December 1st, 2011
So, which is worse? Not knowing that the US abandoned it's Embassy in Iran back in 1980 or a so-called "Harvard grad's" idiotically thinking that America has 57 states?
You be the judge....story below, but see the video and then read the story....I'm just saying....
From Huffington Post
Michele Bachmann told supporters in Iowa on Wednesday of her lofty plans for American diplomacy, claiming that a Bachmann presidency would mean no U.S. embassy in Iran.
Considering the recent hostility in the Iranian capital of Tehran against the British embassy, the comment might not seem particularly out of place -- if not for the fact that the U.S. hasn't actually had a functioning embassy in Iran since 1980.
NBC's Jamie Novgorod first pointed out the flop in a tweet earlier Wednesday:
Shortly after the Nov. 4  embassy takeover, the Iranian revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, endorsed the militants, and the Bazargan government resigned. U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran were formally severed in April 1980 and have never been restored.
Bachmann has been an outspoken critic of Iran over the past few weeks. Earlier this month she urged the Pentagon to "prepare a war plan" in case of it acquiring a nuclear weapon. She later alleged that the Middle Eastern nation had threatened to launch nuclear warheads at the U.S. and Israel. PolitiFact deemed that claim "False."
On Tuesday, she told Glenn Beck that the U.S. was facing a "new axis of evil," composed of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia.
From the Photo Gallery at Huffington
December 1st, 2011
By Barry Secrest
Looks like Herman Cain has taken a page from the Obama campaign.
It's become a growing phenomena on Google.
Trying to counter something negative? Then buy the search terms associated with that particular negative, and if you pay enough, your ad will appear in front of of all of the stories and articles associated with that particular negative search string.
What the below story fails to mention is that Obama was one of the first politicans to pioneer this technique back in 2009. Below is a story from 2010, where the Statists wished to try and cast Obamacare in a more positive light:
Not only that, even certain Governmental departments have also bought search string ads, such as the HHS among a host of others, ironically, written by the same author:
So, this is nothing new and is an effective way to counter a harmful message.
Below is the full story on Cain's ad purchase from the Politico.....
By Ben Smith
A source sends over this screenshot of a Google search from yesterday, with a promoted Cain ad showing up when users in Iowa search “Ginger White.”
It’s not the first time the Cain campaign has used online and social-media advertising to its advantage. The New York Times noted the campaign’s use of a promoted tweet during the initial round of sexual harassment allegations:
Not long after Politico broke the story of the harassment accusations on Oct. 30, Mr. Cain’s campaign took to Twitter to help rebut them. In addition to tweeting to their 157,000 followers from their own account, @thehermancain, the Friends of Herman Cain Inc. bought a message on Twitter using one of the political advertising products made available to campaigns in September called “promoted tweets.”
So whenever people searched for Herman Cain on Twitter, they got a message from his campaign with a small logo and disclaimer that read: “From Team HC: Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before. Mr. Cain and all Americans deserve better http://bit.ly/uU0j7a”.
More from the Politico's Ben Smith
- Atlas Project ushers in new era Nov 18 2011 - 1:59 PM EST
- Kids' Obama obsession fades Nov 13 2011 - 11:41 PM EST
- CBS panned for debate performance Nov 13 2011 - 12:39 AM EST
December 1st, 2011
Cr edit note: Oh my! A Company's views do not square with the militant homosexuals, and when called out, the company refuses to bend over?
Your sexuality is yours and yours alone, people of change. But trying to brow-beat a company for disagreeing with your views? Please explain, How is that "Open-minded and accepting?"
Isn't it fascinating that an organization in "change" that demands complete acceptance of a particular lifestyle refuses to be completely accepting of those that do not agree within their own lifestyles?
Hmm... a quandary I see, here...
Bet Chick-fil-A wishes this month would end. Over the past few weeks, the restaurant chain's deep ties to the anti-gay movement have been exposed and uncovered by a number of activists, most notably Jeremy Hooper at Good As You. Whether it's Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, or Exodus International, Chick-fil-A ties run deep.
Of course, the President of Chick-fil-A wants gay people to share no hard feelings. The restaurant will gladly feed homosexuals gobs of chicken sandwiches, after all. But when it comes to marriage, Chick-fil-A believes strongly that same-sex couples just don't deserve equal rights.
As we wrote about a few weeks ago, Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, has been particularly active in the fight against marriage equality. They've hosted conferences with some of the leading opponents of gay marriage in this country. A higher up at WinShape has even praised the efforts of anti-gay activist David Blankenhorn for working against marriage equality, and for articulating a solid reason why American culture should reject same-sex couples.
Now comes some email correspondence that Good As You has shared on their blog, where the WinShape Foundation's Retreat Center -- a center run by the charitable arm of Chick-fil-A -- admits that they have a severe distaste for LGBT people.
The email correspondence goes a little something like this. Someone writes WinShape an easy question about whether their retreat center is open to LGBT people. WinShape's response:
"WinShape Retreat defines marriage from the Biblical standard as being between one man and one woman. Groups/Individuals are welcome who offer wholesome, educational conferences and programs that are compatible with Biblical values and WinShape's purpose," WinShape wrote back.
Kind of some corporate speak, right? So the activist wrote back: can you just give a clear-cut answer? And WinShape confirmed:
"We do not accept homosexual couples because of the statement in our contract."
And so it goes like this: Chick-fil-A is a restaurant where franchises frequently donate to anti-gay organizations like the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Focus on the Family and others. The restaurant's charitable arm, WinShape, holds conferences for opponents of gay marriage and praises their work. And this charitable arm's Retreat program puts a blanket ban on gay couples using their facilities, because they "do not accept homosexual couples."
Yet the President of Chick-fil-A still says that all people, including LGBT people, are treated with respect by the restaurant? Huh, what a funny definition of respect.
Meanwhile, check this story out. So the Human Rights Campaign's NOMExposed project tried to submit an equality-minded video to the Ruth Institute's "Reel Love Video Challenge." The Ruth Institute is an affiliate of the National Organization for Marriage, and they're running a contest where folks can submit videos talking about what love means. The video below was originally accepted, but then promptly booted out of the project once the Ruth Institute became aware that it actually championed equality for same-sex couples.
Here's the kicker: the Ruth Institute's "Reel Love Video Challenge" has a tie-in to Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation. Wouldn't it be nice to hear why the Ruth Institute and the WinShape Foundation find the below video so offensive? After all, what is love if it isn't equal?
More From Change.org
November 30th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
The devil is always in the details, it would seem.
Huffington Post essentially crows that Fox "has dropped primetime viewership by 30% " in the "demo for primetime." So what exactly is "the demo for primetime?" I really don't know and truly don't care, but it's probably some screwy little idiosyncracy that has no true weighting on the actual facts.
Those facts being that a Conservative nation loves Fox News and therefore, Fox News completely obliterates the competition.
When I scrolled through the results I immediately started laughing.
From shows ranked in ratings from 1 through 14, Fox was on top with Bill O'Reilly leading the way at number one, and my personal favorite, Hannity, coming in at number two. By the way, Sean Hannity runs a great show, but his interviewing skills?
The guy is Spartacus. Hannity has an incredible talent in drawing people out and learning what their views are and more important,"why."
It's a definite talent and Sean pretty much slays the competition in that regard.
But the numbers for Fox were nothing if not daunting for the other networks. MSNBC and CNN brought up the rear in a very artful way.
Below is the story from Huffington:
November's cable news ratings are out and here we go again! Like clockwork, Fox News dominated the ratings. Still, every network had an interesting story to tell.
Fox News saw its numbers drop by double digits in primetime, total day and A25-54 viewers compared to 2010. This isn't totally surprising, since that was a major election year, but the drops were steep; for instance, the network was down 30% in the demo for primetime.
MSNBC's primetime programming brought in bigger ratings than last month, which tipped the ratings war scale between the network and CNN back in its favor. MSNBC attributes its ratings climb to the reshuffling of Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word," with Ed Shultz's "The Ed Show."
CNN however, experienced ratings growth of its own across the board. Compared to November 2010, CNN grew 4% in Total Day viewing. Anderson Cooper's "AC 360" 8:00 p.m. airing also improved over 40% in total viewing, compared to this month last year. (Piers Morgan, unfortunately, saw his ratings slide a bit below the numbers Larry King was posting on his farewell tour in 2010, though he has managed to top King's ratings overall this year.) CNN also beat MSNBC in the daytime.
How did individual shows fare? Below, see the top 30 cable news programs of November.
November 30th, 2011
By William Wan
The Chinese have called it their “Underground Great Wall” — a vast network of tunnels designed to hide their country’s increasingly sophisticated missile and nuclear arsenal.
For the past three years, a small band of obsessively dedicated students at Georgetown University has called it something else: homework.
Led by their hard-charging professor, a former top Pentagon official, they have translated hundreds of documents, combed through satellite imagery, obtained restricted Chinese military documents and waded through hundreds of gigabytes of online data.
The result of their effort? The largest body of public knowledge about thousands of miles of tunnels dug by the Second Artillery Corps, a secretive branch of the Chinese military in charge of protecting and deploying its ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.
The study is yet to be released, but already it has sparked a congressional hearing and been circulated among top officials in the Pentagon, including the Air Force vice chief of staff.
Most of the attention has focused on the 363-page study’s provocative conclusion — that China’s nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than the well-established estimates of arms-control experts.
“It’s not quite a bombshell, but those thoughts and estimates are being checked against what people think they know based on classified information,” said a Defense Department strategist who would discuss the study only on the condition of anonymity.
The study’s critics, however, have questioned the unorthodox Internet-based research of the students, who drew from sources as disparate as Google Earth, blogs, military journals and, perhaps most startlingly, a fictionalized TV docudrama about Chinese artillery soldiers — the rough equivalent of watching Fox’s TV show “24” for insights into U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
But the strongest condemnation has come from nonproliferation experts who worry that the study could fuel arguments for maintaining nuclear weapons in an era when efforts are being made to reduce the world’s post-Cold War stockpiles.
Beyond its impact in the policy world, the project has made a profound mark on the students — including some who have since graduated and taken research jobs with the Defense Department and Congress.
“I don’t even want to know how many hours I spent on it,” said Nick Yarosh, 22, an international politics senior at Georgetown. “But you ask people what they did in college, most just say I took this class, I was in this club. I can say I spent it reading Chinese nuclear strategy and Second Artillery manuals. For a nerd like me, that really means something.”
For students, an obsession
The students’ professor, Phillip A. Karber, 65, had spent the Cold War as a top strategist reporting directly to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it was his early work in defense that cemented his reputation, when he led an elite research team created by Henry Kissinger, who was then the national security adviser, to probe the weaknesses of Soviet forces.
Karber prided himself on recruiting the best intelligence analysts in the government. “You didn’t just want the highest-ranking or brightest guys, you wanted the ones who were hungry,” he said.
In 2008, Karber was volunteering on a committee for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a Pentagon agency charged with countering weapons of mass destruction.
After a devastating earthquake struck Sichuan province, the chairman of Karber’s committee noticed Chinese news accounts reporting that thousands of radiation technicians were rushing to the region. Then came pictures of strangely collapsed hills and speculation that the caved-in tunnels in the area had held nuclear weapons.
Find out what’s going on, the chairman asked Karber, who began looking for analysts again — this time among his students at Georgetown.
The first inductees came from his arms-control classes. Each semester, he set aside a day to show them tantalizing videos and documents he had begun gathering on the tunnels. Then he concluded with a simple question: What do you think it means?
“The fact that there were no answers to that really got to me,” said former student Dustin Walker, 22. “It started out like any other class, tests on this day or that, but people kept coming back, even after graduation. . . . We spent hours on our own outside of class on this stuff.”
The students worked in their dorms translating military texts. They skipped movie nights for marathon sessions reviewing TV clips of missiles being moved from one tunnel structure to another. While their friends read Shakespeare, they gathered in the library to war-game worst-case scenarios of a Chinese nuclear strike on the United States.
Over time, the team grew from a handful of contributors to roughly two dozen. Most spent their time studying the subterranean activities of the Second Artillery Corps.
While the tunnels’ existence was something of an open secret among the handful of experts studying China’s nuclear arms, almost no papers or public reports on the structures existed.
So the students turned to publicly available Chinese sources — military journals, local news reports and online photos posted by Chinese citizens. It helped that China’s famously secretive military was beginning to release more information, driven by its leaders’ eagerness to show off China’s growing power to its citizens.
The Internet also generated a raft of leads: new military forums, blogs and once-obscure local TV reports now posted on the Chinese equivalents of YouTube. Strategic string searches even allowed the students to get behind some military Web sites and download documents such as syllabuses taught at China’s military academies.
Drudgery and discoveries
The main problem was the sheer amount of translation required.
Each semester, Karber managed to recruit only one or two Chinese-speaking students. So the team assembled a makeshift system to scan images of the books and documents they found. Using text-capture software, they converted those pictures into Chinese characters, which were fed into translation software to produce crude English versions. From those, they highlighted key passages for finer translation by the Chinese speakers.