A few real news stories to take your mind off the fake news. These stories are not fiction; no names have been changed to protect anyone, and no editing of unseemly words was done to protect your sensibilities. Sorry.
First up, analysis of an eye-opening (and orifice opening) event at a vegan restaurant in Memphis, TN.
Recently a diner at the restaurant wrote an online review that was, shall we say, less than appetizing. According to the diner
During my visit, a bare butt naked baby was running around, stood up on a table with its black, they’re-so-dirty feet, and bent over to show me its butthole. I wish I was exaggerating. This is like, while I’m eating, and it’s the owner’s kids.
The owner decided it was a better idea to attack the reviewer–calling her out by name and threatening to post pictures of anybody else who dared give the restaurant a bad review–rather than to apologize, make some kind of amends, and come up with a cover story asap, if only to keep the Dept. of Health from shutting the place down.
Photo of the owners at this link. (Are those wigs?) Needless to say, the story went viral and now it has its own hashtag. What else? #ButtholeGate
This story is not quite as amusing. What could they possibly be thinking in Boston, that bastion of Catholicism? [emphasis added to quotes]
The Boston Public Library proudly announced on its Facebook page June 29 that it was “closing out #PrideMonth today with a Drag Queen Story Time at the Children’s Library, featuring The Boston Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.”
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is a tax-exempt group of homosexuals who dress as nuns. They have been mocking Catholic beliefs, teachings and practices since they started in San Francisco on Easter Sunday, 1979. Now the publicly funded library of the City of Boston found it appropriate to celebrate the group’s anti-Catholic bigotry, and welcome them to parade it before little children.
What is perhaps most distressing is how unsurprising this is. Would the library have similarly welcomed a group that used its name, its attire and its antics to mock gays? Not a chance. But Catholics, as always, are fair game, even for the most vile of assaults on that which [they] hold sacred.
There’s a photo of the transvestites at this link. Even the little child with them wears a wig, makeup, and high heels, perhaps to get into the spirit of the event.
Not only is this anti-Catholic bigotry, but it’s also at least arguably child abuse. Imagine sending your child to story time at the public library and this is what he or she gets deliberately exposed to.
Another report on the same story advises us that these satirists not only engage in anti-Catholic bigotry, but also adamantly promote promiscuity.
The men call themselves “queer nuns,” even though the anti-Catholic group is openly devoted to promiscuity. Their slogan is a ridicule of Jesus’ words to the woman caught in sexual sin. Instead of “Go, and sin no more,” the men “queers” have created their trademark slogan as, “Go forth and sin some more!” …
Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George criticized both the queer men and the Boston Public Library for promoting Catholic hatred to 2-10 year olds.
“Is there an honorable liberal anywhere in this country who will speak out against the #antiCatholic bigotry on display here?” the frequent Harvard Law Visiting Professor asked. “Imagine the chorus of outrage from liberals … were it #Islam and its teachings, symbols, and practices being mocked.”
There was quite a turnout. The children look rapt. Photo at this link.
All the better to corrupt your little dears. Did their parents even know?
Remember the administrators at the appropriately named Silliman College (part of Yale), who had the temerity to suggest that those who objected to other students’ choice of Halloween costumes should just suck up their outrage and grow thicker skins? Instead, the potentially offended became even more outraged, and their outrage resulted in the administrators being forced to resign.
Some outrage is more equal than other outrage.
Don’t wait with bated breath to see if any administrators at the Boston City Library will even apologize, much less resign. Try to find a mainstream media outlet that covered the story. It won’t be easy.
Finally, here’s another story that you won’t see publicized much in the mainstream media. Scientists have shown that all the global warming recently reported comes not from actual warming but from “adjustments” that “scientists” made to the data, apparently to see their results turn out “right”:
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. …
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
These “adjustments” are allegedly made to correct “biases” in the data. (Imagine your mom taking your temperature but then making an “adjustment” before telling the doctor her findings, because the air conditioner, the refrigerator or the ice maker may have biased the raw reading.)
Which came first, biases in the data or biases in the minds of the researchers who made the adjustments that always seemed to
cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend?
Why would anyone deliberately adjust data to without fail increase the warming trend?
Which came first, their conclusion (global warming) or the adjusted “evidence?”
One can’t help but to compare the fake news reports of an alleged global warming trend to the report published by
17 U.S. intelligence agencies 3 (or 4) U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded that the Russians “hacked” the 2016 U.S. election, despite no solid evidence to prove it.
In fact, the report was merely an opinion (or, if you will, a guess) made, not by the agencies themselves but, quite unusually, by several “hand-picked analysts.” (Chosen to come to the “right” conclusion?)
Once again, try to find a mainstream media report of this bombshell news that all of the recently reported warming comes from adjusted data, adjusted to seemingly create the appearance of a warming trend.
Real news and fake news. Which do you find most often in the mainstream media?
Thank goodness for the Internet, for blogs, and for “alternative news,” without which we would be at the mercy of fake-news propaganda from CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and their ilk.
Update: 7/10/17: There seems to be some confusion concerning to which report on Russian interference the media refers. The report linked above–from the DNI (James Clapper)–differs from this report–from the NCCI/DHS (Jeh Johnson) and the FBI (James Comey)–which was published about a week before the DNI report. Both talk about the alleged Russian hacking. What’s amusing about the NCCIC/DHS/FBI report is this sentence:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
In other words, they don’t stand behind their own opinions. Also amusing are these sentences:
Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.
The “private sector” would be CrowdStrike–the company in the employ of the DNC, which would not give the intelligence community access to any of the hardware or data, so this opinion is based upon second-hand information from an arguably biased and political source.
Unusually, breaking with past practice, this particular joint report does bother to attribute the hacking to Russia, arguably for completely political reasons, after the unexpected election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America.
It’s of note that all of the gobbledegook in the DHS report about ISPs and metadata is exactly that because it’s been reported far and wide that this particular hacking software was created by our own NSA; that our CIA is perfectly capable of laying false tracks in ISPs and metadata to blame other countries for our spying activities (so why couldn’t anyone else); that CrowdStrike has already falsely attributed hacking to a country and had to apologize for their “error;” and that multiple countries and private entities now own and use copies of this same software.
In other words, as Trump says, nobody knows for sure who did the hacking. One thing we do know, however, is that John Podesta foolishly clicked on a link to initiate the hack of his own email and that the DNC didn’t have good enough cyber-security or best practices. Someone there also clicked on a phishing email and that led to the hackers’ ability to steal passwords and intrude further into their database.
That is, if you believe the Obama administration’s version of what happened.