Thor: Ragnarok 4D

Dude! Show the movie already.

Advertisements

Fox News viewers and their two minutes of hate

Rent “1984” and try this exercise. Watch the opening scene, and replace “Goldstein” with “Hillary.”

You now know what it’s like to be in the mind of a Fox News viewing pump truppet. Because Fox’s current two minutes of hate focuses on a bogus uranium story. And we can’t emphasize enough that everything Fox is saying is a lie (from MarketWatch):

President Trump, there’s a very good reason Congress isn’t investigating Hillary Clinton’s “big uranium deal” with Russia.

It’s because the story is absolute crap — as you well know.

• No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sell America’s uranium.” She didn’t own it, or control it, and never had. This entire accusation is a farce.

In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. They cashed out.

There is a very good reason no politician or organization tried to halt the uranium deal. It wasn’t controversial.
Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines.

The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.

The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board.

This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it.

The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high.

• No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t.

The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

So, as far as we know, none of them said peep.

The committee could have intervened if it thought the deal threatened U.S. national security.

Others who could also have intervened in the deal, but saw no reason to, included the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and regulators in Canada and elsewhere.

• There is a very good reason none of those people or organizations tried to halt the deal. It wasn’t controversial. And if it weren’t for Trump’s cynical demagoguery, it wouldn’t be now.

America is a bit player in worldwide uranium production, and the amount involved was about half a percent — yes, really — of global supply.

Furthermore, uranium has been a drag on the international markets for years. There’s too much of it around. Miners are giving it away for less than it costs to dig up. There was no reason to think of it as an especially precious resource.

In 2010, when Russia agreed to this deal, the price of uranium had already fallen by 75% in three years. And since then it’s halved again. (But uranium prices have perked up a bit since Trump’s election. Long-suffering investors are hoping he’ll approve more nuclear reactors and buy lots more warheads. It’s another reason Vladimir Putin has reason to be so pleased with his protégé.)

• Finally, it’s worth remembering that this entire “story” was whipped up like a meringue by Peter Schweizer, a far-right hack at Breitbart. And, like a meringue, it’s almost all air.

The korrupt kraven krook knows it’s a lie. Fox News knows it’s a lie. But they both need the two minutes of hate to keep the base, who they treat like Pavlov’s dog, frothing at the mouth. A fitting comparison for Russian stooges.

Sean Young talks about ‘Blade Runner’ in 1982

She was optimistic about 2020 (the movie was set in 2019). Oh, to be young and naive.

Here’s the intro from the storyline on IMDB:

In the futuristic year of 2019, Los Angeles has become a dark and depressing metropolis, filled with urban decay.

Wasn’t that one political party’s vision of America in the 2016 election?

Anyway, in the interview, they danced around the issue of the “love scene.” Take a look at it again. It was a sexual assault.

While we’re at it, whatever happened to Sean Young?

Knowing now how women have been treated in Hollywood, especially when it comes to sexual harassment, I’m thinking those “difficult to work with” and “unstable” criticisms were motivated by more sinister intentions. Some powerful guy said, you don’t put out, I’ll destroy your career. We know Harvey Weinstein wasn’t the only one to use that line.