Saturday, 19 January 2013


Ken Berwitz

Here are the last few paragraphs of Brent Bozell's excellent column on the fact - and it is a fact - that President Obama and his Democrat cohorts have made it perfectly clear they will not do anything to seriously address unrelenting violence in the "entertainment" industries;  violence which turns murder in its most gruesome forms from real-world horror to casual fantasy-driven entertainment.

Hollywood hasn't exactly enacted a violence moratorium since Newtown. Matthew Philbin of the Media Research Center reports last weekend's top five movies at the box office contained 65 scenes of violence, with 185 individual victims, and 38 of the 65 scenes depicted gun violence. That's leaving out "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3-D," which led the box office receipts the previous weekend.

How is this for Hollywood sensitivity: the most violent movie of the top five was "Gangster Squad." The ending scene was changed, since the trailer originally showed the gangsters shooting up a theater, which became a no-no after the Aurora theater shooting. They just changed the massacre setting.   

The same hypocrisy was proven about violent TV. ABC Entertainment president Paul Lee proclaimed at TV's winter press tour "We are tremendously sensitive to this issue; we think about it and talk about it all the time. We are storytellers, but we want to make sure that the stories we tell are done with moral integrity."

On the very same day Hollywood's lobbyists met with Biden, the ABC drama "Scandal" carried a graphic three-minute torture-and-beating scene. Viewers saw a man being waterboarded, his nose being broken, and his face pounded into a bloody mess, with blood spattering on the walls. This is ABC's idea of "moral integrity." They were so "tremendously sensitive" about it that they rated it TV-14...because eighth-graders apparently wouldn't find this disturbing at all.

Does that speak to you as clearly as it speaks to me? 

If so, please use the link I've provided and read Mr. Bozell's entire column.  After that you can fervently wish that Obama & Co. would do the same, and learn enough from it to subordinate the untold millions Hollywood, and the video game industry, and the rap "music" industry stuff their pockets with, to enacting common-sense regulations that might keep children less inured to gratuitous violence and (gasp!) a bit safer.

But, the sad truth is that we know that will not happen.

Every day that President Obama, Vice President Obama and their likeminded pals furiously fight for gun control laws (which will do nothing to stop anyone who uses guns illegally), but look the other way at the nonstop, pervasive violence "entertainment" industries load our children with every day, is a day which proves they don't give a damn about child safety if it costs them $$$.

And that goes double for the industries in question.

Oh, one other thing.  In case you are unaware, the star of "Gangster Squad" is that wonderful concerned citizen, that loving friend of such peaceful folk as fidel castro and hugo chavez, none other than sean penn. 

How proud he must be of his latest film.  And what a great opportunity too.  Why, if the next homicidal maniac who shoots up a movie theater or an elementary school turns out to have seen "Gangster Squad" the night before his/her killing spree, the additional residuals alone will make penn a fortune.  Way to go, sean!


Ken Berwitz

Here, via excerpts from Edmund DeMarche's article at, is the third example of keeping schools safe the PC way that I have posted since the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. 

As with the other two, please read it through, and decide for yourself whether you think the actions of these so-called "school officials" have any relevance to protecting children:

A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days for issuing a 'terroristic threat.' But her punishment was reduced to two days after her mother met with school officials and had the incident dropped to 'threatening to harm another student,' which apparently carries a lesser punishment.

(The girl's attorney, Robin) Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials said the girl made the threat on Jan. 10 as she waited for a school bus with friends. A school official overheard the remark and searched the girl's backpack and did not find the Hello Kitty gun.

The next day, the girls involved were 'interrogated' by school officials, Ficker said. By the time the girl was done speaking to administrators about the incident, she was crying, he said. A teacher called out the girl in front of her class and told her police may get involved.

"What parent that you know would want their 5-year-old questioned about making terroristic threats without them in the room?" Ficker asked.

School district solicitor Edward Greco tells officials are looking into the case. He said Friday school officials aren't at liberty to discuss disciplinary actions.

Do these absolute idiots think they have done something - anything - to make this elementary school safer?

Do these absolute idiots think that traumatizing a five year old girl, who did not threaten anyone (unless you figure Hello Kitty is packing bubble-heat) and has no concept that she did a thing wrong - by publicly calling her out, interrogating and suspending her - will make the next adam lanza cringe in fear?

But, though it is incredibly stupid and incredibly wrong, the single most important element of this absolute idiocy is not specific to the child herself.  It is the overall mindset of "school officials" in the Mount Carmel School Area District, who apparently believe, as a general precept, that coming down on a 5 year old child, who didn't threaten anyone and is powerless to fight back (fortunately her parents are not) actually strikes a blow against predators who might hurt and/or murder schoolchildren.

I hope that Ms. Ficker makes good and damn sure that these absolute idiots are named, made to apologize, that the school is made to pay every penny of her legal expenses...

... and that the next time these absolute idiots decide to play sheriff, posse, judge and jury, it is against someone who actually might hurt a child, not the child herself.


Ken Berwitz

The journal news, Gannetts White Plains New York-based newspaper, has taken down its interactive map of homes in Westchester and Rockland county where residents have legal gun permits...

...almost a month and 1.2 million views after first putting it up. 

The paper did so only because new laws have just been passed which may make publication of the map a criminal offense.  No acknowledgement that it was a bad idea, no apology, no nothing.

A reminder:  by putting up a map showing which houses have legal guns, the journal news inherently provided information on which houses do not:  a blueprint for anyone interested in stealing guns, or in anyone interested in robbing a house and attacking its residents without fear that they could do much of anything about it.

Of all the quotes in the New York Times' story on this subject, the most interesting was from janet hasson, the paper's publisher: 

"We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower"

However, when faced with enough angry complaints about the map, the same janet hasson agreed to hire armed guards to protect the paper's staff. 

Translation:  "We know our business is a controversial one, and thought everyone would love that we put up that map.  But a lot of them hate that we did it, so now, due to our own actions, we have something to fear when we walk into our offices.  GET THOSE GUARDS IN TO PROTECT US!  We're afraid, and we want to be safe.  Hey, we need protection.  It's not like we're schoolchildren, is it?"

It is my understanding that the journal news lost a great deal of advertising and readership because it put up that map. 



Ken Berwitz

Our wonderful "neutral" media are at it again (and again and again and again).

Remember ray nagin?  The former Mayor of New Orleans?  The guy who:

-Left the city disastrously unprepared for Hurricane Katrina, even though there were days of warnings issued by the national weather service and (here's one media somehow always forget to note) then-President George Bush? 

-Whose post-Katrina activity largely consisted of holing up in a luxury hotel and issuing statements blaming everyone but himself? 

-And who talked about New Orleans as a "chocolate city" (try to imagine how fast a White Mayor calling his city "Vanilla" would have been hounded out of office)?

Yep, that's the one. 

Well, to the surprise of absolutely no one, nagin has been charged with 21counts of corruption, including such old New Orleans standbys as payoffs, bribes, accepting big gifts from people who then got back a lot more than they gave from taxpayer funds, etc. etc. etc.. 

Let me pause for enough time for you to get over your shock that nagin might have done these things,,ok, that's about enough time.

Now, as you probably are aware, ray nagin is a Democrat.  It would be hard for him to be a Republican, since the last Republican Mayor of New Orleans was Benjamin Flanders, who was appointed (not elected) in 1870.  We could ask Mr. Flanders, but since he died 117 years ago he probably would not answer.

So it would stand to reason that the news reports of nagin's alleged corruption would mention that he is a Democrat, right?

No, wrong.  Let me remind you, again, that he is a Democrat, not a Republican.

According to Brett Baker at, not one of the major network news shows managed to fit that fact into their reports.  Not CBS.  Not ABC.  Not NBC.  And, for good measure - according to me - the New York Times somehow managed to leave it out as well.

But ABC News Anchor Diane Sawyer did manage to fit in this characterization of nagin:

"...the face of Hurricane Katrina...then the Mayor of New Orleans fighting for his city."

Oh, did I mention that the corruption charges largely related to nagin's corruption while New Orleans was trying to rebuild from Katrina?  If you run into Ms. Sawyer, you might want to mention that to her.

Let me close by reminding you that these are the same media we are supposed to rely on for news about President Obama - also a Democrat. 

Point made?

Zeke .... ..... Also,there is William J. Jefferson (D-La) whose political affiliation is never mentioned. ..... He's the dude who had $90,000 stored in the freezer compartment of his refrigerator. .... i (01/19/13)

Zeke .... ..... William J. Jefferson (D-La) is currently serving 13 years for his bribery conviction. ..... ...... (01/19/13)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!