Mediaboss Marketing

For the ninth straight year, the Shawsheen Tech wrestling team captured the state vocational school championship on Saturday.

Wrestling

The Rams finished with 249 points to best the 17-team field and edge out runner-up Putnam (243).

Jake Ferri was the champion at 113 pounds and was name Most Outstanding Wrestler in the lightweight classes. Bryan Caldwell was also a champion at 132 pounds.

Chance Harper (2nd, 138), Cody Sughrue (152, 2nd), Bryan Domek (2nd, 170), Omar Eldaly (220, 2nd), Dylan Melanson (3rd, 106) and Tom Strow (3rd, 145) also starred for Shawsheen Tech.

Chelmsford

The Lions swept three matches and improved to 18-3 on the season.

The Lions took down Ludlow (57-10), Woburn (36-32) and Brockton (39-26).

Evan Goodall (138 pounds), Joe Vecchione (170) and Mike Kilmartin (182) each had 3 pins. Ben Rossano (195) won three matches by decision.

Patrick Hughes (106), Jack Stansfield (120), Devon Giannino (145), Aiden Ahern (160) and Jack Flaherty (220) each won 2 matches.

Billerica

The Indians defeated Walpole (40-24), Hopkinton (42-15) and Westford Academy (42-39).

Henri Behaegel was three-time winner at 195 pounds, as was Chris Derosa at 120 pounds.

James Best (113 pounds), Anthony Menezes (132 pounds), Jeremy Mancini (152 pounds), Nick Scuccimarra (160 pounds), Mark Gentile (182 pounds) and Ryan Higgins (220) won two matches each.

Westford Academy

The Grey Ghosts defeated Hopkinton, 51-24, but fell to Billeirca (42-39) and Walpole (39-34).

Westford's undefeated wrestlers for the day were Luke Donovan (138), Mike Attardo (145), Andrew Piedrahita (152), Cam Eldridge (160) and Max Chernauskas (182).

Tyngsboro

The Tigers finished 7th with 55 points at the Winnacunnet Invitational Tournament.

Leading the way was Josh Ducharme, who was the champion at 120 pounds.

Matt Butler took 2nd at 138 pounds, while Evan Rankin was 3rd at 106 pounds.

Lowell

The Red Raiders split four matches, defeating Acton-Boxboro (32-24) and New Bedford (42-34), while losing to BC High (39-34) and Lincoln-Sudbury (57-9).

Tewksbury

The Redmen competed at the 15-team Methuen Invitational.

Braden Hiltz placed 4th at 145 pounds by going 3-2 for the day.

Burlington

The Red Devils had three place-winners at the Capitol City Classic in Concord N.H., all of them juniors. Burlington finished 14th out of 22 teams.

Co-captain Josh Lee (132 lbs.) won his first two matches but fell in the finals, 3-2 in double OT.

Colin Moroney (106) won 4 out of his 6 matches with 3 pins. Moroney finished in fifth place.

Dylan MacKinnon (170) had 3 pins to finish in sixth place.

Anthony Rivera (160) won 3 matches (2 pins) and Josh Becker (152) had 2 wins on the day.

Greater Lowell

The Gryphons had three individual champions and took 3rd place out of 17 teams at the state vocational championships.

Zack Hamilton won the crown at 170 pounds and was awarded Most Outstanding Wrestler in the upper weight classes. He also had the most falls in the least amount of time. Ron Rossetti had 3 pins to win the championship at 120 pounds. He also won his 100th career match. Brett Weissbach was the champ at 106.

Patrick Carney (113), Anthony Blatus (160) and Donny Wilson (182) each took 2nd place. Dave McKay was 3rd at 138. Spencer Sayachack took 6th at 126.

Nashoba Tech

The Vikings wrestled at the state vocational championships, and were led by a 3rd-place finish from Kevin Keins at 120 pounds.

DJ Fraser took 4th at 220 pounds. Kenny Keins (113), Jason Mendonca (132) and Hunter Nigro (182) each placed 5th. Terry O'Reilly was 6th at 195 pounds.

Go here to see the original:

Rams are State Voke champs again; Chelmsford keeps rolling - Lowell Sun

White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It is a 2012 non-fiction book by Colin Flaherty.[1] It deals with race and crime and in particular the "knockout game",[2] violent flash mobs, and black on white crime in the United States.[3] It is published by WND Books.[4]

Thomas Sowell praised the book, feeling that Flaherty had done better research than Sowell had for his own Intellectuals and Society on the issue of black-on-white crime, and felt that the book and its message were being ignored or silenced.[5] Radio show host Larry Elder wrote that according to Flaherty's book "the knockout game has gone national."[1]John Derbyshire at VDARE described Flaherty as "an old-style just-the-facts reporter with no ideological axe to grind" and praised his work.[6]

Alex Pareene in Salon opined that the figures presented by Flaherty were inflated and the reporting misleading, after checking the sources cited.[7]Cathy Young in Newsday brought up the book when discussing the knockout game, and mentioned how she felt Flaherty, while in error in a particular case, brings forth a "narrative [that] raises a painful question" about the media's failure to report incidents accurately when perpetrators are black. That failure, she cautions, undermines the media's credibility and actually risks encouraging racist paranoia.[8]

In the Los Angeles Times, Robin Abcarian also wrote that Flaherty's numbers were out of proportion, feeling that Flaherty, amongst other conservative media personalities, was only trying to incite anxiety.[2] Leah Nelson, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, noted Flaherty's column at WorldNetDaily and labeled him a "white nationalist propagandist."[9]

In The Huffington Post, Terry Kreppel of Media Matters for America, claimed that Flaherty, in his postings on WND, had misrepresented information, including using a photo of a group of Aboriginal Australians to represent an attack that occurred in Raleigh, North Carolina, and called his postings and book race baiting.[10]Christ and Pop Culture writer Alan Noble, while criticizing American news media's focus on the knockout game, brought up Flaherty and his book and said his writing (on WND) was "absurd", called the project "one big stacked evidence fallacy", and described the act as a racist conspiracy.[11]

Excerpt from:

White Girl Bleed a Lot - Wikipedia

Jack Kerwick,

My colleague, a white man of the left, sympathizes with Black Lives Matter and could typically be counted upon to presume the guilt of police officers in those highly publicized instances of alleged police brutality like, say, those involving Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray, cases that BLM has exploited.

In the vast majority of these alleged instances of systemic racism and/or police brutality, and in all of the aforementioned cases, the besmirched officers were ultimately cleared of all wrongdoingyet only after much damage had been done.

My colleaguea good guy with whom I can ordinarily engage in congenial conversation over race and the plethora of other issues on which we disagreehas frequently sent me links to articles about unpleasant instances of interracial encounters involving white aggressors and black victims. They almost always have involved white antagonists and are said to have subjected their black targets to hurtful words.

Though he never overtly says it, my colleague clearly expects to prove through these stories that white racism is alive and well.

Now, irrespectively of color or race and whether the offense is verbal or physical, cruelty is something that any decent person must renounce. Yet I have always found the ease with which self-avowed anti-racists wax indignant over the use by a white person of a racial epithet while remaining utterly silent when confronted by brutal racial violence visited by blacks upon non-blacks as a sight to behold, something at once incredible and maddening. They are like the Pharisees who Jesus accused of straining out the gnat while letting in the camel.

Why go ballistic over a white persons insults of a person of color while uttering not a syllable of condemnation of a black persons violent, not infrequently brutally violent, assault upon non-blacks? Especially considering that blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to engage in interracial attacks (against whites, Hispanics, and Asians) than any other group and least likely to be victimized because of their race, the question bears repeating: Why the silence?

So, in order to highlight what would strike an alien from another planet as a profound rational and moral inconsistency, I now occasionally send my colleague links to, not just articles, but video showcasing black racial violence. And since the one and only person in all of media who inexhaustibly supplies links to video of this phenomenon from around the country is the investigative journalist Colin Flaherty, it is from the latters Youtube channel that I draw.

If racism or racial cruelty is an evil to be decried from the rooftopsand it isthen decent people need to be aware of the epidemic of black violence. When I sent my colleague a link to a video from Flahertys site of a white American family that had been attacked by a mob of black teens in Ireland, he unsurprisingly condemned it (like I said, hes a decent sort).

However, he also likened Flaherty to any other race inflamer for reporting on black violence while failing to engage in outreach to the black community, to see first-hand how theyre struggling and dealing with the pain and violence. My colleague added: If he [Flaherty] wants to study black criminality, he cant do it apart from black communities or black people. A whole host of people wont take his work seriously until he does.

My colleagues remarks are misplaced for the following reasons.

First, Flaherty is not an analyst or theoretician. He himself expressly eschews all theorizing about black criminality and racial hostility, refusing to trade in explanations of and solutions to the phenomenon on which he focuses. There is no point in theorizing about the problem, he repeatedly insists, until and unless people are willing to acknowledge that there is a problem.

This seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

His channel is designed to supply irrefutable proofvideoof the problem.

Second, Flaherty, while doing journalistic work, succeeded in having the wrongly convicted Kelvin Wiley released from jail. Wiley was a black man convicted of having beaten his white girlfriend and sentenced to four years in prison for battery. Wiley was innocent and Flaherty proved it.

There is no more reason for anyone to assume that Flaherty is in any sense unaware of or otherwise insensitive to the suffering that decent black folks endure because of the dysfunctionthe pain and violence, as my colleague put itthat pervades too many black communities than exists to assume that those black critics who have been sounding the alarm against it are insensitive to this dysfunction. Yet ultimately, this is not relevant, for the suffering of law-abiding blacks is largely due to the members of the black underclass among them.

Flahertys channel can be of service to them as well.

At any rate, because his focus is not black violence generally, but black-on-nonblack criminality and violence, as far as this purpose is concerned, there is no need for him to see how or even whether other blacks react to it.

Thirdly, unlike, say, Tim Wise, whose name was brought up in my conversation with my colleague, Flaherty is not a racial inflamer. No one has been harmed, let alone killed, because of any of the videos that he has shared.

Flaherty is trying to kill two birds with one stone. He wants to expose the evil of black-on-nonblack violence while simultaneously exposing the noxious fiction that it is blacks that are relentless victims of relentless white racism.

It seems to me that all of us who despise cruelty and racial cruelty benefit enormously from the service that Colin Flaherty provides, for there can be no progress in race relations unless decent people of all racial backgrounds acknowledge the problem to which he draws our attention.

See the original post here:

Colin Flaherty: Racial Inflamer or Bold Truth Teller?

Colin Flaherty Occupation Author and Commentator and Owner, Flaherty Communications

Colin Flaherty (born June 25, 1955) is a writer, talk show host and the owner of an on-line ad agency and public relations company.

Most recently his by-line appeared in Bloomberg BusinessWeek[1] after he submitted a business tip to "Today's Tip" - a section of the publication in which readers can submit business tips.

In June 2011, he won First Place in the Washington Post Spy Novel Writer's Contest. The contest was judged by Washington Post editor and best selling author David Ignatius, who said Flaherty's work was his "strong favorite," and it "advances the story and twists it in a new and interesting direction, very deftly." [2] His winning entry was the subject of a radio show on WDEL,[3] a small radio station in Wilmington, Delaware.

In 2011, Flaherty published an e-book titled Redwood to Deadwood: A 53-year Old Dude Hitchhikes Around America Again. He wrote the e-book after remembering that lots of people used to hitchhike, but few do now.

In 2012, Flaherty self-published White Girl Bleed A Lot, a book chronicling the pattern of African-American flash mobs attacking passersby in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and other major cities.[4]

Colin Flaherty attended the University of California San Diego. After attending school, Flaherty was hired to be a council representative to San Diego City Councilman Uvaldo Martinez in 1982.[5]

Four years later he was hired to cover city hall for the San Diego Business Journal.[6] After less than one year on the job, the San Diego Press Club named Flaherty the top political reporter [7] and the Best of Show. He also covered San Diego for United Press International, the San Diego Reader and San Diego Magazine.[8]

In 1992, he was mentioned in passing in a Los Angeles Times article regarding a story he had written about Kevin Wiley, a convicted murderer who was subsequently released from prison after having his conviction overturned. [9]

View original post here:

Colin Flaherty - Speedy deletion Wiki - Wikia

|

Posted: Jan 21, 2017 12:01 AM

My colleague, a white man of the left, sympathizes with Black Lives Matter and could typically be counted upon to presume the guilt of police officers in those highly publicized instances of alleged police brutality like, say, those involving Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray, cases that BLM has exploited.

In the vast majority of these alleged instances of systemic racism and/or police brutality, and in all of the aforementioned cases, the besmirched officers were ultimately cleared of all wrongdoingyet only after much damage had been done.

My colleaguea good guy with whom I can ordinarily engage in congenial conversation over race and the plethora of other issues on which we disagreehas frequently sent me links to articles about unpleasant instances of interracial encounters involving white aggressors and black victims. They almost always have involved white antagonists and are said to have subjected their black targets to hurtful words.

Though he never overtly says it, my colleague clearly expects to prove through these stories that white racism is alive and well.

Now, irrespectively of color or race and whether the offense is verbal or physical, cruelty is something that any decent person must renounce. Yet I have always found the ease with which self-avowed anti-racists wax indignant over the use by a white person of a racial epithet while remaining utterly silent when confronted by brutal racial violence visited by blacks upon non-blacks as a sight to behold, something at once incredible and maddening. They are like the Pharisees who Jesus accused of straining out the gnat while letting in the camel.

Why go ballistic over a white persons insults of a person of color while uttering not a syllable of condemnation of a black persons violent, not infrequently brutally violent, assault upon non-blacks? Especially considering that blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to engage in interracial attacks (against whites, Hispanics, and Asians) than any other group and least likely to be victimized because of their race, the question bears repeating: Why the silence?

So, in order to highlight what would strike an alien from another planet as a profound rational and moral inconsistency, I now occasionally send my colleague links to, not just articles, but video showcasing black racial violence. And since the one and only person in all of media who inexhaustibly supplies links to video of this phenomenon from around the country is the investigative journalist Colin Flaherty, it is from the latters Youtube channel that I draw.

If racism or racial cruelty is an evil to be decried from the rooftopsand it isthen decent people need to be aware of the epidemic of black violence. When I sent my colleague a link to a video from Flahertys site of a white American family that had been attacked by a mob of black teens in Ireland, he unsurprisingly condemned it (like I said, hes a decent sort).

However, he also likened Flaherty to any other race inflamer for reporting on black violence while failing to engage in outreach to the black community, to see first-hand how theyre struggling and dealing with the pain and violence. My colleague added: If he [Flaherty] wants to study black criminality, he cant do it apart from black communities or black people. A whole host of people wont take his work seriously until he does.

My colleagues remarks are misplaced for the following reasons.

First, Flaherty is not an analyst or theoretician. He himself expressly eschews all theorizing about black criminality and racial hostility, refusing to trade in explanations of and solutions to the phenomenon on which he focuses. There is no point in theorizing about the problem, he repeatedly insists, until and unless people are willing to acknowledge that there is a problem.

This seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

His channel is designed to supply irrefutable proofvideoof the problem.

Second, Flaherty, while doing journalistic work, succeeded in having the wrongly convicted Kelvin Wiley released from jail. Wiley was a black man convicted of having beaten his white girlfriend and sentenced to four years in prison for battery. Wiley was innocent and Flaherty proved it.

There is no more reason for anyone to assume that Flaherty is in any sense unaware of or otherwise insensitive to the suffering that decent black folks endure because of the dysfunctionthe pain and violence, as my colleague put itthat pervades too many black communities than exists to assume that those black critics who have been sounding the alarm against it are insensitive to this dysfunction. Yet ultimately, this is not relevant, for the suffering of law-abiding blacks is largely due to the members of the black underclass among them.

Flahertys channel can be of service to them as well.

At any rate, because his focus is not black violence generally, but black-on-nonblack criminality and violence, as far as this purpose is concerned, there is no need for him to see how or even whether other blacks react to it.

Thirdly, unlike, say, Tim Wise, whose name was brought up in my conversation with my colleague, Flaherty is not a racial inflamer. No one has been harmed, let alone killed, because of any of the videos that he has shared.

Flaherty is trying to kill two birds with one stone. He wants to expose the evil of black-on-nonblack violence while simultaneously exposing the noxious fiction that it is blacks that are relentless victims of relentless white racism.

It seems to me that all of us who despise cruelty and racial cruelty benefit enormously from the service that Colin Flaherty provides, for there can be no progress in race relations unless decent people of all racial backgrounds acknowledge the problem to which he draws our attention.

Read more:

Colin Flaherty: Racial Inflamer or Bold Truth Teller? - Townhall