Darylsurat

Bill O'Reilly has established a pattern of justifying Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's highly controversial policy positions and inflammatory rhetoric, defending the candidate even while disagreeing with him.

O'Reilly Points Out "Where Donald Trump Is Correct" In Offensive Claim That Muslims Should Be Banned From U.S.

Trump Advocates "Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering The United States." On December 7, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's campaign published a press release "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on":

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." [DonaldJTrump.com 12/7/15]

O'Reilly Criticizes Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban, Then Points Out "Where Donald Trump Is Correct." On the December 8 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly criticized Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., calling it "simply bad anti-terror policy to overreact and prohibit Muslims." In his conclusion however, O'Reilly claimed that "where Donald Trump is correct" was to criticize the "political correctness and weakness" of the Obama administration and Democratic Party (emphasis added):

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Donald Trump shaking up politics once again. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Last night in South Carolina, Mr. Trump called for a total ban of Muslims entering the U.S.A. He believes most Americans would support that prohibition and says we have to do it to protect ourselves against the jihad. Almost immediately hysteria broke out.

[...]

O'REILLY: Now let's examine this without emotion or agenda. OK? Both can cloud thinking. The federal courts would never, never allow the government to deny anyone entry solely on the basis of religion. So the whole discussion is really moot. Good night, everyone. As with revoking the citizenship of so-called anchor babies, a ban on Muslims traveling to the U.S.A. will never happen. However, however, the feds do have an obligation to deny visas to anyone who might cause harm to the country. Thus, people living in countries where jihad and terrorism are rife can and should be scrutinized, with the burden of proof being put upon those who want to come here. Homeland security should deny visas to any questionable person, period. But a complete ban of Muslims would actually hurt the war on terror. Here's the crux of the matter, which I will discuss with Mr. Trump here tomorrow on The Factor. The U.S. and other western nations need moderate Muslim countries to fight the jihadists. The West can't defeat the jihad without the help of Jordan, Egypt, to some extent Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf States. We need them to cooperate with us militarily and with intel. By saying all Muslims can't come to the U.S.A., that means that King of Jordan can't come. So, it is simply bad anti-terror policy to overreact and prohibit Muslims, even if you could, which you can't. It is long past time for Americans to see the jihad for what it is, a movement that seeks to destroy Western civilization. Someone tell President Obama. But the majority of Muslims do not support jihad and some will actually fight against it. Those people should be applauded, not demonized. But, and here is where Donald Trump is correct, the Obama administration is losing the fight against ISIS, as "Talking Points" clearly said last night. Political correctness and weakness, rank weakness, now dominate Washington. Many of our politicians are afraid to confront evil. I'm talking to you, Democratic Party. We, the people must rise up and demand to be protected. Demand that the war be waged against the jihad in a smart and aggressive way. With the presidential election next year, it is now on us to elect a new leader who has the guts and the intelligence to fight Islamic terrorism and defeat it. Believe me, this is 1938 all over again. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/9/15]

O'Reilly Justifies Trump's False Claim That He Saw Thousands Of Muslim Americans Celebrating 9/11

Donald Trump Repeats Claim That Thousands Of Muslim Americans Celebrated The 9/11 Attacks. At a December 1 New Hampshire event, Donald Trump doubled down on his claim that he witnessed thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating the attacks on September 11, 2001 in New Jersey. A Trump campaign advisor pointed to clips from New York's WCBS and MTV in 2001 as evidence, but according to CBS News, neither source "showed a large celebration" like Trump had claimed:

At a nighttime rally in New Hampshire, Trump dismissed the rest of the GOP pack and repeated his debunked claim that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I think they're weak, generally. You want to know the truth but I won't say that," he said. "I saw it and a lot of people saw it."

As proof, he cited a newspaper article, and his campaign adviser cited clips from New York station WCBS and MTV in 2001 - neither of which showed a large celebration.

"There has been no jubilee in the streets, nobody thinking this is a great or glorious idea," a local official said in the MTV interview. [CBSNews.com, 12/2/15]

O'Reilly Tells Trump, "You Were Wrong By Saying Thousands" Of Muslims Celebrated 9/11 Before Clarifying, "But It Did Happen." On the December 3 edition of his show, O'Reilly challenged Trump's claim that he saw thousands of Muslims cheering on 9/11 in the U.S. O'Reilly aired a 2001 WCBS-TV report that "found eight men celebrating" but told Trump that he found "no videotape about, you know, thousands of people celebrating. It doesn't exist, and we really looked everywhere. I mean it's just not there." Immediately after debunking Trump's claim however, O'Reilly clarified "but there were people celebrating ... you were wrong by saying thousands, but it did happen." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/9/15]

O'Reilly Defends Trump's Tweet With Racist, Inaccurate Crime Statistics, Claiming He "Never Saw Any Racism From" Trump

Donald Trump Retweets Graphic Falsely Claiming Over 81 Percent Of Whites Who Are Murdered Are Killed By Blacks. On November 22, Trump shared a graphic on Twitter inaccurately claiming that 81 percent of whites are killed by black assailants. The graphic cited the Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco, which does not exist, as its source:

"@SeanSean252: @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @CheriJacobus pic.twitter.com/5GUwhhtvyN"

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2015

[Twitter.com, 11/22/15]

O'Reilly Claims He "Never Saw Any Racism From" Trump, Moments Before Highlighting Trump's Racist, Inaccurate Tweet. During a November 23 interview with Trump, O'Reilly told Trump that he "never saw any racism from you," moments before he debunked Trump's tweet falsely claiming that whites are killed by blacks "at a rate of 81 percent." O'Reilly called the statistics "totally wrong" and chastised Trump for not checking them. He concluded the exchange by saying Trump's tweet handed "the other side ... stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist":

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Are you aware that the liberal media and the Democratic Party in general are trying to paint you as a racist? Are you aware of that?

DONALD TRUMP: I think so. But I think people know better than that. I'm probably the least racist person on Earth.

O'REILLY: Well I have known you a long time --

TRUMP: I think people know better than that.

O'REILLY: --and I never saw any racism from you. However, when you tweet out a thing, and this bothered me, I got to tell you. You tweeted out that whites killed by blacks -- these are statistics you picked up from somewhere -- at a rate of 81 percent. And that's totally wrong. Whites killed by blacks is 15 percent, yet you tweeted it was 81 percent.

TRUMP: Bill, I didn't tweet. I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert and also a radio show.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but you don't want to be -- why do you want to be in that zone?

TRUMP: Bill. Bill. Am I going to check every statistic? I get millions and millions of people @realdonaldtrump by the way.

O'REILLY: You got to. You are a presidential contender you got to check it.

TRUMP: I have millions of people. You know what, fine, but this came out of radio shows and everything else.

O'REILLY: Oh come on, radio shows?

TRUMP: Excuse me. All it was is a retweet. It wasn't from me. And it did. It came out of radio show and other places because you see all the names --

O'REILLY:  Look, you know I'm looking out for you, right? You know that? That I'm looking out for you? I look out for every honest politician, I don't care what party they are in. Don't do this. Don't put your name on stuff like this. Because it makes the other side, it gives them stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist. I mean, you just handed them a platter. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/23/15]

O'Reilly Says Trump "Bring[s] Things To America That Are Worthy And Positive" After Trump's Vicious Attacks Against Megyn Kelly

Trump Lashes Out At Fox News' Megyn Kelly After Debate. Following the Fox News Republican primary debate, in which moderator Megyn Kelly asked Trump about his history of disparaging and sexist comments towards women, Trump criticized Kelly, saying she was "the biggest loser in the debate," according to The Washington Post. [The Washington Post, 8/7/15]

Trump: Kelly Had "Blood Coming Out Of Her Wherever" During Debate. In an August 7 interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump continued to criticize Megyn Kelly, saying, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes ... Blood coming out of her wherever":

Donald Trump's feud with Megyn Kelly escalated Friday night when he said the Fox News host had "blood coming out of her wherever" at this week's Republican debate, resulting in swift condemnation from conservatives and a major political event pulling its invitation to him.

During Thursday's presidential debate, Kelly pressed Trump about misogynistic, sexist comments he made in the past, such as calling some women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."

Trump slammed Kelly, saying her questions were "ridiculous" and "off-base."

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. "Blood coming out of her wherever." [CNN, 8/8/15]

Trump Retweets Post Calling Kelly "The Bimbo." On August 24, Donald Trump reignited his attacks on Megyn Kelly by retweeting a post saying "The bimbo back in town. I hope not for long" and also tweeting "I liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly. Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation!"

"@mstanish53: @realDonaldTrump @megynkelly The bimbo back in town . I hope not for long ."

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

[Twitter, 8/24/15]

I liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly. Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

[Twitter, 8/24/15]

Despite Trump's Sexist And Outrageous Attacks Against His Colleague Megyn Kelly, O'Reilly Says "They Both Bring Things To America That Are Worthy And Positive." On the August 25 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly called on Donald Trump to cease his attacks on Fox host Megyn Kelly. Though O'Reilly said that Kelly took "the high road by not responding" to the attacks, but offered Trump support by saying "they both bring things to America that are worthy and positive":

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): And finally tonight, the Factor Tip of the Day. Loyalty. Last night after speaking with me here on the Factor, Donald Trump once again tweeted some not nice things about Megyn Kelly. Not good. The debate issue should be buried. It's over. Folks can make up their own minds about it.

Fox News chief Roger Ailes once again stood up for Megyn because Roger's a loyal guy, and as the general here, he protects his troops. Roger Ailes has defended me countless times against unfair assaults by vicious media people. The Kelly/Trump story is relevant to me because I'm friends with both of them. They both bring things to America that are worthy and positive. Ms. Megyn has taken the high road by not responding. Donald Trump should cease, and Roger Ailes is a stand-up guy. Factor Tip of the Day. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/9/15]

After Trump Said Sen. John McCain Is "Not A War Hero," O'Reilly Excused The Comments, Claiming "I Know He Thinks He's A Hero"

Donald Trump: John McCain Is "Not A War Hero." Speaking at a July 2015, Republican presidential forum in Ames, Iowa, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized former prisoner of war Senator John McCain (R-AZ),  saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." [The New York Times, 7/18/15]

Bill O'Reilly Excuses Trump's Attacks On John McCain: "I Know He Thinks He's A Hero." After Trump received widespread condemnation for his remarks attacking John McCain, Bill O'Reilly spent a segment of his July 20 show defending Trump from criticism. O'Reilly dismissed the comments by saying that Trump doesn't mean "half of what he says" before claiming that "I know he thinks [John McCain's] a hero":

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I don't want to play psychologist here, but I've known the man for a long time. And I go to games with him, you know, and all that. And we both get booed and cheered. I don't think he means half of what he says. He's a showman. He needs to get attention. I just don't think he, I know he doesn't think John McCain -- I know he thinks he's a hero. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/20/15]

O'Reilly Justifies Trump's Nasty Comments About Mexican Immigrants, Says Trump Just "Didn't Speak To It In A Specific Way"

Trump: "When Mexico Sends Its People ... They're Bringing Drugs. They're Bringing Crime. They're Rapists." Donald Trump characterized Mexican immigrants as criminals and "rapists," saying that "the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems" during his presidential campaign announcement speech on June 16:

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. [Time, 6/16/15]

O'Reilly: Maybe Trump Was Inartfully "Highlighting A Problem ... That Is Harming The Nation And Just Didn't Speak To It In A Specific Way." On the June 29 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly justified Donald Trump's controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants by claiming that maybe "he was highlighting a problem ... that is harming the nation and just didn't speak to it in a specific way." Continuing his defense of Trump, O'Reilly said he didn't "think Donald Trump was trying to demonize all Mexican people":

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): OK. Could an argument be made that he was highlighting a problem, Trump was, that is harming the nation and just didn't speak to it in a specific way --

BRIT HUME: I agree.

O'REILLY: Rather than, you know, trying to demon -- I don't think Donald Trump was trying to demonize all Mexican people. I think he was trying to show that the present administration and the country itself doesn't have the will to stop the carnage. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/29/15]

Right-wing media criticized President Obama for condemning Islamophobia and roundly denied the existence of anti-Muslim discrimination in the United States as "pure myth" and "something that doesn't really exist." These claims gained traction just as GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump released a controversial proposal to ban Muslim entry into the United States.

President Obama Denounces Islamophobia And Urges National Unity

Obama Urged The Nation To Reject "Suspicion And Hate" Of The Muslim Community. President Obama denounced "discrimination" against Muslims and "proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently" in an Oval Office address on December 6. Obama also stated that "if we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate":

Here's what else we cannot do.  We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.  That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.  ISIL does not speak for Islam.  They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.  If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

[...]

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination.  It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.  It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.  Because when we travel down that road, we lose.  That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.  Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country.  We have to remember that. [The White House, 12/6/15]

Right-Wing Media Claim Anti-Muslim Discrimination Is "Nonexistent" In The United States

Fox & Friends: "Muslim Hate Crimes ... [Are] Not As Big An Issue As The White House Would Make You To Believe." On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "Muslim hate crimes ... [are] not as big an issue as the White House would make you to believe" and that "America has been more tolerant despite [recent] attacks than anyone would think." Co-chairman of the American Middle East Coalition for Democracy John Hajjar agreed, alleging "Islamophobia is really nothing but a myth" and that President Obama denounced Islamophobia to create "victimhood status for Muslims":

BRIAN KILMEADE (HOST): The president urging Americans not to succumb to Islamophobia in the wake of the massacre in California carried out by Islamic extremists. But it turns out Muslim hate crimes, not as big an issue as the White House would make you to believe. Attorney General, excuse me, attorney John Hajjar is a Lebanese-American and co-chairman of the American Middle East Coalition for Democracy is here to explain. First off, were you surprised the president included that in his speech?

JOHN HAJJAR: Right. Brian, he always is trying to find victimhood status for various groups, and in this case, Muslim-Americans. You know, we are a welcoming country, Middle East-Americans have been coming to the United States for 125 years, and relatively incident-free. They have excelled in all fields of endeavor from medicine, law, sports, business, entertainment. And America has been a very gracious and welcoming environment for people from the Middle East and that continues to this day.

KILMEADE: So, we have the rise of ISIS, we have Al Qaeda. We know that Bin Laden targeted us in 2001. We weren't bombing him. But yet in 2014, look at how the breakdown goes when it comes to hate crimes: 59 percent of the hate crimes, anti-Semitic, 14 percent anti-Islamic. Important. Look at the difference, 14 percent anti-Islamic, 6 percent anti-Catholic, and 2.5 percent, 17 percent but 2.5percent Protestant and other anti-Protestant. So, if you see those stats, why is the president including it in his speech?

HAJJAR: That's a great question to ask. You know, they've been creating, as I said, this victimhood status for Muslims for, you know, in conjunction with the Council of the American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims groups such as Muslim Student Association, the Islamic Circle of North America, to really divert attention from what's going on. It's not been happening. And Islamophobia is really nothing but a myth. And you don't see the press calling for inquiries or the FBI calling for inquiries into anti-Semitic crimes, yet CAIR has been outspoken and they've really driven that point and they've succeeded. You know, in the Muslim community it's very, there's a lot of diversity. And people say that it's racist, Islamophobia is racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is not a race, it's a religion. And Muslims come to this country from over 50 countries, from West Africa all the way from the Middle East and into East Asia.

[...]

KILMEADE: Bottom line is, the stats don't lie. America has been more tolerant despite these attacks than anyone would think. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/8/15]

Fox's Sean Hannity: President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch Are "Trying To Create A Controversy Where There Is None." Fox News host Sean Hannity criticized President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch for condemning anti-Muslim hate crimes, claiming "I don't know exactly what they're referring to. They're trying to create a controversy where there is none." Fox regular Mark Steyn mocked those speaking out against Islamophobia in the wake of the December 2 San Bernardino shooting, saying "when there's a big pile of corpses in a Western city, the real victims are the poor Muslims because someone might look at them funny on the bus on the way to work the following morning." From the December 7 edition of Hannity:

MARK STEYN: He basically got that out of the way, and then spent three times as much time effectively talking about how racist and bigoted Americans are, which is the message you would have got -- if you were watching this anywhere around the planet, you would have concluded that thePresident of the United States thought the principal security threat was his own bigoted and racist people. This isn't a small thing that he did last night, Sean. Effectively, the president took the same position as CAIR and the other Islamic lobby groups...

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Well, you know...

STEYN: ... that when there's a big pile of corpses in a Western city, the real victims are the poor Muslims because someone might look at them funny on the bus on the way to work the following morning.

HANNITY: Loretta Lynch said the same thing, that she was going to go after people that used hate speech last week. She's pulled back on it today. But well, the FBI actually has statistics on this very issue. And 62.4 percent of victims of hate speech -- you know who they are? They're Jewish Americans. It's only...

STEYN: Exactly.

HANNITY: It's only 11.6 percent that have an anti-Muslim bias.

STEYN: Right.

HANNITY: So I don't know exactly what they're referring to. They're trying to create a controversy where there is none. [Fox News, Hannity, 12/7/15]

Fox's Megyn Kelly: "Hate Crimes Against Muslims ... [Are] Not A Huge Problem In The U.S." On the December 7 edition of The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly dismissed anti-Muslim hate crimes as "not a huge problem in the U.S.." Fox contributor Pete Hegseth lamented that President Obama's remarks on Islamophobia comprised "almost half of his speech":

PETE HEGSETH: Sure, steady. But the only passion we got in the speech, Megyn, was passion about how our culture must make sure we embrace fully every Muslim. And of course we do. Americans are very tolerant. But we shouldn't be tolerant of folks who are radicalized. And of course, I believe that ISIS is Islamic.

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): Well, that's the thing. He got some heat on that because he elevated that and it got a lot of air time in his speech. A lot. And we ran the stats --

PETE HEGSETH: It was almost half of his speech.

KELLY: Well, and we ran the stats on hate crimes against Muslims in the United States. First of all, hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for about a thousand offenses. Religious hate crimes, about 19 percent of all hate crimes. And a breakdown of those, 58 percent of those were directed at Jews, only 16 percent were directed at Muslims. So it's not a huge problem in the U.S. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 12/7/15] 

Fox's Bill O'Reilly: "There Really Isn't Any Evidence That Muslims Are Being Mistreated In The U.S.A.."Fox host Bill O'Reilly alleged on the December 7 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that "there really isn't any evidence that Muslims are being mistreated" and that "there hasn't been any anti-Muslim stuff to speak of" since September 11. O'Reilly complained "the president and the attorney general [are] making a political issue out of something that doesn't really exist," while his guest Joshua Katz suggested that Obama's remarks were intendedto build on the administration's "narrative that the United States is accepting," indicating "the president trying to court almost two billion Muslims around the world":

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Now, remember that was before Mr. Trump's statement tonight. A noble sentiment, but there really isn't any evidence that Muslims are being mistreated in the U.S.A. Here are the stats: 2014 -- 1,140 religious hate crimes reported in the U.S.A. All hate crimes, 16 percent against Muslims; 57 percent against Jews; 6 percent against Catholics; 2.5 percent against Protestants. Remember this is religion-based not skin color or anything like that. Joining us now from Washington Joshua Katz, former CIA operative and now does private analysis on terrorism. So Mr. Katz, why do you think the president is making such a big deal out of the Muslim anti -- don't be mean to them when the stats show Jews are at far greater risk in the U.S.A. than Muslims?

JOSHUA KATZ: Absolutely, Bill. And I think from the beginning of the administration, we have seen thepresident trying to court almost two billion Muslims around the world. But, at the same time now, he's building this fear base and really absolutely just disregarding completely five million Jews in the United States and their security and safety.

O'REILLY: Ok. But you have the -- I don't think he is doing it as an anti-Jewish play.

KATZ: No.

O'REILLY: But, you had the attorney general, Miss Lynch, come out and say we are not going to tolerate any anti-Muslim stuff. I'm saying to myself, there hasn't been any anti-Muslim stuff to speak of. We have been tremendously restrained in the United States after 9/11. If it were ever going to happen it would have happened then and it didn't.

KATZ: Absolutely. Absolutely. It didn't. And in the United States, you were three and a half times more likely, if you were a Jew to experience a hate crime. So, there is a lot of issues going on here and what we're not seeing is we're not seeing the attorney general get out and say anything about the Jewish community, about those hate crimes. The president's not giving any speeches from the Oval Office about the anti-Semitism on the rise. So this is absolutely just building into the fear that the Muslim community in the United States is separate or somehow different.

O'REILLY: Ok. But why is the president and the attorney general making a political issue out of something that doesn't really exist now. Why?

KATZ: It goes back to the very beginning of the administration, where they were reaching out and they have been reaching out to the Muslim world, almost two billion Muslims around the world, to sort of provide this narrative that the United States is accepting. And we are absolutely accepting. But what the President and the administration's failing to do is failing to realize that at home there is no issue here. There is no hate against Muslims. There is no backlash. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/7/15]

Fox Co-Hosts: "Let Me Know If You See Any Muslim Backlash. I Haven't." On the December 7 edition of The Five, co-host Jesse Watters denied the existence of anti-Muslim "backlash" in the United States because he "[hasn't] seen a lot of it." Co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle also asked, "Who's vilifying any of the Muslims? Who's doing that?," before criticizing President Obama and his senior advisers for "talking about this and putting it as the top of the framework":

JESSE WATTERS (CO-HOST): Let me know if you see any Muslim backlash, I haven't seen a lot of it. The president wasn't really worried about anti-police backlash or anti-Tea Party backlash or anti-Christian backlash when those institutions were being smeared and denigrated. In fact, there were actual backlash against those institutions. We had the Chick-Fil-A shooter going up, shooting up the place over gay marriage. You had the Tea Party being targeted by Obama's own IRS. You had cops being executed in New York. I didn't hear a lot about backlash then.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): Yeah, but they're just assuming horrible facts, not in evidence in actions on behalf of the American people, saying, I mean, who's vilifying any of the Muslims. Who's doing that? They are really talking about this and putting it as the top of the framework, because these are talking points straight out of the White House from President Obama and Valerie Jarrett and that's why they put Loretta Lynch there to like babysit [FBI Director James] Comey so he doesn't like get out of line when he's trying to answer questions to the press and god forbid admit it, say that this is terrorism. The president knew that it was terrorism and he didn't want to say it. He was compelled and forced to tell the truth.

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): So let me just respond to you. What about Donald Trump today saying we shouldn't admit any of the Muslims?

ERIC BOLLING (HOST): We're going to get to that in a minute.

WILLIAMS: So your point is, nobody is vilifying--

GUILFOYLE: But if you want to use the opportunity and try and vilify and go after Donald Trump who is not Commander-in-Chief, he's not President of the United States...

WILLIAMS: No you said nobody is...

GUILFOYLE: Barack Obama is. That's why, that's who I am talking about. [Fox News, The Five, 12/7/15]

Fox Business Guest: "In America, We Have Not Taken Action Against The Muslim People. Not At All." On the December 7 edition of Fox Business' Intelligence Report with Trish Regan, Fox regular Brad Blakeman called President Obama's address an "embarrassment" and "overcompensation for lack of leadership," and subsequently claimed "we have not taken action against the Muslim people ... and were not scapegoating the entire Muslim religion." Fox contributor Leslie Marshall retorted "There's no backlash against Muslims? I mean seriously, please Google a few of the incidents that have taken place":

TRISH REGAN (HOST): A lot of voters feel like right now there's a kind of void out there, basically, that needs to be filled. They need to hear from the president what he's doing. They need to hear some toughness when it comes to dealing with ISIS. They don't feel as though he's doing enough. Do you think that he helped to lay any of those concerns to rest last night when he spoke,in any way?

BRAD BLAKEMAN: Absolutely not. It was embarrassment to him personally, to the office of the presidency, to our country. It was an overcompensation for lack of leadership. When a president addresses the nation from the Oval Office, he does so to rally a nation. Not to lecture to a nation. Not to apologize for our enemies who seek our destruction. You know, in America we have not taken action against the Muslim people. Not at all. We have been tolerant of all religions and were not scapegoating the entire Muslim religion. What we are identifying is an enemy who identifies with a religion, radical Islam, and seeks our destruction.

[...]

LESLIE MARSHALL: When we look at with the president said or didn't say, and I do want to respond, there's no backlash against Muslims? I mean seriously, please Google a few of the incidents that have taken a place around this country, things that Donald Trump is saying. Things that some --

BLAKEMAN: A few, a few incidents.

MARSHALL: -- extreme groups are saying. What the president is talking about is key because if you ask any counterterrorism expert, ISIS wants division. [Fox Business, Intelligence Report with Trish Regan, 12/7/15]

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: "I Didn't Know That America Was At Fault For" Anti-Muslim Discrimination. Host of The Real Story Gretchen Carlson claimed that "as a nation, as a whole, we have continued to allow all kinds of immigration in" after exclaiming "I didn't know that America was at fault" for Islamophobia or anti-Muslim backlash. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee agreed, stating "it simply doesn't exist with the facts because [Obama] has created this narrative that everybody is against Muslims":

CARLSON: Joining me now, Governor Mike Huckabee, 2016 GOP presidential candidate. I didn't know that America was at fault for doing that. Sure, we have people in this country who are going to be racist against Muslims after 9/11 especially. But I think as a nation, as a whole, we have continued to allow all kinds of immigration in, including Muslims.

HUCKABEE: Absolutely, Gretchen. In fact, the president and the attorney general ought to talk to their own FBI. There were 5,500 hate crimes last year in the United States. Only 1,000 involved religion. And of those, only 16 percent were directed toward muslims. 58 percent were directed toward Jews. If the president is worried about people taking it on the chin, he needs to go out and defend the Jewish people of America because they are three times and plus over in terms of the object of hate crimes than Muslims are. What he's saying is nonsense. It simply doesn't exist with the facts because he has created this narrative that everybody is against Muslims. That's not the case. But we are against Islamic jihadists. We are against Muslims who want to kill us. [Fox News, The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson, 12/7/15]

National Review Online: Violence Against Muslims Is "A Narrative That Has No Basis In Fact." In a December 8 article, National Review contributor Ian Tuttle remarked that The Obama "administration has trumpeted a fabricated threat" of Islamophobic hate crimes and that "the notion that American Muslims face a unique, outsized threat of violence is simply not true." Tuttle claimed that anti-Muslim discrimination "is a narrative that has no basis in fact" and lamented that Attorney General Loretta Lynch isn't "panicked about the number of anti-white hate crimes":

But just how common are crimes against Muslims?

According to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, there were 1,014 hate-crime incidents motivated by religious bias in 2014. Of those, 154 -- 15.2 percent -- were anti-Islamic, a slight uptick from 2013's 135 incidents (13.1 percent).

How alarming are 154 anti-Islamic crimes? Consider this: Last year saw 609 anti-Jewish incidents -- meaning that American Jews were about four times as likely to be victimized on account of their religion as were American Muslims. Anti-Jewish attacks accounted for 60 percent of religiously motivated hate-crime incidents. Additionally, not only are anti-Muslim crimes lower in the aggregate; they happen at a lower rate. While there is one anti-Muslim crime for every 29,221 American Muslims (using a Muslim population of 4.5 million, extrapolating from various estimates), there is one anti-Jewish crime for every 11,166 Jews.

[...]

Conservatives have been chastised for their condemnation of Loretta Lynch's remarks. Writing shortly after last month's attacks in Paris, The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf preemptively defended the attorney general: "Urging people against turning their anger against innocent people is not an unserious priority. It is a reasonable, pragmatic, decent act."

With that no reasonable person is in dispute. Every threat and assault committed against a Muslim on account of his or her religion is a reprehensible act. One hate crime is too many.

But Lynch and her ilk go further, playing down the threat of Islamic terrorism while playing up the threat American Muslims face from their own countrymen. That is a narrative that has no basis in fact. The notion that American Muslims face a unique, outsized threat of violence is simply not true, while the notion that the Islamic State is far from "contained" is tragically obvious.

More and more it seems that this administration has trumpeted a fabricated threat because it is unwilling to face up to a very real one. [National Review Online, 12/8/15]

Breitbart News: Except For "Second Amendment Internment Camps For The Gun Rights Of American Muslims," "There Simply Is No Muslim Backlash." In a December 7 piece, Breitbart News editor at large John Nolte claimed that the Obama administration and "the DC media [are] blatantly lying about" anti-Muslim hate crimes, alleging "there simply is no Muslim backlash." Nolte further charged that the only Muslim backlash occurring was "Obama's push to create Second Amendment internment camps for the gun rights of American Muslims":

The suspect in the recent mass-shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood is an obvious lunatic. Nevertheless, our rotted DC Media has had a field day using those murders to attack all pro-lifers as culpable. Naturally, this Narrative was flipped entirely after last week's Islamist atrocity in San Bernardino. Although the most recent F.B.I. statistic prove the "Muslim backlash" is a pure myth, the DC Media, ever in pursuit of labeling everyday Americans as racist, relentlessly spread the myth.

[...]

In other words...

A full 84% of hate crimes based on a person's religion are not directed at Muslims.

Jews are the people truly under attack, with a whopping 57% of hate crimes, which is way outside their percentage of the population. The DC Media doesn't consider this statistic worth reporting. Jews-as-victims upsets the Narrative.

Outside of Jews and Muslims, 25% of these crimes are directed at other religions.

In a country of close to 325 million people, there were 183 hate crimes committed against Muslims last year. This is only 19 more over the previous year, which is meaningless in a country this large.

Unless you want to count Obama's push to create Second Amendment internment camps for the gun rights of American Muslims, there simply is no Muslim backlash.

Just like everything else, the DC Media is blatantly lying about this. Just like their Dear Leader, even as they push for those internment camps, the elite media love to lecture and smear the uncommonly decent everyday American people. [Breitbart News, 12/7/15]

The Blaze: Islamophobic Hate Crimes Are "Minor" And "Almost Negligible." The Blaze contributor Jim Zumwalt wrote in a December 8 article that "as to hate crime targeting, Muslims are among the least targeted" and that "in the aftermath of 9/11, aside from a few isolated instances, an angry American public never directed its collective anger towards the Muslim community." Zumwalt claimed that "hate crime statistics in the U.S. simply do not support" the claim that Muslims experience discrimination and violence:

Meanwhile, a naive western media blindly gives a voice to Erdogan's "racism" claim without seeing it for what it really is -- "reverse psychology." Such psychology seeks to pressure already tolerant non-Muslims into becoming even more tolerant of intolerant Muslims.

As to Erdogan's suggestion enmity exists towards Muslims in the West, hate crime statistics in the U.S. simply do not support it.

In the aftermath of 9/11, aside from a few isolated instances, an angry American public never directed its collective anger towards the Muslim community.

[...]

Factoring in existence of a disproportionately higher Muslim than Jewish population base, these percentages are very revealing: as to hate crime targeting, Muslims are among the least targeted; Jews, the most.

Ironically, the lack of Muslim hate crime evidence does not prevent Jew-haters like Hatem (a very appropriate first name) Bazian -- the director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at University of California at Berkeley -- from falsely claiming bragging rights as such.

Bazian gave a November 20 speech claiming Islamophobia within the U.S. is on the rise. While FBI numbers do support that claim, the 2014 uptick over the 2013 numbers is almost negligible -- and still pales in comparison to hate crimes against Jews. A supposed academic "scholar," Bazian fuels existing anti-Jewish hatred while promoting non-existent concerns over anti-Muslim hatred.

All hate crimes represent a plague upon society. However, Western leaders are all too willing to accept Islamophobia claims as a major plague when, compared to Jewish-related hate crimes, it is a minor one. [The Blaze, 12/8/15]

Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes: The "Wave Of Vicious Discrimination Against Innocent Muslims ... Is Nonexistent." Weekly Standard's executive editor Fred Barnes criticized President Obama's condemnation of anti-Muslim violence, saying he "suspected [Obama] would spare us another rendition of his tale of a wave of vicious discrimination against innocent Muslims" before claiming "the wave is nonexistent":

There were two surprises, at least for me. I assumed Obama wouldn't allow his obsession with gun control to force its way into his address. I was wrong. Dwelling on gun control was entirely out of place since nothing the president and his allies are proposing would have prevented the San Bernardino terrorists from acquiring their weapons.

And I suspected he'd spare us another rendition of his tale of a wave of vicious discrimination against innocent Muslims in this country. Instead he dwelled on it, though the wave is nonexistent. This matter received a "rather disproportionate" amount of time in the speech, Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News. That was an understatement. [The Weekly Standard, 12/6/15]

GOP Presidential Frontrunner Donald Trump Called For Ban On Muslim Immigration

Donald Trump Proposed Restricting All Muslim Entry Into The U.S., Citing Faulty Polling From Group Linked To SPLC-Labeled Notorious Islamophobe. In a press release posted to his campaign website, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump called "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." In an attempt to justify his proposal, Trump cited a misleading poll from Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy claiming that "'25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad' and 51% of those polled, 'agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.'" The poll received widespread condemnation across the political spectrum, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled Gaffney "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes." [DonaldJTrump.com, 12/7/15, Media Matters, 12/7/15]

Maybe we should fix the no-fly list if there are as many people on it who don't belong there, as Marco Rubio claims there are. We've found the one issue that trumps terrorism for Republicans, and that's running up against the NRA. Keeping the wrong person off of an airplane is A-okay, but don't dare infringe on a single person's 2nd Amendment rights, no matter what, ever.

Rubio: Don’t Keep People On No-Fly List From Buying Guns:

Marco Rubio said Sunday that people on the U.S. government’s No-Fly list should still be able to purchase guns, because the list is full of “everyday Americans” who are on the list by accident.

“The majority of the people on the No-Fly list are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else, who doesn’t belong on the No-Fly list,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union. “Former Senator Ted Kennedy once said he was on a no-fly list. There are journalists on the No-Fly list.”

read more

Is THIS going to mark ten years of our podcast? Clarissa reviews THE BASKETBALL WHICH KUROKO PLAYS, or as rational people call it, Kuroko's Basketball. Any native English speaker who says Kuroko no Basuke or even weirder Kuroko's Basket probably reads pirated scans. Visit www.animeworldorder.com for full show notes and supplementary links.

It’s time for another episode of GME! Anime Fun Time, this time tackling proto-moe situational comedy Azumanga Daioh. CLICK HERE or on the image above to join me, Tom, Clarissa from Anime World Order, and Dave from Fast Karate for the Gentleman as we explore the whimsical world of idealized high school friendships and wax nostalgic on Grapple Baki, Dark Souls, and other things for which we are moe.

FINAL THOUGHT:

I think this animated GIF encapsulates Tom’s entire teaching philosophy.

DVD/Blu-ray also postponed for improper sound usage

Conservative media are using the mass shooting that claimed 14 lives in San Bernardino, California, to once again push the carrying of concealed guns as a deterrent for mass shootings. There is no evidence that concealed guns are a real-life solution to mass shootings; according to an analysis of public mass shootings over a 30-year period, not a single one was stopped by an armed civilian with a concealed carry permit.

Conservative Media Claim Concealed Guns May Have Changed The Outcome Of San Bernardino Shooting

Shooters Target San Bernardino Holiday Party, Killing 14 People And Wounding Numerous Others. On December 2, two individuals wielding assault weapons opened fire on a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, causing mass casualties:

Dressed in black masks and tactical gear, armed with long guns and pistols, they entered a holiday party for county health workers in San Bernardino as it was in full swing. Before they fled, they had killed 14 people and wounded 17 others.

Four hours later, as fearful residents were ordered to stay home and scores of officers swarmed the streets, authorities chased a black SUV carrying two suspects from a home in the nearby city of Redlands. As TV news stations broadcast live overhead, the chase spilled back onto San Bernardino's streets, where authorities and the suspects traded gunfire.

[...]

Burguan said Farook and Malik were dressed in "assault-style" clothing during as they fled from police, and were armed with assault rifles and handguns. [Los Angeles Times, 12/2/15]

Rush Limbaugh: "Had Some Of The People In That Disability Center Yesterday Had Some Guns, This May Not Have Happened." From the December 3 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: You want to know the truth about some of these incidents? The truth is that had some of the people in that disability center yesterday had some guns, this may not have happened. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/3/15]

Conservative Radio Host Laura Ingraham: Victims Of San Bernardino Shooting Were "Sitting Ducks" Because No One Pulled Out A Concealed Gun. During the December 3 broadcast of The Laura Ingraham Show, host Laura Ingraham called victims of the shooting "sitting ducks" and said, "Not one person apparently had an ability to defend himself or herself yesterday," while suggesting that someone with a concealed gun could have stopped the attack:

LAURA INGRAHAM: How many of you wish one of these - in one of these shootings we had someone who was carrying a concealed carry weapon. Someone who was armed, so they're not sitting ducks. I feel so bad, people are just - they're sitting ducks. They can't do anything to defend themselves. And even if you have a gun sometimes it's not going to work out, but at least you have a fighting chance, you have something. Not one person apparently had an ability to defend himself or herself yesterday. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 12/3/15]

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano: "If People In That Room Had Been Armed, The Tragedy Would Have Been Far Less Than It Was." During the December 3 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Napolitano claimed that "if people in that room had been armed, the tragedy would have been far less than it was." Co-host Steve Doocy then apparently undermined Napolitano's argument, noting that the perpetrators may have worn body armor to protect themselves from gunfire:

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Terror is the use of violence to change the policies of the government or some bizarre insult at a Christmas party and you go killing people in which case you're absolutely insane. Whatever it was, if people in that room had been armed, the tragedy would have been far less than it was.

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): And it's interesting because we had heard that they might have had flak jackets on or that they came in with some sort of military gear on. In the back of their heads they might think, well one of those guys could be armed, we should take care of ourselves.

NAPOLITANO: Right, right. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/3/15]

There Is No Evidence That Mass Shootings Are Stopped By Civilians With Concealed Carry Permits

Mother Jones: There Is "Zero Evidence To Support" The Claim That Armed Civilians Stop Mass Attacks. Mother Jones dismantled the argument that armed citizens are likely to stop mass shootings, explaining that none of 62 mass public shootings over a 30-year period analyzed by the magazine were stopped this way and that "in cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed":

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person--one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. [Mother Jones, 4/1/13]

More Guns Are Linked To More Gun Violence, Not The Thwarting Of Attacks

Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy And Research: Concealed Carry Laws Most Consistently Linked To Increase In Aggravated Assault. An October 2012 report from the Center for Gun Policy and Research summarized existing research on concealed carry laws and found that looser restrictions on carrying firearms in public resulted in a "one to nine percent increase in aggravated assaults":

So-called right to carry (RTC) laws allow individuals who are not legally proscribed from possessing firearms to carry concealed weapons in public, either by making it easy to get a permit to do so, or by not requiring such permits at all. Arguments for RTC laws are premised on the idea that everyone who is eligible to legally own a firearm is law-abiding, and is at low risk for committing a violent crime. Research cited above concerning weak standards for legal firearm ownership calls this into question. A recent review of concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina examined criminal offending in the group over a five-year period. During that period, more than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of crimes (excluding traffic violations), including more than 200 felonies and 10 murders or manslaughters. An additional 900 had been convicted of a drunk driving offense, an offense commonly associated with substance abuse.

[...]

The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults. Using various statistical methods, estimates range from a one to nine percent increase in aggravated assaults as a result of RTC laws. [Johns Hopkins University, Center for Gun Policy and Research, October 2012]

Harvard Injury Control Research Center: "In Homes, Cities, States And Regions In The US, Where There Are More Guns," There Are More Gun Homicides. According to a series of peer-reviewed studies published by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, higher levels of gun ownership are associated with higher homicide rates at the city, state, and national level in the United States and other developed nations:

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. [Harvard Injury Control Research Center, accessed 12/3/15]

You can always count on The O'Reilly Factor to put an ignorant spin on racism in America, and it was thown into a deeper cesspool by Fox News contributor and TownHall.com editor, Katie Pavlich's appearance. She delved into lala land with an idiotic rant about "white privilege," as if she has no idea what it means and then of course turned racist by plugging into a blackface meme. While appearing on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss the University of Vermont offering students a retreat to help understand white privilege, Katie Pavlich told Bill O’Reilly that the concept is racist against whites and that she confronts her whiteness by “going to the tanning salon.” When asked why she thinks the idea of white privilege is racist against whites she goes on to cite the white students across the nation that are being ostracized for not joining the Black Lives Matter movement. In a truly fair and balanced world it would have been pointed out that "white privilege" is not intended as an attack on those with white skin color, just the acknowledgement that they have certain advantages minorities do not. And that getting a spray tan in no way makes you better understand the difficulties of being a minority in the United States. Yahoo dug a little deeper into the segment on white privilege:

read more

Recently there were a few Twitter posts - just screen-caps of the text of arguments made by American animation writers on why they dislike Japanese animation. One of the writers was Amid Amidi, publisher of "Animation Blast". There's no indication as to when or where these were originally published, which is something I dislike about Twitter, you want to follow these sources back and you can't.

Anyway the arguments are the typical technical "lack of complexity in the character animation" complaints. Sometimes the arguments get completely pretentious, as in the sentence "In Miyazaki's films it suffers from Japanese animation's endemic reticence where the illumination of personality is concerned", which is a sentence that betrays the author's lack of familiarity with Japanese animation beyond two or three films from one studio, while highlighting the author's possession of a thesaurus.

The attitude is that animation should always be flippety-floppy exaggerated caricatures of human movement. Things should stretch and squash. Evil character should look evil and good characters should have halos. Ducks should be daffy and bunnies should be buggy. In short, if it wasn't Disney or Warner Brothers during a very short period that ended seventy years ago, or if it isn't doing its damndest to ape that period, it is trash.

Now I grew up watching Warner Brothers and Disney cartoons, just like everybody else with a television in the Western hemisphere. I like 'em fine. But are they the Platonic ideal of animation that all other animated films should strive towards? And more importantly, if they ARE the pinnacle of animated achievement that anybody with two eyeballs would prefer, the worldwide popularity of Japanese animation for the past sixty years becomes a lot less explicable.

You can argue about stretch and squash and frame rates all you like, and if that's your yardstick, then fine. But that's not the yardstick the rest of Planet Earth uses. Their metric is called "entertainment". And the Disney/Warner Brothers/Full Animation/Princess school of animation has been shooting blanks for the past sixty years, trying to cram a 1940 ideal down the throats of 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, et cetera. And guess what? We've seen those cartoons. They don't go away. Red Hot Riding Hood and Fantasia haven't vanished forever. They're right there. We're good. We don't need any more of them. What we DO want and need and spend entertainment dollars on are films that aren't seven-minute gag reels or 90 minute fairy tales dosed with pop culture references.

What did people want to watch instead of the pap being churned out by Hollywood's animation geniuses, circa 1978-1988? Galaxy Express 999. Arrivederci Yamato. Be Forever Yamato. Final Yamato. Phoenix 2772. Mobile Suit Gundam I, II, III. Crusher Joe. Harmageddon. Dagger Of Kamui. Nausicaa. Laputa. Lupin III. Lupin III Castle Of Cagliostro. Aim For The Ace. Cyborg 009 Legend Of The Super Galaxy. Tomorrow's Joe. Towards The Terra. Space Adventure Cobra. Queen Millenia. Arcadia Of My Youth. Golgo 13. Urusei Yatsura Only You. Urusei Yatsura Beautiful Dreamer. Urusei Yatsura Remember My Love. Urusei Yatsura Lum The Forever. Macross Do You Remember Love. Megazone 23. Night On The Galactic Railroad. Vampire Hunter D. Arion. Dirty Pair Project Eden. Fist Of The North Star. Project A-Ko. Robot Carnival. Wings Of Honneamise. Wicked City. Grave Of The Fireflies. My Neighbor Totoro. Akira.

These are all Japanese animated feature films produced in a ten year period. Not only are these all films American studios didn't make - these are films they COULD NOT make. Period. They didn't have the vision, they didn't have the skills, they didn't have the concept of making animated films for anyone other than (the parents of) six year olds.

If this animation is so terrible and ugly, then why is there so much of it? Why was it so successful? And yes, it was successful, at a time in which their precious American animation industry was coughing up blood.

Could it be that most people are perfectly fine with animation that doesn't fit some pretentious, nostalgic, failed-animator ideal? That maybe people would rather watch a film with well designed characters, action and adventure and a script written for people who already graduated elementary school? I think it is.

Things aren't this way any more. The American animation industry is filled with talented, visionary artists who grew up watching both Looney Tunes and Robotech, and they bring their influences to the small and large screens. Money finally came back to the field after a long dry spell and now studios are once again throwing millions at insipid, forgettable children's films, and even direct-to-video adaptations of popular comics (I wonder where they learned THAT from). To see people bitching about Japanese animation as if it's 1985 and they caught a glimpse of Robotech in the convention video room is really appalling, and it betrays a lack of imagination that is fatal to any visual artist.

Fatal.

Following a December 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA, the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was attacked by right-wing media figures for holding a press conference condemning the shootings.

CAIR: "We Unequivocally Condemn" The San Bernardino Attack

Council On American-Islamic Relations' Hussam Ayloush: "We Unequivocally Condemn This Horrific Act." CAIR executive director Hussam Ayloush condemned a mass shooting that left 14 people dead in San Bernardino, CA, on December 2, stating, "We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that occurred today." CAIR organized their press conference after authorities revealed the suspected shooters were Muslim. [Business Insider, 12/2/15]

CAIR Executive Director Explains Organization's Immediate Response

Hussam Ayloush: "There's A Lot Of Anti-Muslim Sentiment" But We Wanted Fellow Americans To Know "We Stand United In Our Sorrow." On the December 3 edition of CNN's New Day, Hussam Ayloush explained why CAIR immediately responded to the San Bernardino shootings. Ayloush noted that, "There's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, fueled by pundits," and stated, "We felt there was a need for our fellow Americans to know that all American Muslims share with the rest of the country, our sorrow today, our shock, and our agony for what happened":

JOHN VAUSE: You're very quick to come out and hold a news conference, even had Syed Farook's brother-in-law there to talk about this. Explain to me why you took that action.

HUSSAM AYLOUSH: Well, because we're living in a very difficult time. There's a lot of Islamophobia there. There's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, fueled by pundits here and there. Trying to blame a whole community for the acts of a few. You know, again we are just still mourning as a nation after what happened in Colorado Springs, by someone who is also responsible for his act, not the Christian community, not the American community. Same thing, we felt there was a need for our fellow Americans to know that all American Muslims share with the rest of the country our sorrow today, our shock, and our agony for what happened. It was important for the family. They wanted to make sure that people know how they felt, how devastated they are, and they insisted to being here, although they are going through their sorrow as we speak now. But they drove all the way to be at the office and speak to fellow Americans and say, we are today, we are all victims today. We stand united in our sorrow, and the only way we can come through this is through our solidarity. [CNN, New Day, 12/3/15]

Right-Wing Media Responds By Labelling CAIR "Terrorists," Similar To "Pedophile Sending NAMBLA Out" 

Rush Limbaugh: "CAIR Is The Muslim Brotherhood, It's Who They Are." On the December 3 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that, "CAIR is the Muslim Brotherhood, it's who they are." Limbaugh then attacked Hussam Ayloush for not using the term "religious extremism, because that would have indicted Islam." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/3/15]

Fox News Guest Bo Dietl: CAIR  "Ain't The Best ... I've Never Seen Them Come Out So Fast." On the December 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox contributor Bo Dietl demanded that "the good Muslims have to come out," and stated, "Last night, that was a little funny, all of a sudden that Muslim group that ain't the best in the world, CAIR, came out and they were all of a sudden - I've never seen them come out so fast -- they're trying to separate themselves." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/3/15]

Brad Thor: CAIR Representing American Muslims "Is Like A Pedophile Sending NAMBLA Out To Speak For Them." On the December 2 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File, Fox guest Brad Thor dismissed CAIR's press conference, claiming "I have never seen CAIR jump into action this fast before," speculating "this is spin, this is damage control." Thor continued, stating that CAIR representing American Muslims "is like a pedophile sending NAMBLA out to speak for them":

BRAD THOR: I have never seen CAIR jump into action this fast before.

MEGYN KELLY (HOST): Neither have I.

THOR: This is spin, this is damage control, and I'll tell you that the American Muslim community does not need a group like CAIR representing them. This is like a pedophile sending NAMBLA out to speak for them. CAIR is a very bad organization, with a lot of bad ties to terrorism. These guys, American Muslims, the first thing they need to do in this country, is cut ties with CAIR.

KELLY: They have been designated as a terrorist organization. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 12/2/15]

Fox Guest: CAIR Was "Conduct[ing] A Media Crisis Management Plan" That "Hamper[ed] The Investigation." On the December 3 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, guest Chad Jenkins claimed that in condemning the San Bernardino shootings, CAIR "conduct[ed] a media crisis management plan quite quickly", prompting host Jon Scott to ask if "the crime scene has been sort of tainted." Jenkins continued, claiming that CAIR had "completely delay[ed] the investigation":

CHAD JENKINS: I have to bring up too, how quickly CAIR was able to go ahead and meet with thefamily members of these subjects, and go ahead, and promote, not promote, but get them out in front of the public and really conduct a media crisis management plan quite quickly. Those family members --

JON SCOTT (HOST): The Council on Arab-Islamic, American-Islamic Relations?

JENKINS: Correct, that CAIR. And my point in telling you this, is those family members would have been key personnel for those FBI agents, and other law enforcement agencies to interview after the immediate fact, to try to find out what the motives were and why this attack took place. Instead, they're doing public appearances with that organization, which officially the FBI does not associate with CAIR.

SCOTT: You're saying that in effect, in one response, in one respect the crime scene has been sort of tainted by the news conference that CAIR put together in California yesterday?

JENKINS: I'm saying that the history of CAIR has been to legally represent these individuals or family members, prior to law enforcement, when it is critical for law enforcement to conduct those associate and family member interviews. And that completely delays the investigation, especially in exigent circumstances like yesterday was playing out. That hampers the investigation, because we don't know as that investigation is going on, the multitude of that threat at that time. [Fox News, Happening Now, 12/3/15]

Fox's Todd Starnes: CAIR Holding Press Event Is "A Pretty Good Indication" Of Attack Investigation. In a December 2 tweet, Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes tweeted, "The fact that CAIR is holding a presser is a pretty good indication of where this investigation is heading":

The fact that CAIR is holding a presser is a pretty good indication of where this investigation is heading...

-- toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

MRC's Dan Gainor Called CAIR "The Baghdad Bob Of Bogus Nonprofits." The Media Research Center's Dan Gainor tweeted that CAIR "is the Baghdad bob of bogus nonprofits":

.@CAIRNational is the Baghdad Bob of bogus nonprofits.

-- Dan Gainor (@dangainor) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

Erick Erickson Asks If CAIR Will Say "Shooters Were Upset Because Their Homemade Clock" Was Mistaken For A Bomb. Before CAIR's public response to the San Bernardino shootings, Fox News contributor and conservative radio host Erick Erickson asked if CAIR was "going to say the shooters were upset because their homemade clock was thought to be a bomb":

Is CAIR going to say the shooters were upset because their homemade clock was thought to be a bomb?

-- Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

Dana Loesch Quotes Brad Thor: "This Is Like A Pedophile Sending NAMBLA Out." The Blaze's Dana Loesch responded to CAIR's condemnation of the San Bernardino shooting by quoting Brad Thor, who stated, "This is like a pedophile sending NAMBLA out":

"This is like a pedophile sending NAMBLA out" - @BradThor on CAIR giving a press conference on this.

-- Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

Ben Shapiro: CAIR Is "An Organization With Alleged Links To Terror." Breitbart.com's Ben Shapiro responded to CAIR's statement by tweeting, "If in trying to de-link Islam from terror, you do a presser with an organization with alleged links to terror, you're doing it wrong":

If in trying to de-link Islam from terror, you do a presser with an organization with alleged links to terror, you're doing it wrong.

-- Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

Daniel Horowitz: "That CAIR Presser Should Creep Out All Concerned Americans." Daniel Horowitz, senior editor of The Conservative Review, responded to CAIR's statement by tweeting,"That CAIR presser should creep out all concerned Americans. wow.":

That CAIR presser should creep out all concerned Americans. wow.

-- Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) December 3, 2015

[Twitter, 12/2/15]

After the December 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California that left 14 dead and 17 more injured, conservative media distorted widespread criticism of Republican presidential candidates offering only their "thoughts and prayers" in response to the shooting, with no mention of proposals to prevent future gun violence, as an attempt "try to take God away."

Republican Candidates Tweet "Thoughts And Prayers" To The Victims And Families In The San Bernardino Mass Shooting

Republicans Respond To San Bernardino Mass Shooting By Sending "Thoughts And Prayers" To Victims And Families. After the December 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Republican presidential candidates responded by offering "thoughts and prayers" to everyone affected by the massacre, but "didn't mention gun control":

Most of the Republican candidates also reacted to the shooting. But they didn't mention gun control.

GOP front-runner Donald Trump said the situation looked "very bad." "Good luck to law enforcement and God bless," he tweeted.

GOP candidates Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, John Kasich and George Pataki all said their thoughts and prayers were with the victims and their families. The other three candidates haven't issued statements. [Newsweek, 12/2/15]

GOP Candidates Face Backlash For Ignoring Gun Violence Prevention In Response To The Shooting

Republican Candidates Face "Angry Backlash" For Tweeting "Thoughts And Prayers" Without Calling For Action To Curb Gun Violence. NBC News reported that, in the wake of the December 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, "A wave of statements and tweets by politicians sending 'thoughts and prayers'" was "followed by an angry backlash over the state of America's gun laws":

A wave of statements and tweets by politicians sending "thoughts and prayers" after the San Bernardino shooting was quickly followed by an angry backlash over the state of America's gun laws.

Presidential candidates were among the first to express sorrow at the loss of at least 14 lives in Wednesday's gun rampage.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the shooting victims and their families," Republican hopeful Ben Carson tweeted.

However, the hashtag #thoughtsandprayers soon began trending on Twitter for different reasons as users called out Congress for inaction on reforming firearms laws. [NBC News, 12/3/15]

New York Daily News: GOP Candidates "Conspicuously Silent On The Issue Of Gun Control." On December 3, The New York Daily News noted that while Democratic presidential candidates "called for stricter gun laws,"Republican candidates were "silent on the issue of gun control," and instead "were preaching about prayer":

Prayers aren't working.

White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.

But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.

Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer. [New York Daily News, 12/3/15]

ThinkProgress' Igor Volsky: "You Can't Solve" Gun Violence "With Thoughts And Prayers." On the December 2 edition of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes, ThinkProgress contributing editor Igor Volsky stated, "I'm all for thinking and for praying and for having these very serious moments when we reflect on what happened," but that "I think the country is really ready for action, for actually something to be done, not just the thinking and the praying":

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): I've seen a lot of people say what's wrong with thoughts and prayers? I mean, you know, we don't know what happened. And this is obviously (added space)-- all we know is that something horrific happened. Particularly early on when folks are tweeting this. Why is that a sentiment expressed worthy of criticism in your mind?

IGOR VOLSKY: Well, because it's okay to think and pray, but these folks only want to think and pray and the NRA pays them to only think and pray about gun violence and not to do anything else about it. You know, they spent some $30 million in the 2014 election in independent expenditures making sure that all certain lawmakers do is think and pray and nothing else. I'm all for thinking and for praying and for having these very serious moments when we reflect on what happened, when we remember the victims. But I think the country is really ready for action, for actually something to be done, not just the thinking and the praying.

[...]

HAYES: Are you struck today as you think about thoughts and prayers as I am as we watch the development of the story and we watch the political system in the midst of a campaign essentially digest this horrible tragedy, the ways in which you can already see pieces fall into place depending on what set of facts. So in the beginning we know it's guns, and so we see Republican politicians react another way. Democrats react in another. As we go on, we may learn there is a motive, we may learn that the organization passed these people was attached to this act of violence. And we'll also see the response play out in that way.

VOLSKY: Well, Chris, it would be ridiculous, if it was clear this was a terror attack, like God forbid the one we saw in Paris, it would be ridiculous to think that certain lawmakers would go on Twitter and say thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers. There's an understanding that those kinds of issues, you can't solve with thoughts and prayers, you need actual action. And it's shocking to me that when it comes to gun violence, time and time again, all we hear from these people is thoughts and prayers. And people keep on dying and dying and dying, and all they can say is, thoughts and prayers, let's not talk about this now. Let's wait. Respectful amount of time, and then in certain amount of weeks or months we can address it. But we can't because there is a mass shooting almost every single, you know, week in this country at this point. [MSNBC, All In with Chris Hayes, 12/2/15]

Conservative Media Take Criticisms Out Of Context, Allege That Liberals Want To "Take God Away"

Fox & Friends' Hasselbeck: People Arguing That Thoughts And Prayers Aren't Enough Are Trying To "Take God Away." On the December 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck claimed that politicians and journalists saying thoughts and prayers were not enough to stop gun violence were "lin[ing] up with terrorists" and trying to "take God away":

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: I say this, if you want to line up with terrorists and try to take God away, you're not on the right side. That's all I'd have to say to those politicians who want to tell you to stop praying. Just don't. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/3/15]

Breitbart News: Calls For Gun Reform Are "Partisan Snark At The Freaky Godtards." On December 2, Breitbart News wrote that "elite members of our media... mock[ed] the Faithful" for offering thoughts and prayers to gun violence victims. The article went on that say that for those who called for action "there is no better time to launch the partisan snark at the freaky Godtards":

As good people on social media watched unspeakable events unfurl in San Bernardino, California, on their television sets, all one could do in a situation where you can really do nothing is pray and offer those prayers to the world. Naturally, elite members of our media will use any opportunity to mock the Faithful. Even 14 still-warm dead bodies won't stop them from attacking those who offer a heartfelt "thoughts and prayers" sentiment.

[...]

Fourteen dead.

Fourteen injured, that we know of.

Killer(s) still on the loose.

For our media, there is no better time to launch the partisan snark at the freaky Godtards.

Let's close with this sentiment -- you still laughing...? [Breitbart News, 12/2/15]

RedState: The Left "Doesn't Want You To Take A Moment And Offer Your Best Intentions." In a December 2 post, RedState blogger Joe Cunningham surmised that liberals were outraged by offerings of prayer in response to the mass shooting because they don't believe in God, and that Democrats don't "want you to take a moment and offer your best intentions":

Amid all the hot takes from the San Bernardino shooting spree on Wednesday was the very first one that really made heads turn: That praying won't fix what happened. In fact, don't even pray to you[sic]invisible sky man because he isn't even there and definitely don't look to him/her to make everything okay again.

[...]

What the Left doesn't get about prayer is that it isn't meant to be some magical spell that makes everything better. It isn't some ritual that attempts to bring people back to life. It is a response to the evils of the world. It is a call for peace for the families who must suffer the loss of a life taken too soon. It is a request to protect the souls of the ones who were brutally killed.

But, to the Left, that simply is not good enough. Nope! The party that booed God at their national convention doesn't want you to take a moment and offer your best intentions, to try to confront the reality that evil is very real and needs to be addressed on a spiritual level. The Left is all about taking this one moment and turning it into a political opportunity. [RedState.com, 12/2/15]

Colion Noir, a commentator and web series host for the National Rifle Association's media arm NRA News, suggested that Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley are "gun control" hoes for calling for action to prevent gun violence following reports of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

On Twitter, Noir referred to Clinton and O'Malley as "two gun control THOTS." THOT is an acronym for "that ho over there."

No one knows what the hell is going on in Cali, yet these two gun control THOTS @hillaryclinton & @martinimalley... https://t.co/uPiCfjg9jh

-- Colion Noir (@MrColionNoir) December 2, 2015

Noir is the face of the NRA's efforts to attract a younger, more diverse demographic.

As reports emerged of fatalities and up to 20 people shot in San Bernardino, Clinton wrote on Twitter, "I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now." O'Malley tweeted, "Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino. Enough is enough: it's time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws."

Break out the gourmet microwave popcorn! Crunchyroll has just delivered one heck of a classic anime double feature with the addition of Fist of the North Star: The Movie and Jin Roh available today at 6pm and 4pm Pacific Time, respectively. Both titles are available for members in the US and Canada.

 

 

About Fist of the North Star: The Movie

In the near future, Earth has been devastated by a nuclear hell. In these troubled times, kinetic martial arts have replaced weapons of mass destruction, and the legendary Fist of the North Star style may then be the only hope for humanity's survival. Ken, the rightful master of Fist of the North Star, is forced to fight old friends gone mad, wicked new enemies, and even comes face to face with his power hungry elder brothers. All this in the hope that he will someday be reunited with his beloved Julia.

Notes: Originally released in 1986, this is a (very) condensed version of the story made popular to millions via the original Fist manga and TV series, albeit with all-new theatrical grade animation. It’s also one of the downright funniest anime ever made just for pure jaw-dropping, over-the-top moments that hit like a hail of blows. The dubbed version is particularly recommended and extremely quoteable.

 

About Jin Roh

 

In a very different Tokyo from the one we know today, the totalitarian government rules with an iron fist. But a group called "the Sect" is staging demonstrations and challenging the government's martial law. Constable Fuse of the Capital Police's Special Unit is on a mission to stop a Sect demonstration when he encounters a girl in the sewers under Tokyo. When he fails to shoot as ordered, he is put on trial, questioned, and "re-conditioned" as a soldier. The dead girl haunts him, both in his dreams and in the face of her sister, whom Fuse has befriended. But Fuse has made himself a target for some very powerful men. And as the world comes crashing down around him, Fuse is continually challenged to decide what is real and what is right.

  

Notes: Jin Roh (AKA Jin Roh: The Wolf Brigade) is a prestige anime film from 1999 and is one of the jewels in the crown for Production I.G, featuring, as it does, amazing hand-drawn animation (before everything went digital) and a script by Mamoru Oshii of Ghost in the Shell fame. It’s very much a thinking person’s anime film, dark and difficult, but worth your time if you’d like some brain cells back after Fist of the North Star.

 

-------

 

Patrick Macias is editor in chief of Crunchyroll News & Otaku USA magazine.

He is also the writer of HYPERSONIC music club, Paranoia Girls, & PARK Harajuku: Crisis Team

From the December 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I know, I know, the staff is all worried now because they think I'm going to get roasted here for blaming the victim with my simple innocent question: why doesn't Planned Parenthood get blamed? Before you go off the deep end on that may I remind you a couple things. After 9/11 what was one of the most frequent questions you heard in the drive-by media? I'll tell you what it was. What did we do to make them so mad that they felt they had to do this to us? Do you remember the State Department convened a -- I don't know what -- a forum, a panel, some such thing -- they had a bunch of experts to come in to examine what it is we had done to make the hijackers on 9/11 so mad. In other words the left in this country immediately sought to assign blame to the United States for the terror attack on 9/11. And they did not hesitate to do this. It didn't take until the next day for this question to start reverberating all over the country. What did we do to cause it? So I'm simply trying to learn the way the left thinks about these things and incorporate it here into the way I do my program. Barack Obama blames this country for stuff that happens here and he runs around world and apologizes for it. OK, so if Planned Parenthood had this incident and the shooter starts running around talking about no more body parts, who is it that's dealing in body parts? If the left were being consistent they would ask themselves what have we done to make people so mad at us?

Previously:

After Colorado Shooting, Limbaugh Guest Host Pushes Smear That Planned Parenthood Is Trafficking Fetal Body Parts

Limbaugh Defends Deceptively-Edited Video Attacking Planned Parenthood: "There's Nothing That Was Taken Out Of Context Here"

Erick Erickson: "It Really Is Surprising More Planned Parenthood Facilities" And Doctors "Are Not Being Targeted" 

Fox News and Fox Business were responsible for 83 of 119 mentions of the phrase "baby parts" or "parts of babies" on major cable news networks from July 14, the day an anti-abortion group began releasing videos smearing Planned Parenthood, and November 26, the day before a gunman attacked a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility. The alleged gunman reportedly used the phrase "no more baby parts" in subsequently explaining his motivation to law enforcement.

Center For Medical Progress Released 11 Deceptively-Edited And Misleading Videos To Smear Planned Parenthood

Center For Medical Progress (CMP) Has Released 11 Deceptive Videos Aimed At Smearing Planned Parenthood. Since July 14, a previously unknown anti-choice group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has released 11 deceptively-edited videos containing undercover footage of discussions with Planned Parenthood personnel and staff members of private, for-profit biomedical procurement companies. The videos purport to show, and the accompanying press releases allege, that Planned Parenthood is illegally selling fetal tissue and altering abortion procedures in order to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. Scores of media outlets have reported that the combined footage shows no illegal behavior by, or on behalf of, Planned Parenthood, and that the words of Planned Parenthood personnel who were secretly filmed have been "grossly [taken] out of context." [Media Matters, 8/31/15]

Suspected Planned Parenthood Shooter Reportedly Used The Phrase "No More Baby Parts" To Explain His Actions

Suspect In Planned Parenthood Shooting Reportedly Used The Phrase "No More Baby Parts" To Explain His Actions. According to a November 28 Washington Post report, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., the alleged shooter at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado, used the phrase "no more baby parts" to explain his actions, following his arrest. The Post also noted that a law enforcement official believed that the attack was "definitely politically motivated":

The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others used the phrase "no more baby parts'' to explain his actions, according to a law enforcement official, a comment likely to further inflame the heated rhetoric surrounding abortion.

The attack on the clinic, allegedly by Robert Lewis Dear Jr., was "definitely politically motivated,'' said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still underway. NBC News, which first reported the comment, said that Dear also mentioned President Obama in a range of statements to investigators that left his precise motivation unclear. [The Washington Post, 11/28/15]

Leading Up To The Attack, The Phrases "Baby Parts" And "Parts Of Babies" Were Widely Repeated On Cable News Networks -- Fox News Led The Charge

Cable News Networks Aired The Phrase "Baby Parts" Or "Parts Of Babies" 119 Times Between The Release Of The First CMP Video And The Attack On Planned Parenthood. In the time period between July 14, the date the first CMP video was released, and November 26, the day before the attack on the CO Planned Parenthood facility, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Fox Business and CNBC aired the phrase "baby parts" or "parts of babies" 119 times.

Fox News Aired The Phrase "Baby Parts" Or "Parts Of Babies" More Than Any Other Cable News Network. Of the 119 mentions of the phrase "baby parts" or "parts of babies" across the cable news networks, Fox News led the field with 72 mentions spread out across 14 separate shows. Sean Hannity's show Hannity aired the most mentions. Fox Business Network mentioned "baby parts" or "parts of babies" an additional 11 times. 

"Baby Parts" And "Parts Of Babies" Phrases Were Aired On Cable News Networks 47 Times Outside Of Fox News. Outside of Fox News, CNN aired the second most mentions of the phrases "baby parts" and "parts of babies" on cable news networks, with 28 mentions, most of them stemming from CNN's three hour long morning show New Day. Fox Business aired 11 mentions, MSNBC aired six, and CNBC aired two mentions of either phrase.

Anti-Abortion Activist Most Prevalent In Use Of Term "Baby Parts." Among individuals who used the phrase "baby parts" or "parts of babies" on cable news networks, CMP's founder David Daleiden -- the person behind CMP's deceptive videos -- used the terms the most often. Daleiden appeared on CNN once and on Fox News five separate times, and used the term "baby parts" a total of 12 times. CNN's Chris Cuomo used the term the second most frequently with nine mentions during CNN's New Day. CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson used the terminology six times, as did Fox Business host Stuart Varney.

Media Matters searched Lexis Nexis and IQ Media for the terms "baby parts" and "parts of babies" between July 14 and November 26, 2015 on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox Business. Re-aired episodes were not included in the results.

[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

The Republican presidential candidates who spent much of the past four months roundly demonizing Planned Parenthood were scrambling over the weekend and beyond, busily trying to distance themselves and their rhetoric from last week's bloody shooting rampage of a North Carolina transplant in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Friday.

Carly Fiorina – whose attacks on Planned Parenthood in the wake of the release of a series of deceptively edited smear videos purporting to show officials from the organization callously selling “aborted baby parts” were credited with fueling her rise as a candidate among a crowded GOP field – called any linkage of her rhetoric to the shooting just “typical left-wing tactics.”

“This is so typical of the left to immediately begin demonizing a messenger because they don’t agree with the message,” Fiorina told Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday.

read more

Conservative media and the National Rifle Association's increasing insistence that victims of mass shootings should have been armed is beginning to sound a lot like blaming the victim.

The familiar right-wing talking point has emerged again, as America grapples with yet another instance of mass public violence. This time a man opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood health center with an AK-47-style assault weapon, killing three people -- including a police officer -- while leaving nine others wounded.

The pronouncements from gun advocates in the media were all too familiar. On Fox News, a network contributor asked, "What if more people had guns there, guys? What if people could've defended themselves?"

Similar commentary was heard from the NRA's media arm, NRA News, where a guest said during the first broadcast following the Planned Parenthood shooting, "I would have loved it if somebody who worked at Planned Parenthood, or one of the patients, or somebody who was waiting had a concealed carry permit and was able to stop this guy before he killed three people and injured nine or ten others," garnering agreement from NRA News host Cam Edwards.

These claims wrongly imply that it is the responsibility of mass shooting victims to stop their would-be killers as opposed to society's responsibility to stop would-be killers from accessing weapons that make mass murder possible.

The argument that victims of gun violence should have been armed entered the spotlight in December 2012 with NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's commentary on the murder of Kasandra Perkins by her boyfriend, NFL linebacker Jovan Belcher. According to LaPierre, "The one thing missing in that equation is that woman owning a gun so she could have saved her life from that murderer." (Perkins did actually own guns.)

Just weeks later, members of conservative media raised eyebrows by insisting armed teachers could have stopped the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. As high-profile mass shootings have continued unabated since then, the argument has become increasingly loud, and in some cases increasingly ugly.

After a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine worshipers at Mother Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina, in June, a member of the NRA's board of directors and the head of the extremist Gun Owners of America group both criticized the victims for being unarmed, citing slain pastor Clementa Pinckney's advocacy for stronger gun laws.

And after a man killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, in October, NRA board member Ted Nugent claimed that unarmed victims of mass shootings are "losers," while presidential candidate Ben Carson remarked of the gunman, "I would not just stand there and let him shoot me."

The notion that victims bear the responsibility of preventing crimes committed against them has long lurked in the conservative media and NRA consciousness, and claims surrounding the victims of the Planned Parenthood attack indicate that this argument is not about to go away.

But even if this type of claim from conservative media and the NRA didn't wrongly shift the onus toward victims to stop their own murders, the argument is not based in reality.

According to an analysis of 62 public mass shootings over a 30 year period, not a single one was stopped by a civilian with a firearm. Simulations of mass shootings also offer little hope that more concealed guns will prevent these attacks.

The United States has so many mass shootings and also so many guns and so many concealed carry permits, but the notion that victims of mass shootings will use guns to take out their attackers has not borne itself out as a reliable real-world solution to the problem of mass violence -- and the insistence that victims should have armed themselves wrongly shifts the burden toward those who are killed as opposed to the killers and the policies that arm them.

In a recent interview promoting his upcoming film, director Adam McKay lamented that media rarely discuss the pressing need for additional banking reforms in the wake of the financial crisis and Great Recession, singling out Fox News and wondering if the phrase "banking reform" had even been mentioned on the network this year. It hasn't been.

McKay chided media outlets for their unwillingness to discuss the pressing need for stronger banking and financial reforms during a December 2 interview with The Daily Beast about his new movie The Big Short, which details the build up of a credit and housing bubble during the Bush administration that imperiled the entire global economy (emphasis added):

More unbelievable is the fact that, just a few short years later, we've got not just one, but two Republican candidates in the presidential race with direct ties to bankruptcy kingpin Lehman Brothers -- Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- and yet, their ties to the financial crisis's biggest bank failure aren't being scrutinized as history threatens to repeat itself, McKay lamented. 

"Nobody talks about that," McKay explained. "And not only are they not talking about banking reform, they're talking about getting rid of the little bit of banking reform we've got. If people really knew what that meant they would know that's insane. Fox News especially doesn't like to talk about banking reform. Never. It's actually amazing. I would be curious if, like, Media Matters did a minute count on the year, if they even said the phrase 'banking reform.'"

Media Matters analyzed all available transcripts from Fox News in 2015, and can confirm McKay's suspicion that "banking reform" was never referenced on the network. The phrase "bank reform" was also never said. "Financial reform" was mentioned on two editions of The O'Reilly Factor, by former Obama aide David Axelrod and former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), each time as part of a list of President Obama's accomplishments.

On dozens of other occasions, President Obama's signature financial reform law -- the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 -- was referenced on the network, usually disparagingly and often as part of a list of allegedly terrible things the Obama administration has done to the economy through over-regulation.

Fox News' sister network Fox Business also has not referenced "banking reform" this year. "Bank reform" has been mentioned on two programs, one of which was a reference to legislation passed by President Franklin Roosevelt. "Financial reform" has been mentioned four times, twice in reference to China. And the network has similarly mentioned the Dodd-Frank bill a few dozen times, often to attack it.

Methodology

Media Matters conducted a Nexis and IQ Media search of transcripts from Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network from January 1, 2015 through December 1, 2015. We identified and reviewed all transcripts that included any of the following keywords: bank reform or banking reform or financial reform or dodd frank or dodd-frank.

*This blog has been updated for clarity

War veteran aged 22, sole survivor of his platoon, amputee, brother of a war criminal.

Cinema projectionist, kamishibai artist, manga creator.

Scholar, field anthropologist, folklore historian.

Man with the heart of a child and the ability to make others see the magical and terrible truths of the world.

May he rest in the peace he never ceased to fight for.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

The guardians of the media may have thought it was a good compromise when they first capitulated, way back in the Age of Reagan: Back off from the facts whenever pressed by the organ players of the Mighty right-wing Wurlitzer, while hinting at the actual truth in vague, arcane fog speak that convinces no one but those who already know. Problem solved!

No better example than the way they treated the fake Planned Parenthood videos that made such a strong impression on one Robert Lewis Dear Jr.

See, they framed the news stories as if the videos were proven fact. It took all of an hour or so for bloggers who are already familiar with this kind of crap to track down the extremist origins of the videos, and to debunk the videos themselves.

Yet media types refused to use the information as anything but a footnote -- if they even bothered to do that.

You can see the problem: Anyone who knows how to doctor a video can inject any crazy story at all into the corporate media, and it spreads like avian flu. So even if media outlets back off and say the story was "wronnng" (a la Fonzie), it's too damn late.

It's certainly too damn late for Robert Dear's victims.

It doesn't even matter if he turns out to be mentally ill. He was merely fertile ground for the political poison so merrily pumped into the mainstream media outlets, poison presented without the necessary antidote of timely facts.

read more

Sun-Sentinel columnist Michael Mayo pointed out on Sunday that Republican presidential hopefuls had largely been silent on the mass shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado even though the same candidates had suggested registering Muslims and shutting down mosques after the recent attacks in Paris.

During a panel discussion on WPLG, Fox News legal analyst Katie Phang argued that the candidates had not addressed the shootings because "you can't politicize three people being murdered."

"What you need to do is express your sympathies," she said. "Planned Parenthood is always going to be a trigger point -- no pun intended -- right? It's going to be hot button topic."

"You can politicize it," Mayo replied. "Things are politicized all the time. And when we hear after the Paris attacks, 'Oh, it's time to shut down some mosques and time to register Muslims.'"

"But when it's home grown terrorism -- this was an act of terrorism -- and again, it's going to be 'lone wolf,' a man with mental problems," he continued. "But he had some political views, and he was religious, he was raised Baptist, he read the Bible."

"Do we hear anybody talk about shutting down churches or registering Christians? No! Because that's an absurd overreaction that paints too broad a brush."

Fox host Bill O'Reilly defended Donald Trump, claiming he's never seen the GOP presidential hopeful show any racism, while correcting Trump's insensitive and wildly inaccurate tweet that falsely claimed that African-Americans are responsible for more than 80 percent of murders against whites. FBI crime data shows that the majority of murders are committed by members of the same race.

Donald Trump faced widespread criticism after tweeting a racially-charged graphic that falsely claimed that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by people of color:

On the November 13 edition of his show, O'Reilly interviewed Trump, who claimed he was "probably the least racist person on Earth." O'Reilly agreed with him, commenting "I never saw any racism from you," then immediately criticized Trump's racist tweet, explaining to him that the statistic is "totally wrong":

O'REILLY (HOST): Are you aware that the liberal media and the Democratic Party in general are trying to paint you as a racist? Are you aware of that?

TRUMP: I think so. But I think people know better than that. I'm probably the least racist person on Earth.

O'REILLY: Well I have known you a long time --

TRUMP: I think people know better than that. 

O'REILLY: -- I never saw any racism from you. However, when you tweet out a thing, and this bothered me, I got to tell you. You tweeted out that whites killed by blacks -- these are statistics you picked up from somewhere -- at a rate of 81 percent. And that's totally wrong. Whites killed by blacks is 15 percent, yet you tweeted it was 81 percent. 

TRUMP: Bill, I didn't tweet. I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert and also a radio show. 

O'REILLY: Yeah, but you don't want to be -- why do you want to be in that zone? 

TRUMP: Bill. Bill. Am I going to check every statistic? I get millions and millions of people @realdonaldtrump by the way. 

O'REILLY: You got to. You are a presidential contender you got to check it. 

TRUMP: I have millions of people. You know what, fine, but this came out of radio shows and everything else. 

O'REILLY: Oh come on, radio shows? 

TRUMP: Excuse me. All it was is a retweet. It wasn't from me. And it did. It came out of radio show and other places, because you see all the names --

O'REILLY:  Look, you know I'm looking out for you, right? You know that? That I'm looking out for you? I look out for every honest politician, I don't care what party they are in. Don't do this. Don't put your name on stuff like this. Because it makes the other side, it gives them stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you are a racist. I mean, you just handed them a platter.

According to 2014 FBI data, approximately 82 percent of white Americans were killed by other white Americans in murders where the race of both the victim and offender were known. Additionally, Trump's graphic was sourced to the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco," which does not exist. 

Trump has made numerous xenophobic and racially-charged comments that were defended and praised by right-wing media. In July, Trump called Mexican immigrants "criminals" and "rapists," and later cited an "unabashedly racist" deportation plan created during the Eisenhower presidency, dubbed "Operation Wetback," as an example for his deportation policy. Recently, Trump inaccurately claimed that thousands of Muslim-Americans cheered when the World Trade Center buildings fell, and when asked about a Black Lives Matter protester who was beaten at one of his rallies, Trump responded that, "Maybe he should have been roughed up."

(my apologies for this super nerdy post)

I had a free day so I went down to the library and did some digging thru their microfilms looking for information on theatrical releases of anime films in America; specifically New World's Galaxy Express and Warriors Of The Wind, and the Xanadu Productions release of Tezuka's 'Cleopatra'.



This is the newspaper ad for the 2nd week of "Warriors", the New World dub of Nausicaa. It screened in 8 cinemas in the Toronto area alone, which suggests a much wider release than I'd previously thought.



This is the review of Cleopatra. Information on the American release of this film is... well, you're looking at it. The print screened in New York City in 1972 was subtitled and self-rated; it sounds like a one-time showing, maybe an enterprising entrepreneur four-walled the Bijou in an attempt to generate some publicity. This film helped to bankrupt Tezuka; hoping it wouldn't be a money sink in America is wishful thinking.

Here's grosses for "Warriors" in Miami and for Galaxy Express at the Uptown in Seattle in 1980...



And a tidbit about Harmony Gold's Frank Agrama, who before he worked for Harmony Gold, was president of the Intersound dubbing company, fifty percent of which was owned by ZIV International, whom you will remember from various dubs of things like Captain Harlock, Candy Candy, and other home-video classics.



I had never suspected a connection between Intersound/HG and ZIV, but there you go. Research is fun.

Gatchaman the Movie from Sentai Filmworks, product SF-GTM001, UPC 8-14131-01417-7 MSRP $29.99, generally cheaper than that most places. Runtime appx. 110 Minutes, Dubbed in English and Original Japanese with English Subtitles. Region 1 DVD.  Amazon link:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012C897R4?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s01


And the circle turns. Just before I had my very life consumed by Star Blazers in 1979, I would sometimes catch 'Battle of the Planets' on local TV. I could tell instantly it was done by the same people who made Speed Racer, but that's about all I knew. Oh, and that clearly there were shenanigans of some sort going on as there was shockingly crude 'insert' animation of a stupid robot and his dog.

Then I learned a bit more that there was this thing called Gatchaman via that 1980 article on 'Japanimation' written by Fred Patten for FanFare magazine.

And 1982, after meeting Ardith Carlton at a con and forming a fast friendship, we did a bunch of video tape copying, and the Gatchaman movie was part of that. For 33 years (THIRTY THREE?! WAHT DA FLUVK?) that's all I had, a 4th or 5th gen copy at 6 hour speed on a medium grade mono VHS tape in raw, untranslated Japanese.

(for more on the history of Gatchaman, go wiki it. That's what your Compu-tor device machine is supposed to be used for)

Fast Forward, and during the Anime Bubble Implosion of 2006, ADV Films somehow managed to release something that 'everybody' said was sheer poison, the original Gatchaman series. All 105 episodes on 18 DVDs (or 9 box sets which I preferred). An old show, that many discs? INSANE! Retail suicide!

And it may have been as ADV went belly up soon after, blah blah I saw it coming as early as 2003. Haw. Wish there had been a way to 'sell short' on anime, I would be a rich man now. Anyway, one of the things all fans wanted to know was, would they release the movie? ADV reps at the time played the "we can't really say, neither confirm or deny" shit.

Well, time passed, ADV has revived under various fannish and unprofessional names that have seeming no consistant focus (Maiden Japan? Really? Kraken Releasing? REALLY? Geeze.), these shell names seem to fool the IRS and, oddly enough, the Japanese licensors so whatever works.

And in 2015, after 33 (WUT?! ) years, I now have a nice, clean, first gen Region 1 DVD of the Gatchaman Movie, released by 'Sentai Filmworks' formally ADV Films.

The Gatchaman Movie is a compliation film with some limited new animation and a bold new score, released in 1978, I assume to try and grab some of that sweet sweet Star Wars cash-in money, and following the lead of Space Battleship Yamato which had its compilation movie released in 1977. The Gatchaman movie, just under 2 hours long, trims a hella lot of character drama (and, yes, a lot of 'running in place' episodes) but does manage to hit all the key points, including the drama of Ken and his father. It's a good way to get to know Gatchaman if all you ever saw was Battle of the Planets, it's not as huge an investment as watching 105 half-hour episodes can be, it's a worthy title for any anime library.

There's an English dub but I haven't watched it. I don't care, I don't need it and most current dubs are dull and flat anyway. Picture quality is good, colors seem on key and no obvious blocking or artifacting. Japanese audio is a bit thin and a little wobbly in parts but perfectly servicable.

I've always loved the music for the Gatchaman movie. It's a bold, brassy, symphonic re-arrangment of the TV score, I'm sure part of the reason for it being that way was Nippon Columbia wanted to try and duplicate the giant success of Symphonic Suite Yamato. Not sure how well the score sold but I don't care, I like it. The music for the death of (you know who, not that one guy, the other one so many fans seem to hate) is just amazing and should be listened by anyone who loves symphonic anime music.

So go buy it. It's a surprisingly good time for we old school fans.

I took my first overseas vacation this summer to Hungary, Austria, and Germany. It was a mind expanding experience. I saw amazing cities, ate delicious food, and broadened my understanding of Europe, the world, and myself. It was pretty much all you could ask out of my first international trip. Nowhere I went felt utterly alien or insanely different from my experiences in the United States. A mixture of globalism, cultural exchange, and communication have made it that you can go to any major city in the world and get by fairly well without any major inconvenience. (A smart phone is a godsend in such a situation.) That said only the most jaded or ethnocentric travelers could not notice that there are a mixture of major and minor differences between various cities in the same state let alone cities in different countries and on different continents. Finding and appreciating those differences is one of the subtle but rewarding parts of travel.

Now I being me decided that I would do three things in every country I visited.

I would:

1. Eat a donut from a shop I could not visit in the US. No German Dunkin’ Donuts for this guy.
2. Buy paprika chips for Kate. (Side Note: If you want to get on Kate’s good side one of the keys to that is the gift of paprika chips.)
3. Visit a comic book store.

If you curious about the results of the first two I can tell you about that outside of this post. This is a Reverse Thieves article not something for the Junk Food Gourmet. But the third goal was as eye-opening as any other part of my journey. I think I learned quite a bit the manga market quite by accident.

DISCLAIMER: I was in Hungary, Austria, and Germany for a little over a week and no more than that. If anyone who has actually lived in any of those countries recently wishes to weigh in I would greatly appreciate it. I fully admit that any conclusions I come to in this post could be either incorrect because I have a very small sample size. I am hardly touting myself as an international manga expert. My name is not Ed Chavez. Consider this post more of a hypothesis I wish to put forward to be peer-reviewed than an absolute proclamation of the truth.

The first thing I noticed was manga was everywhere. Every comic shop I stepped into had more than just a sizable manga selection. None of the stores I went into had less than 60% of its shelves filled with anime and manga. A good deal of the rest of the stores was American comics and merchandise. Actual European comics only made up a little corner of the rest of the shop. I did see one little shop in Austria that seemed to have a larger European comic selection but it had very unusual hours and was only open every other day so I could only peak in through the window.

The dominance of manga is not super surprising when the shop was called Planet-Japan. It makes perfect sense that the store will be nothing but manga, anime, and Japanese merchandise. It was the fact that stores that made it clear they were general comic shops had a higher percentage of manga than anything else. That was the repeated sight that got the gears in my brain turning.

Manga Planet, Carlsen Manga, Egmont Manga, and Tokyopop were the main companies who I saw on the shelves in all three countries. First of all it was very odd to still see Tokyopop on the shelves and being a dominate force in the market. In the US you only still feel the presence of Tokyopop manga in the discount bins or from the occasional press release from Stu Levy. Tokyopop being a major player makes you feel like you have entered a time machine. I expected to see something like a European version of Viz or Kodansha Comics but I did not see any publisher that seemed to only sell titles from one Japanese publisher. That meant most everyone had at least one Kodansha, Shueisha, Shogakukan, or Square Enix title as well as a variety of titles from a wide range of  publishers.

Also there was a few titles they were very prominent that are either small titles here or not even licensed.  Of course Attack on Titan, Naruto, Sailor Moon, and Black Butler were all over the place but seeing Detective Conan, Liar Game, and several manga by Masasumi Kakizaki being prominently displayed was quite odd. I have always been slightly surprised no US publisher has picked up Masasumi Kakizaki’s work. Something like or Green Blood or Bestiarius might not do Shonen Jump numbers but seem like titles that would have a distinct and profitable following.

I will admit I was not exactly what prominent titles that were available in the US were not available in the countries I went to. First of all unless a title is HUGE it is harder to detect an absence than a presence. Also any title I thought might be unavailable might just not have been at the shops I went to. I could not find any copies of the Hayate the Combat Butler manga while I was in Europe. Did that mean no one licensed it in German? (A distinct possibility) Did I just never stopped in a store that had a copy? (Not outside of the realm of possibility.) That is really only something I would know if I was decently fluent German. So I will admit that fact alone clouds my understanding of any definitive conclusions.

But the one fact I think I understood better than anything else was the attitude of the artists at the Publishers Weekly: Comics the European Way at NYCC 2014. According to Carl from Ogiue Maniax the artists on the panel had displayed a “thinly veiled displeasure towards manga.” I would call that as kindly description of their feelings. In my opinion they were openly hostile to manga as an inferior style of sequential art and annoying plague on the market. That is not to say that you can’t find American artists with the same attitude. It is not that hard to find people who despise anime and manga. There has been quite a bit of ink spilled about it recently. It just seemed more like a unified front of  frustration and displeasure as opposed to a simple distaste for the medium. After my trip why this feeling was so strong was immediately obvious.

It really feels like a manga invasion. Even the boom days of the 2000s in the US never felt like they pushed out the native comics in the same way. If anything the manga boom seemed to bring more people reading comics of all stripes to the market. The old comics fans might not have wanted the new blood but as much as it was hated the manga section never it overtook the American comics section. It was probably larger than they ever wanted but it is also in its own little ghetto. The manga section in Europe is another thing entirely. When I have seen larger European comics sections in stores in New York than Austria the situation becomes crystal clear. Only the mostly kindly of us would be magnanimous if we worked in a field that was so dominated by foreign artists. If you felt pushed out of your home market it would be all to easy to begin to despise the work that marginalized you.

With all that said I merely present this as a brief look at manga in Europe more than anything else. A handful of shops in 8 days of travel is barely the tip of the iceberg. I never went to any conventions, spoke to any fans, or browsed any major bookstores. I also never went to France, Italy, or England that have fairly robust and possibly very different manga markets. Any of those experiences would have definitely enriched any of my theories and observations if not outright crushed them.

If anyone wants to confirm, modify, or correct my observations I’m all ears. I know I don’t have a huge following outside of the States but I get enough hits that someone is probably reading this from Europe and I would love to hear what they have to say on the matter.

Filed under: Editorials, Fandom, Industry, Manga

 

In the December 03, 2015 issue of Weekly Famitsu to be published in Japan on November 19, 2015, Sega is announcing that a re-mastered version of the 2008 tactical JRPG Valkyria Chronicles is coming to the Japanese PlayStation 4 home video game console in February of 2016.

 

Valkyria Chronicles is famous internationally for its anime-inspired visuals, its turn-based strategy, and its somber story in which a ragtag group of characters from all walks of life join the militia to defend their homeland form invasion by a foreign empire.

 

 

Sega is also announcing the development of a 4th Valkyria Chronicles game for the PS4, entitled Aoki Kakumei no Valkyria ("Valkyria of the Blue Revolution"). Additional details, including an interview with the developers, will be included in the December 03, 2015 issue of Weekly Famitsu magazine.

 

Special thanks go to Daryl Surat for the news tip.

 

Sources:

Famitsu via Sega Nerds

Eurogamer.net

 

Paul Chapman is the host of The Greatest Movie EVER! Podcast and GME! Anime Fun Time.

On Wednesday night's CNBC Debate, Ben Carson basically called Carl Quintanilla, the CNBC moderator a liar because he quizzed him on his relationship with Mannatech, a company that's been sued for false advertising. Carson shouted from the heavens that he had NO relationship with them and that CNBC was using propaganda against him. .

"Well, that’s easy to answer: I didn’t have an involvement with them," replied Carson, a former pediatric neurosurgeon. "That is total propaganda. And this is what happens in our society -- total propaganda. I did a couple speeches for them. I did speeches for other people. They were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product."

As Carson was pressed on his relationship with Mannatech, the audience booed Quintanilla for daring to question the neurosurgeon on it. Well, yesterday on CNN Jake Tapper interviewed Armstrong WIlliams, Carson's business manager and he admitted that Carson did have a relationship with the supplement company because he negotiated the contract with them.

Dr. Ben Carson's business manager acknowledged Thursday that the Republican presidential candidate did have a "contract" with a medical supplement company at some point.

read more