...
Posted by: Thinking Like A Bad Guy at July 20, 2004 01:11 PM (sA2Bc)
15
all of you douter's have opinions. but i" ask you this' how many of you would have liked to have been on that flight?
Posted by: robert at July 21, 2004 09:09 PM (fEVUx)
16
Let's please remember the only person who seems to be confirming anything about Ms. Jacobsen's story is a "journalist" named Michelle Malkin. Malkin has precisely the same political axe to grind as Ms. Jacobsen.
Her one "book" is called:
Invasion: How America Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Public Menaces to Our Shores
And look where she's been interviewed/reviewed it's generated:
Interviews:
C-SPAN
National Review Online
Insight magazine
Right Wing News
Enter Stage Right
Reviews:
Peter Brimelow, American Conservative
Joe Guzzardi, VDARE
Mark Krikorian, National Review
Cathy Young, Reason
David Limbaugh
James Edwards Jr.
Jan Ting, Oberlin Alumni Magazine
Frank Gaffney Jr.
"Juan Mann"
Jeff Minick, Smoky Mountain News
This looks so much like SOP for the Vast Right Wing Yahoos that it isn't even funny. Don't people remember this kind of stuff during the Clinton era?
You take an overly-hyperbolic story, get it published in some lame publication. Then have it "confirmed" by a seemingly independent "journalist" or series of "journalists".
Posted by: Another Jerk at July 22, 2004 11:06 AM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Right on? Yeah. Right on pandering.

I can hear the kissing noises from here.
Posted by: mhking at
10:28 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Michael,
You know I'm no fan of Kerry or Mfume. However, why do Republicans always call outreach to black voters "pandering," but don't use the term for other groups? Politicians pander all the time.
Posted by: molotov at July 16, 2004 04:21 PM (h3FX8)
2
He looks like final scene from Cleopatra Jones. The one where Cleo's white captain is so happy with her work he gives her the salute and say's "Right on." Kerry is about 30 years out of date.
Posted by: kimberley at July 16, 2004 05:55 PM (PcgQk)
3
John, on behalf of whiteys everywhere: Don't you EVER do that again.
It's like shaving your head John, we just look goofy doin' it.
Posted by: frinklin at July 16, 2004 11:27 PM (7VjNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Did the Martians flush after they were done?

Evidence of life on Mars? Yep -- at least it looks like it.
The BBC is reporting that ammonia may have been found in trace amounts on the Martian surface; some scientists are postulating that this could be a sign of urine from some sort of alien life form, be it microbial or otherwise.
Researchers say its spectral signature has been tentatively detected by sensors on board the European Space Agency's orbiting Mars Express craft.Ammonia survives for only a short time in the Martian atmosphere so it must be getting constantly replenished.
There are two possible sources: either active volcanoes, none of which have been found yet on Mars, or microbes.
I hope they wash their alien hands when they're done.
Posted by: mhking at
10:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
US Congresscritter censured after calling 2000 election a "coup d'état"

US Representative Corrine Brown (D-FL)
got her hand smacked by her fellow Congressmen yesterday after referring to the 2000 election fiasco as a "coup d'état" on the floor of the House.
The verbal battle began after Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IN) proposed a measure which would bar any US official from requesting United Nations observers come monitor the US general election in November. The suggestion of UN inspectors has been made by Brown and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus. They argue that "disenfranchised" citizens were not able to vote in 2000, and are "afraid" that those same "disenfranchised" citizens might not be able to vote again in 2004.
"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'état. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."
Buyer then asked that Brown's words be "taken down," or stricken from the public record.
The presiding officer at the time, Mac Thornberry (D-TX), ruled that Brown's statements violated one of the standing rules of the House.
"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.
After Brown protested the chair's ruling, the House of Representatives voted to strike Brown's comments, 219-187.
As a part of that censure, Brown was not permitted to speak any more during the day's session.
Posted by: mhking at
03:21 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If "disenfranchised" voters weren't able to vote, then how did *she* get into Congress?
Posted by: Laurence Simon at July 16, 2004 04:48 AM (/yFT+)
2
Earlier this year, Brown said that Bush's camp was "a bunch of white men" and they all look alike to her.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022604/met_14923147.shtml
Posted by: La Shawn at July 16, 2004 06:30 AM (Qa+f/)
3
And she's also one of the representatives calling for UN observers in this year's presidential election:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/EBJUnitedNationsMonitorPrezElections.html
Posted by: Tony at July 16, 2004 07:07 AM (tjFjH)
4
I didn't know that a representative could get their hand spanked and be told to shut up for a day.
Posted by: Douglas at July 19, 2004 12:05 AM (Eit/a)
5
channel 4 news had coverage of that on monday night as part of a story about some 4000 Florida Blacks being denied their voting rights again.
Had an interview with a man whose name escapes me. He had been denied the right to vote in one or more elections years ago due to his criminal record, (receiving stolen goods) but had successfully appealed to the State legislature or the governor and had had his right to vote reinstated. He pointed out that he had voted in the last 4 presidential elections and some 90% of local ones yet this year he mysteriously got a letter saying he was a felon and could not vote in november. He pointed out that as 4 years ago he was just one of many.
Channel 4 published the list of blacks declared felons and barred from voting. They had to go to court to be allowed to do so. I counted 4 Ronnie baylors on that list. Same spelling and all.
Funny how this is happening for the second time in as many elections. Even more strange is that as 4 years ago the big chimp is running and surprise surprise this is happening again in the state that his brother just happens to be governor of. This would obviously have nothing to do with the fact that Bush's winning margin was 537 and that 60% of the blacks mentioned this time around are likely to vote democrat would it?
Good for that representative calling for UN monitoring. If this was happening in Zimbabwe you lot would be up in arms.
Posted by: Nick Saunders at July 21, 2004 05:45 AM (kJ8IO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2004
Two CSI stars axed

George Eads and Jorja Fox
have been axed from CBS' high-rated
CSI, according to
Daily Variety's Thursday edition. This comes on the heels of
CSI picking up multiple Emmy award nominations earlier today.
The firings came after both Eads and Fox reportedly made it known to their bosses that, in the tradition of employees everywhere, they'd like to make more money.
Eads expressed his desire for a bigger paycheck by skipping the first day of shooting Thursday for CSI's fifth season, Variety said.
Fox, who did show up for work, drew the wrath of CBS execs for failing to, as Variety put it, "reply to a letter asking her if she had any plans to not show up for work."
In both cases, CBS invoked breach of contract. Eads and Fox each had two years left on their TV standard seven-year contracts.
Not pausing for a moment at their chalk outlines, Variety said the network has already begun searching for Eads' and Fox's replacements.
CSI, and it's two spin-offs, the two year-old
CSI: Miami along with the fledgeling
CSI: NY, return with new episodes in September.
Posted by: mhking at
06:15 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think that just sux. i really like that show. it was/is good because of the ensemple cast. it seemed like the chemistry was just right. as the best of the 2 current csi's i think this was a mistake.
Posted by: rick at July 16, 2004 03:56 AM (ZNAq7)
2
Bummer. I like those 2,and I agree with Rick
Posted by: Fausta at July 16, 2004 05:23 AM (WhoVr)
3
I'm a fan of that show, and "Sara" was a favorite.
Posted by: La Shawn at July 16, 2004 06:32 AM (Qa+f/)
4
I dunno, I had such a hard time deciding whether Fox was hot or not. I kept "Kerrying" on the matter....
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at July 16, 2004 12:50 PM (VxPRK)
5
I think it is unfair and i will never watch an episode of CSI again without Jorja in it
Posted by: linda at July 18, 2004 03:01 AM (qeugS)
6
I feel that a contract is a contract and when you say yes to an amount you abide by it or move on. Discussions are great but a contract is a contract. One must always abide by his/her word for what else could we put our hat on.
Bob
Posted by: Bob at July 19, 2004 08:15 AM (pLYeX)
7
This is a lose - lose situation for everyone - CBS looses, the Actors loose, and the fans loose. George and Jorja should have accepted the modest raises they were offered. There was nothing wrong with the $100,000.00 per episode they were making in the first place. That's around $ 2.3 million a year folks plus royalties from DVDs and syndication broadcasts. For that kind of money, I would kiss the bootie of every CBS executive right in the middle of Santa Monica Blvd for as long as they wanted me to do so.
Posted by: Shenan at July 19, 2004 02:44 PM (PyX82)
8
George and Jorja cant be taken off the show even though william(Grissim) is the main character i think most people like george and jorja over him. TAKE THEM BACK
Posted by: cristina at September 15, 2004 10:57 PM (FcOJq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
IL Congressman Bobby Rush arrested for protest at Sudan's Embassy

US Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL)
was arrested during a protest today at the Sudanese Embassy. Rush and others were led away to a Secret Service van after blocking the embassy entrance.
Rush was booked on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, Secret Service spokeswoman Ann Roman said. Earlier this week, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) was arrested in a similar protest.
Protesters have charged the Sudan with genocidal operations against its own people.
Embassy spokesman Abdelbagi Kabeir said Thursday it was difficult to understand the motive behind the campaign against the Sudanese government that some members of Congress are waging."There is no genocide," he said. "There is improvement."
Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in the Darfur region of western Sudan in the past year-and-a-half, and an estimated one million people have been driven from their homes.
"People are dying because they can't get the humanitarian relief they need right now," Rush said, blaming the problem on the Sudanese government practicing genocide on the basis of ethnic and religious grounds.
Rush has suggested that the Bush Administration urge the United Nations send in peacekeeping troops to restore order to the African nation.
"All we need is 2,000 troops and we can stop this," Rush insisted.
Posted by: mhking at
05:59 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Rep. Rush was shouting "Power to the people!" "Power to Sudan!" How about "Stop the genocide!" "Stop the jihad!" "End the slave trade!" Wouldn't that be more to the point?
Posted by: Douglas at July 15, 2004 07:25 PM (Eit/a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Hulk Go Blog! Hulk Go Blog Now!"

Did you know that
The Hulk is blogging?
Hulk not allowed at library anymore.Hulk just wanted to help library woman keep place quiet!
No, I didn't know either.
Posted by: mhking at
04:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
Bush to speak at Urban League convention

President George W. Bush
will be speaking at the National Urban League's convention in Detroit next week. The Urban League, headed by former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial, has been much more receptive to President Bush and individuals from his administration than the more widely known (and more antagonistic) NAACP, who has been holding their annual convention this week in Philadelphia.
"The president welcomes differing views - constructive dialogue about differences. Ways we can work together on shared priorities is an important part of our national discourse. But the current (NAACP) leadership, through their repeated partisan comments and hostile rhetoric, have shown that they are not interested in a constructive dialogue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
The NAACP leadership, including president Kweisi Mfume and board chairman Julian Bond, have continually excoriated Republicans in general and President Bush in particular in an ongoing partisan attack strategy, designed to continue to vilify those who "leave the liberal plantation."
President Bush spoke to the Urban League in 2003 (after being slammed by the NAACP leadership then as well) telling the mostly black audience that his economic policies were a path to "greater opportunity and hope" for black Americans.
Contrary to waht the partisan leadership of the NAACP would tell you, the NAACP is not the final word on thought, word and deed in black America
Posted by: mhking at
04:16 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think its time for the NAACP to loose their tax exempt status.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/15/114355/250
Posted by: Monkey Boy at July 16, 2004 02:46 AM (ZM3Qb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Paige blasts NAACP over comments

Rod Paige, the present Secretary of Education, and a black son of Mississippi,
condemned comments by the NAACP leadership about conservatives in general, and black conservatives in particular this week.
"You do not own, and you are not the arbiters of, African-American authenticity," said Paige, who rose from segregated Mississippi to become President Bush's education chief.Paige took aim at two NAACP leaders, chairman Julian Bond and president Kweisi Mfume, for what he called "hateful and untruthful rhetoric about Republicans and President Bush." At the convention, NAACP officials have described some black organizations as mouthpieces of white conservatives and have said Bush's education law disproportionately hurts minorities.
And to show just how much or how little the NAACP is the be-all, end-all for black thought, President Bush will be speaking before the Urban League at their conference next week.
Of course, the alphabet networks will conveniently ignore that, won't they?
Posted by: mhking at
07:58 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
He's right about his attack on the rulers of NAACP, but Paige is hardly what I'd call a competent A-A voice within the administration. Aside from the fact that he's just a mouthpiece of Bush's education policies that failed back in Texas, Houston ISD is still trying to pick up the pieces from the shambles the Doctor of Gymteacherology left it in.
With his own Doctorate in Education and successful business/leadership experience, Bill Cosby is more qualified than Paige.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at July 15, 2004 09:11 AM (SLZec)
2
Did y'all see Kerry's performance before the NAACP Convention today? At least now we know how a
story like the expiring Voting Rights Act of 1965 manages to stay alive.
Pssst. Kerry's a rumormonger. Pass it on.
Posted by: Toby Petzold at July 15, 2004 01:48 PM (3UNGF)
3
Michael,
I don't think the alphabet networks will ignore Bush's speech to the Urban League next week. Why? PRECISELY BECAUSE his spat with the NAACP gives it mucho newsworthiness.
Posted by: molotov at July 15, 2004 05:01 PM (h3FX8)
4
Laurence, I lived in Tejas for 12 years ('til 2000), and I was married then with two step-kids. Doing the research on education, I can tell you that if the state has any shortcomings, it is due solely to the illegal influx of Mexicans streaming over the border to paise their children here. I can't provide the empirical data, but it shouldn't be difficult to find. Of course, due to his pro-illegal-immigrant views, I didn't vote for G.W. for governor at the time, instead opting for the libertarian candidate.
Not to take issue with your stance on Mr. Paige, but the entire Dept of Edu-mo-kay-shun should be abolished in the interest of furthering educational opportunities for all Americans. It is not necessary to add myriad layers of government to what is essentially a local concern. While it is "touching" (several liberal abstract concepts would appropriately fit here) that government cares about the education of our children, it is arguable if they should have any authority to dictate the curriculum from their offices in D.C.
Posted by: skh at July 15, 2004 08:57 PM (0xwoN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wouldn't it be nice to apologize?

Project 21
is challenging members of the Congressional Black Caucus to apologize to Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader.
Nader was verbally excoriated in a late June meeting with the CBC, where the Caucus tried to get Nader to drop his White House bid, lest he split the vote and help George W. Bush return to the Oval Office.
On June 22, the CBC met with Nader to try to persuade him to abandon his presidential campaign, with the stated expectation that Nader's absence from the race would increase the possibility of President George W. Bush being defeated in the November election. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), a CBC member, calls the upcoming election "a life or death matter." According to witnesses outside of the closed-door meeting held in the basement of the Capitol, the discussion was punctuated with shouting and many CBC members stormed out of the room when it was over. Nader was reportedly rattled by the exchange.Nader has since accused Representative Watt of using a "obscene, racist epithet" toward him during the meeting. In a letter to CBC Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Nader charged that Watt said: "You're just another arrogant white man - telling us what we can do - it's all about your ego - another f--king arrogant white man." Nader told Cummings: "I expect that you and others in your caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt."
Project 21 members are also calling for a more civil discourse on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But I'm only expecting to hear the sounds of silence in that regard. After all, anything is fair as long as it gets rid of President Bush, in their minds.
Posted by: mhking at
04:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), a CBC member, calls the upcoming election "a life or death matter."
*** Life or death? Which party is advocating abortion on demand! Life or death???? I don't recall Condi Rice grovelling for Bush this way. So WHO is the real house negro? ;-)
Posted by: cyborg at July 15, 2004 06:22 AM (jJQZR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MARTA hair...
This hat is from Indonesian fashion designer Didi Budiardjo. Budiardjo exhibited it during Hong Kong Fashion Week this week.
Never seen a hat like this one before. But I have seen hair that was done up this way. We call 'em "MARTA hairdo's" -- you've gotta take MARTA, 'cause you're hair is too high to drive or sit in a car...
Posted by: mhking at
03:44 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Man, I miss MARTA. I miss Atlanta overall, especially since I can't get a Varsity chilidog in Tampa.
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at July 15, 2004 04:09 AM (VxPRK)
Posted by: arman at December 18, 2004 12:46 AM (NuPke)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2004
Iron Mike to IL GOP: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Mike Ditka said tonight that he was not going to run for the open US Senate seat in Illinois. He
announced the decision this evening outside the Chicago restaurant which bears his name.
"I don't know how I'd do on the Senate floor if I got in a confrontation with someone I didn't appreciate or maybe didn't appreciate me," he said.He said he thought about running, but then said to himself "get your head on straight and think about it."
You think there was an uproar over Vice President Dick Cheney cussing out Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT)?
Just imagine the shouting match that Da Coach would engage in on the floor of the Senate.
It sounds like Mike made a decent decision.
On the other hand, that also means that Democratic Barak Obama is a virtual shoe-in for the seat.
Posted by: mhking at
05:55 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What they need is another Fred Thompson.
Posted by: Fausta at July 15, 2004 10:26 AM (WhoVr)
2
Dude. I'm tellin' you now, there is no way that even "Da Coach" could have put a real challenge to Barack.
He is unbeatable.
Anybody Black is voting for him, and the entire Democratic machine in the city is on his side. I'm not happy about it, but IMO he gets better odds to win than anyone else running for the Senate.
Incumbents included.
Game over.
Illinois goes to Obama/Kerry. (He would be a better presidential candidate than the Franken-senator)
It's better to just avert your eyes at this point.
Posted by: Byron at July 15, 2004 01:31 PM (raVLe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
IL Senate candidate Barack Obama to give keynote at DNC

Barack Obama, Democratic US Senate candidate from Illinois,
will give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, July 27, according to information released today.
Obama will talk about the future of America that a Democratic administration would provide, along with the need to make jobs, families and communities top priorities in the lives of Americans.
"Barack is an optimistic voice for America and a leader who knows that together we can build an America that is stronger at home and respected in the world," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in a statement.
Obama, a noted lawyer and instructor at the Chicago Law School, currently faces no registered opponent in the Senatorial race. The GOP nominated opponent, Jack Ryan, withdrew his name from the race amid a sex scandal last month. There are rumors that former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka will enter the race on the Republican side of the ballot.
Posted by: mhking at
10:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
Da Coach to become Da Candidate?

According to
The Drudge Report, former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka would be announcing this morning that he will run for the US Senate, vying to replace scandal-ridden Jack Ryan on the Republican ballot.
Ryan stepped down from campaigning after a sex scandal involving he and his wife, television actress Jeri Ryan, came to light last month.
The Illinois Leader is reporting that Iron Mike stormed out of a early meeting with GOP officials this morning. It's unclear whether he was angry, or just bolted out for some "fresh air."
There are indications that Ditka may have been upset by media leaks to sources like The Drudge Report.
Welcome to Illinois politics, Mike.
Posted by: mhking at
06:10 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Gee . . . I'm wondering if he knows what's he really getting himself into. Sure Ditka may be an appealing replacement, but does he have the stomach for hardball politics?
Posted by: Lola at July 14, 2004 07:56 AM (V1eTE)
2
Other than being a democrat,what is wrong with Obama.
Posted by: DarkStar at July 14, 2004 01:20 PM (cnw1A)
3
Hmmm...
I just heard that Ditka decided not to run...
Didn't Drudge also report that his sources told him Kerry was going to pick Hillary... so much for Drudge... hack.
Posted by: jab at July 15, 2004 03:54 PM (z7lip)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Malkin: "We will pay a grisly price...for capitulation"

And while I'm reading Michelle's blog this morning, let me note that
her new column is up,
The mollycoddling milksops of Manila.
She, like many of us, is disappointed in the leadership of the Philippines, including Philippine president Gloria Macagapal-Arroyo, who has folded and gotten soggy like cheap toilet paper in the face of the threat to kidnapped Philippine-national Angelo de la Cruz. de la Cruz was kidnapped last week while shipping fuel for an American company from Saudi Arabia to Baghdad.
Pictures have come out on Al Jazeera with de la Cruz in an orange jumpsuit (as previous kidnappees have been seen). The images were accompanied, as in past cases, by a threat to behead him if the Philippines did not withdraw their forces.
The Filipino government is folding under the threat and vowing to remove their forces (only 51 strong) early.
Arroyo is not merely the protector of one man and one family. She is not only a parochial leader of one people. Arroyo proclaimed herself a front-line warrior in the battle against global terror. Last spring, she came to Washington, embraced President Bush, and heralded her tight relationship with the United States. "(T)he Philippines is one of the first countries to join this war on terror," Arroyo said. "And the reason why we did it is that we in the Philippines know what it is to suffer from the hands of terrorism. We know the pain of terrorism. And we are with you in your leadership against terrorism, wherever it may be found."
We are with you. Remember those words.
Add the flag of the Philippines to the International Hall of Appeasers. Sign this pitiful nation up for a lifetime membership to the Axis of Weasels. And remind me never again to brag about the proud fighting spirit of my ancestors.
So The Philippines will join Spain as cowards who allow the terrorists to win. Emboldened, look for the terrorists to grab more potential beheading victims as the summer continues.
Posted by: mhking at
02:44 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
Gangsta compliant software?
Michelle Malkin has Microsoft's "newest product" showcased this morning; the "Ggangsta" edition of Microsoft Word (he said with a smirk on his face).
One wonders if it includes a slang-to-English dictionary.
more...
Posted by: mhking at
02:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
Whoopi yanked from Slim-Fast web pages
After Whoopi Goldberg's profanity-laden routine comparing President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to male and female genetalia during the New York Democratic Rally for candidate John Kerry last week, quite a few people contacted Slim-Fast Corporation threatening to boycott them if they did not distance themselves from Goldberg and her comments.
Goldberg is one of Slim-Fast's primary spokespersons. Her face topped all of Slim-Fast's web pages. At least until this morning.

Posted by: mhking at
02:17 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just FYI, the founder of Slim-Fast is a major Democratic donor. I refuse to give them any of my money.
Posted by: Brainster at July 14, 2004 10:08 AM (PJWdB)
Posted by: La Shawn at July 14, 2004 12:44 PM (ybj3R)
3
The Power of the Blogosphere?
Posted by: Indigo at July 14, 2004 03:09 PM (shQXa)
4
i am glad they fired Whoopie!
Posted by: diana at July 20, 2004 03:33 PM (6Gym0)
5
What happened to the First Amendment? Does Ms. Goldberg not have the right to express her opinion?
Posted by: Michelle at July 21, 2004 03:56 PM (cjsjP)
6
There's a time and place for everything as the song goes. And speaking with such vulgarity in a public forum is going to have repurcussions. Yes Ms.Goldgerg was exercising her freedom of speech and slimfast was exercising their right not to have a person representing them with such a vulgar rep. Why is it ok for her to say anything but it would be repulsive if a Repub. called her a lowdown N****r. Lines shouldn't be crossed. Decorum. why must certain people in each party demonize the other side. We are all Americans and we should be working together not against each other or be so VIRULENT with our criticisms. but that is just my humble opinion.
Posted by: Jill at August 01, 2004 07:44 PM (tk8Ce)
7
Wow, you people argue like children. It scares me that you're allowed to vote. Yes, let's not buy from a corporation because someone who works there doesn't think like me. Jeeze, you're pathetic. People say what they want and just because their associated with something else doesn't mean they represent anything to do with the products of that something else. If I can figure that out and you can't, you confirm my fear that this country has no positive future.
Posted by: Ilianna at September 05, 2005 06:23 AM (VQMQM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 13, 2004
No black Dems to speak in prime time at the DNC

Kweisi Mfume, President of the NAACP indicated on MSNBC's
Hardball last night, that he would feel "slighted" if no black speakers
were to speak in prime time during the Democratic National Convention.
MATTHEWS: Do you think there should be a Democratic convention this summer, where in the primetime hours, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, when the networks are covering it, maybe even Tuesday night, when no one who‘s African-American gets up on the stage?MFUME: Well, I hope that‘s not the case because if it does, then that would be a damning indictment of this party and would probably turn off a lot of voters. Again, on a close election, neither side can afford slippage. And if that is the case, then the Democratic Party will have to explain that‘s the case because where there are persons and individuals who clearly are qualified to address the convention and are not getting the opportunity, that would raise a significant question.
Well, maybe Mfume should get his protest shoes on.
The agenda for the DNC has been released, and there are no black speakers scheduled for the prime-time hours. As a matter of fact, no black speakers are noted at all on the initial schedule.
But will the Mfume bitch about that as much as he has about the Administration or organizations like Project 21? I'm not holding my breath...
UPDATE: US Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) has been added to the list on the first night of the convention to discuss "the plan to create new and better jobs at home and a stronger economy for the middle class."
Sounds like a token pat on the hand to keep the sheep happy if you ask me.
With the broadcast networks limiting themselves to an hour a night of coverage, Ms. Tubbs-Jones still won't make it onto the alphabet networks.
Gavel-to-gavel coverage will be on the cable news networks and PBS only.
Posted by: mhking at
05:56 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.
1
How did they manage to sideline Jesse?
Posted by: Laurence Simon at July 13, 2004 06:35 PM (aSb/j)
2
I am sure that once general word of this becomes more known, they will slip one or two through the back door.
Posted by: S Michael Moore at July 13, 2004 08:35 PM (8OqrX)
3
Well, he's in good company. Word is that even Hillary Marx-Clinton is missing from the speaker list.
Posted by: cole at July 14, 2004 02:26 AM (TZj70)
4
Years ago I started telling people that the Dems were going to start publically sidelining Blacks. They can't try to become the "majority party" and continue to have Blacks in the picture the way they did.
Posted by: DarkStar at July 14, 2004 04:04 AM (cnw1A)
5
More and more I'm wondering why am I staying in the Democrat party. I guess, it boils down to the fact that registered as an Independent in Maryland, one can't vote in the primaries. As long as there are people like Liebermann remaining in the party, I feel obligated to stick around.
Posted by: Lola at July 14, 2004 05:12 AM (V1eTE)
6
And Stephanie? I sure as heck don't recognize her name . . .
Posted by: Lola at July 14, 2004 05:14 AM (V1eTE)
7
It was mentioned on Black Entertainment Television last night, so word has definitely spread. Where are black leaders to push for a black prime-time presence for the BIG NETWORKS? Blacks were almost 30% of total ballots cast for Al Gore in 2000, so the Dems better recognize! It's stuff like this is why I believe that blacks should be independent of ALL political parties, as loyalty ain't rewarded in politics.
Posted by: molotov at July 14, 2004 05:41 AM (h3FX8)
8
Hmmm, I remember specifically that Kerry had agreed to let the Reverend Al speak. I joked at the time that he'd probably get the coveted 3:00 AM timeslot.
Posted by: Pat Curley at July 14, 2004 10:11 AM (PJWdB)
9
In Maryland, if you don't choose a party, you are listed as non-aligned.
You can't vote in primaries unless it's a non-party contest like school board seats.
One year the Republican party let us vote in their primary and I did so.
But you pay the price for not kowtowing to a party in Maryland.
Posted by: DarkStar at July 14, 2004 11:39 AM (cnw1A)
10
When I first registered in SC (to vote for Clinton), I didn't choose a party, so they dumped in the "Independent" category, where I remain.
Posted by: La Shawn at July 14, 2004 12:46 PM (ybj3R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
99kb generated in CPU 0.1386, elapsed 0.5093 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.4866 seconds, 210 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.