I laugh, because I know it’s true. You will, too.
I’m still trying to figure out if this is a satire, or a documentary.
I laugh, because I know it’s true. You will, too.
I’m still trying to figure out if this is a satire, or a documentary.
I’m not a fan of Trump (to say the least), but the sloppy work, bias, and outright dishonesty of “fact checkers” is something we shouldn’t tolerate.
And since several media outlets just produced their “fact-checks” on Donald Trump’s acceptance speech to the Republican convention, this is a perfect opportunity to see not only whether Trump was being dishonest but also whether media fact-checking is honest.
Here’s some of the “fact-checking” from NBC., with each indented example being followed by my two cents.
TRUMP CLAIM: Nearly four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58 percent of African-American youth are now not employed. Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when the President took his oath of office less than eight years ago.
THE FACTS: Yes, 38 percent of African American children are living in poverty, according to Census data. But…
View original post 1,812 more words
Remember kids, Jew-hatred is hardwired into Islam through its holy texts: the Qur’an, the hadiths (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad and his companions), and the learned commentary that’s accumulated over the last 1,400 years. Thus it shouldn’t really surprise us, even when it appalls us, to hear this on Egypt’s Al-Rhama TV, an Islamic religious channel there:
Here’s the transcript:
In a recent TV interview, host Dr. Muhammad Khaled and his guest, Islamic history professor Yusri Ahmad Zidan, agreed that burning was the “only solution” for the Jews. “The history of the Jews has been black since the dawn of time,” said Khaled. “Nebuchadnezzar burned them, the Crusaders burned them, and even Hitler and Nazism burned them. Is burning the only solution for the Jews?” he asked. “So it seems. So it seems,” Zidan concurred. The interview aired on the Egyptian Rahma TV channel on October 27, 2015.
Following are excerpts:
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: The Crusaders killed the Jews as well. They rounded them up in a house of worship, and burned it down. All the Jews who survived were sold.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: As slaves?
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: Every 30 Jews were sold for one dinar.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: That’s right.
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: The Crusaders sold the Jews who were saved from being killed. In that period, Jerusalem was left without Jews, of course.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: This is a trivial price, but obviously, that was what they were worth.
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: They treated them this way because they believed that the Jews had killed Jesus. The Crusaders treated the Jews this way because they believed that the Jews had harmed and killed Jesus.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: Dr. Zidan, the history of the Jews has been black since the dawn of time. Nebuchadnezzar burned them, the Crusaders burned them, and even Hitler and Nazism burned them. Is burning the only solution for the Jews?
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: So it seems. So it seems.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: No negotiations, coexistence, or anything…
Yusri Ahmad Zidan: It’s impossible.
TV host Dr. Muhammad Khaled: History tells us that they were burned time and again, taken into captivity time and again, and sold into slavery.
In other words, on a TV channel devoted to Islam and in a discussion with a learned doctor of Islamic History, the serious consideration of burning as being the “only solution” to the Jews was an acceptable topic. In Egypt, a “mainstream” Muslim-dominated country.
The only difference between these two and ISIS is that ISIS is acting on their beliefs.
PS: MEMRI does great work translating articles and other media from the Muslim world, exposing what they say when they talk among themselves. If you can, consider donating via the link here.
Poland recently held elections in which the Right won a landslide victory: enough seats to govern on its own, and for the first time since 1989 eliminating any left-wing party from the Sejm (parliament).
I can only gather that the BBC was not happy with the results, because they headed the linked article with this image:
(Photo credit: AFP)
That’s Beata Szydlo, likely Poland’s next prime minister. Sure, she’s waving to the crowd, but just try to tell me —without laughing!— that the underlying message isn’t “conservatives are all neo-fascists!” a particularly egregious idea, given Poland’s recent history. I’ve little expectation that “the Beeb” would have run a similar photograph if the incumbent centrist coalition had won reelection.
At least it wasn’t The Guardian: they would have photoshopped a certain famous mustache on her.
via Alexander Macris
I predict I’m going to be spending a lot more time on YouTube in the days to come:
LONDON — The Associated Press and British Movietone, one of the world’s most comprehensive newsreel archives, are together bringing more than 1 million minutes of digitized film footage to YouTube. Showcasing the moments, people and events that shape the world, it will be the largest upload of historical news content on the video-sharing platform to date.
The two channels will act as a view-on-demand visual encyclopedia, offering a unique perspective on the most significant moments of modern history. Available for all to explore, the channels will also be powerful educational tools and a source of inspiration for history enthusiasts and documentary filmmakers.
The YouTube channels will include more than 550,000 video stories dating from 1895 to the present day. For example, viewers can see video from the San Francisco earthquake in 1906, exclusive footage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Marilyn Monroe captured on film in London in the 1950s and Twiggy modeling the fashions of the 1960s.
I’ve only spent a few minutes browsing, and already I’ve found such gems as Mussolini promising peace in 1936 (if you listen carefully, you can almost hear Vladimir Putin) and silent footage from Pearl Harbor the day of the attack.
For fans of both history and 1950s-era “atomic horror” science fiction movies, here’s a treat: British Movietone footage of atomic bomb tests in Nevada, including the first film I’ve ever seen of an aerial bombing of a test site. Not sure what the opening shot of an accident aboard a carrier is there for, though:
No wonder Nevada looks the way it does…
That’s the implication in this Washington Free Beacon article. As Alana Goodman portrays it, the Clintons not only dish out favors in return for money, but they know how to play the game the other way, too:
A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.
It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.
The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives.
The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”
At the time, there were reports that the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.
The Clinton Family Foundation did not list the specific date the donation was made in its public tax disclosure forms. Neither the Times nor a representative of the Clintons responded by press time to a request for comment. Clinton ended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008.
The CFF’s $100,000 contribution to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is larger than its typical donations.
Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.
The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.
Just like all the favorable State Department decisions that came after foreign governments and business interests made big donations to the Clinton Foundation (or paid Bill for speeches), I’m sure this is all one big coincidence.
Now pull my finger.
(Psst! Read the rest!)
They apparently sent a crack (or is it “cracked”) investigative team out to look into the dark corners of Senator Rubio’s past to see what shameful secrets lurked within. What did they find? I… I almost can’t utter the words. Brace yourself, America.
Marco Rubio and his wife have speeding tickets!!! (Pardon me while I weep in hysteria)
According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.
Mr. Rubio’s troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics. In 1997, when he was cited for careless driving by a Florida Highway Patrol officer, he was fined and took voluntary driving classes. A dozen years later, in 2009, he was ticketed for speeding on a highway in Duval County and found himself back in driver improvement school.
Things got more complicated in 2011 when Mr. Rubio was alerted to the fact that his license was facing suspension after a traffic camera caught him failing to stop at a red light in his beige Buick. His lawyer, Alex Hanna, paid a $16 fee to delay the suspension and eventually it was dismissed.
Yes, it’s true my friends: the race is over. Done. He has to withdraw now. Marco Rubio and his wife have a shared lead foot! Oh, the horror! I’m so glad the Times devoted the full weight of their journalistic prowess to uncover this scandal.
Like I said: Rubio must scare the tar out of the Times’ editors, if they’re desperate enough to run with this. Considering what the press did to Sarah Palin, I hope he has locks on his garbage cans.
Via Henry Gomez, who also relates the sordid story of the Rubio refrigerator.
I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Sharyl Attkisson’s “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”
Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist who spent roughly 20 years with CBS before leaving in 2014. For her determined pursuit of the truth and information government and corporate officials would rather keep hidden, she’s been called a “bulldog,” a term she regards as a compliment. While Stonewalled deals with the scandals and evasions of the Obama administration and its allies, Attkisson has a reputation as a bipartisan bulldog — a pain in the tuchus to Democrats and Republicans, alike. This is what a good journalist should be.
I’m about half-way through Stonewalled and, so far, it’s been equal parts enjoyable, infuriating, and even frightening. Before discussing scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Obamacare rollout, as well as the almost equally scandalous supine attitude of mainstream journalism toward the administration, Attkisson opens with the story of her discovery that her work and personal computers, and her phone, had been hacked by a government agency during her investigation into the Benghazi massacre. Though she hasn’t yet identified in the book who she believes is responsible, I’ll note that she has filed suit against the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service. Discovery, as they say should be interesting.
I’m reading her book in Kindle format; it’s also in soft (forthcoming) and hardcover. Regarding the Kindle edition, I’ve spotted just one lone typo and no formatting problems, which is very good for an e-book. Her writing style is straightforward, almost Hemingway-esque in its directness. If Ms. Attkisson reveals any ax to grind, it’s her firm belief that information paid for with taxpayer dollars belongs to the public, not the government.
I’ll post a review when I’ve finished.
PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. Wouldn’t you?
Amazing. This claim was totally debunked, yet the Green Cultists are pushing it again. They must think the public has the memory capacity of an ant, or something.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Alarmists are busy recycling old debunked climate claims, in a desperate effort to build up momentum for the upcoming Paris climate conference.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
Glaciers in the Everest region could shrink at least 70 per cent or even disappear entirely by the end of the century as a result of climate change.
Researchers in Nepal, the Netherlands and France have studied weather patterns on the roof of the world and then created a model of conditions on Everest to determine the future impact of rising temperatures on its glaciers.
“The worst-case scenario shows a 99 per cent loss in glacial mass … but even if we start to slow down emissions somewhat, we may still see a 70 per cent reduction,” said Joseph Shea, who led the study.
The IPCC, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to…
View original post 112 more words
I swear by all that’s holy, I am so sick of the Left branding any criticism of their policies or philosophy as “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” or whatever that I nearly break out in a rash when it happens these days. It demonstrates their barrel-scarping intellectual bankruptcy that they have to resort to smears, since their ideas have long since been shown to be miserable failures. And it’s not just the loony Left engaging in these nauseating campaigns, but supposedly respectable people and institutions.
The latest is The New York Times, which has an error-filled editorial accusing the Republicans of, naturally, racism in their opposition to President Obama, the latest case being criticism (1) of the nuclear “deal” with Iran. Here’s an excerpt:
It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.
Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.
This is such bull-waste that I think I should have put on my hip waders before reading it.
Joel Pollack of Breitbart has a point by point rebuttal of this farce. Here’s what he has to say about the above quote on questioning Obama’s citizenship:
Another attempt to rewrite history. The first questions about Obama’s citizenship, and the first attacks on his faith, came directly from the Hillary Clinton camp in 2008. (2) No doubt the Times feels uncomfortable acknowledging that fact on the day that Hillary Clinton announces her new run for the presidency. The fact that a fringe of the GOP later embraced the Birther movement did not change the fact that it started with Clinton, nor make it the basis for Republican opposition.
Then, regarding the Republican open letter to the Iranian leadership, authored by Senator Cotton (R-AR)
The charge of racism is ridiculous, made more so by the example the Times chose. The Times also distorts the content of the letter. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and his colleagues did not say Obama “had no authority to conclude negotiations.” It said he shared that authority with Congress, such that any agreement he did conclude would only be an “executive agreement” and would not be binding on future presidents. The fact that the Times has to lie about the letter is telling.
…The difference between Reykjavik and Lausanne is that Reagan was willing to walk away from talks at Reykjavik! And the fact is that Democrats in Congress undertook many actions that undermined President Reagan and other Republican presidents. There were Ted Kennedy’s overtures to the Soviets, John Kerry’s outreach to the Sandinistas, Nancy Pelosi’s coddling of Assad, and other examples. Does the Times really want to go there? No problem!
Read the rest to see the Times’ editorial thoroughly dismantled.
So, in the effort to support the president’s policies and convince people that they should support Democrats, all America’s once-premier newspaper has left are lies and slanders.
(1) Odd that there’s no mention of the strong resistance from Democrats, such as Senators Menendez and Schumer. Are they racists, too, O editorial board?
(2) So, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee is racist, n’est-ce pas?
From the Media Research Center:
There are exceptions, but so much of the MSM is corrupt, but in their minds they don’t think of it as corruption, because they’re “fighting for justice,’ which is more important than the truth.
They don’t give a damn about the truth.
Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.
In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.
To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.
Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school.
Get that? There’s something wrong about Scott Walker: he quit school, he wasn’t a good student, he was politically ambitious, and –my favorite– he may be religious:
Walker lost, 1,245 votes to 927. His friends say he handled it with grace, telling them the loss just meant that God had another plan.
What you see there is a liberal “dog whistle, meant to signal like-minded progressives that Walker’s “not one of us.” He’s one of “those people” — the religious. Who knows what other frightening and primitive things he might believe? OMG!! RUN FOR THE HILLS! VOTE DEMOCRATIC OR WE’LL ALL HAVE TO GO TO BINGO NIGHT!!! AAIIEE!!!!!
Does anyone else besides me see nothing noteworthy in the son of a Baptist minister dealing with his electoral defeat in a Christian manner? The. Horror.
Read the whole Post article, then read Walsh for its deconstruction. He’s spot on when he writes:
To the Kredentialed Klass, a college degree — preferably from an Ivy League school — is the sine qua non of life itself. Sure, a couple of very prominent media personalities lack one themselves, including the recently defenestrated Brian Williams; the current host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, didn’t graduate from college, either. But no matter: this is the presidency we’re talking about!
The effrontery of this rube, thinking he can rise from Flyover Country to join Our Betters on the East Coast!
Walsh brings up the example of Mitt Romney and how the MSM had to dig into his high school days to find anything bad about him, but I think there’s a better example: Sarah Palin. Remember the reaction from when John McCain introduced her as his running mate to her amazing speech at the Republican convention? The Democrats and the media elites (but I repeat myself) were beside themselves with fear and, once they had stopped wetting themselves, they set out to do everything they could to destroy her: mock her intelligence, her middle class origins, and even the way she speaks; set hundreds of reporters dumpster-diving through her records, looking for anything little thing that could be spun against her; get Alaska allies to file bogus ethics charges one after the other; and even question whether her Down-syndrome child was really hers. They were scared to death she could beat them, and so they set out to find anything they could to destroy her. And while they didn’t find anything, the constant drumbeat of accusation and innuendo itself did its work: she was forever tarred as a future candidate. (1)
Then there’s the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the one that didn’t bark. For all that digging into Palin, Romney, and now Walker’s distant past —looking for anything!— let’s recall how closely the media in 2008 and 2012 looked into Barack Obama’s background.
Oh, you’re back already. Yep. The dog did nothing in the night-time. Almost no one in the MSM looked more than superficially into Obama’s family, his boyhood in Hawaii, his time at Occidental and Columbia, his law school years at Harvard, his years as a community organizer or his record as a state senator. Not into his actions or the people he associated with. Nothing. (2)
Good doggie. You just lie there and stay asleep. You’ll know what to do when a Republican shows up.
Walsh (and before him Rush Limbaugh) is right: the Democrats and their allies in the media will always tell you whom they fear most. Right now, Governor Scott Walker scares the tar out of them.
With good reason.
(1) Yes, I know: “She resigned!” And that stained her image, too. No doubt. But, without going into a long explanation, I think a whole lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about in this case.
(2) There are good books about Obama’s background, but they came out either too late for the 2008 election (and were overwhelmed by the financial panic) or years later and were mostly read by a specialized audience. Three I’ll recommend are The Case Against Barack Obama, The Communist, and Radical in Chief. I reviewed the latter two here and here.
Looking at the ferocity of the Jordanian response to ISIS’ atrocities, he notes:
You know what question I’m not hearing? Is the Jordanian response to terrorism “proportionate”? Only Israel gets that one.
— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) February 7, 2015
Funny how that works, isn’t it? Almost as if there’s a double-standard in play, with the loser happening to be Jewish… Nah. Couldn’t be.
Global warming is like the monster in a bad 1950s science fiction movie: there is nothing it cannot do. Nothing.
The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island…
View original post 926 more words
It’s a measure of how craven and corrupt our political culture has become that even the Dean of a journalism school in a nation founded on free speech and freedom of the press should say “there are limits, however:”
Charlie Hebdo has gone too far.
In its first publication following the Jan. 7 attack on its Paris office, in which two Muslim gunmen massacred 12 people, the once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.
Charlie Hebdo’s latest depiction of the prophet Mohammed — a repeat of the very action that is thought to have sparked the murderous attack on its office — predictably has given rise to widespread violence in nations with large Muslim populations. Its irreverence of Mohammed once moved the French tabloid to portray him naked in a pornographic pose. In another caricature, it showed Mohammed being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.
While free speech is one of democracy’s most important pillars, it has its limits.
So says DeWayne Wickham, Dean of the School of Global Journalism and Communication at Wayne State University. In a very limited sense, he’s right: I cannot go yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater (1), for example (2). Nor can I incite to violence by, for example, standing before a crowd and telling them to go now and beat up a certain person or persons.
But that’s it. All other political speech is within bounds, regardless of whom it offends. You cannot have a free society unless the it includes the right to freely criticize those in authority — and not just criticize, but to satirize and mock, too. If I as a Catholic want to question Original Sin and the need for Divine Grace, or that Jesus was not Divine until adopted by God, then the Church might well denounce me as a heretic and excommunicate me, but the law cannot punish me for my beliefs, nor should I fear physical violence. If I want to be truly outrageous and place the Crucifix in a beaker of urine, I would be a jackass, but I still should not have to fear either legal sanction nor physical violence.
And the same is true of any religion. If I want to question Muhammad’s status as a prophet, or even if he existed at all; if I want to argue that his earliest biography shows he was a bandit, a warlord, and a torturer; and if I want to criticize Sharia, Islam’s divine law, for calling for the execution of homosexuals, that is my right as a free man — even if I want to draw questionably funny satirical cartoons.
This is the right of any human being and well-within the “limits” of free speech.
Let’s be honest. It’s not a regard for the proper limits of free speech that motivates Mr. Wickham. If he or one of his students offended some Amish who then complained, I’m willing to bet he’d be on his soapbox screaming about “free speech” and “freedom of the press.”
And that leads us to the truth. Amish might shun you. Catholics won’t invite you to Bingo Night. A Buddhist would probably just decide you’re an annoying illusion and don’t really exist.
But all too many Muslims would be quite willing to kill you for insulting their Muhammad. Just ask the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, or Theo van Gogh.
The limit to Dean Wickham’s freedom of speech is his fear of punishment, and thus he is not free at all.
via Michael Walsh
(1) Popehat points out the serious flaws with that particular justification for censorship.
(2) When it’s not true, that is.
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the worst reactionary bigots I’ve ever met have all been on the Left. Case in point:
I’d never heard of Michael Tomasky before this morning, when my feed reader was suddenly full of commentary about his anti-South screed at The Daily Beast. Apparently the recent disaster the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections set him to boiling, and Mary Landrieu’s defeat over the weekend in the Louisiana runoff blew the lid off:
Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)
With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.
“They’re such nice people, but I really hate their guts!”
Mikey then goes on to say there are some parts of the South the Democrats really do need, but, for the rest, he wishes secession had succeeded, because they just aren’t real Americans down there.
Yeesh. Look, Mike. I know the election was hard on you. From Texas to the Atlantic, there is now only one Democratic statewide officeholder in the Old Confederacy. Landrieu lost a seat the Democrats held since I think the 1870s (1). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think every state legislature in the South is now in Republican hands, too.
I get it. This is tough on you. It can’t be easy being rejected when you’re so cock-sure of your own side’s intellectual and moral superiority. I only hope you didn’t smash the keyboard while writing your tirade.
I’d like to think the election results would have lead you and your fellow progressives to reflect on why you lost so badly in that part of the country. What policies lead to your rejection? What was it about what the Democrats were offering that made so many say “no, thanks?”
But, no. You and so many like you in the progressive commentariat already know the answer, no self-reflection needed: “They’re all a bunch of mouth-breathing Jesus-fetishists who just don’t know what’s good for them, so we should just tell them to go to Hell!”
If that’s the case, Mike, how do you explain Colorado and Iowa, where Republicans won the Senate races? Or New Mexico and Nevada, where Latino Republicans won reelection for governor? Or deep-Blue Maryland and Massachusetts, where Republicans also won the elections for governor? I’ve never been to Maryland, but I know it ain’t a “Free-Market Jesus Paradise.”
If you want to find the real bigot suffering from “choleric resentment,” Mike, try looking in the mirror.
(1) You know, when Reconstruction ended and the Democrats returned to power, using Jim Crow laws and their allied terrorist groups, such as the KKK, to make sure Blacks could never vote Republican — or often not at all. There’s a good book on all that and more.
Correction: When I wrote “only one Democratic statewide officeholder,” I was thinking of Governor McAuliffe in Virginia. I forgot about Senator Nelson in Florida. Still, the party is almost extinct in statewide offices.
The nonpartisan data analysis company Crowdpac decided to research the political leanings of various professions to see which were more liberal and which were more conservative. The results overall are interesting, and I recommend the article at Business Insider, but one chart showing the leanings of the newspaper and print MSM is just amazing:
The X-axis shows how liberal or conservative a respondent is, while the Y-axis gives the number at each level. Not only does print journalism skew Left, but the vast majority of the industry’s liberal members fall into the three most-liberal grades.
And yet liberals scoff when we complain of “media bias.”
This is not a healthy situation, just as it wouldn’t be if the vast majority of journalists leaned Right. When news media is so skewed in one direction, it loses any sense of other perspectives or opinions on important issues, or even what qualifies as an “important issue.” And this limited perspective is transmitted to its audience, which winds up being under- or misinformed. Or they dismiss the MSM altogether, having realized thanks to alternative media that there is so much they aren’t being told, if not outright mislead about. And that isn’t healthy for the print media, as their crashing circulation numbers attest.
Mollie Hemingway* at The Federalist gives several examples of why people hate the media (including TV), beginning with the recent resignation under fire of Elizabeth Lauten, an obscure Republican congressional staffer who said some unkind things about the Obama daughters on Facebook. But she doesn’t stop there (there are oh so many examples to work with) and includes a rant from Florida’s Rick Wilson that’s worth quoting:
Republican media operative Rick Wilson went on a beautiful rant last night about this embarrassing Lauten debacle. You can read the whole thing here. This is edited down but he wrote, “Reporters and media folks wondering, ‘Why don’t people trust us?’… The last couple weeks should be clarifying for you… But the endless, agenda-driven games are repellent to readers/viewers. Your sins are of omission and commission both… You used to be able to claim news judgement and ignore stories you hated. You still do, but now people see it, and you loathe it… So you’ll do one piece on Gruber, then pretend you dug in hard. But god forbid a staffer dings the Obama kids. Then you flood the zone… You pick and choose when to provide context… I love pros in the business. Love them. And most of you ARE pros. Most of you DO work stories, look for interesting angles… But you tolerate (and your editors tolerate) a lot of outrageous, absurdly bad practices. Gruber? Unforgivable… the frustration Americans feel about media isn’t getting any less acute, and some introspection might go a long way…”
This speaks to a media driven by an agenda, one formed by a self-reinforcing ideological monoculture — the fabled “echo chamber.” But the health of the Republic depends on an honest news media that contains a wide range of viewpoints, one that makes intellectual diversity a higher priority than that of skin color or gender.
Maybe it’s time for an “affirmative action of the mind?”
*hat-tip for the chart and BI article, by the way.
Well, they were South Korean soaps, and thus vehicles for dangerous wrong-thought. So the viewers had to be killed. Or something:
At least 10 North Korean officials have reportedly been put to death recently for the crime of watching South Korean soap operas.
The latest public executions reportedly bring to at least 50 the number of people put to death by the hard-line regime for taking in the unauthorized day-time dramas from south of the DMZ, The Independent reports, quoting South Korean sources familiar with a National Intelligence Service (NIS) briefing.
Go to the original article in The Independent and you’ll see that smuggling in South Korean soaps and action shows is big business. It apparently pays well enough that smugglers are willing to risk their lives to get it into the North, while political activists will launch balloons carrying the “subversive” programming over the DMZ.
There’s a reason North Korean authorities would liquidate anyone caught watching these: they really are subversive of Pyongyang’s preferred, neo-Stalinist order. And they don’t have to be overtly political to be dangerous; it’s not the family drama or the wild car chase that poses the threat — it’s what North Koreans see in the background, glimpses of life in the South. Nice homes and furniture. The latest electronics. The ability to say what one thinks without being shot for it. Plenty of food. And, while seeing all that, they might begin to think “Why can’t we have those things?” As the late Andrew Breitbart often said, “culture is upstream of politics.”
That is what scares the tar out of Kim Jong Un and his handlers, and that’s why they’re willing to shoot people who are willing to defy them by watching those forbidden programs. They’re desperate to stop a cultural virus from spreading, but it’s already too late. More and more people are going to see what life is like without a
Dear Leader Man-Child Who Thinks He Is A God ruling them and, one day, they’re going to do something about it. At that point the regime will collapse like a house of cards, just like Poland, East Germany, and even the USSR. It may not be for many years, but it will happen, and these TV programs will have played a role.
— David Edward (@_David_Edward) October 29, 2014
Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”
The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.
The spyware included programs that Attkisson says monitored her every keystroke and gave the snoops access to all her e-mails and the passwords to her financial accounts.
“The intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool,” she wrote in “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”
And if that’s not bad enough:
But the most shocking finding, she says, was the discovery of three classified documents that Number One told her were “buried deep in your operating system. In a place that, unless you’re a some kind of computer whiz specialist, you wouldn’t even know exists.”
The logical conclusion is that those documents were planted to serve as a reason to prosecute Attkisson, should she ever prove too troublesome. And she has been a thorn in the paw of the administration for several years, digging deeply and doggedly both into the Benghazi and Fast and Furious scandals. Fortunately (from the government’s point of view), CBS was willing to run interference, until it got to the point that Attkisson felt she had no choice but to resign.
Like I said, these are explosive allegations if true, and Attkisson is putting her reputation on the line by making them. (One should note that her source remains unidentified.) At the very least, this calls for a congressional investigation into the administration’s possible persecution of some in the media. (Let’s not forget how they went after FOX News’ James Rosen and the AP.) Sadly, one cannot trust the current Justice Department to investigate the matter fairly.
“Nixonian” doesn’t begin to describe the White House under Obama.
RELATED: Power Line calls this potentially one of the biggest scandals in US history and suggests Ms. Attkisson hire a top lawyer.