Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
One of the responsibilities of fandom is to ensure the integrity of the intellectual property they are invested in. This was made abundantly clear concerning the solo cinematic debut of Black Panther. Nonsensical character development; irreverent cultural sensibilities; duplicitous political sensitivity; all were averted due to the earnest tenacity of committed and conscientious fans and enthusiasts.

Despite being underestimated and undervalued BP supporters have and continue to challenge all areas of concern in relation to Black Panther and his world. This is why contributors like Coates, Gay and Okorafor remain under constant scrutiny.

Why Coates desires to write a character that he has such contempt for can only be surmised in the narratives of his choosing. Coates posits the all so vogue ideologies of female oppression and empowerment; LGBT representation by the inclusion of Queer women with the all so inseparable defining traits (sarcasm heavily emphasized) of so called black people... oppression and suffrage;   cruelty to one another and of course slavery.

This dulls the readers engagement with the Black Panther and his world. This is not why we came to Wakanda. This is not why we champion the Black Panther. All those involved in the Black Panther movie... Marvel studio heads, writers, producers, director, actors, musicians, costumers, set designers, etc. listened to the fans and enthusiasts; read the comics, selected some of the best source material and the results speak for themselves. We need a comic book that reflects this reality.
Black Panther RC Talon Fighter

Head out on make-believe missions to save Wakanda! With 4 propellers, this RC Talon Fighter flies like a drone—plus it looks like T'Challa's. Drone uses 1 rechargeable battery (cable included); remote uses 5 AA batteries (not included). 9 3/4" l x 7" w x 2" h. Ages 4 and up.

Personally I would like a detailed model of the Talon fighter to build. I'm surprised that there are none, not to mention the two other ships that were on display in the film.
Black Panther Floor Carpet and Bedroom Rug (non-slip)
« Last post by Battle on Today at 04:03:34 am »
Wednesday, 20th March 2019
Mother accused of abusing 7 adopted children to force them into making YouTube videos
by Doha Madani

An Arizona mother is accused of abusing her seven adopted children to get them to perform for her YouTube channel.

Machelle Hackney and her two adult sons were arrested Friday and are facing abuse charges.

Police said Hackney withheld food and water, restricted restroom access, beat and pepper-sprayed the children when they failed to follow direction for YouTube videos, according to a probable cause statement from the Maricopa Police Department.

Hackney, who goes by her maiden name Hobson, denied abusing the children and stated the only forms of punishment she uses is spanking and grounding children and having them stand in the corner, according to police documents.

Hackney has been charged with seven counts of child abuse, five counts of unlawful imprisonment and two counts of child molestation. Jail records show she was arraigned Tuesday and held without bond.

Police did not release the children's ages.

The family's YouTube channel, which has 700,800 followers and more than 242 million views, features the adopted children in different sketch videos.

The children told police they were taken out of school in order to make videos.

They also claimed their adoptive mother abused them whenever they forgot their lines or didn't participate as instructed.

YouTube confirmed the channel was demonetized once they were made aware of the arrest.

Officials performed a welfare check after police were contacted by Hackney's biological daughter, who was informed of the allegations by her adopted siblings.

During the check, officers found one child in an unlocked closet wearing only a pull-up diaper.

"Officers came in contact with the six other children, who appeared to be malnourished, due to their pale complexion, dark rings under their eyes, underweight, and they stated they were thirsty and hungry," according to the probable cause statement.

The Department of Child Services removed all seven children from Hackney's care and has assisted in having the children forensically interviewed and medically examined.

During an examination, a girl told authorities her adoptive mother-pepper sprayed her genitals.

She said that Hackey would "pepper spray all over their face and body, spank them, force them to take ice baths and when resisting would force their head underwater as well as she will make them stand in the corner with their arms raised above their head for several hours at a time."

Hackney's two adult sons, Ryan and Logan, were also charged with seven counts of child abuse each.

Logan told investigators that he had knowledge of some of the alleged abuse and claimed both discussed going to the police.

Logan and Ryan were also arraigned Tuesday and held without bond, according to jail records.

It is not clear whether the mother and sons have lawyers.

Would You Like To Know More?
Sunday, 24th March 2019
The Question the Mueller Report Has Not Answered:  WHY?
by David Frum

Good news, America.

Russia helped install your president.

But although he owes his job in large part to that help, the acting-president did not conspire or collude with his helpers.

He was the beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, but not an active participant in that operation.

He received the stolen goods, but he did not conspire with the thieves in advance.

This is what puppetine and its enablers in Congress and media are already calling exoneration.

But it offers no reassurance to Americans who cherish the independence and integrity of their political process.

The question unanswered by the attorney general’s summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report is:


Russian President Vladimir Putin took an extreme risk by interfering in the 2016 election as he did.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the most likely outcome, Russia would have been exposed to fierce retaliation by a powerful adversary.

The prize of a drumphf presidency must have glittered alluringly indeed to Putin and his associates.


Did they admire drumphf’s anti-NATO, anti-EU, anti-ally, pro-Assad, pro-Putin ideology?

Were they attracted by his contempt for the rule of law and dislike of democracy?

Did they hold compromising information about him, financial or otherwise?

Were there business dealings in the past, present, or future?

Or were they simply attracted by drumphf’s general ignorance and incompetence, seeing him as a kind of wrecking ball to be smashed into the U.S. government and U.S. foreign policy?

Many public-spirited people have counted on Robert Mueller to investigate these questions, too, along the narrowly criminal questions in his assignment.

Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not; we will know soon, either way.

But those questions have always been the important topics.

The drumphf presidency from the start has presented a national-security challenge first, a challenge to U.S. public integrity next. But in this hyper-legalistic society, those vital inquiries got diverted early into a law-enforcement matter.

That was always a mistake, as I’ve been arguing for two years.

Now the job returns to the place it always belonged and never should have left:


This is all the more the case since the elections of 2018 restored independence to that body.

The 2016 election was altered by Putin’s intervention, and a finding that the drumphf campaign only went along for the ride does not rehabilitate the democratic or patriotic legitimacy of the Trump presidency.

drumphf remains a president rejected by more Americans than those who voted for him, who holds his job because a foreign power violated American laws and sovereignty.

It’s up to Congress to deal with this threat to American self-rule.

Mueller hasn’t provided answers, so much as he has posed a question:

Are Americans comfortable with this idiot in the White House, now that they know he broke no prosecutable criminal statutes on his way into high office?

Would You Like To Know More?
Vox Populi / Re: Trump says he won the electoral college in a landslide, but...
« Last post by Battle on Yesterday at 12:36:41 pm »
Sunday, 24th March 2019
The Amendment That Almost Killed the Electoral College
by Tim Marcin

We're now years removed from drumphf losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes but still cruising into the White House via the Electoral College.

Now, with the 2020 election rising into view on the horizon, a number of the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for doing away with the Electoral College altogether.

But many Republicans treat the idea as a nonstarter.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio said this week, for instance, that getting rid of the Electoral College is about "diminishing the electoral power of what liberals arrogantly call the 'flyover states'" and that the "same people always preaching about our 'constitutional norms' want to change the ones they find inconvenient."

But it wasn't all that long ago that our country—through a bipartisan effort among lawmakers—nearly ditched the Electoral College.

The Bayh-Celler amendment nearly did it, beginning in 1969 before flaming out in 1971.

"This is a lost piece of history," Alexander Keyssar, the Matthew W. Stirling, Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard, told Newsweek.

Keyssar — the author of the forthcoming book Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?

—said it was "very close" to getting passed, meaning the president-vice president duo would have then been elected via national popular vote, provided that the duo earned at least 40 percent of the total vote.

It would have been a remarkable shift. And it would have, no doubt, changed the course of American history.

The amendment breezed through the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives, where it garnered about 80 percent support.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed it through as well.

But, spearheaded by Democratic Indiana Senator Birch Bayh, the effort never secured enough votes to pass through the full Senate and go to the states for ratification.

Still, by modern standards, that is incredibly close for an idea shunned by a number of current-day lawmakers.

How did it happen?

Keyssar points to a few factors.

Starting in the late 1940's and running through the '60s, there was growing dissatisfaction with the Electoral College in Congress.

There was also, at that time, a general surge in successful efforts to buttress voting rights.

And the lawmakers on Congressional committees lined up fortuitously for the effort to kill-off the Electoral College.

Then there was the spark of the 1968 presidential election, won by Republican Richard Nixon.

Nixon won the popular vote by roughly 800,000 votes but outpaced Democrat Hubert Humphrey by a hearty 110 electoral votes—that happened, in part, because pro-segregation, third-party candidate George Wallace picked up 46 electoral votes in the South.
"Wallace threatened to become a kingmaker," Keyssar said.

"Nobody thought he could win—but he could win enough states that he could decide who won the election. And that spooked people."

While there was broad support for change—even President Nixon, at least in theory, signed on with the amendment—the amendment stalled out in the Senate.

That was largely due to opposition from southern senators.

That included anti-civil-rights South Carolina Republican Strom Thurmond, who helped lead the filibuster against the amendment.

"We were able to get it out of the House by a large vote," Bayh said in 2011 interview with Fordham Law Review (Bayh died just last week).

"I had sixty Senator sponsors for it in the Senate, and I figured I would get the other six when the debate got going. Then the most unlikely of all experiences, I think, that have happened to me while I was in the Senate—Strom Thurmond, who was anti-Semitic and anti-black along with everything else, was also anti-direct popular vote."

Thurmond worked to convince lawmakers from small states, as well as black and Jewish leaders that their groups would lose power.

"He played on something that always frightened me about direct popular vote—despite the small states feeling they had the advantage, the large states were the ones that really had the advantage," Bayh said in the interview.

The amendment never got the chance to go to the states, where polling suggested it had enough support in at least 30 of the necessary 38 states to ratify.

"I lost four or five votes in the liberal section," Bayh reflected to Fordham.

"I think we ended up with maybe fifty-two or fifty-three votes, fifty-five maybe. I forget what it was. I didn’t even have my sixty."

And when push came to shove, when support was fleeting, Nixon's support was tepid. He could have pulled his weight around as president. He did not.
Dr. Gregory Cumming, staff historian at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, couldn't turn up any mention of the amendment in Nixon's writings from the time.

"Whatever he was doing was lukewarm at best," he told Newsweek.

And, Cumming noted, Bayh had helped lead the fight to deny Judge Clement Haynsworth, a 1969 Nixon nominee for a Supreme Court seat.

"There are quite a bit of accounts that Nixon was not happy with Birch Bayh essentially being the focus of the anti-Haynsworth movement in the Senate," Cumming said.
It would stand to reason that Nixon wouldn't love pushing for an amendment backed by a senator who had worked to deny his nominee the position.

So, what's happened in the few decades since the Bayh-Celler Amendment—why is abolishing the Electoral College so divisive now?
Keyssar had a blunt response.
"The short answer—but it's a powerful answer—is that the Republican Party, starting really in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, decided that the Electoral College advantaged them," he said.

"And from the early 1980s until the present, Electoral College reform became a partisan issue like it was never before."

The Bayh-Celler Amendment did have prominent Republican supporters, which would likely be much harder to do now.

The vast majority of Americans overall, however, have for decades supported moving to a national popular vote over the Electoral College—that is, before a stark shift among Republicans after drumphf stole in '16.

Still, polls typically show a majority of Americans would prefer moving toward a national popular vote.

Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a presidential hopeful, recently garnered loud applause at a town hall by saying:

"Every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College."

But calling for reform and it actually happening are different things.

Keyssar said advocates for doing away with the Electoral College can take a couple of lessons from the Bayh–Celler amendment.

"It teaches us two things," he said.

"One is that we shouldn't despair. Reform may be possible. And the second is that it will be very difficult to put together a coalition that would support an amendment."

Would You Like To Know More?
Other Comics / Re: Jonathan Hickman's X-Men
« Last post by Hypestyle on Yesterday at 11:18:14 am »

hmm. I wonder what sort of storylines he will come up with. I hope there's no more bizarre betrayals and the like. I hope some under-used characters get more spotlight.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10