Click the comic to go to Natalie Dee's website. Also check out Toothpaste for Dinner and Married to the Sea, my favorite.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Baby loves to dance in the dark, 'cause when he's looking she falls apart.
I see it's been a while since I posted. I certainly think the death of Elizabeth Taylor warrants a murmur.
Firstly, I do want to mention Lady Gaga. March 12th was the Lady Gaga concert in Louisville, and I will admit that between her set and the opening act, I was getting a little antsy. The Scissor Sisters only played a thirty minute set before the hour-long intermission, but once Gaga was onstage, she more than made up for it. The set was elaborate, and the whole show was set up kind of like a rock opera, with her and friends having their car break down on their way to the concert. She was onstage more than the back-up dancers, and the costume changes were incredibly quick. The only times she left the stage were for set changes, and I'd say that was for less than twenty minutes out of the entire two hours that she played. Her energy was amazing, and she sang all of her really big hits. She even sang a lesser hit which is a personal favorite of mine, "Dance in the Dark". She is one immensely talented individual, and the ticket price was more than worth it. Plus, I found a $100 leaving the arena, so that ended up being my shirt + gas money. All in all, it was a great night.
Now, to Dame Elizabeth. I will admit, I am not a very big Elizabeth Taylor fan. I admire her much more for her personal attributes than for her contributions to film. In fact, I never really considered her to be very talented until seeing her in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof less than a year ago. But I haven't seen very many of her movies, so I suppose I should do my research before making any further judgments for or against her talents. Elizabeth was, however, an incredibly beautiful and classy woman, and despite having eight very highly publicized marriages (and ensuing divorces), she was quite a private woman. Those attributes, in addition to her relentless charity work for HIV/AIDS research, are why I admire her. She always prevailed in the face of scandal, and the opinions of all who knew her personally really attest to her great qualities. She was the last of the true Hollywood Legends, and she will be greatly missed by all.
Firstly, I do want to mention Lady Gaga. March 12th was the Lady Gaga concert in Louisville, and I will admit that between her set and the opening act, I was getting a little antsy. The Scissor Sisters only played a thirty minute set before the hour-long intermission, but once Gaga was onstage, she more than made up for it. The set was elaborate, and the whole show was set up kind of like a rock opera, with her and friends having their car break down on their way to the concert. She was onstage more than the back-up dancers, and the costume changes were incredibly quick. The only times she left the stage were for set changes, and I'd say that was for less than twenty minutes out of the entire two hours that she played. Her energy was amazing, and she sang all of her really big hits. She even sang a lesser hit which is a personal favorite of mine, "Dance in the Dark". She is one immensely talented individual, and the ticket price was more than worth it. Plus, I found a $100 leaving the arena, so that ended up being my shirt + gas money. All in all, it was a great night.
Now, to Dame Elizabeth. I will admit, I am not a very big Elizabeth Taylor fan. I admire her much more for her personal attributes than for her contributions to film. In fact, I never really considered her to be very talented until seeing her in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof less than a year ago. But I haven't seen very many of her movies, so I suppose I should do my research before making any further judgments for or against her talents. Elizabeth was, however, an incredibly beautiful and classy woman, and despite having eight very highly publicized marriages (and ensuing divorces), she was quite a private woman. Those attributes, in addition to her relentless charity work for HIV/AIDS research, are why I admire her. She always prevailed in the face of scandal, and the opinions of all who knew her personally really attest to her great qualities. She was the last of the true Hollywood Legends, and she will be greatly missed by all.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
OMG. WTF? ROTFL!
I had a lot of respect for Chuck Norris until I read this article, posted yesterday on World Net Daily. In italics you will see my commentary. And apparently this article is part 1 of 2, so be prepared for more.
U.S. public schools: Progressive indoctrination camps
by Chuck Norris
via World Net Daily
Why should liberals want to change the public educational system when it is turning out the product they have been striving for years to produce?
Check out these real news headlines from the past several weeks and months about the state of U.S. public education across the country:
"U.S. teachers tell U.N. sex is a 'spectrum' – advocate mandatory classes to free students from 'religion'"
"Principal orders Ten Commandments yanked from school lockers"
Separation of Church and State, buddy. Nothing new there.
"Teens ask for more sex ed, greater condom availability"
Teaching abstinence only DOES NOT WORK. There is research on this.
"State university defines Christians as 'oppressors'"
"Why Catholic schools score better than public schools"
Because they have more money?
"Teachers take charge to save ailing public schools"
"Schools' mandatory Arabic classes create firestorm"
"District taking money, but censoring Christians?"
I'm sorry, what does that even mean?
"No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda"
Clearly this school is not in the South.
"District pays up for slamming student's rosary"
"Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate – Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum"
"Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment"
On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819), "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it."
Yes, let's cite something that someone said 200 years ago. Because that's relevant.
But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternate opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? I thought alternate opinions was what you were dissing here? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when sociopolitical agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority even being mentioned? Huh?
What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson's day to secularism in ours? Did a ghost writer write this for you? Seriously. What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps? CAMPS?
Dr. Jim Nelson Black, founder and senior policy analyst of the Sentinel Research Associates in Washington, D.C., wrote an excellent book, "Freefall of the American University." In it, he documents the clear biases pervading our public academic settings. Among that lopsidedness is the intentional training of students to disdain America, freely experiment sexually, forcefully defend issues like abortion and homosexuality, as well as become cultural advocates for political correctness, relativism, globalization, green agendas and tolerance for all.
This is where I have to stop things. I have never known a public school in this country to teach one to disdain America. Private schools? I don't know, maybe. I never attended private school, so that's not information I am privy to. My school did not teach me to freely experiment sexually. It taught me that sex was wrong and evil and could send me to Hell. I did learn in college that if I'm going to have sex, my partner needs to wear a condom. That's not sexual experimentation; it's disease prevention. No school I attended defended abortion or homosexuality. In fact, the college I went to allowed what Mr. Norris would call "conservatives" to display photographs of aborted babies as a scare tactic to prevent abortion. I would hardly call that defending abortion. As for the closing statement, are green agendas and tolerance bad things? If so, Mr. Norris's world is not one I would choose to live in.
One of the primary ways these educative platforms are spread is by recruiting and retaining faculty members who reflect and teach them. For example, citing from the polling firm of Luntz Research, Dr. Black notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). The reason for these skewed numbers is simple: Republicans and conservatives find themselves above education. If you polled the employment at brokerage firms, or even those Catholic schools Mr. Norris seems so fond of, I'm sure the numbers would look quite different. Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that "news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media." Fox News anyone? And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, "Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?" was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan). It would be imporant here to cite the ages of people polled. Many of them could not have been of voting age (or even born) at the time Reagan was in office. Also, people's memories of a President 15 years ago is going to supercede memories of a President 25 years ago. That's just simple math.
This is why it is no surprise that the two largest teachers unions, the NEA and AFT, are the largest campaign contributors in the nation (giving more than the Teamsters, NRA or any other organization), and that 90 percent of their contributions fund Democratic candidates. In doing so, do we think such funding is going to balance traditional and conservative values in public schools? If someone is so concerned with "the agenda" of the school their child is attending, then I'm sure this sort of person would be more than willing to pay tuition for their child to attend a school that teaches other values.
The impact of progressivism is being experienced by students across this land, hundreds of thousands of whom have already cried out with complaints of academic inequity. Academic inequity has nothing to do with cirriculum, only funding. And isn't it the conservatives who are voting to pull education funding? A sampling of the hundreds of student grievances from across the academic spectrum can even be found on websites like the Students for Academic Freedom and NoIndoctrination.org.
It is also no surprise that an average of 6,000 students every year is leaving the approximately 94,000 public schools in America. There are other factors here aside from the education. Teenage pregnancy is a major contributor to dropout rates. Teaching abstinence-only leads to what? Teenage pregnancy. Bam. If the power-to-be over our public schools, like government and unions, continue to oppose conservative curricula and impose overarching liberal educational revisions and laws, public schools will continue to experience an exodus.
I fully realize there are some great conservative people on the staffs of many public schools and universities, but I know virtually all of them would concur that a liberal bias in our academic curricula and system is overwhelmingly dominant and ubiquitous.
Is this present, restrictive and one-sided educational environment that which Thomas Jefferson and other founders intended for the future generations of America? Absolutely not! Rather than encourage free thinking, the U.S. academic system has turned Jefferson's plans for open education into our culture's system of indoctrination. Conservativism at its core rejects free thinking.
U.S. public schools: Progressive indoctrination camps
by Chuck Norris
via World Net Daily
Why should liberals want to change the public educational system when it is turning out the product they have been striving for years to produce?
Check out these real news headlines from the past several weeks and months about the state of U.S. public education across the country:
"U.S. teachers tell U.N. sex is a 'spectrum' – advocate mandatory classes to free students from 'religion'"
"Principal orders Ten Commandments yanked from school lockers"
Separation of Church and State, buddy. Nothing new there.
"Teens ask for more sex ed, greater condom availability"
Teaching abstinence only DOES NOT WORK. There is research on this.
"State university defines Christians as 'oppressors'"
"Why Catholic schools score better than public schools"
Because they have more money?
"Teachers take charge to save ailing public schools"
"Schools' mandatory Arabic classes create firestorm"
"District taking money, but censoring Christians?"
I'm sorry, what does that even mean?
"No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda"
Clearly this school is not in the South.
"District pays up for slamming student's rosary"
"Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate – Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum"
"Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment"
On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819), "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it."
Yes, let's cite something that someone said 200 years ago. Because that's relevant.
But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternate opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? I thought alternate opinions was what you were dissing here? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when sociopolitical agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority even being mentioned? Huh?
What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson's day to secularism in ours? Did a ghost writer write this for you? Seriously. What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps? CAMPS?
Dr. Jim Nelson Black, founder and senior policy analyst of the Sentinel Research Associates in Washington, D.C., wrote an excellent book, "Freefall of the American University." In it, he documents the clear biases pervading our public academic settings. Among that lopsidedness is the intentional training of students to disdain America, freely experiment sexually, forcefully defend issues like abortion and homosexuality, as well as become cultural advocates for political correctness, relativism, globalization, green agendas and tolerance for all.
This is where I have to stop things. I have never known a public school in this country to teach one to disdain America. Private schools? I don't know, maybe. I never attended private school, so that's not information I am privy to. My school did not teach me to freely experiment sexually. It taught me that sex was wrong and evil and could send me to Hell. I did learn in college that if I'm going to have sex, my partner needs to wear a condom. That's not sexual experimentation; it's disease prevention. No school I attended defended abortion or homosexuality. In fact, the college I went to allowed what Mr. Norris would call "conservatives" to display photographs of aborted babies as a scare tactic to prevent abortion. I would hardly call that defending abortion. As for the closing statement, are green agendas and tolerance bad things? If so, Mr. Norris's world is not one I would choose to live in.
One of the primary ways these educative platforms are spread is by recruiting and retaining faculty members who reflect and teach them. For example, citing from the polling firm of Luntz Research, Dr. Black notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). The reason for these skewed numbers is simple: Republicans and conservatives find themselves above education. If you polled the employment at brokerage firms, or even those Catholic schools Mr. Norris seems so fond of, I'm sure the numbers would look quite different. Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that "news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media." Fox News anyone? And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, "Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?" was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan). It would be imporant here to cite the ages of people polled. Many of them could not have been of voting age (or even born) at the time Reagan was in office. Also, people's memories of a President 15 years ago is going to supercede memories of a President 25 years ago. That's just simple math.
This is why it is no surprise that the two largest teachers unions, the NEA and AFT, are the largest campaign contributors in the nation (giving more than the Teamsters, NRA or any other organization), and that 90 percent of their contributions fund Democratic candidates. In doing so, do we think such funding is going to balance traditional and conservative values in public schools? If someone is so concerned with "the agenda" of the school their child is attending, then I'm sure this sort of person would be more than willing to pay tuition for their child to attend a school that teaches other values.
The impact of progressivism is being experienced by students across this land, hundreds of thousands of whom have already cried out with complaints of academic inequity. Academic inequity has nothing to do with cirriculum, only funding. And isn't it the conservatives who are voting to pull education funding? A sampling of the hundreds of student grievances from across the academic spectrum can even be found on websites like the Students for Academic Freedom and NoIndoctrination.org.
It is also no surprise that an average of 6,000 students every year is leaving the approximately 94,000 public schools in America. There are other factors here aside from the education. Teenage pregnancy is a major contributor to dropout rates. Teaching abstinence-only leads to what? Teenage pregnancy. Bam. If the power-to-be over our public schools, like government and unions, continue to oppose conservative curricula and impose overarching liberal educational revisions and laws, public schools will continue to experience an exodus.
I fully realize there are some great conservative people on the staffs of many public schools and universities, but I know virtually all of them would concur that a liberal bias in our academic curricula and system is overwhelmingly dominant and ubiquitous.
Is this present, restrictive and one-sided educational environment that which Thomas Jefferson and other founders intended for the future generations of America? Absolutely not! Rather than encourage free thinking, the U.S. academic system has turned Jefferson's plans for open education into our culture's system of indoctrination. Conservativism at its core rejects free thinking.
Friday, March 4, 2011
So long, Carrell.
Steve Carrell's last day of work on The Office is today. Big Love is within its last month on the air. Even for someone who doesn't have cable or satellite, and only watches television from time to time on the internet, this is a sad time in television, as far as I'm concerned.
I used to be a television addict. I'm still way too tuned in to pop culture, but I watch far less television than I used to. Wait, scratch that. I watch far less live television than I used to. I still have my TV on constantly, but I'm mostly watching DVDs of series that have long been off the air. I have the complete series of Will & Grace, Arrested Development and Reba, four seasons of Friends, two seasons of The Golden Girls, seven of the eight seasons of Bewitched, one season of 227, and the first two seasons of True Blood. I just received Friends and True Blood for Christmas, so I had even less to watch three months ago than I do now. I do occassionally watch movies (of which I have many), but when I'm home I'm usually just cycling through those television seasons, or watching whatever I've gotten in the mail through Netflix.
Anyway, the point is, two of my favorite series currently airing are closing chapters. Big Love is ending (on what I hope and pray is a good note, after a fourth season trainwreck and a rocky final season). The Office might as well be ending, because removing Michael Scott from Dunder Mifflin would be like watching...what's a fair comparison? It will be like watching Cheers without Sam Malone, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show without Lou Grant. Sure, other major members of the cast will remain, and there will still be other stories, but how can you have a workplace comedy without the boss? Or an ensemble show without everyone's favorite buffoon? I am anxious to see the remaining episodes, especially the ones featuring Will Ferrell, but I can't imagine anyone else running that office as well as Steve Carrell. Unless of course, it would be the new company overlord Kathy Bates, but she has her own show now, so that dream is dead.
I just hope The Office isn't the next show to go on to that great television set in the sky, because I will miss having the sweet romance of Jim and Pam in my life as a reminder that love really does exist. And it's sad that I need TV characters to remind me of that.
I used to be a television addict. I'm still way too tuned in to pop culture, but I watch far less television than I used to. Wait, scratch that. I watch far less live television than I used to. I still have my TV on constantly, but I'm mostly watching DVDs of series that have long been off the air. I have the complete series of Will & Grace, Arrested Development and Reba, four seasons of Friends, two seasons of The Golden Girls, seven of the eight seasons of Bewitched, one season of 227, and the first two seasons of True Blood. I just received Friends and True Blood for Christmas, so I had even less to watch three months ago than I do now. I do occassionally watch movies (of which I have many), but when I'm home I'm usually just cycling through those television seasons, or watching whatever I've gotten in the mail through Netflix.
Anyway, the point is, two of my favorite series currently airing are closing chapters. Big Love is ending (on what I hope and pray is a good note, after a fourth season trainwreck and a rocky final season). The Office might as well be ending, because removing Michael Scott from Dunder Mifflin would be like watching...what's a fair comparison? It will be like watching Cheers without Sam Malone, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show without Lou Grant. Sure, other major members of the cast will remain, and there will still be other stories, but how can you have a workplace comedy without the boss? Or an ensemble show without everyone's favorite buffoon? I am anxious to see the remaining episodes, especially the ones featuring Will Ferrell, but I can't imagine anyone else running that office as well as Steve Carrell. Unless of course, it would be the new company overlord Kathy Bates, but she has her own show now, so that dream is dead.
I just hope The Office isn't the next show to go on to that great television set in the sky, because I will miss having the sweet romance of Jim and Pam in my life as a reminder that love really does exist. And it's sad that I need TV characters to remind me of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
