Connect with us

Entertainment and Sports

Liberals angry Jemele Hill gets to keep job

Published

on

ESPN is no stranger to liberal politics, and they are at it again. Following Jerry Jones’ statements about enforcing players to stand for the National Anthem, Jemele Hill took to Twitter to fight back. But her fight took a controversial turn.

Calling for a boycott of the Dallas Cowboys’ advertisers earned her a two-week suspension. Naturally, the left believes that their views should always have a platform to be heard regardless of corporate policy. Also, Jemele Hill happens to be black. Therefore, to suspend her is trying to silence a strong, capable colored woman which is obviously an act of systematic male white patriarchy racist oppression.


Perspectives

Barstool- Jemele Hill Goes After Jerry Jones And Advertisers, Immediately Suspended By ESPN For 2 Weeks

You can go after the Republican president. You can call him a white supremacist. You can call him a racist. You can double and triple and quadruple down on all of that. That’s not a problem. Little slap on the wrist and we’ll tell everyone you teared up in a meeting. They’ll love it. But you CANNOT go after the NFL advertisers and get away with it. Not on ESPN’s I mean Jerry Jones’ watch. JJ’s big old swingin’ dick smacking ESPN execs in the face the second those Jemele Hill tweets went live. Shit on President Trump all you want but you come after the pot o gold and Jerry will have you reading the local sports report live from the streets of Aleppo overnight.

Nothing says independent sports journalism like cowering instantly to whoever lines your pockets.

ESPN suspends Jemele Hill after tweets suggest boycotting Cowboys over Jerry Jones’ anthem stance- SportsDay

Jemele Hill called out Dez Bryant for undermining those who do protest by his refusal to join them. Dez Bryant’s response about having a family to feed, a possible foreshadow to Jerry Jones reiterating his stance on player protests.


Clay Travis- Outkick The Coverage


Reactions


Final Thoughts

This is a beautiful, yet an unfortunately unteachable moment. Liberals are tearing up ESPN for suspending an employee for free speech. From a business standpoint, ESPN has doubled down on liberal propaganda time and time again. So why anger the few people still watching the channel (when no live sports are on). The only reason they are upset is because they agree with what she said. They believe she’s standing up for civil rights. Reality check: she’s not.  I agree that Jemele Hill should not have been suspended. Curt Schillings was fired for posting a meme that was personal and unrelated to sports figures that may appear on ESPN. If ESPN held the same standard, she would have been sacked a long time ago. She merely got two weeks for arguably a much worse offense. I’m going to refer back to Clay Travis’ statement about the First Amendment and boobs. Media personalities should have the freedom in their personal accounts without their employer cracking down on them but if they put in place a policy, it should be enforced fairly which ESPN didn’t do. Liberals are still silent on Curt Schilling’s termination. He didn’t say what they agree with. They say they are championing free speech when really, it’s only speech that echoes their worldview about a systematic oppression by white males. Once again, this shows how dangerous and divisive identity politics is.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. One Bert

    October 12, 2017 at 12:03 am

    How does Jemele Hill reconcile being the face of ESPN (by virtue of SC6), and a self appointed spokesperson for systematic oppression in America?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment and Sports

Colin Kaepernick, Aaron Rodgers, and Maurice Clarett

Published

on

As you may have read, Colin Kaepernick filed a grievance with the NFL with the claim that he had been blacklisted by NFL owners. If you’re following the NFL, you may have also observed that the 49ers, Bears, Browns, Colts, and Texans have all switched QBs this season. You may have also noticed that Aaron Rodgers will be missing some time and Andrew Luck doesn’t seem to be playing anytime soon. And then there’s the general mediocrity of Joe Flacco, Josh McCown, Andy Dalton, Eli Manning, Jay Cutler, Blake Bortles, and more. The Washington Times even reported that the NFLPA is backing Kaepernick’s grievance. It seems that Kaepernick has a case and some powerful allies until you delve deeper into the topic.

Down Goes Rodgers

Aaron Rodgers is my favorite quarterback because of his hail mary throwing ability, high level of awareness to free plays, hustle, and heart whether his team is up double digits or down in garbage time. His injury dealt a major blow to the Green Bay Packers (4-2). Rodgers is more valuable to the Packers offense than any other player is to his team’s offense in the NFL, kind of how the Cavs are trash without Lebron. Yet Rodgers’ injury has given Kaepernick’s fans the audacity to rally for the Green Bay Packers to sign Colin Kaepernick.

First, I feel the need to point out how impractical this is. Kaepernick hasn’t played this season. There is a strong possibility he is out of shape. But for the sake of this thought exercise, let’s assume he is in midseason form. He’s never played on the Packers much less a similar offense. These fans expect Kaepernick to learn the Packers’ system in a week. More ridiculously, they call on the Packers to sign an expensive backup quarterback(who may be out of shape) to a one year deal and throw him in their next game. If you believe this is a wise strategy, I have a bridge to sell you and a Nigerian online bank for you to invest in. It would take weeks to learn the Packers’ offense and develop a flow with the players.

Meanwhile, the Packers have a guy whose job was to play in this exact scenario, Brett Hundley. Though his performance left much to be desired, the Packers are giving him the keys to the offense in the hopes they can make the playoffs for Rodgers to return. Bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off. Joe Callahan is the backup now, in case it doesn’t.

This shows just how ridiculous Kaepernick fans are sometimes. Sure there are worse quarterbacks out there, but they know the systems they’re in. How on earth is Kaepernick worth the risk much less the guarantee of alienating fans.

Flashback to Maurice Clarett

Ranking the biggest wastes of football talent, Maurice Clarett ranks 7th, in front of drug addict Josh Gordon and all around piece of garbage Rae Carruth(who thanks to the privilege of being famous got a lenient sentence). Maurice Clarett was a college stud who never saw a down in the NFL. His college years were ended quickly as things went south between him and Ohio State. Fresh out of college, Clarett sued the NFL in order to participate in the 2004 NFL draft. The NFL requires players be three years out of high school. Clarett won at the district level on the grounds that the NFL was a monopoly. He lost the appeal.

To finish the story, Clarett was eventually drafted in 2005 by the Denver Broncos. He was fat, unimpressive, and slow to recover from injury. Shortly after, he got arrested for robbery.

Proving Collusion

The Washington Times: Questions and Answers about Colin Kaepernick grievance

Generally, the precedent for owners colluding is to keep player salaries down. In Kaepernick’s case he would have to prove the owners conspired together.

It calls the league’s behavior regarding Kaepernick “suspicious,” ”unusual” and “bizarre.” But the seven-page document does not give any examples of how NFL owners worked together to keep him out. And that’s precisely the challenge of any collusion case.

Kaepernick has a clear preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof to overcome. Barry Bonds failed to prove collusion and he had a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

Final Thoughts

Clarett sued for the chance to be in the NFL and lost. Kaepernick is filing a grievance for the same reason. While the cases aren’t exactly the same, one outcome is for certain, he will not play. At least, no court will make an NFL team like the Packers sign him. Whether he can get a court to shake the NFL for money so he can give to illegal immigrant organizations and BLM is another question, but all signs point towards him failing to build a case. There aren’t enough Russians in the football world to help build a collusion case for an activist judge to buy.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

We are doing a very poor job protecting child actors from monsters. We must do better.

Published

on

I am sitting here gobsmacked reading Corey Feldman’s latest story about Hollywood. It’s not the first time I’ve read the allegations of child sexual abuse, but this time it hit me in a new way. Feldman mentioned his own 11-year-old boy and compared it to his childhood actor friend (and, according to him, rape victim) Corey Haim, who he alleged was abused when he was eleven. Then Feldman said he can’t name names because he would be sued and the law prevents his abusers from being prosecuted.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Background

If an adult abuses a child, that stays with the child for the rest of his or her life. But the abuser has the advantage of threatening the youngster–especially when the abuser is in a position of authority, and heaping shame and fear to silence the child. In California, according to law firm Wallin & Klarich (that has a video posted on their blog titled “what do do if you are accused of child molestation” so we know what they are advertising for their practice), child molestation must be reported within 10 years of the child’s 18th birthday (until the child turns 29), or within one year of the police report.

But the bar to use the “within one year” exception is that the crime must have involved substantial sexual conduct, AND there must be independent evidence supporting the victim’s claims. That means someone like Corey Feldman, who is obviously over 29, and by his own admission lacks the evidence to meet the bar for prosecution, would only be subject to a lawsuit from his abusers for libel if he published names.

Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hollywoods-other-open-secret-besides-harvey-weinstein-preying-on-young-boys?source=twitter&via=mobile‘This is a place where adults have more direct and inappropriate connection with children than probably anywhere else in the world,’ claimed former child actor Corey Feldman.

Protecting whose rights?

Other states have even more stringent rules to protect the rights of the accused, but some, like Georgia, have repealed them for certain crimes against certain minors. For certain sexual or other crimes committed on or after July 1, 2012 against minors under 16, Georgia removed the statute of limitations. DNA evidence can be used anytime to expand the prosecution window.

Yet California seems to err on the side of protecting the molesters. The Wallin & Klarich website states that “false allegations of child molestation are very common.” That may be so in family situations, but who protects child actors? (I’m not even going to get into church leaders, scout leaders, etc.)

There must be a way to protect the rights of adults in the film industry from false accusations while protecting the children, even after they’re grown up, from what Corey Feldman is going through.

Whistleblowers?

Maybe the answer is to treat these kids, even when they’re grown, as whistleblowers. Why can’t California and other states with a growing film industry (Georgia actually produces more films than Hollywood right now) have a whistleblower law for child actors? Why should these now-grown actors be punished for naming names? And why can’t the cases be prosecuted without a statute of limitations?

In Georgia, according to the Atlanta-based Brody Law Firm‘s website, O.C.G.A. § 16-16-4, enticing a child for indecent purposes, has no statute of limitations (after 2012, based on victim’s age). But the state has to prove the offender’s “asportation” of the victim–meaning taking the victim somewhere for the purpose of an act of indecency. If it happens that the child actor is on set alone with the offender, that’s going to be hard to prove since it’s part of both of their jobs to be there.

In other words, a good lawyer is capable of making an excellent defense against these charges, and the industry has a tendency to protect itself. That means a child actor making an accusation will almost certainly have their career suffer if the case can’t be proven, or the prosecution is unsuccessful.

Add to that the element of authority, the promise of more roles, etc., and there’s a perfect storm favoring the abuser and disadvantaging the abused.

The Takeaway

This is why it’s so important to remove statutes of limitation and grant whistleblower protections to adults who were abused as children. Just like the Catholic Church, which hid molesters for decades, Hollywood needs to be held accountable for its terrible monsters. With rich, powerful, lawyered up moguls, the only way to do that may be to protect the grown children from lawsuits and retribution.

If California would amend its laws to be more like Georgia, and states would treat child actors (and former child actors) as whistleblowers, abusers would be deterred from their monstrous behavior, or exposed and removed from the industry.

We have to do better to protect these young and vulnerable actors.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Hollywood needs to go after the perverts, why not get the FBI like Levin suggests?

Published

on

If anything about the downfall of Harvey Weinstein, it truly opened up something that many of us suspected about the entertainment industry. The industry is truly operated by master criminals and thieves who are only care about themselves and their personal gratification.

They have not only robbed people of their own money (legal or not), but also stolen the dignity and innocence (if any) from the many performers they wanted to take advantage of and successfully did. These actors and actresses let Weinstein (and others) do it because they were the gatekeepers in the business and could make or break careers. They also had media and government sympathizers in high places, that would protect them from any accountability. This is why the business is so politically progressive, and why it never saw any problems with sexualized pop divas of the past and present, the content of adult language and graphic sex and violence in many of today’s movies, or even a combination of the above regarding plays and musicals. This is also why the entertainment business never came under the same scrutiny as like many other corporate industries have. Just follow the money and who is making it.

Fear and power

They were many people who wanted to get back at Weinstein and what he did to them personally, but were afraid to do so in fear of retaliation. Because of the power that these entertainment moguls like Weinstein have or had, these performers would not do what was right and allowed them to get more and more power in the business.
The Democrat party loved Weinstein because he gave money to not only the party apparatus but also to individual candidates and the progressive causes and coalitions they believed in and supported. The only reason why the entertainment industry loved Bill Clinton so much was and still is, a reflection on who they are. People who just needed that sexual fix each and every day, no matter what. They just wanted to “do it” with every young woman and even certain young men that they encounter. You wonder why the Democrats in California with the approval of Governor Jerry Brown changed the law regarding intended infection of the HIV virus from a felony to a misdemeanor (including infected blood donations)? The apple does not fall short of the tree.

But Weinstein is just the symptom of a bigger problem. It’s just that Weinstein has become a burden, and what do you do with any burden? You have to let it go. These progressives were hesitant to let him go. But as soon as the Obama’s and Clinton’s of the world called Weinstein’s bluff; the likes of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and then some were given the green light to follow suit. Weinstein is feeling the pain and backlash of political and cultural will that the likes of Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski didn’t feel and there was not enough pushback to bring those men to justice. Meryl Streep might have just recently taken a piece of Weinstein’s hide but this was the same woman that that is still supportive of Polanski in spite of what he did to then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

If the Academy chooses to expel Harvey Weinstein, it’ll need to take a hard look at its other accused predators – LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-weinstein-academy-20171013-story.htmlHarvey Weinstein’s spectacular plunge into disgrace has been astounding to watch. Not only has a who’s who of Hollywood denounced him, but his company has fired him, his brother called him a “sick man” and a “liar” and his wife left him. The organization released a statement this week calling the sexual harassment and sexual assaults he has been accused of “repugnant, abhorrent, and antithetical to the high standards of the Academy and the creative community it represents.” If half the stories about Weinstein are true, the academy’s statement is entirely justified.

The Takeaway

The Los Angeles Times editorial page is right when it says that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences’ Board of Governors needs to go after other movie big wigs. I also agree with syndicated talk show host Mark Levin that a temporary FBI unit be created in order to round up not just Weinstein but other perverts in the entertainment business and see if there was truly any criminal wrongdoing and coverups. This is far worse than the so called “Hollywood Blacklist” of the 1940’s and 1950’s.

Liberal Hollywood destroys any credibility it had left | National Review

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/liberal-hollywood-destroys-any-credibility-it-had-leftYet at this point in the story, I feel compelled to defend Hillary Clinton’s reluctance to publicly condemn her friend and neighbor Weinstein. After all, if you spent 30 years publicly covering for a predatory lout of a husband such as hers, you wouldn’t have much credibility in condemning Weinstein, either. Many of the same questions once asked about the Catholic Church must now be asked about Hollywood.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.