Gal Gadot again

Thought it time to “do” Gal Gadot again [with the “t” spoken] but the MSM beat me to it. The strange thing this time round was that it wasn’t anti, quite pro in fact, at least at the start.  I’d written this in draft:

DC/Marvel are Ok, her role is just a role and she’s already looking round for others, her anti-jihad politics are good, her American associations not so good but we can cut her some slack on that.

She was on all the leftist media – Fallon, Kimmel, the stock shows like Today, she was gushing and giggling. Ok, she must put herself about for her career and she does seem nice, as well as being a fine specimen of womanhood.

The latter, methinks, there’d not be all that much debate over.

Gorgeous woman, whatever views she has and the company she keeps. My previous draft added:

Probably best to look no further or we might find she’s refused to be on Fox or something like that. She’s OK, she must disappoint the left that she simply married and has two children … how boring for an Ellen Degenerate, for example.

Prophetic words.

The negative evidence began to accumulate.

But there was still something else to support her over – the way the leftoids on every forum attacked her for being … yep, you’ve got it … Jewish.

In my eyes, that was her high point, but then came the Degenerate interview, then she kissed a woman full-on, justified it in the press, then kissed some stray man on one of the shows, not even a cast member.  Interesting view of marriage.

Now it began to dawn why the leftist media, but not Fox and the Deplorable media, were going ape over her and yet they were conflicted too because they love ISIS and Hamas.

Bit by bit, youtube picked up that I was following her and so they were offering clips and many of these – well, they were unfortunate because I’d really wanted to like her, despite the rabid feminism.

But the evidence kept building in her statements in various interviews and that reminded me of Wolfie’s comment a few days back:

I think quite a lot of us knew that from the start, James wanted to hope for better.

… to which I replied at the time:

True. Naivety personified.

Sadly, this clip below then appeared. She herself still looked fine and clean but the sleazy SNL had to dirty it by having some revolting butch specimen interrupt her and make weak smutty jokes, which she “put up with”:

In another interview, I couldn’t believe when she started making jokes about her “bush” and her “boobs”, obviously thinking that that was the way to get on in Left Liberal Land.  And she was the one who brought it up, not the man she’d just had thrown off Justice League II for sleaze [possibly correctly too from all accounts], although my Dutch friend Kassandra pointed out:

And that’s when my interest in this disappointing woman who is, after all, an actress who will do whatever’s required to make it in Hollywood, waned, especially as the next vid was from Watchmojo, supposedly “slamming” Justice League and that raised yet another issue.

Seems this “slam” heading was based on Rotten Tomatoes, whose critics averaged 56% but the audience averaged 86%. There was much discussion below the youtube about this discrepancy. One commenter, who called himself a nerd, pointed out that this was hardly “slamming”, in fact it was a “mixed” review.

Film reviews

Which shifts attention now to the whole business of film critics and who gets paid to say what. But it also focuses on the audience. Methinks there’s a case that the 86% who bothered to register in order to vote were committed game movie watchers in the first place anyway.

Just how, say, an N.O. panel of judges would have voted is in the realm of speculation.

Someone pointed out that the RT rating is quite critical to a movie’s chances and one suspects that so is an audience percentage.

Going to the Skyfall and SPECTRE reviews, I was always astounded that the audience weren’t aware of the glaring faults of the film, though the cinematography was wonderful. There were so many reviews which were saying roughly the same thing.

So it becomes near impossible today, in our Era of Lying or rather our Era of Lies Being Exposed, to know if a film is good or not. It was once that reviewers like Ebert, Berardinelli or Norman were not ‘alf bad, you could get the general idea. Not now.

How good is JL? Who knows, unless you’re a gamer boy or girl. How good is Gal Gadot as an actress? Who knows? How good as a person? Surprisingly and disappointingly poor, despite the pleasant manner and those eyes.

Then again, her countryman “Bibi” has shown how a nice smile and pleasant, articulate manner, plus a clean image, can go a long way in the west, compared to, say, bearded jihadis or leftists.

Another one I was checking out, following a Wail article on her going to a jungle in Australia [I’d like to know where there’s a jungle in Australia but no matter] was someone called Toffolo:

Yes, all right, it was the diminutive size and blonde hair, got me bang to rights, guv’nor.

What a sleazebag she was.  In an interview on youtube, she went on about eating “balls” and a “penis”. She joked with the audience that they’d probably like to see her eating a penis.

Yeah, right.  I don’t mind the power of suggestion and a look of innuendo from a pretty woman but have a bit of subtlety, love.  The ghost of Wolfie kept saying to me though – what do you expect from a reality “star”?

Seriously, is the only choice in western women that between raving feminazis and trollops? Is there no one in the middle any more? Is there no finesse to womanhood?

So, in summary, there’s not all that much out there to entertain, or so it seems – you might beg to differ.

Why are they not deported … or at least charged?

The question is in the heading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5087211/Travellers-park-caravans-Met-Police-dog-training-site.html

Then there is this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/418674/Couple-furious-after-police-allow-gypsies-to-live-in-their-stolen-caravan

And this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5062223/Police-REFUSE-enter-travellers-site-safety-fears.html

So I come back to the question in the heading.

Gladstone and wife

Unlike her husband, she was a notoriously untidy person, habitually leaving her letters strewn on the floor in the well-founded faith that someone would eventually pick them up and post them. Her chests of drawers were similarly messy, and she was rarely much bothered with fancy attire. “What a bore you would have been,” she teased her husband, “if you had married someone as tidy as you are.”

It’s Gladstone and wife and the reason your humble blogger was even there was:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/16/students-demand-university-rename/

If anyone was known for changing positions from High Tory to liberal, it was him. Does one condemn a man for his times, his former view or for his conduct in life?

“Horrified” students have launched a campaign to remove the name of four-time British Prime Minister William Gladstone from a University of Liverpool building, claiming he was insufficiently devoted to the abolition of slavery.

If anyone was known for changing position from High Tory to liberal, it was him. Does one condemn a man for his times, for his former view or for his conduct in life?

I saw, in passing, a reference to ‘curing’ the Millennials.  I’d like to say age and maturity will do it but the nagging issue is the shocking education they’ve had, as in nothing normal and natural.  Sadly, the Millennials are essentially lost to the evil muvvers who have done this to them.

Millennial?

Pre-Boomer music – think this says anything which needs to be said:

Gotta bittova problem here. There’s music tomorrow evening, so best run this now, despite the many posts today. My first thought, looking at an article about the limited lass who thought a hotwater bottle heated itself:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5092515/Student-believes-hot-water-bottles-heat-up.html

… was that the definition of a Millennial has become somewhat loose.  Time for some arithmetic.

More countries [quiz]

Can’t think of anything better:

1. Extremely high biodiversity, vast majority live in northern cities, drastic increases in poverty, disease, child mortality, malnutrition, and crime, globally it seeks a “multi-polar” world, a person is murdered every 21 minutes.

2. Now also third world, history of demagogues and destruction, lost all its colonies, currently being overrun, even as the leadership wants to take over the world again, PMI numbers show output continue to shrink.

3. Drinking from its river will give you bilharzia, protests can occur at any time but most often on Fridays, westerners killed, raped and sexually assaulted in crowds [Gov.UK warning] UN estimate road accidents 16,000 deaths in 2011.

4. Much petty crime, likely terror attacks, PCist government, healthcare exorbitant cost, active earthquake zone, forest fires, tornadoes, one coast has a danger of tsunamis, multiculturalism official in 1971.

5. Gangs include children, must pay ‘Rovinieta’ to use roads, low terrorist threat, visited by Farage, homosexuality not welcome, largely a cash economy, based on services, producer and net exporter of machines and electric energy.

6. Beloved of lefty hippies, Kusundas oldest people, slavery abolished in 1924, 1996 civil war, five climatic zones, half the working-age population under or unemployed, foreign aid from UK, few natural resources and poor infrastructure.

7. UK first country recognizing independence, ebola an issue, corruption endemic at every level, highest ratio of foreign direct investment to GDP in the world, second-largest maritime registry in the world behind Panama.