My Channel

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Jan Brewer Makes the Right Call

So let's get this out of the way right now: Christians in this country these days are targets. They can be ridiculed, screwed with, and downright insulted to no end and the popular media culture revels in it. There also has never been a better time in American history to be gay as tolerance of that lifestyle is at an all time high. The LBGT community is no longer preaching tolerance as much as being totally in your face with their lifestyle and if you are the least bit uncomfortable with it, then you are a hater. It's getting old.

So that leads us to a wedding photographer in New Mexico who wouldn't photograph a gay wedding on the basis of religious beliefs. That led to a lawsuit which led to the law being passed in Arizona to protect people like the photographer from doing business with whom they choose or don't choose on the basis of religious beliefs. Which Brewer thankfully vetoed today.

Right away I see there's way too much government involvement in all of this. The photographer was in New Mexico where there is a law that allows the lawsuit. That shouldn't be. If this photographer doesn't want to do business with gays then so be it. Let that photographer deal with the fallout of that decision on his business. No lawsuit is needed, the market will speak. It should've never have gotten this far.

We already have a law that says people can do business with whom they wish. It's called the constitution and the freedom to assemble. Which also covers the freedom to not associate. Are gay dating sites discriminatory to straights? New Mexico should rescind their law that lets people sue a company that won't serve them.

But the overreach of Arizona's law to supposedly protect businesses goes way too far. So Muslim restaurants will refuse to serve christians? Maybe straights can start demanding the aforementioned gay website to serve straights. How about no longer serving blacks on religious terms? This law would allow for religious tyranny.

We conservatives can sometimes fall into the same trap as liberals: We run to papa government to solve our problems. That's not what conservatism is all about. In fact, if we really want to solve the gay marriage thing, stop making tax laws based on marriage. If there is no difference in paying taxes whether single or married, then legal reasons for marriage go away. As far as property rights, wills, and other issues, that can all be solved with private contracts. It's none of the government's goddamn business.

I get the kneejerk reaction of conservatives and I agree that we shouldn't have to do business with those we don't want to. But let's face it: this law really was targeting gays. The unintended consequences would've bit us all in ass. Brewer made the right call.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Movie Review Break: "Winter's Tale" or "F**k You Akiva Goldsman"

Yeah. The miracle of Akiva Goldsman's continued employment
I love movies. A lot. I am also pretty critical of movies but bad movies really don't bother me, most of the time they are just "meh" and I move on. But this goddamn movie actually angered me while watching it. I did a little research on the director, Akiva Goldsman, and come to find out among other atrocities, he wrote Batman and Robin. After watching Winter's Tale, I'm beginning to think that Joel Schumacher maybe gets a little too much acrimony for his role in that movie.

My memory may get a few things out of order but it really doesn't matter. If you heed this review, you won't go see it anyway. Judging by the box office so far, I don't think I have to worry.

The movie starts out with Colin Farrell wandering around present day New York and going to the roof or ceiling or attic of Grand Central Station where he finds a box full of stuff. I'll get back to this idiocy later.

Then we cut to 1886 with a couple being turned away from Ellis Island because they are sick with consumption. That's the "too much shopping" disease. So they want their baby to have a chance in America. Do they leave the baby in a basket at Ellis so it can be discovered and taken to an orphanage? No, they get back on the boat and then find a model ship on the boat called the "City of Justice." Because ships are cities. Or something. Anyway, they put the baby in the boat nearly five miles off shore with storm clearly visible on the horizon. Now I don't know about you, but the model ships that I've owned were meant for display only. They were never seaworthy. If I did put them in water, they usually tipped over in a nanosecond which would've immediately sent any baby down to the bottom of the lake but whatever. This one works great.

Worst parents ever.

The next scene immediately cuts to Peter (played with a lot of effort by Colin Farrell. He's really trying, as are most of the actors so I'll give him a pass.) Peter is running away from the villain, the comically named Pearly. Pearly is played by Russell Crowe who seems to be channeling his South Park alter ego. You may recall he liked to go "fighting around the world" and was generally irrational. It's easily the most hammy role he's played. He wears a scar that goes all CGI when he's enraged. Most of the time he's just angry and unreasonable.

So Russell Crowe is chasing Peter and is really angry. Why is he angry? I don't know and the movie never really tells us. Oh something is made of Pearly being mad at Peter turning on him but the point is we never see that. We should've seen Peter being found on shore, being raised by Graham Greene, falling into Pearly's gang, finding out Pearly is bad, and finally making the choice to remove himself, thereby incurring Pearly's wrath. We see none of that. Truth is, I'm not ever really sure until the very end if Peter is aware of Pearly's supernatural nature.

So Peter climbs over a tall gate and finds a white horse. Convenient. Where did the horse come from? Why is it here? It turns out it's a magical My Little Pony, winged Pegasus version. He gets on the horse and instead of just flying away from the all the crazy demon people with guns behind the gate, the horse decides to run straight towards the gate so he could jump it. This is way too high for an ordinary horse to jump so now we the audience know it's a magical horse.  This could've been accomplished by having him... oh I don't know... sprout the CGI wings and fly away but instead we just get the jump and then he gallops away down the street.

Fortunately the crazy people either forget to shoot or went to the Imperial Stormtrooper school of aiming. Quite frankly I forgot because I was so overcome by the stupidity of a winged horse who has all the time necessary to fly off in a safe direction and doesn't.

So now Pearly is mad. He's always mad. But he's also a douche. See I know he's evil and all but he's a complete douche on top of it. He begins by telling his head henchman that now that Peter has the dog, he's close to performing his miracle. The henchman is mystified. 1) um, Peter can do miracles? and 2) Wasn't that a horse we saw? Why are you calling it a dog?

Pearly patiently (and by patiently, I mean he refrains from killing henchmeat right there on the spot) explains that Peter can perform one miracle. And it isn't really a horse, it's a dog goddammit! Henchfucked backs off like "ok, whatever. It's a dog. You're the boss."

So then he goes to a random assortment of gems on the table in front of the window, waits for the moon and viola! The gems take the moonlight and make a holographic image of Grand Central Station which tells him where Peter is. Wow. There's wasn't a magic word or anything. He just seemed to drop the gems on the tray and BAM! Instant image. I began to wonder if other people ever dropped some random gems on a tray and then one moonlit night: BAM! Eiffel Tower. BAM! Pyramids. BAM! IHOP.

Pearly then says to henchdead to get the boys and lets go get Peter and the horse.

"Thought it was dog?" the henchscrewed asks quite reasonably. Russell Crowe then gets enraged and CGI face or whatever. Cause Henchwuss can't seem to get this schizo's psychotic random synapse firings straight, he's obviously incompetent. Dontcha hate crazy bosses?

So Peter was at Grand Central, gathering his shit and hiding the box of memories, but by the time Pearly gets there, he's long gone. So the gems were worthless and the image didn't help him at all. There wasn't even the obligatory "They've found me! I have to get away by way of this secret whatever portal only I know about!" Something?! Nope, he's long gone. Stopped his mail, put change of address forms into the post office, cancelled his magazine subscriptions, etc.

Peter and the horse (dog?) have now gone to rob houses. Now at this point in the movie you have a pretty good inkling that we got angels (horsedog, fuck it) and devils (Pearly). Yet horsedog is helping Peter rob these houses because "fuck them rich assholes" or something. I guess they aren't important. Peter has enough stuff but horsedog tells him to rob one more house. There he meets hot sick girl, Beverly.

Beverly, as we learned earlier, is dying of consumption. See? It's poetical. Or ironic. Or who-gives-a-shit at this point. Beverly can see light connections between everything and sees how it's all connected. This is never brought up again and does nothing for her character. It does however give Akiva a chance to indulge in Abrahams/Spielbergian lens flare shenanigans.

So her family has already headed up north (in winter, good call) to their vacation palace on the frozen river and left her to come after them while they get the house prepared for her. She has a blazing fever all the time which actually melts the snow beneath her feet. Apparently she's the Human Torch now. Peter breaks into her house and sees her and immediately renounces his thieving ways and falls madly in love with her. He decides to take action on this by leaving and thinking.

Pearly is eating at a restaurant where he suddenly has a vision. He kills a waiter who pissed him off (because the waiter asked him if there was anything else they could do to serve him or make sure he was satisfied with the meal or something equally insulting) and he uses the waiter's blood to fingerpaint a hideous drawing that might be an outline of a redhaired woman. Or Halley's comet. Difficult to tell. He demands his henchsofuckingdead to find this woman. From the most obscure drawing ever. In New York. Where there are thousands of redhaired women. In 1914 so no modern advances like the internet or surveillance cameras or even phones. Good luck henchman! You should be dead by morning.

Peter asks the native american who found him (played by Graham Greene who is apparently the only American Indian left working in Hollywood) for some advice on the girl. Or life. I honestly wasn't paying attention because I was trying to figure out why a kid raised by Graham Greene in New York City had a thick irish accent.

ANYWAY, the next day, Beverly's packing and putting the all her bags in the car by servants. And why does she have so many bags? Because she's a woman you silly nip! Women are like that! They always have too much luggage. Akiva would know. So lo and behold one of Pearly's henchstillnotdeadforsomereason is there and knows that this red haired woman is the one Pearly's looking for! How? Because fuck you, that's how!

Peter rides up on his horsedog and rescues her from Pearly even though Pearly could've killed her about 5,742 times while clipclop noisily came up the street (why aren't you flying?) but he doesn't notice Peter until the last 40 seconds. In which case, being a demon, he could've still killed her about 30 times, turned her body into a slimfast shake, and drank her with time to spare. I guess Magic horsedog causes Russell Crowe to go into vapor lock.

So they ride like the wind, jump a cliff and run up the frozen river to the vacation house miles away. This long journey in the heart of frozen winter doesn't kill them. She doesn't die because she likes the cold due to her fever. (Does that work?) He doesn't die because reasons and stuff.

Pearly chases them up the river and kills them both and her family and burns down the house and dances on their ashes. The end.

Ha! No he can't go any further north because the screenwriter needs a half-baked way to keep Pearly from screwing with them for a while so they can fall in love. I mean it's against the "rules." This causes Pearly to  kill his henchItoldyouso (finally) while watching Peter ride off. Pearly goes back to New York and tries to get dispensation from the rules but Will Smith says no.

Oh yeah, Will Smith plays "Lou." The judge. He also gets angry CGI mouth. And in cause you've never actually watched any movies or tv for the last 60 years, Lou is short for "Lucifer." Who's the devil. Not a devil, mind you. THE Devil.

Now we're about halfway in and I have no idea what the fuck is really going on. Why is Pearly so obsessed? Why are there jurisdictions for souls? What the fuck is the horsedog? Is it an angel? A protector? Mythical beast? If it's an Angel, why is it encouraging Peter to break a commandment? Why is Will Smith stuck in this alley or warehouse or whatever? Why can Beverly see light connections and what's the point? What's the point of the gems that don't work? How do they create images and how did they know what image Pearly wanted? If they knew what he wanted, why did they get it wrong?

What is Peter's miracle? Oh yeah, he's going to save Beverly, duh. At least that what you are supposed to think. Of course, that's pretty telegraphed but we have to slog through the love story now. Peter meets Beverly's family including her little sister Willa, who I'd guess is about six years old. Her age comes into play later.

Willa has a made a miracle bed in the greenhouse where her sister the princess will get a kiss from her true love and be cured. Ok, now they are really telegraphing it too far. Failure ahead! GET ON WITH IT.

So they fall in love but Pearly sends a fallen angel to poison Beverley. Apparently Pearly has called in a favor. Even though the Angel came back to be human, I'm not sure how that translate to immediately being evil. What did Pearly have on this guy? The angel doesn't appear afraid of Pearly. I'm mystified.

Anyway, he poisons the girl with special time release poison to make her dead right Peter and her make love. So Peter thinks he fucked her to death. Lovely. Predictably at this point, the magic princess bed doesn't work because she's not Peter's miracle. Also we have like 45 minutes left of running time.

So Peter's heartbroken and he and the horsedog go riding casually around New York to get found by Pearly so he can end it or whatever. The horsedog flies off because Peter told it to and because even though it's a magical winged horse and they could've gone to Miami, the script needs Peter to stay and winged horsedog to take a powder for about a century, give or take a couple of years.

And Pearly finally has him. Does he shoot him in the head? Rip him from limb to limb? Nope he throws him off the bridge. He stumbles out of the river with the most wonderful of plot devices, amnesia.

So now we skip ahead to 2014. Yup, a century has passed and everyone that Peter cared about is long gone except Peter who's unaged and has grown a kickin rock star hairdo. Peter draws the redhaired woman in chalk on the sidewalk and wanders aimlessly. He appears to have an apartment however and in New York. Um, how does he afford it on a vagrant's salary? Maybe that's his miracle. Oh and he's unaged but that's just standard issue magic. Seriously, he's allowed one miracle but living for a hundred years without aging is apparently not it.

Anyhow one day he bumps into a little girl who reminds him of Willa and that jars his memory. Really? After 98 years? He's been just wandering around for 98 fucking years and now this is the first little kid he's bumped into? Fuck you, movie.

So he goes to a library and then to Grand Central where his little room is kept intact and the hidden box of memories is still there. After 98 years. Surely Grand Central has had a renovation or two? Something? Someone must've been up there at some point!

Peter goes to the newspaper archives where Jennifer Connelly works. Who just happens to be the mother of the little girl that bumped into Peter that started this whole thing and who conveniently has the access to let him go to the archive to look up the past. Where he finds pictures of Beverly and himself. Wait, what? When did he take that picture? When did they take any of these pictures?! FUCK!!!

Now I'm rapidly getting pissed off. The coincidences are piling up and I still have no idea why he's in the present day or what the previous 3/4 of the movie was leading up to.

Connelly is mildly, and I can't overstate the word "mildly" here, surprised that here this person is standing here, over 130 years old and still looking pretty damn spry. We find out that Beverly's family owned the newspaper. Guess who's the owner? Willa! Yes at 104, she owns and runs the newspaper. Most 104 year old's don't know they are still alive but WHATEVER. (I find myself saying that a lot.) She gives us some plot information or something. I'm too angry to listen anymore. Oh and same paper Jennifer Connelly works at who is the mother of the little girl he just happens to bump into who jars his memory.

In the meantime we find out Pearly still at it and we know he's been successful at doing... whatever the hell he does... because he has a great apartment and rows of henchgeeks running computers. I guess angels and miracles are now published on the internet or something. Somehow he knows that Peter is back. There may have been a half-assed explanation. I don't care. He goes to Will Smith to get dispensation (again) to get Peter. Cause after 98 years he's apparently still THAT pissed.

He and the Fresh Prince of Darkness have a contemplative moment discussing how they are losing the war for humanity's souls. Really? Sure looked like you were doing well to me. Big apartment, lots of infrastructure. And have you looked around lately? War? Drugs? The shit that went down in the last hundred years? WWI? WWII? Holocaust? Vietnam? 9/11? New Coke? Justin Bieber? This movie? I think you're winning.

Will Smith gives him mortality to go after Peter which means he can go anywhere and take his henchbabies too. I guess Lucifer mellows after a century or so. Probably still is smarting thanks to "After Earth."

So Peter stays with Jennifer Connelly and her daughter who has a big red scarf on her head and we realize she's the girl Peter's been drawing. Also she has cancer. She needs a miracle.

So wait. Wait! WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE! So the entire first 3/4 of the movie was a red herring? It meant NOTHING? FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK!

So Peter takes the two on the winged horsedog (yeah it's back now. Why now instead of sometime in the previous 98 years? Because fuck you, that's why.)

They go to the now abandoned vacation house, Pearly finds them, they fight, Peter wins in a callback that's too stupid to mention. The little girl dies for plot timing reasons. He takes her to the still fucking there princess bed. Which by the way looks pretty damn good with only a few dead leaves on it. Whatever.

She comes back to life. Then there's a voice over how the universe will bend over backwards once in a while to create miracles. And Beverly yells down from the stars "FUCK YOU, where was my goddamn miracle?!" And the waiter that got killed by Pearly has a word or two for the universe as well. And about a billion other people who died horribly throughout the last century. Fuck you Akiva.

From what I've read, the book is supposed to be pretty good. It appears that Goldsman completely missed the point. After "I, Robot," "Batman Forever," "Batman and Robin," and "I Am Legend," I would say this is just another Akiva Goldsman failure. With him writing and directing, we finally realize that this is the luckiest son of a bitch in Hollywood. I don't know who he has pictures of but congrats on being able to make a career out of ruining things.

You've been warned.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Network Decides Hiring an Asshat Might've Been a Mistake

Oh Piers. We hardly knew ye. Oh wait, we knew you only too well.
A CNN rep confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that the show would be ending and stated that the "date of the final program is still to be determined." 
Morgan, the successor to Larry King at the hour, had hosted Piers Morgan Live on the network since January 2011. Morgan told the newspaper that CNN president Jeff Zucker had made the decision to cancel the show. 
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way you, you sanctimonious, ill-informed, hack asshat.

What? Are you exiled to a swamp planet beyond the outer rim or something?

Something like that. I work as a manager of a tech department and this is review time. Also budget time. And other beginning of the year stuff time. And time. Anyhooooo.....

Han and I are planning some podcast stuff, we still need to work out the logistics. Since we carpool together and have epic conversations from everything political to theatrical, we thought you'd find it interesting. And things are calming down somewhat around here so I'll try to post a little bit more again. Still can't get Han to post but hey, he's got a life too.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

If a Tree Falls in the Forest, and no Reporters are Around to Cover it, Does it Cause a Controversy?

Sports Illustrated created a controversy. I guess. It says so in the story so it must be true. Apparently they created a video with some women in swimsuits giving safety instructions on an airline and this is controversial. Cause it says it is.
To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the magazine's most famous annual edition, SI put the most famous doll in the world on some commemorative covers of this year's swimsuit issue. And that move set off quite a firestorm of controversy.
 And on Tuesday, a quintet of SI swimsuit models, led by Brinkley, appeared on monitors aboard Air New Zealand flights in the airline’s new "Safety In Paradise' video, a steamy version of that video every flight plays before taking off to cover the flight's safety rules.
Wow a "firestorm" huh? I'm guess people taking to the streets with picket signs, angry demonstrators burning bikini tops, and just a whole lot of mad faces all the way around. So let's see what all these people have to say?
And like the Barbie cover, this video starring Jessica Gomes, Chrissy Teigen, Hannah Davis and Ariel Meredith alongside Brinkley, was met with controversy, especially when a behind-the-scenes sneak peak was released last week. 
"My concern is that as a woman I get on a plane to go to a business meeting say — something serious — and I am confronted by women in bikinis in what are highly sexualised images. That jars," Dr. Deborah Russell, a lecturer and feminist commentator at New Zealand’s Massey University, told Fairfax Newspapers, according to The Telegraph. "I want to be taken seriously but it seems that suddenly they are saying that my sexuality is all that matters about me."
So Deborah Russell, a feminist professor or lecturer or whatever at Perpetually Pissed Off University is the sole source of this controversy it appears. That's it? The other 6 billion people on the planet could pretty much care less. 

Is this the face of feminism now? She sees women in swimsuits that --and I'm just going to say it-- are probably better looking than her and she's threatened and has to register her displeasure to the first dewy eyed reporter that will write the story? 

Does anyone else care about it? I mean really, is this woman really this weak that a few images "jar" her? If she wants to be taken seriously, stop whining about what other women are choosing to do.

Feminists are pathetic.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Well, Calrissian, did he survive? - Yes, he's alive. And in perfect hibernation.

Well it's been quite a couple of weeks for me. I am still alive and plan to continue blogging but the frequency is getting less as work and home life has apparently plans for me that I was not expecting. Also there is a certain weariness to dealing with the latest Obama failure. (Really, Obama? People can just quit work and become poets? Who's going to be left to tax and get the money to keep pissing away on corruption and waste?)

So I will continue as much as possible. Keep a watch for my third in a series regarding the real estate crash and how that's not getting any better. If you want to see the first two parts, check my screeds on Sarbanes-Oxley and the minimum wage. And share them out, the more people who realize what garbage the Democrat's economic policies are, the better chance we'll have to get rid of them. (Establishment Republicans are on notice too.)

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Obama: There's no tyranny! Meanwhile New York man gets his house taken for coming up short in taxes.

Remember this?

Remember, don't look at the tyrant behind the curtain. This isn't tyranny. Really.
A Syracuse man had his home seized after he paid back $9,877 in city taxes over a six-month period -- but came up $936 short. 
"I tried so hard. I tried so hard to make these payments," Calvin James, who found out he lost the home when he walked into City Hall on Dec. 6 with a $1,500 check, told The Syracuse Post-Standard.The property had been seized Dec. 4. 
The paper reported that the city launched an aggressive foreclosure campaign in 2012. The program puts the troubled properties into the Syracuse-area land bank, which either sells or demolishes them. James, who paid $8,500 in 2009 for the property, is currently renting his old home for $500 a month, the report said. 
The city told the paper it's sorry the way James' story worked out.
We're sorry. We're so sorry. But fuck you, give us your house.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Aw Christ, they named it? Winter Storm Nika!

What is it with naming snowstorms now? Do we really need to hype a snowstorm? Is this a thing now?

Stupid Meme Alert: Did you know back in 2003, FOX News won a court case that let's them legally lie?

Well not exactly. Internet memes have a way of latching onto lefties like a remora on a shark. Here's what caught my eye:

Apparently this is a meme that's been going on for a while now and is wildly false. I did some cursory research and found this article which erroneously lead me to believe that it was FOX broadcasting, not FOX News that was the culprit. I knee jerked a tweet which I then corrected.

So unlike a leftie, I will admit my mistake and then do a bit more research than a cheaply photoshopped picture telling a very one-sided story. So here we go:

According to one site I found that seemed to put a little thought into their propagation of this dumbassedness, they say:
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
Ok seems pretty serious, doesn't it? Basically every rendition of the story portrays it this way. What don't they tell you? Well here's a few items of note:
There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed. 
To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging… that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
The St. Petersburg Times reported on the jury verdict and similarly reported on the failure of Akre and Wilson to win most of their claims: 
The jury of three men and three women deliberated nearly six hours before finding that Fox affiliate Channel 13 had retaliated against Jane Akre for a story about a controversial hormone manufactured by the Monsanto Corp.
However, jurors refused to give any money to Akre’s husband, Steve Wilson, an Emmy-winning reporter who also worked on the story.
And the jury did not believe the couple’s claim that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter the news report.
Despite the limited victory, Akre and Wilson found vindication in the verdict…
Most of the left's proof of this is because of what Akre believes. Not what she can prove, but what she believes and she puts this opinion on her web site. But the problem is her conclusion is not fact and the FCC disputes her.
A careful reading of the jury instruction reveals that the jury was only answering whether they believed Akre had been fired for threatening to lodge a complaint with the FCC alleging broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report, not whether the news report was in fact false, distorted, or slanted. 
Akre disputes this interpretation on her own web site, claiming that “The jurors in my case said YES to the fact that Fox was guilty of pressuring me to falsify the news… When you look at the actual jury verdict form, the jury determined it was actually false, distorted, or slanted.  In fact, if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor…” 
But the FCC does not share Akre’s interpretation of the jury verdict. In a 2007 decision by the FCC denying a petition by Akre and Wilson demanding that WTVT’s broadcast license not be renewed, the FCC includes the following footnote: 
Although there has been much back-and-forth among the parties about whether the jury in the employment lawsuit found that Station WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, the verdict form did not ask the jury to determine whether WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, but rather to determine whether Station WTVT(TV) fired either employee for threatening to disclose what the Petitioners reasonably believed would be a violation of the news distortion policy.
Ok so maybe this is she said/government said. But here's the thing that the left assumes is true: that the Fox affiliate wanted to claim on 1st amendment grounds that is was ok to lie. They never made that assertion or argued that in court. (By the way, notice that this is all a case between these two reporters and a FOX affiliate and not the news channel itself.)
 It is also worth noting that of all the web sites, blog postings, and online commentary on the subject of the FOX  “right to lie” argument, not a single one that I’ve seen links to anything that would substantiate the claim. Very few even bother to link to the actual 2nd District opinion overturning Akre’s whistleblower verdict, or anything else related to the case itself. 
Finally on this point, and perhaps most convincingly, the web site maintained by Akre and Wilson also make no reference to a First Amendment “right to lie” argument advanced by WTVT. The two very obviously believe that the station attempted to force them to produce a false and distorted news article, and have gone to great lengths to promote and advance that belief. 
Yet in all the claims and charges leveled directly by Akre and Wilson against the FOX affiliate across multiple venues and platforms, there is not a single mention of any “right to lie” argument allegedly offered by WTVT. They seemingly accuse the station of nearly every other sin imaginable in the world of journalism, but are completely silent on this charge. If there is one place one would expect to find mention and substantiation of the claim that the FOX affiliate had claimed a “right to lie,” it is in the filings and writings of Akre and Wilson. Yet there is nothing.
Well if Akre and Wilson never filed that claim, then what about the ruling? There must be some reason the left has this particular internet meme a sacrament, besides their emotional hatred of anything to do with FOX. Well the FCC has a  news distortion policy. It is a policy that against the intentional falsification of news. It's important to note that a POLICY is not a LAW, RULE, or REGULATION. Those three have the weight of enforcement while a policy does not. So the complaint filed by Akre and Wilson was all done under the whistleblower statute. And that statute does not apply to broken policies, only laws, rules, or regulations.

When the second court agreed that WTVT didn't have to comply with policy, it was within the very narrow confines of the complaint which was: did WTVT break a law, a rule, or a regulation? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the FCC who didn't put any teeth into this policy by not making it a rule.

So if you are going to try to get a station's license pulled under the whistleblower law, you better use a reason that has more teeth than a policy. The point is that this ruling was NOT a ruling under the 1st Amendment or a journalist duty to the truth or anything like that. It did not give license to FOX or any other broadcaster to lie with impunity.

Here's from the ruling itself:
Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT. 
Again, this is a ruling under the whistle-blower statute and NOTHING ELSE. It does not change the first amendment. But since the left doesn't understand these technicalities under the law, they simply leapt to the conclusion that a court said it was ok to lie. Nope. 

If you'd like to actually read the ruling instead of a GIF file posted in twitter, here you go. You might actually learn something. I did.

**Update** The original tweet has since been deleted. Intriguing. Fortunately I have the original image that was posted for you to see.
The STORY. Most of it. Part of it. The parts we lefties like. May or may not be accurate. Meh.
I however am leaving this up. I linked to the actual court decision. Am I right or is the left correct? I'll let you decide.

(But the answer is me.)

How to get on TV in Kansas City

1. Be a big sports personality.
2. Be a politician or news personality.
3. Drive a salt truck.

Seriously, it seems like every snow storm is the very first one to these news teams.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Experts: Keystone will work! Obama: I don't care! Experts then throw themselves off the top of the dam.

So remember this in the SOTU (start at 2:28):

So let's forget the fact the not paying as much tax as you would normally is not a subsidy. Let's just look at the numbers. 4 billion to an industry that flat out works. We wouldn't have the lives we have without it. But Obama doesn't like that so he wants green energy, which I'm not even sure what that means. Energy and pollutants are expended one way or another with electricity and natural gas but whatever. How much have we spent on the green energy that doesn't work?

Here's a list of companies that we handed money to. Not just gave tax breaks but actually wrote checks to:
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million) 
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
So how much is that in total? $3,776,500 dollars. For companies that did not work. That was just a small list in 2012. Now 2009 set aside 80 billion dollars to subsidize green energy projects which if he uses that for all eight years of his presidency comes up to 10 billion a year. Seems a lot more than 4. This doesn't count government laboratories, college think tanks, and tax deductions for driving Chevy Volts.

Now why are we blowing all this money out our collective assholes? Ostensibly to save the planet. To not pollute. Let's assume for a minute that we are and we really do want to want to reduce emissions. That brings us to Keystone.
WASHINGTON — The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project. 
The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.
Here's the idiocy of this, we are moving the oil right now by rail and by truck. Which have engines which BURN OIL. Pipelines reduce this tremendously. Duh. This would reduce costs which would reduce the price at the pump.

So I submit to you that the left and Obama really could give a rat's ass about mother earth, they just want to hurt the successful. That's all it is. So demand the keystone get approved. Send a letter to congress and president. And vote the dems out of office this November.

@MSNBC is nothing but Racists. And so is all of the Left Wing.

I will rarely do this but after the Cheerios fiasco on MSNBC twitter page it's time. This is me and my children.

Yes I adopted them. I didn't notice their skin color, just that I loved them from the moment I held them. That's it for me.

I have realized that I am very racially insensitive and I've decided I'm proud of it. If you're sensitive to pain, you think about it constantly. If you're sensitive to race, you also think about it constantly. The racially sensitive, the oh-so-enlightened have actually never gotten past the most insignificant of traits: skin pigment. They are not tolerant, they are only one step removed from wearing the white sheets.

It's time to grow up about race. Race is a totally unimportant trait when dealing with the issues of our time. It's 2014. We on the right have it figured out now: It's about what you do and not what you look like. The left simply doesn't get it. They are the most superficial of people. They live in a world of words but not meaning, hence political correctness. Symbols are the most important thing to them so if you destroy the symbols, you destroy the ideas.

But ideas are powerful. My idea is that people are judged, as a great man once said, by the content of their character. Conversely, skin color becomes meaningless. The symbols of that idea? Congressman Tim Huelskamp. Actor Nick Searcy. Michelle Malkin. And countless others.. Myself.

So quick timeline:

MSNBC says we're all bigots. Well the right wing anyway. Why? Cheerios has a nice ad that features a bi-racial family. This prompted MSNBC to comment:

Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new#Cheerios ad w/ biracial family.— 
  (@msnbc) January 30, 2014

Tim defends himself and all of us on the right by tweeting out his family:
This makes sense. Get accused of racism, starting pointing out where this is untrue. That won't stop the left. This is the vile crap that came from that tweet.

@CongHuelskamp you fucking borrowed a black family for a photo op? What a dick!— 
Sarah (@ojc1234) January 30, 2014

Which is so beyond ridiculous, I'm not even sure if I have a proper adjective for it. So that's the example of the "Racially sensitive." I'm going to stay "racially insensitive." I don't care about a person's skin color. I'm not going to try to separate families because they aren't racially correct. I'm not going to mix schools because there isn't the right amount of color in it. If the family is a loving family, good enough. If the kids can learn math, good enough.

I've had it with these racists. The left is racist, people. Repeat after me: The. Left. Is. Racist. Always has been, always will be.