|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 16, 2017 20:05:09 GMT -5
Martin Landau as well, age 89.
Great actor whom I'll always think of as "the man who looked like Dick Ayers drew him."
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 16, 2017 19:26:07 GMT -5
The original Dawn of the Dead is still probably my favorite horror movie. RIP I saw Dawn when it came out & thought highly of it, & still do, but have to admit that I prefer the 2004 version.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 16, 2017 17:17:12 GMT -5
My favorite horror movie of all time -- probably the most important & influential film in the genre in the last 50 years, at the very least.
RIP, Mr. Romero.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 13, 2017 17:43:07 GMT -5
Never mind. This absurd excuse for a site apparently can't handle Imgur images.
Jesus christ.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 12, 2017 10:56:04 GMT -5
He died this morning, according to the GoFundMe page cited above. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 12, 2017 9:40:52 GMT -5
In a broader, more everyday use of the word, sure I suppose it's a fair way to describe their actions...but criminally? I'm no lawyer, but I'd say that speaking as a layman it's seems no as Treason has a very specific, and narrow definition in US law and I still don't think this qualifies. No. It's not. Nobody has been convicted of treason since World War II. There have been fewer than 30 charges of treason in U.S. history. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage. It doesn't matter how hard you want to torture the law, it isn't treason. So just to be clear...thwhtguardian is right. As it happens, I'm reading a book right now on Ethel's brother's role in blowing the whole thing open by singing like a canary.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 11, 2017 9:55:23 GMT -5
The perceived problem stems from what appear to be her confused attempts to reconcile homosexuality with the brand of evangelical Christianity she embraced some years ago; her own past apparent same-sex romantic activities were a complicating factor.
The problem started here (from the Wikipedia profile) --
On March 17, 2013, Shocked made an impromptu speech against same-sex marriage during a concert at Yoshi's nightclub in San Francisco, which led some audience members to leave in protest and the club's management to end the show. All venues eventually cancelled scheduled performances of her "Roadworks Tour" in response to reports of Shocked's remarks. In a March 20, 2013, email to the news media, Shocked apologized, saying that her comments had been misinterpreted, and that she was not describing her own opinions about homosexuality, but rather those of some Christians. An audio recording of the performance was reported as contradicting Shocked's post-performance explanation.
So that's ... not great. But hell, I just checked, & YouTube has no problem posting Ted Nugent's crap. WTF?
I'm not sure Shocked's remarks were any more substantive, really, than those made by the likes of Eric Clapton & Elvis Costello (racism) or David Bowie (fascism) in the '70s.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 11, 2017 9:38:26 GMT -5
Except when she's performing with other artists (Indigo Girls, for instance), yes. That's been the case ever since her on-stage meltdown back in 2013.
Cover versions of her songs are permitted, but that's it.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 11, 2017 9:34:08 GMT -5
Thought about this thread last night while surfing YouTube & discovering that the all-out ban on Michelle Shocked for homophobic remarks made 4-odd years remains in effect. Meanwhile, songs by the avowedly -- hell, quintessentially -- white power skinhead band Skrewdriver can be posted & watched all day long. Have to admit that I'm a bit confused about the apparent ... I dunno if "double standard" is the correct term, but close enough.
(For the record, if it were up to me neither artist would be banned. In an ideal world, I would be able to play at least "Anchorage" & "Come a Long Way" by Shocked whenever I want to. And before they went full-on Nazi, Skrewdriver actually came up with at least 3 great punk anthems in "Government Action," "You're So Dumb" & "Anti-Social.")
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 10, 2017 8:17:53 GMT -5
I'm pretty confident more and more is going to continue to be exposed. By the time it's all said and done, Trump is going to make Taft look like a choir boy. I hope I'm wrong, but Magic 8 Ball keeps pointing that direction. Taft? I don't recall that he particularly did anything as president except take up a lot of space & finish 3rd in his bid for re-election. Harding, on the other hand ... Edit: An observation simultaneously advanced by Hal, I see. Great minds shrink alike.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 9, 2017 13:03:07 GMT -5
The helmet is about severity, not causation, so I think it makes perfect sense for the media to mention lack of a helmet when a drunk cyclist is hurt. One of my problems with bicyclists or motorcyclists not wearing helmets, is the impact on a driver who is involved in a collision. If someone dies or is brain damaged, because they weren't wearing a helmet, it's little solace to the motorist to say it's not your fault. They have to deal with being involved in a fatal crash. And someone who is all about personality when they want to go without a helmet may change their tune after an accident. Failing to wear a helmet is not a bar to a lawsuit after an accident. Failure to wear a helmet could come into play when assessing damages, but there is work to be done to get there. So I don't see this as merely a "personal consequences" situation, because failure to wear a helmet to impose consequences on other people. So many of my buttons pushed, Spoon! The majority of severe head traumas are caused by car accidents and simple falls, so all your valid arguments apply to car drivers and pedestrians more than to cyclists. Yet I see no media saying "the car driver was not wearing a helmet" when there is an accident. Failure to wear a helmet imposes consequences on other people when a cyclist has an accident and hits their head, I agree. This also applies to anything that makes any given situation worse when something bad happens. Should we legislate on every aspect of our lives to reach a point where nothing bad eve happens? It's not possible. Here's an example: people who are overweight and out of shape endure much worse health problems when they get older, suffering disproportionately from diabetes and heart problems. These health problems have consequences on other people too, from doctors who have a harder time treating their patients to family members who have to take care of their loved ones, to parents who feel guilt because they really should have forced Timmy to put down the playstation and become a health nut. Should we consider laws that impose limits on our weight, and force people to run regularly? I really don't think so, but it must be pointed out that a lot more people are overweight that fall on their head while riding a bike, and so such a law would actually make more sense than a mandatory helmet law. We would save way more lives that way, because hundreds of thousands of people die each year due to problems associated with their being overweight, while merely a few dozens die for not having worn a bicycle helmet. And I'm not even addressing the fact that cogarettes are still legal, despite being proven agents of mass destruction. The obsession with bike helmets is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned. The numbers of times a cyclist actually falls on their head is very low, and that number would be close to zero if bike accidents were made more infrequent by having cyclist respect traffic laws, having them use a headlight at night (as is mandatory, but rarely observed) and by having infrastructure better suited to the proper sharing of the road between bikes and motor vehicles, as is often the case in Europe. I wish the media were quicker to point out that a cyclist was riding at night withoutna headlight than that he wasn't wearing a helmet, especially when he was hit by a truck (in which case the helmet isn't going to be much help). On the other hand you have idiots like my former newspaper's former executive editor, who decreed that we were to edit out The Associated Press' routine references to whether victims in traffic fatalities were wearing seat belts. (I'm sure he felt the same about helmets in biking fatalities, which of course were a lot rarer.) He fancied himself a libertarian, so of course the state had no right to require any sort of safety measures on the part of drivers or, I suppose, anyone else. (And that's far from the only reason I considered him an idiot. There was also the part about mandating that all prisoner executions go on 3B, because they were just the routine outcome of the judicial process -- even the first triple execution in something like 50 years. It was newsworthy enough to get me interviewed [as night city editor, these things always happened on my watch] on Australian radio, but not enough to escape the 3B hole. (And then there was his insistence that all wire stories had to be scrubbed of references to racism, neo-Nazis or rape of males, since such things didn't exist. (And then there was the time he decried a reporter's "gotcha" story when he overheard a legislator referring to "wetbacks." Nothing wrong with such terminology, you see, because it fell within the category of "colorful Americanism." (Not surprising, I suppose, that he wasn't & hadn't been an actual journalist. His only qualification for the job was having bee the paper's travel editor; in real life he was a dilettante silk-stocking lawyer. I suspect he's the guy who brokered the publisher's 3 child adoptions.)
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 8, 2017 20:47:50 GMT -5
I'd forgetten it, but the book cited above notes that in the immediate aftermath of the murders of Milk & Moscone, some feared they were killed by vengeful People's Temple remnants.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 8, 2017 20:33:24 GMT -5
AFAIK, "BAMN" is a reference to By Any Means Necessary, which appears to be a leftist organization or at least a faction. About which I don't know much, other than that members apparently value direction action over the handwringing & tut-tut-ing that have proven so wonderfully effective up till now. That's how it began. But Jim Jones began as pro-diversity minister preaching against totalitarian abuses to disenfranchised people in the Bay Area.
Then became the totalitarian abuser of the people who moved South with him. Great point, DanBintheUnderworld As was brought home anew in the recent book I read on Jones, The Road to Jonestown. Interesting how retrospectives on Harvey Milk & George Moscone usually overlook their friendship with Jones, though as you indicate he didn't go waaaaaay off the rails till fairly late in the game. I mean, he was off the rails from the beginning, but for most of his life you could at least hear the faint echo of the train whistle way off in the distance if you really concentrated ...
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 8, 2017 9:43:03 GMT -5
lol a good and respectful question, mon ami! cisgenderadjectivedenoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. "this new-found attention to the plight of black trans folks by primarily cisgender allies is timely and necessary" of course it's become a word misused in ways, on occasion, by the BAMN Brats. I feel compelled to ask, being deluged by new acronyms, what a BAMN brat might be. "Body Armor Mending Nannies"? "Bold And Mean Narcobarons"? "Batman And Metamorpho Nerds"? AFAIK, "BAMN" is a reference to By Any Means Necessary, which appears to be a leftist organization or at least a faction. About which I don't know much, other than that members apparently value direction action over the handwringing & tut-tut-ing that have proven so wonderfully effective up till now.
|
|
|
Post by DanBintheUnderworld on Jul 7, 2017 10:08:47 GMT -5
I'm getting married sometimes next Spring and this is my 1st and her 2nd ... and next Spring around end of April that our target date of marriage. We'll be waiting for 3 years for this and now she retired and this makes it easier for us to do so. Congrats. I was my first wife's second husband & my second wife's third husband. To keep the mathematical progression going, I suppose I'm waiting for a woman seeking a fourth husband.
|
|