Category Archives: Media

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 :)

Obama admin turns to Twitter crowdsourcing for foreign policy

Dr. Eowyn:

With its vast bureaucracy staffed with well- and taxpayer-paid officials, with any number of good minds in think tanks and universities to call on, the POS’s State Department sent a tweet to the Internet asking for our “thoughts” — in no more than 140 characters! — on how to make a better foreign policy. Do we need more evidence of Obama’s and Kerry’s utter cluelessness and incompetence?

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

POSYesterday, in a press conference at the White House, Barack Obama admitted  he doesn’t have a plan or strategy for defeating Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants in Syria and backed away from imminent military action.

Obama said about IS, “We don’t have a strategy yet.We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans. As our strategy develops, we will consult with Congress.”

At the same time, Obama also downplayed reports of a new Russian invasion in Ukraine, insisting that “I consider the actions [of Russia] we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what we’ve seen for months now.”

Despite that, U.S. Army troops from the 1st Cavalry Division have been deployed to NATO’s eastern border, bringing with them battle tanks that only 5 months ago had all been removed from Europe.

The latest:

The State Department today actually sent out a tweet, with no particular…

View original 69 more words

Former CIA agent and Obama critic Jim Garrow arrested in Canada

The long arm of President Ebola extends all the way across our northern border into Canada.

Dr. Jim Garrow is the Christian founder and executive director of The Bethune Institute, a charitable organization dedicated to advance education in China via teaching English, giving free books to poor Chinese, and medical scholarships. Through its branch organization, The Pink Pagoda, the institute also rescues baby girls from infanticide  in China, and finds homes for the unwanted girls. Dr. Garrow is credited for saving the lives of over 50,000 Chinese girls for which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Last year, Garrow told the world (via Alex Jones’ radio, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media) that Obama’s U.S. military was purging top brass using a “litmus test” of sorts. High-ranking military officials were being asked “Would you fire on an American citizen?,” and if one answered no, you would be fired.

A week after his whistle-blowing, on the Oct. 6 Now the End Begins Internet radio program, Garrow claimed that he had been a covert CIA agent but was fired by none other than Obama himself because of his disclosure.

Then Garrow made another bombshell of an announcement — that he knows Obama had ordered the hits that killed Tom Clancy and Andrew Breitbart. (Read more here.)

Although Garrow lives in Ontario, Canada, that hasn’t stopped Obama’s goons from retaliating.

Jim GarrowDr. Jim Garrow

Agenda 21 Radio reports that on Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014, Dr. Jim Garrow, the former CIA agent of 45 years, was arrested at his home in Ontario, Canada.

In a message to Agenda 21 Radio Dr. Garrow stated:

“When I arrived home from the Infiltration Tour I unloaded my camper trailer and discovered a pistol in a Ruger bag with ammunition and a gun lock. I called my Son in Law Chris Neilsen who is a cop and he came over and had a look at it. He told me that it is a restricted weapon like one he had to turn in. I asked what they are worth on the black market and he told me an amount that floored me. He didn’t ask me where it came from oddly enough. My wife and I went for a ride on our Goldwing and when we got back the cops arrived and arrested me. They took my passport and kept me in jail for 5 hours. I have 4 charges against me. This was all a set up.

When contacted by Agenda 21 Radio Dr. Garrow stated that the gun did not belong to him and it was an obvious ‘plant’.

This is what Garrow wrote on his Facebook page:

Valerie and Bathhouse Barry must have had a great laugh today. I was greeted by my local police department who had been informed that I was in possession of illegal firearms. As you remember I just returned from my eastern swing of the “Infiltration Tour”. Guess what was in my camper? A a snub nosed pistol considered to be a restricted weapon in Canada. I showed it to my son in law and low and behold he turned it and me in to the local police. I now know how the Nazis got collaborator jews like George Soros to turn in his own people. 4 different charges have been filed against me and I spent the last 5 hours locked in a jail cell. I am now restricted to staying in my Province, no more Infiltration Tour. Folks may remember that I zoomed home as a result of my daughters serious concussion (she is gradually showing some improvement) and it was her husband who turned me in to the local police. He never asked me how I got the gun that I showed him. I had made a comment about them being valuable on the black market but he showed no interest in learning where I had found it. Rather than ask questions he took the gun to the local police and had me arrested and charged. Little did he or whoever slipped it into my camper know that they were doing Gods bidding.

But let us look at this from the spiritual perspective. Paul went to jail charged falsely with treason and he counted it “all joy”. He encouraged us to be joyful in affliction. Staring at the wall in my cell and praising God took on a whole depth of meaning for me this evening and I must admit that my spirit soared. I understand Paul and what he was saying, I get it. I am falling asleep as I write this but am praising the Lord for his guiding hand in it all.

On Aug. 27, Garrow reported on his Facebook about more messing, this time by Skype:

I learned today that folks have not been able to call me using skype. It turns out that skype arbitrarily and without my permission changed my skype call number from drjgarrow to jim garrow. I was not notified of the change and of course now all my contacts do not know how to get hold of me through skype.

I would appreciate it if folks would continue to try to get me on drjgarrow rather than what I had not chosen jim garrow. I have used drjgarrow on skype and as my email address for decades. Not a nice thing to have lost all those contacts.

I hope Dr. Garrow isn’t planning on undergoing any surgery. (See Trail Dust’s post on Joan Rivers, “Joan Out?“)

~Eowyn

Television: the Drug of the Nation

Aside from an occasional football game, I do not watch television at home. However, once a year I take a one day trip out of town and I use the time in my hotel room to monitor what the nation is watching.

Last year, I stumbled upon Keeping Up With the Kardashians, which I had never seen before. I watched about fifteen minutes of it, and I couldn’t believe the stupidity of it all, and how bad the acting was. Even worse, the actors weren’t playing characters, they were playing themselves. If someone can’t even play themselves realistically, then they really have no talent.

I also spent some time last year watching Disney and Nickelodeon, and I was appalled at the way almost all of their shows subtly, or not so subtly, present sexuality to their young viewers. I also noticed that 90% of the so-called humor on these shows is based on ridicule and humiliation. I shudder at the thought of how many young viewers are losing their innocence and their souls by watching these shows. And how millions of clueless parents are so quick to plop their kids down in front of anything Disney, thinking the brand stands for wholesome entertainment, innocence and purity, when the reality is anything but.

This year, I scanned through a wide swatch of so-called “reality” shows, and they were all awful. I switched to sitcoms and comedy and was amazed at how unfunny they all were. I’m not saying that as some kind of conservative cynic, but as someone who has studied and worked in comedy, and who knows how to make people laugh. None of these shows were funny at all. Not even a sliver. Without their canned laughter, they’re nothing.

All of which begs the question, who watches this crap? And what is going on in their minds?

Obviously, millions of Americans watch this drivel. Not just millions, but tens of millions, hundreds of millions. They can’t all be Obama voters.

And what about the people who make these horrid shows? Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I remember when acting was an art, and there was something that existed called talent. Have you ever been to an acting class? I’ve been to plenty. Actors used to be taught by professionals who stressed the importance of the director and the actors working together to serve the script or play. The ultimate goal was to honor God and elevate man. Today that’s all gone. Now it’s all emotion for emotion’s sake, and acting has been turned into a narcissistic display of self-expression. “Look at me!” is all anyone seems to care about, from the writers and directors to the actors to everyone in between.

I’ve heard television called the “boob tube” and the “hypnotist in the corner.” Both are apt descriptions. Consider the word “program.” Television networks are obsessed with “programming.” Viewers tune into their favorite “programs.” Where else does the word “program” appear? Well, in mind control, for one. Mind control subjects are “programmed.”

Perhaps that is what television has become: an ingenious device to dumb down the masses by programming their minds into whatever their handlers want them to believe. Vigilant Citizen and Henry Makow have both written extensively about this. So have many others. Instead of a Roman circus, the public is given an endless parade of talentless driven and told what to think, how to behave, and who to vote for. God help us all.

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~