Latest News

  • How Donald Sterling Will Beat The NBA

    Author Administrator

    First off, to be clear I am not a lawyer. I am an over the road truck driver. While this may make you want to be quick to dismiss my observations here, hear me out first. If at the end of the article you still want to dismiss me, feel free. If, however, this article leaves you thinking that I make some valid points, come back and read this first paragraph again. A truck driver, not a lawyer, came up with this. Donald Sterling will be represented by lawyers, not truckers. I'm willing to bet that they can do at least as good a job making a case for him as I am doing right here, and I would even go so far as to suggest that they might do better. Hard to imagine, I know, but it is possible.

  • NBA and Race Relations

    Author Administrator

    The verdict is in. Donald Sterling is banned from life from the NBA. He cannot run his team nor attend his (or any other NBA) games or any NBA meetings. Furthermore, new Commissioner Adam Silver has announced that the league owners will be meeting to vote on taking the Clippers away from Sterling. He also claims to have talked to a few of the owners and claims that he has the votes. Wait a second... I thought this guy was supposed to be a genius lawyer. Way to plead guilty to collusion before the deal is even done and open the door to the Sterling antitrust lawsuit that will allow him to keep his team. But I digress.

  • Donald Sterling is a racist, but...

    Author Steve Parry

    Yes, this is the topic of conversation for the day. Did you hear what Donald Sterling said to his girlfriend? He should lose his team. All over sports talk radio, and even into the mainstream sources, this is all I hear. What's my opinion on it? Sports talk show hosts are idiots. That's my opinion on the matter. I say this for two reasons. 1, these are guys whose very living depends on their ability to exercise free speech, yet they want a man to lose his livelihood for expressing an unpopular and undesirable opinion. Catch the irony here? But that aside, there is a much larger issue at hand. To be specific, I am speaking here to Evan Cohen, Steve Phillips, Dan Patrick, and Adam Schein. Would any of you hosts care to swim up from the bottom and deal with the real issue at hand here?

  • JFK Conspiracy Theories

    JFK Conspiracy Theories

    Author Administrator

    Two conspiracy theorists die and go to heaven. St. Peter tells them that Heaven is a place of all knowledge, so they can each ask him one question and he will reveal the answer to them. The first one says "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" St. Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald." The other says "Who was he working with?" St. Peter says "He acted alone." The two of them look at each other and say "Wow! The coverup is bigger than we thought!" But seriously, what keeps this stuff going? Some would say the evidence. Other would say mental illness. I myself am unsure, and I have a hard time really focusing on this one as I didn't live through it. This article is pretty much a starting point for me and a note to self. Steve, debunk this one.

  • Defending Incognito

    Defending Incognito

    Author Administrator

    As with any story, it is hard to say what happened unless you were there yourself. So why do I feel the need to post an article defending Richie Incognito? Because I can recognize a good snow job when I see one, and there is a blizzard coming from Jonathan Martin and company on this deal. Now to be fair, I am well aware that I am in the minority opinion on this one. Chances are if you are reading this you already have an opinion on this topic. Either I am preaching to the choir or I am dealing with a skeptic who wants to get a good chuckle at a brainwashed Dolphins fan defending the indefensible. So while I typically take the approach of building a good case, let me lay the best logical argument I have on you to kick this thing off.

Tweet This

Print

Michael Moore Learns Irony Can Be Rich

Written by Administrator on .

Michael MooreI had left the wikileaks stories alone until now, but this little breaking story is just too good to pass up on. Documentary Filmmaker and legendary eater Michael Moore recently ate about 16 boxes of twinkies (presumably), then coughed up $20,000 to bail out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He also praised traitor PFC. Bradley Manning, who is alleged to be responsible for the leaks, calling him a "courageous patriot" for exposing United States "war crimes". So, it appears that all is well in the love affair between Michael Moore and any enemy of the United States that he can find. No surprises here, right? Well, maybe a little bit of one. First, one must remember that clowns like Assange and Moore generally assume that there is some type of unspoken loyalty between them. Then, one must consider the fact that both parties have done nothing but exemplify disloyalty across the board. So here is how this little crackpot drama plays out.

Assange, fresh out of jail, releases a new batch of documents, which included this gem about Michael Moore and his fictitious documentary "Sicko".

XXXXXXXXXXXX stated that Cuban authorities have banned Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," as being subversive. Although the film's intent is to discredit the U.S. healthcare system by highlighting the excellence of the Cuban system, he said the regime knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them.

What a nice little "thank you" note for the guy who just got you out of the tank, right? Moore disputes this little gem as being a fake plant.

Sounds convincing, eh?! There's only one problem -- 'Sicko' had just been playing in Cuban theaters. Then the entire nation of Cuba was shown the film on national television on April 25, 2008! The Cubans embraced the film so much so it became one of those rare American movies that received a theatrical distribution in Cuba. I personally ensured that a 35mm print got to the Film Institute in Havana. Screenings of 'Sicko' were set up in towns all across the country.

Now, I assume Michael knows what he is talking about here. Does he have any theory about why this false information would be released in a secret document from one Government official to another?

The U.S. government has been passing around these "secret" documents to itself for the past fifty years, explaining in painstaking detail how horrible things are in Cuba and how Cubans are quietly aching for us to come back and take over. I don't know why we write these cables, I guess it just makes us feel better about ourselves.

Awe, come on Michael! You're a conspiracy theory guy, and that is the best you can do? Are you sure that our Government didn't do this just in case some renegade Private gives secret documents to wannabe journalists who will dump it on the web, get arrested, get bailed out by a wannabe documentary filmmakers, and thus said filmmaker will lash out and discredit the very leaks that he has been praising? It makes more sense than most of your theories. But the funniest part is his outrage.

So what do you do with about a false "secret" cable, especially one that involves you and your movie? Well, you wait for a responsible newspaper to investigate and shout what it discovers from the rooftops. But yesterday WikiLeaks gave the 'Sicko' Cuba cable to the media -- and what did they do with it? They ran it as if it were true!
So here you have WikiLeaks, who have put themselves on the line to find and release these cables to the press -- and traditional journalists are once again just too lazy to lift a finger, point and click their mouse to log into Nexis or search via Google, and look to see if Cuba really did "ban the film."

Yes, journalists should positively fact check their stories before they just run with them. So, my question is, who is the first journalist to release this story?

I support Julian, whom I see as a pioneer of free speech, transparent government and the digital revolution in journalism.

Yes, Michael Moore identifies Assange as a journalist. That having been said, how many journalists are responsible for pushing a lie here? Michael linked to the stories from "lazy" journalists who "failed to fact check" but they all seem to have one thing in common. Link 1 carried this headline. "WikiLeaks: Cuba banned Sicko for depicting 'mythical' healthcare system". The first line from link 2 is "And they say there's nothing interesting in the WikiLeaks cables:". The third link breeches the subject as follows. "I thought of him when I read the latest Wikileaks’ cables in this morning’s Guardian."

Notice something there? Each and every one of these articles isn't claiming to have hot new scoop that turns out to be false. They are all simply reporting the information that the first "journalist" Julian Assange posted on WikiLeaks. So, Michael, I will agree that journalists need to do a little fact checking. Perhaps you could discuss this with your bailout buddy right after you help him get over his fear of bending over to pick up the soap. And perhaps you should retract this offer to help this lazy journalist spread his unchecked lies across the world wide web.

"I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars,"

In the future, perhaps Michael Moore would be better served to remain silent and thought of as an idiot, than to open his mouth and remove any doubt. Either way, perhaps he has learned a valuable lesson. After all, it is possible that not every enemy of the United States is indeed Moore's friend.

Gallery

Phinatic