Guy test seattle

Submitted by admin on 9/25/12 4:55pm

It’s no surprise that news stations spin their programming in order to promote whatever political agenda that their owners happen to believe in.  They have an interest in keeping people believing one way or the other and see it as a rightful exercise of their power and control.  But now it’s being shown that news agencies will go even further than just being biased - they’re willing to sell their coverage to those who can pay their price.

The exposed culprit is CNN, one of the supposedly “reputable” news networks.  The scandal revolves around CNN reporting on the human rights abuses in the country of Bahrain.  There is a popular uprising in Bahrain and the government there is keen on not letting the world know the truth of the matter - that they are brutally abusing their citizens much the same as those in Syria did before the revolution there began.

It’s (now former) CNN journalist Amber Lyon who had the courage to blow the whistle on this one.  She had been working on a documentary report about the troubles in Bahrain recently and even though her story showed the human rights abuses going on first hand, the end result was a product that was edited and spun at the request of Bahrain’s government.

The stink began when Lyon was airing some coverage that showed the events in Bahrain.  These are things that she and her crew risked their lives to get recordings of.  But in addition to not being allowed to air this news on CNN International (and thus limiting the audience), the government of Bahrain called CNN and complained that the report needed to be completely off the air.

Lyons was so upset with the developments that she walked on CNN, telling them that if they were going to let other countries pay to manipulate the news that those in charge should at least have the courtesy to let viewers know who the sponsors were.

We’ve always known that the news is corrupt to some degree, but this case just spells it out.  If you are powerful enough you can simply call a TV station and tell them to produce whatever story makes you look the best.  And if you don’t like what they have to say, write a check and have them pull it.  The ethics of journalism seem to be fading rapidly and it spells out a serious danger for the future.

----------------------------------------

If you’re looking for a good family film that everyone is likely to enjoy—and not be scared by, fall asleep during, or simply whine through—look no further than Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Featuring the voices of up and coming funny people Bill Hader and Anna Faris, it’s a funny and charming film about the underdog who grows up to be the hero. And who doesn’t love a story like that?

(Spoilers ahead…) Based on the beloved children’s book written by Judi Barrett, the film is about a misfit child scientist who just doesn’t fit in, and grows up to create an amazing invention that turns water into food. When the machine is sucked up into the sky by accident, he is able to make it rain food—which is fantastic for his small town at first but later, of course, causes problems.

The best thing about this movie is its embracing of one’s geek side. Being “geeky”/ “nerdy”/ “dorky” has arguably been making progress toward being a desirable, accepted trait by society. From Weezer to The Geek Squad to the rising popularity of large-framed glasses, yesterday’s “four-eyed geeks” are often considered “cool nerds.”

This movie capitalizes the concept by pairing up Hader’s character, Flint Lockwood, with a nerdy weather girl, Sam Sparks (voiced by Faris), who conceals her “nerdiness” by wearing stylish hair, abstaining from wearing her glasses, and concealing her brilliant scientific mind with airy, ditzy comments following anything intelligent she says. To be accepted, Sam didn’t do what Flint did—hold onto her dream of scientific achievement—but rather conformed, which makes her unhappy. Flint shows her how beautiful she is as her true self, and by embracing her true inner science wiz she is able to help him save the whole town when things get messy in the movie.

One word of caution: there are some scenes that could be disturbing to some viewers, such as monster chickens (already cooked!) that attack the protagonists—as well as one of the protagonists dressing as one of the said chickens. Kids over ten will probably be fine with this, but parents should definitely check out that scene before watching the film with younger viewers. The inside of the invention that makes the food could also be scary for some younger viewers.

The film also features the voice talents of James Caan, Neil Patrick Harris, Mr. T, Andy Samberg, and Al Roker.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

More and more, Rush Limbaugh seems to be taking over Glenn Beck's vacant position as the prime time wacky conservative political conspiracy theorist. His latest assertion is that Obama A) was responsible for removing Gaddafi from power and/or killing him, B) believes that this was a bad idea because the resulting power vacuum allowed Al Qaeda to flourish in Benghazi, and C) is trying to distract everyone from this point.
 
Where to begin? There is not one single thing about that series of assertions that either makes sense, or is supported by actual facts or documentation. It's all just Limbaugh blowing smoke the way he always does, trusting his audience to have zero knowledge of the incidents involved, beyond what Rush has told them.
 
First of all, you can't look at an evil dictator and say, "Well, but I don't know if we should remove him, because what if the next guy is worse?" You can't leave Hitler in power because you're worried that Hitler's successor will be worse. You can't leave a dog with an abusive owner because you're worried that the dog's next owner will be worse. You have to act with the facts that you have before you. 
 
American politicians have been working against Gaddafi ever since he seized power in the late 1970s. Reagan himself famously pitched himself against Gaddafi in the 1980s after Gaddafi developed chemical weapons. 
 
Furthermore, Obama and the United States were not solely responsible for Gaddafi's overthrow or death. Everything that happened in Libya was a NATO action. It's not like Afghanistan or Iraq, where the United States was the prime mover. 
 
Libya is a difficult issue. After spending 41 years under the rule of a dictator, the country has been in a state of civil war for over a year. It's not surprising that Al Qaeda would take advantage of that chaos. But it also can't be seen as the fault of the United States. And I'm pretty sure that if this had happened under a Republican president, Rush would be all, "See how badly they need us? We do what we can for the world, and they throw it back in our faces. We must crush them all!"
 
Of course, that's assuming that the Benghazi bombing was the work of Al Qaeda at all. We have no idea at this point; it is little more than a hunch, topped with a dollop of conspiracy theory.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

One of my friends recently pointed out that it’s weird that we have all of these Christians voting for Mitt Romney on religious grounds. Many of our own Christian and Catholic friends claim they support ol’ Mitt because he’s against abortion and same-sex marriage. Yet Romney is a pretty obvious Mormon, and these same Christians claim that Mormonism doesn’t represent their values.

I suppose these must be the same Christians who claim that President Obama cannot be Christian, as they believe he is a Muslim, no matter how much disclosure he offers nor how many facts he presents.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Those pesky little facts! God forbid we attempt to humor one, let alone them all! The fact of the matter also remains that the Bible—that Christianity—was used for years by white supremacists who wanted to continue supporting segregation, in completely non-Christian ways. Today it’s being used to suppress the rights of the LGBT community as well as women’s health and reproductive decisions.

Mitt’s Mormonism doesn’t bother me. Some of my friends are Mormons. Now, the whole Mormon support of Prop 8—that DOES bother me. As soon as you start mixing up religion and politics and burning women as witches, well, we’re all in trouble. But as long as you’re doing it, Christian friends, don’t you think you could at least be consistent and choose a Christian man over a Mormon one?

Ahh, I see, it’s the whole black thing, isn’t it? Do you just want a white president? “Oh!” I hear you cry. “That’s offensive! I’m not a racist!” Oh, no? Then what else are we to believe when you have an openly Christian man who is behaving like Christ—being charitable, helping the poor, loving all people and trying to give everyone equal opportunities and healthcare—as president, and you say, “Yeah, no, I’m voting for the Mormon.”

Back it up with something other than religion, folks, because you’re falling flat on your face with this one. I have friends voting for Romnesia because of his economic principles—whatever those are, amirite?—or because they’re afraid of socialism like Baby’s parents were afraid of sex in Dirty Dancing and they want to put America in a corner, for goodness sake!—but none of them claim religious principles, save my Mormon friends, which at least makes sense.

I know you like to pick and choose, conservative evangelical Christian friends. You do it all the time with the Bible and our gay friends. But how about being consistent for a change ?

 

Klat Categories: