From Inquisitr: Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Fahrenheit 11/9, is winning rave reviews but is tanking at the box office, Forbes is reporting.
Styled as a sort-of sequel to Moore’s groundbreaking 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which explores the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and, specifically, the George W. Bush administration and the Iraq War, Fahrenheit 11/9 opened on under 1,000 screens nationwide (generally typical for documentaries). All told, the movie brought in $1.051 million on Friday, and Forbes writer Scott Mendelson expects it to close out the weekend with around $3 million in ticket sales. That works out to a per-screen average of under $2,000 – nothing short of dismal.
To be fair, says Mendelson, documentaries aren’t generally geared for wide release and boffo box office (excluding Disney nature documentaries, that is). Rather, they’re intended mostly for the on-demand and home-viewing market, once their theatrical run has ended.
Basically, says Mendelson, nobody wants to pay theater prices to see a two-hour-plus movie about a wide variety of depressing topics- the “horrors of the day,” as he calls it.
In the Fahrenheit 11/9, Moore takes aim at Trump and his administration, repeating allegationsthat Trump refused to rent to black people; that he called for the execution of the Central Park Five (a group of minority youths accused of raping a white woman); Trump’s “birtherism” (that is, his repeated claims that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States); and a host of other controversies surrounding the 45th president.
Ricki L. Seidman, 63, is a longtime Democrat Party cadre and a former Clinton administration official (Assistant to the President; Deputy Communications Director). She also actively worked against the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork (1987) and Clarence Thomas (1990), and prepped Anita Hill before she testified before the Senate, claiming she had been sexually harassed by Thomas. Seidman was instrumental in getting the Anita Hill story made into a HBO television series.
On June 27, 2018, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation, effective July 31, 2018.
On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, to the Supreme Court.
From September 4 to 7, 2018, the Senate conducted hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination.
On September 12, 2018, the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding to the Justice Department an anonymously-written letter, dated July 30, which accuses Kavanaugh of “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago.
Four days later on Sept. 16, the author of the letter went public and identified herself as Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in northern California.
On Sept. 20, 2018,The Hill reported that Christine Ford had hired Ricki Seidman to be her political adviser to help her navigate a potential hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seidman confirmed her role in an interview with Politico.
Now, an audio has surfaced of political operative Ricki Seidman plotting a strategy to defeat Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. The audio was recorded sometime in July 2018.
The audio begins with a female voice asking Seidman “what are the best tools that Progressives have to challenge” the Kavanaugh nomination.
Seidman responded by acknowledging that given the Republican majority in the Senate, it is not “extremely likely” that the Democrats can defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination (beg. 0:34 mark):
“So, I will say at the outset that while I think that looking at the numbers in the Senate it’s not extremely likely that the nominee [Kavanaugh] can be defeated, I would absolutely withhold judgment as the process goes on, and I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance.”
Seidman then touts her experience of having worked “on one side or another” of Supreme Court nominations since William Rehnquist, which is hard to believe because the Senate confirmed Rehnquist’s nomination in December 1971 when Seidman was 16-17 years old.
Seidman continues (2:01 mark):
“I think that the way in which ultimately the Kavanaugh nomination needs to be approached is understanding what that standard is and the fact that Kavanaugh doesn’t meet the definition. I worry a little bit about, um, I think in this initial period, my sense is that everyone still scurrying to figure this out, and in terms of the groups that care about the issues, Justice Kennedy’s [resignation] announcement was a surprise and caught most — not everyone — people flat-footed, and the [Trump] administration knows this and that is partly why there’s a rush to nominate someone so quickly. I actually think that Kavanaugh was likely already chosen at the point that Kennedy would resign and that there was a nice show of considering people, for the White House’s political reasons.
But I do think that over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee [Kavanaugh]….”
Then Seidman points out that Kavanaugh’s problem is the absence of women among his endorsers (5:30 mark):
“Of the 34 people who were the endorsers [of Kavanaugh] put out by the White House…none of them were women. Not a single one of them were women.And I don’t think it’s an accident that Kavanaugh spent so much time in his remarks talking about women because that is a clear problem with his record.”
Seidman acknowledges that only two Republicans would likely vote against Kavanaugh — Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Seidman calls that “something that we have to get beyond” (7:50 mark).
Sure enough, a “strategy” did emerge “over the coming days and weeks” after Seidman said those words — a “strategy” that targets what Seidman had identified as Kavanaugh’s biggest problem, the lack of women among his endorsers.
And the strategy was to have a woman suddenly come forth, 36 years later, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of attempted rape.
From Fox News: Rosie O’Donnell took to Twitterto mock the age of prominent Republicans, calling on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to retire – despite lefty leaders being the same age.
“Grassley and hatch – too old – they should be done – come on – at thanksgiving we don’t let the 85 year olds carve the turkey #retire,” O’Donnell tweeted.
Hatch, the Senate president pro tempore and third in the presidential line of succession behind Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Grassley are two of the GOP’s most prominent members. Many Hollywood liberals, including O’Donnell, are currently upset that many Republicans continue to support Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh amid sexual harassment allegations.
Grassley is 85, while Hatch is 84 years old. But several prominent Democrats are in the same age range. Liberal icons Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein are both 85, Maxine Waters is 80, Nancy Pelosi is 78 and Bernie Sanders is a spry 77 years old.
A 2014 Gallup poll showed the average retirement age is 62.
O’Donnell, 56, has a decades-old feud with President Trump and she has been an outspoken critic of his administration. Some of her followers were offended by her call for the older Republicans to retire.
“I hate to bring this up but discriminating against someone because of their age is just as wrong as any other form of discrimination. Their behavior was the same decades ago. Approaching 70 myself, I’ll match wits with you any time you’d like,” one user wrote.
“Not cool,” another follower added. “Plenty of 85 year old people are as sharp as ever.”
Just last year, CNN published a story headlined, “The Democratic Party has an age problem,” that noted the ongoing problem with the advanced age of some liberal leaders.
“Democratic leaders across both the legislative and executive branches are generally older than leadership on the other side of the aisle,” CNN’s Ryan Struyk wrote before noting the average age of Democrats on Capitol Hill was 61, while the average Republican was 57.2 years old.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
The supposed meaning of the term is that all people should have equal access to wealth, health, wellbeing, justice and opportunity:
According to Investopedia, the term “is broadly associated with the political left, and in the U.S. its advocates are mainly found in the Democratic party, particularly in the party’s self-identified progressive and socialist wings.”
According to the Heritage Foundation, “Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular ‘progressive’ thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages.”
Stripped of its utopian gobbledygook, the best and most succinct definition of “social justice” is Urban Dictionary‘s: “A euphemism for an economic mugging by political force.“
Whatever the definition, “social justice” is a normative term; it’s about values — what is just or unjust.
Mathematics and science, in contrast, are not about values; neither is about just or unjust, good or bad. The American Heritage Dictionary defines:
Mathematics as “The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.”
Science as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of [natural] phenomena.”
In epistemology, “social justice”, “mathematics” and “science” occupy entirely separate and different domains of truths: Social justice is normative; mathematics is analytic; science is empirical. Simply put, there is no such thing as “social justice mathematics” or “social justice science”. 2+2=4 is the same whether one is rich or poor, male or female, white or black. To say otherwise is akin to saying there are “social justice algebra” or “social justice bicycles” or “social justice belly buttons”.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a federal government agency that supports basic research and education in science and engineering, except medicine (which has its own federal agency, the National Institutes of Health).
With an annual budget of $7 billion (fiscal year 2012), the NSF funds approximately 24% of all federally supported basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics, and the social sciences, the NSF is the major source of federal backing.
Alas, having corrupted all other institutions in America, the neo-Marxist disease of “social justice” has infected the National Science Foundation. The NSF has approved a (continuing) grant of $1,009,762 to Drexel University, a private university in Philadelphia, to train 24 undergraduate students to teach “social justice” mathematics and science. By my calculation, that comes to $42,073 taxpayer dollars per student.
The Drexel University project, which began this summer, promotes Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) high school curricula that are “steeped in the context of social justice.” 24 Drexel undergraduate students will be trained to teach “social justice” mathematics and science in Philadelphia’s “high need” middle schools. How these students, upon graduating with a bachelor’s degree, can be compelled to actually teach in “high need” Philadelphia middle schools is not clear.
NSA’s Division of Undergraduate Education
Award Abstract #1758345
Preparing Mathematics and Science Teachers for Middle School
Award Number: 1758345
Award Instrument: Continuing grant
Start Date: June 15, 2018 End Date: May 31, 2023 (Estimated) Award Amount to Date: $1,009,762.00
The project’s “principal investigator” and “co-investigators” are all Drexel University faculty:
1. Sheila Vaidya, Professor of Education 2. Mary Jo Grdina, Clinical Professor of Education 3. Shari Moskow, Professor of Arts & Science 4. Donald McEachron, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems
Below is the NSF’s gobbledygook jargonese “Abstract” describing the $1.009 million grant:
The project will use recent scientific, mathematical, and educational knowledge to prepare and support the twenty-four pre-service teacher candidates with an emphasis on understanding the culture and life experiences of students in high-need schools. The project intends to promote social justice teaching,which emphasizes connecting science, mathematics, and engineering instruction to students’ personal experiences and culture. This connection can leverage the funds of knowledge that each student brings to learning. Inquiry-based instruction supports this approach as it opens communication among students by establishing a learning community of shared knowledge and experience. Seminars related to mindfulness and developing emotional intelligencewill augment the Scholars’ coursework. The latter will be scaffolded to develop the following behaviors: professionalism, growth mindset, commitment to serving all students well, and cultural competency. Essential skills that will be developed through the coursework include understanding students’ cultural communities as a foundation for classroom culture and building strong relationships, taking ownership of student learning and professional growth, setting and maintaining high behavioral expectations, leading rigorous and aligned content instruction, and demonstrating content expertise and pedagogical content knowledge. These essential skills and core competencies will be demonstrated in the context of teaching mathematics and science to middle-grades students in high-need schools. Early experiences consisting of linking content knowledge with appropriate pedagogical and content knowledge with pre-residency and residency experiences are intended to strengthen the Scholars’ content and pedagogical knowledge while supporting first steps into the world of teaching. Rubrics to assess the attainment of the core competencies and essential skills will be used to collect data related to the Scholars’ proficiency in these aspects. It is anticipated that the documentation of project activities and identification of learnings from project implementation will be disseminated to the education community through conference presentations, a project website, and professional publications. The long-term and far-reaching benefits to society of this project are the potential to document and share sustainable approaches, steeped in the context of social-justice, for recruiting and preparing STEM majors to provide success in learning mathematics and science for all middle-grades students in a high-need school district.
The National Science Foundation’s manager of the “social justice math and science” program is Kathleen B. Bergin (firstname.lastname@example.org).
France A. Córdova is the director of the National Science Foundation, appointed by Barack Obama. Please ask President Trump @realDonaldTrump to fire her and appoint another.
The feminist movement began with the assertion that women are more than their bodies — that biology is not a woman’s destiny.
Oddly, today’s feminists seem to equate women with exactly that — their biology, specifically, the vagina.
The obsession began with the 1996 debut of the play, The Vagina Monologues, written by Eve Ensler to, in her words, “celebrate the vagina”.
The Vagina Monologues is made up of various personal monologues on the “feminine experience” — sex, sex work, body image, love, rape, menstruation, female genital mutilation, masturbation, birth, orgasm, the various common names for the vagina. A recurring theme throughout the piece is the vagina as a tool of “female empowerment” and the ultimate “embodiment of individuality”.
22 years later, feminists and the Left have only become even more obsessed with the vagina.
Note: The vagina is the elastic, muscular part of the female genital tract that leads tothe cervix, the entrance to the uterus or womb. Entrance into the vagina is via the vulva or labial folds. Often, vagina is mistaken for the vulva. An example is actress Cameron Diaz‘s reference to shaving her vagina, which makes no sense because hair doesn’t grow inside a woman’s vagina unless she is afflicted by some very strange disease. What Diaz really means is shaving her pubic mound. (See “Stupid Hollyweirdo: Cameron Diaz has a hairy vagina“)
Obsession with the vagina/vulva finds expression in everyday objects, from the infamous pussy hats and vagina suits in the Women’s March (against Trump) on January 21, 2017, to Christmas ornaments, mugs, vases, pillows, and furniture.
Sweden’s Byggnads Construction Workers Union in pussy hats to honor 2017 International Women’s Day
This vagina/vulva pillow is on sale on Etsy for $85 (link)
Vagina chair by Eduardo Benamor Duarte
$20,000 custom-made vagina sofa for sale on Craig’s List in Troy, Michigan.
I just don’t get it.
Why should the vagina be “celebrated” and how does this celebrating “empower” women?
H/t FOTM‘s CSM
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
The cell-phone alert is postponed to October 3, 2018, because of Hurricane Florence. (iHeartRadio)
Originally scheduled for today, at 2:18 p.m. EDT, all U.S. cellphones will make a loud tone, vibrate, and receive a “Presidential Alert” text message.
Do not be alarmed.
The message will read:
THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.
Two minutes after the cell phone alert, a test alert will also be sent to radio and television broadcasters, interrupting programming for about one minute.
The alert is a test of a previously unused alert system to warn the public about national emergencies. Obama had signed a law in 2016 requiring Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create a system allowing the president to send cellphone alerts regarding public safety emergencies.
Since the wireless emergency alert system began in 2012, it has issued over 36,000 alerts for situations such as missing children, extreme weather and natural disasters, but never a presidential directive. The president has sole responsibility for determining when the national-level alerts are used.
Cell phone userscan opt out of natural disaster or missing children alerts, but they will not be able to opt out of a Presidential Alert. (New York Post)
Even though it was Obama who signed the Presidential Alert system into law, the fact that cell-phones today will get a text alert from — HORRORS! — the Trump administration has triggered the already unhinged Left, making them even crazier. Some examples:
Actress Alyssa Milano tweets: “I don’t want this. How do we opt out, @fema? I know trump isn’t big on consent but I don’t consent to this.”
@YBNSteve: “I don’t want alerts on my phone from any president let alone trump”
@JohnPavlovitz: “I want to know how to opt out of this Presidency.”
@ScottG305: “The only message I want from DT is that he is resigning. That aside I opt out.”
@KatFtAV: “I want to opt out of his fake presidency AND him having access to my fucking cell phone!!! HELL TO THE NO!!!”
H/t FOTM‘s StLonginus
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
From Fox News: Hollywood may have laughed when Emmys host Michael Che said the only white people who thank Jesus are “Republicans and ex-crackheads,” but Tinseltown’s latest middle finger to Middle America fell flat in flyover country, and may have contributed to the telecast’s all-time low viewership.
Co-host Michael Che left many viewers of the 70th Annual Emmy Awards upset during the opening monologue with his fellow “Saturday Night Live” star Colin Jost, explaining that his mother would not be watching the show on Monday night.
“She says she doesn’t like watching white award shows because you guys don’t thank Jesus enough,” Che said. “That’s true. The only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crackheads.”
The joke didn’t sit well with some viewers, who took to Twitter to complain. Not only that, the show’s ratings dropped 10 percent from last year’s already-dismal numbers, setting an all-time low, according to TheWrap.
While many viewers may have changed the channel after the opening monologue, jabs at average Americans were far from over and the Jesus gag became a running theme throughout the evening.
Conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News that “large swaths of the American public just want to be entertained” but instead were turned into “unwilling participants” in a political rally disguised as an awards show.
“Whether it’s the NFL or the Emmys, people desperately want a break from politics. It’s amazing to me at just how tone deaf Hollywood is,” Barron said.
“Most Republicans have stopped watching awards shows or know that even if they can stomach it, the White House and their core values will be attacked. I kept thinking last night, thank goodness for a few actors like Chris Pratt, who buck the trend and show a healthy respect and love for Christianity in acceptance speeches,” Fox Nation host Britt McHenry said. “Reverence for God is something to cherish and uphold, not ridicule.”
Jokes about religious Republicans weren’t the only jabs at Middle America.
Prior to the official event, actress Regina King spoke with E! about a cryptic Instagram post in which she asked to “stop making stupid people famous,” which many have interpreted as a dig at President Trump. The Red Carpet also featured actress Jennifer Lewis wearing a Nike sweatshirt “to applaud them for supporting Colin Kaepernick,” who has polarized the nation by starting the trend of kneeling during the national anthem prior to NFL games.
Jost discussed a handful of shows that were canceled and picked up by other networks before joking that Roseanne Barr’s show was “picked up by white nationalists.” He also implied that some Americans don’t think Nazis are bad and fantasized about President Obama upsetting Trump with a dig at the former reality TV star who is famously obsessed with ratings.
“The Obamas now even have their own production deal at Netflix,” Jost said. “My dream is that the only thing they produce is their own version of ‘The Apprentice.’ And it gets way higher ratings.”
Meanwhile, theEmmys decided to honor late Senator John McCain during its in memoriam. Nobody would complain about an American hero being remembered in front of a national audience, but Media Research Center contributing writer Karen Townsend questioned the motive behind the decision.
“Onecan’t help but wonder if this was done as a subtle dig at President Trump. After all, it was only 10 years ago that all of Hollywood hated McCain when he ran for president against their beloved Obama,” she wrote.
Later in the show, award winner Ryan Murphy called America a “country that lets hatred grow unfettered and unchecked.” Anti-Trump comedian Samantha Bee – best known for vile comments about first daughter Ivanka Trump – joked that the news should “recast the lead.”