Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Jan 29, 2017
A Kid Stands Up To Literally Everyone In His Class
by Ashley Simon
I’ve had a lot of heroic moments where I face a bully and give them a piece of my mind. Unfortunately, they’re all in my head. Watch this kid do a very brave, very rare thing: stand up for himself.
Jake is now a junior in high school, and unsurprisingly, he’s doing great. Here’s an update directly from him:
"Bullying has had a big impact on my life, but since the movie I’ve made a lot of friends. Recently, I have joined my high school football team! At first I thought they would all be complete jerks, but actually they are pretty cool guys and have helped me through a lot of situations — they stand up for me!
"For other kids with autism, if you're getting bullied, try and tell them to stop and not give a reaction — if that doesn’t work, go to an adult. It might seem hard cause we can’t handle stress as well as other kids, but you will get through it and you’ll be awesome — actually you already are!
"Bullying does not make you cool — you might think you are on the top of the food chain — but you’re not going to be there forever." -Upworthy
I’ve had a lot of heroic moments where I face a bully and give them a piece of my mind. Unfortunately, they’re all in my head. Watch this kid do a very brave, very rare thing: stand up for himself.
Jake is now a junior in high school, and unsurprisingly, he’s doing great. Here’s an update directly from him:
"Bullying has had a big impact on my life, but since the movie I’ve made a lot of friends. Recently, I have joined my high school football team! At first I thought they would all be complete jerks, but actually they are pretty cool guys and have helped me through a lot of situations — they stand up for me!
"For other kids with autism, if you're getting bullied, try and tell them to stop and not give a reaction — if that doesn’t work, go to an adult. It might seem hard cause we can’t handle stress as well as other kids, but you will get through it and you’ll be awesome — actually you already are!
"Bullying does not make you cool — you might think you are on the top of the food chain — but you’re not going to be there forever." -Upworthy
Oct 23, 2016
Everything The Media Does To Manipulate You
by Adam Mordecai
Writer Kendra Eash wrote an amazing bit of satire mocking how the ad industry likes to use vague, inspirational nonsense to capture people's attention. So Dissolve, a stock video distributor, took her words and visualized them in an amazingly vague, faux-inspirational video that tells you absolutely nothing at all. It's kind of hilarious. 2:19 is my favorite moment.
If you run an ad agency, please use this as a clarion call to say actual things in your clients' commercials. Things that actually add something to the discourse. PLEASE?!
Writer Kendra Eash wrote an amazing bit of satire mocking how the ad industry likes to use vague, inspirational nonsense to capture people's attention. So Dissolve, a stock video distributor, took her words and visualized them in an amazingly vague, faux-inspirational video that tells you absolutely nothing at all. It's kind of hilarious. 2:19 is my favorite moment.
If you run an ad agency, please use this as a clarion call to say actual things in your clients' commercials. Things that actually add something to the discourse. PLEASE?!
Feb 28, 2016
Margaret Cho Urges People To Take Online Homophobia Seriously
By Joe Williams
The comic, actress and LGBT activist has opened up about the homophobic abuse she receives through social media.
Margaret Cho has released an online statement regarding the amount of online abuse she gets – and why people should take trolling more seriously.
In a recent Facebook post, the bisexual actress described some of the troubling encounters she has been involved in – both on and offline.
“I’ve experienced numerous breaches of security, a couple of very troubling face to face interactions and so much online trolling I can’t help but believe it’s all somehow connected,” she wrote.
However, rather than shy away from social media, Cho advises those subject to homophobic abuse or threats to use modern technology to their advantage.
“I want everyone in the reach of my voice to keep their phones charged, film everything, screenshot and report ALL offensive people and ALL threats on social media,” she said.
The comic went on to warn her followers of the danger some internet trolls may pose – and how people should any threats or abuse they receive seriously.
“BUT UNDERSTAND ‘Haters’ are potential killers. We’ve seen this countless times now. They say it on social media, then they go DO IT.”
“We’ve got to be vigilant and protect ourselves. Stay alive. I need you all here with me. I love you.”
Cho – who has nearly 400,000 followers on Facebook – said although the abuse sometimes upsets her, she has developed a unique way of getting her own back.
The actress described of she takes a screenshot of offensive messages she receives and forwards them to the troll’s employers, spouses or loved ones.
“Ask their employers if they are aware of this person’s activity online and if they condone this type of behaviour,” she advises.
“That usually shuts EVERYTHING DOWN. And it’s pretty gratifying. Bully the bullies with class and grace. It’s the BEST.”
Cho’s comments come after Clean Bandit’s Neil Amin-Smith recently hit back at some of the unwanted attention his has received on social media.
The violinist took to Twitter to hit out at people who express their adoration in a decidedly sinister fashion – by saying they want to “rape” him. –Pink News
The comic, actress and LGBT activist has opened up about the homophobic abuse she receives through social media.
Margaret Cho has released an online statement regarding the amount of online abuse she gets – and why people should take trolling more seriously.
In a recent Facebook post, the bisexual actress described some of the troubling encounters she has been involved in – both on and offline.
“I’ve experienced numerous breaches of security, a couple of very troubling face to face interactions and so much online trolling I can’t help but believe it’s all somehow connected,” she wrote.
However, rather than shy away from social media, Cho advises those subject to homophobic abuse or threats to use modern technology to their advantage.
“I want everyone in the reach of my voice to keep their phones charged, film everything, screenshot and report ALL offensive people and ALL threats on social media,” she said.
The comic went on to warn her followers of the danger some internet trolls may pose – and how people should any threats or abuse they receive seriously.
“BUT UNDERSTAND ‘Haters’ are potential killers. We’ve seen this countless times now. They say it on social media, then they go DO IT.”
“We’ve got to be vigilant and protect ourselves. Stay alive. I need you all here with me. I love you.”
Cho – who has nearly 400,000 followers on Facebook – said although the abuse sometimes upsets her, she has developed a unique way of getting her own back.
The actress described of she takes a screenshot of offensive messages she receives and forwards them to the troll’s employers, spouses or loved ones.
“Ask their employers if they are aware of this person’s activity online and if they condone this type of behaviour,” she advises.
“That usually shuts EVERYTHING DOWN. And it’s pretty gratifying. Bully the bullies with class and grace. It’s the BEST.”
Cho’s comments come after Clean Bandit’s Neil Amin-Smith recently hit back at some of the unwanted attention his has received on social media.
The violinist took to Twitter to hit out at people who express their adoration in a decidedly sinister fashion – by saying they want to “rape” him. –Pink News
Apr 26, 2015
Why ISIS Destroys Antiquities
Confucius said: "Study the past if you would define the future." In Iraq, the past is glorious and long.
This is where the world's first cities were built and where writing and organized government were first developed more than 5,000 years ago. This is the land that gave the world its first great literary work -- the Epic of Gilgamesh, king of the city of Uruk -- over 1,000 years before Homer, and over 2,000 years before Christ.
ISIS, like so many iconoclastic extremist groups through history, seeks to destroy the record of the past. In the past week, video has circulated showing neatly dressed figures wielding rather new-looking sledgehammers and destroying archaeological objects in the Mosul Museum.
The spectacle would be ridiculous and pathetic if it were not so tragic.
Although there are suggestions that some objects destroyed are only copies, many are said to be unique and irreplaceable objects that had survived thousands of years -- until now.
ISIS has been busy trying to damage the famed Nergal Gate entry to the ancient city of Nineveh -- a city with a history reaching back thousands of years -- and most recently it is reportedly bulldozing the site of Nimrud, capital of the 9th-century B.C. Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II, and source of the famed Nimrud ivories. These ivories were first cleaned by none other than Agatha Christie while accompanying her archaeologist husband, Max Mallowan, during his excavation.
All attacks on archaeological sites and artifacts are brutal assaults on our collective human memory. They deprive us of the evidence of human endeavors and achievements.
The destruction eloquently speaks of the human folly and senseless violence that drives ISIS. The terror group is destroying the evidence of the great history of Iraq; it has to, as this history attests to a rich alternative to its barbaric nihilism.
Worse, these acts of destruction supposedly in the name of religion are dishonest and hypocritical: the same ISIS also is busy looting archaeological sites to support its thriving illegal trade in antiquities, causing further incalculable harm.
The smashed artifacts of the Mosul Museum and the destruction at Nineveh and Nimrud speak to a wider ignorance of archaeology and the meaning of the artifacts that archaeologists recover, study and preserve. These objects are the material record of humanity. They are not just for scholars, they are for everyone. They are the text of the past that helps define our future.
Archaeologists clearly need to do more to expand a global understanding of, and appreciation for, the heritage of the past. But it is not just a question for teachers, professors and museum curators; there needs to be much greater awareness and protection of the past across society, in Iraq, in the United States and around the world, from the government to the public.
We need more archaeology education globally; in Iraq and in other ISIS-affected countries, but also among people everywhere in order to help communities -- from children on up -- understand the fragility of the archaeological record and its critical importance to understanding the human story.
Ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, is at the heart of the human story: home of the first cities, states and empires. The law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon over 3,700 years ago, is the first great legal text of the world; it begins a heritage leading to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
The heritage of Iraq is our heritage, too. What can we do in response to this assault on our heritage?
Providing educational opportunities and empowering communities to learn more about their cultures and histories, and those of others, is one of the best ways to eradicate destructive hatred and violence. –Source: Contributed by Mary/CNN
This is where the world's first cities were built and where writing and organized government were first developed more than 5,000 years ago. This is the land that gave the world its first great literary work -- the Epic of Gilgamesh, king of the city of Uruk -- over 1,000 years before Homer, and over 2,000 years before Christ.
ISIS, like so many iconoclastic extremist groups through history, seeks to destroy the record of the past. In the past week, video has circulated showing neatly dressed figures wielding rather new-looking sledgehammers and destroying archaeological objects in the Mosul Museum.
The spectacle would be ridiculous and pathetic if it were not so tragic.
Although there are suggestions that some objects destroyed are only copies, many are said to be unique and irreplaceable objects that had survived thousands of years -- until now.
ISIS has been busy trying to damage the famed Nergal Gate entry to the ancient city of Nineveh -- a city with a history reaching back thousands of years -- and most recently it is reportedly bulldozing the site of Nimrud, capital of the 9th-century B.C. Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II, and source of the famed Nimrud ivories. These ivories were first cleaned by none other than Agatha Christie while accompanying her archaeologist husband, Max Mallowan, during his excavation.
All attacks on archaeological sites and artifacts are brutal assaults on our collective human memory. They deprive us of the evidence of human endeavors and achievements.
The destruction eloquently speaks of the human folly and senseless violence that drives ISIS. The terror group is destroying the evidence of the great history of Iraq; it has to, as this history attests to a rich alternative to its barbaric nihilism.
Worse, these acts of destruction supposedly in the name of religion are dishonest and hypocritical: the same ISIS also is busy looting archaeological sites to support its thriving illegal trade in antiquities, causing further incalculable harm.
The smashed artifacts of the Mosul Museum and the destruction at Nineveh and Nimrud speak to a wider ignorance of archaeology and the meaning of the artifacts that archaeologists recover, study and preserve. These objects are the material record of humanity. They are not just for scholars, they are for everyone. They are the text of the past that helps define our future.
Archaeologists clearly need to do more to expand a global understanding of, and appreciation for, the heritage of the past. But it is not just a question for teachers, professors and museum curators; there needs to be much greater awareness and protection of the past across society, in Iraq, in the United States and around the world, from the government to the public.
We need more archaeology education globally; in Iraq and in other ISIS-affected countries, but also among people everywhere in order to help communities -- from children on up -- understand the fragility of the archaeological record and its critical importance to understanding the human story.
Ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, is at the heart of the human story: home of the first cities, states and empires. The law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon over 3,700 years ago, is the first great legal text of the world; it begins a heritage leading to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
The heritage of Iraq is our heritage, too. What can we do in response to this assault on our heritage?
Providing educational opportunities and empowering communities to learn more about their cultures and histories, and those of others, is one of the best ways to eradicate destructive hatred and violence. –Source: Contributed by Mary/CNN
Apr 12, 2015
Homophobic, Racist Adam Carolla Is 'Done Apologizing'
He's made a career out of insulting gay people and racial minorities, and he doesn't regret it. Comedian Adam Carolla's thoughts on those insulted by his racially tinged and antigay humor? "Tough shit" and "I don't care," he said.
During an interview with Huffington Post Live, a viewer asked Carolla how he feels about the Calling Out Carolla blog, which catalogs his offensive jokes and tweets. He offered no apology and said anyone who's ever had to apologize for an offensive comment was faking their remorse.
"Go find a politician or somebody who's in charge and poke a popsicle stick up their butt. I'm a comedian," he said. "I'm done apologizing, I really am."
When asked about white privilege, Carolla seemed unable to comprehend the concept, which possibly made it easier for him to justify his steady stream of antiminority humor.
"You are in charge of your own feelings," he said to his detractors. "I'm not in charge of your feelings. I'm here to make jokes. I'm here to make commentaries. I'm here to share my opinions.Tough shit if you don't like it." -Source: Huffington Post
Mar 15, 2015
Everything TV Networks Feared About Netflix Is Coming True
Viewership was down in the third and fourth quarters
It might be time for cable to start worrying about online streaming. The Wall Street Journal reported that a drop in TV ratings and viewership can be chalked up to subscription-based streaming services, including Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
People familiar with the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau told the newspaper that as much as 40% of TV-rating declines in the third and fourth quarters were attributable to streaming services. The news comes as TV viewing has declined by an estimated 10% from a year previously in the third quarter, and by 9% for the fourth quarter year-over-year, according to the Journal, citing Nielsen data.
“We believe the U.S. television industry is entering a period of prolonged structural decline, caused by a migration of viewers from ad-supported platforms to non-ad-supported or less-ad-supported platforms,” according to Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger in a March 9 statement.
According to the Journal, Scripps Networks Interactive chief revenue officer Steve Gigliotti said that working with Netflix once “sounded like a good idea, but “now there are some serious misgivings about it.”
Netflix reported fourth quarter earnings in January, posting big gains. The company reportedly finished 2014 with a 26% gain in revenue in the year’s last quarter, while over four million people subscribed. Netflix notched $1.48 billion in revenue during the quarter, up from $1.18 billion last year. Profits also rose 72% year-over-year for the fourth quarter to $83.4 million, or $1.38 per share.
Meanwhile, HBO announced a streaming service that will begin as an exclusive partnership with Apple. Plans were unveiled at a March 9 event, featuring the Apple Watch. While HBO Go will cost $14.99 per month and require access to an Apple TV, Netflix costs $8.99. During the event, Apple also announced it’d be reducing the price of the Apple TV to $69 from $99. –Source: Fortune
It might be time for cable to start worrying about online streaming. The Wall Street Journal reported that a drop in TV ratings and viewership can be chalked up to subscription-based streaming services, including Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
People familiar with the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau told the newspaper that as much as 40% of TV-rating declines in the third and fourth quarters were attributable to streaming services. The news comes as TV viewing has declined by an estimated 10% from a year previously in the third quarter, and by 9% for the fourth quarter year-over-year, according to the Journal, citing Nielsen data.
“We believe the U.S. television industry is entering a period of prolonged structural decline, caused by a migration of viewers from ad-supported platforms to non-ad-supported or less-ad-supported platforms,” according to Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger in a March 9 statement.
According to the Journal, Scripps Networks Interactive chief revenue officer Steve Gigliotti said that working with Netflix once “sounded like a good idea, but “now there are some serious misgivings about it.”
Netflix reported fourth quarter earnings in January, posting big gains. The company reportedly finished 2014 with a 26% gain in revenue in the year’s last quarter, while over four million people subscribed. Netflix notched $1.48 billion in revenue during the quarter, up from $1.18 billion last year. Profits also rose 72% year-over-year for the fourth quarter to $83.4 million, or $1.38 per share.
Meanwhile, HBO announced a streaming service that will begin as an exclusive partnership with Apple. Plans were unveiled at a March 9 event, featuring the Apple Watch. While HBO Go will cost $14.99 per month and require access to an Apple TV, Netflix costs $8.99. During the event, Apple also announced it’d be reducing the price of the Apple TV to $69 from $99. –Source: Fortune
Dancing With The Stars Closets Michael Sam
If Dancing with the Stars “accepts” Michael Sam, then why force him to act heterosexual?
You will remember Michael Sam as the man who deeply kissed his boyfriend on draft day. Draft day didn’t end up being as productive for Sam as he would have liked, which seems amazingly metaphorical now that I think about it.
Michael Sam has been invited to and has agreed to appear on the show Dancing with the Stars.
Count on it: as soon as he makes it past the first trial, Sam will go mash lips with his boyfriend. (Whether it will be the same one or a new one doesn’t matter. I can’t tell you because I don’t keep up with Sam’s life.)
I don’t make this prediction because I think Sam is an attention-hound or anything. (I’m not denying that about him but it is not the basis for my prediction.) I am sure it will happen because that is the only way Sam will be able to deny that the show has stuffed him back into the closet.
You see, Sam’s dance partner for the season will be Peta Murgatroyd.
No, that’s not surgery. Murgatroyd is a beautiful, athletic woman.
So here is the deal. We are supposed to redefine marriage. We are supposed to accept homosexuality. We are supposed to deny that there is anything special or superior about a heterosexual coupling compared to a homosexual relationship…
And all our dancing must be heterosexual? Michael Sam has to dance with a beautiful female?
I realize it is “traditional” but why is the tradition of male-female dancing so important that Sam can be expected to fit himself into it, but not the tradition of heterosexual romance and marriage?
We have to redefine marriage but Michael Sam has to dance with a female. Is that because men and women complement each other in some significant way?
Thus, my hunch that he is going to have to include some major on-camera liplock with his significant non-other just to wash away the intense heterosexuality of the whole program.
One thing I hate about the whole homosexual push against marriage is not just the immorality but the stupidity that surrounds us on every side. Michael Sam’s choice of men is just as valid as choosing women, but he must only dance with a woman and isn’t permitted a man. Bradley Manning claims he can be a woman despite his biology, but somehow the name “Bradley” is innately masculine and he wants to be called “Chelsea” because that name is inherently feminine. A transgender “woman” must be treated as a woman, and will feel personal pain if you treat “her” like a man, but we are supposed to affirm that the sexes are interchangeable.
Too crazy. –Source: Political Outcast
You will remember Michael Sam as the man who deeply kissed his boyfriend on draft day. Draft day didn’t end up being as productive for Sam as he would have liked, which seems amazingly metaphorical now that I think about it.
Michael Sam has been invited to and has agreed to appear on the show Dancing with the Stars.
Count on it: as soon as he makes it past the first trial, Sam will go mash lips with his boyfriend. (Whether it will be the same one or a new one doesn’t matter. I can’t tell you because I don’t keep up with Sam’s life.)
I don’t make this prediction because I think Sam is an attention-hound or anything. (I’m not denying that about him but it is not the basis for my prediction.) I am sure it will happen because that is the only way Sam will be able to deny that the show has stuffed him back into the closet.
You see, Sam’s dance partner for the season will be Peta Murgatroyd.
No, that’s not surgery. Murgatroyd is a beautiful, athletic woman.
So here is the deal. We are supposed to redefine marriage. We are supposed to accept homosexuality. We are supposed to deny that there is anything special or superior about a heterosexual coupling compared to a homosexual relationship…
And all our dancing must be heterosexual? Michael Sam has to dance with a beautiful female?
I realize it is “traditional” but why is the tradition of male-female dancing so important that Sam can be expected to fit himself into it, but not the tradition of heterosexual romance and marriage?
We have to redefine marriage but Michael Sam has to dance with a female. Is that because men and women complement each other in some significant way?
Thus, my hunch that he is going to have to include some major on-camera liplock with his significant non-other just to wash away the intense heterosexuality of the whole program.
One thing I hate about the whole homosexual push against marriage is not just the immorality but the stupidity that surrounds us on every side. Michael Sam’s choice of men is just as valid as choosing women, but he must only dance with a woman and isn’t permitted a man. Bradley Manning claims he can be a woman despite his biology, but somehow the name “Bradley” is innately masculine and he wants to be called “Chelsea” because that name is inherently feminine. A transgender “woman” must be treated as a woman, and will feel personal pain if you treat “her” like a man, but we are supposed to affirm that the sexes are interchangeable.
Too crazy. –Source: Political Outcast
Feb 15, 2015
Chris Rock on Racism in America
White People Aren't as Crazy as They Used to Be
"We treat [racism] like a fad instead of a disease that eradicates millions of people," says Rock.
Comedian Chris Rock said racism has waned somewhat because more white people have stopped being such jerks.
“Here’s the thing,” Rock said. “When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.”
Rock, who is promoting his upcoming film, Top Five, told New Yorker columnist Frank Rich that he would love to cover the Ferguson protests as a journalist – but he would use a white reporter as a stand-in to ask only white people racially charged questions.
He cautioned white people against congratulating themselves over the election of President Barack Obama.“Just white people,” Rock said. “We know how black people feel about Ferguson – outraged, upset, cheated by the system, all these things. Michael Moore has no problem getting (outrageous statements) because he looks like them, but the problem is the press accepts racism. It has never dug into it.”
“To say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president,” Rock said. “That’s not black progress — that’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years.”
“If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would,” he continued. “But a smart person would go, ‘Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.’ It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t.”
Rock used his own family to illustrate how much racist attitudes had changed in recent decades.
“My mother tells stories of growing up in Andrews, South Carolina, and the black people had to go to the vet to get their teeth pulled out,” he said. “And you still had to go to the back door, because if the white people knew the vet had used his instruments on black people, they wouldn’t take their pets to the vet. This is not some person I read about — this is my mother.”
He contrasted that to the experience of his own children, who are growing up affluent with a black president in the White House.
“You know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children,” Rock said. “There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.”
Rock said white people must own their own racist actions – and the actions of their racist forefathers.
“Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for,” he said.
“We treat racism in this country like it’s a style that America went through,” Rock said. “Like flared legs and lava lamps – ‘Oh, that crazy thing we did.’ We were hanging black people. We treat it like a fad instead of a disease that eradicates millions of people. You’ve got to get it at a lab, and study it, and see its origins, and see what it’s immune to and what breaks it down.” -Source: AlterNet
"We treat [racism] like a fad instead of a disease that eradicates millions of people," says Rock.
Comedian Chris Rock said racism has waned somewhat because more white people have stopped being such jerks.
“Here’s the thing,” Rock said. “When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.”
Rock, who is promoting his upcoming film, Top Five, told New Yorker columnist Frank Rich that he would love to cover the Ferguson protests as a journalist – but he would use a white reporter as a stand-in to ask only white people racially charged questions.
He cautioned white people against congratulating themselves over the election of President Barack Obama.“Just white people,” Rock said. “We know how black people feel about Ferguson – outraged, upset, cheated by the system, all these things. Michael Moore has no problem getting (outrageous statements) because he looks like them, but the problem is the press accepts racism. It has never dug into it.”
“To say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president,” Rock said. “That’s not black progress — that’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years.”
“If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would,” he continued. “But a smart person would go, ‘Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.’ It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t.”
Rock used his own family to illustrate how much racist attitudes had changed in recent decades.
“My mother tells stories of growing up in Andrews, South Carolina, and the black people had to go to the vet to get their teeth pulled out,” he said. “And you still had to go to the back door, because if the white people knew the vet had used his instruments on black people, they wouldn’t take their pets to the vet. This is not some person I read about — this is my mother.”
He contrasted that to the experience of his own children, who are growing up affluent with a black president in the White House.
“You know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children,” Rock said. “There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.”
Rock said white people must own their own racist actions – and the actions of their racist forefathers.
“Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for,” he said.
“We treat racism in this country like it’s a style that America went through,” Rock said. “Like flared legs and lava lamps – ‘Oh, that crazy thing we did.’ We were hanging black people. We treat it like a fad instead of a disease that eradicates millions of people. You’ve got to get it at a lab, and study it, and see its origins, and see what it’s immune to and what breaks it down.” -Source: AlterNet
Jan 25, 2015
Maybe Hollywood Isn’t As Gay Friendly As We Thought
We might be tempted to think that Hollywood today is an accepting place, what with the number of LGBT story lines we’ve seen popping up in recent years and the number of out actors that are currently big names in our favorite TV programs. However, new research by the UCLA’s Williams Institute finds that Hollywood can still be an unfriendly place for LGBT professionals.
The study, which saw researchers take responses from 5,700 SAG-AFTRA members both LGBT and straight identifying, builds on previous research in this area and is being hailed as one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.
The research found that more than half (53 percent) of LGBT respondents in the survey believed that directors and producers don’t want to hire LGBT performers, while just over a third of non-LGBT respondents reported the same sense of bias. In addition to this, about 31 percent of all respondents said they believe casting directors might be biased against LGBT performers.
In terms of getting into the industry, there are also significant barriers. For instance, LGBT respondents are less likely than heterosexuals to have an agent, and LGBT performers feel that because of this they are at a disadvantage when they are trying for work. What’s more, the study found that while LGB performers are able to get jobs that are comparable to those straight actors are getting, they appear to receive lower daily wages than their heterosexual peers, further putting pressure on them in what is already a difficult profession in which to succeed.
The survey also found that when it comes to LGB actors, most respondents believed LGBs are just as marketable in straight romantic roles as their heterosexual counterparts. At the same time, however, about 45 percent of lesbian and gay respondents believed that producers and studio executives think lesbian and gay performers are less marketable. About 27 percent of bisexual performers and 15 percent of heterosexual respondents said the same.
In excess of half of LGB performers reported having heard directors and producers make anti-gay comments about actors, with a fifth of lesbian and gay performers saying they have heard casting directors making comments about their sexual orientation or gender expression. In addition, more than half of LGBT performers say they have heard anti-LGBT comments on set, and over a third say they have seen disrespectful treatment, something that has also been noticed by non-LGBT performers. Discrimination was reportedly particularly acute for gender nonconforming performers, and also performers who had publicly acknowledged their LGB identity. Around 13 percent of non-LGBT performers said they had also heard or seen discrimination directed at LGBT performers.
Examples of that discrimination are highlighted in the study, and include:
“I’ve seen gay men read for straight roles and when they left the room, the casting director indicated that they would not be taken seriously in the straight role because they were gay.”
“A friend almost cast a transgender actress and then found out and reconsidered because there would be a kiss with an actor and he did not know how the actor would feel.”
“A transgender person …[was] told not to use the changing room to change in, but given no alternative except the bathroom to change in. Most people from background to crew members treated them like an outcast.”
In terms of playing an LGB character, most actors thought it had no impact on their careers, but about a quarter of LGB actors said they believed playing LGB had an impact on their getting future roles.
All that said, 72 percent of respondents said they believed being out had no lasting effect on their careers, and many believed that other LGBT performers should also come out. The study also showed that, based on a similar report from last year, it appears that the situation has not worsened for LGBT performers and in some regards has slightly improved.
So, despite the negatives in this study, the researchers believe that there are some signs of progress. Also, they believe this research will help with identifying these problems and for Hollywood to recognize and address these issues.
“Although our industry is heading in the right direction, there is clearly work left to do as certain attitudes and behaviors persist and continue to put pressure on actors to stay in the closet,” says Traci Godfrey and Jason Stuart, national co-chairs of the SAG-AFTRA LGBT Committee. “We are confident that this unprecedented study will have profound ramifications for the entertainment industry as a whole. By utilizing the data it contains as it reflects the realities performers face, we can identify the obstacles to equal employment opportunities and full inclusion.”
The study also of course emphasizes that while being out and open about LGBT identity can make life potentially more difficult for performers, it need not necessarily be a barrier to success and could, in the long run, help the profession move toward a more accepting climate all round. So does Hollywood still have a problem with homophobia? It appears so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t changing — however slow that change might be. –Source: Care 2
The study, which saw researchers take responses from 5,700 SAG-AFTRA members both LGBT and straight identifying, builds on previous research in this area and is being hailed as one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.
The research found that more than half (53 percent) of LGBT respondents in the survey believed that directors and producers don’t want to hire LGBT performers, while just over a third of non-LGBT respondents reported the same sense of bias. In addition to this, about 31 percent of all respondents said they believe casting directors might be biased against LGBT performers.
In terms of getting into the industry, there are also significant barriers. For instance, LGBT respondents are less likely than heterosexuals to have an agent, and LGBT performers feel that because of this they are at a disadvantage when they are trying for work. What’s more, the study found that while LGB performers are able to get jobs that are comparable to those straight actors are getting, they appear to receive lower daily wages than their heterosexual peers, further putting pressure on them in what is already a difficult profession in which to succeed.
The survey also found that when it comes to LGB actors, most respondents believed LGBs are just as marketable in straight romantic roles as their heterosexual counterparts. At the same time, however, about 45 percent of lesbian and gay respondents believed that producers and studio executives think lesbian and gay performers are less marketable. About 27 percent of bisexual performers and 15 percent of heterosexual respondents said the same.
In excess of half of LGB performers reported having heard directors and producers make anti-gay comments about actors, with a fifth of lesbian and gay performers saying they have heard casting directors making comments about their sexual orientation or gender expression. In addition, more than half of LGBT performers say they have heard anti-LGBT comments on set, and over a third say they have seen disrespectful treatment, something that has also been noticed by non-LGBT performers. Discrimination was reportedly particularly acute for gender nonconforming performers, and also performers who had publicly acknowledged their LGB identity. Around 13 percent of non-LGBT performers said they had also heard or seen discrimination directed at LGBT performers.
Examples of that discrimination are highlighted in the study, and include:
“I’ve seen gay men read for straight roles and when they left the room, the casting director indicated that they would not be taken seriously in the straight role because they were gay.”
“A friend almost cast a transgender actress and then found out and reconsidered because there would be a kiss with an actor and he did not know how the actor would feel.”
“A transgender person …[was] told not to use the changing room to change in, but given no alternative except the bathroom to change in. Most people from background to crew members treated them like an outcast.”
In terms of playing an LGB character, most actors thought it had no impact on their careers, but about a quarter of LGB actors said they believed playing LGB had an impact on their getting future roles.
All that said, 72 percent of respondents said they believed being out had no lasting effect on their careers, and many believed that other LGBT performers should also come out. The study also showed that, based on a similar report from last year, it appears that the situation has not worsened for LGBT performers and in some regards has slightly improved.
So, despite the negatives in this study, the researchers believe that there are some signs of progress. Also, they believe this research will help with identifying these problems and for Hollywood to recognize and address these issues.
“Although our industry is heading in the right direction, there is clearly work left to do as certain attitudes and behaviors persist and continue to put pressure on actors to stay in the closet,” says Traci Godfrey and Jason Stuart, national co-chairs of the SAG-AFTRA LGBT Committee. “We are confident that this unprecedented study will have profound ramifications for the entertainment industry as a whole. By utilizing the data it contains as it reflects the realities performers face, we can identify the obstacles to equal employment opportunities and full inclusion.”
The study also of course emphasizes that while being out and open about LGBT identity can make life potentially more difficult for performers, it need not necessarily be a barrier to success and could, in the long run, help the profession move toward a more accepting climate all round. So does Hollywood still have a problem with homophobia? It appears so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t changing — however slow that change might be. –Source: Care 2
Jan 11, 2015
They’ll Come For “The Daily Show” Next: Why Satirists Always Threaten Fundamentalists
Satirists always enrage fundamentalists. That's why they are so essential, and why we must defend them so fiercely
Recently we’ve seen a number of signs of the power of satire. First Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef was forced off the air when the MBC network claimed that he might influence the Egyptian elections. Then Jon Stewart released “Rosewater,” a film about an Iranian journalist imprisoned over a misunderstanding of satire. Then the Chinese government decided to ban puns, claiming that they breach “the law on standard spoken and written Chinese” and “make promoting cultural heritage harder.” Next was the alleged North Korean cyberhacking of Sony Pictures over the satirical film “The Interview,” leading many theater chains to initially decide not to show the movie. But obviously nothing matches the viciousness of the recent massacre at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left at least 10 staff members and two French policemen dead along with a number of others wounded.
What all these events have in common is the way that they prove the power of satire: its power to frustrate and enrage those who feel criticized by it; and its power to spark public debate over the issues it raises. In a moment in time when much public discourse has been galvanized around simplistic and divisive talking points, satirists tend to muddy the waters and ask their audience to think of things from a different view.
The attacks also signal another trend: The rise of fundamentalism and the rise of satire are intricately linked. Many have observed that this is the age of satire, noting the power and influence of comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, but it is less known that this is a global trend. In addition to Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef, for example, Iraq has an anti-ISIS parody show, and Chinese TV has its own version of “The Colbert Report.” In each of these cases, the satirist is aiming at fundamentalist, dogmatic ways of thinking. But their weapons are jokes, cartoons, parodies and puns. Not Kalashnikovs. And the difference couldn’t be greater.
This is why we have to avoid reactionary responses to the attacks. Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons too over the top? Did the satirists provoke these attacks? Is it time to step back and encourage more civility? Watch as the media spins this. At some point the question will be asked: Did they have it coming?
Using satire is not reckless, and while it might attempt to provoke a response, it can’t be blamed for the violence others use to try to stop it.
So as we debate the power of satire in the wake of the massacre, the conversation should not be over whether the cartoonists went too far; rather it should focus on why satire is so often perceived as threatening. And why do satirists take such risks when they know that at times their “jokes” could get them killed?
One of the greatest risks satirists take is the use of irony as a weapon against false logic, faulty reasoning and dogma. Irony is a highly complex form of communication since it never directly says what it means. It uses puns, caricatures, sarcasm and parody to “hint” at its point. If the audience “gets” it, then they are in on the joke; if they don’t, though, they can often feel mocked or even bullied.
This is why satire and fundamentalism are like oil and water. Satire requires some of the highest functioning of the brain; while fundamentalism — especially terrorist fundamentalism — runs on fear and anger. The more the satirist sees fundamentalism, the more they want to call it out. But their tools infuriate those that think in stark, binary, dogmatic terms. Even in the U.S., where satirists have been spared violent attacks, they still regularly draw the ire of those they parody. Recall, for instance, the time that Rush Limbaugh “freaked out” when he heard that Stephen Colbert was taking over for Letterman — and that was just over a TV show.
Satire’s goal is to encourage critical thinking, to foster debate over issues of public concern, and to challenge the status quo. And for those reasons it will always bother those who hold dogmatic views. But moderates won’t respond with violence, even if they don’t agree with the joke. This is why, for instance, there are countless examples of statements from members of the Islamic community, who clearly disliked the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but were outraged at the attacks. In fact, a Twitter hashtag was started to reflect their need to distance themselves from them: #NotInMyName.
Some are wondering if this is a time for satire to tone it down. Some will wonder if the attacks were actually ignited by the satirical cartoons. But, regardless of one’s thoughts on the cartoons themselves, it has to be remembered that no one should die for drawing a cartoon. If there is a social ill for us to address it is not the cartoons, but rather those who believed murder was an appropriate response to them.
The attacks proved the power of satire and they proved its risks. They also are revealing, through the responses of millions, a global commitment to free expression. The global outcry of support– “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) — may well be the best way to attack the mind-set of those who use bullets to disagree with artists. –Salon
Recently we’ve seen a number of signs of the power of satire. First Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef was forced off the air when the MBC network claimed that he might influence the Egyptian elections. Then Jon Stewart released “Rosewater,” a film about an Iranian journalist imprisoned over a misunderstanding of satire. Then the Chinese government decided to ban puns, claiming that they breach “the law on standard spoken and written Chinese” and “make promoting cultural heritage harder.” Next was the alleged North Korean cyberhacking of Sony Pictures over the satirical film “The Interview,” leading many theater chains to initially decide not to show the movie. But obviously nothing matches the viciousness of the recent massacre at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left at least 10 staff members and two French policemen dead along with a number of others wounded.
What all these events have in common is the way that they prove the power of satire: its power to frustrate and enrage those who feel criticized by it; and its power to spark public debate over the issues it raises. In a moment in time when much public discourse has been galvanized around simplistic and divisive talking points, satirists tend to muddy the waters and ask their audience to think of things from a different view.
The attacks also signal another trend: The rise of fundamentalism and the rise of satire are intricately linked. Many have observed that this is the age of satire, noting the power and influence of comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, but it is less known that this is a global trend. In addition to Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef, for example, Iraq has an anti-ISIS parody show, and Chinese TV has its own version of “The Colbert Report.” In each of these cases, the satirist is aiming at fundamentalist, dogmatic ways of thinking. But their weapons are jokes, cartoons, parodies and puns. Not Kalashnikovs. And the difference couldn’t be greater.
This is why we have to avoid reactionary responses to the attacks. Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons too over the top? Did the satirists provoke these attacks? Is it time to step back and encourage more civility? Watch as the media spins this. At some point the question will be asked: Did they have it coming?
Using satire is not reckless, and while it might attempt to provoke a response, it can’t be blamed for the violence others use to try to stop it.
So as we debate the power of satire in the wake of the massacre, the conversation should not be over whether the cartoonists went too far; rather it should focus on why satire is so often perceived as threatening. And why do satirists take such risks when they know that at times their “jokes” could get them killed?
One of the greatest risks satirists take is the use of irony as a weapon against false logic, faulty reasoning and dogma. Irony is a highly complex form of communication since it never directly says what it means. It uses puns, caricatures, sarcasm and parody to “hint” at its point. If the audience “gets” it, then they are in on the joke; if they don’t, though, they can often feel mocked or even bullied.
This is why satire and fundamentalism are like oil and water. Satire requires some of the highest functioning of the brain; while fundamentalism — especially terrorist fundamentalism — runs on fear and anger. The more the satirist sees fundamentalism, the more they want to call it out. But their tools infuriate those that think in stark, binary, dogmatic terms. Even in the U.S., where satirists have been spared violent attacks, they still regularly draw the ire of those they parody. Recall, for instance, the time that Rush Limbaugh “freaked out” when he heard that Stephen Colbert was taking over for Letterman — and that was just over a TV show.
Satire’s goal is to encourage critical thinking, to foster debate over issues of public concern, and to challenge the status quo. And for those reasons it will always bother those who hold dogmatic views. But moderates won’t respond with violence, even if they don’t agree with the joke. This is why, for instance, there are countless examples of statements from members of the Islamic community, who clearly disliked the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but were outraged at the attacks. In fact, a Twitter hashtag was started to reflect their need to distance themselves from them: #NotInMyName.
Some are wondering if this is a time for satire to tone it down. Some will wonder if the attacks were actually ignited by the satirical cartoons. But, regardless of one’s thoughts on the cartoons themselves, it has to be remembered that no one should die for drawing a cartoon. If there is a social ill for us to address it is not the cartoons, but rather those who believed murder was an appropriate response to them.
The attacks proved the power of satire and they proved its risks. They also are revealing, through the responses of millions, a global commitment to free expression. The global outcry of support– “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) — may well be the best way to attack the mind-set of those who use bullets to disagree with artists. –Salon
Jan 4, 2015
YouTube Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit From Pharrell Williams, The Eagles And Others
Lawyers demand removal of around 20,000 videos
A representative for dozens of music superstars, including Pharrell Williams, is telling YouTube that it had better remove about 20,000 videos or face a $1 billion lawsuit.
Music-business heavyweight Irving Azoff, who founded the new legal group Global Music Rights, has told the video juggernaut that it does not have performance rights to thousands of songs by about 40 of his clients, including the Eagles, Chris Cornell and John Lennon, the Hollywood Reporter says.
Meanwhile Google, which is planning to launch Music Key — its own subscription music service to compete with Spotify and Pandora — has said it does have the rights, prompting concerns of a music-industry showdown.
The threat of a lawsuit against YouTube comes amid a broader debate about the rights of musicians in a freewheeling era of digital access to songs. In December, Consequence of Sound reported that Williams’ megahit, “Happy,” generated just $2,700 for 43 million plays on Pandora. –Time
A representative for dozens of music superstars, including Pharrell Williams, is telling YouTube that it had better remove about 20,000 videos or face a $1 billion lawsuit.
Music-business heavyweight Irving Azoff, who founded the new legal group Global Music Rights, has told the video juggernaut that it does not have performance rights to thousands of songs by about 40 of his clients, including the Eagles, Chris Cornell and John Lennon, the Hollywood Reporter says.
Meanwhile Google, which is planning to launch Music Key — its own subscription music service to compete with Spotify and Pandora — has said it does have the rights, prompting concerns of a music-industry showdown.
The threat of a lawsuit against YouTube comes amid a broader debate about the rights of musicians in a freewheeling era of digital access to songs. In December, Consequence of Sound reported that Williams’ megahit, “Happy,” generated just $2,700 for 43 million plays on Pandora. –Time
Oct 12, 2014
Columnist: Disney Is ‘Indoctrinating’ Children With ‘Pro-Gay Agenda’
 |
| Douglas MacKinnon |
A conservative columnist for the Tampa Tribune criticized the Walt Disney Co. for allegedly pushing a “pro-gay agenda,” asserting that the company is using its programming to “indoctrinate” children about “gay lifestyles and gay marriage.”
In his August 12 column, Douglas MacKinnon – a former aide to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – charged that Disney was peddling the “gay agenda” to “impressionable children” by exposing them to “openly gay characters and couples”:
Beginning with the takeover of the company by Michael Eisner in 1984 and continuing under the leadership of Robert Iger since 2005, it can be argued that Disney has been working overtime to redefine “family values.”
[…]
Back in the late 1990s when I worked with former Sen. Bob Dole, I had the pleasure to interact with Iger. He was professional, respectful and could not have been more kind or considerate. Since taking over, he has only made the company more profitable. But beyond his fiscal responsibility to shareholders, does Iger have an even greater responsibility to impressionable children?
Disney has made no secret that it pushes a pro-gay agenda. That is most certainly its right. But where does the company draw the line? A former Disney executive I spoke with told me the company has taken direct aim at children to indoctrinate them about gay lifestyles and gay marriage through shows it airs on The Disney Channel and Disney XD.
The former executive said one of the more subtle techniques is to incorporate the colors of the gay-pride flag in as many shots as possible. The colors are woven in as a wink and nod to the gay community and show up on shirts, hats, posters, stacked cups and rings. The practice has been picked up by other children’s networks and national advertisers.
Disney also pushes the gay agenda by introducing openly gay characters and couples on its children’s programing. Again, that is their right, but should they be in the business of entertaining children or indoctrinating them? [emphasis added]
MacKinnon never explains what harm might be caused by featuring gay-inclusive programming - suggesting that he sees an inherent harm in simply letting children know that gay people exist and have families.
MacKinnon’s attack on Disney’s alleged “pro-gay agenda is just the latest in the columnist’s history of rabid right-wing rhetoric.
As a syndicated columnist, he has staked out hardline positions and has often articulated decidedly paranoid views about President Barack Obama, whom MacKinnon once wrote “has been handed most of his ‘achievements’ in life.” MacKinnon has also dubbed the president a socialist. Just before the 2008 election, MacKinnon warned that if then-Sen. Obama ascended to the presidency, he would usher in a “draconian” leftist government by censoring conservative talk radio hosts and using “any means” necessary to “crush dissent.” The fact that Obama even had a chance of winning, MacKinnon suggested, meant that the United States didn’t truly exist anymore.
MacKinnon also proclaimed the “end of America” in 2007, declaring that the firing of radio host Don Imus after he called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” indicated that “truth and values” no longer had a place in America. –LGBTQ Nation
In his August 12 column, Douglas MacKinnon – a former aide to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – charged that Disney was peddling the “gay agenda” to “impressionable children” by exposing them to “openly gay characters and couples”:
Beginning with the takeover of the company by Michael Eisner in 1984 and continuing under the leadership of Robert Iger since 2005, it can be argued that Disney has been working overtime to redefine “family values.”
[…]
Back in the late 1990s when I worked with former Sen. Bob Dole, I had the pleasure to interact with Iger. He was professional, respectful and could not have been more kind or considerate. Since taking over, he has only made the company more profitable. But beyond his fiscal responsibility to shareholders, does Iger have an even greater responsibility to impressionable children?
Disney has made no secret that it pushes a pro-gay agenda. That is most certainly its right. But where does the company draw the line? A former Disney executive I spoke with told me the company has taken direct aim at children to indoctrinate them about gay lifestyles and gay marriage through shows it airs on The Disney Channel and Disney XD.
The former executive said one of the more subtle techniques is to incorporate the colors of the gay-pride flag in as many shots as possible. The colors are woven in as a wink and nod to the gay community and show up on shirts, hats, posters, stacked cups and rings. The practice has been picked up by other children’s networks and national advertisers.
Disney also pushes the gay agenda by introducing openly gay characters and couples on its children’s programing. Again, that is their right, but should they be in the business of entertaining children or indoctrinating them? [emphasis added]
MacKinnon never explains what harm might be caused by featuring gay-inclusive programming - suggesting that he sees an inherent harm in simply letting children know that gay people exist and have families.
MacKinnon’s attack on Disney’s alleged “pro-gay agenda is just the latest in the columnist’s history of rabid right-wing rhetoric.
As a syndicated columnist, he has staked out hardline positions and has often articulated decidedly paranoid views about President Barack Obama, whom MacKinnon once wrote “has been handed most of his ‘achievements’ in life.” MacKinnon has also dubbed the president a socialist. Just before the 2008 election, MacKinnon warned that if then-Sen. Obama ascended to the presidency, he would usher in a “draconian” leftist government by censoring conservative talk radio hosts and using “any means” necessary to “crush dissent.” The fact that Obama even had a chance of winning, MacKinnon suggested, meant that the United States didn’t truly exist anymore.
MacKinnon also proclaimed the “end of America” in 2007, declaring that the firing of radio host Don Imus after he called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” indicated that “truth and values” no longer had a place in America. –LGBTQ Nation
Sep 28, 2014
'It's Only Rape If The Victim Is Conscious' - Cee Lo Green
The singer – who recently pleaded no contest to charges that he gave a woman ecstasy without her consent in 2012 – appeared to be saying that it is only rape if the woman is conscious.
“If someone is passed out they’re not even WITH you consciously,” he said, adding, “People who have really been raped REMEMBER!!!”
“When someone brakes on a home there is broken glass where is your plausible proof that anyone was raped,” he continued.
The woman had claimed that she had woken up next to Green not knowing what had happened, but due to insufficient evidence no rape charges were filed. Green’s lawyer said they had “consensual relations”.
He was sentenced to three years’ probation and 45 days community service.
“So if I tried but did not succeed but the person said I did then what really happened?” he added.
He then deleted all of the tweets, before posting an apology.
“Let me 1st praise god for exoneration fairness & freedom!” he wrote. “Secondly I sincerely apologize for my comments being taken so far out of context.” -Independent
“If someone is passed out they’re not even WITH you consciously,” he said, adding, “People who have really been raped REMEMBER!!!”
“When someone brakes on a home there is broken glass where is your plausible proof that anyone was raped,” he continued.
The woman had claimed that she had woken up next to Green not knowing what had happened, but due to insufficient evidence no rape charges were filed. Green’s lawyer said they had “consensual relations”.
He was sentenced to three years’ probation and 45 days community service.
“So if I tried but did not succeed but the person said I did then what really happened?” he added.
He then deleted all of the tweets, before posting an apology.
“Let me 1st praise god for exoneration fairness & freedom!” he wrote. “Secondly I sincerely apologize for my comments being taken so far out of context.” -Independent
Maher Panelist Equates Tea Party to Nazis: ‘This Has Happened Before in History, In Germany In the ‘20s And ‘30s’
Graphic novelist Max Brooks, a former writer for Saturday Night Live, charged on Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher that Tea Party “ideologues” are just like the Nazi “ideologues” who fooled the German elite in the decades before World War II.Sitting in the featured panelist slot, the son of legendary producer Mel Brooks and actress Anne Bancroft, contended: “This has happened before in history. In Germany in the ‘20s and ‘30s, there was this right wing reactionary element that was so terrified of anarchy and communism, that they said, ‘you know what, there’s a group of street thugs that are real ideologues and they’re willing to take it and they’re willing to bloody themselves. And you know, once they get into power we can control them.’ And that was why they backed them.”
From the June 27 Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, the discussion prompted by Tea Party upset over how Senator Thad Cochran beat the Tea Party's Chris McDaniel by getting Democrats to vote in the Republican Mississippi run-off:
MAX BROOKS: You know, this has happened before in history. In Germany in the ‘20s and ‘30s, there was this right wing reactionary element that was so terrified of anarchy and communism, that they said, “you know what, there’s a group of street thugs that are real ideologues and they’re willing to take it and they’re willing to bloody themselves. And you know, once they get into power we can control them.” And that was why they backed them. “We can control this.” And what they didn’t realize-
ANDY DEAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Is that a stretch, the Nazis versus the Tea Party who just want smaller government?
BROOKS: What is true is that ideologues are only loyal to ideology.
DEAN: The Tea Party’s ideology isn’t to take over Europe, it’s for smaller government and less taxes.
BROOKS: But they are still ideologues. They will don’t want to compromise...
Brooks specializes in graphic novels and comic books and is best known for World War Z and the ever helpful Zombie Survival Guide.
From 2010: “On Maher, Rob Reiner Equates Tea Party to Hitler: ‘All They’re Selling is Fear and Anger and That’s All Hitler Sold’” -Media Research Center
Jun 22, 2014
In Historic Vote, FCC Advances Rules To Kill 'Open Internet'
Democratic commissioners betray net neutrality rhetoric by approving consideration of rules that would create 'two-tiered internet'
Despite national outcry and protests both outside and inside a packed hearing room in Washington, DC, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a set of rules that threaten the heart of the "open internet" by allowing the creation of "paid priority fast lanes," supplanting the principle known as 'net neutrality' which says all online content must receive equal treatment by the nation's broadband networks.
(Credit: SaveTheInternet.com) In a vote of 3 to 2, with the Democrats on the commission making up the majority, the FCC approved a proposal by Chairman Tom Wheeler which critics say would not just alter net neutrality, but destroy it.
As the Washington Post reports:
The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.
Smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.
The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers.
Condemnation by those opposing the rule changes was swift.
Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, which has led the charge of a broad coalition fighting on behalf of net neutrality, acknowledged that nothing about the FCC rule changes is final and now that a public comment period has officially begun, the real fight for lasting reforms has now started. In a statement in response to Thursday vote, Aaron said:
Millions of people have put the FCC on notice. A pay-for-priority Internet is unacceptable. Today, both Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel stated that they support prohibitions on paid prioritization and other forms of unreasonable discrimination. Tom Wheeler spoke passionately about the open Internet, but his rousing rhetoric doesn't match the reality of his proposal. The only way to accomplish the chairman’s goals is to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers.
The Commission says it wants to hear from the public; it will be hearing a lot more. This fight will stretch into the fall, but there’s one clear answer: The American people demand real Net Neutrality, and the FCC must restore it.
We’re encouraged by much of what was said during today's meeting. But words amount to little without the rules to back them up. If Chairman Wheeler is sincere in his objections to a fast-lane, slow-lane Internet, then reclassification is the only way to prevent this terrible scenario from becoming a reality.
Expressing the need for continued public engagement and activism and the overall importance of reclassifying broadband, Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, said: "This will be the summer of net neutrality. Net neutrality supporters will make it clear to the FCC and Congress that only robust net neutrality rules that prevent paid prioritization, grounded in clear Title II authority, will suffice. Any rules that allow for harmful discrimination cannot truly be called net neutrality. And any rules based on creaky legal authority are just a waste of everyone’s time."
In a statement released by the public advocacy group Common Cause, former FCC chairman Michael Copps, now a special adviser to the group, said the FCC's vote should make Thursday "an alarming day for anyone who treasures a free and open Internet."
Copps continued: "Let's be clear. Any proposal to allow fast lanes for the few is emphatically not net neutrality. The clear common-sense prerequisite for an Open Internet is Title II reclassification, guaranteeing the agency's authority to protect consumers and ensure free speech online."
"The FCC could have moved decisively to guarantee that the Internet remains an open platform for free expression and the exchange of democracy-sustaining communications," said Copps. "Instead, the Commission again left broadband users without the protections they deserve." -Common Dreams
Despite national outcry and protests both outside and inside a packed hearing room in Washington, DC, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a set of rules that threaten the heart of the "open internet" by allowing the creation of "paid priority fast lanes," supplanting the principle known as 'net neutrality' which says all online content must receive equal treatment by the nation's broadband networks.
(Credit: SaveTheInternet.com) In a vote of 3 to 2, with the Democrats on the commission making up the majority, the FCC approved a proposal by Chairman Tom Wheeler which critics say would not just alter net neutrality, but destroy it.
As the Washington Post reports:
The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.
Smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.
The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers.
Condemnation by those opposing the rule changes was swift.
Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, which has led the charge of a broad coalition fighting on behalf of net neutrality, acknowledged that nothing about the FCC rule changes is final and now that a public comment period has officially begun, the real fight for lasting reforms has now started. In a statement in response to Thursday vote, Aaron said:
Millions of people have put the FCC on notice. A pay-for-priority Internet is unacceptable. Today, both Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel stated that they support prohibitions on paid prioritization and other forms of unreasonable discrimination. Tom Wheeler spoke passionately about the open Internet, but his rousing rhetoric doesn't match the reality of his proposal. The only way to accomplish the chairman’s goals is to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers.
The Commission says it wants to hear from the public; it will be hearing a lot more. This fight will stretch into the fall, but there’s one clear answer: The American people demand real Net Neutrality, and the FCC must restore it.
We’re encouraged by much of what was said during today's meeting. But words amount to little without the rules to back them up. If Chairman Wheeler is sincere in his objections to a fast-lane, slow-lane Internet, then reclassification is the only way to prevent this terrible scenario from becoming a reality.
Expressing the need for continued public engagement and activism and the overall importance of reclassifying broadband, Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, said: "This will be the summer of net neutrality. Net neutrality supporters will make it clear to the FCC and Congress that only robust net neutrality rules that prevent paid prioritization, grounded in clear Title II authority, will suffice. Any rules that allow for harmful discrimination cannot truly be called net neutrality. And any rules based on creaky legal authority are just a waste of everyone’s time."
In a statement released by the public advocacy group Common Cause, former FCC chairman Michael Copps, now a special adviser to the group, said the FCC's vote should make Thursday "an alarming day for anyone who treasures a free and open Internet."
Copps continued: "Let's be clear. Any proposal to allow fast lanes for the few is emphatically not net neutrality. The clear common-sense prerequisite for an Open Internet is Title II reclassification, guaranteeing the agency's authority to protect consumers and ensure free speech online."
"The FCC could have moved decisively to guarantee that the Internet remains an open platform for free expression and the exchange of democracy-sustaining communications," said Copps. "Instead, the Commission again left broadband users without the protections they deserve." -Common Dreams
May 18, 2014
Brunei’s Shari‘a Law Irks Hollywood Stars, Triggers Boycotts
Hollywood businesses and celebrities have vowed to boycott the Dorchester Collection, a luxury hotel chain owned by the state-run Brunei Investment Agency, after the country implemented a strict Shari'a codeJay Leno, Richard Branson and the Motion Picture & Television Fund have slammed Brunei’s decision to implement an ultraorthodox form of Shari‘a law last week and have called for boycotts against hotels owned by the oil-rich state.
The new criminal code will allow courts to amputate the limbs of thieves, stone convicted adulterers and levy harsh punishments for abortions and homosexuality.
“The decision to implement the [Shari‘a penal code] is not for fun but is to obey Allah’s command as written in the Quran,” said the country’s billionaire leader Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah last week, according to the Associated Press.
The new criminal codes can also be applied to the Southeast Asian nation’s non-Muslim residents, who make up approximately one-third of the tiny country’s population.
On Monday former late-night talk-show host Jay Leno led a protest in front of the iconic Beverly Hills Hotel, which is part of the Dorchester Collection owned by the state-run Brunei Investment Agency.
“What is this, Berlin 1933? This doesn’t seem far off what happened in the Holocaust,” said Leno, according to AFP. “Come on, people, it’s 2014. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing.”
The Feminist Majority Foundation, which is co-chaired by Leno and his wife Mavis, announced this week that its annual Global Women’s Rights Awards scheduled to take place at the Beverly Hills Hotel would be moved to another venue.
Over the weekend, Virgin Group’s founder Richard Branson took to Twitter to rail against the Sultan’s open disregard for human rights. –Time
Mar 23, 2014
NAD Distances Itself from "Preacher's Daughters" Show
The North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, in a special NewsPoints bulletin, sought to distance itself from "Preacher's Daughters," a reality show that features the daughter of an Adventist pastor in its second season. The bulletin stated,It has come to our attention that a Seventh-day Adventist pastor and his family are included in a reality television show on the Lifetime Network.
Although we were unaware of the family’s involvement in this program, and it misrepresents some of the standards and principles of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we care deeply about the issues raised. It sheds light on the challenges that are unique to pastors and their families, and we empathize with their experience.
According to The Christian Post, Tori Elliott, the 22-year-old daughter of Pastor Kenny Elliott of Bethel Seventh-day-Adventist Church in New Orleans, made her "Preachers' Daughters" debut in season two of the show. "The former police officer-turned party girl who showed up to church drunk got evicted from her apartment in the first episode," CP reports. "Tori told CP that she came onto the show to give viewers the perspective of preachers' daughters who are dealing with life not as teenagers, but young adults overcoming the temptations of the world."
The NAD not only sought to distance itself from the show, but also to offer resources for children of ministers.
The message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a one of hope and wholeness. We value the sanctity of the family unit and seek to do all we can to strengthen, support and help them grow spiritually, mentally and emotionally.
In 2013 the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America started development of a video series to address these types of issues in hopes that it will help to spark conversation and lead to resolutions. A sample of this series can be found at www.vimeo.com/nadadventist/pastorsfamily. More information about the series can be found at http://bitsy.spinics.net/1014.
To learn more about the Seventh-day Adventist Church and our beliefs, please visitwww.mywaytojesus.com. –Spectrum
Mar 16, 2014
Preachers' Daughters Exclusive: Cast Says There's A Godly Message Behind The Debauchery
"Preachers Daughters," is back for a second season on Lifetime with two new families and more drama that will surely shock many critics with excessive drinking, cursing, smoking, partying and coming to Jesus moments all packed into one hour episodes.
However, the preachers and their daughters featured on the docu-soap insist that the series is not coming back for another season in order to shame the church, but to help people. While the Coleman and Koloff families are back for another season, the Perrys will not return, which the show's executive producer Adam Reed explained was a decision made by the production staff and network.
While Reed told The Christian Post that the production team and the network, "collectively felt that a lot of (the Perry family's) story had been told" last season, the Elliott and Cassidy families have come onto the show promising viewers a new perspective from preachers' daughters.
Tori Elliott, the 22-year-old daughter of Pastor Kenny Elliott of Bethel Seventh-day-Adventist Church in New Orleans, made her "Preachers' Daughters" debut as the former police officer-turned party girl who showed up to church drunk and got evicted from her apartment in the first episode. Tori told CP that she came onto the show to give viewers the perspective of preachers' daughters who are dealing with life not as teenagers, but young adults overcoming the temptations of the world.
Although she struggles with excessive drinking, being a negative role model to her 16-year-old sister and being responsible while on the show, Tori has a message for people who may doubt the show's merit based on the season two premiere.
"If there is anybody out there that is skeptical about the show, I just encourage them to watch it through. Watch me grow spiritually and get more in love with God," she told CP. "It might start off slow but in the end like the prodigal son, God's love overcomes all sins."
Tori's father prayed about his family joining the series and decided it was time to dispel some stereotypes associated with preachers' daughters being rebellious.
"Just because they go out and drink or party they're automatically labeled rebellious preachers kids," Pastor Elliott told CP. "But sometimes you have to look beyond that because it may have something to do with maybe they were hurting inside, maybe they were doing it to hide something or to cover themselves. And I think as a young person I pretty much did that myself."
Pastor Jeff Cassidy, is another new face on the show who knows firsthand what rebelling against God looks like. While Pastor Cassidy is devoting himself to full time ministry as a newly appointed associate pastor of Lake Bowen Baptist Church in Boiling Springs, S.C., on the show, he is also a former heavy metal musician with a history of substance abuse. While dealing with his 19-year-old son Zac in rehab, Pastor Cassidy's daughter Megan is describing herself as "the southern belle raisin' hell."
After her father transitions from worship leader to full time associate pastor in the church, 17-year-old daughter Megan is struggling to fulfill her duties as a preachers' daughter while drinking, smoking and dressing less than demurely.
"I wasn't really prepared for how it was all going to go, I was kind of thrown into a situation," Megan told CP of her father being involved in ministry full time.
Still, Megan's father insists that people can learn from his less than perfect family.
"The things I want people to see and understand is church is not full of perfect people...And it's staff members are just like anybody else," Pastor Cassidy told CP. "Church is full of hypocrites as people say and that's where hypocrites need to be. They need to be in church learning about Christ and God.. They're normal fathers, they're normal mothers, they're normal teenagers and they're dealing with a world out there today that will eat you up and spit you out."
Pastor Ken Coleman of City of Refuge Pentecostal Church in Joliet, Ill, who first appeared on the show last year with his daughter Taylor, 18, had to overcome her sneaking out of their house with boys, partying and lying to her parents in front of TV cameras last season. While this season will focus more on Taylor trying to find herself while experiencing her last days of high school and fighting temptations, it will also feature some of Pastor Coleman's life threatening medical issues.
Pastor Coleman insists there was a greater purpose behind he and his family joining the show for a second season.
"We've had some negative (reactions) from people but we don't focus on them. When it's all said and done if (people) communicate with their mothers, their fathers or their children we've done our job," he told CP. "It's been a help to so many different ministers and preachers out here. We get so many different messages on Facebook on how they can't wait to see next season and we have helped them talk to their children."
Victoria Koloff, the preacher and radio show host who appeared last season as a divorced mother of four co-parenting and focusing on raising her now 17-year-old daughter between Kannapolis, N.C., and Nashville, Tenn., said she received hundreds of messages from people thanking her for appearing on the show and helping them change their lives. This season, viewers may witness Kolby attempting to map out her future after high school while disagreeing with her parents and making her own choices much to their disapproval.
Despite the show's dramatic elements, Victoria insists "Preachers' Daughters" is bringing something special to Christians who might be watching less than Godly reality television programming otherwise.
"The Christians are watching trash t.v. and what I like about our show is it might have a sprinkle of drama and controversy in it, but it always has a happy ending. There's something good that's going to come from each of the families," she told CP. "If people hang in there with these families throughout the whole season, they're going to be cheering them on instead of pointing the finger and judging them. And as it unfolds it will make me proud of season two just like I was in season one." -Christian Post
However, the preachers and their daughters featured on the docu-soap insist that the series is not coming back for another season in order to shame the church, but to help people. While the Coleman and Koloff families are back for another season, the Perrys will not return, which the show's executive producer Adam Reed explained was a decision made by the production staff and network.
While Reed told The Christian Post that the production team and the network, "collectively felt that a lot of (the Perry family's) story had been told" last season, the Elliott and Cassidy families have come onto the show promising viewers a new perspective from preachers' daughters.
Tori Elliott, the 22-year-old daughter of Pastor Kenny Elliott of Bethel Seventh-day-Adventist Church in New Orleans, made her "Preachers' Daughters" debut as the former police officer-turned party girl who showed up to church drunk and got evicted from her apartment in the first episode. Tori told CP that she came onto the show to give viewers the perspective of preachers' daughters who are dealing with life not as teenagers, but young adults overcoming the temptations of the world.
Although she struggles with excessive drinking, being a negative role model to her 16-year-old sister and being responsible while on the show, Tori has a message for people who may doubt the show's merit based on the season two premiere.
"If there is anybody out there that is skeptical about the show, I just encourage them to watch it through. Watch me grow spiritually and get more in love with God," she told CP. "It might start off slow but in the end like the prodigal son, God's love overcomes all sins."
Tori's father prayed about his family joining the series and decided it was time to dispel some stereotypes associated with preachers' daughters being rebellious.
"Just because they go out and drink or party they're automatically labeled rebellious preachers kids," Pastor Elliott told CP. "But sometimes you have to look beyond that because it may have something to do with maybe they were hurting inside, maybe they were doing it to hide something or to cover themselves. And I think as a young person I pretty much did that myself."
Pastor Jeff Cassidy, is another new face on the show who knows firsthand what rebelling against God looks like. While Pastor Cassidy is devoting himself to full time ministry as a newly appointed associate pastor of Lake Bowen Baptist Church in Boiling Springs, S.C., on the show, he is also a former heavy metal musician with a history of substance abuse. While dealing with his 19-year-old son Zac in rehab, Pastor Cassidy's daughter Megan is describing herself as "the southern belle raisin' hell."
After her father transitions from worship leader to full time associate pastor in the church, 17-year-old daughter Megan is struggling to fulfill her duties as a preachers' daughter while drinking, smoking and dressing less than demurely.
"I wasn't really prepared for how it was all going to go, I was kind of thrown into a situation," Megan told CP of her father being involved in ministry full time.
Still, Megan's father insists that people can learn from his less than perfect family.
"The things I want people to see and understand is church is not full of perfect people...And it's staff members are just like anybody else," Pastor Cassidy told CP. "Church is full of hypocrites as people say and that's where hypocrites need to be. They need to be in church learning about Christ and God.. They're normal fathers, they're normal mothers, they're normal teenagers and they're dealing with a world out there today that will eat you up and spit you out."
Pastor Ken Coleman of City of Refuge Pentecostal Church in Joliet, Ill, who first appeared on the show last year with his daughter Taylor, 18, had to overcome her sneaking out of their house with boys, partying and lying to her parents in front of TV cameras last season. While this season will focus more on Taylor trying to find herself while experiencing her last days of high school and fighting temptations, it will also feature some of Pastor Coleman's life threatening medical issues.
Pastor Coleman insists there was a greater purpose behind he and his family joining the show for a second season.
"We've had some negative (reactions) from people but we don't focus on them. When it's all said and done if (people) communicate with their mothers, their fathers or their children we've done our job," he told CP. "It's been a help to so many different ministers and preachers out here. We get so many different messages on Facebook on how they can't wait to see next season and we have helped them talk to their children."
Victoria Koloff, the preacher and radio show host who appeared last season as a divorced mother of four co-parenting and focusing on raising her now 17-year-old daughter between Kannapolis, N.C., and Nashville, Tenn., said she received hundreds of messages from people thanking her for appearing on the show and helping them change their lives. This season, viewers may witness Kolby attempting to map out her future after high school while disagreeing with her parents and making her own choices much to their disapproval.
Despite the show's dramatic elements, Victoria insists "Preachers' Daughters" is bringing something special to Christians who might be watching less than Godly reality television programming otherwise.
"The Christians are watching trash t.v. and what I like about our show is it might have a sprinkle of drama and controversy in it, but it always has a happy ending. There's something good that's going to come from each of the families," she told CP. "If people hang in there with these families throughout the whole season, they're going to be cheering them on instead of pointing the finger and judging them. And as it unfolds it will make me proud of season two just like I was in season one." -Christian Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)