Uncategorized

Sloppy Main Stream Journalism taken to task

Sloppy and Biased – LISA VAN DUSEN Toronto Sun article August 9th

” The first big sign that this leg of health reform is a campaign and not just a debate came when the rent-a-ranters surfaced. They’re the passionately anti-(fill in the blank) protesters who wander the countryside disrupting meetings by bellowing gibberish and wearing inscrutable headgear so that television cameras will be diverted from the issue at hand, in this case fixing health care.

This is a campaign and not a debate partly because the Republicans have been wanting to re-run the one they lost last year. Falling back on the tactical and financial arsenal that has been used so many times so effectively to keep the health system as it is, is as easy as opening a kit. This time, there’s the twist of an ongoing series of race-based headlines to help the loudest rightie talkers rally the truly toxic anti-Obama fringes.”

Ed Note: Pick the group of rent-a-ranters: Homemade signs or Mass produced signs?

MG_0019 MG_0145

Can’t tell yet? Great Photo-essay HERE.  Mark Steyn’s humorous take HERE.

Van Dusen Taken to Task beautifully by citizen (4 comment down  HERE🙂

Dear Ms Van Dusen:

1) Could you provide some evidence that the citizens who come to the Town Houses are not legitimately concerned about changing the health care system?

2)Could you provide some evidence that debate, discussion, questions and analysis, should not be a vital necessity when dealing with a change to a society’s economic and societal infrastructure that deals with at least 6% of its economy? (Ed: emphasis mine)

3) Do you agree with Mr. Obama that there is no need to read the bill? Or debate it? Or discuss it? That one should accept his Bill simply on the basis of TRUST in him?

4)  Could you provide some evidence and explanation of ‘race-based headlines’? What are you talking about? I’m sure you don’t mean the Gates affair, when both Prof. Gates and Mr. Obama inserted racism into what was not a racial incident. Therefore, – what are you referring to?

Thank you in advance for your comments to my questions. “

Will she answer? Probably not.

 

By a House for $25:00 in the USA

House for sale for $25.00 in Detroit USA. Thats right 25 bucks. Go HERE.

gallery

‘You Are Terrifying Us’ Voters send a message to Washington, and get an ugly response

“What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.”

…read more HERE.

iamthemob1

Photo courtesy of Kate at smalldeadanimals.com

“In March, 2005, Constable Michael Shaw was on patrol in the Bridle Path, an ultra-affluent Toronto neighbourhood he knew well. He was showing a female trainee the ropes. Down the street, he spotted an unfamiliar letter-carrier delivering the mail. He asked him for ID, ran his name through the computer, thanked him for his trouble and verified with a regular postie that the new guy was a fill-in. The letter-carrier was not insulted, detained or charged with any crime.

Innocuous? Not to Ronald Phipps, the fill-in letter-carrier. He is black. The cop is white. Mr. Phipps decided he’d been a victim of racial profiling, and took his case to the Human Rights Tribunal. In a ruling last month, the adjudicator agreed.

The decision makes for scary reading, because it says someone can be found guilty just for making someone else feel bad. “There is no need to establish an intention or motivation to discriminate,” it says. “[T]he focus of the enquiry is on the effect of the respondent’s action on the complainant.”

“According to the tribunal, “unconscious” discrimination is no different from “conscious” discrimination. And the onus is on the accused to prove he’s innocent. “Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a rational explanation which is not discriminatory. … The respondent must offer an explanation which is credible on all the evidence.””

Ed Note: Mr. Phipps is suing the Police Chief and entire force for financial compensation.

…full story HERE.

test-php-789