Author Archives: Dr. Eowyn

Angry veterans turn their backs on Obama motorcade

angry veteransOn July 17, 2014, the POS went to Delaware to discuss a bridge that was damaged by someone dumping 50 tons of soil next to it. Repairs are expected to cost taxpayers $20 million, according to DelawareOnline.com.

White House Whispers reports that a group of 25 angry veterans protested against the POS by turning their backs to his passing motorcade.

The leader of the protest, U.S. Marine veteran Martin Nicholson, told BuzzPo.com, “We feel he’s turned his back on us veterans, so we’re going to turn our backs on him as he drives by on his motorcade to show our appreciation that he does not care about us veterans.”

Referring to Obama’s aiding and abetting of the surge invasion of illegals across the US-Mexico border, another protester, John Stroud, told BuzzPo, “Take care of your own first. There are Americans that need help first. I think there are more important things you could be doing than coming to Delaware to look at a bridge.”

Instead of focusing on the protesters, whoever took the video below had his attention fixed on the POS’s motorcade.  :(

H/t FOTM’s josephbc69

~Eowyn

Hollywood has worst summer box-office in 8 years

With kids out of schools, summertime is usually box office gold for Hollywood, but not the summer of 2014.

Pamela McClintock reports for The Hollywood Reporter, July 23, 2014, that we’re now less than six weeks before Labor Day, the traditional end of summer, and hopes for recovery at the North American summer box office have evaporated.

Hollywood’s summer box office is expected to finish down by as much as 15% to 20% compared with 2013, the worst year-over-year decline in three decades. Total revenue for the summer of 2014 will struggle to crack $4 billion, which hasn’t happened in eight years. As a result, analysts predict that the full year is facing a deficit of 4% to 5%.

Even bullish observers are grim. Rentrak’s Paul Dergarabedian says, “Moviegoing begets moviegoing, and we have lost our momentum. People aren’t seeing trailers and marketing materials. They still want to go to the movies — they just want to go to really good movies.”

Although there have been no Lone Ranger-size debacles, for the first time since 2001 no summer pic will cross $300 million domestically (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Maleficent and Transformers: Age of Extinction hover near $230 million). May kicked off with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 earning $200 million less domestically than 2013′s Iron Man 3; by July 20, the divide had swelled to nearly $690 million as revenue topped out at $2.71 billion, down 20% compared with the same period last year. Many medium-size studio movies also have underperformed this summer, including Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West and Sony’s comedy Sex Tape, starring Cameron Diaz (who is so stupid she thinks she can shave her vagina) which opened July 18 to a meager $14.6 million.

International returns remain strong, making up for some of the damage, but in certain cases they aren’t enough. Spider-Man 2 topped out at $706.2 million globally, notably behind the $757.9 million earned by The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012.

“Young men haven’t been as enthusiastic as usual,” says analyst Phil Contrino. “Maybe [studios] shouldn’t just go after this demo when building their summer tentpoles.” Female-fueled properties, including Maleficent and The Fault in Our Stars, have produced some of the summer’s biggest success stories.

Also contributing to the malaise is a lack of family product (including no Pixar movie), the allure of TV and myriad ways consumers can view entertainment in their homes. One studio executive laments, “I wish I worked at Netflix.”

More interesting than the Hollywood Reporter article are the readers’ comments, many of whom lay the blame on Hollyweird’s insistence on ramming their left-wing politics down our throats.

Let’s hear from you, FOTM’s readers, on this!

~Eowyn

Fast fooder McDonald’s is biggest sponsor of lewd TV shows

Evil Ronald McDonaldJunk food purveyer McDonald’s is also the biggest purveyor of junk TV.

Thaddeus Bablinski reports for LifeSiteNews, July 21, 2014, that the McDonalds mega-chain tops the list of companies most apt to sponsor sexually-graphic television shows, according to the pro-family TV watchdog, Parents Television Council (PTC).

PTC’s Research Department evaluates and reviews TV shows for their sexual content (depictions of or implied sexual content) and suggestive dialogue about sexual content. By “sexually graphic shows,” PTC means shows with “jokes about incest, rape, pedophilia; [glorifications of] adultery; barrages of bleeped and partially-bleeped F-words; and intense, brutal violence, including cannibalism and fetishized butchery.”

The Parents Television Council’s Top Ten TV sponsors of programs with sexual content, suggestive dialogue, foul language, and violence are:

Sexual Content:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. Mars Inc.
  4. Colgate Palmolive Company
  5. Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited
  6. Time Warner Inc.
  7. Sony Corp. of America
  8. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  9. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  10. Red Bull North America, Inc.

Suggestive Dialogue:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. Subway Restaurants
  3. Target Corp.
  4. Kohl’s Corporation
  5. Sears, Roebuck and Co
  6. Unilever United States
  7. AT&T Corp.
  8. Verizon Communications
  9. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  10. Microsoft

Foul Language:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. L’Oreal USA, Inc.
  4. Verizon Communications
  5. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  6. Cablevision Systems Corporation
  7. Signet Group plc (Kay Jewelers)
  8. Capital One Financial Corporation
  9. H & R Block
  10. Hyundai

Violence:

  1. Subway Restaurants
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. Verizon Communications
  4. AT&T Corp.
  5. Sprint Corporation
  6. Burlington Industries, Inc.
  7. Daimler Chrysler Corporation
  8. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  9. General Motors Corp.
  10. Signet Group plc (Kay Jewelers)

PTC president Tim Winter said in a press release: “The companies on our lists are the worst offenders in each category, and McDonalds, YUM! Brands, and Toyota Motor Sales Inc., in particular have been the top contributors to the most explicit broadcast TV shows. Particularly jarring is the direction that McDonalds’ advertising has taken in recent years, given its history as a family – and child-centric – brand. We’ve recently reached out to McDonalds to encourage the company to change course, as it used to be one of our ‘best’ advertisers. And perhaps not coincidentally, data shows the company to have had better earnings when it eschewed explicit TV programming.

Today we call for greater responsibility by the corporations whose media dollars underwrite some of the most harmful material on broadcast television. Family quality programming doesn’t just benefit families. It is also more profitable for the corporate sponsors who advertise on the broadcast networks. We hope that companies will choose wisely where to put their ad dollars for the benefit of families across this country.”

See also:

~Eowyn

New diet aid! Guaranteed to help you eat less, lose weight!

New diet aid

H/t FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska

~Eowyn

40% of U.S. adults (incl. 11% of Dems) not sure if Obama is American citizen

army-officer-quote-on-obama

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on July 16-17, 2014, finds that whereas 60% of U.S. adults think Obama is an American citizen, as many as 40% or 4 out of every 10 do not believe their president is an American citizen, which of course violates the U.S. Constitution’s Article II.

Of those Americans who are skeptical of Obama’s U.S. citizenship:

  • 23% outright don’t believe he’s a U.S. citizen, including:
    • 41% of Republicans, 21% of unaffiliated Independents, and 11% of Democrats!
  • Another 17% aren’t sure if he is a U.S. citizen, including:
    • Over 20% of Republicans and Independents, and 7% of Democrats.

The survey also probed Americans’ belief/disbelief in other conspiracies, including:

  • 32% of Americans believe President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by more than one shooter.
  • 24% or one-in-four adults are convinced that the U.S. government knew in advance about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and did nothing to stop them.
  • 20% of Americans believe that a UFO carrying space aliens on board crashed near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
  • 14% think the U.S. faked the moon landing.

One interesting finding is that in general, men are more likely than women to believe most of the conspiracy theories.

~Eowyn

Texas Gov. Perry deploys 1,000 National Guard troops to border

Months (actually years, since 2012) after illegal aliens began surging across the Mexico border into America’s southern states (at a rate of 35,000 a month into Texas), Governor Rick Perry is finally really doing something to stem the invasion.

Yesterday, July 21, 2014, stating that the federal government offers only “lip service” on border security, Perry announced that he is activating up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border  as a “force multiplier” to help the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) “combat the brutal Mexican drug cartels that are preying upon our communities.”

“I will not stand idly by while our citizens are under assault and little children from Central America are detained in squalor. We are too good of a country,” Perry said.

The National Guard troops could detain people if asked, Texas Adjutant General John Nichols said at the press conference with Perry, but they are planning to play a “referring and deterring” role by deterring cartels with their visible presence and referring any immigrants suspected of being illegally in the country to DPS.

Perry argued that the elevated response at the border by DPS personnel has already acted as a deterrent force and reduced apprehensions. That operation comes at a cost of $1.3 million per week. A state memo obtained by the McAllen Monitor, which first reported Perry’s plan to deploy the National Guard, indicates the new efforts will cost the state of Texas $12 million per month.

Perry said he expects the federal government to eventually reimburse the state of Texas for the costs it has incurred protecting the southern border.

CBS reports that White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said prior to Perry’s announcement that the Obama administration has not yet received the formal request from Perry to activate the troops, but he downplayed it as a merely a symbolic measure, “What we’re hopeful is that Governor Perry will not just take these kinds of steps that are generating the kind of headlines I suspect he intended, but will actually take the kinds of steps that will be constructive to solving the problem over the long term.”

Referring to the $3.7 billion in emergency appropriations the POS has requested from Congress, Earnest said, “To be specific that means that we hope that Governor Perry will support the supplemental appropriations request that this administration put forward a few weeks ago and that that Governor Perry will use his influence with congressional Republicans in Congress an urge them to stop blocking comprehensive bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives.”

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Mouth of Sauron Joshua Earnest

To Joshua Earnest, the new Mouth of Sauron:

The United States Constitution recognizes America’s state National Guards or militias, and gives them vital roles to fill: “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15).

State governors have the full authority to activate state National Guards, without having to issue a “formal request” to Washington, D.C.

In the end, however, Perry’s deployment of 1,000 Texan National Guard troops to the border is merely a symbolic act that will be entirely ineffectual in stemming the Invasion of the Illegals.

H/t FOTM’s swampygirl

~Eowyn

Are you up for another Caption Contest?

This is the 78th world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

O is my copilot

You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on FOTM, not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

This is what happens when a nation no longer cling to their guns or their bibles or their “anti-immigrant sentiment.” *

*Obama at a San Francisco campaign fundraiser, April 6, 2008:

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, July 29, 2014.

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, click here.

Seen any good pic that you think will be perfect for our caption contest? Send it to us at:

fellowshipminds@gmailcom

~Eowyn

We have a winner!

. . . for FOTM’s 77th Caption Contest!

This was a very competitive contest. There were many really funny captions!

All the FOTM writers dutifully voted, each for his/her #1 and #2 captions. Each #1 vote is worth 3 points; every #2 vote is worth 2 points.

And the winner of the 77th world-famous FOTM Caption Contest, with three #1 vote, totaling 9 points, is . . . .

God Guts Glory and Ammo!!!

Here’s his winning caption:

Michael Obama

.

SouthsideBob and willi are both in 2nd place, each with one #1 vote and one #2 vote, totaling 5 points each. Here are their respective captions:

“From winning a RuPaul look-alike contest, to becoming first lady! Who says dreams don”t come true!”

After a fresh chest wax, the first “lady” of snot told her subjects that she would perform “her” pec-flexing rendition of George of the Jungle ONLY if they eat their peas.

Lola is in 3rd place, with two #2 votes, totaling 4 points. Here’s her caption:

America, Behold your QUEEN!

Sig94 and Son of the Rabbit People are both in 4th place, each with one #1 vote, totaling 3 points each. Here are their respective captions:

Wearing a dress made entirely of arugula, the First Lady prepares to address the 2014 Conference of the International Flat Chest Society. Other celebrity attendees include Janet Reno (past president of the Society) and Hillary Clinton.

Having exhausted the supply of table cloths from which to make garments, the First Lady has started on the curtains.

Another Lola caption is in 5th place, with one #2 vote, totaling 2 points. Here’s her caption:

“Let them eat Steroids!”

Well done, everyone!

Congratulations to God Guts Glory and Ammo!

Here is your fancy-schmancy Award Certificate of Great Excellence, all ready for framing! LOL

dancingbanana Carrot Chilli Muffin PurpleBanana Pineapple dancingbanana Carrot Chilli Muffin  Pineapple Strawberry

award certificate1

For all the other caption submissions, click here.

Be here tomorrow for our next very exciting Caption Contest!

Seen any good pics that you think would be great for our Caption Contest? Email them to us! :D

fellowshipminds@gmail.com

~Eowyn

University of Wisconsin adopts racial/sexual “diversity” in grading students

W. Lee Hansen, a professor emeritus of economics at UW-Madison, wrote the following op-ed piece for the John William Hope Pope Center for Higher Education, a North Carolina-based think tank, about the latest “diversity” plan for the UW-System’s flagship school.

Madness in Madison

Professor W. Lee HansenThe University of Wisconsin’s latest diversity plan calls for “equity” in high-demand majors and the distribution of grades.

By W. Lee Hansen

July 16, 2014

Many American colleges and universities are in the thrall of “diversity,” but none more so than my institution, the University of Wisconsin. This spring, the university adopted a new plan that, according to Board of Regents policy, “[p]laces the mission of diversity at the center of institutional life so that it becomes a core organizing principle.

That is, promoting diversity appears to be more important than teaching students. 

This Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence sailed through our Faculty Senate without the least bit of attention, much less the “sifting and winnowing” on which it prides itself.

Although much of the language is a thicket of clichés, no one dared challenge it. Moreover, there was no probing of the ramifications of the plan. Apparently, “diversity” has become such a sacred cow that even tenured professors are afraid to question it in any way.  

To begin, the university’s justification for the new policy is difficult to understand: “Our commitment is to create an environment that engages the whole person in the service of learning, recognizing that individual differences should be considered foundational to our strength as a community.”

That language is mere education babble, but the Faculty Senate swallowed it whole. So did the academic staff and the students.

The plan’s definition of diversity focuses on a wide array of differences that can be found in every enrolled student. Here’s what it includes:

Individual differences in personality, learning styles, and life experiences, and group or social differences that may manifest through personality, learning styles, life experiences, and group or social differences. Our definition of diversity also incorporates differences of race and ethnicity; sex; gender; and gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; age; country of origin; language; physical and intellectual ability; emotional health; socio-economic status; and affiliations that are based on cultural, political, religious, or other identities.

[Question from Eowyn: Does "diversity in intellectual ability" means certified morons and idiots, since they are under-represented in America's colleges and universities, should get an "A" or minimally a "P" (passing) grade?]

The list is so expansive that it leads one to conclude that every student is “diverse.” And I believe that is correct. Every student is different in so many ways that it makes no sense to say that some students “increase diversity” while others don’t.

The new plan provides no information on how the addition of these “individual and group/social differences” can create an environment that “engages the whole person,” whatever that means. Based on my experience, I would have no idea how to incorporate these “differences” into my economics teaching.

I wish someone had asked what bearing these particular “individual and group or social differences” have on student learning. Most people believe that individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, motivation, commitment, high school class rank, ACT/SAT scores, and academic preparation are far more important in contributing to student learning.

Those latter differences, what most people view as indicators of academic excellence, indeed are appropriate considerations at an institution priding itself as being a world-class teaching and research university.

How will the university assemble information on these supposedly crucial “differences”? Most applicants will not be able to describe their “learning styles,” or how to characterize their “personalities,” or how to assess their “emotional health.” Moreover, many students would hesitate to disclose personal information about their “cultural, political, religious, or other identities.” Without that information, it won’t be possible to use them “in the service of learning,” assuming that this notion is something other than empty rhetoric.

To achieve the plan’s vague aims, the Ad Hoc Diversity Planning Committee formulated five goals and thirty detailed recommendations. Unbeknownst to faculty senators, these goals and recommendations are based on the “Inclusive Excellence” framework adopted earlier by the Board of Regents. (See Agenda Item II.6 for the March 5, 2009, meeting of the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents; in the PDF file: Madness in Madison)

That framework includes eight essential “working definitions,” among them the already-discussed diversity, as well as others: “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “inclusion,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “representational equity,” and “excellence.”

Let us take a closer look at one of these working definitions included, namely “representational equity.”

It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.” 

We are not told exactly what adherence to this will entail. It appears to mean that directors of programs and departmental chairs will have to somehow ensure that they have a mix of students with just the right percentages of individuals who embody the various “differences” included in the definition of diversity. I cannot see how that is possible and even if it were, how it improves any student’s education.

Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the “equity” policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their “difference” group.

Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.  

At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.

Is there any reason to believe that the UW system’s Inclusive Excellence plan implemented at UW-Madison is going to improve the education of its students? I can see no reason to think so. Actually, the contrary seems more likely.

One problem is that the obsession with all those non-academic details about students comes with a cost—the cost of good students who are not admitted because they don’t seem “diverse” enough. Also, some of the preferred, “diverse” students will be admitted with significantly weaker academic capabilities than their classmates.

Although campus officials regularly fail to publicize detailed results of their diversity programs, my investigations show that roughly a quarter of its “diverse” targeted minority students do not meet the competitive admission standard applied to other applicants. This means that the students UW-Madison is trying to help instead find themselves at an immediate academic disadvantage.

Moreover, the obsession with groups distracts everyone from what truly matters—whether or not each student makes the best academic progress.

The campus climate has worsened by constantly referring to minority students as “targeted” minority students, and in the process stigmatizing them. It has also led to an unseemly “us versus them” mindset among many of those students.

That manifested itself several years ago when Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Washington-based Center for Equal Opportunity came to Madison to report on his research showing that the university’s racial preference policy meant severe discrimination against white and Asian applicants. Two senior UW officials orchestrated a disgraceful pro-diversity mob-like student demonstration at the hotel near campus where Clegg was making his presentation.

The demonstrators burst in and shouted Clegg down until he left the building. (Peter Wood has a good account of the entire matter in this Chronicle piece.)

It is impossible for me to imagine anything less consistent with the values of any educational institution than organizing a mob to protest a talk. It is also impossible for me to think that such a thing could have happened at Madison but for the obsession with diversity that has been building for years.

The University of Wisconsin adopted its first diversity plan back in 1966 and every few years it launches a much-touted new one. During my 30-year teaching career at Madison, followed by more than a decade of retirement, I have seen not the slightest bit of evidence that the fixation on “diversity” has made the campus better in any respect.

I predict this new Inclusive Excellence plan will fail to produce its hoped-for utopian outcomes. In a few years, the university will hear demands for yet another diversity plan.

Achieving “diversity” is like sailing toward the horizon.

You never get there.

H/t EAGnews

~Eowyn

Boatload of refugees intercepted off Texas coast!

Breaking News!

The U.S. Navy intercepted a boatload of people off the Texas coast today.

This placed the Navy in an awkward position as the boat was not heading to the USA, but towards Mexico and Central America.

Another surprise finding was the refugees are white Americans in their golden years.

boat people

They say they were trying to get to Central America or Southern Mexico as they wanted to return to the U.S. as illegal immigrants. Then they would be entitled to far more benefits than they were receiving as American senior citizens.

It is believed the Navy gave them food, water, fuel and assisted them on their journey.

We are booking the next boat out.

Let me know if you want to join us!

H/t FOTM’s swampygirl

UPDATE:

Some readers are taking this seriously. Folks, this is a JOKE!

~Eowyn