1 - 13 |

• while the odds aren't any better that sniffer read the Holiday Task Force recommendations than that he actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, I think somebody from team sniffer had to have read at least most of the recommendation. Reason I say that is because SOME of what he said on factor fiction was Close to being kinda sorta halfway correct. unlike sniffer, I read the Task Force Recommendations. It was like pulling teeth, but I took advantage of CMM posting it on this story and I read it. I came away from the report honestly believing that the Task Force went  overboard in trying to be so inclusive that they did leave themselves open to being criticized by somebody trolling for a "culture warrior" story. one thing  the task force did not do was BAN colored lights, contrary to billo's AND sniffer's accusation, but did (and I believe this was a mistake) discourage them. sniffer's hate mongering "this is something out of the old soviet union" belch was laughable to me, particularly after I read the recommendations. The task Force specifically mentioned, what was it, 9(?) religions/cultures and wanted to be sensitive to everybody. the"old soviet union" never acknowledged God or allowed religious worship. billo kept interrupting Ms. Boyle and finishing her sentences  for her, steering her direction. In fact I came away from the factor fiction gasser wondering why billo took such pains to control the direction of this ENTIRE non story. After reading the Recommendations and watching it again on the CMM clip, I surmised that in all actuality, billo knew there was  little smoke but even less fire to this thing and wanted to make sure sniffer didn't get too nuts and give away the grift by saying something really stupid (which he did anyway). In my opinion, The Task Force Recommendations was a case of good intentions going too far and as a result, the parasites from fox noise and team sniffer got the "culture warrior defense of Christmas" scam started early.   I could be wrong, but my guess is that the 15 people that made up this task force (no matter what billo called them) probably did this as volunteers, on their own time, neither paid nor compensated for their time or trouble. Those folks are named in the attachment. I believe they are not as sniffer viciously accused them "the arrogant minority" but rather decent, thoughtful people who felt they might make a difference for the good. (as for the ACLU's Seth? sniffer didn't whine about the ACLU when they supported limbaugh during his Oxycontin bust plea deal fiasco). Fort Collins is now a vibrant, ethnically diverse, culturally sophisticated community. In the end,  the City Council will probably throw out some of the recommendations and keep some others. (I hope they at least thank these people for their efforts). In fabricating this chapter of the lucrative "culture warrior saga", team sniffer is pandering to the worst instincts of sniffer's and billo's true believers......The Arrogant Minority. Whipping up as much hysteria, fear, prejudice and exclusivity as they can. after all, "That's Show Business".

  • - letkemann479678 / Sunday November 11, 2007 01:16:28 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• LETKEMANN. A good concise commentary to utter tripe from two gutter dwellers like O'Really and the odious Caplis. Caplis has become a shameless prostitute for the Fox Pigs.

  • - bigboof1005875 / Sunday November 11, 2007 10:48:01 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• Yes, but now he can wear his " I was on the Factor" badge of honor. What a lucky day for all of Colorado, we now have another certified culture warrior of our very own. <sarcasm> Like we needed anymore what with the enclave down in the Springs.

  • - Pithaughn / Monday November 12, 2007 02:10:37 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• Letkemann, I just wanted to say before I go on another lenghtly but important off-topic tear, I enjoyed your insightful post, as I always do.  If you agree with the posts that follow, please get the word out. regards

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:11:22 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

•  

  ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 1

    

  Uh, oh, BigBoof, there you went and did it.  You called Dan Caplis a ‘shameless prostitute for the Fox Pigs’.  You branded him a whore.  You are close to crossing the line, buddy.  If these were public airwaves, and you called someone a whore, Caplis would call for your ridicule and possible firing from your broadcast job.  There’s only one problem with that:  Being the consummate hypocrite, Caplis doesn’t follow his own rules.  By Caplis’ own standards, he should have been fired from Clear Channel well over two years ago, when he misrepresented the statements of a young woman and virtually labeled and branded her a whore.  If that wasn’t enough, Caplis should have left his job in shame last April, when he chastised Don Imus or anyone who would brand young women ‘hos’/whores on the public airwaves.  Unfortunately, Caplis, and maybe Clear Channel, have no shame.

    

  This occurrence began during the height of the CU football scandal, and is related to a news story was published on March 1, 2005 in the Denver Post:

    

  The Denver Post Article:

   ‘The University of Colorado student trainer drove the young football recruit back to his Broomfield hotel after a keg party at a player's home. At the party, members of CU's 2001 football team had urged her to show visiting recruits a "good time," which she understood involved sex, she told investigators last spring, according to a copy of a grand jury report obtained by 9News.After they got to the recruit's room at the Omni Interlocken Hotel, nothing happened - for a time. Then a group of eight more players and recruits showed up and demanded that she perform sex acts with the recruits.In addition to the woman's story, which has not been reported previously, the grand jury described three other new accounts from female athletic trainers who said they were sexually assaulted - including two by one assistant coach - and several other women who said they were sexually harassed.The grand jury also examined the previously reported account by a fourth trainer who said she was sexually assaulted by a player, then felt intimidated by head coach Gary Barnett.The report described such a climate of abuse within the athletic department that the authors suggested: "The university ... has an obligation to educate, instruct, oversee and warn female athletic trainers of a known, hostile environment that can potentially lead to situations involving sexual abuse and assault."None of the cases led to criminal charges, as police said they lacked independent evidence or the women involved declined to cooperate.At the Omni in the fall of 2001, the woman among the recruits and players quickly found herself in a "scary situation," she told university and Broomfield police more than two years later.The grand jury report, quoting the officers, said she performed a sex act on one of the recruits "in order to get it over with."The woman told police she was never forced to perform the sex acts."The players told the woman that they wanted her to 'do this for the recruits, because they wanted them to come to CU and they wanted them to show them what CU was all about,"' the report said. 

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:36:48 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 2

     

  Denver Post Continued:

    She was a willing participant, one player told investigators. "At no time did she try to leave or protest what was going on," the report says.In the hallway, "two of the players came after her and grabbed her arm and tried to persuade her to come back in the room," according to the report."She said they did not grab her with much force and she 'kind of tugged away.' She said that she believed if they had wanted to drag her back into the room they could have, but they did not do so." As for the student trainers who said they were sexually assaulted, one of them was identified as a Jane Doe in previous news stories. That woman took her claim to Steve Willard, the sports medicine director, and head coach Gary Barnett.The report faulted both men for allowing a hostile environment, and not reporting the woman's claim through proper university channels. A second trainer said she was assaulted in her car by a football player.Two other female trainers said they were sexually assaulted in separate incidents by an unnamed assistant coach, one in a dorm room, and the other in the Dal Ward Center. University president Betsy Hoffman said she could not comment on whether that coach had been disciplined, calling it a personnel matter.The grand jury harshly criticized the athletic department for failing to protect female trainers.

  "Other female trainers related that they are harassed, groped, mocked, ridiculed, and treated like 'second-class citizens' during practice and during games," the grand jury reported. "They stated that these practices were widely known and tolerated by the players, the athletic department, the sports medicine program and some coaches with the football team.’

   

  End of the Denver Post Article

     

  That same day, this Denver Post article was the topic of conversation on The Caplis/Silverman Show, with Caplis doing his usual minimization of misbehavior of his favored institutions and persons, this time defending his beloved CU football program. 

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:46:09 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 3

    

  Setting aside that Caplis said often that ‘there is not a shred of evidence’ that the CU football program used sex and alcohol to recruit, Caplis said the following:

    

  ‘And you (Craig) had raised another point there, and that is you said a woman, I forget the exact words,  you used, was used for sex for recruiting  a woman who worked in the training department,  as I read that portion of the article…and again we’re not privy to the report itself, this woman made it very clear that she was never forced, SHE WAS A WILLING PARTICIPANT, and I think this brings us back to, and listen its not pretty and nobody’s condoning it, but there are women out there, and I’m not saying lots, I’m not saying any where near the majority, but there are women out there who want to be with football players, and there are football players out there who will put there personal morality aside,  and take advantage of their celebrity, and have casual sex with women  umm, but there—you’re not denying and this woman was up front APPARENTLY,  SHE SAID SHE WANTED IT, she wasn’t forced, she went willingly, now do I think it’s good that she—that some guys, used her to help recruit players, no,…’

    

  Caplis says ‘she was a willing participant’, but that was according to a player, not her.  Caplis says ‘she wasn’t forced’, and ‘she said the wanted it’ and he got that information from the article.  Caplis is calling and branding, without using the actual word, this student trainer a whore, plain and simple.  What other conclusion could be drawn from Caplis’ statements--that she is ‘apparently’ a whore if not a real one?  By Caplis own statements, he is trying to say she wasn’t not forced to perform sex acts for recruiting, and there is no other conclusion to be drawn.  Caplis ignores that the same woman called it ‘a scary situation’, and if not forced, it is certainly reasonable to assume she was coerced and grabbed by the arm on one occasion, and ‘eight more players and recruits showed up and demanded that she perform sex acts with the recruits’.  Men demanding sex means that ‘she wanted it’, Dan?  Can you imagine the horrific act and injustice of putting a young woman, or any woman, in this position, where you have men coercing a woman to perform sex acts, in a ‘scary situation’ that she just wanted to be over? 

    But Caplis ignores this.  Caplis actually slanted his comments to make her look like a whore, in my opinion.  No where did she say, in the article in question and the subject of Caplis comments on air, that ‘she wanted it’, but Caplis says that the young woman said this.  This is a lie by Caplis.  Caplis therefore labels her, under no uncertain terms, a whore by his statements, and actually embellished and misrepresented her statements to say she wanted the sexual act to occur.  This is despicable. 

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:50:23 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 4

     

  You can also argue that Caplis is referring to some other women as whores who associate with football players, but there is no mistake about this one woman trainer.  Any one can have any opinion they want about the morals of anyone else, including this young woman, but Caplis didn’t leave himself any way to justify commenting like this on air.

    

  Caplis should have been fired at the time, for besmirching, and possibly even defaming a young woman to prop up his favored team, and to elevate them and himself in the eyes of the program and to feed his own warped view of being surrounded by superiority.  You see, this was outrageous enough.  But now fast forward to the Don Imus/Rutgers woman’s basketball controversy.  Here are some of Caplis’ statements on-air at that time, on and around April 9 to 11, 2007: 

    

  Caplis:  ”Taking a look at it from another direction, just the fact that he (Imus) referred to these women as ‘hos’ that he referred to these women as prostitutes, you know at that point, separate and apart from how you’ve lived your life, you had this position of responsibility, and you’re in a position to affect people, and if you’re going to use that position to refer to a female athlete you know as a, as a whore, as a prostitute, to me at that point, I think there’s a real serious question as to whether a guy should be allowed to continue in that position, not as a matter of censorship, not as a matter of political correctness, but that’s just so wrong…’ 

    

  Caplis:  ’…to  say those things, just means you’re a bad guy….if you are going to use the platform you’ve been given on a radio show, to hurt people like that and to dog people like that you’re just not a good guy. And you get to the separate question, of whichever stations decide to give him that outlet, I don’t think that is responsible, and I’m not for censorship, but if you’re gonna give an outlet to a guy, you know, some girl who works her entire life to make it to a national championship basketball game, and your gonna have some slug come on and tell the country that  she’s a ho that’s just not a very good guy and is that the way you want to use your broadcast time if you happen to run a radio station…I’m not talking about censorship, I’m not talking about outlawing, I’m not talking about suing, I’m just talking about some basic standards of decency.’

    

  Caplis:  ‘I don’t think a good person or a decent person does that to young ladies (calling them ‘ho’s’/whores), you know, that tells us something about Imus’.

    

  Caplis:  ‘I think it’s horrific, that people are out there, using the public airwaves, to brand young women as ho’s(whores)’.

    

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:54:28 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 5

     

  Caplis:  ‘Lets be uniform lets stand up right now for women across the board, and if that pressure is going to be brought on Imus’ broadcasters well lets bring it on to everybody who’s broadcasting denigration of women’.

    

  Caplis: ‘…it is real clear, certain things in life, right, are just real clear, no matter who you are, no matter what color you skin is, it is wrong to refer to women as whores…Period!.’

    

  Caplis: ‘I don’t think it is up to the black community alone to stand up and say to broadcasters do not use the public, underline public, airwaves to broadcast people who are labeling our daughters as ho’s (whores)…I don’t think it is a black issue I think it is a human decency issue. And we should all be standing up and getting on every broadcast outlet that allows those people on air.’

     

  Caplis: ‘I have a daughter, I can guarantee you, that if my daughter just played in the national championship game, or I don’t care, if my daughter was involved in anything legal, and she only would be, and all the sudden some national radio show host calls her a (whore) on air, at that point, I’m guaranteeing you I going to whatever network or company, puts that guy on air and saying you should not be using your airwaves this way.’

    What is exponentially worse about Caplis doing this labeling and branding himself even over Imus’ comment is that the Imus comment was a bad attempt at humor, according to Caplis and others.  What Caplis did by every reasonable interpretation was to brand a woman or women whores with the intention of minimizing the actions of the football team.  For whatever reason he did it, for excusing misbehavior, or possibly even retribution for coming forward, it was not for humor, and the misrepresentation of her comments also makes it much more insidious of Caplis.  This is totally disgusting and beyond contemptible—and Clear Channel has let him get away with it, even though by Caplis’ own words, such abuse of the airwaves has left the company little choice but to remove him from the air.  Caplis should choke on his words when he ever says ‘as the father of a daughter’.  He has basically branded someone’s daughter as a whore on the public airwaves when he himself said it should never be done. 

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 08:58:13 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• ‘She Wanted It’

   

  Part 6

    

  Caplis may think he has made fall-back comments over the years, saying things like ‘I’ve made mistakes’, on-air, etc.  These are cheap and easy throw-away comments, which also never refer this particular unconscionable event.  Any apology now, which Caplis may not even have the decency to make, as he often becomes more self-righteous when he’s exposed in hypocrisy, would be too little and way too late concerning his outrageous comments. 

  Is it ever OK to be sloppy or self-serving when it concerns a young woman or women in this way?  Caplis often talks about basic human decency.  He sorely lacks it himself.  Caplis has made it clear that he is capable of minimizing the abuse of others, as I mentioned in another post regarding the Evans priest sex abuse case.  Is this a disturbing pattern?  Caplis meets and exceeds his own standard for a ‘bad guy’. He should have been fired over two years ago, and lacking that action by the radio station, he should have resigned six months ago during the Imus flap for his reprehensible double standards.  And no one should lose any sleep over a Caplis ouster.  Caplis said he wouldn’t lose any sleep over what happened to Don Imus—But maybe he should have.  Just my opinion.  

  • - Newman / Tuesday November 13, 2007 09:00:33 AM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• NEWMAN, I don't have a problem with anything you said in your above posts. In fact, the only action ever taken over this, as I recall, was the firing of a low level staffer (over using his phone to solicit prostitutes) and one assistant coach. Barnett bailed, Hoffman left on her own terms, and not one accusation was ever followed up on. sniffer indeed did run point for C.U. through all of this and yeah, he did go with the "blame the victim" ruse that anybody that likes football more than what's right gladly ate up. But don't forget, that old gasbag on sportstalk (you know, the one that made a living deriding Elway for 16 years) carried just as much water for the football program as sniffer. Lots of money and power got involved in this one, and the outcome showed it. I remember being disgusted by sniffer basicly bullying, threatening, mocking, and stereotyping the young women who brought this to light. that sneering behavior no doubt intimidated those women AND any others who might have been treated similarly into backing down. I also remember the tortured logic that

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  since they were not physically dragged into the room, these women must not have wanted to leave" when they specifically stated they were intimidated and afraid. Yeah, with sniffer, it aint "what's right or wrong", it's about where to stick his nose.............Back to the Holiday Task Force, sniffer is now running the "stacked the meeting with people who hate Christmas" schtick. Even the Fort Collins Mayor is cowtowing to this, although to his credit, His Honor did say that most likely the City Council will probably go with some recommendations and throw out others. You know, like what would have happened anyway had team sniffer not inserted themselves into the process. 

  • - letkemann479678 / Tuesday November 13, 2007 12:47:25 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!There's a story up in Boulder about a couple of pretty influential jurists using an old "adverse possession" cover to claim a portion of some guy's vacant lot as their own. Our favorite proboscis has seized on this as his new crusade. On the face of it, this sounds like a low budget act by these people. The guy that owned the lot says he's paid taxes, HOA's and for improvements for over 15 years. He says these 2 "land grabbers" basically used the system and took his land. It seems really wrong to me. My only hedge is this.....sniffer's on it. I googled the names involved and lo and behold, bobbi greenlee came up. Apparently these 2 "squatters" are big time influential Boulder Democrats. bobbi is a big time Boulder repub viper. Apparently these 2 have consistently thrashed bobbi politically down though the years. Maybe something stupid like this alleged land grab  has opened up the door for a little payback. sniffer and bobbi run a lot of "outrages and crusades" through sniffer's show. The 2 accused have so far refused to go on sniffer's kangaroo court. (keep in mind, no matter what sniffer says, going on his stacked deck is not a prerequisite for anything or anybody, for any reason, at any time). Under ANY OTHER circumstances I would automatically tilt toward the aggrieved, as this sounds so slimy but since sniffer's involved I shall remain completely neutral until more information (other than sniffer's) comes  to the fore.

  • - letkemann479678 / Wednesday November 14, 2007 12:20:46 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

• These people should be embarrassed.  Removing Christmas is just demonstrating the hatred atheists have for Christianity.  Not surprising that the ACLU is heavily involved.  We should pray for these people to turn away from their hatred of Jesus.

  • - tryingtogetanaddress549 / Friday November 16, 2007 01:17:59 PM MST
  • - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

1 - 20 |