Billed humbly as the First AFL-NFL World Championship Game, the Green Bay Packers whooped the Kansas City Chiefs 35-10 at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum -- and the game looked really different.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Congratulations, Ron Wolf!
J.J. Watt is the most dominant defensive player the NFL has seen since Reggie White roamed the field. On Saturday, Watt earned the hardware to prove it.
Watt was announced Saturday as the Defensive Player of the Year for the second time in three seasons at NFL Honors. Only 25 years old, Watt joins only five other players in NFL history as two-time winners of the award. Only Lawrence Taylor won the awards faster. And it wouldn't surprise if Watt joined L.T. someday soon as the only defender to win the award three times.
There is so much emotion in this new ad from Pampers.
There is also science.
FACT - This is an unborn baby:
HUMAN development begins at fertilization.
A baby in the womb is a unique, precious life, not dispensable "goo," not "medical waste."
Kristi Burton Brown, NRL News Today, writes:
This month, Pampers released a new ad: “A Newborn Journey of Firsts.” Pampers has been known in the past for its beautiful, visually stirring ads that broadcast a pro-life message. A previous ad called babies miracles who “deserve protection” and referred to a baby on an ultrasound screen as a “he” instead of an “it.”
This time, Pampers’s ad — which has already received over 860,000 views on YouTube — opens as a mother lovingly caresses her pregnant belly. The scene switches to an incredible ultrasound where a baby is moving in the womb and, as Pampers puts it, is saying her “first hello.”
Below the video, Pampers writes:
From the first scan to the first cuddle, every first is significant no matter how small they seem. For both baby and mom, it’s a journey full of firsts. And there’s nothing more rewarding than experiencing each and every one together.
And indeed, even though the moment of a baby’s first existence —fertilization — is so small that it can’t be seen by the naked eye, it’s incredibly significant. From that moment, a new, unique, living human being has been created. That human being will never exist again in a different body. All he or she needs is the opportunity to grow and develop. This is the same opportunity that a newborn, a preschooler, and an adolescent need.
Contrast this beautiful ad celebrating life with Obama's take on human development:
OBAMA: I am going to teach [my daughters] first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.
In my eyes, none of the images and moments presented in the Pampers ad depict a "punishment" or a "mistake."
Unlike Obama, I don't see a new life as a punishment. It's not a mistake.
It's a blessing. It's a joy.
Never before publicly-seen footage of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off his chair during an in-studio appearance at SportsRadio 94WIP was released Friday morning during 94WIP’s Wing Bowl 23.
Christie joined Angelo Cataldi and the 94WIP Morning Show in-studio last June and fell off of his chair upon entering the studio. While the hilarious moment was captured on camera, Cataldi had kept the footage private—until now.
Christie slipped while sitting down in the studio.
Isn't that "hilarious"?
What a game changer!
I don't want Chris Christie to be president. On many occasions, I think he's conducted himself inappropriately. But, good grief!
The man fell. So what?
Let's revisit some "hilarious" video of Obama and Michelle hitting their heads!
Physical pain is a riot! Possible injury is SO entertaining!
No, not really.
Now, back in 2009, Obama mistaking a White House window for a door was funny.
The only thing hurt in this case would have been Obama's pride, and God knows the guy has pride and arrogance to spare.
Friday, January 30, 2015
The anti-police protesters descended on the Starbucks at Red Arrow Park.
It’s not the first time that protesters have mobbed the Red Arrow Park Starbucks in Milwaukee, and it’s unlikely to be the last. Under the name “Coalition for Justice,” demonstrators passed out flyers implying that racist Starbucks employees were responsible for the death of Dontre Hamilton at the hands of police last April.
I was just commenting last night that the anti-police protesters had fallen silent.
I spoke too soon.
While I feel bad for the customers and employees of Starbucks, I'm glad the anti-police protesters stayed off the freeway.
Is this supposed to make us feel better about the blown opportunity to be in Super Bowl XLIX?
Since Sen. Joni Ernst delivered the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address last week, Leftists have enjoyed mocking her story about wearing bread bags to protect her shoes when she was a child.
The Florida NOW secretary, Bonni Axler, decided to wrap her feet in bags to make fun of Ernst.
This bread bag thing is nothing new.
To cope with Wisconsin winters, plenty of kids with leaky boots did that. Children would slip on bags before they put their boots on. It wasn't a matter of being poor. It was about keeping your feet dry, because we actually walked to school and sometimes trudged through snow to get there.
That said, why are the Leftists taking such delight in Ernst's story?
Having one good pair of shoes and taking measures to keep them that way shouldn't be mocked.
What's with all this bullying?
Bonni Axler, the Florida secretary of NOW, is making a fool of herself, not Joni Ernst.
It's funny that the Leftists have gone so nuts over the bread bags, as if it's so weird.
Jimmy Fallon, host of The Tonight Show and a darling of the Leftists, wore bread bags on his feet when he was a kid.
On The Tonight Show website, Fallon's sister, Gloria, posted some childhood photos of fun in the snow, "Growing Up Fallon." When Jimmy Fallon hosted Late Night, Gloria would make similar posts, featuring memories of their childhood and family photos. They're very sweet posts.
The "Winter Fun" post included the following account and photo:
When we were big enough to play in the snow on our own, Mom says she’d spend 30 minutes getting us dressed to go outside, and we’d be banging on the door in less than 10 minutes, complaining about being cold. (Maybe because we were wearing short jackets and thin rain boots lined with plastic bread-bags. Just a guess.)
Cute, isn't it?
Are the Leftists going to bully Fallon the way they've been bullying Ernst?
Not in a million years.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz refused to call the Taliban a terrorist organization. It's an "armed insurgency."
This guy speaks for Obama.
From Media Research Center:
During the daily White House press briefing on Wednesday, Deputy Spokesman Eric Schultz had an exchange with ABC News chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl where he declined to label the Taliban as a terrorist organization, instead insisting it's “an armed insurgency.”
...The exchange began when Karl pressed Schultz on whether the possible hostage/prisoner exchange between Jordan and the terrorist group ISIS was similar to what the United States did with the Taliban to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
To that question, Schultz denied the comparison because it occurred “as the war in Afghanistan wound down.” Karl then continued questioning Schultz by wondering: “The Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks, so you can't really say that the war has ended as far as they’re concerned.”
At that moment, Schultz responded with this justification that left Karl baffled: “Well, I would also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency. ISIL is a terrorist group, so we don't make concessions to terrorist groups.”
Seconds later, Schultz reiterated his point after Karl requested confirmation: “I don't think that the Taliban – the Taliban is an armed insurgency, this was A winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt.”
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Gregory F. Scholtz, Associate Secretary and Director, Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance of the American Association of University Professors, sent a letter to Marquette University President Michael Lovell, expressing concern over the suspension of John McAdams.
The letter from Scholtz appears on the Academe Blog.
We understand that, as of this writing, Professor McAdams’s suspension remains in effect and that the administration has given no indication of when it will end.Michael Lovell has a big problem here.
As you are doubtless aware, our Association’s interest in the case of Professor McAdams stems from its commitment to fundamental tenets of academic freedom, tenure, and due process articulated in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. That document was jointly formulated by the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges and Universities and has been endorsed by more than 240 scholarly groups and higher-education organizations.
...Given the facts reported to us, it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams’s continuing to teach as constituting a “threat of immediate harm” to himself or others. Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions.
The information in our possession concerning the case of Professor McAdams has come to us primarily from him, and we appreciate that you may have other information that would contribute to our understanding of what has occurred. We would therefore welcome your comments. Assuming the essential accuracy of the foregoing account, we would urge you to reach an arrangement with Professor McAdams which will return him to his teaching responsibilities rather than to allow his suspension to linger on indefinitely, an untenable situation that assumes the characteristics of a summary dismissal.
Did he think professors across the country would circle the wagons and support the attempt to punish a conservative academician?
Did he think his outrageous behavior in terms of the inexcusable treatment of Dr. McAdams would be considered acceptable by the academic community?
I assume that's the case.
Donald Downs, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a renowned advocate for defending free speech on the university campus, has also contacted Lovell.
McAdams has reprinted his letter in its entirety on the Marquette Warrior blog.
I am writing to express my concern about how Marquette University has handled the case of Professor John McAdams. As of this writing, Professor McAdams remains suspended, which entails being barred from campus and prohibited from interacting with any students. These are substantial penalties that typically are reserved for the most severe cases.I wonder how much longer Lovell is going to allow this matter to linger.
My main concern in the case is very straightforward. As others around the country have publicly expressed, the due process aspects of the case have been very problematic from the start.
...I sincerely hope that the suspension of Professor McAdams is in no way related to the fact that he has publicly criticized the way the University has dealt with harassment training and free thought on campus. Unfortunately, the severity of the punishment, in conjunction with the due process problems associated with the infliction of this sanction, raise questions in this regard.
With all due respect, I urge you and the University to take the concerns others and I have raised into genuine consideration.
He loses more and more credibility with each passing day.
It is becoming apparent to me that Michael Lovell is not a worthy president of Marquette University.
Alumni need to join the AAUP and distinguished professors around the country in expressing their concern.
At present, Marquette University is not listening.
John McAdams remains BANNED from campus. BANNED!
Good grief! That is unacceptable.
When you're wrong, it's best to acknowledge that fact.
Lovell needs to right the wrong.
Marquette: Gay Rights, Academic Freedom, Free Speech
Marquette Harasses John McAdams
John McAdams: Michael Lovell and Marquette Fire Back
Marquette vs. McAdams Story: National
Cheryl Abbate Leaves Marquette
Je Suis John McAdams
Marquette's Inexcusable Abuse of John McAdams
From The Academe Blog, here's a portion of a letter from Dr. Daniel McGuire to Marquette University President Michael Lovell:
The sanction you imposed is not just a “severe sanction.” In almost half a century in the academe, I have never seen a similar punishment imposed on a professor in this “blunt instrument” fashion. The banning of the professor from campus unless he gets permission from the dean strikes me as bizarre, demeaning, and unjust. It announces on the public record that Professor McAdams is some sort of threat to the persons in this academic community…..leaving volatile suspicions in the air as to what that threat could be. Is he less a threat when he has the dean’s permission to be on campus? If the unavoidable inference that Professor McAdams is so threatening as to merit banishment is true, has campus security been alerted to protect us from Professor McAdams?I'm very pleased to see Dr. McGuire call out Michael Lovell and the university on this.
Over the years Professor McAdams and I have disagreed on many issues—and he has excoriated me on his blog—but all my personal interactions with him have been uniformly civil and urbane. Again, as Cardinal Newman said, in a university many minds are free to compete. That’s the glory of it.
This “unnecessary roughness” to borrow a term from the NFL, has already inflicted damage on Professor McAdams’ professional reputation. I am not surprised at the report that he has retained counsel.
I believe you owe us more explanation that you have given on your decision on this matter. Since reports on this situation have gotten national attention and stirred up remembrance of the Dr. Jodi O’Brien contract violation Marquette’s reputation is affected. We are all affected. The incident has a chilling effect on all members and staff since it implies that due-process protections may be brittle and uncertain at this university and specifically under your presidency. It is certainly not an aid in recruiting quality faculty.
I'm hoping that he will help his students to understand this injustice and encourage them to speak out against it.
It's the right thing to do.
I hope the Marquette community bands together to uphold the integrity of the university.
Money talks. I strongly encourage donors to withhold all support from the university until this matter is satisfactorily resolved.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
I don't want to make fun of an elderly citizen frightened by someone knocking at the door at 7:00 PM.
Instead, I'll address FOX6 News and Josh Zepnick, the Wisconsin Assemblyman who threatened Dave Sobelman.
Here's the story as reported by FOX6:
A Milwaukee couple says they were unfairly frightened by a canvasser who came to their door, hoping to get their signatures in an ongoing petition drive against the proposed downtown Milwaukee streetcar — and they happen to be parents of state Rep. Josh Zepnick.
Rep. Josh Zepnick (D-Milwaukee) says he’s not playing politics. Rather, he says he’s simply protecting his parents.
It was Thursday evening, January 22nd, around 7:00 p.m. when Jeri Zepnick heard a knock at her door.
“I heard this pounding on my front door. I got so scared! I thought somebody was breaking into the house,” Jeri Zepnick said.
Jeri Zepnick and her husband were visited by a petitioner, requesting their signatures on a petition against the proposed downtown Milwaukee streetcar. But that didn’t matter.
“That scared me half to death! I said, ‘don`t you ever come back to this house again pounding on the door like that,'” Jeri Zepnick said.
Jeri Zepnick’s son is Rep. Josh Zepnick. He says during his political career, he’s done plenty of canvassing. What happened to his parents, he says, isn’t the right way to address any issue.
“Respecting peoples` privacy is also a big issue, and it`s one that, you know, supersedes how passionate you are on the debate,” Rep. Zepnick said.
It's flat-out embarrassing that Josh Zepnick would turn a knock at the door into a newsworthy matter. It's embarrassing that he would exploit his mother this way.
Equally embarrassing: FOX6 News spent two minutes of the newscast on an elderly person being frightened by someone knocking at her door.
Politicians do go door to door. People circulating petitions do go door to door.
They do knock.
That's not a violation of one's privacy.
It's unfortunate that Jeri Zepnick was terrified, but this story should not have been on the news.
It doesn't appear that Jeri Zepnick was all that frightened. She answered the door and yelled at the canvasser. Someone "scared to death" wouldn't open her door and address the individual she supposedly thought was breaking into her home. She'd call 911. She certainly wouldn't open the door.
This story makes Josh Zepnick look crazy.
And FOX6, what is wrong with you? Sending a reporter out to interview someone claiming to be scared by a knock at the door?
Would Obama have been willing to call the Nazis, our enemy in World War II, extremists?
We know that Obama refuses to speak of Islamic extremists, even though they commit horrific atrocities.
He just can't bring himself to identify the enemy.
Would Obama have a problem with defining the Nazis as the enemy?
I wonder what's going through Obama's head.
Is he thinking that if he had been president at the time, he would have bowed and apologized, and the Nazis would have been so enchanted by him that they would have closed the concentration camps and ended the Holocaust?
Maybe he's thinking about golf.
DEMOCRAT Rep. Xavier Becerra, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, refused to answer a very simple question:
Is a baby 20 weeks into pregnancy a human being?
DEMOCRAT Becerra won't say.
At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Jan. 27, CNSNews.com asked the congressman, “Do you think an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being?”
Becerra said, “You know my wife’s an OB/GYN, and I know having watched as we raise our three daughters, there is no one who knows more about what’s in the best interest of a child than the mother -- and I say that as a very proud father and I have total faith when my wife makes a decision. She does it in the best interest of her family and her kids and obviously me as well.”
“So when a woman has to make a decision, I have full faith in what that woman will do because my sense is that, over the millennia, women have had to deal with these issues far more than men,” said Becerra. “And so, when someone says to me that you’re going to put at risk a woman’s health to make a political, social point, it’s just not -- I don’t believe we should be legislating what a woman should do. We got to believe that our mothers and our sisters and our daughters know better than a politician in Washington, D.C.”
CNSNews.com followed up asking, “But that question aside, just simply, if a child 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being or not?”
Becerra responded, “I think I’ve given you the answer that a woman’s going to make a decision on what to do with her body. I think she knows far better than I do, especially if she’s pregnant and if she’s going to have a baby.”
Ask a simple question, get NO answer.
Actually, Becerra's non-answer provided a very definitive answer.
The fact that he wouldn't say that of course a child at 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being spoke volumes.
If that unborn baby isn't human, then what is it?
A dog? A cat? A rabbit?
Denying the unborn personhood is something pro-abortion proponents like the Democrats must do.
If they acknowledge that the unborn are human, then permitting them to be slaughtered gets messy.
Becerra should ask a woman who miscarried at 20 weeks if her baby was human.