Showing posts with label Embrace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Embrace. Show all posts

Friday, January 17, 2014

Nanski Peloski: Embrace the Suck

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Nanski Peloski: Embrace the Suck

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

McDonald"s poised to embrace new GMO potato farming in 2014 and beyond

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



McDonald"s poised to embrace new GMO potato farming in 2014 and beyond

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Vegas tourism: Embrace generational marketing

Vegas tourism: Embrace generational marketing

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Baby boomers are suckers for appeals to their narcissism. Generation Xers have more than their share of man-children. And millennials want to feel like they’re doing good in the world.
Business Headlines



Read more about Vegas tourism: Embrace generational marketing and other interesting subjects concerning Economy at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Hip-Hop Gaining Bipartisan Embrace From Pols



In early 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama sat down for an interview with Black Entertainment Television. The friendly dialogue provided Obama, then mired in a closely contested primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, a chance to touch on a range of political and cultural topics.


Asked if he liked hip-hop music, Obama responded, “Of course,” adding, “I’ve got to admit, lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z. This new ‘American Gangster’ album is tight.”


It wasn’t the first time Obama publicly discussed hip-hop, and it wouldn’t be the last. At a campaign stop in 2008, he mimicked dusting off his shoulder, an allusion to a hit Jay-Z song. He has gone on to describe himself as a fan of Nas, Lil Wayne and Kanye West.


Obama’s promotion of the genre — unprecedented for a viable national political candidate — helped launch a new era in which political figures of both parties can embrace the once politically toxic music, though they do so with some degree of caution.


Although hip-hop can be traced back to the 1970s, it became a cultural force in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan references have been a mainstay ever since Ice-T criticized the 40th president over the Iran-contra scandal: “We buy weapons to keep us strong/ Reagan sends guns where they don’t belong.”


In 1991, N.W.A. rapper Eazy-E donated $ 2,490 to the Republican Party and attended a luncheon attended by President George H.W. Bush and 1,400 mostly white Republicans. The rapper’s spokesman explained blithely that he was a “Bush fan.” White House officials, evidently embarrassed that a rapper whose lyrics glorified violence against police been invited to the event, declined comment.


Trying to position himself as a centrist in his first presidential campaign, Bill Clinton famously rebuked the rapper Sister Souljah for saying that blacks should kill whites instead of each other. Clinton’s comments posited him as a moderate and suggested that hip-hop and national politics were incompatible — at least then. Throughout George W. Bush’s presidency, the genre appeared as a footnote, and sometimes an ugly one, as when Kanye West accused Bush of being a racist during a Hurricane Katrina fundraising telethon.


Signs that the times they were a changin’ came in 2011, when the rapper Common — whose lyrics also dealt with violence against police — was invited to a White House poetry night. Although conservative media outlets criticized the invitation, they were unable to drum up widespread support for a boycott. Common attended without incident, and the furor died down.


Hip-hop now attracts a bipartisan clique of fans on Capitol Hill, in addition to its best-known booster in the White House.


Democratic Rep. André Carson of Indiana, a self-described former “battle rapper,” performed under the name Juggernaut into his early 20s. Though he gave up rap to pursue community activism and politics, Carson said that rapping helped him become a better communicator and public speaker.


Florida Republican Rep. Trey Radel describes himself as a “hip-hop conservative” in his Twitter biography. He tweeted his thoughts on Jay-Z’s newest album earlier this year and penned an essay for Buzzfeed about hip-hop.


Radel wrote that he found “a conservative message in [the Public Enemy protest anthem] ‘Fight the Power’ because I believe when government expands it becomes a political tool meant to oppress.” The first-term congressman acknowledged that he has philosophical disagreements with many of his favorite rappers. But that’s not a phenomenon limited to hip-hop, as attested by the unrequited crush Republican Gov. Chris Christie has on fellow Jersey guy — and decidedly liberal — rock star Bruce Springsteen.


Sen. Marco Rubio has also publicly discussed his appreciation for hip-hop in several interviews, telling GQ his favorite rap songs are “Straight Outta Compton” by N.W.A., “Killuminati” by Tupac, and “Lose Yourself” by Eminem.


A Rubio spokesman, asked earlier this year if the Florida Republican was concerned about political backlash over being a fan of such controversial musicians, told RealClearPolitics, “The short answer is no.”


But some conservatives’ embrace of the genre has piqued some liberal critics, who call the rush toward publicly celebrating hip-hop pandering. Alan Pike, writing for ThinkProgress earlier this year, accused Rubio of hypocrisy: “If you’re milking hip-hop for credibility while marginalizing its challenges to the kinds of policies and narratives that Republicans run on, you might need to test your listening comprehension, period.”


Some Buzzfeed readers harshly responded on Radel’s essay, commenting, “Nobody cares” and “Does he listen to rap music that isn’t 20 years old?”


Radel, who mentioned that he has recently been listening to relative newcomer Kendrick Lamar, told RCP that he see hip-hop as overwhelmingly anti-establishment more than explicitly conservative or liberal.


Democrat Carson, asked if considers it disingenuous for conservative politicians to embrace the music form, offered a blanket defense of Republicans: “I think music is music. You can’t say it’s hypocritical for a member of the Black Caucus to embrace polka.”


He also expects hip-hop, as it grows as an art form and increases its market share, to become even more culturally and politically acceptable as time goes on.


“I think society has changed,” he said. “… [Politicians] were concerned about what they considered to be urban-centric music infiltrating their homes and having an impact on their kids. Now it’s become so universal, it’s a part of everyday life.”


RNC Deputy Press Secretary Raffi Williams concurred, suggesting another reason Republicans might want to listen to hip-hop: its popularity. They appreciate it “just like a lot of their constituents” do.


Radel agrees. His constituents “are excited to see someone, a Republican especially, attempt to talk to people across generational, ethnic and cultural lines,” he said.


Although hip-hop has gained wider acceptance, politicians must be careful of exactly which songs — and which artists — they embrace. The rise of Kanye in the early 2000s paved the way for rappers without violent backgrounds. Gang affiliation, or a history dealing drugs, is no longer a prerequisite for respect. Still, the genre’s rougher edges remain.


Lil Wayne made an art form out of creatively describing new ways to disrespect women and abuse drugs. Kanye protégé Pusha T nihilistically compares his time in “the rap game” to his former career as a cocaine dealer. Just last week, Eminem released a song that immediately drew scrutiny over its blatantly homophobic lyrics.


Asked about the more violent aspects of hip-hop, Radel said, “These are lyrics that I think are terrible and have no place in society.” He added, however, that controversial lyrics represent greater problems.


“All music is a reflection of that time, that era. While I do recognize some of the violence, I recognize the reality of hip-hop,” he said, noting that listening to N.W.A. for the first time exposed him to things “that I never knew existed.”


He’s not the only politician to embrace hip-hop with caveats. In the same BET interview that Obama praised “American Gangster,” the future president also delivered what would become the boilerplate political line on the music: “Honestly, I love the art of hip-hop. I don’t always love the message of hip-hop.” 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Hip-Hop Gaining Bipartisan Embrace From Pols

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Liberals Embrace Fatherless (and Motherless) Families


Kids Sc Liberals embrace fatherless (and motherless) families


With the Supreme Court giving a major boost to gay marriage, liberals face fewer impediments to their relentless push for fatherless (and motherless) families.


Of course, it wasn’t always this way. In a speech for Father’s Day 2008, Barack Obama was emphatic in championing fatherhood: “We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”


Obama added: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives … family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.” If “we are honest with ourselves,” said Obama, “we’ll admit that … too many fathers” are missing—they are “missing from too many lives and too many homes.”


Obama summed up: “We need fathers.”


I couldn’t agree more. In fact, as a conservative, I don’t know a single conservative who would disagree with any of this—alas, a rare moment of complete agreement with Barack Obama. For that matter, I don’t know any liberals who would disagree.


So, with that being the case, why are President Obama and liberals suddenly pushing unrelentingly for fatherless families—or, more specifically, for a new form of American family that is fatherless?


The answer, of course, is gay marriage. With their sudden embrace of gay marriage (a massive shift not only within America, American culture, and human civilization, but also within the Democratic Party), liberals/progressives nationwide are—whether they realize it or not—simultaneously advocating a redefinition of family that embraces fatherless families. Think about it: married female-female parents will be households without dads.


In so doing, liberals are shattering a rare, precious consensus that they had nurtured with conservatives. There are few things that liberals and conservatives agree upon, but one of them was the crucial importance of children being raised in a home with a dad and a mom.


In his 1984 Father’s Day proclamation, President Ronald Reagan described fathers as “beacons” of “strength and well-being,” of “leadership and direction.” They give their children guidance and teach them “integrity, truth, and humility.” “Every father rises to his tallest stature as he selflessly cares for his family, his wife, and his children,” said Reagan.


Liberals from Walter Mondale and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the pages of The New Republic and New York Times emphatically agreed with Reagan. A decade later, such sentiments were consistently reinforced by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who understood the toll delivered by fatherless homes. Groups like the National Fatherhood Initiative popped up, creating wonderful ad campaigns reminding Americans of something that societies long deemed indispensable: kids need dads. Sons need dads. Daughters need dads. Families need dads.


That principle remains unchanged. What has changed, however, is liberals’/progressives’ fierce acceptance and advancement of gay marriage. In this rapid push, they are jettisoning this national consensus on fathers, demanding a form of parenting that excludes fathers. As for those who disagree with their new paradigm, they are derided as cruel, thoughtless bigots, with no possible legitimate reason for their unenlightened position.


Actually, what today’s liberals are advocating is far more radical than that. They are pushing not only for fatherless families, but also, conversely, motherless families. Think about it: married male-male parents (the other half of gay marriage) will be households without moms.


Everyone reading my words knows that mothers are utterly irreplaceable. That’s a statement of the obvious. I’m incapable of doing what my wife does. Fathers raising kids without their mother because of divorce, death, or some other unfortunate circumstance, know what I’m talking about. Why would anyone, let alone a country or culture, want to open the door for a reconstitution of “parenthood” and “family” that, by literal definition, excludes mothers?


To be sure, we know why liberals are doing this. Again, they are doing this in the name of gay rights.


Yet, supporting gay rights, and the right of gay people not to be discriminated against, should not automatically mean supporting the literal redefinition of marriage. Why must tolerance mean the redefinition of something as ancient and stable as marriage between one man and one woman?


The original push for gay rights was about stopping discrimination. Gays should not be persecuted, denied benefits, or fired because of their sexual orientation. We all support that. But like with many other things, liberals in their zeal for whatever new “rights” are pushing too far, without pausing to carefully consider the impact. Their furious dash to redefine marriage in the name of gay rights has innumerable consequences that they have not begun to try to contemplate; that includes a new marriage/parenthood paradigm that repudiates their onetime insistence on father-based families, and even mother-based families.


Liberals always appeal to our emotions regarding children: What about the children? Well, yes, what about the children?


As Barack Obama said in 2008, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that children need fathers. Yes, if we’re honest. They need fathers, and mothers.


Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The Guardian.


Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.” 


Photo credit: JPott (Creative Commons)


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



Liberals Embrace Fatherless (and Motherless) Families

Friday, February 22, 2013

Huntsman: Conservatives Should Embrace Gay Marriage

Republican Jon Huntsman is urging the Republican Party to be more supportive of gay marriage, adding that “there is nothing conservative about denying” them the right to wed.

The former Republican presidential candidate, US ambassador to China, and Utah governor wrote the opinion piece, “Marriage Equality is a Conservative Cause” for The American Conservative, which went online Thursday.

“I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life,” he wrote. “There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.”

Huntsman also talked about his push for civil unions while he served as governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009 even though 70 percent of residents were against it, adding that religious institutions should not be forced to recognize the marriages if it is “counter to their conscience.”

In 2011, as a Republican presidential candidate, he talked with Piers Morgan in a CNN interview about his views on gay marriage.

“I believe in civil unions,” he said at the time. “I’m in favor of traditional marriage, I don’t think you can redefine it without getting in trouble . . . I think this country has arrived at a point in time where we can show a little more equality and respect.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Newsmax – Newsfront


Huntsman: Conservatives Should Embrace Gay Marriage