"This is the city: Los Angeles, California. It's the capital of the entertainment industry. Within that industry are people whose idea of 'entertainment' is anything but harmless fun, who think that a couple of Oscar statuettes and a red carpet put them above the law. I know. I work here. I carry a badge."
Posted by: Mike ||
10/02/2009 09:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Polanski's version of the Scottish play http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067372/ is without a doubt the definitive version.
#3
I thought that what Mr. Letterman did would fall under the legal doctrine of 'workplace sexual harassment'. Then again, he IS an artist ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/02/2009 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Letterman is just a hack with the ability to make fools of everyone else. He has no REAL talent, and his lifestyle is not based on "reality". He's a POS. I never watched him on "Saturday Night Live", and I don't watch him now. He nauseates me. May his ratings reach the depths of the Mariannas Trench.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/02/2009 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
10. Dead people can't vote at IOC meetings
9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal
8. Who cares if Obama couldn't talk the IOC into Chicago? He'll be able to talk Iran out of nukes.
7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.
6. Obviously no president would have been able to acomplish it.
5. We've been quite clear and said all along that we didn't want the Olympics.
4. This isn't about the number of Olympics "lost", it's about the number of Olympics "saved" or "created".
3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee
2. Because the IOC is racist.
1. It's George Bush's fault.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/02/2009 14:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The REAL reason Chicago didn't get the Olympics:
10. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
9. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
8. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
7. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
6. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
5. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
4. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
3. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
2. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
1. Barry addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/02/2009 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
[MacLeans.ca] It used to be simpler: Jews vs. neo-Nazis? Muslims vs. Steyn? Gays vs. Christians? Easy calls all. The last time gays, B & Bs and the "human rights" commission were in the news was a couple of years back, when Dagmar and Arnost Cepica closed their bed and breakfast rather than comply with a P.E.I. HRC ruling that they rent the room to a homosexual couple. We all knew who to root for back then: obviously if the uptight squaresville Christian couple are that hung up on the godless sodomites going at it like the clappers in their premium rental unit they shouldn't be in the B & B business at all.
What goes around comes around. But, in the dog-bites-gay case, the upshot seems to be that persons with sinusitis no longer enjoy the human right to run a B & B. Which may not seem a big deal, but is certainly at odds with the "human rights" establishment's deference to say, Micheline Montreuil, the transgendered lawyer and serial plaintiff against the Canadian Forces and other transphobic putative employers. But what it ultimately portends is the death of "public accommodation," the concept by which the state claims the right to regulate what goes on in your health club or restaurant. As many readers point out, we homophobic Islamophobic haters are a dying breed: any day now I'm bound to keel over from a massive stroke, and thereafter gays, Muslims and Seeing Eye dogs will gambol and frolic in harmony throughout the peaceable kingdom. Yet the shifting hierarchies of multiculturalism are not too hard to discern: in Britain, an educational establishment gung-ho about forcing the kindergartners of evangelical Christians to be taught the joys of same-sex marriage crumbled in nothing flat when Muslim parents in Bristol objected. If it's a choice between Heather Has Two Mommies or Heather Has Four Mommies And A Big Bearded Daddy Who Wants To Marry Her Off To A Cousin Back In Pakistan, bet on the latter. Any gay couple or blind man with a Seeing Eye dog who takes on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast proprietor will get short shrift from the "human rights" commission. The OHRC is currently champing at the bit to force gay altar servers on Ontario Catholics. At the local mosque, no imam need worry about such state encroachments on religion.
The "human rights" bureaucracy has had a grand run sticking it to Christians and other unfashionable groups. The internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition will prove harder to negotiate.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/02/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
it legitimizes the state as the only valid mediator of social relations
#2
Rather than show Muslims to the extreme, we should whenever possible fight together where we have commnon ground. Not all Mulims marry four women and give their daughters to cousins. We do have common ground and we should use that to our (and theirs) advantage. The gay agenda in school would be a good start.
#5
Good luck, indeed. A more foolish undertaking would be hard to conceive considering the Muslim religion expressly calls for Holy War and the murder of apostates and infidels.
Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, etal could not be reached for comment.
In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.
Written by White House Online Programs Director Jesse Lee, the post takes issue with Fox News' coverage of the president's attempts to help the city of Chicago secure the 2016 Olympics, saying that Rupert Murdoch's cable news juggernaut, which famously bills itself as being "fair and balanced," has "continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts" to convince the International Olympic Committee that the U.S. should host the games.
Lee specifically takes issue with Glenn Beck, who in July accused the president of being a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture," for showing that "nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings." Lee then goes on to "reality check" a number of assertions recently made by Beck on his afternoon program, in addition to directing readers to the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact site, which rebuts accusations made by Fox News' Steve Doocy against Patrick Gaspard, the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.
The move by the Obama White House sets a new watermark in its seemingly escalating war with Fox News. Back in June, President Obama gave an interview to CNBC in which he criticized the network for being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration," and later promised to "call out" anyone who misrepresents him when he delivered his address on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. Taking it a step further, Obama slighted Fox News during the White House's recent pro-health care reform PR blitz, appearing on five Sunday news shows, not to mention Late Night with David Letterman, while declining to grant an interview to a single Fox News program, a move that led Chris Wallace, host of the network's Fox News Sunday, to label the Obama White House as the "biggest bunch of cry-babies I've ever seen." Some objective observers of politics and the media feel that the ire expressed by Wallace is somewhat understandable. After all, the Obama administration's frustrations stem not from non-partisan hosts like Wallace, but from Fox News' roster of unabashedly partisan hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity, who've both gone so far as to compare the Obama White House to Hitler's Germany and the communist Soviet Union.
While many are raising hay about the White House acting aggressively to combat perceived smears from Fox News, it isn't unprecedented for a president and his administration to feud openly with the media. George W. Bush and CBS came to blows in 2004 after Dan Rather alleged on 60 Minutes II that Bush had used his family's connections to manipulate his enlistment in the National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam, an incident that led to the firing of CBS producer Mary Mapes and badly tarnished Rather's reputation as an objective newsman. Prior to that, Hillary Clinton famously alleged that forces in the media were involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband's presidency, while Nixon's infamous enemies list contained numerous names of media members and the news organizations they worked for. In short, animosity existing between the White House and the media isn't anything new.
During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington." By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.
#5
Beck said the WH emails him daily but they NEVER refute any of the facts, just complain that Fox disregards them. If his czars had been vetted, they wouldn't have made the cut & be there to be so thoroughly scrutinized in the first place. It's the job of a free press to keep them accountable and the fact they are such cry babies shows how unqualified for prime time on the international stage they are.
#6
Eh! For 8 years the Bush White House lived with the majority of the media being much, much, more 'offensive' than FOX has ever been. Even to the point of outright lies and fabrications.
Yet Zero's administration can't handle one network (FOX) telling the truth.
#7
Interesting parallel with Chavez's war on the media in Venezuela. Although, in all fairness, we must acknowledge that Chavez so far has not stooped so low as to appear on Letterman.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[MacLeans.ca] It used to be simpler: Jews vs. neo-Nazis? Muslims vs. Steyn? Gays vs. Christians? Easy calls all. The last time gays, B & Bs and the "human rights" commission were in the news was a couple of years back, when Dagmar and Arnost Cepica closed their bed and breakfast rather than comply with a P.E.I. HRC ruling that they rent the room to a homosexual couple. We all knew who to root for back then: obviously if the uptight squaresville Christian couple are that hung up on the godless sodomites going at it like the clappers in their premium rental unit they shouldn't be in the B & B business at all.
In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.
