Rob Reiner continues to lean into his breakout television role, “Meathead.”

No, you like Daffy Duck cartoons because you have a well developed sense of humor. Warner Brothers animation teams were far funnier than Disney’s. 😉

This film appears to be a biased + one-sided look at: [The Christian religion], and [my words- the very, few…American people- who get the Christian religion’s view wrong, + [turn to violence + threats, as a way to promote these people’s wrong view…of the Christian Religion].

This film is such baloney or nonsense.

Can you get a more, politically-slanted person, to run this film?

I think I’d rather have [the Friendly’s…fast food restaurant + ice cream shops], or have [the Hersey’s chocolate factory], teach me about- exercise and weight control.

My goodness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_%26_Country

These people think that- the show, showing Franklin…who is an African-American character, is “racist”, because in one…lunch scene, “Franklin is sitting on one side of the table, all by himself!”
These people see this putting Franklin…all by himself, is [separating Franklin from all of the other kids at the table].

So now- in 2024, a [new] Charlie Brown TV show has been made, where the kids tell Franklin that he can sit with them.
This show was made to “correct” the “issue” of the 1970s show.

My goodness. What in the world.

Maybe this isn’t directly connected, but when the 1970s show was made- the maker of the Charlie Brown/Peanuts comic strips, Charles Schultz [did not] direct the 1970s, TV show. Two other people directed the show.
There is no evidence that Charles Schultz decided that Franklin should sit alone, at one side the table, so this [sitting of Franklin], was not done by Charles Schultz.

Maybe it was an honest mistake by the show’s directors, or the show’s animators, to put Franklin alone?

Maybe they put Franklin by himself, on that side, as a random decision?

Or it could be- that rather than have Franklin be flanked by 1 or 2 friends at the table, that the directors wanted to be very-noticeably seen at the table, at a table with a bunch of kids with a different ethnicity than his?

How much can be “read into” a pre-2024, kids’ cartoon?

If I like Daffy Duck cartoons…and Daffy is a black feathered duck, more than Donald Duck Cartoons…and Donald is a white feathered duck, does that mean I like [black-feathered characters] more than [white-feathered characters], or vice-versa?

The mind boggles.

Moreover- it might be a thing to celebrate that an African-American character was seen, in a good light, [at all], in a 1970s- TV show.

In the early 1970s, in my view- it was rare to see African-American [characters + heroes], in good ways, in- films and TV shows.

African-American characters and/or Black characters, being shown in good, or in morally-good ways, was a novel thing in: 1970s films, and in 1970s TV shows.

This was the time that the 1970s films…Shaft [tm], and Superfly [tm], came out, with Black heroes in them.

This was also the time when the early 1970s , TV show, “Good Times”, came out, with Black heroes in it.

These were kind of the beginnings of African-American people, and Black people, being shown as good-and-regular people, and as heroes, on TV and in films.

Whatever the reason was for Franklin being sat by himself was, I don’t think the Charlie Brown’s show’s makers put [Franklin by himself], as a way to separate Franklin from everyone else, on the show].

They probably thought: “Hey, here’s a kid in a group of kids. Let’s sit them all at the table.”

I have a friend who is a therapist.
He advises people not to search for [very…unlikely problems, in the past, or very…unlikely problems in anything].

He says- “try not to look for ghosts, that aren’t there”.

Here is a 2020 article/interview with Charles Schultz’s wife, June Schultz(?), where she talks about the 1970s, Charlie Brown show:

https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/peanuts-creators-widow-addresses-franklin-controversy-charlie-brown-thanksgiving/

Exterminated? Check footage of Russians executing Ukrainian POWs. Casualties are 200s (KIA) and 300s (wounded). But Russia “needs” its empire. Russian poverty feeds Vlad’s slaughter house.

You can wish about the Black Sea fleet.

Consider the Crimea Peninsula and its loss to Russia. It will be very bad day for Vlad.

It is harder to defend you country from a foreign invader without ordnance; tubes without rounds are just so much scrap iron. But you know that?

The Russians used to surround Kiev, used to hold the Kharkiv area, used to hold Kherson. Is there a pattern? Nope, not to a Vlad cheerleader.

Russia lost 40,000? Exterminated? KIA? Wounded?

This is a huge number. According to the records kept by Ukraine, Russia has lost 410,000 since the beginning of the war! Whether that’s deaths and casualties or just deaths is up for debate, but either way it’s a huge number by today’s standards.

For comparison, the US lost 58,000 killed and about 300,000 wounded in the Vietnam War. 40,000 of those killed occurred in a three-year period 1967-69.

But it raises a point that most people agree with. It’s harder and more costly to take territory than to defend it. And Russia has certainly taken high losses.

This is one of the reasons why I think it’s unlikely Ukraine can retake all the territory Russia now holds. It takes more soldiers to take a position than to defend it, which means more casualties. Does Ukraine have the manpower to re-take all of its pre-2014 territory?

Ukraine’s population is now around 30 million while Russia’s population is around 145 million. More people to draw from.

What Ukraine has done in the Black Sea is impressive but likely won’t affect the outcome of the war.

Russia lost 40,000 to “take” Avdiivka in 4 months. Sustainable? Otay, Brain E.

But keep hoping that you and yours can choke off the ordnance.

How’s that Black Sea fleet doing lately?

Knowing it contributes to a better world for everyone, India and the US pay handsomely for that Russian petrol. It’s good to the last drop!

This is an unfortunate title since this is a lengthy speech and includes more about the border before turning to the situation in Ukraine. He bases this one line “Russia is not going to lose the war” on the facts on the ground, at this point. He points the lauded spring counteroffensive gained almost no gain. He makes rational reasons for his position.

I recently posted a link to a speech given by an EU official encouraging Ukraine and, while saying the sanctions hadn’t worked to this point, they were targeting individual channels of trade that were being closed down and sanctions would have effect. This may be Ukraine’s best hope.

But bringing Russia to its knees economically might still be years away.

Very impressive speaker.

‘Russia Is Not Going To Lose The War’: JD Vance Blasts Senate Voting To Send Funding To Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wILyEyEc