Anonymous writes:

You cannot market to a five year-old.

Oh really? Then why the hell is Nickelodean filled to the brim with advertisements? Why does my niece become strangely interested in owning things after she sees ads for them on TV? Why did I -- at the age of 5 -- feel that there was a qualitative difference between Bubble Yum and Bubblicious?

Five year-olds are one of the most fertile segments to market to. They are frighteningly impressionable. And, yes, many girls love princesses. But the fact that so many of them specifically love "Walt Disney" brand princesses, shows the power of marketing to five year-olds.

If the media giants that own TV all really wanted to be able to broadcast boobs and swear words during prime-time, wouldn't you have to admit that they could afford to get such legislation passed?

But, they don't want such freedom, because they are making money right now. Viacom and Time Warner have Showtime and HBO, which they successfully sell largely based on the fact that the channels contain content NOT available on broadcast or standard cable.

Comcast also loves the ability to upsell its cable packages.

Not to mention the fact that when Comedy Central bleeps out bad words, it allows them to later sell the uncensored version on a DVD.

Sure the media companies may complain about their artistic freedoms being violated, but all these players love the profits possible with the status quo, so they don't push the politicians too hard on the issue.

And since the politicians know that the media isn't going to fight back too hard, they get to come out and act tough every so often for the sake of their constituents.

This last summer I was able to visit the museum at the book depository and look out the window that Oswald shot out of. I was astonished at what a clear shot he had -- the street is marked with where the president was shot.

The angle from that window just couldn't be any better and the idea of him shooting the president from there was entirely plausible.

Hitting the President from the "grassy knoll" however is another story. That would have been an incredibly difficult shot to have made due the distance and the direction of the president's travel perpendicular to the gun -- Oswald was right above the President and the motorcade moved in a straight line away from him, so no significant re-aiming or target tracking was really necessary.

Not only is it completely plausible that Oswald acted alone. But the story of him acting alone, is the ONLY story that CLEARLY explains why there is almost no clear evidence of any broader conspiracy. If you believe in Occam's Razor, you have to conclude that Oswald acted alone.

"Oswald doesn't explain why the secret service turned down a road they weren't supposed to go down."

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The motorcade's path was published in the paper beforehand -- I have seen the paper myself -- and they followed the planned path. It was a tragically designed path, because it included a sharp turn that caused the motorcade to slow down right in front of Oswald, but that path was pre-planned.

It seems ABB's really just upset that a "black man" is falling hard for a white blonde girl. Is she saying that such relationships should never be depicted -- even in a symbollic context? Even if the the white invaders are likely to be made out to be the true villains of this movie, while King Kong is likely to wind up getting the most sympathy.

If she is right, and this is the depiction of an interracial romance, then the film ultimately is a condemnation of the way in which society lashes out against such romances. It is about how people are not able to just let two people fall in love with each other and must instead berate the two people involved.

In this context, ABB is playing the part of one of those fighter planes circling the Empire State Building trying to kill King Kong so that he is not able to enjoy and pursue the object of his affection.

Yeah, what is wrong with this? Why the "Yack". Women's reproductive health should be all about choices. If people are out there trying to come up with new inventions and ideas, shouldn't self-proclaimed feminist Rebecca Traister be rejoicing -- even if she personally wouldn't want to use it?