UCLA Professor: Without Media Bias the Average US State Would Vote Like Texas

Liberal bias?  What Liberal bias, right Libs?  lol

The media’s shameless bias is no big secret.  There’s an old Republican truism that the mainstream media’s Liberal bias gives the Democrats a 15-point handicap in any given election.  Problem is we haven’t yet found a way to prove it quantitatively.  Until now.  In his book Left Turn, Professor Tim Groseclose has gathered the thousands upon thousands of data points necessary to prove not only how the mainstream media is biased Left, but also how this distorts the American mind and affects their voting choices.

“The data shows that yes, they are indeed Liberal.”

Notice, he waited until he had tenure to release his findings!  And here he says that without Liberal bias in the media, your average U.S. state would vote like Texas or Tennessee!

A Tale of two parties: The hecklers

Those Teabaggers are so HATEFUL and so ANGRY.  Or at least that’s how the Dems and their allies in the media like to portray them.  As evidence they provide the following where some Tea Party activists confront Obama about alleged reports that Vice-President Biden called the Tea Party a bunch of terrorists to whip up support for the debt limit deal.

That’s it?  They sounded pretty civilized to me.  Sure, they were persistent, but their tone was even and level, and they let him speak.  How incredibly presidenti­al Barack might have sounded if he had acknowledg­ed their grievances and then apologized on behalf of Joe Biden and the rest of this administration’s hatchet men and attack dogs who have so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country over the last three years.  He is the “Healer in Chief”, here to bring a “new tone”, is he not?  lol. But that’s just not how Obama is built.  When he’s off script, it’s back to his old Chicago Way.  And yet this mild little incident is what the Dems are currently shopping around to prove how extreme and “terroristic” those baggers are.  Pretty thin gruel if you ask me.

Now let’s compare and contrast that episode with how wild-eyed Leftists deal with the other side.  This was how they heckled and harangued one of the GOP frontrunners, Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair:

Savages.  And yet it’s the Teabaggers who are the angry, violent ones.  Uh huh, sure.

The fact is that Liberalism never made somebody a better person.  It hasn’t, and here you have more proof.  For all their protestations about caring for “the poor” (i.e., themselves), it’s not an ideology that places very much emphasis on codes of personal behavior, which is why they can do whatever they damn well please and never be accused of hypocrisy.  Conservatism, on the other hand, does emphasize personal behavior, which is why anybody on the Right who falls short of their standard is condemned by the Left as a “hypocrite”.  A good Lib has no such dilemma, and that’s why they can behave as childishly as they want and still regard themselves as a paragon of secular progressive virtue, as long as they have the correct beliefs. Especially when the target of their bile is one of those eeeevil Reichwingers.

That’s why there are hecklers, and then there are hecklers.

Sen. John Kerry (D) to mainstream media: Censor the Tea Party

Liberal fascism rears it’s statist, collectivist head.

“The media in America has a greater responsibility than it’s exercising today. 

The media has got to begin to NOT give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because someone asserts it. 

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea.”

Isn’t the mainstream media liberal enough for ya, Sen. Kerry?

The greatest threat to freedom of speech today is coming from the Left.  Jonah Goldberg, author of the bestselling book Liberal Fascism says,  “Many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is.  What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror.  Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the square like seditious pamphleteers.”

Cultural Elite: The state will raise your children

Culture destroyer: Jennifer Aniston

Virtually everything modern Liberalism promotes today advances the clock of civilizational collapse.

Jennifer Aniston does not believe that women have to wait — or settle — for a man to start a family. Speaking at a Los Angeles press conference for her movie about artificial insemination, ‘The Switch,’ Aniston said that “times have changed” along with the idea of the traditional family. So if that means having one without the man in the picture, that’s okay.

“Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child,” Aniston said. “They are realizing if it’s that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that.”

“That,” of course, meaning the man. “It’s happening more and more,” said Aniston.
In ‘Switch,’ Aniston, 41, plays a woman who elects to take on life as a single-parent through artificial insemination. When questioned, the most famous single woman on the planet said she didn’t “have plans” to take the insemination option for motherhood at this time.

But she vigorously defended the rights of other single women going down that road.  Aniston even engaged in one testy exchange with a reporter who insisted that her movie character was being “selfish” having a child without a father-figure in her life. Minutes after the question was asked, Aniston circled back and insisted that family life has “evolved” from strictly “the traditional stereotype of family.”

“The point of the movie is, what is that which defines family?” Aniston said. “It isn’t necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot.”  “Love is love and family is what is around you,” she added.  Aniston also took issue with the word “selfish” in terms of the single woman moving ahead with the decision to have a child.  “I don’t think it’s selfish,” she said. “It’s quite beautiful because there are children that don’t have homes that have a home and can be loved. And that’s extremely important.”

Aniston fielded a slew of questions about motherhood in the press conference promoting the movie about the very-topic which has dogged her in the entertainment media for year. She even dutifully answered yet another question about whether she wants to be a mother in the future.  “Yah, I’ve said it years before,” said Aniston. “I still say it. That’s today. Yah.”

Source

Jennifer Aniston’s movie promotes single motherhood by artificial insemination where fathers are irrelevant.   That’s what it does.  Womyn need men like fish need a bicycle.  And she defends this as “family that has evolved.”   Yet even in her interview she attempts to walk back her initial support by blurring the line between artificial insemination and adoption.  The two are not equivalent, and subconsciously she acknowledges this.

Once we step away from the PC line, single mother families– which are the natural consequence of the 60s counter culture and sexual revolution– are not “evolved” families, they are an unprecedented prehistoric devolution of the family institution.  It’s caveman days all over again, folks, where the male is free to plant his seed willy nilly and females are reduced to the status of brood mare.  Except today we have the welfare state (i.e., the taxpayer) to foot the bill for the inevitable consequences of this sexual revolution and shattering of traditional cultural taboos.

Jennifer Aniston has the money to do as she pleases.  Her wealth insulates her from the consequences of virtually any boneheaded decision she chooses to make.  And if she pays for it, then goddess bless her.   Yet the baby mamas in waiting to whom she is giving her blessings are not rich.  I’d wager most of them are broke.  So the children they choose to have on their own– with Jennifer’s blessings– will essentially be wards of the Liberal welfare state.  And without a father figure around to impose discipline, they’ll probably end up in jail too.

But though modern Liberalism is a lifestyle only the rich can afford to live, the Left promotes their values to the poor, and it has destroyed their communities in a way rapacious capitalism never could have.  Thus the Left’s welfare state has become indispensable in a society whose social institutions have been shattered by that very same moral and cultural relativist Leftwing elite whose values continue to undermine “the traditional stereotype of family.”

The New Normal: Children Out of Wedlock

She needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is what the end of the “Patriarchy” looks like.  The nuclear family has been all but destroyed by the counterculture revolution of the 60s.  Back in the 80s when Vice-president Dan Quayle denounced Hollywood’s positive depiction of single motherhood in the show Murphy Brown, the term “family values” was turned into a punchline by cultural sophisticates of the day.  It would send the wrong message to our daughters that childbirth out of wedlock was a viable choice, Mr. Quayle warned:

”It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown — a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.”’

He was vilified by the Left for his closed-minded intolerance.

The sexual revolution, the divorce revolution, and the welfare state have since come together to form a perfect storm of culture destruction in our poorest communities as unwed mothers and children out of wedlock in black communities become the “new normal”.  To affluent, white radical Vagina Warriors of the 60s – 80s who screeched that marriage is slavery and sexual intercourse is rape, this was ever their goal– to destroy that misogynous “patriarchy” and the oppression inflicted on womynkind.  They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, certainly in our poorest communities.  But while the rich white Liberal folk who promote this madness have the money to buy their way out of the worst consequences of their destructive worldview, poor blacks do not.  They become slaves to the State, and their children at risk.

In effect, secular progressive culture destruction has created the need for the Welfare State without which these fatherless families would be doomed.  In this way, the Welfare State and Leftwing culture destruction are symbiotic and mutually perpetuating, both justifying each other’s existence in a downward spiral of social dysfunction.

And this is what the end of the patriarchy looks like.

Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate

HOUSTON – Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today, according to government statistics. This number is inseparable from the work of Carroll, an obstetrician who has dedicated her 40-year career to helping black women.

“The girls don’t think they have to get married. I tell them children deserve a mama and a daddy. They really do,” Carroll says from behind the desk of her office, which has cushioned pink-and-green armchairs, bars on the windows, and a wooden “LOVE” carving between two African figurines. Diamonds circle Carroll’s ring finger.

As the issue of black unwed parenthood inches into public discourse, Carroll is among the few speaking boldly about it. And as a black woman who has brought thousands of babies into the world, who has sacrificed income to serve Houston’s poor, Carroll is among the few whom black women will actually listen to.

“A mama can’t give it all. And neither can a daddy, not by themselves,” Carroll says. “Part of the reason is because you can only give that which you have. A mother cannot give all that a man can give. A truly involved father figure offers more fullness to a child’s life.”

Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

The black community’s 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americanswere born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.

This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a “tangle of pathology” among blacks that fed a 24 percent black “illegitimacy” rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.

Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of “blaming the victim:” of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles; when influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem.

Read the rest.

Peter Parker sacrificed on Altar of Diversity

Knock off: Miles Morales as the amazing Spiderman.

Spiderman makeover reflects “browning” of America, strikes blow against whitey.

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – There’s a new web-slinger in town.

New Yorkers take their fictional heroes seriously, so it may come as a shock to some that Peter Parker, the Queens native whose destiny was forever altered by a radioactive/genetically altered spider, has been killed off in the “Ultimates” imprint of Marvel Comics. The Ultimate series is different from Marvel’s standard line, in which Peter Parker is still happily toiling away as everybody’s favorite hard-luck hero.

No, in the Ultimates series, Peter Parker gets killed at the hands of his nemesis the Green Goblin. But, being a comic book series, no hero stays dead for long. While Peter Parker may be gone, a new kid is stepping into the tights: Miles Morales.

Miles Morales is a half-black, half-Hispanic super-powered teen who gets into the hero game after being inspired by Parker’s death.

“He’s younger than Peter Parker, he’s coming from a completely different background, a completely different world view,” writer Brian Michael Bendis told the Associated Press. Bendis, who has been writing Ultimate Spider-Man (and many other) comics for Marvel since 2000, is enthusiastic about the change. “I’m now sitting with a pile of legitimately new Spider-Man stories to tell and that is the best news a writer could have.”

No word on whether the change in ethnicity is going to play a role in casting decisions in upcoming Spider-Man movies or Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.

Source

I’m hispanic and this is embarrassing to me.  So I apologize for what these lilly-white Liberals are doing to our beloved comic book characters for the sake of “diversity,” and ostensibly on my behalf, no less.  So embarrassing!

It doesn’t sit well with me that characters that we’ve grown up with our whole lives should be killed off, all for the sake of “diversity.”  These characters, like professional sports teams, are “public” property and not subject to the whims of politically correct writers or greedy team owners.  Or at least they shouldn’t be.  If the Minnesota Vikings move to L.A. just to chase that almighty dollah, for example, I swear on everything that’s holy I’m done with the NFL.  Finished.  Same here: this “Miles Morales” will NEVER be Spiderman.  Got that?

To which you respond, the world is a very different place than the one Peter Parker grew up in, you goddamn racist.  It’s browner now.  Superheroes should therefore reflect this browning of America.

And I totally agree.  Art and entertainment should reflect the culture that consumes it.  But only if it has developed in a way that’s natural and organic.  Not forced on us by these “deciders” with an agenda.  If there’s a market for ethnic superheros, then create them and sell them to us. If you have the pulse of the nation, then we’ll buy in.  If not, it’ll be just another Liberal flop.  So, is there a market for black, latino, and in this case cablanasian superheros?  Is there?  The answer is decidedly NO!  Because we don’t care about their race or their ethnic “experience”, we care about their superhero story, regardless of race.

Ethnic superheros have been around for decades; Mandrake, Blade, Storm, and Spawn, to name just a few.  Aren’t they good enough?  So why murder our beloved Peter Parker just to morph Spiderman into Tiger Woods?

That fact is, ethnic superheros have never really caught on beyond a niche following.  Give me a break, even non-whites don’t give a crap about ethnic superheros.  Certainly we aren’t going to follow someone because of his/her ethnicity.  I’m hispanic, and I’ve always loved Superman.  That’s never going to change.  Supes has the best mythology, bar none.  He’s unique among the pantheon of superheros.  Sure, he’s white, but he’s not even human for crissakes.  It’s about his species (again, story), not his race.

BUT, you respond, that’s only because “whiteness” is so normative and dominant in this culture, and we’ve all been so inculcated in that whiteness from the moment we opened our eyes.  Essentially, our minds have been “colonized” by whitey to view whiteness as “the norm.”  So although I may claim to care only about a hero’s story, it’s really about race; and black, latino, and mulatto superheros don’t really stand a fighting chance out there.  This Whiteness “matrix”, therefore, has to be shattered so that we can free our thinking from its hold and give ethnic superheros an even playing field.  And that way we can restore “self-esteem” to all our brown brothers and sistas!

And with that response you would reveal the ACTUAL reason Peter Parker had to die.  Because no ethnic superhero has ever been able to compete with the greats like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, et al., and because our children grow up loving them above all others, this only perpetuates this white dominance of which you speak.  So you have to hijack one of the Greats and turn him into a ghetto rat the likes of Miles Morales.  That way you will FORCE us to like an ethnic superhero, and thus help “free” our minds and end the tyranny of “whiteness” forever!  Sound about right? lol

And that’s all this is.  A blow by the forces of PC against whitey and “The Man.”  And who a better villain for this new hero of color than say, oh, those greedy, nasty, hateful Republicans and those raaaaaacist Tea Party “terrorists”!  After all, this is about his “experiences”, isn’t it?  lol

Now stay tuned for teh gay Batman.  You do know he’s gay, right?  Why else would he wear those goofy looking tights?  Sign O’ the times!

NBC Reporter to Obama: “We got nothing.”

Regarding the budget deal, NBC correspondent and JournOlist, Nora O’Donnell, lets her thoroughly biased, and hopelessly-in-the-tank-for-Obama Liberal slip show:

“You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing!”

Bias?  What bias!

By “them” she obviously means those NASTY and BRUTISH orcs of the Tea Party, and by “we” she means the progressive and forward-thinking Light Bringers of the Democrat media complex.  Of course, when I say in the tank for Obama I mean they’ll carry anybody’s water who’s against the American rightwing.  They’re not actually very happy with the O right now.  He’s not Liberal enough.

During the budget debates, the Liberal media (redundant, I know) savaged the Tea Party as ignorant, irrational terrorists.  Yes, terrorists.  Funny, that’s the exact same language Joe Biden used.  But they’re not biased, nooo, of course not.

For a quick study on how the thoroughly corrupt Democrat media complex hatches their anti-conservative, anti-GOP narratives, click here.

Philadelphia teachers Helped Students cheat for their own good

Standardized tests the bane of self esteem movement

This is just sad.  Teachers in Philly explain how they helped their students cheat in order to, get this, help them!

Philadelphia English teacher explains why she helped students cheat

The revelation that more than 80 Atlanta teachers admitted to cheating on state standardized tests–with one group of elementary teachers even holding a “party” after school to change their pupils’ answers by hand–has rocked the education reform movement.  But one question has been left unanswered: Why would a teacher resort to cheating in the first place?

The Notebook blog has found a Philadelphia teacher willing to explain why she helped her 11th-grade English students cheat on the state’s standardized tests. (The blog earlier broke the story that Pennsylvania officials suspected cheating may have occurred in 60 state schools.)  The teacher, who remains anonymous in the story, says she began to help her students cheat because she worried their self-esteem was crushed by taking tests they were in no way academically prepared for. If a student asked a question during one of the eight yearly testing periods, she would help him or her find the right answer, or occasionally just point to it on the exam.  “I never went to any student who didn’t call me to help them cheat,” said the teacher. “But if somebody asked me a question, I wasn’t willing to say, ‘Just do your best.’ They were my students, and I wanted to be there for them.”

The teacher said administrators bullied teachers about boosting test scores so that the school would make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), creating a constant state of performance anxiety in the classroom. Schools with low scores must improve by a certain amount each year to avoid federal sanctions set forth by the No Child Left Behind law. In some cases, the federal government shuts down schools that fail to boost scores year after year.  “The prevailing message was, ‘We have to make AYP this year, or they’re going to shut our school down and you’re all going to lose your jobs.’ At every professional development [session], that’s what we discussed,” the teacher said. She added that many teachers at her school engaged in cheating.

The Atlanta scandal and a USA Today report of potential teacher-sanctioned cheating in 1,600 classrooms across six states has put pressure on the Obama administration for its focus on standardized testing. Teachers in some districts are being paid bonuses for their students’ performance on state tests, and many others have their performance evaluation tied to those scores.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says that the emphasis on tests does not encourage cheating. In fact, he sees it as the only way to ensure schools are adequately teaching their students.

Source

In study after study, American high school kids show far higher levels of “self esteem” than high school kids overseas, yet they score the lowest at every academic level.  Gee, I wonder why.  On what precisely is this false sense of “self-esteem” based?  Certainly not on accomplishment!  It seems we now know the answer– grades!  Inflated though they may be.  The American “self-esteem” movement has completely de-linked self-esteem from any kind of real achievement, and now even some social scientists are admitting that “self-esteem” has crossed into over-confidence.  Another PC idea that crashed and burned and wound up in the shit house.  And in a godless, secular society where a man’s worth cannot be measured by the transcendental or divine, what exactly is this so-called “self-esteem” supposed to be based on then?  If not on accomplishment, then what?   What’s left?  Why, nothing!  The sad truth about the self-esteem movement is that they have actually harmed the cause of our children, not benefited them.  Thanks to Liberals, secularism, and their “self esteem movement”, our youth now have little or no reason to have any real self esteem.  Plenty of narcissism though.

Here, George Carlin’s take on the BS that is the self-esteem movement: