The Good And The Bad About Timeless

I love time travel fantasy.  I'm as big a fan of the genre as you'll find.  Despite knowing my luck with new shows getting canceled when I start to like them, I dove right in when NBC premiered Timeless last year.  It has been a fun ride so far.  The premise of the show is a company (Mason Industries) has created a time machine.  They are being funded by an elite, but secretive group called Rittenhouse. Unfortunately, one of their time machines has been stolen by a man named Garcia Flynn.

Flynn is out for revenge because people from Rittenhouse killed his wife and child.  Mason Industries puts a group of three together for the purposes of stopping Flynn before he damages history.  Rufus Carlin is the only person skilled enough to pilot the time machine.  Wyatt Logan is the agent assigned to stop Flynn.  A historian named Lucy Preston is brought on board because of her knowledge of history.  She is reluctantly following in her mother's footsteps in that career.  She might seem like an average person to bring into this mission except for the fact that Flynn has a book that he claims Lucy wrote in the future, and he further claims that she will help him take Rittenhouse down.

The show's opener packed a nice punch when they traveled back to the scene of the Hindenburg disaster.  Flynn went back to prevent the crash, but not because he wanted to save lives.  There were three people that some would say in our own timeline are members of an elite society, sometimes referred to as The Illuminati.  In the show, they are part of Rittenhouse, so Flynn wants them dead.  His purpose in traveling back in time is to destroy Rittenhouse.  He prevents the crash, because these three elite individuals were scheduled to be on the Hindenburg for it's next flight.  Ultimately, his attempt to destroy the next flight doesn't succeed, and many people who would have died now live.

Back in the present time, Lucy comes home to find that her life has changed.  Her once bed ridden mother is now doing just fine.  The sister she grew up with no longer exists and she is engaged to a man she doesn't even remember.  She finds out the man she knew as her father wasn't really her father, and I suspect a big reveal in the future when it comes to who that man really is.  Now, Lucy has the goal of somehow bringing her sister back into existence.  Fellow crew member Wyatt has a similar story as Flynn.  His wife has also been murdered, and he would like to find a way to bring her back somehow

Timeless has a lot of fun visiting historic moments like Houston's NASA base during the first moon landing, the Lincoln assassination and a very key episode when they revisit the time when Benedict Arnold betrayed George Washington.  Flynn has a specific plan to destroy Rittenhouse in the Benedict Arnold episode, but at a crucial moment, Lucy steps in and thwarts those plans.

The show plays with the facts just a bit, such as this most recent episode where they get help from a black sheriff who is said to be the man The Lone Ranger is based on.  However, that man is still a legitimate hero of history that people may not have even heard of until this episode.  Given the nature of Rittenhouse, it's interesting that they didn't play with the notion that Jesse James is either related to the Rockefeller family or John D. Rockefeller himself.  Flynn went back and specifically recruited James to escort him through native American territory, because he found the location of a woman who was a key figure in Mason Industries' success in time travel.

One of the criticisms I've heard, aside from historical facts veering slightly off of what we know, is the question of whether they really need to involve historical figures in every trip through time.  Was Jesse James needed?  Sure, Flynn had an ally the moment he prevented James from being shot in the back of the head, but couldn't he have gotten somebody else?  Or better yet, couldn't he have landed closer to his target spot?  Then again, the show's writers and fans wouldn't have a fun ride with James, who still met the same end.  Since Rittenhouse is basically the show's take on The Illuminati, the whole James-Rockefeller thing could have been fun to explore.

I have to agree with the people who point out that there have been no repercussion from their time travel trips since the first episode.  They've repeatedly killed people who otherwise would have lived and have even saved people who would have died.  So, nothing has changed?  Also, the Benedict Arnold episode had a major impact on Rittenhouse itself.  So, why has nothing been addressed regarding that?

The story line has moved slowly at times, where a bone should be thrown here and there to fans wanting to know a little more.  Also, there's enough intrigue involving present day things that they could easily have an episode in the current time that would move the story along more effectively.  I know it's a show with time travel, but it's okay to not travel once in a while if it advances the story.  Also, why no travel into the future?  It appears as if Flynn has done it at least once.

One could easily poke holes in this show based on theories of time travel.  Some will insist it is not possible, which we simply cannot know as a fact one way or the other today.  Others will ask the obvious question.  If Lucy's sister was wiped from existence when time was altered, how can she possibly remember her now?  We suspend our disbelief at times like this in the name of enjoying the ride.  The problem with the science fiction genre is that when you tell people to just go with it too many times, you start losing them.

I think Timelesss is an entertaining show.  Everybody in the cast is doing their part to make it good.  I have nothing but praise for their work here.  Abigail Spencer (Lucy), Matt Lanter (Wyatt), Malcolm Barrett (Rufus), Goran Visnjic (Flynn), Paterson Joseph (Connor Mason), Sakina Jaffrey (Denise Christopher) and Claudia Doumit (Jiya) handle their roles well.  The writing could be a little better.  They manage to be clever at times, but they should pay closer attention to history before writing historical moments and characters into the show.  They should also make an effort to show the effects of their time traveling, and they could also try move things along a little quicker sometimes.

That said, many shows don't come out of the gate hitting on all eight cylinders.  They may have an idea what they want to do, but they still learn as they go and get better at telling the story they are trying to tell us.  The good shows even go places they might not have planned, because the story called for it.  Timeless is a good show with lots of potential.  It is my hope that NBC remains supportive and allows it to continue next year and into the future.  The way they are going now, I will continue to enjoy the ride.  That's what good television is all about.

The Women's March And Transgender Inclusion

I was listening to a talk show this morning and the host was talking about the women's marches that took place all across the country.  Of course, he's not talking very positive about it because somehow they are not valid if they aren't singing the praises of Donald Trump.  I don't think it's fair to expect all women to agree anymore than it is all men, and some women feel they have issues that the new president will not address to their satisfaction or will even make it worse.

Many people from the transgender movement participated in the matches as well.  I'm going to talk about anatomy for a moment, more to make a point than anything else.  We had women marching in vagina costumes and women talking about their periods.  They feel they must do this to make their case.  In marches of any nature, you get this type of thing.

On one level, isn't it a bit silly to dress up as a vagina?  I understand that, given Trump's leaked comments that have been used to further demonize him (not arguing one way or another here), they think this makes an important statement of empowerment.  I was thinking how silly it would look if men dressed as penises and marched.  Then again, I'm sure that has happened at Pride Parades through the years.  Also, culture through the years has glorified the penis through art and architecture.  So, if a woman feels this empowers her when she's marching for women's causes, she should express herself that way.  However, I fear that most men will not take this woman seriously.

Now, the talk show, which is a bit transphobic in my opinion, insinuated that transgender people are  all offended by women marching in vagina costumes, talking about their periods and other issues biologically unique to a genetic or cisgender woman.  The host and two of the women he hired for his show suggested that all in the transgender movement are offended by that and want women to stop it because it makes them feel bad.  That's a broad statement.  Do all male to female transgender women feel that way?  It's ridiculous to make such an assumption.

This is a difficult topic, because there are differing opinions, from the more demanding and in your face to the live and let live as long as you don't prevent me from being me.  I think the ultimate goal for many is to transition, have gender reassignment surgery, blend in with women and not have to make an issue of it.  No bathroom debate or anything.  She just wants to be.  She's a woman, end of story as far as she is concerned.  If the topic comes up in her circles, she may still hear somebody invalidate her very femininity because she wasn't born with a vagina.

Now, that particular segment of the movement is not alone in believing gender identity is not determined by the sexual organ you are born with.  This is still difficult for those to grasp, and some insist that these women have mental problems.  No.  Those ignorant people have the problem, not the transgender women.  Imagine being naked and looking into a mirror.  You feel that you are a woman.  Everything you think and feel tells you that.  Then, you see that reflection in the mirror and are disgusted by it.  Your body doesn't conform to your mind, and you begin your journey to change that.  I can't even begin to get into the things a transgender woman goes through, transgender men as well.

Are transgender women a threat to cisgender, genetic women?  No.  The idea that the whole transgender movement demands that their cisgender counter parts stop talking about what they were born with is untrue.  There are some who wish they had that and hate to hear about those who do.  They might ask them to be silent, but not all transgender women would do that.  Women should never be afraid or ashamed to discuss who they are.

The problem is, there are many facets to this discussion.  There are cisgender women who first of all hate the term.  You might even hear, "I'm a woman, call me a woman."  And, to this type of woman, transgender women do not belong.  They will go so far as to say they are objectifying women and hijacking their femininity.  In her mind, "How dare you do that.  Get out of my march."  She doesn't speak for all women, but she is there with her beliefs.

In India, they have the third gender of transsexuals.  Would that work in this and other countries?  Should that be the goal?  You'll hear some who express that opinion.  A female to male or male to female is the third gender of transgender, or the third and fourth.  You know what the real problem with that is?  This suggests that you are transitioning to transition.  You aren't transitioning to become a woman but rather to become the third gender.  It's difficult to imagine everybody in the transgender community is happy just being transgender and establishing that gender as the goal.

If third and fourth genders become officially recognized, you'll still have transgender women who want to be recognized as females.  They want an F or an M, not MtF Transgender or FtM Transgender.  We may very well head down the path of that debate, but there will be resistance.  Take gay marriage, as an example.  The compromise that was floated was one where they get the same rights as heterosexual couples, but it's not called marriage.  This was not acceptable, and the fight continued until it was won.  The gender identity battle is next.  There will be resistance from those who fear it, maybe even more than gays.

On Sunday, many in the transgender community marched hand in hand with cisgender women.  In making their points, some of the women used their anatomy and certain biological functions to express themselves.  This isn't something you can or should stop, because it is unique to cisgender women.  As transgender women take their place next to cisgender women in the debate about women's issues, they share an important point.  They will not be marginalized or invalidated, which is what the Sunday marches were speaking against.  Both groups of women have been victims to that.  Both groups have had struggles unique to them and their anatomy, and neither should feel pressured not to speak to that when they express themselves.

A New Election Fraud Documentary: Trump Stole It

Greg Palast has been doing documentaries and reports on things that people ought to be at least a little concerned with for years now.  Since 2000 and the Bush vs Gore controversy, he's been working to uncover voter fraud.  He has particularly been interested in the attempt to marginalize minority voters and exposing the method.  I've been aware of these tactics despite the fact that the media seems to be silent.

I believe the recount effort in three key states, spearheaded by Dr. Jill Stein, was an attempt to find proof that this was happening, but all three efforts were shut down,  Then president elect Donald Trump sent his lawyers to stop anything from happening.  A smear campaign was done to paint a picture that Stein was trying to give the win to Hillary Clinton.  Her effort was to make sure the votes were counted.

Even before election day, Palast was working on his documentary and showing how billionaires, including the Koch brothers, were attempting to deny votes in several states from minority groups who would have likely voted for Clinton.  He mentions Ohio and Michigan in his report and how certain billionaires have not just been behind vote manipulation, but also how they pulled jobs out of those states by the thousands.  Trump has claimed he will bring the jobs back.

The method to disenfranchise these voters is to put them on a list of voters suspected of participating in voter fraud where they vote in more than one state.  The method to "weed out these voters" is called Cross Check and is funded by these largely Republican backing Billionaires.  These voters have the same or similar first names and the same last names, but they have different middle names.  Once they are on the list, they lose their votes.

The other tactic Greg presents is done in districts that have a large minority population, yet are still Republican controlled.  They have fewer places to vote.  They have the Real ID act that requires DMV ID, and they have shut down most, if not all, of the DMV offices in the area.  The lack of enough voting precincts leads to ridiculously long lines.  Then, some of them end up with absentee ballots after the wait because they are out of ballots.  It just so happens to be easier to deny absentee ballots on technicalities once the votes are cast.

Now, it's important to note that the proof in this informative documentary doesn't show that Clinton won any states that were given to Trump, but it shows that this could have been the case.  It's compelling enough reason to warrant a serious legal investigation of these tactics.  With Trump the new president, the chances of that happening aren't too great.  It makes a person wonder why former President Obama did nothing meaningful to fix this when he had the chance.  It seems to be getting worse, not better.

My concern is I think what is going on here is bigger than either major political party.  They are serving an agenda of the elite billionaires, not the people.  The problem I have with this documentary is that the Democrats have people like George Soros manipulating things as well, and there is compelling evidence of them working to make it possible for undocumented citizens to vote illegally.  The manipulation is happening everywhere, and I think the idea that we have fair elections in this country anymore is a joke.

I would still recommend watching this documentary to learn how these billionaires are attempting to manipulate the vote.  I'd also urge people to do some research and learn how it's being done for the other side too.  The concern I have here is people will fall into the trap of thinking it's only done for Republicans, and the only good party is the Democrats.  They will fall in line on that side, and there is no meaningful change.  So to those people, all Greg is doing here is enforcing their stance in the left-right paradigm, and this is a path to no change at all.  We have to rise above all of the manipulation to really have our voices be heard.  And at the heart of that is the right to a free and fair election.

Greg Palast Website: http://www.gregpalast.com/

Low Readership: To Blog, Or Not To Blog

I enjoy writing.  I've created other blog sites that are more niche oriented.  At one time, I used one of those "pay to blog" sites that earned me a few pennies at a time.  The biggest problem with those sites was the fact that they were basically click farms.  I spent far too much time clicking on other people's stuff simply too get the clicks coming back my way.

It also felt like a fast food approach to blogging.  Though I was proud of what I wrote, at times I merely posted to get something up there for others to click.  What I didn't like about that was that it became less about quality and more about quantity.  You have to get something new up there.  If you had an article you were proud of that you really wanted to showcase, it quickly fell down the memory hole.

Those pay top blog sites were not profitable enough for the owners to maintain and fell by the wayside.  I still wanted to keep writing.  This meant I needed to start up my own site.  It's still only a few pennies in my pocket here and there, but it's my site.  The problem is I am building the site up from the bottom.  Every view I manage to get is one I have to earn.

When I started Generation What, I was in the middle of a difficult time in my life.  I was not able to give it the time I was giving my efforts on the pay to blog sites, and it suffered because of it.  I couldn't engage in Twitter, I couldn't work on the audio stuff and I didn't have the time to write as much new material as I desired.

I like using this site for any variety of topics, and it is also my hope to get people to think about what they see and hear.  It means nothing if you just take the word of the person presetting it to you.  That person may have it right, and maybe not.  They may have the facts right, but their interpretation of what those facts mean may be wrong or subject to other interpretations.  Different people may not see it the same way, and we as a people need to use our critical thinking.

At this point, when I post something new, I'm not even getting ten views or listens.  When you compare that to the success achieved by the more established sites, it's not even a drop in the bucket.  I have a long way to go to gain any viewership.  Do I give up and just close it down?  No.  I'm not going anywhere.  Yes, I'd like more people to hear what I have to say, but it won't happen over night.  If it starts with just one person giving me a chance, I'll take it.  If I do it right, more viewers will come.

The Women's March And Transgender Inclusion

I was listening to a talk show this morning and the host was talking about the women's marches that took place all across the country.  Of course, he's not talking very positive about it because somehow they are not valid if they aren't singing the praises of Donald Trump.  I don't think it's fair to expect all women to agree anymore than it is all men, and some women feel they have issues that the new president will not address to their satisfaction or will even make it worse.

Many people from the transgender movement participated in the matches as well.  I'm going to talk about anatomy for a moment, more to make a point than anything else.  We had women marching in vagina costumes and women talking about their periods.  They feel they must do this to make their case.  In marches of any nature, you get this type of thing.

On one level, isn't it a bit silly to dress up as a vagina?  I understand that given Trump's leaked comments that have been used to further demonize him (not arguing one way or another here), they think this makes an important statement of empowerment.  I was thinking how silly it would look if men dressed as penises and marched.  Then again, I'm sure that has happened at Pride Parades through the years.  Also, culture through the years has glorified the penis through art and architecture.  So, if a woman feels this empowers her when she's marching for women's causes, she should express herself that way.  However, I fear that most men will not take this woman seriously.

Now, the talk show, which is a bit transphobic in my opinion, insinuated that transgender people are  all offended by women marching in vagina costumes, talking about their periods and other issues biologically unique to a genetic or cisgender, woman.  The host and two of the women he hired for his show suggested that all in the transgender movement are offended by that and want women to stop it because it makes them feel bad.  That's a broad statement.  Do all male to female transgender women feel that way?

That's a difficult topic, because there are differing opinions, from the more demanding and in your face to the live and let live as long as you don't prevent me from being me.  I think the ultimate goal for many is to transition, have gender reassignment surgery, blend in with women and not have to make an issue of it.  No bathroom debate or anything.  She just wants to be.  She's a woman, end of story as far as she is concerned.  If the topic comes up in her circles, she may still hear somebody invalidate her very femininity because she wasn't born with a vagina.

Now, that particular segment of the movement is not alone in believing gender identity is not determined by the sexual organ you are born with.  This is still difficult for those to grasp, and some insist that these women have mental problems.  No.  Those ignorant people have the problem, not the transgender women.  Imagine being naked and looking into a mirror.  You feel that you are a woman.  Everything you think and feel tells you that.  Then, you see that reflection in the mirror and are disgusted by it.  Your body doesn't conform to your mind, and you begin your journey to change that.  I can't even begin to get into the things a transgender woman goes through, transgender men as well.

Are transgender women a threat to cisgender, genetic women?  No.  The idea that the whole transgender movement demands that their cisgender counter parts stop talking about what they were born with is untrue.  There are some who wish they had that and hate to hear about those who do.  They might ask them to be silent, but not all transgender women would do that.  Women should never be afraid or ashamed to discuss who they are.

The problem is, there are many facets to this discussion.  There are cisgender women who first of all hate the term.  You might even hear, "I'm a woman, call me a woman."  And, to this type of woman, transgender women do not belong.  They will go so far as to say they are objectifying women and hijacking their femininity.  In her mind, "How dare you do that.  Get out of my march."  She doesn't speak for all women, but she is there with her beliefs.

In India, they have the third gender of transsexuals.  Would that work in this and other countries?  Should that be the goal?  You'll hear some who express that opinion.  A female to male or male to female is the third gender of transgender, or the third and fourth.  You know what the real problem with that is?  This suggests that you are transitioning to transition.  You aren't transitioning to become a woman but rather to become the third gender.  It's difficult to imagine most in the transgender community happy just being transgender and establishing that gender as the goal.

If third and fourth genders become officially recognized, you'll still have transgender women who want to be recognized as females.  They want an F or an M, not MtF Transgender or FtM Transgender.  We may very well head down the path of that debate, but there will be resistance.  Take gay marriage, as an example.  The compromise that was floated was one where they get the same rights as heterosexual couples, but it's not called marriage.  This was not acceptable, and the fight continued until it was won.  The gender identity battle is next.  There will be resistance from those who fear it, maybe even more than gays.

On Sunday, many in the transgender community marched hand in hand with cisgender women.  In making their points, some of the women used their anatomy and certain biological functions to express themselves.  This isn't something you can or should stop, because it is unique to cisgender women.  As transgender women take their place next to cisgender women in the debate about women's issues, they share an important point.  They will not be marginalized or invalidated, which is what the Sunday marches were speaking against.  Both groups of women have been victims to that.  Both groups have had struggles unique to them and their anatomy, and neither should feel pressured to not speak to that when they express themselves.

Interesting Study On Women's Body Image & A Woman In Need Of Help

I think we all deal with body Image in our own way. Some women struggle a little more than others for self acceptance. Three things came up in the news that I found interesting today. In one story, Dove did a study to see how a mother's insecurities have an effect on her daughter.

Another report talked about the new thing in body enhancement, temporary breast augmentation. One other report showed how long it took for people to try and help a naked woman walking down the street in San Francisco.

Dove is doing something called the Self Esteem Project, and they've started a new campaign. What it shows is how a mother's own insecurities can transfer over to her daughter, and she may not even realize the effect she's having on that little girl.

So, just a simple comment about how your legs look or your hair can transfer over to her. When you are talking about your weight, it can be something your daughter picks up on too. The study asked the mothers what they didn't like about themselves, then asked their daughters. The results were fascinating as their daughters many times cited the same thing about themselves.

Another report revealed that some doctors are now offering temporary breast enhancement for women. A woman can go in for one of these appointments. The procedure takes about a half an hour and then she can enjoy the results.

However, the effects only last for about 24 hours before your size returns to normal. Doctors were using this as a way to show a women how she would look before deciding whether she wanted to go through with a permanent enhancement. The cost for a temporary enhancement? $2500. I suppose it's nice if you can afford it. You can enjoy it for one night out on the town.

The final story is more about how most people ignored a woman in need. In an Episode of KRON 4 News, Stanley Roberts reported about a woman who walked the streets of San Francisco in the nude. Stanley, being the channel's resident Boy Scout, followed her with a camera while asking people to call 911 as he saw them.

Nobody offered to help her. People just gawked at her and snapped pictures as she walked by. Was she part of the nudist community that has been fighting for clothing optional rights? Nope. Actually, she was distraught about something.

Eventually, help arrived thanks to the two people who called for help during the ordeal. One of the things they got out of her was that she was headed for the bridge. Lord knows what may have happened had she made it. Fortunately, at least somebody cared enough to call for help.

More On The Dove Study: http://www.redbookmag.com/kids-family/blogs/mom-blog/new-dove-legacy-video

The Rise And Fall In Popularity Of Professional Wrestling

I admit I am a fan of professional wrestling.  I don't need a lecture of what it is and what it isn't.  The phrase "Professional Contact Acting" comes to mind.  I don't watch the current product and haven't for about three years.  It's gotten so far away from what it used to be that I see no reason to spend time watching that form of entertainment.

I have been listening to audio by Jim Cornette lately.  He's been in the business for years and has worked in several promotions.  He's been a manager of wrestlers on various TV programs and definitely has a gift for gab.  I don't agree with everything he says, but on one thing I do agree.  Through the years I've heard Jim talk about how the "sport" has been ruined by over the top storylines and matches and by exposing the business.

I think when WWF was going through the steroid controversy of the early 1990's, they basically admitted it was all scripted.  The performers are athletic and do get injured, but they are in the ring to sell you the idea that they are really hurting each other.  For years, they went so far that the good guys and the bad guys didn't even share the same locker room.

Through the years, there have been gimmicky wrestlers and silly plots.  When Vince McMahon took WWF national, he amped up the cartoon aspect, but you still got good matches in the ring.  The NWA territories were still presenting traditional professional wrestling.  Because WWF, NWA and AWA were seen on National TV, pro wrestling was riding high in the 1980's.  There was also the whole "Rock & Wrestling" connection.

In the 1990's, WWF was reeling from the steroid controversy and sort of transitioning.  Ted Turner bought Crockett Promotions and was building WCW.  Turner felt wrestling had a positive impact on his network's ratings.  Everything was still okay until Eric Bischoff started running WCW for Turner.  People say he killed WCW.   I don't blame Eric or even Vince Russo for that matter.  However, I love listening to Cornette go off on Russo on his podcasts, because he is on the mark on quite a bit of what he says.

Bischoff was in charge of WCW at a time when wrestling was riding higher than it ever had.  They had Hulk Hogan, The New World Order and Bill Goldberg, and ratings were huge.  WCW was beating WWF in the ratings, and McMahon had to change with the times.  They also had ECW as a third and more hard core alternative.  The sport rose above it's niche and appealed to casual fans who just wanted to see what would happen next.

There was a price for that rise in popularity.  For one thing, WCW started giving away Pay Per View quality matches for free on the regular show, forcing WWF to do the same.  People also tuned in for the very real feud of the promotions.  Wrestlers were jumping back and forth, so you never knew who would show up where.  People tuned in for the surprises.

ECW was so extreme in the things that their wrestlers were doing that something that would be a feud ending move years before, even if done at all, was just a regular occurrence now.  Wrestlers had to do crazier and crazier things to keep the fans entertained.  There were regular swerves where a good guy might turn against the fans or a bad guy might become good.  It happened so much that it wasn't unique or special.  However, it all got ratings.

Eventually, the bubble burst.  It was only about a three year run where this was bringing in many casual fans, and then those fans left.  The things that the promotions were doing to get those fans to watch didn't work anymore, because they didn't care.  Then, WCW was a victim of the AOL-Time Warner merger.  ECW ended.  WWF was what was left at the end of the wrestling wars, but it didn't keep all of the fans.  The WCW and ECW fans tuned out.  Somewhere along the way, Vince McMahon began promoting the idea that what WWF/WWE was was Sports Entertainment, rather than professional wrestling.

Cornette basically says that the top promotions hot shotted things so much that they left themselves nowhere to go.  Nothing surprised the fans any more.  He further added that the promotions all exposed the sport so badly that they turned it into a joke.  He's right.  Now, the wresting fan is left with WWE to tell them what wrestling is, and all other promotions struggle for attention.  If WWE is "too phony" in the way they present themselves, too bad.  That's what you get.  You have no choice.

I don't think it's fair to say they are not athletes and that WWE wrestlers don't put on a good match when they finally cut out the talking and crazy skits.  They have good performers, and it takes skill and conditioning to do what they do.  However the art form isn't what it used to be.  The matches don't have the same feel they did.  It's not presented in a way that people believe anymore, and the championship belts have become the props Vince Russo once labeled them to be.

Some people say they'd like to see the sport come back to what it once was or at least close to it.  You will hear people say you can't put the tooth paste back in the tube.  You can't go back.  But, I think you can.  We have way too many channels to not have some place to put a show.  There are fans who will buy tickets.  You have to make that commitment, that is if somebody wants to make the investment.

Vince has no reason too do it at WWE, but somebody could.  What they have to do is just define what their promotion means and run it in a more old school way.  You can go hard core when needed to in a particularly ugly feud.  WWE and NWA even did it.  The key is giving wrestlers a reason to do it, not just to beat the crap out of each other in a brutal way for the heck of it.  It can be done, and some people would still watch.

Will it ever happen  Probably not.  Cornette suggests that it could cycle back around via MMA.  Perhaps he's right about that.  WWE is a corporate entity, and they aren't going to do anything that upsets the market.  No drastic changes.  The only way they will get involved in this movement is if somebody else does it and has success.  As long as WWE is still around, we'll have something that passes itself off as wrestling, or Sports Entertainment as they call it.  It's unlikely that the current product will ever inspire the popularity this form of entertainment had 20 years ago.  Then again, you never know.

Hillary Lost Because She Was A Bad Candidate, And Trump Is Not The Savior

The post election hysterics have been fascinating to watch. People were literally crying in the streets over Hillary Clinton's loss.  Despite the media's best efforts (was this fake news?) to lie to us and tell us how big of a lead she had, she was not going to win.  Then came desperation, protests, recounts and attempts to get electors to switch that actually backfired.

I hear the outcry over her popular victory, based largely on California's support of her.  We will eventually have a serious debate on this topic, but it probably won't happen immediately.  Why?  The Republicans are in control and have clearly benefited more from the status quo.  Why would they change it?  Even with the globalists in the party that would side with the Democrats, it won't happen yet.  But, we should have this debate.

Here's the reality.  Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate.  People saw that.  More people who voted didn't vote for her than did.  Over six million people wanted a better choice than either candidate, and millions of people didn't bother to vote for any of the poor choices.  This prompted outcry from entitled Clinton supporters who think that the people who voted third party should have voted for her some reason.

No, she lost because people saw right through this entitled candidate who simply got her party's nomination because it was her turn.  In forcing her on the party, they also managed to alienate Bernie Sanders supporters.  Despite him selling out and falling in line, not all of his supporters got behind Clinton.  She was a weak, yet entitled candidate, and she did not play well enough in states that she needed to win.

Russian hacking?   Give me a break.  There is no credible evidence that the Russians changed any votes.  None.  The e-mails.  These were leaked e-mails, and no credible evidence has been suggested otherwise.  Even if they were hacked by Russia, there is still no evidence that they manipulated the voting machines.  Plus, what about the actual content of the e-mails?   Nobody ever addressed any of that, did they?  Just deflections to the Russians.   It couldn't be that enough people did not want Clinton in the states that mattered (by electoral standards) to give her the win, could it?

The Democrats need to regroup and come back in four years, but they will have a chance to get it back.  How could a party that gave us Obama eight years ago botch the 2016 election so badly?  Whether you believed in him or not, and I didn't, he still represented something new and different.  He wasn't the same old thing in people's perception.  He wasn't sabre rattling for the next war.  He was preaching inclusion.  Yes, he is black too, but that alone didn't win it for him.  The party went from him back to Clinton.  Big mistake.  If they learn the lesson of this election, they could come back in four years and win.

Let's be honest about Donald Trump.  He isn't the outsider he's been painted to be.  You don't become a billionaire in this system by being an outsider.  Neither does he have the same group of elites pulling his strings.  However, don't make the mistake of thinking he doesn't have anybody pulling his strings.  You don't get into this position without answering to somebody.  If he's truly an outsider, he'll be on the endangered species list, because they don't like it when people interrupt their agenda.  Even if he comes on as not following the recent path, that doesn't mean he's not doing their bidding in other areas that connect to the overall pattern we've seen over the last few decades.

Trump got in because the perception was that he was an outsider giving a middle finger to the establishment.  He got in because it appeared to many of his supporters that the establishment was out to get him.  Human nature has proven that some people love the underdog that Trump was portrayed to be.  And, a lot of these people will be disappointed because they are projecting their own beliefs onto him.   When you believe in somebody, there's a tendency to do that.  It can eventually lead to major disappointment.

We shouldn't be cheering for him to fail any more than we should have with Obama.  By the way, Obama was not the worst president ever.  Not even close.  And there are things he has done that were good.   Avoiding the war that the war mongering Bush presidency was going for in Iran was a start, though indications are that this will change when Trump gets in.  Equality for the LGBT community was another good move, though some people insist there is some evil gay or transgender agenda as if wanting a fair chance to be successful is evil.  Obama inherited a pile of crap from Bush, who people conveniently give a pass to.  It was bad then.  Maybe he didn't fix enough, but he didn't create that mess.

We should be wanting Trump to be successful.  We should hope he really wants to being more jobs back, because we need them.  A stronger border is not a bad thing, because our country won't survive if we don't.  Then again, the globalist view is that this country doesn't need to be sovereign anymore.   We should be hoping for good, and prepared to stand up against the bad as we would with any president.  The global situation with regards to war means we are still on the brink of bad things happening.

Saber rattling against the Russians is not a good idea, though they need to understand we are not pushovers.  Standing up to China and getting better deals, as I believe Trump has said he will do, is not a bad thing.   Obama threw a big surprise into the equation with his administration's last minute decision to push for the two state solution with Israel and Palestine.  I love the idea, but what took him so long?  Why now?  Trump's stance will be more along the lines of where Bush was, meaning Obama's efforts will largely go ignored as Israel again gets a pass to do what they want under Trump. But, these are some of the things Trump inherits, not to mention Syria and North Korea.

People need to understand that there's not a lot we can do individually when it comes to the bigger picture unless we unite as a people and demand change.  Given the way we are manipulated and divided among our tribes, that's not likely to happen.  Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate.  Trump is not some sort of savior, but we ought to hope he tries to do good.  As for us, maybe we should stop fighting each other over it.  Maybe we should just get our own houses in order and do the best we can.  It's not like Trump or Clinton would come knocking on our doors personally and ask us if they can help us with anything.