Another new "Black Stallion" book by Steve Farley is coming out next summer. I've been a loyal fan of Alec and the Black since I first discovered the books at age 9, which was 40 years ago (no, I don't care who knows how old I am.) But Steve Farley's last book as he attempts to follow in his father's footsteps, "The Black Stallion and the Shape Shifter," was just WEIRD, and the plot of this book as outlined on Amazon sounds even weirder. (Alec and the Black find themselves about to be sacrificed to flesh-eating mares in a city lost in time???)
Why does Steve Farley write weird fantasy plots? His father did a science-fiction plot in "The Island Stallion Races," and he himself got into weird fantasy in "The Black Stallion's Ghost" (Alec lost in the swamp in Florida, and were his encounters with this weird Kovi just hallucinations or real? That book creeped me out as a 1o-year-old and to this day it's one of my least favorite of the senior Mr. Farley's books) and "The Black Stallion Legend," which was just bizarre. I would rather read more traditional horse stories involving Alec and the Black, not weird fantasy tales that are totally improbable and off the wall.
That being said, I will, of course, be dumb enough to buy this book and add it to my collection simply because it is a Black Stallion book, but I have a strong feeling I'm not gonna like this one any more than I did "Shape Shifter." Please, Steve, write a book that is more plausible and less science-fictioney (did I just make up a word?)
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sorry, I have to be grammar cop here
It drives me crazy to hear people say "in regards to" or "with regards to." The correct phrase is "in regard to" or "with regard to," singular, no "s" on the end.
And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.
Thank you. I feel better now.
And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.
Thank you. I feel better now.
Leave NPR alone!!
Ever since Juan Williams was so ridiculously fired by NPR for comments that were taken out of context (the people who run NPR can now challenge the people who took Miss California's crown away from her for "hypocrites of the year"), there has been a loud outcry for NPR (as well as PBS) to be defunded. There is a loud cry as well by people who seem to think NPR is a "left-wing commie network" that shouldn't even be on the air in the first place. My admittedly disgusted reaction to this is - have these people even bothered to LISTEN to NPR???
I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)
But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.
In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.
Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!
Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.
I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)
But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.
In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.
Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!
Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The American people are about to be raped
The Democratic senators are refusing to listen to tea parties, town halls, callers to talk radio, letters, emails, phone calls to their offices, the march on Washington on 9/12, the rally at the Capitol a few weeks ago - they are determined to rape the American people by foisting this health care bill on us tomorrow morning. And Merry Christmas to you too, Senators!
What does it take to get them to listen? What does it take to get them to understand their job? And what will it take to stop this? I think this should go to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will consent to hear it, because it absolutely is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to buy something (such as insurance). If ever there was a need for the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of checks and balances, this is it.
What does it take to get them to listen? What does it take to get them to understand their job? And what will it take to stop this? I think this should go to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will consent to hear it, because it absolutely is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to buy something (such as insurance). If ever there was a need for the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of checks and balances, this is it.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Are "birthers" just crazy conspiracy theorists?
Some explanation is in order before I get into the heart of my post today. I live in Phoenix, and I listen to talk radio, primarily KTAR 92.3 FM, which is a highly conservative station. (Most talk radio is highly conservative - the liberals can't seem to be successful with talk radio shows of their own.) The morning talk show host on KTAR is usually Darrell Ankarlo, but he has been off the air for several months following a bad car accident, although he is expected to return soon. A number of hosts have been filling in for him over the past several months. One of them is Austin Hill, who has a web site at http://www.austinhill.net/. Now, most of the time, I agree with Austin Hill's point of view. But he and I diverge completely on the issue of the so-called "birthers."
"Birther" is the derogatory name given to those of us who believe that President Obama is being less than forthcoming with releasing his birth certificate, and have questions as to whether or not he was born in Hawaii or somewhere else. Most of us who think there might be any credence at all to this opinion are looked upon as kooks, "just a bunch of conspiracy theorists." But for a conservative talk-show host like Austin Hill to have the same mindset really bugs me!
He was discussing this topic on KTAR this morning, and his attitude and tone of voice left no doubt that he feels nothing but scorn for anyone who dares broach the idea that Obama's birth certificate needs to be released. According to Austin Hill, this is "a waste of time," "irrelevant," and "we need to concentrate on more concrete matters." He says that if we expect the President to release his birth certificate, we are "asking him to "disprove the hypothetical," whatever THAT is supposed to mean.
One caller was trying to argue in favor of the birth certificate being released, and Mr. Hill, in a voice brimming with sarcasm, asked him, "Where do you think Obama was born?" When the man replied, "I have no idea," Hill took off with that and proceeded to ridicule the man with more of this "disprove the hypothetical" nonsense. How is producing a birth certificate "disproving the hypothetical?" Rather, is it not just simply proving where you were born in the first place? And no, Mr. Hill, he has NOT produced his birth certificate already. He has produced a "certificate of live birth," which is not the same thing at all and does not carry the legal weight that an actual birth certificate carries.
Another caller made the mistake of referring to someone who had called Darrell Ankarlo, the very host for whom Mr. Hill was filling in, as "a chick named Orly or something like that," and right away, because the caller phrased it that way, Hill refused to give him any credence. Would it not be the remotest bit possible, Mr. Hill, for you to ask the producer of Ankarlo's show to pull the tapes of past shows and find the conversation this caller was referring to, and listen to it yourself, to determine if "this Orly chick" had any credence, instead of instantly dismissing it with derision?
Mr. Hill's take is that birthers pay too much attention to what they read on the Internet, adding sarcastically that "we all know that everything on the Internet is absolutely true and can be believed." So I guess we all are just getting our information from wacky Web sites and we aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's legitimate and what isn't.
Yet another caller referred to having seen Obama's grandmother interviewed on CNN (is CNN a wacky Web site, or a legitimate news organization?) and she had said she was present at her grandson's birth in Kenya. Hill ridiculed this too (I guess he figured the caller, who by the way identified himself as being African-American, can't tell the difference between CNN and a wacky Web site, or that he just dreamed he saw this on CNN.) The story about Obama's grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya has been around for quite awhile; can't anyone simply check it out and see if his grandmother ever actually did go on record as claiming this? Or is she just a crazy old lady who can't remember where she was when her grandson was born?
It's not just the birth certificate, Mr. Hill. "Birthers" also want to know why ALL of Obama's records - school records, high school and college transcripts, everything - are sealed and not available for public perusal. He claims that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have investigated all this if there were anything to it. How could McCain or Hillary have investigated ANYTHING if it's all sealed and under lock and key, not being released to anyone for any reason???????
He wants to know if we think the election should be overturned, and wants us to consider what the result would be to the country if we went down that road. My response is - yeah, if the election was fraudulent, then it HAS to be overturned. You can't just shrug off someone who is not legitimately president! You can't just sweep it under the rug! Would it be highly traumatizing for this country? Yes. But are we a country of laws or not? If it's "irrelevant" that Obama is or isn't legally qualified to be president, then the section of the Constitution that dictates you must be a natural-born citizen is also "irrelevant" and should be removed from the Constitution! (That darn Constitution - what a pesky thing!)
By the way, Congress could not impeach him, because if he isn't legally President, then they have no legal right to impeach him. Think about THAT one.
I would email Austin Hill with all of this, but he is SO closed-minded to the idea that there could be any SHRED of legitimacy to what the so-called "birthers" believe that even if he were to read my email, he would disregard it with the same sarcasm and derision with which he was dismissing the callers on his radio show this morning. It's like he locked himself inside a soundproof vault where he can't (or won't) hear anything anyone says to him because we're all "conspiracy theorists" who don't know our heads from a hole in the ground.
Mr. Hill, you are being an idiot about this. Get a clue.
"Birther" is the derogatory name given to those of us who believe that President Obama is being less than forthcoming with releasing his birth certificate, and have questions as to whether or not he was born in Hawaii or somewhere else. Most of us who think there might be any credence at all to this opinion are looked upon as kooks, "just a bunch of conspiracy theorists." But for a conservative talk-show host like Austin Hill to have the same mindset really bugs me!
He was discussing this topic on KTAR this morning, and his attitude and tone of voice left no doubt that he feels nothing but scorn for anyone who dares broach the idea that Obama's birth certificate needs to be released. According to Austin Hill, this is "a waste of time," "irrelevant," and "we need to concentrate on more concrete matters." He says that if we expect the President to release his birth certificate, we are "asking him to "disprove the hypothetical," whatever THAT is supposed to mean.
One caller was trying to argue in favor of the birth certificate being released, and Mr. Hill, in a voice brimming with sarcasm, asked him, "Where do you think Obama was born?" When the man replied, "I have no idea," Hill took off with that and proceeded to ridicule the man with more of this "disprove the hypothetical" nonsense. How is producing a birth certificate "disproving the hypothetical?" Rather, is it not just simply proving where you were born in the first place? And no, Mr. Hill, he has NOT produced his birth certificate already. He has produced a "certificate of live birth," which is not the same thing at all and does not carry the legal weight that an actual birth certificate carries.
Another caller made the mistake of referring to someone who had called Darrell Ankarlo, the very host for whom Mr. Hill was filling in, as "a chick named Orly or something like that," and right away, because the caller phrased it that way, Hill refused to give him any credence. Would it not be the remotest bit possible, Mr. Hill, for you to ask the producer of Ankarlo's show to pull the tapes of past shows and find the conversation this caller was referring to, and listen to it yourself, to determine if "this Orly chick" had any credence, instead of instantly dismissing it with derision?
Mr. Hill's take is that birthers pay too much attention to what they read on the Internet, adding sarcastically that "we all know that everything on the Internet is absolutely true and can be believed." So I guess we all are just getting our information from wacky Web sites and we aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's legitimate and what isn't.
Yet another caller referred to having seen Obama's grandmother interviewed on CNN (is CNN a wacky Web site, or a legitimate news organization?) and she had said she was present at her grandson's birth in Kenya. Hill ridiculed this too (I guess he figured the caller, who by the way identified himself as being African-American, can't tell the difference between CNN and a wacky Web site, or that he just dreamed he saw this on CNN.) The story about Obama's grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya has been around for quite awhile; can't anyone simply check it out and see if his grandmother ever actually did go on record as claiming this? Or is she just a crazy old lady who can't remember where she was when her grandson was born?
It's not just the birth certificate, Mr. Hill. "Birthers" also want to know why ALL of Obama's records - school records, high school and college transcripts, everything - are sealed and not available for public perusal. He claims that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have investigated all this if there were anything to it. How could McCain or Hillary have investigated ANYTHING if it's all sealed and under lock and key, not being released to anyone for any reason???????
He wants to know if we think the election should be overturned, and wants us to consider what the result would be to the country if we went down that road. My response is - yeah, if the election was fraudulent, then it HAS to be overturned. You can't just shrug off someone who is not legitimately president! You can't just sweep it under the rug! Would it be highly traumatizing for this country? Yes. But are we a country of laws or not? If it's "irrelevant" that Obama is or isn't legally qualified to be president, then the section of the Constitution that dictates you must be a natural-born citizen is also "irrelevant" and should be removed from the Constitution! (That darn Constitution - what a pesky thing!)
By the way, Congress could not impeach him, because if he isn't legally President, then they have no legal right to impeach him. Think about THAT one.
I would email Austin Hill with all of this, but he is SO closed-minded to the idea that there could be any SHRED of legitimacy to what the so-called "birthers" believe that even if he were to read my email, he would disregard it with the same sarcasm and derision with which he was dismissing the callers on his radio show this morning. It's like he locked himself inside a soundproof vault where he can't (or won't) hear anything anyone says to him because we're all "conspiracy theorists" who don't know our heads from a hole in the ground.
Mr. Hill, you are being an idiot about this. Get a clue.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Miss California loses her crown
Well, the gay rights movement gained a very hollow victory when The Donald decided to deprive Miss California of her crown after all. However, Miss California is the real winner. Her bravery in standing by her comments about gay marriage, her refusal to back down in the face of overwhelming pressure, her courage in taking a stand for Christian values, have made her far more admirable than I can put into words. And she has a crown waiting for her that nobody, no gay judge, no multi-billionaire, nobody, can ever take away. Read 2 Timothy 4:8:
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not only to me but also to all who eagerly wait for His appearing."
Nobody will EVER take THAT crown away from her. And THAT is the crown that counts!
By the way, when Conan O'Brien joked about this the other night on the "Tonight Show," and he started off by saying Miss California had lost her crown after all, and the audience *cheered* and *clapped* - I think every single one of those people who applauded ought to be *ashamed* of themselves. You would CHEER for a beautiful, decent, moral young woman losing her crown because she dares to stand up for moral values against those who are utterly lacking in moral values? You think this is something to APPLAUD? Every last one of you ought to hang your heads in shame.
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not only to me but also to all who eagerly wait for His appearing."
Nobody will EVER take THAT crown away from her. And THAT is the crown that counts!
By the way, when Conan O'Brien joked about this the other night on the "Tonight Show," and he started off by saying Miss California had lost her crown after all, and the audience *cheered* and *clapped* - I think every single one of those people who applauded ought to be *ashamed* of themselves. You would CHEER for a beautiful, decent, moral young woman losing her crown because she dares to stand up for moral values against those who are utterly lacking in moral values? You think this is something to APPLAUD? Every last one of you ought to hang your heads in shame.
Four by Four
I saw this list of questions on the Internet and decided it would be fun to answer them myself, so here goes:
Four Movies You'd Watch Over and Over Again
The Music Man
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Field of Dreams
Superman
Four Places You Have Lived
I have only ever lived two places - Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Four TV Shows You Love to Watch
Maverick (always and forever)
The Waltons
Centennial
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Four Places You Have Been on Vacation
Hawaii
Scotland
Dallas, TX
De Smet, South Dakota
Four of Your Favorite Foods
Cheeseburger
Turkey
Pepperoni Pizza
Chocolate shake
Four Websites You Visit Daily
Bloodhorse.com
ebay.com
IMDB.com
Wikipedia.org
Four Places You'd Rather Be Right Now
Heaven
De Smet, South Dakota
a Diamondbacks game
and finally, right where I am - at home!
Four Things You Want to Do Before You Die
Marry a wonderful Christian man
Take a riverboat trip down the Mississippi River from Natches to New Orleans
See the Kentucky Derby in person
Visit all 50 states
Four Books You Wish You Could Read Again for the First Time
Any of the "Little House" books
Any of the "Black Stallion" books
"A Man Called Peter" by Catherine Marshall
Any of the "Mitford" novels
There you have it!
Four Movies You'd Watch Over and Over Again
The Music Man
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Field of Dreams
Superman
Four Places You Have Lived
I have only ever lived two places - Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Four TV Shows You Love to Watch
Maverick (always and forever)
The Waltons
Centennial
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Four Places You Have Been on Vacation
Hawaii
Scotland
Dallas, TX
De Smet, South Dakota
Four of Your Favorite Foods
Cheeseburger
Turkey
Pepperoni Pizza
Chocolate shake
Four Websites You Visit Daily
Bloodhorse.com
ebay.com
IMDB.com
Wikipedia.org
Four Places You'd Rather Be Right Now
Heaven
De Smet, South Dakota
a Diamondbacks game
and finally, right where I am - at home!
Four Things You Want to Do Before You Die
Marry a wonderful Christian man
Take a riverboat trip down the Mississippi River from Natches to New Orleans
See the Kentucky Derby in person
Visit all 50 states
Four Books You Wish You Could Read Again for the First Time
Any of the "Little House" books
Any of the "Black Stallion" books
"A Man Called Peter" by Catherine Marshall
Any of the "Mitford" novels
There you have it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)