Archive for the ‘media’ Category

Boston Red Sox 2018 World Series Championship ring that I’m sure Peter likes seeing again.

by baldilocks

Yesterday, a goodly portion of the Washington Nationals visited the White House in celebration of their victory in the 2019 World Series and at least two of the players were pummeled on Twitter for openly being fans of President Trump. I’m sure the two players will console themselves with that beautiful ring they get to wear.

In contrast, there were several players who skipped the White House visit. I didn’t notice much talk about them. But, of course it was their choice to make.

It’s a safe bet, however, that the latter received a digital pat on the back from the usual suspects. We know that it’s a safe bet because we have some comparative information. 

[R]etired Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas and New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady turned down Obama’s invitation to come to the White House and were met with strong criticism from media.

Thomas’s decision not to visit the White House in 2012 was widely criticized. U.S. News & World Report writer Susan Milligan headlined a story on the incident that said his decision was not brave, “it was just rude.” ESPN writer Joe McDonald wrote that Thomas chose to put himself above the team through his decision not to attend.

“When the president of the United States invites you and all your teammates to the White House to honor your Stanley Cup championship, you go and represent the team,” McDonald wrote.

Emphasis mine.

Hahahahahahaha!

Of course, we know that this only applies when the president is a Democrat and it double applied in the lone case in which the president was of African descent.

And then there is a whole other category of rules for Orange Man Bad.

If I were a team owner, I’d make it mandatory (in the contract) for all players and coaches to attend a White House gathering in the wake of a championship victory – unless there’s a life or death emergency — regardless of who the president is. That or get fined/traded.

But I guess that’s why I’m just a broke blogger.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on Facebook, Twitter, MeWe, Patreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

The First Amendment under attack

Posted: October 29, 2019 by chrisharper in media, Uncomfortable Truths
Tags:

The First Amendment should undergo significant changes, including jail time for hate speech and false news reports.

These findings come from a recent poll and analysis by the Campaign for Free Speech. See https://www.campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-threat-polling-finds/

The organization found that 51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. 

The poll found that 48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined but left up to the individual participant.) Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine. More millennials and Gen-Xers think hate speech should be made illegal—as do women, blacks, and Hispanics. The various regions in the United States think roughly the same.

The fundamental problem with regulating hate speech is who defines it? The courts have generally shied away from restricting hate speech because of that issue. The most important U.S. Supreme Court case that could be applied is Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, a 1942 decision in which the court put forth the “fighting words” restriction on speech.

Chaplinsky was arrested for provocative statements made in the town square. While being transported to the local police station, he called the town marshal “a damned fascist and a racketeer.”

Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting, or ‘fighting’ words, those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

But some legal scholars think the lower courts have defined fighting words in an inconsistent way, while others think the decision remains a threat to free speech.

Whatever the case, an arrest for using fighting words is a rarity. One happened a few years ago here in Philly when a local teacher got in a cop’s face and threatened him and his family.

An estimated 57% think that the government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false. Only 35% disagree with the statement, with the rest undecided. Men and women poll about the same—as do various sections of the country. The only slight difference is that millennials rise to a level of 61%.

Surprisingly, in my view, the poll found that many think the government should impose jail time for those who publish fake news. A total of 56% said that journalists should only face a fine, but the other 46% said that actual jail time should be imposed on the offenders.

The implications of the poll seem obvious, but the ramifications not so much.

The poll does underline the antipathy of the public toward the media, and it comes from all age groups, geographic regions, income brackets, and races.

The media would be well served if they did not ignore the bitterness toward news organizations from just about every group.

As I watched things from the left media like this:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and this

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and this

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and of course this

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Old friend Neo is a tad upset at these developments and so was I, then it hit me, there is one word that can be used to describe the reaction of the professional and media left to the successful raid to kill the head of ISIS

Churchillian

In fact this may be the most Churchillian thing thing the left has done in decades. Why? To understand my argument you have to remember that to the left Trump is Hitler, he’s Goebbles etc etc etc.

And if there is one thing that we all know about Sir Winston, is that as long as you are fighting Hitler you get a favorable reference, I quote:

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

So it’s simple logic

  • Churchill makes favorable references to those who Hitler attacks
  • Trump = Hitler
  • Trump attacks Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi
  • Media makes favorable references to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi
  • Media = Churchill

It’s a simple rational deduction.

I predict this is the last Churchillian thing that the left will ever do.

I was rather shocked when I saw this from Jill Stein:

You know, you can’t just slander people. You have to present some basis and fact.

I’m shocked SHOCKED as must be many regular CNN viewers who watched this at the concept that you have to actually have a basis of fact to accuse people of things. That’s contrary to the entire gameplan of Democrats and their media allies for decades.

How DARE she invade the CNN safe space and suggest such a thing!


If this wasn’t bad enough Jake Tapper pressed Mayor Pete Buttgieg on the same network on the question of Tulsi Gabbard in the same context:

“Right. But do you think Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset?” Tapper pressed again, asking directly.


“I don’t know what the basis is for that,” Buttigieg sidestepped again. “But I consider her to be a competitor. I respect her service and have very different views than she does on foreign policy and I would prefer to have that argument in terms of debates and going forward.”


Tapper pushed back, asking why Democrats defended people when Trump smeared them but didn’t seem motivated to defend Gabbard from similar attacks from other Democrats, no matter how wild.

Not only do we have the spectacle of CNN viewers having the sacred concept of Democrats smearing opponents challenged twice in one week but you have an interviewer directly challenging a liberal gay man running for high office on his position. Unthinkable!

Maybe these O’Keefe CNN videos are having an effect after all.


Of course if you are a liberal snowflake and unable to cope with this kind of direct challenge to the liberal smear machine you till have MSNBC

A panel on MSNBC Live mocked Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard for not explicitly denying Hillary Clinton’s accusation that she is a Russian asset.
Clinton, 71, 
said that the Hawaii congresswoman is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection. Gabbard has since hit back at the 2016 presidential candidate.
“One thing that was interesting about Tulsi Gabbard’s response, I mean she went after Hillary Clinton strong, she said she wasn’t going to run as a third party candidate, she never denied being a Russian asset,” Kimberly Atkins of WBUR said while beginning to laugh on the show Saturday morning. “That was the one aspect that was missing from her response, which you think that would be in the first line or two. It was not there.”

At least the traditions and standards of the left’s attack machine are still sacrosanct somewhere.


I should also note said liberal standards are being held up by Twitter as well:

Maybe it was this next post that did him in. Everyone knows you’re not allowed to challenge the new gender theology. “These are both me. Sometimes I like looking like and androgynous emaciated albino space vampire. Sometimes I like looking like a strung out 90’s computer hacker. Sometimes I feel more gay vampire, sometimes I feel more sk8r boi. Guess what? That doesn’t make me my own special gender.”

That’s gay writer and model Mike Harlow before being permanently banned from twitter supposedly for “harassment” but more likely for being part of the #walkaway movement. Some think this is an attack on gays thinking for themselves but I object to that characterization:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

There are plenty of straight folks that Twitter has banned for thinking for themselves, but generally it’s not so much a question of them thinking for themselves but for having the potential to influence others to do so as well.


Finally when it comes to seeing how properly repressing speech one doesn’t like is done you have to go to the pros:

A Facebook post that criticized Islam’s Prophet Muhammad sparked a riot in southern Bangladesh on Sunday that left at least four people dead.
Hundreds of Muslims took to the streets in the town of Borhanuddin, 195 kilometers (120 miles) from the capital Dhaka, to protest the offensive social media post allegedly written by a Hindu man.
A local official said a meeting was held on Sunday to try to defuse the tensions that began Friday as the Facebook post gained traction.

But the angry protesters started attacking security officials, prompting them to retaliate.

Now in fairness to the left’s minor league Rasputins with Islam becoming more and more a force in the Democrat party the day will likely come when posts like this are the excuse for Democrats to riot become the norm

Of course you have to disarm the targets of your violence first.