Man in the High Castle as propaganda

I had to stop watching Man in a High Castle because its third season was so deplorable.

Not only had the writing completely falling apart to become something of a liberal soap opera, it is also become unbearably politically correct.

I can only imagine Phillip K Dick turning over in his grave wishing he could return as a Frankenstein monster to seek revenge on those who completely gutted his work.

No literary sn is worse than when you take one of the most provocative writers and twist his work into propaganda.

This is even worse than calling Dr. Seuss a racist.

But it is indicative of a society that has the Mad tea party syndrome in which the lunatics have taken over the asylum and pathetic writers try to emulate masters by paying tribute with mockery and distortion.

Everything now has become a kind of propaganda machine we can't escape and seeking refuge in the classics is no help because many view the world of the past as an enclave of racism and bigotry.

Although there must be real Scholars of American History, most of the Liberals that control Hollywood these days seem to have gotten their education on the past from the distorted works of the Burn Brothers, The West and the American Civil War.

The biggest target of liberals these days appears to be the actor John Wayne upon whose shoulders liberals dump all the white guilt of the past. He is model of macho male modern feminists come to despise and is often attributed as the symbolic culprit of the genocide of Native Americans.

Feminist may be right about the first because men these days appear to have castrated themselves in order to bow before the altar of new morality and a power shift from male to female dominance. We live in a time of male hatred and this is not going to pass easily until something major changes in the human psyche to bring things back into balance.

But for those liberals who condemned John Wayne as anti-Native American, it is clear they have never seen a John Wayne movie and the host of characters he played more than a little sympathetic to the plight of Native Americans – as were many of the characters in westerns, only liberals either weren’t watching or got their opinions handed to them by professors determined to reinvent media as well as history.

One such lecture in the mist of Man in the High Castle made me finally turn off the program and refused to turn it on again as it became one lesson after another in somebody's MFA thesis.

I don't know what happened to the writers of the first two seasons when they did not have to hit you over the head with the concept of fascism and they played closer to the original ideas that Phillip K dick espoused.  But it is clear that the writers in the third season were far less talented and incredibly more politically correct then those in the first two seasons.

The ultimate result of course is to make victims out of the Japanese by the Germans, better fitting with the misconception that somehow Europe was worse than Asia when it came to Fascism.  In other words, white Europeans continue to attack people of color even if those people of color happened to be fascist Japanese murderers.

This aspect isn't exclusive to the third season but clearly emphasized more than it was during the earlier portions of this TV.  Somehow, we were expected to see the Japanese fascist as more sympathetic than their European counterparts.  This was never the intent of the original novel.  but it was bearable as long as it was subtle and once the program became clearly over the top liberal propaganda it was no longer tolerable even as entertainment.

I mean political correctness is nothing new for contemporary television Stargate SG1 had one or two episodes that you need to fast forward on in order to get through the muck.  But with Man in the High Castle there is no getting around since the plots are so entwined. Even if the editors managed to rid the program of all those questionable lectures on John Wayne and other people, the horrible writing of the third season would make the program intolerable as well.

You can’t blame the actors for giving such wooden, puppet like performance, since they are the same quality actors of the first two seasons. You have to blame the writers and directors who put these pathetic speeches in their mouths and expected them to somehow make propaganda sound plausibly entertaining.

Unfortunately, because of the structure of the series the damage is done and there is no going back. They have stepped outside the box and now are condemned to follow threads that are clearly unbearable to watch as fiction and only the truly die-hard liberal radical would appreciate the content.

The few of those who have even remote literary tastes would not be able to stomach the bad writing and the plastic acting.

For those who have not yet seen the series yet, you’re better off with the first two seasons if you can't possibly avoid it and let the rest go to posterity.

For those of us who actually delved into the third season, we are stained for life and cannot scrub the memory of such bad fiction from our minds.  Perhaps in time this will fade perhaps if we go back to the original book, we can repair the damage. But this is unlikely since once infected you will likely bring this distortion even to the Masterpiece Philip K dick inked.

Perhaps the best thing to do is go watch some John Wayne movies and see some legitimate acting and legitimate dialogue and legitimate point of view and wash the memory of the crappy 3rd season out of your body like a toxic disease.

New green deal disaster

03-05-19

Just when you assume the worst is over, winter returns, this haunting beast we must endure for a quarter of our lives, waiting for the inevitability of spring.

Unlike fall which explodes upon us usually in one last gush before all goes bare, spring creeps up on us, a bit of it popping up here or there, yet rarely all at once in the same place.

Day light savings time comes this weekend in a year when Easter comes remarkably late, both serving in the past as sign s of changing season, the first symbolic of humanity's arrogant belief it can control nature, the second that tribute to nature's ability to resurrect despite all we do to harm her.

Our arrogance shows worst when we claim we have power to undo through intention what we caused by accident, a retelling of that old tale about spoiled coffee. fixing things are bound to make the situation worse. Yet you cannot tell those who see themselves as saviors that it is best to let mother nature heal herself when we clearly cannot start over with a fresh cup of coffee.

Fixers are compelled to fix even when at time what they fix is not broken.

Sometimes we are in such a rush to hurry spring we delay it, all of our schemes frustrated by our inability to see the signs of change, popping up here and there if not all at once.

We keep ranting on about how we need to reduce our carbon footprint, touting energy sources that as yet are proven unreliable why condemning those that are, carrying around in our pockets tiny devices more toxic than the coal we burn to keep them charged. We complain about the mounds of plastic poor people use and dispose of and end in the sea while ignoring the poles of used technology seeping poisons into the soil, like a toxic elephants’ graveyard that was supposed to keep us from cutting down trees, each device filled with unrenewable resources to replace trees which are.

In telling us we should abandon air travel, the fixers revert to tat old adage that if god had intended us to fly, he or she would have given us wings. but since fixers do not believe in god, they must play god, setting down in stone rules by which the rest of us must live.

But there are rules we live by dictated by powers beyond our control, if not god them a force of nature we seem determined to defy or reverse, fixers determined to bring us back to the caves to uninvent fire or at least keep Prometheus from acquiring it for us, back to a time when anticipating spring is more than a luxury ,but a desperate struggle for survival.

email to Al Sullivan

Victimization of snow

March 4, 2019

We waited for hours in the snow. When it came it so full as tiny flakes we mistook as rain.

It was supposed to start out as rain and so we assumed the storm would turn out worse than predicted. In a climate of hysteria over global warming, people panic over the slightest things, building mountains out of mounds of snow.

How much worse will our reaction be when an inevitable disaster comes? This not due so much over climate change but over the fear we create over small things so make us unprepared to confront any serious calamity.

Freud was right when he claimed humanity has changed little from our days in the caves. We are a panic-stricken race, resorting to a mob mentality when faced with things we fear, do not understand, or with we disagree.

We are a society of victims playing victims, getting our identity from being victims.

We close schools for a snow we would have been punished over as playing hooky over if we failed to attend when we were young.

Whole cities get gridlocked for no real reason.

This is the kind of madness that led to the wall street panic in 1929 and worse to come.

All this strikes me as silly as I watch one of our outside cats -- the one we call friendly kittie sister -- frolicking in the snow in our back yard, oblivious to the fact that cats are not supposed to like snow, basking in an innocence we as a race have generally lost.

We look for reasons to hate or reasons to panic, and unfortunately, find them.

I'm now old enough to realize I may not manage to outlive the current madness the way I managed to do in the past, and so I might perish with this lingering doubt about humanity's sanity.

I want us all to go back to being the cat in the yard, too carefree to worry over whether the trains will run on time, too independent to care if the streets are clogged, caring only that I’m having fun embracing the snow, blind maybe to it being a sign of world's end.

Black privilege?

When one newly elected Democrat congress woman attacked her conservative opponent, claiming he had white privilege on his side, I began to suspect that this new batch of Representatives might not know what they are talking about.

White privilege is a myth manufactured in the minds of liberals to explain anything bad that happens, a kind of magic potion that serves as an excuse for why African Americans after nearly 60 years of concentrated effort by the U.S. Government hasn’t yet managed to achieve what many liberals envisioned or predicted.

And nothing so far, including AOC’s recent New Green Deal proposal has done anything to convince me otherwise.

If a bird shits on someone’s head, some liberal in some elite college is going to write a thesis explaining how it was caused by white privilege.

The same would be true if someone slips on a banana peel – since clearly white men’s policies over the last century resulted in exploitation of the native Americans and other indigenous people who harvested it caused that peal to be in that particular spot at that particular moment so that that particular African American can fall.

The theory of white privilege rivals the flat earth theory in practical application. But generally, it follows the logic that white people who live in a racist society automatically inherit advantages that black people do not.

So, kids who grow up in the suburbs, where there is little crime, schools teachers aren’t scared to death to work in, and eat dinner home with a family generally consisting of a mother, father, and siblings will do better in life than blacks who grow up in the hood, where brothers shoot other brothers (and shoot sisters if they’re bad shots), whose parents (if they have any) are drug attics or drug dealers put away in jail, and go to schools that are in such deplorable conditions that they might be considered an environmental disaster area, and are so full of violence the only teachers who want to be there are those who couldn’t cut the mustard in a white suburban school or are secretly molesters, or perhaps merely machoistic.

It is clear that whites have all the advantages – if you completely ignore the billions and billions that have been shoveled into urban districts to try and to make those areas safe and to bring up their schools to the same standards as in the suburbs, or you ignore the fact that not all white kids actually have it any better, living not in suburbs, but in rural places where their father’s are hacking from black lung after years working in coal mines, and mothers prematurely age after having gotten pregnant for the first time at 12 or 13 and have kept popping kids out until the rip old age of 20.

Or whites in farmlands whose bread and butter has been scooped up by immigrant labor coming across the Mexican and other borders to work at starvation wages even below the starvation wages white farm labor worked for prior to their arrival – leaving white kids in equally dire straights and struggling to get a grip of their white privilege long enough to get a good meal.

While privilege assumes that poverty is a black condition and that poor whites somehow have an advantage over poor blacks, when the vast majority of aid to deal with poverty goes into urban (mostly black) places to make certain kids there have the fundamental necessities such as skateboards, cell phones, and weekly visits to the nail salon.

White privilege is strongly associated with the concept of reparations for slavery because of the belief that black people have been held back by the experience and that European whites were responsible. This ignores the fact that blacks in African sold blacks to traders – many of whom were European, but some were also various breeds of native Americans, and the fact that a number of native Americans also owned slaves, and that in some cases, former black slaves even owned slaves, or how many whites opposed slavery in the north and the south and worked actively to end it.

Racism – unlike God or Big Foot – does still exist in America and was not just generated in the deep south where they drive race cars and drink moonshine. Many whites in the north -- largely European immigrants (who liberals love today and have strong feelings for especially when it comes to the prospect they might be kept out of the United States by Trump’s wall) opposed the freeing of slaves, condemning Lincoln for the emancipation proclamation, because they accurately anticipated a mass move of slaves North that would steal their jobs. Not that the jobs were much better than slavery, since corporate towns often owned the houses they lived in and sold them (at exaggerated high prices) the food they ate and blackballed them from getting jobs in other similar towns if they objected and beat the crap out of them if they dared to join a union.

The mass movement did not happen immediately after the Civil War but almost a century later in what is called The Great Migration when blacks arrived in ill-equipped urban centers in the North, overwhelming many of the already strained resources. Crumbling infrastructure send jobs to other locations. Better equipped whites fled the cities with their rising crime rates, increasing poverty and inadequate services in what became known as White Flight

Blacks for the most part got stuck with what remained such as schools named after ancient political entities at a time when those political figures were still flesh and bloods. While many Americans soon discovered the fact that the streets of America were paved more with lead than with gold, blacks also found lead as one of the minerals they could count on in their drinking water.

Education is the big key to this concept of white privilege, since black kids – as pointed out in a recent editorial dealing with Rutgers University – are underrepresented, and that most black kids are at a disadvantage when they are forced to compete head to head with the better equipped and socially stable whites.

This ignores the fact that black colleges in the United States have existed since before the American Civil War, many of them located in what was considered the slave states, and massive programs have been in place since the 1960s to provide equal opportunity for blacks to become successful.

In places like New Jersey and to some degree the rest of the country State and federal money poured into the urban centers in an effort to rebuild the structure there as to provide African Americans with equal opportunities the whites in the suburbs enjoyed.

This, of course, meant more than cities getting regular visits from Mr. Softy trucks to equal Good Humor trucks prowling suburban parks, money thrown around like that often doesn’t get spent appropriately. Incompetence and corruption followed. Even black leaders, who claimed to have the heart of their people in mind, lived the highlife, driving expensive cars, wearing expensive clothing, living in expensive homes – while the people around them starved or worse became victims of another aspect of poverty: black on black crime.

Although clearly enlightened by well-meaning and isolated professors in college, white liberals got a taste of ghetto conditions starting in the 1990s when odious laws had cleared the streets enough for them to feel safe to return, replacing Mr. Softy trucks with gello store, and corner coffee shops with Starbucks. They also discovered what they could not see at a distance: crumbling schools, terrible roads and bridges, and social conditions they did not encounter when watching Friends or Sex in the City on TV in the suburbs.

These, of course, really were the privileged whites that the congresswoman claimed make up the essence of white privilege, and whites that became cheerleaders in college, condemning themselves for their privilege without actually giving up any of those privileges – talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

Unfortunately for this congresswoman who accused her black opponent of benefiting from white privilege, she hasn’t a clue what she is talking about, and like many radicals and liberals throws around the word “racism” like a curse word, condemning anyone successful as being in league with white supremacists or worse.

Once you wave the flag of racism, there’s no arguing with it, even when in most cases it isn’t true.

In some ways, white privilege is more like the old myth of the greener grass next door.

Liberals look at successful white people and automatically assume the successful white person had some advantage a black person didn’t have.

Liberals wave around statistics to show the great disparity, pointing to how many fewer black doctors or lawyers (god help us) there are, or how fewer black students are in this college or that, but do not understand what it means to get there.

Many who invoke white privilege confuse “providing opportunities” with “outcome” and so assume that if black students aren’t in college, whites somehow had an advantage – even when society has spent billions upon billions to equal the playfield, often giving blacks “a more equal” opportunity through programs such as affirmative action.

What might have been White Privilege in 1860 or even 1960 is an illusion today when so many opportunities are available and are part of a massive financial effort to make right what slavery and other factors created in the past.

We do live in a competitive society in which if you don't get your kid into the right preschool, he or she most likely will never get into one of the better colleges either.

This is something liberals know very well, but we do not see many liberals taking their kids out of elite pre-k to make room for a poor black kid either.

Black kids do have a disadvantage, but it has nothing to do with white privilege – except that many of the kids that come out of white homes come from stable supportive families, and many of the kids coming out of the ghetto do not. But to claim whites have a privilege is to ignore the vast number of poor white kids from rural and other parts of the country that do not get into those schools either.

The fact that Asian and other minority kids attending the same urban schools as black kids manage to succeed invalidates the whole white privilege argument.

Call it class privilege maybe, where rich kids do better than poor, but to claim this as a race issue is bogus.

While disparities do exist, the reasons are more complicated than having a black woman attack her black opponent.

This concept of white privilege is largely a myth created to explain something that other people do not want explained, why after all the resources we have put into this over the last half-century the disparity still exists.

The idea of a fair society is to erase colored boundaries entirely and to create opportunities that will elevate black to the same positions that white currently have, not to burn down a neighbor’s house because you don’t have what they have or to hold them for ransom to settle some imaginary grievance from generations past.

Society has tried for the last half-century to do even the score, sending billions upon billions upon billions of dollars into the community to help African-Americans and other minorities through programs like affirmative action and Head Start not to mention the massive welfare state which helped try to maintain a basic level of finance and medical care.

Where did all that money go and why was it ineffective? People like this congresswoman likes to think that there is racism, but it really is something else entirely.

While racism does exist in America it is hardly the mass movement liberals want to make it out to be or what media portray it as. In fact, calling people racist eventually turns them into racist just out of spite.

We have spent more money set up more institutions created more programs and done much more than was ever envisioned in the Civil Rights Act over the last 60 years to make conditions equal and yet for some reason everything has failed.

For this congresswoman and for the radical left want is the same outcome.

They want every kid to get everything they see in the candy store, whether they have earned it or not, whether they have the same skills, the same motivation or more importantly the same family support people elsewhere have.

In other words, the congresswoman doesn’t merely want black kids to get the same opportunity, she wants them to be guaranteed the same results.

White privilege is a crock

White privilege is a crock

Few scams have been so successfully foisted on the American public as the concept of white privilege.

This is largely a manufactured term to explain why liberal policies for helping poor -- especially people of color -- have failed so miserably.

To avoid explaining why African Americans in general are no better off today than they were at the time of the Civil Rights legislation which was supposed to have given black people advantages in the community, liberals have come up with the concept of white privilege.

This theory claims that whites because of the color of their skin automatically have certain advantages that people of color do not -- especially when it comes to things like education and jobs.

The argument four reparations from slavery is based on this misconception and that some how 400 years of slavery affected the ability of African Americans to achieve today.  Proponents of the White Privilege theory stop just short of claiming this is a white conspiracy, partly because the loudest voices promoting it happen to be the voices of white liberals.

This theory of white privilege is somewhat discredited when you look at jobs like those in coal mines or white workers displaced in farms out west by immigrants. There is more than enough diversity in supermarkets and mall stores such as Kohl's to show that white privilege is not white privilege at all.

What activists -- who promote this white privilege myth -- mean is that people of color do not have access to high paying jobs – such as those on Wall Street or those who are heads of corporations.  This is also somewhat dishonest but has more legitimate argument when you look at a different concept called class.

The theory of white privilege is so engrained in our culture it is taught in every college in America as fact, even though empirical evidence discredits it, and that some people of color actually achieve those jobs in higher waged employment than others.

Asians in particular Chinese, Japanese and Indian not only are often at the top of the pay scale and then he cases but attend some of the best universities on the planet achieving higher grades on average than whites or blacks.

While these groups were not slaves in the same sense at blacks, each suffered similar discrimination, and yet somehow managed to over come it, even with the alleged existence of White Privilege.

While liberals might argue that blacks often attend schools with far fewer resources, statistics show that many Asian students attend the same schools in the same urban environment, and yet still managed to graduate at the top of their classes and attend colleges that were in the past perceived as exclusively white.

White Privilege is a myth created by white liberals, men and women, who want to avoid the label of racist and seek to appear supportive of their black brothers and sisters – even though many of the liberals who mouth these things hold many of the positions blacks would love to achieve – leading these white liberals to another, much more legitimate issue: white guilt. This guilt forces liberals to come up with some explanation as to how liberals succeeded where African-Americans for the most part still struggle to climb up even to the level of middle-class.

It allows liberals to blame White Privilege rather than failed policies for the fact that the billions and billions and billions of dollars that have gone to help elevate African Americans have done very little and has been ineffective through more than 60 years.

In this, white liberals get to hang the white privilege label on themselves while calling other whites who refuse to accept blame racist.

White liberals get the blame white privilege for the fact that African-Americans for the most part have become addicted to many of the anti-programs born out of the New Deal and later the Civil Rights Act rather than these programs offering an incentive to advancement.

Democrat Bill Clinton adopted GOP strategies for reforming welfare system in the 1990s dumping millions of African-Americans and other poor into low-wage jobs while at the same time shrinking funding for educational programs that might have allowed them to advance.

This allowed Clinton to reduce the deficit and to lay claim to have created more jobs than any president since FDR.

The problem was many of the established liberal establishments which services poor mostly black communities were as addicted to poverty as the poor people they served, scrambling to survive since their livelihood had also depended on federal funding.

This changed the focus of the Democratic Party and its associated welfare state, seeking to replace African-Americans and other people of color with immigrants.

If anything, we currently have an immigrant privilege as a result.

The white privilege myth and the concept that African Americans need reparations for slavery is only a return to the welfare state, and the mistaken notion that money is going to make a difference and somehow bring African-Americans out of the poverty that they have been enslaved by four generations.

White Privilege is an excuse not a reason why African Americans still are not where they want to be in society.

The fact that the problem is not race at all it is class. Rich people are rich and poor people are poor and for the most part the rich want to keep it that way.

When Democrats claim they want to tax the rich, what they really mean is they want to tax white rich who are not involved with programs supported by the welfare state.

White people, of course, dominate the class structure partly because they have had many more generations to build the necessary networks to be on top. They have had time to build networks and institutions that allowed them to climb the ladder of success.

Radicals are always looking for a quick fix to a problem that needs time to remedy.

While there are a number of groups seeking to build a similar community that will support African Americans, teaching the steps they need to take to get out of poverty, most educators – especially on the college level -- are teaching people how to hate whites and riling them up to believe that somehow someway local people who work hard for a living are responsible for  black people's misery.

This is not only dishonest it is dangerous because by enraging blacks into a kind of frenzy, liberal educators are creating the very conditions that they claim already exist, building a racist backlash because when you have blacks hating whites the whites will eventually learn to hate back.

The most pathetic of these are the liberal whites who have learned to hate whites as well, and white professors require their white students to write essays about how ashamed they ought to be because they are white.

The myth of White Privilege is a way for liberals to cover their tracks and to disguise their failure to actually help African Americans achieve the American dream.

Instead of colleges teaching blacks and whites how to hate whites, these instructions should be striving towards a colorless society, where there is no advantage to anyone and that all people have equal access to everything.

White privilege and racial reparations are less about justice than they are about overturning the power structure so that there is a new master in the house, one with a black face rather than a white, instead of black and white living in the same house as equals.

Black privilege?

Cohen is just another scum bag lawyer

What do you do if you are trapped in a cave with a savage bear, a ferrous lion and a lawyer and you only have two bullets?

Shoot the lawyer twice.

As Shakespeare once noted lawyers suck -- and some like Cohen suck more than others.

The ethics of attorneys is almost as deplorable as the ethics of journalists these days.

 And this was clearly borne out by Cohen's testimony where he decided he was going to save his own skin at the expense of truth.

Media and Democrats, of course, are perfectly willing to take his testimony as truth even though he is an admitted liar.

Media and democrats also appear to twist law to imply that any attempt to silence prostitute Stormy Daniels is illegal, somehow making her in a victim rather than a blackmailer with her own attorney, working as her pimp.

All of the lawyers involved in this - including many of those disguised as elected officials - live up to the sterling reputation of the legal profession.

So, law is what these attorneys say; it is not a system of justice.

And those democrats seeking to undo the results of the 2016 election, truth is unimportant as long as they get the result they want.

It doesn’t matter that Cohen is not a creditable witness, a known liar who must give Democrats what they want or risk having to feel the full weight of the law for crimes he committed -- crimes that have nothing to do with Trump.

This is a repeat of the John Dean testimony in Watergate where The Washington Post with its strong ties to the Kennedy family along with a legislative committee made up of former Kennedy people and a legal staff of Kennedy attorneys representing Dean over looked Dean’s role on orchestrating the Watergate cover-up in the hope to remove Nixon and pave the way to make Ted Kennedy president.

Many of the institutions are still the same. Having failed to deliver Hillary Clinton to the Whit3e House in 2016, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other newer liberal media appear to be determined to bring down Trump in favor of some other Democrat.

But it is unclear as to which candidate they are now trying to promote.

The fact that Democrats are willing to overlook the crimes of scumbags like John Dean & Cohen shows just how pathetic and self-serving they are and how little regard they have for justice.

How do we know if Colon is lying?

His lips are moving.

Emma Thompson a star is born again

Emma Thompson found a unique way to squirm her way out of a contract with Pixar this week, managing to reinvigorate her sagging career by playing the role as a hard-core feminist.

After not having a successful rule in movies in over a decade Thompson jumped on the politically correct band wagon by resigning from Pixar after Pixar hired a man, she personally found offensive.

In doing so, Thompson managed to win the hearts and minds of a deluded feminist movement while issuing a self-serving letter that will allow her to escape a contract, she apparently saw provided her with not future opportunity for a successful film.

This this has become a typical tactic of the liberal-left seeking to make some sort of righteous statement well actually doing things that are far less noble.

Resigning from Pixar comes a few days after the academy awards ceremony in which she won nothing but clearly is positioning herself for next year's Oscars as a politically correct candidate.

It is uncertain whether management of Pixar actually cares whether they lose this amazing flop of a star, but it is clear that her role as feminist icon has won her acclaim among the man-hating feminists who also believed Ford attacking Kavanaugh last year.

This guarantees Thompson a built-in audience that she may have lacked had she not issued her letter and has fans gushing over her in a fit of excitement.

Pixar may well be crying crocodile tears over the departure since it is clear that Thompson really has no place in the organization and management may will be relieved to have her go letting the door kick her in the butt as she leaves.

This may well set a trend for other failed movie stars to follow in an attempt to salvage their pathetic career, proving that Hollywood is more about money than talent.

Those who love her best, may will be forced to deal with reruns since who can trust her again to ever any contract.

Maybe she can go to football games and kneel during the national anthem or go to Wyoming and raise dental floss. Maybe better yet she can get a job at Planned Parenthood and really do productive work killing newborn babies.

She certainly will be welcomed in feminist conventions everywhere a celebration of how great she did in worming her way out of the contract while still appearing to be Noble and righteous.

This indeed appears to be the best role she has ever played and considering the Oscar climate, she no doubt get the politically correct award for next year. she gets everything she deserves.