Aug 26, 2015

donald trump: a very scary figure..........

trump--rounding people up by race, deporting them, thugs, shutting down journalists...this is scary.......



The fact that trump is talking about rounding people up by race and deporting them is a very scary picture....that's all I can think about now when he starts talking.

I am embarrassed for our country that he is running for president and people like him...do people want a police state, or what?


Fortunately, he is handing the election to the very competent Hillary Clinton......that is the ray of shining light in this horrible picture he is painting.


The use of thugs and shutting down journalists...perhaps he should take a tip from our very eloquent President Obama as he answered Major with a thoughtful response when questioned about the Iran reporters in prison.

How will we know, as the public and voters, what is going on if the reporters are not allowed to ask him questions he does not like.....this is terrible and I am glad he will not win.


chloe louise....Hillary girl forever


just want to ask a question......is it the reporter or the editor of the publication or owner of the network who is determining the importance of the story and the direction of the newspaper or show as to what the viewer will see or hear?



.........................................................


copied from firstlook.org




Glenn Greenwald

Jorge Ramos
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. His most recent book, No Place to Hide, is about the U.S. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world. Prior to his collaboration with Pierre Omidyar, Glenn’s column was featured at The Guardian and Salon. He was the debut winner, along with Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work on the abusive detention conditions of Chelsea Manning. For his 2013 NSA reporting, he received the George Polk award for National Security Reporting; the Gannett Foundation award for investigative journalism and the Gannett Foundation watchdog journalism award; the Esso Premio for Excellence in Investigative Reporting in Brazil (he was the first non-Brazilian to win), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award. Along with Laura PoitrasForeign Policy magazine named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. The NSA reporting he led for The Guardian was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service.

















Aug. 26 2015, 9:08 a.m.
(updated below)
The Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beingsresiding in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments which Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.
Jorge Ramos, the influential anchor of Univision and an American immigrant from Mexico, has been denouncing Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Yesterday at a Trump press conference in Iowa, Ramos stood and questioned Trump on his immigration views. Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on and repeatedly ordered him to “sit down,” then told him: “Go back to Univision.” When Ramos refused to sit down and shut up as ordered, a Trump bodyguard physically removed him from the room. After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump about immigration, with the two mostly talking over each other as Ramos asked Trump about the fundamental flaws in his policy. Afterward, Ramos said: “This is personal . . . he’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.”

One might think that in a conflict between a journalist removed from a press conference for asking questions and the politician who had him removed, journalists would side with their fellow journalist. Some are. But many American journalists have seized on the incident to denounce Ramos for the crime of having opinions and even suggesting that he’s not really acting as a journalist at all.
Politico‘s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he beganThen: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only didn’t Ramos do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias. . . .  we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them. . . .One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”
Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.
Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.
Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. Government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.
What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sitting by quietly and pretending to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”
Indeed, some of the most important and valuable moments in American journalism have come from the nation’s most influential journalists rejecting this cowardly demand that they take no position, from Edward R. Murrow’s brave 1954 denunciation of McCarthyism to Walter Cronkite’s 1968 refusal to treat the U.S. Government’s lies about the Vietnam War as anything other than what they were. Does anyone doubt that today’s neutrality-über-alles journalists would denounce them as “activists” for inappropriately “taking a side”?
As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the by-product of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: one of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets which these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted.
The worst aspect of these journalists’ demands for “neutrality” is the conceit that they are actually neutral, that they are themselves not activists. To be lectured about the need for journalistic neutrality by Politico of all places – the ultimate and most loyal servant of the DC political and corporate class – by itself illustrates what a rotten sham this claim is. I set out my argument about this at length in my 2013 exchange with Bill Keller and won’t repeat it all here; suffice to say, all journalism is deeply subjective and serves some group’s interests. All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases – and thus constantly serve one agenda or another – whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.
Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference . . . . Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.” Expressing opinions that are in accord with, and which serve the interests of, those who wield the greatest political and economic power is always acceptable for the journalists who most tightly embrace the pretense of “neutrality”; it’s only when an opinion constitutes dissent or when it’s expressed with too little reverence for the most powerful does it cross the line into “activism” and “bias.”
(Ramos’ supposed sin of being what the Post called a “conflict junkie” – something that sounds to be nothing more than a derogatory way of characterizing “adversary journalism” – is even more ridiculous. Please spare me the tripe about how Ramos’ real sin was one of rudeness, that he failed to wait for explicit permission from the Trumpian Strongman to speak. Aside from the absurdity of viewing Victorian-era etiquette as some sort of journalistic virtue, Trump’s vindictive war with Univision made it unlikely he’d call on Ramos, and journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs.
Beyond that, whether a reporter must be deferential to a politicians is one of those questions on which people shamelessly switch sides based on which politician is being treated rudely at the moment, as the past liberal protests over the “rudeness” displayed to Obama by conservative journalistsdemonstrate. That Ramos is not One of Them – Joe Scarborough appeared not even to know who Ramos is and suggested he was just seeking “15 minutes of fame,” despite Ramos’ having far greater influence and fame than Scarborough could dream of having – clearly fueled the journalistic resentment that Ramos’ behavior was out of line).
What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: he aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying. As usual when someone commits a real act of journalism aimed at the most powerful in the U.S., those leading the charge against him are other journalists, who so tellingly regard actual journalism as a gauche and irreverent crime against those who wield the greatest power and thus merit the greatest deference.
UPDATE: Caputo, while noting that he disagrees with many of the views in this article, objects to one phrase in particular and sets forth his objectionhere. I quoted and/or linked to all of his referenced statements and am happy to allow readers to decide if that one phrase was accurate. I am quite convinced it was and stand by it.





Aug 23, 2015

Johnny Carson Returns To Latenight On Antenna TV





















English: Johnny Carson talks about TV commerci...
Johnny Carson Returns To Latenight On Antenna TV

Written by: 
23 years after retiring from The Tonight Show – and a decade after his death – Johnny Carson remains TV’s most popular late-night talk show host, according to a 2015 Quinnipiac University Poll, 2015.







The Carson reruns, which will start January 1, 2016, mark the first time the shows will air in a strip since Carson went off the air in 1992. “We cannot wait to bring this show to fans who remember Carson and to a new generation of viewers who have never had the chance to see Johnny in his prime”.


Antenna TV has struck a multi-year deal with Carson Entertainment Group to license hundreds of hours of the NBC late-night institution. (And really, everybody back in the day just called it Carson anyway.)

Antenna TV plans on creating theme weeks, with episodes based around anniversaries and other milestones.

New episodes of the series air Sundays at 11:30pm ET/PT.

The series’ season two premiere on Sunday, July 26, ranked #1 in its time period among all key adults and men and charted triple-digit delivery gains over its prior season premiere (P18-24 +154%, P18-34 +117%, P18-49 +121%).


Tribune Media president, strategic programming and acquisitions, Sean Compton added: “During his Nebraskan boyhood, Johnny Carson dreamed of becoming a world-famous magician, and few would disagree that his three decade dominance of late-night television was anything short of magical”.

The idea of running the show at the same time every night on Antenna TV will provide viewers with a feel for how the show was viewed originally.


Carson Entertainment has marketed home video releases of full-length “Tonight Show” episodes in the past. There is certainly plenty of material to cull from: The Tonight Show featured the debut of numerous biggest stand-ups out there, such as Jerry Seinfeld, Tim Allen, and Ellen DeGeneres. From then on, Carson Entertainment invested in state-of-the-art archival technology to preserve his legacy – a focus that continues today.

The hope is that a combination of nostalgia and interest in the legend of Carson will drive broader sampling of the channel.



copied from ifreepress.com

Aug 22, 2015

Seriously, Everyone is always talking about Mick Taylor

Music review: The Rolling Stones, Sticky Fingers

By Tony Nielsen
Add a comment
Andy Warhol's provocative zipper and crotch shot on the cover garnered almost as much attention as the music.
Andy Warhol's provocative zipper and crotch shot on the cover garnered almost as much attention as the music.
1971. Keith Holyoake is Prime Minister. Richard Nixon, US President. The Beatles have disbanded. Brian Jones is dead and been replaced by Mick Taylor as the Stones release their 11th studio album. Sticky Fingers will be rated one of their best.
The newly released, repackaged version is a revelation. A tour de force of blistering rock like Brown Sugar, Bitch, and Can't You Hear Me Knocking, counterbalanced by ballads like Wild Horses and their truly mesmerising rendition of Mississippi Fred McDowell's You Gotta Move. But wait, there's more.
Andy Warhol's provocative zipper and crotch shot on the cover garnered almost as much attention as the music. Included is a second disc, which is a treasure trove in its own right. Brown Sugar with Eric Clapton alongside Keith Richards and Mick Taylor, an acoustic version of Wild Horses, and alternate versions of Can't you hear me Knocking, Bitch and Dead Flowers.
Extra gems include a rousing set of live Stones songs, Stray Cat Blues, Love in Vain, Midnight Rambler and Honky Tonk Women.
Special mention must be made of Taylor's coming of age at these sessions and also the "unofficial" members of the Stones. Bobby Keyes on sax, Jim Price trumpet, Ian Stewart and Nicky Hopkins on piano, and magic touches on some tracks by Billy Preston on organ. Sticky Fingers, especially with the extra material included, made 1971 a remarkable year.
The Rolling Stones
Sticky Fingers (Re-issue)
Rating: 5/5

the ronnie republic: The Rolling Stones Fire Donald Trump--so does this mean Donald Trump has thugs or what.......

Joe Corrigan/Getty Images



the ronnie republic: The Rolling Stones Fire Donald Trump: National Post Sessions  |  Snap Judgments  |  Pop Psychology That time Donald Trump was fired by Canadian concert promoter Michael Cohl...

the ronnie republic: The discovery of a wolf pack in Northern Californi...



wolves



the ronnie republic: The discovery of a wolf pack in Northern Californi...: Wolf pack discovered in California; first in more than 90 years August 20, 2015  by  Pete Thomas California’s ne...

The discovery of a wolf pack in Northern California – five pups and two adults


Wolf pack discovered in California; first in more than 90 years


wolves
California’s new Shasta wolf pack, as seen via trail camera. Photo: CDFW


The discovery of a wolf pack in Northern California – five pups and two adults – is proof of the continuing westward expansion of the controversial predators.

California has not had a wolf pack in more than 90 years, and with the exception of two lone gray wolves that entered the state from Oregon in late 2011, and in July of this year, the last known wild wolf to reside in California was in 1924.

“The news is exciting for California,” Charlton H. Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said in a news release issued Thursday. “We knew wolves would eventually return home to the state and it appears now is the time.”


image: http://cdn.grindtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/wolves.jpg
wolves
One of California’s Shasta wolf pack, as seen via trail camera. Photo: CDFW


Said Jamie Rappaport, president of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife: “We have been given a second chance to restore this iconic species to a landscape they had been missing from for nearly one hundred years. We must seize this opportunity to forge new partnerships to help wolves live in harmony with people and livestock in their California home.”


The wolf spotted in December 2011 was a GPS-collared animal cataloged as OR7, who became famous for ranging across Oregon into California, during a lengthy and fruitless search for a mate. He has since returned to southern Oregon and is the breeding male of what is known as the Rogue Pack.


The second wolf photographed twice near the Siskiyou-Shasta County border, via motion-sensor trail camera, is believed to one of the adults raising the five pups. The CDFW, which captured the new images with additional trail cameras placed in the same general area, has designated this new family the Shasta Pack.


Wolves were eradicated throughout the West in the early 1900s by trappers and ranchers. Their reintroduction in the Northern Rockies in 1995 was controversial not only because of livestock concerns, but because of possible impacts on elk herds in some areas.


The cunning predators, believed by many to play an important role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem by thinning deer and elk herds of their weakest members, have flourished and have now spread to seven states (counting California).


After OR7 crossed the state line in 2011, the CDWF began to prepare for the eventuality that wolves would someday return.


In June 2014, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to list gray wolves under the California Endangered Species Act. Gray wolves also are listed as federally endangered in California.
It’s illegal to hunt, trap, wound or harass the animals, and the CDWF is in the process of formulating a management plan, after meeting with stakeholders.


The precise location of the Shasta Pack was not divulged to protect the animals.


Northern California residents, however, are asked to report wolf sightings on the CDFW website.



Read more at http://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/wolf-pack-discovered-in-california-first-in-more-than-90-years/#7Kqt65PU4cbv2KY1.99




www.grindtv.com

I have been waiting for Hillary forever...Chloelouise...Hillary girl forever: Hillary Clinton's Lawyer Defends Her Use of Personal Email

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillar...
Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Seal of the United States Department of State.
Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Hillary Clinton's Lawyer Defends Her Use of Personal Email


by PETE WILLIAMS



Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account for conducting State Department business followed both federal rules in place at the time and the practice of some of her predecessors, her lawyer says.

The explanation, from Washington, D.C. lawyer David Kendall, comes in a letter sent late Friday to the State Department's undersecretary for management, obtained by NBC News.

"Secretary Clinton's use of personal e-mail was consistent with the practice of other Secretaries of State and was permissible under State Department policy in place during her tenure," Kendall writes.

Related: Judge Orders State Department to Get FBI Findings

Though styled as a letter to the State Department, it amounts to a response to a comment Thursday from a federal judge during a hearing over a lawsuit to obtain government records.

"We wouldn't be here today if this employee had followed government policy," said Emmet Sullivan, a federal district court judge in Washington, referring to Clinton.


The court hearing involved a side issue in the e-mail controversy — a Freedom of Information Act request for records detailing an arrangement that allowed top Clinton aide Huma Abedin to do outside consulting while working at the State Department.

In his latter, Kendall quotes from a memoir by former Secretary of State Colin Powell who wrote that he used his personal email account for messages to "principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to [his] foreign-minister colleagues."

two beautiful ladies:  Hillary and Huma
Clinton's use of her personal account was also permitted by federal regulations, Kendall says, including rules issued by the National Archives to implement a federal law on record preservation.

In 2009, Kendall says, the rule explained the practice to be followed when federal agencies "allow employees to send and receive electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency."



In that event, the employee must ensure that a record of the email is obtained in a government system. "Secretary Clinton followed that regulation through her practice of communicating with other Department officials on their state.gov e-mail accounts," Kendall's letter says.

By forwarding and copying messages to department employees at their government addresses, her emails were preserved in the State Department system, he said.

Kendall also said Clinton followed government regulations in deciding which emails in her personal accounts were private and which involved official business.

Both federal regulations and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual contemplate that kind of review by employees. The manual, Kendall notes, offers guidance "to direct the preservation of those messages that contain information necessary to ensure that departmental policies, programs, and activities are adequately documented."

Clinton provided the State Department printed copies of 30,490 emails from her personal account last December. Roughly 90 percent of them were sent to or received by a government employee with a state.gov address, Kendall said.

Of the rest, Kendall says, "we anticipate that many" will prove to have been of a personal nature that did not need to be preserved.

In March 2015, the Government Accounting Office found that the State Department's archiving system was seriously flawed and that only a small percentage of e-mails were actually saved during the period in question.

But Clinton campaign officials have said that if not for her private email system, many of the messages she sent during that period might not have been saved if she had used a state.gov account.

"That's one of the ironies here," a campaign official said Saturday. "If not for the records now available from her personal accounts, many of the e-mails she sent during that period would not have been archived."


copied from nbcnews,com



I have been waiting for Hillary forever............Chloelouise.......Hillary girl forever