Category Archives: Idiots

Fickle bunch: An All-Woman Talk Show on CBS Sports? Feminists Hate It

Sports expert Valenti

Sports expert Valenti

Newsbusters: Feminists never stop being demanding to the point of amusement or exasperation.  CBS Sports Network is planning a prime-time all-female talk show called “We Need to Talk,” and the feminists complain of being ghettoized.

Feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti took to The Guardian newspaper to complain! The show “will feature solely women commentators and be produced and directed by a female team. But this feels more like giving up on women viewers – and sportscasters – than ‘girl power’.

The headline was “Is CBS Sports’ new ladies’ talk show really an excuse to push women aside? Giving women separate shows while failing to address gender disparities in existing programming just provides the illusion of equality.”

Valenti began: “We need more women in sports and more female-anchored television news shows – the current lineups on most of them are mostly pale, all-male and correspondingly stale. But creating separate spaces for women’s ideas and commentary isn’t equity: it’s table scraps.

She added: “By creating ‘women’s programs’, what we’re saying is that the male perspective is the normal one. The real one.”

She wanted to wish the women on the show well, but she won’t settle for anything less than 50 percent representation on every show:

I wish the women behind We Need to Talk all the best – and I’m sure it will have loyal viewers that appreciate hearing from an all-female panel. But until we have the same number of women and people of color creating all media – as commentators, producers, writers, photographers, editors and sources – gender-specific ghettos will be a band-aid, not a solution. And that’s something we really need to talk about.

I’m going to take a wild guess but I bet the majority of those into the sports shows are men.

And she sure is demanding a lot – the same number of women and people of all color, etc. What about hiring someone based on the content of their character and capabilities rather than their color or sex?

Sucks to be perpetually demanding and never satisfied.

feminism

DCG

Dan Rather Attacks War Supporters Who Don’t Send Own Kids To Fight

rather

Newsbusters: Dan Rather, former anchor of the CBS Evening News, appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources to harshly criticize those in Congress calling for the U.S. to take military action against the terrorist group ISIS.

Speaking to anchor Brian Stelter on Sunday, August 24, Rather proclaimed that he will only listen to those who advocate boots on the ground “if you tell me you are prepared to send your son, your daughter, your grandson, your granddaughter to that war of which you are beating the drums.”

The disgraced former CBS anchor began his rant by declaring that regarding ISIS “the war drums have been beating along the Potomac for some little while, accentuated in recent weeks and now in recent days.” Rather continued by insisting on the need to “do something about ISIS” but slammed those calling for direct military intervention:

“My first question to anyone who is on television saying, we have to get tough, we need to put boots on the ground and we need to go to war in one of these places is, I will hear you out if you tell me you are prepared to send your son, your daughter, your grandson, your granddaughter to that war of which you are beating the drums. If you aren’t, I have no patience with you, and don’t even talk to me.

As the segment continued, Stelter lamented that individuals would dare call for using U.S. resources to destroy ISIS and turned to a familiar liberal talking point, the Iraq War:

“It worries me that I hear so many more voices on television that are advocating for action than I do hear voices of people who are trying to push on the brakes, push on the brakes. And it is somewhat reminiscent of 2002 and 2003 in the run-up to what was a, of course, much, much bigger U.S. military action in Iraq than anything that is being contemplated now.”

Unsurprisingly Rather, who was fired from CBS for running a fake attack story on President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard, eagerly agreed with the CNN host to close out the segment:

“We have a lot to answer for about what we didn’t do and what we did do in the run-up to the war in Iraq, which I think history will judge to be a strategic disaster of historic proportions. We journalists, including this one, we didn’t ask the right questions. We didn’t ask enough questions. We didn’t ask the follow- up questions. We did not challenge power. And I am concerned that, once again, as the war drums begin to beat and get louder and louder, that there will be a herd mentality of saying, well, we have to go to war in Syria, we have to go to war Ukraine.”

Here’s a couple of questions for Mr. “Fake But Accurate”:

  • Aren’t soldiers who sign up adults who can decide for themselves if they want to serve?
  • Are parents forced “send” their children to war?
  • What about the people who don’t have children? Are they not allowed an opinion?

Here’s a story Mr. “Fake But Accurate” won’t share with you: When my soldier was in Afghanistan, he and other soldiers had to go outside the wire. The reason? Mr. “Fake But Accurate” had left a bag at Kabul and needed it brought to him. The number of children who risked their lives to retrieve his bag?

  • My soldier and his gunner
  • Six US soldiers who drove MRAPs (one in front and one behind of my soldier’s vehicle)
  • Rather’s two assistants
  • The CBS employee who drove the bag from Kabul for the rendezvous

So I ask you, Mr. “Fake But Accurate”, how many children’s lives did you risk when they had to go outside the wire to retrieve your precious leather bag? Answer: NONE OF YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

Sanctimonious jerk.

DCG

P.S. My soldier jokes about retrieving Rather’s “shorts”.

P.S.S. The assistants kept insisting it was his Viagra that was in the bag :)

57 Cops Murdered by “Unarmed” Criminals: From Stephen Frank

From Stephen Frank:

We are told a lot about Ferguson—how an unarmed man was shot by a police officer. The media called him “unarmed”. Since 2000 57 cops nationwide were shot to death by “unarmed” criminals. This happens when the criminal takes a gun from the cop and uses it to kill. Yet, the Times of any variety, the Post, etc. talk about a cop in Ferguson killing an “unarmed” man—without ANY facts.

The aftermath of police encounters with “unarmed” individuals — 57 murders

“While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI and http://www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless.”

0811-riot

57 Cops Killed by “UNARMED” Criminals

By LA Police Protective League, Board of Directors 08/26/2014

Repeated descriptions of a suspect as “unarmed” when shot by a police officer does not, contrary to the belief of the New York Times and others who use the term without further describing the facts of the encounter, determine if the force used by an officer was lawful or reasonable. Labeling the suspect as “unarmed” does not begin to answer the question of the danger they posed in each instance where deadly force was used.

According to the FBI’s online database of officers feloniously killed, as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page, since 2000, there have been at least 57 occurrences where the suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it. Fifty-seven times, loved ones of those officers heard the awful knock on their front door, notifying them that their husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter would never be coming home again. Fifty-seven times, the threat that some loudly continue to claim does not exist, ended with fatal results.

While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI andwww.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless. Twenty-five years ago, in the case ofGraham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for evaluating a use of force. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote an officer’s action is judged in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Crucially, the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The reality is that police officers need and wear guns. Those firearms can be taken by “unarmed” suspects and turned against the officer. Many armchair experts across the country sit around their air-conditioned conference rooms, pondering their views on how police officers could kill an “unarmed suspect” and the non-existent threat they pose to officers. We must ask, what did they use to as the factual basis for their conclusions? Is it from fictional police dramas on TV? Gut instinct?

We won’t be so crass as to suggest that we give a gun to the columnists and editorial writers who equate “unarmed” with “not dangerous,” and then tell them that although we are unarmed, we are going to try to take that gun from them. If successful, we will use the gun to shoot them. While we are confident this scenario might slightly affect their mindset on “unarmed” suspects, the tragic reality is that scenario has happened at least 57 times in 14 years.

Until all of the facts surrounding the use of force by any officer are known, the urge to decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable and lawful is simply a “rush to judgment”—no matter how many times the suspect is referred to as “unarmed.”

If Global Warming Exists Why Would They Have To Cheat…Yet Again

This time folks it seems like they have caught the Australian Bureau of Meteorology cheating. Hmm, would that mean the whole Gov was in on it?         ~Steve~

PS, but that’s not stopping Skippy. This is a link from Drudge.

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

———————————————————————————————

25 Aug 2014

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show “global warming” where none actually exists.

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was “homogenized” (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist’s pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia’s hottest year on record. This prompted Australia’s alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery – an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones – to observe that global warming in Australia was “like climate change on steroids.”

But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.

Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are “robust”, it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.

She wrote:

“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are �others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil “Climategate” Jones’s disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Rest of Breitbart Story Here

 

~Steve~

 

America needs a voting test to screen out the abysmally stupid

The test is a simple one, with only ONE very easy question.

If you can’t correctly answer this ONE question, you don’t get to vote.

Period.

Here’s the question. It’s a straight forward question. No tricks.

How long does it take to drive 80 miles at 80 mph?

Daffy Duck waiting

Now watch the two men in this 3:41 minutes-long video trying, but failing, to give the correct answer:

There are other Americans — black, white, and colors in between — like the two in the video who can’t answer that simple question.

And they vote.

God help us.

I know liberals object to voting tests, claiming that the tests are racist because they discriminate against blacks. In effect, liberals are tacitly admitting that blacks are more cognitively-challenged (translation: stupider), which is, of course, racist!

But I challenge liberals to justify letting anyone vote — black, white, and all in-between colors — who can’t correctly answer this simple question.

H/t Clash Daily and FOTM’s maziel

See also:

~Eowyn

“Being a liberal is the best thing on earth you can be”

Narcissist: Inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. Synonyms: self-centeredness, smugness, ecocentrism.

Grandiose: Affectedly grand or important; pompous.

Hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect; an extravagant statement.

lauren bacall

After Lauren Bacall’s death, Daily Beast had an article describing her as “as a smart and sharp liberal and anti-communist” and “she was a worldview person”. They said she told Larry King in 2005 that she was “anti-Republican…A liberal. The L-word.”  Let’s examine some of that “total, total, total” best thing on earth shall we?

“You are welcoming to everyone when you’re a liberal (and anti-Republican)

tolerance2

palin2

  • Unless you are a woman who chooses to keep her baby with Potter’s Syndrome.
  • Unless you are a conservative woman (Playboy’s list of conservative women to hate f*ck).
  • Unless you are a conservative Asian woman.

Vile Palin t-shirt

palin3

  • Unless you are a conservative man.
  • Unless you are a former republican vice president.

cheney

  • Unless you are a republican governor who wants to protect his state’s borders.
  • Unless you are a rich republican who donates money for a new ambulatory care center.
  • Unless you are a conservative black man.
  • Unless you are a conservative black man on the SCOTUS.

thomas

  • Unless you are a black man who chaired the RNC.
  • Unless you are a conservative black man who runs for president.

cain

“Liberals gave more to the population of the United States than any other group”

  • Liberals haven’t done much for the population of Chicago.
  • Liberals haven’t done much for the population of Detroit.

detroit

hopeandchange3

california

  • Liberals haven’t done much for the population of Boston, who will be paying for the “Big Dig” through 2038 (at a cost overrun of 190%).
  • Liberals haven’t done much for the population of Multnomah County (OR) stuck in poverty (one in three Multnomah County residents earn less money than needed to meet their basic needs).
  • Liberals haven’t done much for the US student population when it comes to math, reading and science.
  • Liberals haven’t done much for the student population of Washington (Nearly every school in Washington is failing, at least according to the No Child Left Behind federal proficiency standards).
  • Liberals haven’t done much for the future US population (unless you think record debt is a good thing).
  • And lasty, liberals sure haven’t given us more of a population (Margaret Sanger would be proud).

proud liberal

DCG

Reality show featuring couples having sex in a box and then discussing it on tv

sex box

DailyMail: Sex Box, a salacious reality TV show in which contestants have sex in a box and then discuss their intimate exploits with a panel of experts is coming to US television next year.

WE tv, the AMC Networks-owned channel whose shoes include Braxton Family Values and Bridezillas, has ordered nine hour-long episodes of the program which caused much controversy when it aired in the UK last year.

The dating show takes real-life couples and puts their most intimate moments under the microscope.

The couples don’t have sex on air, but rather in a soundproof box. Immediately afterward they talk about the experience with a panel of experts. The concept is based on the work of sex therapists who encourage couples to have sex then talk about it immediately afterwards while their feelings are vivid.

Sex Box is one of the most unique and compelling show concepts we’ve ever seen, and we can’t wait to bring it to WE tv,” said channel president Marc Juris.

Our featured couples will get a once-in-a-lifetime experience, while our viewers will get the kind of bold, break-through-the-clutter programming they increasingly associate with WE tv.”

When the show debuted on UK’s Channel 4 last October, producers claimed it was “pushing the boundaries of British television” and would prompt emotionally honest conversation about intimacy at a time when an alarming 30% of online traffic is to porn sites.

The pilot episode attracted 906,000 viewers, but critics branded it a cheap entertainment stunt. Many viewers took to Twitter to suggest the program was even worse than soft porn because it masquerades as a public service. Mary Beadnell wrote: “What the hell have we become as human beings?” while Miranda said: “So there’s a new show called Sex Box where people have sex on TV…sounds like porn to me.”

When drunken sex with strangers became boring and therapy got expensive, Danielle Stewart turned to stand-up comedy to work out her issues with sex, marriage and personal relationships.

“When drunken sex with strangers became boring and therapy got expensive, Danielle Stewart turned to stand-up comedy to work out her issues with sex, marriage and personal relationships.”

Comedian Danielle Stewart will provide backstage commentary and interviews with the couples. The experts dishing out advice are Dr. Fran Walfish, a leading Beverly Hills relationship psychotherapist who treats celebrity couples and L.A.’s poshest residents through her private practice; Dr. Chris Donaghue, a licensed clinical therapist and one of only 600 certified sex therapists in the world; and Florida pastor Dr. Yvonne Capehart, founder of Healed for Real, a healing and deliverance conference.

Maybe after couples hookup on “Dating Naked” they can then move on to this show to have sex and discuss it on tv. Oy vey!

DCG