Patterico's Pontifications


Eureka Canceled?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 8:35 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Hey, it can’t always be the gloom and doom of the economy, so let’s talk about the (ugh) SyFy* Channel’s baffling decision to cancel Eureka, sort of the Northern Exposure of science fiction.

And apparently they did it in a jerky sort of way.

If you’re a Eureka fan, it’s understandable if you feel a bit messed with by Syfy right now. is reporting that the cable channel has decided to end Eureka and reversed an earlier decision to order Season 6 of the show.

Last week, Deadline reported that Syfy was going to end the series, though they were going to order a truncated six-episode sixth and final season to give the producers time to wrap up the series. Syfy then put out a release saying that while they had indeed ordered those six episodes, no firm decision had been made on whether those were the final ones or not.

Now though, Syfy is not going to produce those six episodes, meaning Season 5 will be it for the show.

So first they considered giving it a proper goodbye to the show and then they changed their minds.

Now apparently we are still in Season 4, so there is some time to go, and (hint hint) good ratings and perhaps fan outcry might actually change some minds.  Otherwise you will not be getting your weekly dose of this…


* Did I mention that I hate that spelling of Sci-Fi?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

NOW Steps Up… For Bachmann?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:02 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Um, yeah, I am as shocked to write that as you probably are to read it.  I mean this is the same organization that carried water for Bill Clinton during the whole Lewinsky scandal, only drawing the line when it looked like Clinton’s attack dogs were about to tear into Juanita Broderick.  And the issue they picked was this Newsweek cover:

“It’s sexist,” NOW president Terry O’Neill told TheDC. “Casting her in that expression and then adding ‘The Queen of Rage’ I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man – has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man.”…

“Who has ever called a man ‘The King of Rage?’ Basically what Newsweek magazine – and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine – what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for President of the United States of America…They are basically casting her as a nut job,” O’Neill said. “The ‘Queen of Rage’ is something you apply to wrestlers or somebody who is crazy. They didn’t even do this to Howard Dean when he had his famous scream.”

And that is all well and good, but I can’t help but raise an eyebrow at this part:

NOW is diametrically opposed to Bachmann on practically every political issue. Bachmann is pro-life, NOW is pro-choice. Bachmann wants to make significant cuts to entitlements, while NOW it pushing to protect Social Security and Medicare. The list is practically infinite. Nevertheless, NOW is rallying to her side for all women in politics.

Okay, call me confused, but isn’t NOW supposed to be an organization devoted to feminism?  So how is social security and Medicare a feminist issue?  I mean claiming that feminists had to support abortion was pushing it, but seriously, how do you pretend those entitlements are about women’s rights?  At best you could say that women disproportionately use those entitlements, but isn’t it sexist to encourage women to be disproportionately dependant on the Federal Government?

Anyway, regardless of that, you have to give them credit for sticking up for her, like this.  But I will say that it is not just sexism but sexism + partisanship.  I mean to go all Shakespeare’s Sister on this, imagine if there was a Harriet Dean, former governor of a New England state and a very liberal Democract, and she spontaneously screamed at a campaign rally on live televison.  I think it is safe to say Newsweek wouldn’t have depicted her that way, either.  It is only Republican women who are treated this way.

Which makes NOW’s stand even more impressive, if you think about it.  As they say, read the whole thing.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Obama ’12: Man Without a Plan

Filed under: General — Karl @ 4:00 am

[Posted by Karl]

Chuck Todd’s summary of Pres. Obama’s speech on the S&P downgrade: “You get the sense, WH knew they had to say something given the news of the weekend but he didn’t have much NEW to say.”

No kidding. Indeed, by sticking with his insistence on only “modest” adjustments to entitlement programs, Pres. Obama likely contributed to yesterday’s market selloff. Obama is the Man Without a Plan to defuse the debt bomb.

It’s even worse than that. As presidential flack Jay Carney recently admitted: “The White House does not create jobs.” Moreover, based on Carney’s non-answers to ABC’s Jake Tapper, the Obama administration has little idea of how to help the private sector create them. Obama is also the Man Without a Plan on the economy. (more…)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0570 secs.