BBC Admits Using Faked Film Footage of Polar Bears For Its “Frozen Planet” Series on British Television
BBC admits they built a polar bear den out of plywood and fake snow in a Dutch zoo, installed cameras and passed it off as having been filmed in an actual Arctic polar bear den. Other scenes taken at the zoo were interspersed with actual footage taken in the Arctic that misled the audience into thinking the whole thing was footage of polar bears in the wild, but much of it was of zoo bears.
They defend their actions as legitimate to mix zoo scenes with actual Arctic footage, which might be true if the audience were told of that fact. But the audience was not told and were intentionally misled into believing it was all real.
The truth is of little value to liberals. Lying is their stock in trade.
You never know when or where a Philharmonic orchestra might show up and instead of stealing your stuff play Ravel’s Bolero for you…
I wonder if the trains stopped running?
Law students always want to land a part-time job clerking in a law firm or even for a solo lawyer. This gives one a chance to see the law at work in the real world and not just in the casebooks and the professor’s lectures. In my third year of law school I considered myself very lucky to have landed such a spot with a small two-lawyer firm. That is, until I got seriously deep into some of the cases my lawyer was handling. His practice was primarily personal injury. I was, of course, glad to have a part in helping tort victims get just compensation from their tortfeasors. But some of the cases seemed rather dubious. Then one case I was researching jumped out like a frog leaping at a bug. The claimant had suffered severe injuries in a fall. The file contained documents, however, that clearly showed the alleged accident never happened. It wasn’t just a dubious claim, it was a non-existant claim.
I immediately brought this to the attention of the my lawyer employer. But he was already aware of what I had found. He said not to worry about it, we wouldn’t be going to trial. The insurance company had made a small settlement offer and we were going to take it. Case closed. No time invested (except mine) and a small profit. Money for nothing. The way the world works, according to him. I left that day and never went back.
I soon found a group of honest lawyers to clerk for.
Throughout my legal career I saw many such instances [not in any firm in which I was employed] where I either knew or suspected that there was no legitimate claim but one had been made for the purpose of shaking down a defendant or its insurance company. I was even once made a defendant is such a lawsuit [not in my capacity as a lawyer but in connection with the sale of personal residence] My law school clerking position had done what it was intended to do; it prepared me for the reality of how the real world works — sometimes.
Righthaven LLC has been called “a bottom feeding legal outfit” for its practice of trolling for alleged copyright violations and then suing in Federal Court. Its aim is not to actually prosecute a case to trial but to force a settlement upon a defendant who may have a valid defense to the claim but can ill afford the expense of litigation if the settlement offered is less than the likely cost to fully litigate and present its defense. Righthaven has made arrangements with two newspapers, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, to sue websites, advocacy and public interest groups for copyright violations. The strategy specifically targets small “mom and pop” type bloggers who make no money off their sites and blog on issues of the day. These bloggers often refer to newspaper stories to frame the issue they want to discuss. If they post any of the content of the newspaper story Righthaven may sue them for copyright infringement. There is something called the “fair use” doctrine that probably protects these defendants, especially where only a small fragment of the story is posted on the blog, the source is linked, and where the purpose of the copying is for commentary and not for profit. Nevertheless Righthaven has sued thousands of these websites and forced 5-figure settlements without ever having to prove anything in court. Until now. A few Federal Judges are catching on and are refusing to allow their courtrooms to be used by Righthaven as an instrument to exact possibly unjust settlements from defendants likely to prevail in the end but settle to avoid the even higher costs of litigation.
One such Judge is John Kane in the Federal Court for the District of Colorado. Judge Kane recently denied Righthaven’s motion for an extension of time to answer the defendant’s motion to dismiss the suit, citing that meaningful settlement negotiations were ongoing and that the case might be resolved if given an additional three weeks to file an answer. The defendant apparently did not agree that meaningful settlement negotiations were ongoing and objected to the motion to extend time. Judge Kane took notice and denied Righthaven’s motion. The Judge said this at the end of his ruling:
Although Plaintiff’s business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability.
Hooray for the learned Judge! Would there were more like him. Settlement as a less expensive way to resolve a dispute than litigating is still an honorable thing, and will continue. But settlement to avoid blackmail where there is no significant dispute and where a valid defense exists, is despicable. The latter is a natural outgrowth of the high cost of litigation, and human greed. It’s a positive development that some judges are on to this practice, and making it known that they will not lend their assistance to a shakedown.
The 11-minute video of the lunch sting with NPR executives and James O’Keefe and two actors posing as a Muslim Brotherhood front group was posted here previously. This is a 46-minute audio of follow up phone calls where Betsy Liley of NPR believes she is talking to a Muslim Brotherhood front group wanting to donate $5 Million to NPR. They discuss how NPR can help them remain anonymous by making phony entries in its donor records. These actions would have been to shield the donation from a government audit, and would be illegal.
Betsy Liley believes she is talking to the Muslim Brotherhood and unless she is massively uninformed and ignorant she knows that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization that supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has stated its goal of establishing Sharia law everywhere.
This is about NPR agree with what they think is the Muslim Brotherhood that it will provide favorable reporting in exchange for a big donation. One wonders why Betsy Liley was not suspicious since they were offering to pay NPR to do what it is already doing for free.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
I’m not one who thinks that a moral standard must fall simply because one of its proponents didn’t live up to it. Human beings are flawed creatures. We can all sometimes violate the very principles we try to live by. But MADD is a fanatical and powerful lobbying group on a mission to punish everyone by lowering the legal intoxication level to criminalize harmless social drinking. Blowing .239 is three time the level MADD is so proud of imposing on us.
Liberals, oh sorry…progressives, and their media pals thought they had a BIG opportunity. Oh Boy, Oh Boy, a horrific shooting that might be blamed on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party! The liberal media was salivating. Surely this atrocity could be exploited the way Bill Clinton, with the guiding hand of Dick Morris, successfully exploited the Oklahoma City bombing. Joy to the Left-Wing World!
Now, within 48 hours, a total collapse of the story line. It didn’t work. It’s exposed for the fraud and hatred that it is. Nobody is buying it, except Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has probably cinched his defeat in the next election. It turns out part of his motivation is to cover up how his own department dropped the ball on Jared Loughner, missing an opportunity to have stopped this killer before he struck.
And then there is this: Official: DHS has not determined any possible ties between Arizona shooter and any right wing group.
So the tables are now turned. Michelle Malkin is ready to play tu quo que . “They asked for it. They got it.”
Here is a list of the hateful left-wing rhetoric against conservatives from 2000-2010 that would have driven the liberal media right out of their minds if any conservative person or group had said anything of a similar nature about the left.
This McCarthyism of the left – devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data – is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.
(a) A dip you put on pita bread
(b) A new music group
(c) The Muslim word for God
(d) A terrorist organization
Where Does Pacific Gas & Electric go to get its $333 Million back? That’s the amount it paid to settle the famous (now infamous) Erin Brockovich class-action suit in 1996. The California utility company released a plume of hexavalent chromium 6 from a Hinkley-based natural gas pipeline station that was supposed to be a toxic cancer-causing agent that would sicken thousands and kill many of them. But the California Cancer Registry has now completed three studies that show cancer rates remained unremarkable in and around Hinkley from 1988 to 2008.
The plume was real and it’s still there. In fact, it’s growing. But it’s apparently not giving anyone cancer or making them any sicker than they would be if they lived anywhere else. If Pacific Gas and Electric’s negligence is responsible for the plume it should of course be held accountable and should pay for any damages that occur. But any fool should be able to distinguish between the justice of making a tortfeasor pay for what it did and the injustice of allowing opportunists like Erin Brockovich to get rich and famous by whipping up mass hysteria in order to stick it to the defendant for massive and imaginary wrongs.
This story appears to be playing out just as anyone familiar with mass hysteria and loathing could have predicted because it is so similar to how these things usually go. Remember the hysteria of Love Canal? If you lived there you thought your children were going to glow in the dark. Turns out that the Love Canal community’s sickness rates measured over several years after all the hoopla were also unremarkable.
Mass hysteria is never a good thing and always predicts results that seldom come to pass. A simple truth of life. Likewise the hysteria over Three Mile Island. Nobody died or even got sick and that nuclear power plant hums along today delivering cheap clean energy to thousands of Pennsylvanians.
Of course, there is one example of a real environmental disaster that killed a lot of people. But it was not in the U.S. it was at Chernobyl, in the Soviet Union.
UPDATE: Who really paid the $333 Million settlement in the Erin Brockovich affair? The utility customers of Pacific Gas & Electric, of course. Corporation don’t pay damages or taxes or anything else. Their customers and shareholders do. Do you think the class action would have gone as well for Erin Brockovich if it were more widely understood that she was not holding a nasty corporate malfeasant to account, but was in reality ripping off thousands of other citizens? Who’s the real bad guy here?
This is a sad day. I finished my last box of Aunt Jemima Buckwheat Pancake mix. Quaker discontinued that line of the brand a while back. Now all the stock I had in the larder is gone. I’ll never slather butter and maple syrup over those flapjacks again.
Aunt Jemima buttermilk mix is still everywhere of course. Yuck. There’s even an Aunt Jemima whole wheat pancake mix available. Double yuck. No substitutes accepted, thank you.
Aunt Jemima has a rich history spanning over 115 years. Chris Rutt and Charles Underwood of the Pearl Milling Company developed Aunt Jemima, the first ready mix. The image of Aunt Jemima was so popular that the company was renamed the Aunt Jemima Mills Company in 1914. Then in 1926 The Quaker Oats Company purchased the Aunt Jemima Mills Company, and has owned the brand since. The brand is still alive and well, but apparently my favorite Buckwheats are no more.
There are plenty of other buckwheat pancake mixes, and one can always buy buckwheat flower and make them from scratch. But it’s not the same. I grew up in Cheyenne, Wyoming. We lived in house at 908 Carey Avenue that is still there. I look at it today and the memories deluge my brain. I just don’t remember that house being so tiny. That’s where I first became an Aunt Jemima Buckwheat addict. I’m proud to say there were few other addictions in that neighborhood.
I wonder why Quaker isn’t making this wonderful product anymore? Could it be that some misguided person or group has made the awful “R” accusation: racism? If so, I suppose it is based on the Black kid in The Little Rascals being named “Buckwheat” and Aunt Jemima being portrayed on the box as a Black woman who makes pancakes. Now, if they were still portraying her in a scarf looking like a house slave, I could sympathize. But that’s not the case anymore, and hasn’t been for decades. So, surely I’m wrong. Quaker must have just made a business decision based on market demand. Right.
Well, if there were an accusation that somehow Aunt Jemima’s Buckwheat Pancake Mix is racist [In San Francisco the mayor says Happy Meals are racist] I don’t have a hard time believing that Quaker, like every other corporation in America, immediately tucked its tail between its legs and fell into a fit of political correctness, slobbering and apologizing for itself and Chris Rutt and Charles Underwood as well for an unbroken record of 121 years of the most egregious racism.
But here’s how ridiculous it would be to call Quaker racist for using the image of a Black woman and buckwheat flour to market a product. I was first introduced to Aunt Jemima’s Buckwheat pancakes by none other than Mama Hattie, the grandmother who lived across the street from my family in Cheyenne in the 1950’s. Mama Hattie is the person who influenced my childhood as much as any other adult on the planet at that time. She disciplined all children who were in her immediate sight, and since I was in that realm most of the time I learned to mind my manners as much from her as from my own mother. And my mother whole-heartedly approved.
Of all the memories I have from those days, one thing I didn’t know at the time, or simply didn’t take any notice of, is that Mama Hattie was a Black woman. It just wasn’t of any importance to me at the time, and is now only because racial consciousness is so much more extant now than it was in that time and place. Mama Hattie’s family were very close friends with my mother. My father died when I was 9 and Mama Hattie and her family gave solid support to my mother and I during that time, and when my my mother died three months shy of 100 years old, the last surviving member of Mama Hattie’s family still living in Cheyenne sent a note regretting she couldn’t attend. She was the same age as my mother, and too frail to travel.
That’s a lost world now. It had a lot going for it, including Aunt Jemima’s Buckwheat Pancake Mix. I don’t approve of Quaker’s decision, whatever the reason. If Mama Hattie were here I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t approve either.
UPDATE: Duncan Hines new chocolate glaze for cupcakes is called racist because of this commercial:
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Feminism, if it ever existed at all, is dead. Some recent evidence: The California Chapter of the National Organization for Women, on the heels of Jerry Brown calling Meg Whitman a whore, has endorsed him for governor.
Whatever one may think of Meg Whitman (she has serious faults in my view), she is a woman who earned her own fortune. She is a woman who was not held back by any self-imposed or otherwise-imposed limitations. She never whined about a “glass ceiling.” She is obviously disciplined, competent, and highly intelligent. She has earned the genuine respect of powerful men. Unlike Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, she made it to the top on her own strengths. In short, she is everything true feminists would hail as their heroine. My mother and grandmother would have loved her for her achievements.
But so-called Feminism (the one with a capital “F”) has never been about opening doors for independent women. The main beneficiaries of what has passed for feminism have been men, especially horn dogs like William Jefferson Clinton. What else would explain the greater support for unrestricted abortion among men, especially young sexually-active ones, than women? What else would explain the rise of so many shiftless men who live in their parents’ homes until they are 30, having mothers and girl friends willing to tolerate such laziness? What else would explain a “hooking up” culture where young people become sex partners without knowing each other’s names? What else would explain the total lack of concern by so-called Feminists for the treatment of women in Muslim cultures? This is a social order made to order…for men, not women.
This is a state of affairs that makes young men giddy, and many young women miserable without understanding why or what is going on. This is the real face of “Feminism.”
NOW’s mission statement was penned by Betty Friedan in 1966: “The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.”
If that were the true mission of Feminism the California Chapter of NOW would be endorsing Meg Whitman, not Governor Moonbeam. But if the true mission of Feminism is to be as far left-wing liberal as possible and to endorse anyone and anything that advances the Democrat party then the endorsement of Brown not only makes sense, it is inevitable.
Remember those asshole jerks that were on student council when you were in high school? They’re grown up now and they’re still assholes.
You can watch more Nanny of the Month videos here.
It was at a Ramadan dinner at the White House where Obama gave his announcement of support for building a trophy mosque at ground zero while flanked by radical muslims with connections to terrorist organizations. Just to take three of Obama’s friends from the official guest list reproduced by the Washington Post:
Ingrid Mattson, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood satellite organization, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), that was identified by the Justice Department as an unindicted coconspirator in a terrorism financing case (and was proved, in fact, to have sent money to Hamas);
Salam al-Marayati, a self-described supporter of Hezbollah (and one Steve Emerson aptly describes as an anti-anti-terrorist); and
Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for sharia’s subjugation of women who has embraced ISNA, CAIR and other Islamist groups in her role as an Obama appointee to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
The list of invited guests is long. Mining the list would likely reveal many others who have voiced support or given money to Islamic terrorist organizations. The idea that the ground zero mosque will merely allow muslims to practice their religion is a farce. It will be a testament to the triumph of Islamic terrorism and murder.
Apparently, Obama is just fine with that.
Professor Bainbridge gives 10 reasons he is embarrassed to be a conservative.
Most of his reasons are more likely to be reasons to be embarrassed to be a Republican than a conservative. At the end of his post he admits as such.
Here are his ten reasons, most of which I find unreasonable or stated in way that distorts the truth:
Let’s tick off ten things that make this conservative embarrassed by the modern conservative movement:
A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a — if not the — leading prospect for the GOP’s 2012 Presidential nomination.
Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest threat to the United States today” and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual assertion that pursuing liberal policies–however misguided–is an impeachable offense is just nuts.
Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column was, as Doug Marconis observed, “a wildly exaggerated attack on President Obama’s record in office.” Actually, it’s more foaming at the mouth.
As Doug also observed, “The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine.” Indeed, “when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in 2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create “compassionate conservatism” won our over any semblance of fiscal conservatism. Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal Government’s role in education, and two wars. That’s not fiscal conservatism it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity.” Yet, today’s GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal conservatism.
Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to out=st Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.
Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama’s war.
The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan?
From what I know of Professor Bainbridge he became a conservative of some kind (not my kind) because he was embarrassed to be a liberal. Maybe his old liberal tendency to self-indulgence hasn’t quite worn off yet. Some of those “reasons” don’t seem to have much to do with being conservative [birthers? nativists? spittle blasting?]. Others are stated in a way to be misleading and a distortion of conservatism, at least of the limited government, low tax, free enterprise kind. The Nevada Tea Party caused the GOP to blow the chance to oust Harry Reid? The professor seems to be telling the Tea Party to shut up, stop voicing your opinions, stop petitioning your government. If so, then he need not be embarrassed to be a conservative because he’s not a conservative. He’s still a liberal. Or worse, a self-indulgent elitist. That’s what should embarrass him.
UPDATE: Here’s something else to embarrass Professor Bainbridge: The “Birthers” began on the left by Hillary supporters. Since then Obama has adopted a strategy of leveling false “Birther” accusations at all opponents many if not most of which have never said a word about where he was born. The strategy has not worked very well for Obama; it has caused more people to question the origin of his birth, although on the positive side for Obama it has confused pseudo conservatives such as Professor Bainbridge.
Many years ago when William F. Buckley defined a liberal as someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the water temperature it was kind of a funny joke. It was funny because, as with all good humor, it contained an exaggerated grain of truth. Now that it’s the complete and literal truth it’s not a joke anymore, and it’s not funny:
I would not have minded if the ignorant and bigoted Helen Thomas stayed in the White House Press Corp until she was 180 because I agreed with William Jacobson that Helen Thomas’ greatest accomplishment as a journalist was to have exposed the true, ugly face of Israel’s critics. Well, Helen is apparently going to be gone soon but at least we still have the smashmouth ignoramous Rosie O’Donnell to carry the torch for Jew haters:
Rosie says Israel was the original home of the “Palestinians.” (Ah, Rosie, Jews have lived there for 3200 years) The word “Palestinian” didn’t even exist before 1967. I wonder what would happen if people like Rosie O’Donnell and her airhead friends ever read something like this: The Palestinian People, Sadly Do Not Exist, written by an Arab “Palestinian” now living in America. Would their heads explode?