Walker Derangement Syndrome – Another Swing And A Miss

WALKER 2016-2


Scott Walker sits upon a throne made from the skulls of his enemies.

Daily Caller:

Websites Forced To Correct And Retract False Stories About Scott Walker

Several websites were forced to correct, and in one case retract, stories they published Friday which falsely accused Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker of wanting to rollback sexual assault reporting requirements at state colleges and universities.

The left-leaning website Jezebel kicked off the latest attack on Walker, a Republican who is considering a 2016 presidential bid, with an article headlined “Scott Walker Wants Colleges To Stop Reporting Sexual Assaults.”

“Under Walker’s budget, universities would no longer have to report the number of sexual assaults that take place on a campus to the Department of Justice. Under Walker’s plan, university employees who witness a sexual assault would no longer have to report it,” Jezebel reporter Natasha Vargas-Cooper wrote on Friday.

“There are no policy recommendations in Walker’s budget how or what would replace these reporting mechanisms. The Governor simply instructs that they should be deleted,” Vargas-Cooper continued.

Vargas-Cooper gave a good indication of how she was approaching her subject, describing Walker as “a small-time guy who is having a big-time moment by playing the conservative werewolf.”

[…]

But Vargas-Cooper’s claim — which was picked up by The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and Raw Story — was inaccurate and devoid of context.

It ultimately led to a correction at Jezebel, a changed-up headline at HuffPo and a complete retraction at The Daily Beast.

What did Vargas-Cooper get wrong?

First, the University of Wisconsin’s 26-school system already reports sexual assault statistics to the U.S. Department of Education. The new proposal, part of a bill which will cut state spending on higher education by $300 million, removes the requirement that the UW system report sexual assaults to the state’s Department of Justice.

Vargas-Cooper appears to have been under the impression that the bill removed a requirement to report to the federal DOJ.

Second, the UW system, and not Walker, requested the change to the language of the bill asserting that current reporting requirements are “redundant,” given its reporting to the U.S. Department of Education.


Oops!

But wait! There’s more!

Vargas-Cooper was very reluctant and ungracious when it came to setting the record straight:

Daily Beast retracts Scott Walker hit piece, publishes new story alongside train wreck of a correction


‘That’s your apology?’ Reporter of debunked Scott Walker hit piece remains ‘rather indignant’


Take 2: Jezebel writer’s second attempt at an apology a noted improvement


Jezebel writer who smeared Scott Walker has protected her Twitter account


As of this writing the headline at Jezebel reads:

Scott Walker Wants Colleges to Stop Reporting Sexual Assaults [UPDATE 2]


This is what happens when you are so blinded by hate that you sacrifice your credibility on the altar of ideology.


Posted in Scott Walker, Walker Derangement Syndrome | Tagged , | 119 Comments

Duck Commandment


That Duck Dynasty dude really stirred the pot yesterday:

‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson just gave an epic speech about Jesus and STDs

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson gave the most unusual speech at the conservative activist gathering CPAC on Friday.

“You say, ‘What do you call the 110 million people who have sexually transmitted illnesses?’ It’s the revenge of the hippies!” Robertson declared. “Sex, drugs, and rock and roll have come back to haunt us in a bad way. I report you decide.”

Robertson, a popular conservative stalwart, devoted much of his speech to discussing sexually transmitted diseases. His message was that Americans should marry their sexual partners and then stay married.

“You want a godly, biblical, medically safe option? One man, one woman — married for life,” he said. “I’m trying to help you for crying out loud, America! If I didn’t care about you, why would I bring this up? I wouldn’t care!”

Robertson’s speech was unquestionably one of the more colorful ones at the conservative event, which also featured many of the likely Republican presidential candidates. He deviated to several other topics during the address, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and the Islamic State jihadists in the Middle East. All three, Robertson said, wanted territorial conquest, killed people, and didn’t believe in Jesus.

“Some people studied the Constitution to uphold it. But there are some who study it so that they can circumvent it, right? Stand on the Bible. Stand on the Constitution. Don’t budge. Hold onto your weapons,” he said. “We had to have all three to run the Brits back to where they came from. We had to have all three when the Nazis reared their head. You say the Nazis? World domination was what Hitler had on his mind. Territorial conquest. There was no Jesus, none!”


The conservatives at CPAC seemed to enjoy his sermon/speech, but outside of the gathering Progs in and out of the media were sneering and mocking him. But all the Progs see is a redneck bumpkin even though Robertson is a self-made millionaire with a masters degree in education.

For some strange reason Progs never mock black preachers.


Phil Robertson's college yearbook photo

Phil Robertson’s college yearbook photo


Posted in Uncategorized | 76 Comments

Weekly Taylor Swift Update


Tay rocked England this week, and took home an award for Hottest Woman on the Planet. From news reports it appears Tay and Kanye have buried the hatchet.

taylor-kanye-sam-kim__oPt


That other dude is some Brit singer named Sam Smith. Not sure if he’s Tay’s next ex-boyfriend or not.

Tay and her BFF Karlie Kloss graced the cover of Vogue this next month.

main.original


This is an open thread.

Posted in Uncategorized | 31 Comments

Happy Lily Open Thread

10410198_993181724043106_2493869104747339186_n


Because I’m her grampa, that’s why!


10923333_993181720709773_6365178960076040817_n


Posted in Uncategorized | 106 Comments

Cruzin’ With Ted – CPAC Edition


Ted Cruz spoke at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) meeting today. I’m not sure but I think I felt a tingle in my leg. Walker-Cruz might be my fantasy ticket.

This is an open thread.


Cruzin with Ted


Posted in Ted Cruz | Tagged | 35 Comments

How To Think Like An Authoritarian Leftist – Michelle Obama’s War On Food

big sister is watching you


It’s kinda creepy. Mark Bittman in the NYT Op/Ed page:

How Should We Eat?

The recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a nutrition panel that helps update and revise federal dietary guidelines, were announced last week and are easy to parse: The panel, a collection of 14 health experts with dozens of specialists in support, emphasizes things that just about everyone agrees upon: that we need a diet more oriented toward plants, that we should reduce calorie consumption in general, and that less sugar would be a good thing. Not much new there, or surprising.

But on some levels the report is disappointing: For one thing, it’s 571 pages (not surprisingly, it stumbles over itself). And it focuses on individual nutrients at the expense of sending simpler messages. No one wants to think about “eating” (or, even worse, “consuming”) cholesterol or saturated fat or sodium or “sweeteners.” We want to think about eating food.

This is a long-term problem. For years government agencies have all but ignored the value of real food, of cooking, of well-produced, actually natural — the word must mean something, after all — food as opposed to its components or its hyperprocessed substitutes, and of eating with friends and family in a relaxed manner. (There’s a reason life expectancy in most OECD countries is higher than ours.) Agencies repeatedly ignored evidence that would have led to better advice because Big Food’s muscle prevented statements that would have cut consumption — such as “eat less meat,” or “don’t drink soda.”

[…]

Industry representatives hate the report — a good indicator of its value — and will fight to keep its recommendations from becoming policy. (Saying “eat less meat” is way different from saying “eat more lean meat.”) We should carefully monitor the current public comment period, which will be followed by a review by the Health and Agriculture Departments later this year, before the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans will be published. The smart environmental qualifications, and much else, will be fought furiously. But whatever is adopted will become official policy and will strongly affect school lunches and other federally funded meal-serving programs. Overall, these recommendations deserve our support (you can register your comments here) and our awareness that they need to go further.

The recommendations are perhaps more complicated than we’d like, but they must stand up to Big Food, which will fight, deny, complicate and more, just as it’s fighting the Food and Drug Administration’s better-labeling laws, and just as it’s trying to roll back advances in school lunches. Industry’s job is to confuse every issue, to make sure that what we eat is profitable regardless of its value. In short, Big Food wants the corn-and-soybean status quo.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think it would help if we had an overarching statement defining “food” and our rights regarding it, something like “All Americans have the right to nutritious, affordable, sustainable and fair food.” That would signal intent, and a recognition that although the science may never be entirely clear, people’s rights should trump industry’s “needs.”

Policy can make things much simpler. Michael Pollan’s justifiably famous seven words — “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” — get at the root, and a more detailed explanation could be executed in just a couple of paragraphs. Many other countries are learning from our mistakes, and beginning to develop national food policies that have some teeth.

Food policy pits the profits of the very few against the needs and rights of many. We can whittle away at those profits, but it would be faster, healthier and even more delicious if we brought about a transition with more urgency.


Money Quote:

It tells you to drink all the coffee you want, up to something like five cups a day, which makes some people ecstatic. But far more important is this statement: “Strategies are needed to encourage the U.S. population to drink water when they are thirsty.” Imagine if that were official policy.


Leftism always starts with do-gooderism. It always ends with tyranny. Here is the basic formula:

1. Identify a problem

2. Get government involved in making guidelines/recommendations

3. Guidelines/recommendations become policy

4. Policy becomes law

5. Everything not mandatory is prohibited

Imagine if “All Americans have the right to nutritious, affordable, sustainable and fair food” became codified into law. Now think about how expansive the power to “regulate interstate commerce” has become, and imagine a federal bureaucracy controlling every aspect of what we eat.

In other words, imagine expanding Michelle Obama’s school lunch program to cover every meal, every snack, every person, every day.

Of course the rules won’t apply to people like Michelle, Barack and their friends. They’ll keep eating Wagyu beef and caviar. Rules are for little people like you and me.

As for me, I prefer freedom.


socialism vc capitalism


Posted in Michelle Obama's War on Food | Tagged | 150 Comments

Because They’re Stupid!

I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!

I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!


A Man, Duh Marcotte:

Why Do Women Vote Republican?

A new poll from Public Policy Polling is making headlines this week because it reveals that 57 percent of Republican primary voters want to make Christianity the national religion, even though doing so would require removing the First Amendment from the Constitution. Even more interestingly, the data shows a stark gender divide among Republicans polled on this question: 66 percent of Republican women versus 49 percent of Republican men would like to see America become more theocratic.

Overall, the data suggests that there may be an intriguing gender divide when it comes to the motivations of Republican voters, with results showing men to be more motivated by economic reasons and women drawn to conservative politics for more religious and social reasons. Other interesting gender gaps: Men are nearly twice as likely as women to identify themselves as “Tea Party”; 73 percent of Republican men refuse to accept that climate change is real, compared with 57 percent of Republican women; and Republican men are actually more likely than Republican women to accept evolutionary theory, with 43 percent of men versus 30 percent of women expressing a belief in evolution. Since climate change denialism is more tied up in anti-environmentalist sentiment and evolution denialism is primarily about religion, this divide makes perfect sense.

The gender divide persists when the poll looks at which potential primary candidates male and female Republicans support. Politicians who are seen as more libertarian or more supportive of corporate interests (Rand Paul, Scott Walker) get more love from men, whereas candidates that are more on the Bible-thumping side of the equation (Mike Huckabee) are more popular with women. Of all potential candidates, Huckabee had the highest favorability rating among women.

There’s been an increased interest in recent years in what motivates Republican women, particularly as the party has amped up its assault on reproductive rights. This data, which jibes with countless studies have shown that women are more likely to be religious than men, helps answer that question: It’s religion.


Shorter: Them Republican bitches be whack, yo!

To really understand her post you need to know that in addition to being a radical feminist and a misandrist, A Man, Duh Marcotte is also a radical atheist and a far-left progressive Democrat. She hates men more than any hetero woman I ever heard of, and her radical views on men and religion got her kicked off the John Edwards campaign staff.

On January 30, 2007, the John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign hired Marcotte to act as the campaign’s blogmaster.[6] She was soon criticized for her previous work.[7][8][9] [10] The campaign responded that, while Edwards was “personally offended” by some of Marcotte’s remarks, her job as their blogmaster was secure.[11]

In January 2007, Marcotte wrote controversial statements about the Duke lacrosse case, including that people who defended the accused were “rape-loving scum”.[12][13][14] A few months before all charges were dropped in the case, on a blog post titled “Stuck at the airport again…..” Marcotte wrote in part, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.” The post attracted criticism, including from The New York Times. Cathy Young described Marcotte as a leader of a “cyber-lynch mob,” writing that, “in Marcotte’s eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.”[14] Marcotte later deleted the post.[15]

On February 12, 2007, the Catholic League called Marcotte’s review of the film Children of Men “anti-Christian”.[16] Later the same day, Marcotte announced that she had resigned from the Edwards campaign, accusing Bill Donohue of a sexist perspective in the calls for her resignation. She returned to her work on other blogs.[17] In an article for Salon a few days later, she said the reaction to her comments on the Duke lacrosse case was the first in a series of “shitstorms” that had prompted her to resign from the campaign.[18]


A Man, Duh lacks the objectivity to evaluate the motives and life choices of conservative Christian women. Is it possible that these women she is talking about are Christians and Republicans because they are by nature conservative? A Man, Duh doesn’t have any kids. Perhaps motherhood has an effect on some women that makes them more conservative and/or spiritual.

There simply isn’t enough data to do anything more than superficial analysis. Mix that with a strong preexisting bias and the conclusions will be suspect, to say the least.


9 out of 10


Posted in Uncategorized | 31 Comments