By Nicholas Stix
[Previously, at WEJB/NSU:
“Why We Chose to Ride Out Hurricane Irene at Home, in a Mandatory Evacuation Area.”]
Expected landfall for Sandy in New York City: 5:30 p.m., EST.
We never even considered evacuating for the storm. Where would we go? To a city shelter? Are you kidding? And who would protect our home from looters?
For two days before King Michael Bloomberg made the announcement at Sunday at 5 p.m., I joked to neighbors that Bloomberg would wait until it was too late, the way he did last year with Hurricane Irene, and then “order” everyone from
Evacuation Area A, where we live, to leave.
Last year, as soon as Bloomberg gave the word, I called every hotel, motel, and gotel in Queens, Brooklyn, and Nassau, for a room, but they had been booked up since at least the day before.
We taped up our windows, piled up “contractor’s bags” we’d filled with at least 1,200 pounds of sand from the beach in front of our doors outside, bought water for drinking, and filled up every pot and pan we had with water for washing, and hunkered down.
This year, we did likewise for Sandy, though she promises to be much worse.
Though our neighbors dumped their sand back on the beach after Irene, I wanted to keep all of the sandbags for protection against the looters I expected already then, in a non-natural disaster. The Boss demanded I dump back all of the sand, but I refused, and so she called me “A lazy man,” among other sweet nothings. She dumped about half of it back, leaving about 600 pounds. I figure, if looters of color see sandbags piled up against our back door, and none against the neighbors’ doors, they’ll take the path of least resistance.
Last night, I went out at about 9:40 p.m., during the World Series game, to get more sand, accompanied by my son, who was supposedly bodyguarding me.
My real reason for bringing him was to get him away from his darned computer, and the games he’s obsessed with.
I managed to fill a big plastic bucket 10 times with 55-60 lbs. each of sand, bring each load back to the house in an old, and fill more contractor’s bags with them, two buckets per bag.
I would first use the bucket as a scoop, but then hold it on its side and, wearing work gloves, shove sand into it.
It was a losing proposition. Although I work out about four days a week, and walk about a mile-and-a-half a day, my stamina’s shot. The sort of work I could do all day when I was 18, now has me exhausted after two hours.
Not only was I deteriorating, but so were my tools. The shopping cart, which had been sitting out back for about eight years, was rusty, battered out of shape, and one wheel was so bent in that it looked like someone had taken a sledge to it. It was dying.
But the bucket was even worse. It’s almost 11 years old, and serves as our kitchen garbage can. It has a steel handle on top, and a plastic grip. Well, it had a plastic grip. After maybe two loads, the grip disintegrated in my hand. And with each load, a little bit of the lip around the top broke off. The handle is attached to the lip, so it was only a matter of time before the part of the lip with one of the holes holding the handle would break off. Last year, I carried loads of sand back and forth without the shopping cart, but the bucket was in better shape then.
After 10 trips I was beat, so we ended up with about the same amount of sand bags as last year—1,200 lbs.
Sandy, here we come! Or rather, here she comes!
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
CNN Feminazis Get Article about “Sexist” Scientific Study Sent Down the Memory Hole; Read the Whole Thing at WEJB/NSU!
By Nicholas Stix
What follows are:
1. The placeholder that CNN’s commissars put where the 86ed article had been;
2. A brief essay by yours truly;
3. The rescued article, with comments by yours truly; and
4. The first page of comments from CNN readers, both fair-minded and Feminazi.
A raised, burning bra to (“What a World Ruled by Feminists Would Look Like”) Chateau Heartiste and its readers!
o on October 26, 2012 at 1:10 am | Reply Freddie
Walknot
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to “Vote with your Lady Parts”.
“Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.”
But then they would be using their brains to think and everyone has one of those whereas not everyone has ladyparts to think with.
* * * October 24th, 2012
08:15 PM ET
CNN
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.
* * * Today’s newsroom consists of groups: Black Nazis, brown Nazis, Feminazis, gay Nazis and white Nazis, whereby the latter group (aka “anti-racists”) consists of those white racial socialists who don’t belong to any of the other groups.
In case a reader should ask, “Well, what about people who are just journalists?,” that reader is dating himself. Today, journalism schools (“J-schools”) exist to cull those who are just journalists. Those who make the cut, in spite of not being Nazis, must be eternally vigilant, and variously laugh or nod in solemn assent, whenever a colleague or boss makes a stupid crack attacking any known Republican or conservative, lest he come under suspicion as an enemy.
In early 2009, a journalist at a major MSM operation told of the time not too long before, when he had filed a seemingly innocuous story, only to have his editor ask accusatory questions, such that he was afraid his career was over. The storm passed.
The CNN story presently in question was rescued by an anonymous contributor at a blog called Pastebin, and re-posted under the title, “A Sexist Article CNN Just Deleted,” so I guess the poster was torn between Feminazism and a belief in liberty, a rare combination.
Note that the CNN writer, Elizabeth Landau, had already quarantined her piece with an explicit warning to the reader, as well as several pseudo-scientific criticisms by tenured political hacks, but that still wasn’t enough for CNN’s Feminazis. It also remains to be seen if any of the tenured Feminazis that Landau had shown the article, prior to publication, contacted her censors, er, editors, to get it killed.
There are scientific criticisms that can be made of the study, and I made one in Landau’s text, but none of the academics she contacted made any. And getting an article or a study whose findings you hate killed is not a scholarly response—but it is a typical Feminazi response.
Link to the study in question.
* * * Do Hormones Drive Women’s Votes? (The link to the since “disappeared” article)
By Elizabeth Landau
October 24th, 2012
05:10 PM ET
CNN
Study looks at voting and hormones
While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.
You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. [What sort of “reporter” tells one’s audience to “read with caution”?] Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several [leftwing academic censors] political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals. [That sounds backasswards. At the very least, scholarship would have allowed for political and religious attitudes influencing “reproductive goals.” But this is feminist propaganda we’re talking about here, not scholarship.]
In the new study's first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.
Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers' overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
[But Steve Sailer has shown that married women tend much more often to be Republicans than Democrats, while single women tend much more often to be Democrats than Republicans, independent of what time of month it is. That would make the dependent factor marital status, not ovulation. And since conservative women tend to vote more conservatively than single women, that would reduce the matter to a tautology. Conservative women tend to be … conservative, while liberal women tend to be… The real problem here is that academia has made scholarship into the sexes verboten, and restricted discussion of the sexes to feminazi hacks.]
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. [But “marriage equality” is a euphemism for same-sex marriage. While a horny single woman might be concerned about abortion, in order to escape the potential consequences of sex, what would she care about same-sex marriage? This sounds like a case of wrong-headed, ideological bundling due to one being a doctrinaire, academic socialist/feminist, or due to the poisonous influence of doctrinaire, academic socialism/feminism.] Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase. [But did their shopping behavior differ, depending on whether they were single or married? In this context, that would be the crucial scientific question, no?]
“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. "But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.
This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology [sic] examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.
Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality [this is a very partisan definition] and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.
The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.
“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.
Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s. [Research, or propaganda? I’ve never heard of scientific research backing up Kellstedt’s claim.]
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women's hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women's and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
[Carroll is making a false comparison. A proper comparison would be “to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in” men’s voting behavior. Then again, what do you expect of a professor of “women's and gender studies”?]
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women's hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.” [I guarantee you that she claims to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and considers those who don’t to be primitive, ignorant Christian reactionaries. Darwin aside, there are many biological reasons for excluding women from “many politic[al] and other societal opportunities.” As for her second response, that was even more canned than the first, she would have trotted it or something similar out, in response to any research not toeing the Feminazi line.]
“It was long thought that a woman shouldn't be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.
[That is still a widespread concern, in spite of feminist censorship and intimidation, among men and women alike.]
A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.
[You fail! Likewise, lefties have for generations claimed that poverty caused crime, while ignoring the refutations of their talking point. Now they argue, at separate times, that poverty causes crime, that poverty is more widespread than ever, and that crime has gone down for the past 20 years. But they are careful not to say the same thing at the same time.]
One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.
He's not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn't real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more "manly men" when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of "provider of the family," so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman's preference. [But that fails to explain any political variations. It sounds like he’s trying to stay out of trouble with Feminazis.]
Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.
"Even if the finding is correct, there's a chance that it won't have a cumulative effect on the electorate," he said.
Women: Do you feel the political parties don't represent you? Share your story
Post by: Elizabeth Landau - CNN.com Health Writer/Producer
Filed under: 2012 Election • Mental Health
1. duchessladygeek
Seriously? Like hormones don't drive men's votes – and all war has been completely rational?
Newflash CNN – no human is hormone free, and frankly, I don't think estrogen is causing the most damage here...just sayin'
October 24, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
o peggy waldron
Apparently CNN will say and do. anything to re-elect our failed....so called leader.
October 26, 2012 at 00:40 | Report abuse |
o heapinhymen
CNN removed the story and wrote "some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." Now I am confused, when did CNN instate a policy of editorial standards? They've proven themselves a left-wing rag for the last four and a half years, why would they want to change now? Well there is the Romney is going to win thing and the poor ratings that being a one-sided "news organization" will earn a station.
October 26, 2012 at 03:39 | Report abuse |
o R.K.
CNN is nothing but a junk tabloid, and has been for years... I stopped watching a year and a half ago for that reason, and deleted my iphone app yesterday because of this story – absolutely NO integrity! I am embarrassed for CNN, the stories they choose to cover and the "angle" they take on their stories. It doesn't take a genius to know what absolute crap CNN is pumping out on a regular basis, but this story really takes the cake.
And BTY, CNN, everyone knows that poor Anderson Cooper is constantly getting thrown under the “cheap news for thrills and ratings bus” all the time... Is he so desperate to keep his job that he won't stand up for credibility and integrity? WOW. WAKE UP OR GET OFF THE AIR CNN!
October 26, 2012 at 09:28 | Report abuse |
o Richard
If CNN is deliberately trying to run their network into the ground, it is all too obvious. Hurry up and get it over with, would ya?
Disgusting.
October 26, 2012 at 09:36 | Report abuse |
o Miss Information
After this story, ANYONE associated with CNN has lost ALL credibility. Too bad Candy Crowley just hosted the presidential debate. I'm willing to bet no one from CNN will ever be asked to do that again...
Candy, during the debate, ALMOST got me to start watching CNN again... Glad I never actually did, I would have been sick to my stomach as usual, apparently. I hope she leaves the network, if she doesn't she is supremely limiting her future in believable and credible reporting.
October 26, 2012 at 09:55 | Report abuse |
2. Suzanne
This is offensive in its claims. CNN, stop covering useless information that perpetuates discrimination. The idea that any woman is "more religious" while ovulating is ridiculous. Feminine views on religion and politics don't change every few weeks. Our values do not drift due to hormone surges. Printing this crap ought to be beneath you, but apparently, by CNN standards, this is worth covering. Shame on you.
October 24, 2012 at 20:25 | Report abuse | Reply
o Catherine
Thank you! This reads like an "Onion" article. CNN, you should be ashamed. There's a reason CNN is going under- your shameless lack of integrity. This sort of "journalism" will serve you well in your future reality television industry.
October 25, 2012 at 04:18 | Report abuse |
o EA
Catherine – You're totally right – "Onion" article all the way!
October 25, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |
3. jherad
Anyone remember when CNN wasn't terrible?
October 24, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
o Lenny-t
Yeah, I remember. That was back when they were a tight, disciplined, bunch of tough reporters led by Ted Turner. I remember their excellent coverage of the first Gulf War. They sey the standard back thenm. Now they are bloated, top-heavy, and just another make-believe news channel
October 25, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse |
o Hillcrester
The cable TV service is even worse. Blitzer and Foreman, along with Burnett, seem to for the sensational: drilling down, seeibg who's lying, etc. Plus melodramatic Lemon. Their array of political commentators and consultants is the best, however.
October 25, 2012 at 13:18 | Report abuse |
4. mariaprama
I think the accreditation agency may need to take a loot at U Texas at San Antonio. I am not sure these researchers know the different between a dependent and an independent variable. And I'm not even a social scientist. Preposterous. Why did CNN even post it?
October 24, 2012 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
5. pianofan
I would so totally for anyone whose name was outlined in pink!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
6. lissakay
This post has been removed because it "did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
When in the blue heavens has CNN ever had editorial standards???
October 24, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse | Reply
7. ien
Didn't meet editorial standards, hm? Where were you in your cycle when you made that decision, I wonder?
No, I suspect you thought it was an interesting piece of research to look at but you panicked over the blowback.
In fact, it's rare to see news coverage of this election in which women's reactions to the candidates are NOT sexualized in one way or another. The fact that women's hormonal cycles are more or less regular make them easier to study than men's, so it's worth looking at. Just because you suffered a bout of belated editorial correctness doesn't mean the campaigns aren't going to be looking hard at this kind of research. So what's wrong with the rest of us, and women voters in particular, getting to look at the same information? Doesn't mean that the conclusions are valid, doesn't mean they're bogus. But if you publish it, publish it. Unfortunately, your retraction is the news.
October 24, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Ien: The point was that "this kind of research" wasn't adequate. So, of course nobody is "looking hard" at it. Not in any real consideration, anyway. This "research" showed a blatant lack of understanding of the female body/ as well as hormones in general. It was unfounded in the extreme, which is why CNN aptly chose to remove it. The only reason anyone would "panic" over reading this article was at the idea that a news source would publish something so bizarre and offensive.
October 25, 2012 at 09:13 | Report abuse |
o Brian R
Except the study was done by women.
October 25, 2012 at 12:39 | Report abuse |
o EA
Brina R – Like that matters! Kind of a simple take on it don't you think? And who knows if it was all women working on the study.
October 25, 2012 at 21:19 | Report abuse |
8. Michelle
The article was offensive. Shame on CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 22:28 | Report abuse | Reply
9. priscilla
Fail. Serious Fail.
October 24, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply
10. CAS
Ms. Landau is an excellent journalist – period. Her piece was balanced, provocative, fresh and well researched. Any attacks on her character or her reporting skills are completely unwarranted. She presented a controversial study, which she obviously had exclusive access, and she explored its merits with numerous academics. To insinuate that she should not have published this piece is preposterous – this is what we journalist do... we shed light on views, people and conflicts to inform and enlighten the public. Some may find the study and its conclusions offensive – fine – but to call into question the integrity and intelligence of Ms. Landau is crossing the line.
October 25, 2012 at 01:08 | Report abuse | Reply
o anaqin
i read the article and in no part of it was mentioned that the research was 'controversial'. it was presented, as any research would, in a rather "this might be true" tone, plase don't patronize me.
the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended. i am not offended by the writer. i am offended by the writing presented as if it supported the research.
October 25, 2012 at 01:38 | Report abuse |
o The Editor
"the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended."
I ONLY WANT TO HEAR THINGS THAT FIT MY LIBERAL, "EVERYONE IS EXACTLY THE SAME", WORLDVIEW! *Sticks fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA
October 25, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
o arm542
CAS – You bring up a valid point. Ms Landau may have offered a well-researched, provocative viewpoint in her article. She is employed to search out and bring forth stories for the greater public to latch onto or call into question. While she certainly has every right to publish this article, she is also perpetuating the same conversation around women that has existed for hundreds of years. We still think that women are ruled by their emotions. I can tell you whether I'm ovulating, not-ovulating, on my period, or straight out devoid of any reproductive system – my beliefs and my opinions are not ruled alone by my hormones, emotions, or "feelings." Of course there's a correlation, of course. But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns. "Men are rational, logical thinkers. They are not ruled by their emotions or hormones." What we need to see from intelligent journalists like Ms. Landau (and yourself from what I read) is a change in the conversation surrounding women and of what we are capable in the public, social, and political spheres. Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged.
In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information. The conversation needs to change, and I do believe journalists, news outlets, and governments should be called out and challenged for perpetuating mindless stereotypes and biased material. This view of women, as chosen by the few, needs to be challenged by the many.
October 25, 2012 at 12:02 | Report abuse |
o Eve
Bravo @arm542! A great explanation of why this article is so offensive and a great response to all those who are building straw feminists for themselves to fight in the comments.
October 25, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse |
o Haris
@arm542
"But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns."
Try again hun.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html
Now tell me, how many men do you see getting their panties in a bunch over there in the comments section? Compare that to all the women going hysterical here. Seems like women are far more emotional than men doesn't it? In fact, if you look at the comments closely, you will see a lot more open mindedness towards the study from men.
"Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged"
"In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information."
Oh boy, you just make this too easy.
October 25, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
o EA
@Haris: How's your relationship with women? Something tells me not so hot.;)
October 25, 2012 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
11. anaqin
they took out the post.
pathetic neanderthals belong to the cavemen age.
i wrote my protests on my facebook and post it to FEMEN as well last night because i was so furious at how such belittling and patronizing writing can find its way to news. id on't expect much from CNN, being a corporate news network and all but this article is a direct insult to women and humanity in general.
October 25, 2012 at 01:31 | Report abuse | Reply
12. Linda in Arizona
Got so much blowback you had to remove the "story", eh, CNN? "Editorial standards of CNN"? Thanks for the laugh.
October 25, 2012 at 02:42 | Report abuse | Reply
13. JJ188
For the love of God I hope my tax money did not go into this. What a waste of money.
October 25, 2012 at 05:43 | Report abuse | Reply
14. Jack
Moods affect choices.
Hormones affect moods.
Women have predictable hormone swings due to periods.
So do men, cause testosteron levels are higher at waking up.
Its all logical and nothing new, but i guess we dont like it being thrown in our faces like this.
Dont really care, cause elections are way too much focussed on affecting voting behaviour anyway, instead of just telling what you plan to do and actually do it. But dont you guys think they will use this information anyway if they can?
October 25, 2012 at 07:08 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Jack – your simplistic statements are true. However, I fail to see the how a "mood swing" could be powerful enough to make a woman change her choice for leader of the free world back and forth depending on her cycle. We aren't breeding bunnies in a cage. We are human beings with higher-order thinking. This whole "study" was based on a hyperbolic idea of women, and then biased toward proving that idea. And failed.
October 25, 2012 at 09:18 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Dont think you needed to insult me with 'simplistic'.
I dont think women would go back and forth, but it might make doubters decide a certain choice. I dont see how you could steer that into a specific direction with a gain for your election results though. But im sure if you could, it would be used, regardless of cnn keeping the article up or not.
I cant read the article now, since its gone. Not going to look for it either, cause its not at all interesting to me. What is interesting is the reactions this thing got.
October 25, 2012 at 10:39 | Report abuse |
o The Editor's Editor
LEARN ABOUT APOSTROPHES. THEY MATTER.
October 25, 2012 at 11:17 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Learn about caps. They matter too.
October 25, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
o Elaine
So where is the study on how men's hormones affect their vote. I am post menopausal, so my hormone levels have dropped, but guess what? I still vote the same way as I did ten years ago! I still support the same issues and supporting the environment and education doesn't make me feel "sexy".
October 25, 2012 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Don't know if there is one Elaine. Surely we don't want to have researchers do things in equality, because we like that better? If they would examine male voting behaviour early morning and in the evening, you would find a correlation and significant result either. But is that such a big deal? It's logical.
I am pretty sure that if you would research voting behaviour and amount of urine in the bladder you would find a corrrelation too. Does that mean the lvl of urine determines your choice? No, but in some cases it would influenze the result yes.
October 25, 2012 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
15. Kristin Rowe Meche
This was a specious argument, whose validity was back-pedaled within it's own original text. Shame on CNN for ever letting this kind of garbage get out under their banner. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
October 25, 2012 at 07:09 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Agreed, Kristin! I don't understand how this story passed any standards in the first place... in fact, when I was first sent the link, I thought this was an article from The Onion! It seems there were people involved who knew that this "study" shouldn't have been posted, as it was based on a hyperbolic generalization of women and then geared in extreme bias to prove its own bizarre notions. CNN isn't escaping some responsibility for this just because they removed the article after getting called out.
October 25, 2012 at 09:21 | Report abuse |
16. Marco
Disgraceful and you call yourselves the world leader in news? Why do you people peddle such trite and focus on stories that best belongs in the pages of a supermarket tabloid...no wonder that more and more people are looking elsewhere for the news.
October 25, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply
17. discgolfur
I guess now I am blocking CNN as an online news source... did Rupert Murdoch buy the network?
October 25, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
18. htye
is cnn about to implode? something just does not seem right with this company, not just online, but on cable too!
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
19. John
Sounds like 298 women on their period were offended by this article DDD
October 25, 2012 at 08:21 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
A lot more than that. And we don't need to be on the rag to be offended by this "study" I seriously thought this was an article from The Onion when I clicked the link! What the hell is going on with CNN??
October 25, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse |
o EA
@John – You sound like a very handsome charmer! (right!)
October 25, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse |
20. AtlCoug
Who needs this study? Just watch the last presidential debate from CNN and see how the women track lines went up each time Baby Daddy was talking.
October 25, 2012 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
21. The Editor
"This story did not meet the Politboro of Liberal Political Correctness's strict standards, and has been removed. Thank you for your understanding, comrades. CNN"
October 25, 2012 at 08:57 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Haha, really cute. Except the article has nothing to do with "political correctness", and everything to do with perpetuating a false and hyperbolic idea of women using a faulty and biased "study".
October 25, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
o The Editor's Editor
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
October 25, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |
22. Just Me
Another blow to women's equality! Way to go, CNN!
October 25, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
o Jeff
Sounds like it's that time of the month!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:08 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Nothing is equal.
October 25, 2012 at 10:43 | Report abuse |
o EA
@Jack. Thanks for reminder. i just learned a lot from you today (LOL)
October 25, 2012 at 21:39 | Report abuse |
23. Walknot
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to "Vote with your Lady Parts".
October 25, 2012 at 09:52 | Report abuse | Reply
24. Lynn
There is so much wrong with this study and story I just don't know where to begin. But it begs the sarcastic question...what about men who take meds to regulate their hormone levels or men who take viagra? Come on CNN, thought you might have better journalistic standards than to let this story slip through the editorial cracks...obviously not! Seriously offended by this story and all it implies.
October 25, 2012 at 10:08 | Report abuse | Reply
25. @PurpAv
CNN has standards? Who knew?
October 25, 2012 at 10:54 | Report abuse | Reply
26. Illusions
I guess this does go along with team Obama's "Vote with your lady parts" Campaign pitch.
October 25, 2012 at 11:41 | Report abuse | Reply
27. John Smith
CNN has hit a new low with this article. Where are the editors that let an article like this be printed. I suggest that CNN start random drug testing its writers and staff
October 25, 2012 at 12:12 | Report abuse | Reply
28. hostdude99
CNN Editorial standards? LOL. Funniest thing I've heard all morning.
October 25, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
29. ostara321
"After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
LOL. Which part? It was all pretty equally terribad.
October 25, 2012 at 12:26 | Report abuse | Reply
30. Anthony Hoskins
So much for freedom of speech. I bet the Inquistion is *grilling* Kristina Driante even as we speak.
October 25, 2012 at 12:58 | Report abuse | Reply
31. noteaparty4me
The driving force for many, especially white males, is race. And for many, especially white males it will always be race then gender. CNN removing a post for "standards": is a joke. I am also noticing the overwhelming amount of Romeney surrogates on CNN prime time shows. I guess with reports of his money issues surfacing free air time is in order. John McCain on payroll? But white men have to stick with the very white Romney.
October 25, 2012 at 13:12 | Report abuse | Reply
32. slackerPTAmom
Why don't they run a study on how men with and without erectile dysfunction vote? Or run a study on how bald men vote – they have more testosterone than more hirsute dudes.
October 25, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse | Reply
33. Steve
Ok, I'm confused... a woman writes an article about women's issues, and you guys get all up in arms because it's a touchy topic? Sheez! talking about cowardice. I could see if a man wrote it. I could see that something like this article would cause all kinds of troubles..... Well, rest assured– your cowardice does not prevent the rest of the internet from seeing what you're too afraid to retain.
October 25, 2012 at 13:53 | Report abuse | Reply
o Steve
Oh.... I forgot– not only was CNN's article written by a woman– the study she discusses was performed by a woman asst professor at Texas U, San Antonio, in the marketing dept. Turns out this Durante is a specialist on this general topic. Her list of research publications is rather impressive! Strikes me that the problem here is one of PC..... CNN– you disappoint.
October 25, 2012 at 16:00 | Report abuse |
34. guest
CNN,
Anything for obama, always.
October 25, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply
35. guest
CNN, you don't think we can think for ourselves.
October 25, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
o Steve
sad, isn't it.... sounds like a new form of censorship to me.....
October 25, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
36. Ron
Seriously, you can't handle a bit of uproar about this story and had to take it down like a bunch of babies?!?
October 25, 2012 at 14:23 | Report abuse | Reply
37. Southern Man
When a study disagrees with your feelings, go with the feelings and ditch the study.
October 25, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
38. sarah
This is why I only check CNN for the right wing/tabloid flavored news, rarely. I check Fox for the same reason. I used to be a fairly regular CNN reader/watcher. But it's nmot just this story that is the problem. Why isn't your mea culpa on the front page? A couple of Op-ed pieces can't balance the numbers either. Nice try.
Fire the author. Take a journalism class. Watch/read PBS. Do you edit/not publish comments too?
October 25, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse | Reply
39. apollyon911
Truth hurts. End female suffrage.
October 25, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply
40. Sam
At least Fox News is entertaining in the stupidity they embrace, this is just bizarre. Glad I stopped using American television as a means of information ages ago. Only thing worth watching news-wise is The Daily Show or the Colbert Report.
October 25, 2012 at 17:14 | Report abuse | Reply
41. A person
You might think you're a special snowflake, but a lot of your behavior can be ascribed to your biology.
October 25, 2012 at 17:16 | Report abuse | Reply
42. arcadesproject
i read the article and it was good for a laugh. i mean, it's a 'you can't be serious, can you' kind of experience And of course it left me deeply curious abuot the efect of testosterone on voting. (Not)
October 25, 2012 at 17:52 | Report abuse | Reply
43. Willers
Technology is the only hope. The saps will inherit the earth as long as its all a tap in. Might happen, if it doesn't – game over!
October 25, 2012 at 19:09 | Report abuse | Reply
44. ana
Does anyone have a cached copy of this post. I want to use it for a lecture in my media class. It is unfortunate that CNN took the post down because I think that they should accept responsibility for posts that they make and not try to erase the fact that they posted the content.
October 25, 2012 at 19:54 | Report abuse | Reply
45. James
I'm appalled, appalled I say ! Truly appalling!
Not really, but I am amused at how people are offended at the drop of a hat and suddenly are all experts on what drives them. The comments here basically show that free speech has been killed by the the ones who are always complaining about the lack thereof. You can say what you want but only within the parameters defined by the PC rage brigade.
You honestly all think your thoughts and feelings are independent of biology? You think the universe is built on egalitarian principles? You lot are a lost cause and are the reason why the USA is fast becoming a joke.
October 25, 2012 at 21:41 | Report abuse | Reply
46. crustymackay
You got the story wrong? Don't delete (hide?) your mistake. Post a correction. Post the new reporting that refutes what you posted earlier. Pretending your mistakes don't exist and can't be corrected is ridiculous.
October 26, 2012 at 13:43 | Report abuse | Reply
47. Guardian
Admit it. You're turned on by that little Ralph Maddow dude on MSNBC.
October 24, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply
48. htye
PERV!
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
49. Jeff
I'm sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!
!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:02 | Report abuse | Reply
50. childpleaze
@arm542 – thanks for your thoughtful and civil response to @CAS. Btw, there are studies on the supposed impact of testosterone and male voting patterns. I found a brief post on one here:
http://utahdatapoints.com/2011/09/does-a-candidates-testosterone-level-affect-voters/
October 25, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
« Previous1234
[CNN, censorship
What follows are:
1. The placeholder that CNN’s commissars put where the 86ed article had been;
2. A brief essay by yours truly;
3. The rescued article, with comments by yours truly; and
4. The first page of comments from CNN readers, both fair-minded and Feminazi.
A raised, burning bra to (“What a World Ruled by Feminists Would Look Like”) Chateau Heartiste and its readers!
o on October 26, 2012 at 1:10 am | Reply Freddie
Walknot
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to “Vote with your Lady Parts”.
“Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.”
But then they would be using their brains to think and everyone has one of those whereas not everyone has ladyparts to think with.
08:15 PM ET
CNN
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.
In case a reader should ask, “Well, what about people who are just journalists?,” that reader is dating himself. Today, journalism schools (“J-schools”) exist to cull those who are just journalists. Those who make the cut, in spite of not being Nazis, must be eternally vigilant, and variously laugh or nod in solemn assent, whenever a colleague or boss makes a stupid crack attacking any known Republican or conservative, lest he come under suspicion as an enemy.
In early 2009, a journalist at a major MSM operation told of the time not too long before, when he had filed a seemingly innocuous story, only to have his editor ask accusatory questions, such that he was afraid his career was over. The storm passed.
The CNN story presently in question was rescued by an anonymous contributor at a blog called Pastebin, and re-posted under the title, “A Sexist Article CNN Just Deleted,” so I guess the poster was torn between Feminazism and a belief in liberty, a rare combination.
Note that the CNN writer, Elizabeth Landau, had already quarantined her piece with an explicit warning to the reader, as well as several pseudo-scientific criticisms by tenured political hacks, but that still wasn’t enough for CNN’s Feminazis. It also remains to be seen if any of the tenured Feminazis that Landau had shown the article, prior to publication, contacted her censors, er, editors, to get it killed.
There are scientific criticisms that can be made of the study, and I made one in Landau’s text, but none of the academics she contacted made any. And getting an article or a study whose findings you hate killed is not a scholarly response—but it is a typical Feminazi response.
Link to the study in question.
By Elizabeth Landau
October 24th, 2012
05:10 PM ET
CNN
Study looks at voting and hormones
While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.
You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. [What sort of “reporter” tells one’s audience to “read with caution”?] Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several [leftwing academic censors] political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals. [That sounds backasswards. At the very least, scholarship would have allowed for political and religious attitudes influencing “reproductive goals.” But this is feminist propaganda we’re talking about here, not scholarship.]
In the new study's first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.
Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers' overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
[But Steve Sailer has shown that married women tend much more often to be Republicans than Democrats, while single women tend much more often to be Democrats than Republicans, independent of what time of month it is. That would make the dependent factor marital status, not ovulation. And since conservative women tend to vote more conservatively than single women, that would reduce the matter to a tautology. Conservative women tend to be … conservative, while liberal women tend to be… The real problem here is that academia has made scholarship into the sexes verboten, and restricted discussion of the sexes to feminazi hacks.]
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. [But “marriage equality” is a euphemism for same-sex marriage. While a horny single woman might be concerned about abortion, in order to escape the potential consequences of sex, what would she care about same-sex marriage? This sounds like a case of wrong-headed, ideological bundling due to one being a doctrinaire, academic socialist/feminist, or due to the poisonous influence of doctrinaire, academic socialism/feminism.] Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase. [But did their shopping behavior differ, depending on whether they were single or married? In this context, that would be the crucial scientific question, no?]
“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. "But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.
This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology [sic] examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.
Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality [this is a very partisan definition] and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.
The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.
“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.
Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s. [Research, or propaganda? I’ve never heard of scientific research backing up Kellstedt’s claim.]
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women's hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women's and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
[Carroll is making a false comparison. A proper comparison would be “to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in” men’s voting behavior. Then again, what do you expect of a professor of “women's and gender studies”?]
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women's hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.” [I guarantee you that she claims to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and considers those who don’t to be primitive, ignorant Christian reactionaries. Darwin aside, there are many biological reasons for excluding women from “many politic[al] and other societal opportunities.” As for her second response, that was even more canned than the first, she would have trotted it or something similar out, in response to any research not toeing the Feminazi line.]
“It was long thought that a woman shouldn't be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.
[That is still a widespread concern, in spite of feminist censorship and intimidation, among men and women alike.]
A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.
[You fail! Likewise, lefties have for generations claimed that poverty caused crime, while ignoring the refutations of their talking point. Now they argue, at separate times, that poverty causes crime, that poverty is more widespread than ever, and that crime has gone down for the past 20 years. But they are careful not to say the same thing at the same time.]
One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.
He's not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn't real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more "manly men" when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of "provider of the family," so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman's preference. [But that fails to explain any political variations. It sounds like he’s trying to stay out of trouble with Feminazis.]
Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.
"Even if the finding is correct, there's a chance that it won't have a cumulative effect on the electorate," he said.
Women: Do you feel the political parties don't represent you? Share your story
Post by: Elizabeth Landau - CNN.com Health Writer/Producer
Filed under: 2012 Election • Mental Health
1. duchessladygeek
Seriously? Like hormones don't drive men's votes – and all war has been completely rational?
Newflash CNN – no human is hormone free, and frankly, I don't think estrogen is causing the most damage here...just sayin'
October 24, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
o peggy waldron
Apparently CNN will say and do. anything to re-elect our failed....so called leader.
October 26, 2012 at 00:40 | Report abuse |
o heapinhymen
CNN removed the story and wrote "some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." Now I am confused, when did CNN instate a policy of editorial standards? They've proven themselves a left-wing rag for the last four and a half years, why would they want to change now? Well there is the Romney is going to win thing and the poor ratings that being a one-sided "news organization" will earn a station.
October 26, 2012 at 03:39 | Report abuse |
o R.K.
CNN is nothing but a junk tabloid, and has been for years... I stopped watching a year and a half ago for that reason, and deleted my iphone app yesterday because of this story – absolutely NO integrity! I am embarrassed for CNN, the stories they choose to cover and the "angle" they take on their stories. It doesn't take a genius to know what absolute crap CNN is pumping out on a regular basis, but this story really takes the cake.
And BTY, CNN, everyone knows that poor Anderson Cooper is constantly getting thrown under the “cheap news for thrills and ratings bus” all the time... Is he so desperate to keep his job that he won't stand up for credibility and integrity? WOW. WAKE UP OR GET OFF THE AIR CNN!
October 26, 2012 at 09:28 | Report abuse |
o Richard
If CNN is deliberately trying to run their network into the ground, it is all too obvious. Hurry up and get it over with, would ya?
Disgusting.
October 26, 2012 at 09:36 | Report abuse |
o Miss Information
After this story, ANYONE associated with CNN has lost ALL credibility. Too bad Candy Crowley just hosted the presidential debate. I'm willing to bet no one from CNN will ever be asked to do that again...
Candy, during the debate, ALMOST got me to start watching CNN again... Glad I never actually did, I would have been sick to my stomach as usual, apparently. I hope she leaves the network, if she doesn't she is supremely limiting her future in believable and credible reporting.
October 26, 2012 at 09:55 | Report abuse |
2. Suzanne
This is offensive in its claims. CNN, stop covering useless information that perpetuates discrimination. The idea that any woman is "more religious" while ovulating is ridiculous. Feminine views on religion and politics don't change every few weeks. Our values do not drift due to hormone surges. Printing this crap ought to be beneath you, but apparently, by CNN standards, this is worth covering. Shame on you.
October 24, 2012 at 20:25 | Report abuse | Reply
o Catherine
Thank you! This reads like an "Onion" article. CNN, you should be ashamed. There's a reason CNN is going under- your shameless lack of integrity. This sort of "journalism" will serve you well in your future reality television industry.
October 25, 2012 at 04:18 | Report abuse |
o EA
Catherine – You're totally right – "Onion" article all the way!
October 25, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |
3. jherad
Anyone remember when CNN wasn't terrible?
October 24, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
o Lenny-t
Yeah, I remember. That was back when they were a tight, disciplined, bunch of tough reporters led by Ted Turner. I remember their excellent coverage of the first Gulf War. They sey the standard back thenm. Now they are bloated, top-heavy, and just another make-believe news channel
October 25, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse |
o Hillcrester
The cable TV service is even worse. Blitzer and Foreman, along with Burnett, seem to for the sensational: drilling down, seeibg who's lying, etc. Plus melodramatic Lemon. Their array of political commentators and consultants is the best, however.
October 25, 2012 at 13:18 | Report abuse |
4. mariaprama
I think the accreditation agency may need to take a loot at U Texas at San Antonio. I am not sure these researchers know the different between a dependent and an independent variable. And I'm not even a social scientist. Preposterous. Why did CNN even post it?
October 24, 2012 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
5. pianofan
I would so totally for anyone whose name was outlined in pink!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
6. lissakay
This post has been removed because it "did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
When in the blue heavens has CNN ever had editorial standards???
October 24, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse | Reply
7. ien
Didn't meet editorial standards, hm? Where were you in your cycle when you made that decision, I wonder?
No, I suspect you thought it was an interesting piece of research to look at but you panicked over the blowback.
In fact, it's rare to see news coverage of this election in which women's reactions to the candidates are NOT sexualized in one way or another. The fact that women's hormonal cycles are more or less regular make them easier to study than men's, so it's worth looking at. Just because you suffered a bout of belated editorial correctness doesn't mean the campaigns aren't going to be looking hard at this kind of research. So what's wrong with the rest of us, and women voters in particular, getting to look at the same information? Doesn't mean that the conclusions are valid, doesn't mean they're bogus. But if you publish it, publish it. Unfortunately, your retraction is the news.
October 24, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Ien: The point was that "this kind of research" wasn't adequate. So, of course nobody is "looking hard" at it. Not in any real consideration, anyway. This "research" showed a blatant lack of understanding of the female body/ as well as hormones in general. It was unfounded in the extreme, which is why CNN aptly chose to remove it. The only reason anyone would "panic" over reading this article was at the idea that a news source would publish something so bizarre and offensive.
October 25, 2012 at 09:13 | Report abuse |
o Brian R
Except the study was done by women.
October 25, 2012 at 12:39 | Report abuse |
o EA
Brina R – Like that matters! Kind of a simple take on it don't you think? And who knows if it was all women working on the study.
October 25, 2012 at 21:19 | Report abuse |
8. Michelle
The article was offensive. Shame on CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 22:28 | Report abuse | Reply
9. priscilla
Fail. Serious Fail.
October 24, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply
10. CAS
Ms. Landau is an excellent journalist – period. Her piece was balanced, provocative, fresh and well researched. Any attacks on her character or her reporting skills are completely unwarranted. She presented a controversial study, which she obviously had exclusive access, and she explored its merits with numerous academics. To insinuate that she should not have published this piece is preposterous – this is what we journalist do... we shed light on views, people and conflicts to inform and enlighten the public. Some may find the study and its conclusions offensive – fine – but to call into question the integrity and intelligence of Ms. Landau is crossing the line.
October 25, 2012 at 01:08 | Report abuse | Reply
o anaqin
i read the article and in no part of it was mentioned that the research was 'controversial'. it was presented, as any research would, in a rather "this might be true" tone, plase don't patronize me.
the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended. i am not offended by the writer. i am offended by the writing presented as if it supported the research.
October 25, 2012 at 01:38 | Report abuse |
o The Editor
"the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended."
I ONLY WANT TO HEAR THINGS THAT FIT MY LIBERAL, "EVERYONE IS EXACTLY THE SAME", WORLDVIEW! *Sticks fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA
October 25, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
o arm542
CAS – You bring up a valid point. Ms Landau may have offered a well-researched, provocative viewpoint in her article. She is employed to search out and bring forth stories for the greater public to latch onto or call into question. While she certainly has every right to publish this article, she is also perpetuating the same conversation around women that has existed for hundreds of years. We still think that women are ruled by their emotions. I can tell you whether I'm ovulating, not-ovulating, on my period, or straight out devoid of any reproductive system – my beliefs and my opinions are not ruled alone by my hormones, emotions, or "feelings." Of course there's a correlation, of course. But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns. "Men are rational, logical thinkers. They are not ruled by their emotions or hormones." What we need to see from intelligent journalists like Ms. Landau (and yourself from what I read) is a change in the conversation surrounding women and of what we are capable in the public, social, and political spheres. Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged.
In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information. The conversation needs to change, and I do believe journalists, news outlets, and governments should be called out and challenged for perpetuating mindless stereotypes and biased material. This view of women, as chosen by the few, needs to be challenged by the many.
October 25, 2012 at 12:02 | Report abuse |
o Eve
Bravo @arm542! A great explanation of why this article is so offensive and a great response to all those who are building straw feminists for themselves to fight in the comments.
October 25, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse |
o Haris
@arm542
"But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns."
Try again hun.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html
Now tell me, how many men do you see getting their panties in a bunch over there in the comments section? Compare that to all the women going hysterical here. Seems like women are far more emotional than men doesn't it? In fact, if you look at the comments closely, you will see a lot more open mindedness towards the study from men.
"Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged"
"In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information."
Oh boy, you just make this too easy.
October 25, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
o EA
@Haris: How's your relationship with women? Something tells me not so hot.;)
October 25, 2012 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
11. anaqin
they took out the post.
pathetic neanderthals belong to the cavemen age.
i wrote my protests on my facebook and post it to FEMEN as well last night because i was so furious at how such belittling and patronizing writing can find its way to news. id on't expect much from CNN, being a corporate news network and all but this article is a direct insult to women and humanity in general.
October 25, 2012 at 01:31 | Report abuse | Reply
12. Linda in Arizona
Got so much blowback you had to remove the "story", eh, CNN? "Editorial standards of CNN"? Thanks for the laugh.
October 25, 2012 at 02:42 | Report abuse | Reply
13. JJ188
For the love of God I hope my tax money did not go into this. What a waste of money.
October 25, 2012 at 05:43 | Report abuse | Reply
14. Jack
Moods affect choices.
Hormones affect moods.
Women have predictable hormone swings due to periods.
So do men, cause testosteron levels are higher at waking up.
Its all logical and nothing new, but i guess we dont like it being thrown in our faces like this.
Dont really care, cause elections are way too much focussed on affecting voting behaviour anyway, instead of just telling what you plan to do and actually do it. But dont you guys think they will use this information anyway if they can?
October 25, 2012 at 07:08 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Jack – your simplistic statements are true. However, I fail to see the how a "mood swing" could be powerful enough to make a woman change her choice for leader of the free world back and forth depending on her cycle. We aren't breeding bunnies in a cage. We are human beings with higher-order thinking. This whole "study" was based on a hyperbolic idea of women, and then biased toward proving that idea. And failed.
October 25, 2012 at 09:18 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Dont think you needed to insult me with 'simplistic'.
I dont think women would go back and forth, but it might make doubters decide a certain choice. I dont see how you could steer that into a specific direction with a gain for your election results though. But im sure if you could, it would be used, regardless of cnn keeping the article up or not.
I cant read the article now, since its gone. Not going to look for it either, cause its not at all interesting to me. What is interesting is the reactions this thing got.
October 25, 2012 at 10:39 | Report abuse |
o The Editor's Editor
LEARN ABOUT APOSTROPHES. THEY MATTER.
October 25, 2012 at 11:17 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Learn about caps. They matter too.
October 25, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
o Elaine
So where is the study on how men's hormones affect their vote. I am post menopausal, so my hormone levels have dropped, but guess what? I still vote the same way as I did ten years ago! I still support the same issues and supporting the environment and education doesn't make me feel "sexy".
October 25, 2012 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Don't know if there is one Elaine. Surely we don't want to have researchers do things in equality, because we like that better? If they would examine male voting behaviour early morning and in the evening, you would find a correlation and significant result either. But is that such a big deal? It's logical.
I am pretty sure that if you would research voting behaviour and amount of urine in the bladder you would find a corrrelation too. Does that mean the lvl of urine determines your choice? No, but in some cases it would influenze the result yes.
October 25, 2012 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
15. Kristin Rowe Meche
This was a specious argument, whose validity was back-pedaled within it's own original text. Shame on CNN for ever letting this kind of garbage get out under their banner. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
October 25, 2012 at 07:09 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Agreed, Kristin! I don't understand how this story passed any standards in the first place... in fact, when I was first sent the link, I thought this was an article from The Onion! It seems there were people involved who knew that this "study" shouldn't have been posted, as it was based on a hyperbolic generalization of women and then geared in extreme bias to prove its own bizarre notions. CNN isn't escaping some responsibility for this just because they removed the article after getting called out.
October 25, 2012 at 09:21 | Report abuse |
16. Marco
Disgraceful and you call yourselves the world leader in news? Why do you people peddle such trite and focus on stories that best belongs in the pages of a supermarket tabloid...no wonder that more and more people are looking elsewhere for the news.
October 25, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply
17. discgolfur
I guess now I am blocking CNN as an online news source... did Rupert Murdoch buy the network?
October 25, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
18. htye
is cnn about to implode? something just does not seem right with this company, not just online, but on cable too!
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
19. John
Sounds like 298 women on their period were offended by this article DDD
October 25, 2012 at 08:21 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
A lot more than that. And we don't need to be on the rag to be offended by this "study" I seriously thought this was an article from The Onion when I clicked the link! What the hell is going on with CNN??
October 25, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse |
o EA
@John – You sound like a very handsome charmer! (right!)
October 25, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse |
20. AtlCoug
Who needs this study? Just watch the last presidential debate from CNN and see how the women track lines went up each time Baby Daddy was talking.
October 25, 2012 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
21. The Editor
"This story did not meet the Politboro of Liberal Political Correctness's strict standards, and has been removed. Thank you for your understanding, comrades. CNN"
October 25, 2012 at 08:57 | Report abuse | Reply
o Julie058
Haha, really cute. Except the article has nothing to do with "political correctness", and everything to do with perpetuating a false and hyperbolic idea of women using a faulty and biased "study".
October 25, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
o The Editor's Editor
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
October 25, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |
22. Just Me
Another blow to women's equality! Way to go, CNN!
October 25, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
o Jeff
Sounds like it's that time of the month!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:08 | Report abuse |
o Jack
Nothing is equal.
October 25, 2012 at 10:43 | Report abuse |
o EA
@Jack. Thanks for reminder. i just learned a lot from you today (LOL)
October 25, 2012 at 21:39 | Report abuse |
23. Walknot
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to "Vote with your Lady Parts".
October 25, 2012 at 09:52 | Report abuse | Reply
24. Lynn
There is so much wrong with this study and story I just don't know where to begin. But it begs the sarcastic question...what about men who take meds to regulate their hormone levels or men who take viagra? Come on CNN, thought you might have better journalistic standards than to let this story slip through the editorial cracks...obviously not! Seriously offended by this story and all it implies.
October 25, 2012 at 10:08 | Report abuse | Reply
25. @PurpAv
CNN has standards? Who knew?
October 25, 2012 at 10:54 | Report abuse | Reply
26. Illusions
I guess this does go along with team Obama's "Vote with your lady parts" Campaign pitch.
October 25, 2012 at 11:41 | Report abuse | Reply
27. John Smith
CNN has hit a new low with this article. Where are the editors that let an article like this be printed. I suggest that CNN start random drug testing its writers and staff
October 25, 2012 at 12:12 | Report abuse | Reply
28. hostdude99
CNN Editorial standards? LOL. Funniest thing I've heard all morning.
October 25, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
29. ostara321
"After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
LOL. Which part? It was all pretty equally terribad.
October 25, 2012 at 12:26 | Report abuse | Reply
30. Anthony Hoskins
So much for freedom of speech. I bet the Inquistion is *grilling* Kristina Driante even as we speak.
October 25, 2012 at 12:58 | Report abuse | Reply
31. noteaparty4me
The driving force for many, especially white males, is race. And for many, especially white males it will always be race then gender. CNN removing a post for "standards": is a joke. I am also noticing the overwhelming amount of Romeney surrogates on CNN prime time shows. I guess with reports of his money issues surfacing free air time is in order. John McCain on payroll? But white men have to stick with the very white Romney.
October 25, 2012 at 13:12 | Report abuse | Reply
32. slackerPTAmom
Why don't they run a study on how men with and without erectile dysfunction vote? Or run a study on how bald men vote – they have more testosterone than more hirsute dudes.
October 25, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse | Reply
33. Steve
Ok, I'm confused... a woman writes an article about women's issues, and you guys get all up in arms because it's a touchy topic? Sheez! talking about cowardice. I could see if a man wrote it. I could see that something like this article would cause all kinds of troubles..... Well, rest assured– your cowardice does not prevent the rest of the internet from seeing what you're too afraid to retain.
October 25, 2012 at 13:53 | Report abuse | Reply
o Steve
Oh.... I forgot– not only was CNN's article written by a woman– the study she discusses was performed by a woman asst professor at Texas U, San Antonio, in the marketing dept. Turns out this Durante is a specialist on this general topic. Her list of research publications is rather impressive! Strikes me that the problem here is one of PC..... CNN– you disappoint.
October 25, 2012 at 16:00 | Report abuse |
34. guest
CNN,
Anything for obama, always.
October 25, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply
35. guest
CNN, you don't think we can think for ourselves.
October 25, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
o Steve
sad, isn't it.... sounds like a new form of censorship to me.....
October 25, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
36. Ron
Seriously, you can't handle a bit of uproar about this story and had to take it down like a bunch of babies?!?
October 25, 2012 at 14:23 | Report abuse | Reply
37. Southern Man
When a study disagrees with your feelings, go with the feelings and ditch the study.
October 25, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
38. sarah
This is why I only check CNN for the right wing/tabloid flavored news, rarely. I check Fox for the same reason. I used to be a fairly regular CNN reader/watcher. But it's nmot just this story that is the problem. Why isn't your mea culpa on the front page? A couple of Op-ed pieces can't balance the numbers either. Nice try.
Fire the author. Take a journalism class. Watch/read PBS. Do you edit/not publish comments too?
October 25, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse | Reply
39. apollyon911
Truth hurts. End female suffrage.
October 25, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply
40. Sam
At least Fox News is entertaining in the stupidity they embrace, this is just bizarre. Glad I stopped using American television as a means of information ages ago. Only thing worth watching news-wise is The Daily Show or the Colbert Report.
October 25, 2012 at 17:14 | Report abuse | Reply
41. A person
You might think you're a special snowflake, but a lot of your behavior can be ascribed to your biology.
October 25, 2012 at 17:16 | Report abuse | Reply
42. arcadesproject
i read the article and it was good for a laugh. i mean, it's a 'you can't be serious, can you' kind of experience And of course it left me deeply curious abuot the efect of testosterone on voting. (Not)
October 25, 2012 at 17:52 | Report abuse | Reply
43. Willers
Technology is the only hope. The saps will inherit the earth as long as its all a tap in. Might happen, if it doesn't – game over!
October 25, 2012 at 19:09 | Report abuse | Reply
44. ana
Does anyone have a cached copy of this post. I want to use it for a lecture in my media class. It is unfortunate that CNN took the post down because I think that they should accept responsibility for posts that they make and not try to erase the fact that they posted the content.
October 25, 2012 at 19:54 | Report abuse | Reply
45. James
I'm appalled, appalled I say ! Truly appalling!
Not really, but I am amused at how people are offended at the drop of a hat and suddenly are all experts on what drives them. The comments here basically show that free speech has been killed by the the ones who are always complaining about the lack thereof. You can say what you want but only within the parameters defined by the PC rage brigade.
You honestly all think your thoughts and feelings are independent of biology? You think the universe is built on egalitarian principles? You lot are a lost cause and are the reason why the USA is fast becoming a joke.
October 25, 2012 at 21:41 | Report abuse | Reply
46. crustymackay
You got the story wrong? Don't delete (hide?) your mistake. Post a correction. Post the new reporting that refutes what you posted earlier. Pretending your mistakes don't exist and can't be corrected is ridiculous.
October 26, 2012 at 13:43 | Report abuse | Reply
47. Guardian
Admit it. You're turned on by that little Ralph Maddow dude on MSNBC.
October 24, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply
48. htye
PERV!
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
49. Jeff
I'm sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!
!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:02 | Report abuse | Reply
50. childpleaze
@arm542 – thanks for your thoughtful and civil response to @CAS. Btw, there are studies on the supposed impact of testosterone and male voting patterns. I found a brief post on one here:
http://utahdatapoints.com/2011/09/does-a-candidates-testosterone-level-affect-voters/
October 25, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
« Previous1234
[CNN, censorship
Support Your Local Thought Police! (Poster)
&npsp;
A hoisted rubber truncheon in one hand, a raised hypodermic needle in the other to Silver Circle Underground.
A hoisted rubber truncheon in one hand, a raised hypodermic needle in the other to Silver Circle Underground.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Why Peggy Noonan is Irrelevant at Best, and at Worst, a Distraction
By Nicholas Stix
Talent is a terrible thing to waste. Peggy Noonan is a graceful stylist, but it does her little good, because she goes along, to get along. The nastiest epithet I can think to call her is a Republican writer.
Literary style without integrity is worthless. Nicholas Lemann is a socialist with a lovely writing style. That combination gave us his beautifully written travesty on the SAT, The Big Test.
Republicans have been saying for three years now that “Obama” is “incompetent.” He’s not incompetent. He won an election illegally, with the plan of destroying America. In that regard, he’s done a competent job. That’s not the stuff of incompetence, but of evil.
Contra Noonan, “Obama” didn’t refuse to negotiate with the GOP leadership out of incompetence, but because he had no intention of reaching any compromise.
America got to see the real “Obama” in March, 2008, when it saw video highlights of his black supremacist preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and WND quoted from the credo of James Cone, the founder of BLT (that’s not bacon, lettuce, and tomato, but Black Liberation Theology, of which “Obama” is a devotee):
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.Whites have seen “the real Obama” many times since.
… Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
I wrote about the real Obama back in the summer of 2004 (here and here), though I didn’t yet know then that Black Liberation Theology was a genocidal movement, because when James Cone had his two main tracts reissued 20 years after their original publication, he censored them, removing the explicitly genocidal statements, like the one quoted above.
But “Obama” had still left no doubt that he was racist to the bone, a fake Christian, and a compulsive liar such as to put Bill Clinton to shame.
So, why didn’t the general public know about “Obama”? Because people like Peggy Noonan, with readerships in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, didn’t do their job, and expose him. Republican writers.
Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama
• By Peggy Noonan
• Updated October 26, 2012, 6:59 p.m. ET
Why the Denver debate changed everything.
Wall Street Journal
• Comments (2249)
We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it's all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn't a mystery at all.
If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there's a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.
Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative. What the debate did to the president is what the Yankees' 0-4 series against the Tigers did at least momentarily, to the team's relationship with their city. "Dear Yankees, We don't date losers. Signed, New Yorkers" read the Post's headline.
America doesn't date losers either.
Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt.
Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.
What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.
But that's what he did.
And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.
***
A great and assumed question, the one that's still floating out there, is what exactly happened when Mr. Obama did himself in? What led to it?
Was it the catastrophic execution of an arguably sound strategy? Perhaps the idea was to show the president was so unimpressed by his challenger that he could coolly keep him at bay by not engaging.
Maybe Mr. Obama's handlers advised: "The American people aren't impressed by this flip-flopping, outsourcing plutocrat, and you will deepen your bond with the American people, Mr. President, by expressing in your bearing, through your manner and language, how unimpressed you are, too." So he sat back and let Mr. Romney come forward. But Mr. Romney was poised, knowledgeable, presidential. It was a mistake to let that come forward!
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
Was it the catastrophic execution of a truly bad strategy? Maybe they assumed the election was already pretty much in the bag, don't sweat it, just be your glitteringly brilliant self and let Duncan the Wonder Horse go out there and turn people off. But nothing was in the bag. The sheer number of people who watched—a historic 70 million—suggests a lot of voters were still making up their minds.
Maybe the president himself didn't think he could possibly be beaten because he's so beloved. Presidents are always given good news, to keep their spirits up. The poll numbers he'd been seeing, the get-out-the-vote reports, the extraordinary Internet effort to connect with every lonely person in America, which is a lot of persons—maybe everything he was hearing left him thinking his position was impregnable.
But maybe these questions are all off. Maybe what happened isn't a mystery at all.
That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn't a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that's the real Obama.
***
Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves.
Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.
He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats.
Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed.
He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.
Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for trying to negotiate with other Republicans. Through it all he was confident—"Eric, don't call my bluff"—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.
They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.
Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.
People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.
They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.
And they didn't like what they saw, and that would linger.
There’s a Message for Senator Kennedy!
Posted by Nicholas Stix
MerlinV:
Can anyone get a message through for me? I'm trying to get a message through to Hell where Ted Kennedy can be reached. Just wanted to thank him for the 1965 Immigration Reform Act which guaranteed the eventual end of White America. That son of a bootlegger really made his mark on the country.
[“Could Obama’s Struggles with White Voters Cost Him the Election?” by Halimah Abdullah, CNN/American Renaissance, October 26, 2012.]
MerlinV:
Can anyone get a message through for me? I'm trying to get a message through to Hell where Ted Kennedy can be reached. Just wanted to thank him for the 1965 Immigration Reform Act which guaranteed the eventual end of White America. That son of a bootlegger really made his mark on the country.
[“Could Obama’s Struggles with White Voters Cost Him the Election?” by Halimah Abdullah, CNN/American Renaissance, October 26, 2012.]
Friday, October 26, 2012
Racial Terror and Racial Cleansing at the University of Texas Austin (My New VDARE Column is Up!)
By Nicholas Stix
At the University of Texas/Austin, racial socialist activists and their UT staff and Main Stream Media allies have launched a hysterical campaign to intimidate white students by claiming that they are guilty of “hate crimes.” The activists’ MO: constantly make up new stories of their victimization; re-define innocuous behavior by whites as “bias incidents” and “acts of racial violence”; stalk whites attending “fiesta” parties (isn’t this Texas?), and publish photographs of them. Unfortunately, there is no sign of white a.k.a. American opposition.
The activists’ apparent goals:
1. Influence the Supreme Court to continue its support of Affirmative Action in college admissions;
2. Take over a presently desirable off-campus neighborhood (West Campus) now populated by white and Asian students;
3. Get all majority-white “Greek” organizations (fraternities and sororities) banned, disbanded, or under the racial socialists’ control;
4. Ultimately, to purge UT of white students, save for a relatively small cadre of cultural Marxists.
[Read the whole thing here.]
At the University of Texas/Austin, racial socialist activists and their UT staff and Main Stream Media allies have launched a hysterical campaign to intimidate white students by claiming that they are guilty of “hate crimes.” The activists’ MO: constantly make up new stories of their victimization; re-define innocuous behavior by whites as “bias incidents” and “acts of racial violence”; stalk whites attending “fiesta” parties (isn’t this Texas?), and publish photographs of them. Unfortunately, there is no sign of white a.k.a. American opposition.
The activists’ apparent goals:
1. Influence the Supreme Court to continue its support of Affirmative Action in college admissions;
2. Take over a presently desirable off-campus neighborhood (West Campus) now populated by white and Asian students;
3. Get all majority-white “Greek” organizations (fraternities and sororities) banned, disbanded, or under the racial socialists’ control;
4. Ultimately, to purge UT of white students, save for a relatively small cadre of cultural Marxists.
[Read the whole thing here.]
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Have SMU Coeds been Hit by Wave of Rapes by Raceless, Faceless Assailants, or Has Campus been Hit by “Sexual Misconduct” Bureaucracy?
By Nicholas Stix
Is it just me, or do the “reporters” in the story below seem more interested in SMU’s burgeoning “sexual misconduct” bureaucracy than in reporting on rapes?
They don’t name the two suspects arrested for rapes in September, or say anything about the fourth and fifth cases. And since the only case they cite was allegedly committed by an acquaintance, given the history of feminist-promoted campus “date rape” hoaxes, I have to wonder if it even was a rape. The “sexual misconduct” bureaucracy will exist in order to promote date rape hoaxes, as a means to aggrandize feminist campus power. Note that “reporters’ Fancher and Thayer tied the bureaucracy and the alleged rapes in at least two stories so far this month.
The rape industry is a subsidiary of Feminism, Inc. At SMU, for instance, man-hating campus feminists fancy that even man rape victims will go to them for “help.” But Feminism, Inc. has no interest in helping even female rape victims. Feminism is an evil, totalitarian movement, and as such, it is interested in consolidating absolute power, rapine, and mass murder, and it attracts people who are of a like disposition.
Look at the history of campus feminists. Although they have amassed wealth and power, they have routinely ignored real rape victims, while producing libraries full of pseudo-scholarship, and viciously promoting rape hoaxes against innocent white, heterosexual men, and never apologizing after the hoaxes were exposed.
* * * Fifth sexual assault reported near SMU campus
By Julie Fancher and Haley Thayer
October 11, 2012
The Daily Campus/Pegasus News
Is it just me, or do the “reporters” in the story below seem more interested in SMU’s burgeoning “sexual misconduct” bureaucracy than in reporting on rapes?
They don’t name the two suspects arrested for rapes in September, or say anything about the fourth and fifth cases. And since the only case they cite was allegedly committed by an acquaintance, given the history of feminist-promoted campus “date rape” hoaxes, I have to wonder if it even was a rape. The “sexual misconduct” bureaucracy will exist in order to promote date rape hoaxes, as a means to aggrandize feminist campus power. Note that “reporters’ Fancher and Thayer tied the bureaucracy and the alleged rapes in at least two stories so far this month.
The rape industry is a subsidiary of Feminism, Inc. At SMU, for instance, man-hating campus feminists fancy that even man rape victims will go to them for “help.” But Feminism, Inc. has no interest in helping even female rape victims. Feminism is an evil, totalitarian movement, and as such, it is interested in consolidating absolute power, rapine, and mass murder, and it attracts people who are of a like disposition.
Look at the history of campus feminists. Although they have amassed wealth and power, they have routinely ignored real rape victims, while producing libraries full of pseudo-scholarship, and viciously promoting rape hoaxes against innocent white, heterosexual men, and never apologizing after the hoaxes were exposed.
By Julie Fancher and Haley Thayer
October 11, 2012
The Daily Campus/Pegasus News
The number of sexual assaults reported by SMU students is astounding.
DALLAS — SMU police released a crime alert to students reporting the off campus sexual assault of an SMU female student by an SMU male acquaintance.
This is the fifth sexual assault crime alert released to students this year. The alert also comes one week after President R. Gerald Turner released the names of the 20 members of the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures.
The crime alert stated that a female SMU student reported to University Park police that she had been sexually assaulted by a male acquaintance, also an SMU student, in the early morning of October 5.
The alert states that the alleged assault occurred at an apartment in the 3400 block of Asbury Avenue, just west of campus.
The Task Force on Sexual Misconduct Policies was created in response to the September arrests of two SMU students for sexual assault. The goal of the Task Force is to look into the way the university handles reported sexual assaults.
“Although our procedures are examined regularly, and mirror those of many other institutions, the Task Force will be a timely opportunity to broaden deliberations and conversation on this critical matter,” Turner said. “Its focus will include not only how sexual misconduct allegations are addressed at SMU, but also how the University can strengthen prevention and education on this important topic.”
The Task Force will begin meeting in October, with a full report to be completed on or before March 1, 2013.
Raceless Serial Rapist Confesses to 1989 Rape-Murder of 87-Year-Old White Woman in Boston’s South End
“DNA Matches Pin 1972,’73 Murders of Two White Women on Racist, Black Serial Rapist Michael Sumpter, Who Died in 2001.”]
Serial Rapist Admits to Killing 87-Year-Old Woman in South End 20 Years Ago
Police used DNA evidence to make an arrest in the cold case of rape and murder of Zahia Salem
By Sara Jacobi
Email the author
September 27, 2012
South End, Boston Patch
A man accused of assaulting and strangling an 87-year-old woman 20 years ago in her South End home pleaded guilty to all charges, and was sentenced to life in prison for the crime, according to a statement from Suffolk County District Attorney's office.
Charles H. Brook, Jr. 67, admitted on Thursday that in 1989, he gained entry to the Union Park Street apartment where Zahia Salem, 87, lived alone, beat her, sexually assaulted her, and strangled her to death.
Brook – who has cancer – was given the mandatory term for that offense, life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years.
A Cold Case
Although Boston Police detectives never found a suspect during their initial investigation 20 years ago, Conley said the case was investigated actively by police, who preserved biological evidence from the scene for later testing.
Because those investigators maintained a cigarette butt and scrapings from beneath Salem’s fingernails under laboratory conditions, they were still viable for DNA testing when the Boston Police Cold Case Squad reviewed the matter in 2011 under a federal grant intended to help clear unsolved crimes with new forensic techniques.
Criminalists at the Boston Police Crime Laboratory developed a DNA profile from the evidence at the scene and submitted it to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS, a database of DNA profiles from known offenders and unidentified subjects. That submission led to a match with Brook, who had been ordered to submit a sample to the database after rape convictions in 1989 and 1991.
Family Reactions
Salem had no children, but a niece addressed the court on her behalf, remembering the immigrant seamstress as a spry old woman who had never driven a car and walked to church every day.
“My father remembers our aunt talking to him about retirement planning and worrying about Social Security being charity, which she didn’t want to accept,” the niece said in an impact statement.
“We felt lucky to have spent time with her in October of 1989, just a month before her untimely, unfortunate, and shocking death,” she continued. “We were all very saddened and angry … We thank the Boston Police Department and detectives for collecting DNA evidence at that time and securing it for this long. We are thankful for the grant that was awarded to open this very cold case and for the tenacity of the detectives who followed through so that we could see justice being served. We hope that other families will be touched in the same way we have been and to find some closure to their misfortune as well.”
Michael Schultz was the DA’s assigned victim-witness advocate. Brook was represented by attorney Bruce Carroll.
BREAKING NEWS! Blackwood Off Three Knoxville Horror Trials
Knoxville Horror victims Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
By David in TN
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals today ruled Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood must recuse himself from presiding over retrials for three defendants in the 2007 Knoxville Horror torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
"Blackwood, by order of the court, is now off the cases of Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, and George Thomas. The men had been convicted of various crimes in connection with the carjacking and killings of Channon Chrisdtian, 21, and Chris Newsom, 23."
No mention was made of the Vanessa Coleman trial, which was scheduled for November. Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols did not contest the need for a retrial for Coleman.
DNA Matches Pin 1972,’73 Murders of Two White Women on Racist, Black Serial Rapist Michael Sumpter, Who Died in 2001
Remember the PC CBS show, Cold Case? It was one of those utterly fake, “realistic” police dramas, whose dramas would pound out a propagandistic script every week, in which a member of an affirmative action class was murdered by an evil, white heterosexual male. One episode was about a white man who murdered a homosexual out of “homophobia.” When the case was solved, the victim’s ghost appeared to give a sign of approval.
Another time, just after World War II, a white man murdered his wife, who had worked in an arms factory during the war, and who had developed a sense of independence and wanted to keep on working. Yeah, he murdered her for wanting to work!
After the war, women wanted anything but to work in factories. The baby boom was not a man conspiracy.
I only watched the show a few times, once I got the drill, and I got the drill immediately. Not only were the scripts humorless, dishonest, paint-by-the-numbers, leftwing boilerplate, but the cast stunk, as well. Most of the players were also cast based on their membership in affirmative action groups. Thus, there were no great character actors as stars, or in the supporting cast.
I wonder how many people realized that the “cases” were completely made up out of leftwing talking points?
Real cold cases more often resemble the two below: A black serial rapist-murderer who preyed on white women, and a raceless serial rapist, who also murdered a white woman.
By Matt Stout
October 18, 2012; updated 7 days ago
Boston Herald
(20) Comments
Authorities say they’ve linked a convicted rapist who died more than decade ago to a near 40-year-old cold case murder, the second they believe the man committed as he allegedly tormented women on Beacon Hill and Back Bay in a murderous spree of sexual assaults in the 1970s.
DNA evidence helped identify Michael Sumpter, who died of cancer in 2001, as the man responsible for raping and strangling 24-year-old Mary Lee McClain inside her Beacon Hill apartment in December 1973, Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis and Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said in a joint release today.
Thanks to the help of a federally funded cold-case investigation, authorities submitted evidence from McClain’s murder earlier this year, and in May, received a “hit” on Sumpter’s DNA profile, which was on file after a separate 1975 rape conviction.
“This is a story about an old case and new technology, but it’s also a story about hope and perseverance,” Conley said. “Mary’s family never lost their faith that her murder would be solved.”
Added Davis: “Our dedicated detectives and our crime lab analysts worked tirelessly on this case. They never gave up, leaving no stone unturned to provide the family with answers. We hope this information gives them some peace.”
Authorities said a man had broken into McClain’s Mount Vernon Street apartment that she shared with two roommates, raped her, and strangled her to death on Dec. 12, 1973.
Her murder is the second that police have linked to Sumpter since his death. In 2010, authorities tied him to the 1972 rape and murder of Ellen Rutchick, 23, in her Beacon Street residence after her family contacted Boston police asking if they could take up her case once again.
Sumpter is also believed to have committed the 1985 rape of a 21-year-old woman inside a Marlborough Street apartment. At the time of his death, Sumpter was serving a 15- to 20-year prison sentence for yet another sexual assault — the 1975 rape of a 21-year-old woman inside her Beacon Street home.
Conley and Davis said that if Sumpter were alive today, he would be indicted for McClain’s murder.
Authorities said the technology that helped solve McClain’s murder is the same that helped lead to the conviction of serial rapist Charles H. Brook Jr. last month for the 1989 murder of 87-year-old Zahia Salem in her South End home.
-— matthew.stout@bostonherald.com
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Graphic Video: Grandfather Witnesses Sex on a Train in Dallas
Couple gets recorded, reported to police
January 11, 2012
Fox News Dallas
I searched for any follow-up to this story, as to whether the Dallas PD ever tracked down the offending couple, and found nothing.
P.S. What happened to the video? I'll have to dig up a different version, code-wise.
P.P.S. I found one.
January 11, 2012
Fox News Dallas
I searched for any follow-up to this story, as to whether the Dallas PD ever tracked down the offending couple, and found nothing.
P.S. What happened to the video? I'll have to dig up a different version, code-wise.
P.P.S. I found one.
Motions Hearing Held in the November Retrial of Vanessa Coleman: A Knoxville Horror Update
Knoxville Horror victims Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
By David in TN
On Monday, a motions hearing was held in the November retrial of Vanessa Coleman in the January 2007 torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Coleman's attorney, Ted Lavit, wants no mention at all of Christopher Newsom, on the grounds that Coleman was acquitted of all charges regarding Newsom, and of facilitation only in Channon Christian's rape and murder.
The bizarre verdict rendered by the jury in the first trial is the reason for the current scenario. Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood will issue written rulings on whether to admit evidence related to Newsom. The Learned Judge has not revealed where the jury will come from. The trial will be held in Knox County.
Family of Racist Black Hate Crime Hoaxer Sharmeka Moffitt Apologizes; NAACP Remains Shameless
By Nicholas Stix
Well, racist black hate crime hoaxer Sharmeka Moffitt’s family is obviously made of better stuff than she is.
[Previously, on this crime, at WEJB/NSU:
“Louisiana: Hate Crime, or a Hoax Gone Horribly Wrong? Black Woman Says She was Set on Fire by 3 Hoodie-Wearing, Raceless Men Who Wrote ‘KKK’ and a ‘Racial Slur’ on Her Car; NAACP Chief Exploits Crime”; and
“Tawana Brawley in Louisiana! Racist Sharmeka Moffitt was So Intent on Committing a Hate Crime Hoax That She Set Herself on Fire, and Almost Died!”]
Family apologizes for Moffitt's actions
October 23, 2012, 5:15 p.m.
The Shreveport Times
11 Comments
By Greg Hilburn and Michael Doughty
Police announced Tuesday they believe Sharmeka Moffitt fabricated a story about being attacked and burned Sunday night at Civitan Park in Winnsboro by three men who wrote “KKK” on the hood of her car, and instead set herself afire.
Franklin Parish Sheriff Kevin Cobb said during a press conference at the Franklin Parish Courthouse this afternoon that Moffitt's DNA and fingerprints were found on the lighter as well as charcoal lighter fluid used in the incident.
Police say they are still unsure why Moffitt set herself on fire. It will now be up to the district attorney's office to determine whether she will face charges for the fabrication.
“Basically we had to follow the facts,” Cobb said. “This was a disturbing case for all involved. All indications show this was a self-inflicted situation.”
Moffitt, 20, told police she was walking on a park trail when she was attacked and set afire by three men wearing white T-shirt hoodies. She remains at LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport in critical condition.
In a statement, Moffitt's family said they were sorry for any problems which may have been caused by Moffitt's actions.
"Our family is devastated to learn the circumstances surrounding our daughter’s injuries," the statement said. "While this was not the resolution we had expected, it is a resolution, and we appreciate the thorough investigation by the local and state police as well as federal agencies.
"We are sincerely sorry for any problems this may have caused and wish to express our appreciation for the outpouring of love, prayers and support we have received from friends, acquaintances, church organizations and government officials.
"Over the coming days and weeks, our focus will be on Sharmeka and her recovery. We ask that you continue to pray for her and for our family, and that you respect our privacy at this difficult time."
Police now believe it was Moffitt who wrote “KKK” and the N-word on the hood of her Buick LaCross with toothpaste and then set fire to herself. She told police she couldn’t identify the race of those she claimed had attacked her. She called 911 from the park.
Cobb and Winnsboro Police Chief Lester Martin said both Moffitt and her family still deserved the community’s prayers.
“This is a tragic situation,” Martin said.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tawana Brawley in Louisiana! Racist Sharmeka Moffitt was So Intent on Committing a Hate Crime Hoax That She Set Herself on Fire, and Almost Died!
By Nicholas Stix
Updated at 10:03 p.m.
In “Obama’s” America, black race mania knows no bounds. Thus, it turns out that just as I suggested with my earlier headline on this case, at 2:34 a.m. this morning, Sharmeka Moffitt did indeed engineer a race hoax.
Note the shameless way in which local NAACP boss Otis Chisley exploited the incident. As I wrote earlier today,
[From news story:] “Otis Chisley, the president of the local branch of the NAACP, said he had been in touch with Moffitt's distraught family. He said he was waiting for more facts to come to light before drawing any conclusions about what happened and that ‘everyone wants to move with caution.’
“Regardless of the investigation's outcome, though, Chisley said, racism and KKK activity remain a fact of life in the state.
“‘It's prevalent throughout Louisiana,’ he said. ‘It's hidden but it exists.’”
[“It’s hidden” means he has no evidence of its prevalence, yet he is leaping to conclusions. And although this crime is his occasion for talking about the KKK, he’s instructing us to ignore that essential fact. In other words, ‘I’m a racist opportunist, and I’m going to exploit this crime to the hilt, and don’t anybody dare use facts or logic in examining the crime or my statement!’
Note, too, the headline editor’s racial dog-whistling: “3 racist men” means “3 White Men.”]
Don't hold your breath, waiting for Otis Chisley to apologize for his blood libel.
The media will no longer tell us that a “racist” did this, but that’s just what happened—a racist named Sharmeka Moffitt!
5:05 PM, Oct 23, 2012
By Greg Hilburn
The News Star
6 Comments
Police have announced that they believe Sharmeka Moffitt fabricated a story about being attacked and burned Sunday night at Civitan Park in Winnsboro by three men who wrote “KKK” on the hood of her car.
Franklin Parish Sheriff Kevin Cobb said during a press conference at the Franklin Parish Courthouse this afternoon that all forensic evidence pointed toward Moffitt concocting the story and setting herself on fire.
“Basically we had to follow the facts,” Cobb said. “This was a disturbing case for all involved. All indications show this was a self-inflicted situation.”
Moffitt, 20, told police she was walking on a park trail when she was attacked and set afire by three men wearing white T-shirt hoodies. She remains at LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport in critical condition.
Police now believe it was Moffitt who wrote “KKK” and “nigger” on the hood of her Buick LaCross with toothpaste and then set fire to herself. She told police she couldn’t identify the race of those she claimed had attacked her. She called 911 from the park.
Cobb and Winnsboro Police Chief Lester Martin said both Moffitt and her family still deserved the community’s prayers.
“This is a tragic situation,” Martin said.
[Thanks to reader-researcher RC, for sending me this story.]
Could Al Gore Go to Prison for Global Warming/Climate Change Financial Fraud?
Posted by Nicholas Stix
Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 presidential election (here, here, and here), and is now trying to steal trillions of dollars through the global warming/climate change fraud
Is making global-warming claims unsupported by science a crime?
By Bob Unruh
October 22, 2012
World Net Daily
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a WND columnist who describes himself as the “high priest of climate skepticism,” says there will be an investigation, and a conviction, if “Al baby” Gore said anything during a weekend visit to a “green” conference in Gibraltar that could be construed as advocating for the financial interests of his company, Generations Investment Management.
While the company remains largely out of the public view, its interests apparently lie in the financial benefits that could emerge should global warming regulations be imposed and so-called “carbon credits” become an issue.
Carbon credits essentially are suggested by environmentalists to be amounts of carbon emissions that would be allowed for various activities, such as manufacturing. They could be purchased and sold.
Monckton, who repeatedly has challenged Gore to debate the merits of the global warming arguments Gore espoused in his documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth,” was discussing the issue with Mark Gillar on BlogTalkRadio,
Monckton said, “Al baby, if you’re listening to this, I’m still here. I’m still willing to debate, but you’re not.
“However, you are making the very grave mistake of going to Gibraltar, Gibraltar being a territory where British rule still prevails, and the British system of justice still prevails.”
Monckton continued, “If you say anything in Gibraltar which has any bearing on the fortunes of Generations Investment Management, if you say anything that is incorrect about global warming, and that’s how Generations Investment Management is making a lot of its money, then you are guilty of an offense under the Financial Services Act of 1988, and you will be arrested, prosecuted and convicted.”
Monckton said Gore’s “bull—” is illegal under that legislation in the United Kingdom and its territories, and, “If you come to any British territory and you talk the rubbish you’ve been talking elsewhere, then you will be arrested and prosecuted.”
The conference was over the weekend, but Monckton said it would not matter if Gore already had left the conference.
A formal complaint, he said, would produce a formal investigation of the company, which has offices in the U.K. and therefore would be subject to the various disciplinary actions that could be forthcoming.
“Even if he gets out of Gibraltar, nevertheless, a financial services inquiry will then take place.”
Monckton noted that the U.K. already dealt with Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” by requiring that some 80 pages of “corrections” be distributed whenever the film is viewed in a British school.
The Daily Mail in the United Kingdom also reported just days ago that the basis for claims that global warming should be considered a threat vanished 16 years ago.
The report said the data was gathered from more than 3,000 points on land and sea, and was released without fanfare. The report said from the start of 1997 until August 2012, “there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.”
It said from 1980 to 1996 temperatures rose, but for the previous 40 years, temperatures had been stable or declining.
Gore is with the Alliance for Climate Protection as well as Generation Investment Management.
The Gibraltar Chronicle said Gore’s appearance was at the Thinking Green Conference. The report said Gore explained he believes there is a link between “climate crisis” and “extreme weather.”
“The climate crisis is the most prominent symbol of the difference in relationship between humanity and earth,” the report quoted him saying.
Listen to the interview: (Monckton’s comments about Gore come starting about 33:00.)
[Thanks to reader-researcher RC for this article.]