Haha your review is right on.
I caught Whale Wars on a Sunday night because there was nothing on TV and my 13 year old daughter was like: let's try it maybe we'll see a whale.
Most of what they "promise" during the promos for "action packed episode with lots of drama" doesn't even occur in the actual episode. What did occur in the episode is a lot of liberal whining from people who are well dressed in parkas with whale wars branding -- whale-style well fed whiners who are being paid to putter around the ocean to save a couple whales-- which they never save. And part of me is amazed that people give them money and film them doing this.
Another part of me is like: why can't I figure out something this dumb that people will give me a lot of money to do as a job?

Why not a show where Bob Barker is forced to live big-brother-style with pets that aren't spayed or neutered?

Um, this is brilliant.

Idea: Since all these movie stars/ "filmmakers" want to stop what they call our "carbon footprint" (what we rational human beings call breathing) -- then we should create our own movement and call it the Ego Footprint or something where we charge these blowhards a punitive monetary penalty each time they spout off about something ridiculous that they wish they could inflict on the little people (we say, normal average americans).
I think it's only fair we make them pay for the audacity of their ego since they want to charge us for breathing.
We just need a catchy name for it and some tee shirts.

Wow, the carbon footprint of Ryan Reynolds ego is expansive.
We could light Beijing with his elevated sense of self importance.

Anne Rice's sensibility was hijacked some time ago.

I am so tired of people equating gay sex to racism. Grow up.
We are talking about the way people have SEX -- not skin color. I don't want to know what people do in their bedroom and I certainly don't want the government involved in that.
Oh wait, what about bi-sexual?? Half the time they are having straight sex right? So they are only being discriminated against half of the time.
When sexual rights (something people do in their bedroom) are litigated and pushed in the media they are forcing the issue on me. Forcing an issue through the courts is not evolving and having the government involved where they are making sex a civil right-- let me say that again...the WAY YOU HAVE SEX IS A CIVIL RIGHT???????? That is not evolved. That's insane.

We can't help them if it isn't considered a problem, right? I mean, nothing to see here, everything is alright? Even the kids.

I would argue that they are trying to control the lives of others by pushing their own adgenda through the courts and media. How is that not trying to control others.

I agree with you I'm just saying you are affording something to others that is not being afforded to your lifestyle. I realize that's the Catholic worldview.
I want people to live their own life but they are pushing their lifestyle on me AND I very much believe that the same laws will be eventually used to force their lifestyle choice as a church marriage. I don't see how it wouldn't be considered a hate crime to ban gay marriage in the church if they believe and attend a church.
I mean at what point will church teachings about homosexuality be considered a hate crime?
Homosexuals pushing same sex marriage are not trying to convince me it's in my best interest to understand them . They are forcing their viewpoint on me through government and the courts.

Step parents can't adopt a step child unless the biological parent gives up biological rights to the child. It's a court proceeding where they give up their rights. Then a step parent can adopt a child and a step parent can adopt a child if the child's biological parent is dead.
I'm saying this is the quagmire.
But in the lesbian couple situation, like the Lisa Miller case in Virginia, the lesbian who is not a biological parent is afforded parental rights without adopting the child. She is afforded biological rights because they were "married" in Vermont but not because she is actually biologically tied to the child-- so rationally her tie to the child would be equal to a step parent who does not adopt but Juvenile and Domestic court is giving her rights beyond that.

And actually Virginia gave the lesbian partner rights even though she hadn't seen the child or wanted any contact with the child since it's birth AND gave her rights even though Virginia doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

You know what though Ed -- I have a problem with the sliding scale here. I mean homosexuality had a DSM 30 years ago. I mean it was considered to be a mental illness. Now we are trying to attach social trends to it to make it "okay" and, of course, they have removed the behavior from the DSM. How much of homosexuality is innate biologically and how much of it is partly biology plus upbringing -- do we know? Are more kids using homosexuality as an identity if they are weird or don't fit in-- do we have those numbers? Is it healthy? I met a tranny named Joe who told me that he decided to become a woman when he saw a female friend dying of a cocaine overdose. He was a habitual drug user before making this decision. I was working with a program to help people in rehab. Now, here's the question, is Joe's head in a place after binging on all sorts of drugs for years to make a decision to change his gender? I dunno. I would say, no. But psychology is a field full of statist liberals who say-- well, Joe's need to "find himself" is important. I would say, is Joe's need to define and find himself something he can achieve though mutilating his sexual organs? If we are saying that is exactly what he needs-- okay, I don't even know how to rationalize that.
Psychology has become a uniquely statist field full of valiant leftists who are redefining what was once considered a serious psychological problem as something that is now akin to a minor paper cut. Actually, psychologists would say you should treat a paper cut but not treat homosexuality so I guess the behavior has been downgraded below a paper cut.

I completely agree that this problem began with divorce and single motherhood.
Think about this: in Juvenile and Domestic court we say that step fathers have no rights to children when they marry the child's mother. The only people who have ties to a child are those people who have a biological tie to the child or have adopted a child. That's the way the juvenile court sees custody and visitation first and foremost. Now think about this: Lets say that a lesbian couple who are "married" by law "have a child" (I put "have a child" in quotes because any rational human being understands that BIOLOGICALLY it is not possible for them to have a child together) . So one woman in the couple gets inseminated but the other woman in the couple does not adopt the child because she says "well we are a married lesbian couple" but that woman has no biological ties to the child through marriage. The other "partner" in the couple should be considered equal to a step parent in terms of rights to the child then, right?? NO. Not so. The juvenile and domestic court (case in point is Lisa Miller in VA) affords the lesbian who is not biologically tied to a child a special preference and in fact looks at her as equal to a biological parent even though there is no biology or even adoption tying her to the child.

Make your head spin? It should if you are rational. And so this is the road we are heading down.
What. A. Mess.
I say: Not alright by any stretch of the imagination.