About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Mainstream?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:30:01 PM
I'd like to be writing about other things, but as long the MSM has an obsession to advocate for homosexuality and marriage neutering, I'll address their coverage.

Here, I take a look at what Karin Kein writes on the LATimes.com opinion blog about Philip Spooner's plea for neutering marriage in Maine.

Associated Press writer Lisa Leff has a story about a report that claims to show similarities between same-sex couples and bride+groom couples, but really turns out to be rather weak.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Update on Talk Radio in Los Angeles

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:20:04 PM
Townhall.com member station News Talk KRLA AM 870 continues to have an impressive weekday lineup, including Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Kevin James, Bill Bennett.  This lineup has been fairly stable lately.  (Salem also has an FM Christian station, 995. KKLA, which has a conservative afternoon talker, Frank Pastore.)  This is notable, because there have been many changes lately in the local market.

Earlier this year, we lost our CBS FM Talk ("hot talk") station, which flipped to Top 40 (less expensive, better ratings).  This was after losing our "Republitarian" Larry Elder from our Citadel talk & news station.  Elder's local show was replaced by syndicated Mark Levin.  I'm sure this was a move that saved money, too, but I don't know how the ratings have held up.  That station still has a local host during the morning drive.  Tammy Bruce would be on the station Saturdays, when not pre-empted by Dodger baseball, but recently she was off the station and making a push online.  This station also has the Sean Hannity show.

Meanwhile, the powerhouse high-rated "conservative" talk & news Clear Channel station features Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlessinger as live syndicated programming, and local shows for the morning and afternoon drives (neither of which is especially conservative) and the evening.

There has also been another AM station that has recently tried to do some conservative talk, with the syndicated Laura Ingraham program and John Ziegler (author, documentary filmmaker).

Now things are going to be shaken up again as Dr. Laura leaves the station that launched her current show, and one of the local CBS AM news stations, which has been toying with format changes, adds talk to accommodate her show.  I'm assuming her signing with syndicator TRN also means she is leaving Premiere, the syndication arm of Clear Channel.  This station also says they will be bringing on Laura Ingraham's show.  I would think that would mean the other station is losing her.  If that other station is going to retain the talk format, and if this CBS station is open to adding more talkers, there certainly are a of local personalities without shows on local radio, as well as syndicated shows without a Los Angeles affiliate.  However, the trend seems to be towards cost cutting, so I don't expect we'll see these returning to the Los Angeles airwaves.

Something of note is that the station dropping Dr. Laura - one of the top rated stations in Los Angeles - will be filling the three hours by having the morning host return for two hours after Limbaugh, and expanding the afternoon show so that it starts an hour earlier.  The afternoon show's 6pm hour is often a replay of the 3pm hour, so I expect that the additional hour will also mean repeating another hour instead of a new hour of content.  Not having to pay for Dr. Laura and instead using existing station personalities (especially rebroadcasts) should save a nice chunk of change for the station.  But considering Los Angeles is one of the top markets in the nation, I am surprised this is going on.  It shows how tough things have gotten in radio.

The "conservative" Clear Channel station is going to be less conservative, further giving KRLA AM 870 an edge when it comes to those looking for conservative hosts.  Unfortunately, the trade-off is that KRLA doesn't have a local focus during the daytime.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexual People Overrepresented on TV

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:40:09 PM
Homosexuality advocates are out with a report on representation on TV.  Associated Press television writer Frazier Moore has the story.
In its third annual Network Responsibility Index, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found that of HBO's 14 original prime-time series, 10 included content reflecting the lives of gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Remember, there is a reason "transgender" is included.

Transgender basically means dressing like the opposite sex, or even going so far as to have surgery, hormone treatments, a name change, etc. to pretend to be the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is about being attracted to people of the same sex.  Bisexuality is about being attracted to people of both sexes.  Transgendered people can, so we are told, be heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals.  We are also told that these people really are changing from male to female and female to male, and not simply males becoming mutilated, deluded males and females becoming mutilated, deluded females.  So why is sex (gender) lumped together with sexual orientation?  Well, because if "the community" activists are to be believed, a lesbian who has an addadictomy and becomes a "man", would, by definition, no longer be a homosexual, which means fewer homosexuals.  We can't have that, right?  That means a loss of power, doesn't it?  So "transgender" is a way to keep counting the person as part of the team.
That totaled 42 percent of the network's programming hours, in series such as "True Blood," "Entourage" and "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency."

By contrast, on NBC and CBS only 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of prime-time hours included them, the report said.
Considering only three percent or less of the population is homosexual, then, if programming was truly going to be representative, only 3 out of 100 characters would be homosexual.

Yet, the percentage seems to be higher, probably a for a mix reasons: 1) To suck up to homosexuality advocates and get awards; 2) to push the personal political and social  agendas of the writers, directors, and producers; 3) because they think it provides interesting story material as it is yet another way to get sex onto the tube.

I stand by the right of broadcasters to do what they want with their own resources.  If they want to have nothing but flamboyant drag queens on their shows, that is up to them.  I also stand by the right of GLAAD to issue reports and bestow awards.

My only point is that homosexuality is overrepresented on television.

How many characters in the programming monitored are devout Christians who are not portrayed any more negatively, on average, than others?

(This entry guaranteed to be linked on that website that sounds like a cotton swab brand.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Los Angeles Times or The Advocate?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:00:00 PM
Sometimes I wonder.  Recent content in the Los Angeles Times has given me pause again.  The paper's website had two items on two pairings of penguins who have been held up as examples of homosexual relationships in nature, but have subsequently seen at least one of the penguins engage in heterosexual behavior.  Maria L. La Ganga had a mostly light-hearted article.

Our friend Karin Klien also covered the matter in the paper's opinion blog, and couldn't help throwing in this:
So this makes what of the whole argument about same-sex marriage for humans? Perhaps only a reminder that penguins do not seem as inclined to judge their peers' preferences as humans are.
Huh?  The penguins aren't stopping their peers from pairing up in same-sex coupling, and neither are humans.  The difference is, the paired penguins were not forcing the other penguins to do anything for their relationship, while some same-sex human couples are demanding that the rest of us neuter our marriage licensing against our will and against the framework that has served society throughout history.

In general, I do not think citing animal behaviors is a strong argument for either side, other than pointing out that same-sex pairings do not produce offspring in nature, either.  Whether or not two birds or two canines of the same sex nest together or mimic mating behavior or not should not lead to policy for human behavior or licensing voluntary personal relationships.

Alexandra Zavis has this piece about the struggles of same-sex couples dealing with the military's "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and a documentary about it.

Kudos to anyone who seeks to serve in our armed forces.  But I'd like to point out that - fair or not - this policy has been around for 15 years now, and before that the military was even more strongly discouraging of homosexual behavior.  So someone who volunteers to enter the military knows the boundaries they are going to have.  Someone who chooses to be with them is no doubt also aware.

If you don't like the price of membership in an organization, don't join it.  Many union members wish they had a more realistic ability to opt out.

There's also this piece by Dennis Lim going over the "The Human Rights Watch DVD Collection".  Surprisingly, there is only one homosexuality-focused documentary mentioned.  And theres no doubt, there are places in the world where homosexual behavior is met with appalling brutality.  Iran is so hostile that there aren't any homosexual people there, according to Ahmadinnerjacket, and he always tells the truth.

Far higher percentages of population identify as Christian, or divorced, or African-American, or Latino, or any other number of identifications than identify as part of the LGBTQQUA community.  Yet mainstream media gives the latter so much attention.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Throws a Bone to LGBTQQU Advocates

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:10:00 PM
Marriage neutering advocates think Obama isn't doing enough for their cause.  He's extending benefits to "partners" of federal employees, but the advocates think it is too little "progress".  What they are obviously failing to take into account that if Obama keeps going the way he has, every employee will be a federal government employee before too long, thus extending the benefits to all same-sex partners.  From my Opine Editorials entry on this topic and today's marriage neutering coverage in the Los Angeles Times:
Marriage provides a clear delineation. Employers, especially the government, have some incentive to extend benefits to spouses - in no small part because normal marital behavior naturally creates children. When non-marriage is incentivised as though it is marriage, the results can discourage marriage. On what basis are these benefits to be extended to non-spouses? Will a sexual orientation test be included? I am open to an argument for the value to society for extending (some) benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, but I am reluctant to officially encourage and sanction what I am convinced is harmful behavior. However, there must be some way of distinguishing between a committed couple and a casual one.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The MSM Has Its Marriage Neutering Script

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, June 15, 2009 7:00:00 PM
Sadly, it looks like the media coverage has gotten to the point where we're just going to get the same regurgitation of appeals to emotion, without any new compelling arguments. Most newsrooms are going to continue to quote same-sex couples with children that they did not make together (but the news will not ask the obvious), talking about how "it's not fair - after all, we love each other" - and if they quote a marriage defender, it will either be one of the official campaign people, or someone who, it will be noted, is been divorced and who will not be quoted with anything other than an appeal to the Bible. At best, it is going to be cast imprecisely as "equality vs. tradition" or "rights vs. tradition". They have their boilerplate script.

That's what I conclude in my new entry over at The Opine Editorials, asking, What Does Brown Do For You?  Yes, Jerry Brown is making headlines again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gendertopia in Vermont

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, June 08, 2009 3:40:05 PM
In Burlington, Vermont, tax dollars are being used to support gender identify confusion and get high school kids to think it is hunky dory.  Read my analysis of the AP coverage over at The Opine Editorials.

Would the AP do a story with this tone on such a small program that reinforces traditional values in youth?  Somehow, I doubt it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OOH! OOH!!! THE MISSING LINK!!!

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:00:00 PM
It is really sad how the MSM participates in perpetuating misleading ideas about some fossil finds and scientific discoveries.  Over the last couple of days, the buzz has been about "the missing link" between "apes" and humans.  Well, unfortunately for philosophical naturalists who maintain that purely natural evolutionary processes created all the biodiversity we see today from nonliving materials, which were created out of nothing by random chance - there are many missing links.  And there ARE scientists who are much more level-headed about this latest fossil find.  Check out what they have to say at Reasons to Believe.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is Really Extreme?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:13:19 PM
We're hearing a lot these days about how the GOP has extremists running things and it is ruining the GOP - mostly from the Democrats and those who believe them.  But I think it is the Democrats who hold some extremist positions.  Many prominent Democrats hold, overtly and actively, tacitly through passive allowance, or somewhere between, these positions:

1. Everyone has a right to food, a home, education, transportation, and medical care even if they never work to pay for any of it, meaning they will get those things by the government forcing others to provide them.

2. Carbon dioxide, which is produced naturally by human beings and other animals, is a pollutant that should be regulated and restricted by government.

3. Individuals should be treated differently based on their skin color or identification with an ethnic group, with some exceptions such as 1) Muslims or people of Middle-Eastern descent should not receive extra scrutiny related to terrorism, or  2) Immigration officials raiding a factory in a border town, or 3) Police making traffic stops.

4. There is a right to taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand through all months of pregnancy, for any or no reason, including performed on minors without parental notification.

5. It should be the official position of government and, and therefore public education, that there is no difference between heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior, between a bride+groom union and two men or two women; this includes giving no preference to a woman and man who want to adopt over two men or two women.

Will we see calls in the MSM for Democrats to denounce these extremists positions?  Will any prominent Democrats do so?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fauxmentum

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:36:48 PM
Are people who understand that marriage unites the sexes magically embracing marriage neutering?  Some advocates and their MSM friends want you to think so.  Read my analysis over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Marriage Neutering News

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:10:13 PM
"Equality California" is trying to use Miss California, essentially blaming her for the suicide of an 11-year-old, and the Associated Press has apparently given up trying to appear objective when it comes to marriage neutering.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shame on Perez Hilton

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, April 20, 2009 1:00:18 PM
Miss California spoke for the majority of California's voters.  Deal with it.  My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Misreporting by LA Times on TEA Parties

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:15:21 PM
The rapidly declining Los Angeles Times demonstrates today one of the reasons why it is in so much trouble.  At least online, their main coverage of the TEA Parties, an article by Michael Finnegan and Janet Hook, is headlined this way:
Republicans Stage 'Tea Party' Protests Against Obama
Thousands of demonstrators in Southern California and elsewhere in the nation demand lower taxes and less government spending. But some GOP pollsters warn that the tactic could backfire.
And this is how the story begins:
Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging "tea party" protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending -- but the tactic carried risk for the party.
Especially in California, the parties were mostly about more government spending, more debt, and higher taxes, either already implemented or that will be implemented as a result of the boost in spending.  Sure, there were some Republicans involved and same of the people were focusing on Obama, but these events were NONPARTISAN and NOT Obama protests.  The people who organized and participated are TAXPAYERS, some of them Democrats, some of them independents, some of them members of other parties other than the GOP, and they are upset with government in general, not just Obama.

The whole piece is a mess, especially with that lead-in.

You can read reactions here to an anti-TEA Party commentary that ran in the paper.  There were about a thousand.

Why is it so hard to believe that "ordinary" people are actually and legitimately upset and taking action?  Some people do understand that even if taxes are not raised directly on their income, they can still be hurt.  Some people do understand that too much debt is not good for future generations.  Some people do understand that they might someday be designated as “rich” and the target of direct taxes.

Anti-military-action and pro-shamnesty demonstrations, no matter how small or how much organizing was conducted by large, established groups, are taken seriously and with respect by the MSM.  Why not TEA Parties?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Now Conservative Talk Radio is Dying?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, March 16, 2009 1:13:03 PM
The ever-thinning Los Angeles Times, which has been taken to the woodshed by radio talk show hosts John & Ken for their lack of coverage or biased coverage of important political matters at the state and local level, as well as the paper's portrayal of their show, has run an article by Michael Finnegan that claims "Conservative Talk Radio on the Wane in California", largely about the John & Ken Show.  Gee, do you think they'll talk about it on their show?  Maybe that's the idea, as it will probably get more readers to check out the article.

The thing is, the "John & Ken Show" is not a conservative show.  It is much more a taxpayer/parent/driver show.  (They air in the 3pm-7pm slot.)  Yes, the hosts rail against illegal immigration, celebrity defense attorneys, murderers, child molesters, corrupt government officials, political correctness, and government employee unions' hold on state and local government, and new and higher taxes.  But plenty of nonconservatives do the same.  They are certainly not GOP loyalists.

Here's the fist line:
Tune in to conservative talk radio in California, and the insults quickly fly.
So, you know where this is going.
But for all the anti-tax swagger and the occasional stunts by personalities like KFI's John and Ken, the reality is that conservative talk radio in California is on the wane.
Really?  That’s strange.  I know that here in Los Angeles, we have:

KFI AM 640, which features Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and Kennedy & Suits, in addition to the others mentioned in this article.

KABC AM 790, which features Curtis Sliwa, Don Imus, Joe Scarborough, Mike Huckabee, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Al Rantel, and Tammy Bruce (Saturday).

KRLA AM 870, which features Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Kevin James, and Bill Bennett.

KGIL AM 540/1260, which has definitely tilted more to the Right lately, features The Wall Street Journal This Morning, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Monica Crowley, Michael Savage, Lars Larson, and Larry King.

KKLA FM 99.5, which features religious programming including Focus on the Family and Frank Pastore.

While not all of those are conservative shows, very few of them are liberal.  Meanwhile, public radio and the local Air America station continue to hobble along.  The FM Talk station, definitely not conservative radio, flipped formats to music.
The economy's downturn has depressed ad revenue at stations across the state, thinning the ranks of conservative broadcasters.
Uh, this is the same for ALL BROADCAST RADIO, not just conservative shows.  Heck, all media that relies on ad revenue has been thinning, especially this newpaper.
For that and other reasons, stations have dropped the shows of at least half a dozen radio personalities and scaled back others, in some cases replacing them with cheaper nationally syndicated programs.
Most of which are still conservative.
Casualties include Mark Larson in San Diego, Larry Elder and John Ziegler in Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan in San Francisco, and Phil Cowen and Mark Williams in Sacramento.
Ziegler was replaced by two local hosts who usually take the conservative side.
Two of the biggest in the business, Roger Hedgecock in San Diego and Tom Sullivan in Sacramento, have switched to national shows, elevating President Obama above Schwarzenegger on their target lists.
So if they go national, they are on the wane?
The immediate question facing the state's conservative radio hosts is whether they can wield enough clout to block Schwarzenegger's ballot measures in May.
I sure hope so, because the newspapers are doing very little to make sure that the voters are thoroughly informed.
The older white Republicans who tend to listen to conservative radio are a shrinking portion of the state's voters.
They can be replenished.  But yes, California is losing producers of all skin colors and political affiliations to other states (and death), and replacing them with government-dependent union-party-line robots and dependent illegal aliens.
And apart from KFI, whose morning show with Bill Handel draws 652,000 listeners a week, the California shows are far less popular. The only hosts of conservative programs with a weekly audience of more than 100,000 are Doug McIntyre of KABC (790) in Los Angeles, Lee Rodgers of KSFO (560) in San Francisco and Rick Roberts of KFMB (760) in San Diego.
I can't speak about the others, but neither Bill Handel nor Doug McIntyre have conservative shows or are in-the-tank for the GOP.  You don't have to listen much to figure that out.

Recognizing that the state government and the City of LA are being run by corrupt union lackeys who are hostile to taxpayers does not make someone conservative.  Many self-identified liberals see this, too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Train Wreck TV

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:04:00 PM
Given how upset so many women are by how things turned out on the latest season of The Bachelor on ABC, I guess this would be a good time to point you to this.  If you must watch shows like this, at least do so knowing it is not set up to be a marriage-and-family-affirming thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »