17h59 UTC; FRIDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2014: It's more than likely that Kevin Sorbo, former star of the syndicated series Hercules, will find his next acting job to be among the so-called "music shows" of Branson, MO rather than in Hollywood; credit that to his somewhat tasteless invocation of the stock anti-Semitic canard about "Jewish Control of Hollywood" to explain why so-called "Christian" films and TV programmes fail in the marketplace that the so-called "Bible-Believing Christian" insists is essential to Thy Dear and Lovely Land remaining all the more a Christian Nation Now, Tomorrow, Forever.

Sadly, such is not exactly the case: It's not "Jewish control" that makes "Christian" films and TV not all that popular, it's more than likely the piss-poor production values inherent throughout, especially in the desire of the producers and distributors thereof to rush same into release all the sooner, hoping to profit all the more out of the ignorant "REAL AmeriKKkan" yokels out in Podunk Center, Iowa whose great-great-grandparents probably threw rotten produce wholesale at those legendary Cherry Sisters during their rather awful musical act in the latter part of the 19th century, itself the stuff of legend. Production values that the reviewers are quick to spot and call attention to, making the difference between bomb and success.

And may I get back to the Cherry Sisters for a moment, reader: It was because of the Cherry Sisters' rather awful act (or so the editor of the Odebolt Chronicle, in a piece later reprinted in the now-defunct Des Moines Leader, thought) that constructive criticism of theatrical, cinematic and musical acts is Constitutionally-Protected Free Speech, thanks to the 1901 Iowa Supreme Court ruling Cherry Sisters v. Des Moines Leader--all over these remarks of the Chronicle's Billy Hamilton commenting on a recent appearence thereof in that town, vintage 1898:
Effie is an old jade of 50 summers, Jessie a frisky filly of 40, and Addie, the flower of the family, a capering monstrosity of 35. Their long, skinny arms, equipped with talons at the extremities, swung mechanically, and soon were waved frantically at the suffering audience. The mouths of their rancid features opened like caverns and sounds like the wailings of damned souls issued therefrom. They pranced around the stage with a motion that suggested a cross between the danse du ventre and a fox trot,--strange creatures with painted faces and hideous mien. Effie is spavined, Addie is stringhalt, and Jessie, the only one who showed her stockings, has legs without calves, as classic in their outlines as the curves of a broom handle.
(Oh, and did I mention where they were seen as "surpassing the witches of Macbeth in general hideousness" in the same article?)

In any event, we'll leave the last word to the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling therefrom (emphasis added):
A public performance may be discussed with the fullest freedom, and may be subject to hostile criticism and hostile animadversions, provided the writer does not do it as a means of promulgating slanderous and malicious accusations….Ridicule is often the strongest weapon in the hands of a public writer; and, if it be fairly used, the presumption of malice which would otherwise arise is rebutted, and it becomes necessary to introduce evidence of actual malice, or of some indirect motive or wish to gratify private spite. There is a manifest distinction between matters of fact and comment on or criticism of undisputed facts or conduct[.] Unless this be true, liberty of speech and of the press guarantied by the constitution is nothing more than a name. If there ever was a case justifying ridicule and sarcasm,--aye, even gross exaggeration,--it is the one now before us. According to the record, the performance given by the plaintiff and the company of which she was a member was not only childish, but ridiculous in the extreme. A dramatic critic should be allowed considerable license in such a case. The public should be informed as to the character of the entertainment, and, in the absence of proof of actual malice, the publication should be held privileged.
So there.

Scotia finally gave her answer to the question of self-determination in yesterday's plebiscite--and it was No.

Even if ten points separated No (55% of votes cast) and Yes (45% of votes cast)--but still, not without objections; in fact, one Russian poll observer claimed that such was "unfair" and "contrary to recognised international standards" for plebiscites of this sort, as if insisting that international opposition to the hastily-called and rigged "plebiscite" as supposedly "annexed" Crimea to Russia should be regarded as for nought.

Proof of the "Natural Evolutionary Processes" seen as "essential to ekonomesie vryheid"
by conservative Zealots and True Believers seeing in said ekonomesie vryheid Our National Unity and Identity as a Sovereign Peculiar Among the Nations Solely by His Grace and Favour: Radio Shack, the old-established electronics chain, could be compelled to close stores before too long as it faces a continuing slump in same-store sales going back nearly two years, declining share prices and the possibility of the New York Stock Exchange delisting its shares within measurable distance (and winding up, before too long, on the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink Sheets, both harbouring plum targets for "pump-and-dump" campaigns).

So till next time, folks: "73"
(Which, incidentally, was railroad telegraphers' shorthand for "goodbye.")

Preferably through e-mail and/or social media:

Got comments?

Got smartfone?
Then why not download our free(!!) smartfone app?
(Which, BTW, works on both iOS and Android platforms:)