ARROW

A MUCH better trailer!

I'm liking what I'm seeing here.

Depp is part Cherokee, how many full-blooded native actors of his box-office stature do you think they will find???

Uuuh, yeaaaahhhh. Did you know that Curtis Silva has been found to have completely fabricated some of the claimed exploits of the Guardian Angels? Yeah, place your trust in a group that has to fluff itself up with bogus stories. Also that most chapters selectively "patrol" only certain areas of the cities they are established in, usually those areas that have a lower crime rate regardless? A considerable number of chapters have disbanded because members were simply no longer interested in the activities, and the press releases on the group cite the cities where chapters have been set up, but not where they have abandoned. At least the police don't operate in such a "fairweather" fashion... I knew a highschool classmate of mine who joined the Vancouver group in the early 1980's, after we had graduated. However well-intentioned he and his fellow Guardians might have been, they were next to useless on the streets.

Unfortunately, as altruistic as these folks might be, the Good Samaritan laws in many states are not always enough to protect them from the inevitable lawsuits that can be brought by perps and victims both. This is why vigilantism of this kind is stupid and short-sighted--any of them get into a fight and use their "military or mixed martial arts skills" on someone and THEY can be arrested for assault, and then sued in civil court for any injuries incurred. There's good reasons why the police are trained and certified before they hit the streets, and why they operate under specific rules and procedures. These folks and their interference can actually complicate criminal cases and allow criminals to go free.

I'll have to check into that one. I never knew. I'm gonna miss this one. Leslie Nielsen was a favorite of mine. Gene Roddenberry is quoted (somewhere) as saying that Forbidden Planet was one of the inspirations for Star Trek, so its not far of a stretch at all.

My favourite Nielsen role: Cmdr. Adams in Forbidden Planet. I still believe he was the inspired prototype of Star Trek's Capt. Kirk. R.I.P.

And a Young Samson, and Zantar, and The Galaxy Trio, and.....

NICE! And great subjects too--some of my favourite cartoons characters.

He looks good in the suit. Looking forward to this movie.

Everyone writes something, at some point, that they regret. Foot-in-mouth isn't a particularly fussy affliction, but deleting something can take away most of the funk about it. I think that writing with the courage of one's convictions and standing by said convictions is the most sensible way around that.

Well, sitting here on my high pulpit--which looks UP at all the other pulpits--I see and note the ironies in my Great Book About Seeing And Noting Ironies and I smile. Not the smile of smugness......oh no, that would be uncouth. Uncouth smugness gets wiped from one's face with a cloth wield the force of a high-grit best sander. No, my smile is one of serendipitous mirth that irony has reached down.......reached up.............reached over...........reached from SOMEwhere to bless us all once again with its gentle tingle. Oh, and a <rimshot sound effect>.

The point was that NPR isn't obliged to put up with Williams' "human flinching"--and Williams KNOWS that expressing those kinds of thoughts can lead to problems. No-one isn't going to say he cannot FEEL that kind of apprehension, his mistake was in expressing those feelings will under contract as a representative of NPR. Does NPR have an empirically beneficent view of Muslims?? I doubt it as much as I doubt Williams has a equal valid view of them in the same breath--neither could have enough information to honestly say. So both parties resort to assumptions--and I said as much before--but NPR is not obliged to withstand Williams' POV in this. Sure they can be dead wrong and Williams can be spot on-and that isn't terribly relevant here. This isn't about WHAT he said, but the fact that he said it.

Well, just a few minutes ago, we had a topic about censorship pulled because a moderator ( let's politely/generously leave them nameless) thought that examples therein pertained to close to the personal......and therefore thought the thread should be censored from reading because of that. Now, any perceived personal slights aside (and none were intended), this is EXACTLY one of the points being made in the previous thread. Rightfully or wrongly, one of the parties in the matter could not abide what the other was saying, and so they chose to exercise a power they have and silenced that particular message....at least for now. And here, on this privately owned site, with the person in question acting as an agent of the site owner they took action as they saw fit and as per the instructions they have. And in those respects that's probably just and fair, because it IS a private site and speech is not a freedom here, but a privilege. The irony is, that they were not arguing FOR that in the other thread, but rather against it. Life is complicated, ain't it??