What's new, pussycat? #10

During last few weeks, the news from the world were consistently bad - but some news were funny.

Islamo-fascist is allowed to enter Britain
United Kindgom allowed a moslem jihadist Zakir Naik to visit Britain. An infamous tele-jihadist is known for his extreme views - for example claiming that "People who change their religion should face the death penalty” or "“It is a blatant secret that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself” and "“If he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist ... I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist”. Interestingly enough, United Kingdom recently prohibited a number of non-jihadists to enter the country - the list includes Mike Savage (conservative talk show host), Benny Hinn (American Christian preacher - peaceful nutcase) and Geert Wilders (Dutch MP and civil rights activist).



Self-Described conservative David Brooks steps into sh*t - keeps walking
Pseudo-conservative David Brooks finally regained his composure and rallied against all evil people who doubt Obama's competence. In his jihad for Obama, Dave was forced to perform human caused disasters against poor innocent libs - including James Carville. According to Dave, Obama "had a really heroic presidency for the first year..." Moreover - while Dave roundly criticized Bush for his alleged incompetence during hurricane Katrina - it was patently unfair (maybe even racist) to expect anything positive from president Obama and the federal government. Way to go, Dave! Now that you are to the left of James Carville - maybe it's time to register with Communist Party.

P.S. Good quotes from Dave back from 2008, when he was dreaming about being teabagged by Obama: "I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
"I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room."


Obama and liberals are finally moving against freedom of speech
According to Fox News, liberals in Michigan consider licensing for journalists. According to  Senator Bruce Patterson who has introduced the bill which will regulate the reporters, "“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government". There is an eerie similarity to Lenin"s pronouncements that "movies are the most important art" - which of course meant that the communists would take complete control over the movie industry.

The bill proposes a multi-step application process for would-be reporters in the great state of Michigan (15% unemployment) in their quest to satisfy the board of government specialists.

--"Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
--Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
--Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
--Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
--Three or more writing samples.



According to Bruce, “We have to be able to get good information. We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.” According to Fox News, he believes that

some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

In a completely different story, Obama's Federal Trade Commission recently proposed to nationalize the press. Among the measures, FTC proposes to drastically increase government subsidies to selected media outlets, expand the role of government owned media in the US, raise taxes on independent media and the like. It remains to be seen if Michigan senator will get employment in the FTC - but it would make perfect sense.

And yet another story is brewing - more than 30 liberal organizations (one of them with Orwelian name "Free Press") filed a letter to FCC demanding it to root out all "hate speech" from Internet, Radio and Cable TV. There are no explanations on what the authors consider "hate speech" (for example some may quite reasonably assert that Obama's claims that his administration keeps its boot on the throat of BP is an obvious example of hate speech) - there was one paragraph that hinted to what the liberals meant. According to the signers, "Just last week, Arizona enacted some of the most backward-sliding legislation that has existed since freed-slaves were forced to show their papers in the 1800s." In other words, be ready that any common sense opinions will be considered hate speech.
I must mention that the document is very poorly written (which is to be expected from people of very low intelligence) - for example this passage is actually quite funny: "As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve." It would be for example interesting to find out how ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS became less "diverse" in the last few decades - just for laughs and giggles - and see how much evidence exists to prove it. Moreover, the fact that "traditional media" has lost its monopoly due to invention of AM radio and Internet is also cited in the document as evidence that diversity is lost. It would be interesting to know how the authors define "diversity".

Moreover, the same authors made quote a lot of interesting claims - including these ones: "The Internet gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before. Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye. Even worse, sometimes anonymous Internet speakers hold their information out as news, leaving the public with the difficult job of discerning fact from fiction." The entire passage is bizarre - for starters, what's the base year for comparison of the number of journalists - let alone where is the definition of "journalist". A good blogger is worth more than 10 top journalists from the NYT. Secondly, many newspapers editorials are anonymous - which seems not to bother the liberal proponents of legacy media. Lastly, every media outlet claims it provides news - and it is up to the public to do the "difficult job of discerning fact from fiction". In other words, the public has to do this irrespective of whether it gets its information. But what apparently the left-wing groups demand is that the Obama regime takes on the difficult task of deciding this - and not the public. In other words, they want government control over the press.

In all fairness, I believe once conservatives take over the House, they should start congressional hearings and find out if any of the tax dollars are given to these left-wing fascistic groups. I don't see why my money should support their efforts to censor free speech and castrate the First Amendment.