Tag Archives: crosspost

Andre 3000 Talks Solo Album & OutKast

View post:

OutKast is the greatest hip hop group to come out of Atlanta and they’re arguably the greatest hip hop group of all time. In a recent interview with GQ Magazine, Andre 3000 talked about his upcoming solo album, as well as when fans can expect another OutKast album. Andre 3000: There’s been a lot of talk on the Internet about an OutKast album and I have to say that as of now, there are no plans for another OutKast album. There’s a lot of music on the horizon. I’ve been living off the excitement of new artists. I’ve been privileged to have these new artists kind of reach out and grab back and say, “Hey, Andre, we want you on this song.” So I’ve been taking those calls and for the last two years, I’ve been doing collaborations. So these new artists have kind of been keeping me alive. I’ve just really been feeding off of that and this year I think I’m planning to do a solo project. I don’t know when it will come out, but hopefully it’ll come out this year. As far as OutKast, I really don’t know if or when that will happen. GQ: What’s the new solo album going to be like? Andre 3000: The only thing I can really say is I’m going to get back to having fun because that’s what it was all about when I started this in high school—with OutKast—those were like high school dreams. I’m 36 now, so I have grown-man dreams. This album will just be me being myself as normal. Source: GQ Magazine

Andre 3000 Talks Solo Album & OutKast

Sneak Peak:Whitney Houston In “Sparkle”

More here:

A sneak peek at Whitney Houston behind the scenes of the film Sparkle has been released. See the pic inside and also see footage of Whitney singing “His Eye Is On The Sparrow” on the set Planned for an August 2012 release, Whitney Houston will make one her final big screen appearance (that we know of) in Sparkle. A photo of the late Whitney from the the film has been released and she looked amazing.

Sneak Peak:Whitney Houston In “Sparkle”

ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Goes Undercover to ‘Expose’ Secret Muslim Bias in America, Doesn’t Find Much

ABC on Friday did its best to find secret discrimination against Muslims, sending Good Morning America’s Bianna Golodryga undercover in a hijab (Islamic head covering). Yet, despite the misleading graphic, ” Life Under the Veil: TV Experiment Exposes Bias ,” the morning show didn’t find much bigotry. Late in the segment, Golodryga admitted, “Overt discrimination is the exception.” When an ABC producer tried the experiment in New York, the correspondent acknowledged, “Everywhere, people went out of their way to be friendly.” [MP3 audio here .] Yet, Golodryga kept trying. Going to the red state of Texas, she explained, “But it was different in my hometown of Houston. At the airport, I could feel all the eyes on me.” Wearing a burka, she narrated, “In a nearby mall, I wanted to see what would happen if I wear wore a more striking version of Islamic dress, which covers everything but the eyes and is less common here in the states. The stares increased.” If something is uncommon, wouldn’t it be likely that stares increase? After a man walked by and offered a muffled comment, Golodryga deciphered, “It sounds like he said, ‘Islamic queen.’ I couldn’t tell if he meant it in a friendly way or not.” To build the case for rampant anti-Muslim sentiment in America, Golodryga asserted, “According to the FBI, hate crime incidences against Muslims soared from 28 in 2000, to 481 in 2001. And still remain well above pre-9/11 levels.” However, as Michael Doyle of the Sacramento Bee reported on August 28, 2010, hate crimes against Muslims are rare and occur less often than violence against Jews and gays: Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. In 2008, 105 hate crime incidents against Muslims were reported nationwide. There were 10 times as many incidents that were recorded as anti-Jewish during the same year, the most recent for which figures are available. (For more, see a NewsBusters post.) But, Good Morning America has yet to do a segment featuring someone wearing a yarmulke or Kippah to see if they suffer anti-Semitic bias. Golodryga concluded by marveling of her undercover experience on the subway: “People didn’t even pay attention to me as I walked around like a normal American. My religion didn’t matter.” One might wonder, then, what was the point of this segment on bigotry and “bias”? A transcript of the segment, which aired at 8:18am EDT, follows: ABC GRAPHIC: Life Under the Veil: TV Experiment Exposes Bias GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: In the final part of our special series, “Islam in America,” we look at what it’s like to be Muslim in America today. Bianna Golodryga went undercover to find out how people respond to women wearing the traditional Muslim head scarf. And she joins us now. And this was definitely a first for you. BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Yeah. It was quite an eye-opening experience, George. Good morning. The Council of American-Islamic Relations has noted a spike in hostility toward Muslims, including bomb threats at mosques, physical threats on Muslims. Even an advertising campaign telling Muslims to change their religion. So, I wanted to find out what it felt like to be a Muslim in America. And I talked to American women who are doing just that. I donned the hijab myself. AYESHA BUTT: I think the hijab, is one thing that makes it a little different. Makes a Muslim woman different from a non-Muslim woman. GOLODRYGA: A hijab is a head scarf that women wear in public, a symbol of their faith visible to all. Do you notice people looking at you? RUGIATU CONTEN: I’m randomly checked. At a specific airport, I just stand aside because I know I’m going to get randomly checked. And then when I go in the room, I see five other Muslim women, I say As-Salamu Alaykum and do the, you regular, you know, procedures. BUTT: Definitely, things changed a lot after 9/11. Before 9/11, you weren’t called a terrorist. It was after 9/11 that people stop to let you know that you were a terrorist. Or they called you, like, Osama’s wife or something like that. And then, recently, things I would say have been very similarly hostile. GOLODRYGA: According to the FBI, hate crime incidences against Muslims soared from 28 in 2000, to 481 in 2001. And still remain well above pre-9/11 levels. The most recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission figures showed complaints of workplace discrimination against Muslims are up 20 percent. So, what would happen if your daughter came home and said she wanted to wear a hijab? RUBINA AHMAD: As a mother, as long as she stayed in big cities and cosmopolitan- where people are more tolerant, people are more knowledgeable of different cultures, religions, I would be fine. But, I would be concerned about her safety. GOLODRYGA: I decided to see what it would be like to wear a hijab in lower Manhattan, not too far from the proposed community center and mosque. Our hidden cameras followed me into a swanky restaurant. And a department store. And on to the subway, where New Yorkers took the hijab in stride. [Video footage of Golodryga walking around.] But it was different in my hometown of Houston. At the airport, I could feel all the eyes on me. And our cameraman overheard one man tell his companion that he hoped I wasn’t on his flight. In a nearby mall, I wanted to see what would happen if I wear wore a more striking version of Islamic dress, which covers everything but the eyes and is less common here in the states. The stares increased. And so did the comments. [Muffled comment from passerby.] It sounds like he said, “Islamic queen.” I couldn’t tell if he meant it in a friendly way or not. Finally, we went to Orleans County in western New York, where five teens were arrested after allegedly harassing Muslims outside this mosque. Our producer went to a gas station, supermarket and hardware store. Everywhere, people went out of their way to be friendly. WOMAN #1: You’re welcome. You have a great day. WOMAN #2: Did you find everything okay? GOLODRYGA: Our three-day experiment reflects what these women report. Overt discrimination is the exception. BUTT: There are a few that will be hostile. You know, whether you’re in the grocery store or driving on the highway, someone’s going to cut you off and say something about being a terrorist. There are those rare, few people out there. But I don’t think the majority is like that. GOLODRYGA: Today, many young Muslim-American women embrace the hijab, rejecting the notion that traditional dress is somehow repressive. AHMAD: It’s part of their Muslim identity. They are true American-Muslims. And they exercise their right as an American-Muslim and they decide to wear it. CONTEN: Now, I’m wearing the hijab. And I realize that people see me for who I am, more than what my hair looks like or what I’m wearing or how pretty I am. Definitely, that’s the plus-side. And also, the sisterhood, like Aysha to talk about. BUTT: Nobody forced me to do it. I we were the cool people. Like- GOLODRYGA: So, it’s cool to wear a hijab? BUTT: Oh, it’s awesome! Like, you know, You had the matching hoodies. You had the matching hijab. Like, you can see my little toy here. [Points to her hijab.] You can play around with it. GOLODRYGA: Accessorize it up. BUTT: Like, you can have a lot of fun with it. CONTEN: Hijabs, they are very wild. But people just don’t see it. At our parties- BUTT: Yeah, it’s kind of special. CONTEN: Yeah. GOLODRYGA: Some believe this generation is paving the way forward for all Americans. AHMAD: They are really helping, not only Muslim girls. But they’re also helping Americans to learn about Islam. And making other people see them the way they are. You know, as part of maturity of a nation. They have educated the masses of the nation. GOLODRYGA: Quite an impressive group of women. Many Americans see the hijab as something that restricts women, hiding their individuality. What these women told me is that when they wear the hijab, they feel liberated. It frees them from some of the pressures they feel. And, actually one of the girls, Ayesha, that you saw talking about stylizing her hijab, she said she conducted an experiment when I told them about what we did. And she went out without the hijab, in American, western clothes. And she wore that for a week. And she felt more liberated as a woman wearing the hijab. Because people talk to her as a woman and they didn’t- in a sexual sort of- STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, that’s interesting. Just fascinating stuff. And I guess it confirms something that I’ve believed. Americans tend to show greater respect for anyone who seems to be taking their faith seriously. GOLODRYGA: Yeah. Especially here in New York. You saw that on the subway, right? People didn’t even pay attention to me as I walked around like a normal American. My religion didn’t matter. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all.

Read this article:
ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Goes Undercover to ‘Expose’ Secret Muslim Bias in America, Doesn’t Find Much

Stephen Colbert, Dems’ Trained Clown, Trotted Out to Distract From Obama DOJ Scandal

Personally, I completely  agree with Glenn Reynolds  that  having this idiot Colbert testify was nothing more than a Democrat stunt to take the media’s eye off the very real and important testimony also taking place today regarding the  Justice Department’s racism scandals . So the more cringe-worthy and embarrassing Colbert’s appearance is, the better. Naturally, the MSM will be all too willing to play along. They fully understand how damaging the DOJ Black Panther case is to the Obama Administration and have no desire to come anywhere near covering it. And of course, there’s Stephen Colbert, just as willing to play along – a narcissistic attention whore with no respect for the political process who thinks his schtick combined with a ten hour day he spent in the vegetable fields somehow makes him a compelling and important witness. The one good thing that came out of this is Colbert’s reaction to Conyers’ request that he leave. It’s not very often you see a smug, superior Hollywoodist caught off guard. Byron York has more coverage  here . He thinks the Democrats damaged themselves with this stunt:  Colbert stayed in place as the other witnesses made opening statements. When Colbert’s turn came, Conyers briefly interrupted to say that he was withdrawing his request for Colbert to leave. Then Colbert began his testimony, which was an in-character schtick based on a one-day visit to an upstate New York farm. “This is America,” Colbert said. “I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican.”  As the hearing went on, Colbert said things like, “I was a cornpacker…cornpacker is a derogatory term for a gay Iowan.” At the end, Lofgren proclaimed the hearing “helpful.” She thanked the witnesses, who she called “volunteers to help make a better country.” But the presence of her star witness, Colbert, had cause a number of strange and awkward moments, ones that could come back to some of the Democrats on the panel in the campaign ahead. I disagree with York. As I write this, Colbert is all over cable news and the  “bombshell” testimony regarding the DOJ is nowhere to be seen. But it’s hard to beat the trifecta of political corruption: Democrats, the media, and Hollywood. Mission accomplished. Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Read the original:
Stephen Colbert, Dems’ Trained Clown, Trotted Out to Distract From Obama DOJ Scandal

Michelle Obama’s Burden and the Obamas’ Hard Hearts

It’s tough being the wife of the most powerful man in the world, just ask Michelle Obama. Carla Bruni, who seemed to reveal her distaste for the First Lady in previous pictures, reveals Michelle’s whiny comments in her recent book [Aside: why is a sitting world leader’s spouse writing a tell-all? What tawdriness.] Anyway,  here’s what was allegedly said: Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’, Carla Bruni reveals today in a wildly indiscreet book. Miss Bruni divulges that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her position as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Details of the private conversation, which took place at the White House during an official visit by Nicolas Sarkozy last March, emerged in Carla And The Ambitious, a book written in collaboration with Miss Bruni. Well, of course the job is difficult-prepared meals, jet-setting, specially designed clothes, lecturing the American people on eating apples is exhausting work. Also, it’s awful. Not out-of-a-job awful. Not repo awful. Not foreclosure awful. Not hungry awful. But, yeah, being First Lady is awful. Michelle Obama and that husband of her’s just don’t quite cast an empathetic image, do they? NPR kvetches about this problem : Is President Obama too rational to be likable? Obama comes across as so self-contained that his personality almost seems like a bubble around him – perhaps even more so than the bubble that surrounds any president, thanks to the Secret Service and all the trappings of the White House. “Obama’s analytic style of decision-making and his unwillingness to show emotion makes it hard for people to relate to him,” says Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University. If a president is in power during hard times, his relative likability won’t matter so much as his overall job performance. But every president gets judged to a greater or lesser degree according to his personality. Perhaps no president would be doing well in the polls with unemployment near double digits throughout his term. But Obama’s inability to connect on an emotional level with many people has been an additional drag on his approval ratings. Oh yes. It’s the President’s cerebral nonchalance that’s making connection so difficult. How about this idea: Michelle and Barack Obama just don’t care. When an entitled person feels perpetually ripped off, they tend to feel less empathy for those they perceive as ripping them off. So, that lack of empathy; that attitude of being put-upon? That’s genuine no matter how the lib press wants to  rationalize  it away. Stories like these, from  the Politico  help nothing: The White House is fighting back against claims its offshore drilling moratorium will cause dramatic job loses along the Gulf Coast with a new report that says most jobs aren’t gone forever. Only 8,000 to 12,000 jobs will be lost along the Gulf Coast , and most will return once deepwater drilling resumes, says the report to be presented to a Senate panel Thursday. That’s right. ONLY 12,000 families will face the desperation of a lost livelihood and face the stress and strain of keeping their homes during this economic crisis. ONLY. Do the Obamas not grasp the gravity of the economic situation in America today? Do they not grasp their enormous educational, cultural and social privilege long before they ever lucked into the presidency? Or, are they so brainwashed by their own imagined persecution complex that they simply cannot see their remarkable lives for what they are: lucky and fortunate. Michelle Obama is not burdened. The woman doesn’t know from burden. And Barack Obama is not mis-perceived by the American people. They are seeing his cold nature for what it is: hard hearted. No amount of fawning press can obscure what is becoming more obvious. UPDATED: Michelle Obama’s office denies Carla Bruni’s revelation .

Visit link:
Michelle Obama’s Burden and the Obamas’ Hard Hearts

American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

Calling media portrayals of sex “unhealthy,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines calling on all media outlets to present human sexuality in a healthy, scientifically accurate manner. At the same time, the group pomoted the use of contraceptives among teenagers and denigrated abstinence-only education.   “There is a major disconnect between what mainstream media portray – casual sex and sexuality with no consequences – and what children and teenagers need – straightforward information about human sexuality and the need for contraception when having sex,” the AAP  said .    “Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual responsibility, and birth control remains rare,” said the AAP.   The organization, with 60,000-plus members, said that because children and young adults spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with various media, it was important for the portrayals of sex in that media to be accurate and responsible.   “American children and teenagers spend more than 7 hours a day with a variety of different media. Those media are filled with sexual messages and images, many of which are unrealistic,” the AAP said. “Talk about sex on TV can occur as often as 8 to 10 times per hour. Between 1997 and 2001 alone, the amount of sexual content on TV nearly doubled.”   This proliferation of inaccurate sexual messages has had documented effects on youth sexual behavior, the AAP reported. Kids exposed to sexual material on television are almost twice as likely to engage in sexually risky behavior at a younger age than youth whose parents limit their exposure to sexually saturated media.    Other studies have shown that exposure to sexualized media content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. “Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important,” the AAP stated.   These negative trends are happening at a time when public sexual education has favored a scientifically unfounded, abstinence only approach, said the organization, adding that as public policy has avoided providing youth with accurate information about sex, the media have become the sexual educator of “last resort.”   “Because so many sex education programs have recently been focused on abstinence only, the media have arguably become one of the leading sex educators in the United States today,” the AAP said. “Yet, parents and legislators fail to understand that although they may favor abstinence-only sex education (despite the lack of any evidence of its effectiveness), the media are decidedly not abstinence only.”   In fact, the American media can be among “the most sexually-suggestive media in the world,” according to the AAP. The effect of this is that media can act as a “super-peer” on youth, exerting an influence on sexual behavior stronger than that of a child’s parents.   One major problem – labeled “dangerous” by the AAP – with the media’s portrayal of sex is the lingering myth that access to contraception affects sexual behavior patterns. Because the media play such a large role in providing information about sex to young people, this dearth of accurate information about contraceptives leaves teens at a disadvantage as they become sexually active.   “The United States is the only Western nation that still subscribes to the dangerous myth that giving teenagers access to birth control – and media represent a form of access – will make them sexually active at a younger age,” the AAP explained.    In response to these twin problems, the AAP called on media to do two things: remove some inappropriate sexual content from programming likely to be viewed by children and substitute it with accurate, educational information about sex.   “Pediatricians and child advocacy groups should encourage the entertainment industry to produce more programming that contains responsible sexual content and that focuses on the interpersonal relationship in which sexual activity takes place,” the AAP said.    “Similarly, Madison Avenue and advertisers need to be encouraged to stop using sex to sell products,” said the group.   In addition to changing media programming, the AAP also called for comprehensive sex education in schools and increased advertisements for contraceptives.   “Pediatricians should urge the broadcast industry to air advertisements for birth control products,” the AAP said.    Dr. Vic Strasburger, the policy’s lead author, said that scientific studies showed that increased advertising for birth control would lead to “one thing and one thing only” – increased use of contraception.   “The research is quite clear, the media represent one access point for children and teenagers about birth control and giving teenagers access to birth control does one thing and one thing only – that is it makes them more likely to use birth control when they begin having sex,” Strasburger told CNSNews.com.    “As parents and as adults, we couldn’t be doing a worse job,” Strasburger said. “We do a terrible job of preparing kids to be happy, healthy, sexual adults.” Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com  

Continued here:
American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

WaPo Publicizes Feminists Outraged at Insulting Senator as ‘Attractive’ and ‘Probably a Good Mother’

Never tell a feminist politician she’s “attractive” and “a good mother.” To some, that’s a “toxic” insult. Thursday’s Washington Post offered a story on how “Women’s groups target sexism in campaigns: Advocates monitoring what they call ‘toxic’ media environment.” Reporter Krissah Thompson never identified the groups as “liberal,” or even “feminist,” or noted that one of them, the Women’s Media Center, (foolishly) opposed an innocuous Tim Tebow pro-life Super Bowl ad as offensive without having seen it. Thompson began: The list includes the radio talk show host who called a female senator a “prostitute” for cutting a deal to benefit her state, the male challenger who referred to his female rival [as] “attractive” and “probably a good mother,” and the TV host who noted that the candidate’s wife looked like an angry woman. Those comments and others have been collected by a group of advocates for women running for office who are monitoring what they consider a “highly toxic” media environment that makes it difficult for female candidates. Thompson’s Post article never explains that the “attractive”-wielding offender was being “toxic” to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat appointed to  replace Hillary Clinton from New York. Jill Marcellus at the Women’s Media Center recently wrote up a ticket for Republican candidate Bruce Blakeman: “I think Kirsten Gillibrand is an attractive woman, I think she’s bright, and I think she’s probably a good mom herself,” Blakeman announced Tuesday at a debate with rivals Joe DioGuardi and David Malpass. If you’re experiencing some 1950s flashbacks right now, it’s not just because of the black and white photo of the candidates, arranged in height order, found at that link.  It’s 2010, and we are still judging women by ‘50s standards.  True, Blakeman’s concession that the successful leader is “bright” could bear on her qualifications as a Senator, but he sandwiches it between evaluations of her looks and of her skills as a mother. Blakeman, of course, believes this is a compliment: “I hope Senator Gillibrand will say that I’m bright, that I’m attractive and that I’m a good dad. I’d be very happy with that and I would not be offended.” He wouldn’t be offended because it would never occur to Senator Gillibrand or anyone else to say that about him at a debate.  With his comments, he admits that he sees her first as woman, and second, if at all, as a politician.  Gender never obscures Blakeman’s role in office. A comment is not a compliment if it suggests a politician shouldn’t be in the Senate because she belongs in the home. That’s funny. You might think it would be an insult to feminists if you said Gillibrand was ugly, stupid, and said she was a bad mother for having a career. But it’s an insult if you say anything personal about her at all. (For her part Gillibrand said she was much more concerned about the GOP’s Bush-trickle-down answers, and when a reporter pressed if she had cringed, she laughed and said “I smiled.” She’s obviously not feminist enough.) The irony of all this is that the GOP candidates were asked in the debate to say something nice about Gillibrand, and they’re hardly going to say they think her policy ideas are fantastic. Even “say something nice” questions are a minefield. Perhaps Blakeman should have said “no thanks. I don’t have anything nice to say about her.” Thompson’s report suggested conservative talk-show hosts were going to get pressed: “The effort to track sexist comments and put pressure on advertisers that help bankroll the media figures responsible for some of the remarks comes as women campaign in several high-profile races this year, including for governorships in South Carolina and California as well as Senate seats.” Nowhere in the story do the feminist groups cite the unsubstantiated charges of adultery against South Carolina Republican Nikki Haley, but they do express outrage that people questioned that Sarah Palin could be a good mother and be vice president. But then, those offenders included people in the liberal media who are supposedly feminist. For the record, in Thompson’s lede, she also neglected to say the talk show host tossing the “prostitute” moniker was Glenn Beck talking about Sen. Mary Landrieu being offered millions in Medicaid funds for her state in exchange for her support of ObamaCare. The talker who said a candidate’s wife looked angry was Bill O’Reilly talking about Michelle Obama.

Original post:
WaPo Publicizes Feminists Outraged at Insulting Senator as ‘Attractive’ and ‘Probably a Good Mother’

Teaching Lefties a Lesson With the Discovery Wacko: Modeling v. Mirroring

One failure of logic is to generalize from the anecdotal to the whole. Conservatives, who know rules of logic-we have Thomas Sowell after all (see what I did there?)-understand this. So, when it comes to rhetorical arguments or situations where some weirdo commits some random badness, they tend to blame…well, the perpetrator. It’s also just fundamental fairness. The left, in contrast, has spent the last year and half trying to pin every act of terrorism and evil on the vast, white, racist, homophobic, bigoted Tea Party. They do it without shame. They impugn, malign and besmirch repeatedly. Best Tea Party sign? “You’ll say I’m racist anyway.” Lefties generalize from anecdotes unless the crazy person is one of their own (and yes, that was just a generalization). Then, of course, the crazy is an “outlier”. He’s a  depraved individual . And often, there are  compelling reasons for the outburst. Those compelling reasons  demand more examination . And upon examination, well, it turns out the context is  complex and nuanced . Enter the Discovery Building bomber-hostage taker-gun nut. The blogger Atrios was quick to point out that the guy with a clear eco-terrorist bent was just a “crazy individual”. What ensued were two responses: Rise above it and model good behavior or get dirty and use the opposition’s tactics of smearing the whole with the actions of one. Ace chided Mary Katherine Ham and  Michelle Malkin for letting the Left off the hook . (Michelle said that she’s “not playing the opportunistic blame game.”) They get to have it both ways he said and they won’t learn to stop using their unfair tactics if they’re never called on it. Michelle said (and I’m paraphrasing) it doesn’t matter, the Left never learns. To which  Ace responded thusly : No they never learn, but they can be forced to go on record w statements that lunatics’ lunacies are not due to “rhetoric.” I happen to agree with Ace on this. I’ll tell you why, but first a detour of explanation. One of my children has autism. An autistic child is inside his own head and lacks a certain self-awareness. So, for example, when the child does repetitive behaviors called “stimming” like rocking in place or flapping his hands in front of his eyes, he doesn’t realize what he’s doing. A parent might say, “Johnny, stop swaying” or “Stop flapping” and the child will continue. He doesn’t know that he’s doing anything. Modeling normative behavior can help- but only if the child is aware of the normative behavior . That is, if he is not “seeing” it, he cannot model it. He is internally focused and that’s the problem. So how do you get that child out of his head? You mirror his behavior. Try it some time. A child who is swaying or flapping will show a dawn of awareness when the parent or teacher mirrors what the child is doing in front of his face. So, in my house, I will start flapping my hands in front of my face and my son will get a sly smile of awareness and he’ll stop. He gets out of his own head for a minute, registers his behavior and quits. It is very effective. In fact, it is far more effective than modeling…until the unwanted behavior stops. Once the child stops the asocial behavior, he will start watching for different behavior. Awareness comes first. You can see where I’m going with this.  From what I can tell, and it’s a scientific fact to boot, leftists lack empathy . That is, they cannot put themselves in someone elses’ shoes and modify behavior based on how they would feel if the behavior was turned toward them. They are rather autistic about their intellectual and social behavior. They’ll tar and feather a whole segment of people based on the action of one crazy and not even bat an eye. However, when their own crazy gets caught, they want the more reasonable and reasoned and logical response of not smearing a whole group of people (say, all people who watched and liked the Al Gore movie  An Inconvenient Truth ). Modeling has not helped the left. They simply do not see good behavior. They’re too into their own lefty world where their own asocial behavior is reinforced and fed (for example, Journolist). What is the answer then? Mirroring. At every opportunity, people on the right need to illustrate the absurd by being absurd. A crazy dude who hates babies and loves squirrels? Why, he’s a typical environmentalist! I mean, how is he different from Keith Olbermann and Dylan Ratigan? They’re all crazy, anger-lust filled wackos who would love for the world to be rid of humans and populated with trillions of squirrels. The funny thing is that conservatives and libertarians on Twitter are in on the joke. Well, most of them are. They get that the smear is unfair and ridiculous. They understand that it’s childish and a little silly. They have also learned that modeling fairness to the lefties does not work. They simply are too inside their own experience. So, mirroring it is. When lefties start holding to fairness in reporting and thinking, when they start viewing right-leaning outliers as the work of crazy outliers, it will be time to start modeling good behavior. I understand the notion of being above it and acting in a manner in which you want others to act. I get not getting dirty. I also know that playing nice hamstrings the right and gives the left license. So, as long as the mirroring is conducted in a self-aware, joking manner, I say have at it. Court Jesters, parody, and all manner of humor have always been used to reveal absurdity and bad behavior. Until the left mends their mendacious ways, mirroring is the best medicine. Crossposted at Liberty Pundits  

Follow this link:
Teaching Lefties a Lesson With the Discovery Wacko: Modeling v. Mirroring

LA Times To Hollywood: Please Ignore the Box Office Success of ‘The Expendables’

Last week, film writer extraordinaire  Christian Toto  fell under the delusion that yours truly was interesting enough to interview, and if you’re under the same delusion you can read the two-parter  here  and  here . Among other things, Toto asked me about the clout critics wield and the most common mistakes they make. Here’s a combination of my answers: Critics aren’t dumb, they know the public doesn’t much care which way their thumbs point. But critics do know that based on their opinions and reviews they can enjoy an influence over what kind of films get made. And that’s not a small amount of power. Culture is upstream from politics, after all. If you have 95 percent of critics savaging a faithful retelling of the Gospels as anti-Semitic, no matter how successful “The Passion” is, no one’s going to go near that subject matter again. And that’s the goal. Same with anything that comes close to patriotism or conservatism. Such cinematic rarities are frequently labeled “jingoistic, fascist or simple minded.” This is all done consciously and for a desired effect. You have to understand that when I look at the critical community I only see it for what it really is: a journolista cabal of left wingers deeply engaged in a cultural and ideological war, deeply committed to shaping the powerful messaging of sound and fury that emanate from our pop culture masters. As if to prove my point, this very morning Left-winger Steven Zeitchik of the L.A. Times ran  this propaganda piece ; a not very subtle attempt on his and the paper’s part to tamp down any enthusiasm development execs might have to copycat what made “The Expendables” such a box office success and cultural phenomenon: [emphasis mine] But the Stallone picture –  with its hard-charging, take-no-prisoners patriotism unbothered by the vagaries of the real world  (it takes place in a fictional country, for starters) and its caricature of freedom-hating enemies (“We will kill this American disease,” as the TV spot enticed us) – planted itself squarely in the old-school genre. And this weekend, the movie showed that there’s life in that category yet. … On one hand, it’s understandable that a movie of easy American heroism (OK, first-world Western heroism) would catch on. In fact, it’s surprising it didn’t happen sooner. Apple-pie-patriotism already is behind the success of a cable news network and supports large sections of the contemporary country music industry. Why not a film hit too? …. Political eras are, of course, rarely just one thing or another, and the movies we want to see in a given period are hardly monolithic.  But as tempting as it is to infer that the success of “The Expendables” shows a deeper cultural need, it may well be the wrong inference. When times are confusing, we want movies to reflect that confusion, and even to make sense of it. But we probably don’t want to pretend that confusion doesn’t exist. If you’re wondering why Hollywood is so out of touch with the 80% of their audience who aren’t liberal, part of the reason is certainly because much of the industry takes pride in being so, but you also have this kind of constant pressure from cultural enforcers like Zeitchik who disguise themselves as journalists. What Zeitchik’s quite purposefully doing here is toxifying “The Expendables” by ridiculing its simple worldview – as though the nihilism found in the moral equivalency preached by the likes of George Clooney and Paul Haggis is somehow “complicated.” He’s essentially sending out the message that whoring yourself to the movie-going rubes and their desire to see good conquer evil makes you dumb, uncool, and unsophisticated. So don’t do it. And the timing is perfect. Zeitchik wants to slap some of the excitement out of a box office success and affect the narrative before the Monday morning development meetings begin. He’s also offering talking points to his fellow travellers who attend those meetings. Therefore, even though Zeitchik is factually wrong, facts won’t much matter. No one wants the L.A. Times calling their movies uncool and simple-minded, and regardless of how big the hit, no one wants to have to defend “hard-charging, take-no-prisoners patriotism unbothered by the vagaries of the real world.” Not in this town. But again, Zeitchik is simply wrong. From an artistic point of view, “The Expendables” is a much more impressive achievement than the likes of the flood of “Syrianas” that have been bombing one after another at the box office over the past few years. A simple straight-forward story that’s actually about something is much more difficult to successfully craft than a confusing and muddled story that’s believes in absolutely nothing. Paint-by-numbers might not be Rembrandt but it takes more skill than throwing monkey shit at a canvas. The other false narrative Zeitchik tries to poison the development well with, is the false one that says the success of “The Expendables” is something of a fluke: Until this weekend, old-school action movies – defined, for argument’s sake, as films with a slew of explosions, a shortage of moral ambiguity and a triumph of physical effects over digital ones – had seen better days. It’s been nearly two decades since pictures of this sort were produced with any regularity by the studio system, and a lot longer since they were stateside successes. “Until this weekend?” Ah, no. Laughably, to bring home this point, after mentioning Stallone’s most recent “Rambo” and “The A-Team,” Zeitchik then offers up Jean-Claude Van Damme’s “JVCD” as further proof that films lacking in moral ambiguity “have seen better days.” Really? The one-location, self-referential piece of crap  that is ” JVCD ” is Zeitchik’s Exhibit C in this closing argument? But this is what happens when you’re in possession of a laughably biased theory in search of proof – especially when the surprise successes of  “300″ and “Taken,” not to mention “Salt,” the first “Transformers,” and “Gran Torino” – make a total fool of that moral ambiguity theory. That would be like me ignoring the “Bourne” trilogy while making some sort of argument that un-American, shaky-cammed action films starring hardwood don’t make money. There’s plenty of room at the multiplex and plenty of box-office cash for everyone’s worldview. Unfortunately for our side, the Zeitchik’s of the media world will stoop to pulling the “JVCD” Card in order to remove our seat at that table. UPDATE:  A commenter quite correctly points out that in his closing paragraph, Zeitchik talks about action films with heavy CGI effects and explosions, not just moral ambiguity – and that my counter-examples of “300,” “Transformers,” and “Gran Torino” don’t refute that point. Though I close my paragraph to explain that I’m specifically refuting Zeitchik’s moral ambiguity statement (which is most of the overall argument of his write up, and where I was most focused in my response), I could’ve been much clearer in that regard. As far as Zeitchik’s  full  argument, “Salt” and “Taken” are still better examples than “JVCD.” I would also add the hits “Man on Fire,” “Vantage Point,” and “Inglourious Basterds.” Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Read the original:
LA Times To Hollywood: Please Ignore the Box Office Success of ‘The Expendables’

Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Has Obama already flip-flopped on the Ground Zero Mosque? Friday he said this .  Saturday he said (video follows): Thoughts? 

View post:
Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?