Recently in Media Category
The recent report on the Virginia Tech shooting as reported by MSNBC has a flaw that few people realize. Those that commit such actions do not think the way normal people do -- while that is obvious, few people realize the only logical conclusions. If someone is determined to kill a large number of people, and themselves (clearly this maniacal murderer's intent) then the only way to stop that outcome is the forceful stopping of the criminal.
The debate is going on right now. Tancredo looks great - "We are the last, best hope of Western civilization." - Duncan Hunter is getting no chance to talk.
Initial observation: This event is so far superior to the one conducted by the idiots at MSNBC last week that I think all Americans should come to the conclusion that MSNBC does not deserve to exist. Fox News is no great shakes, but by comparison MSNBC is cow dung.
We are getting substantive responses to important questions, and truly learning about the candidates.
I submit from this point forward all Americans should feel the same way about MSNBC as they feel about soft porn when channel surfing. Clicking in probably earns you extra time in Hell or Purgatory or whatever.
UPDATE: The geniuses at Fox News set up a wiz-bang text message vote for the debate winner and, lo and behold, Ron Paul is on top.
This would be an instance where whoever the hell is in charge should have KILLED this stupid project real quick like. It's a veritable vote for the worst project transposed to the debate. How clueless not to see this happening. Bad management.
UPDATE II: One of America's best hopes, Tom Tancredo: "If I do well in the Iowa straw poll ... in the top five ... I get catapulted up."
Further evidence of the utter uselessness of the mainstream media - in which I would include Fox News although they pose as "alternative" and MSNBC although nobody ever watches them - is highlighted by La Shawn Barber's post on the Newsom-Christian torture-murders earlier this year:
Even if the stripper's allegations had been true, why was the Duke case burning up the airwaves while the Christian-Newsom case barely emits a spark?
What's up with the lack of blanket media coverage? I'm not talking about a story here or there with case updates. The media should be swarming around this story.
I found it via NewsBusters which has more on the story.
We should be close to the point where "hate crime" can be consigned to the Dustbin of Meaningless Terms.
This entire "controversy" over Mitt Romney's religion is yet another example of big media myopia. Does anyone still actually believe it matters one whit which faith our president (or any other public official, for that matter) supposedly subscribes to?
I submit that integrity, intelligence and world view are the sort of qualities that matter in a president. "Religion" is about as relevant as whether he or she is a Yankees or Red Sox fan.
The reason is: It is nothing more than a self-reported credential, an item on the resume below "Education" and above "Personal Interests."
It would have been better to have a Zoroastrian or even an atheist with an ounce of integrity over either of these bozos.
There are plenty of relevant questions to ask a candidate, such as what exactly he would propose to do about radical Islam or our nation's borders. Mitt Romney's religion should be the least of our concerns.
I've hesitated to weigh in on the Imus controversy for a lot of reasons. Primarily, I thought there were enough people talking about it, and the best thing for everyone involved aside from an apology from Imus to those injured was to stop talking about it, but that was not to be.
Imus and I go way back. I used to ride to school every day with my dad on his way to work, and I listened to Don Imus spouting off about whatever political saga was going on. Revealing my age somewhat, Imus had already moved away from most of the schock jock tendencies that got the likes of the Grease Man kicked off the air (never listened to him but that controversy happened around that time).
Imus was a tad liberal for my tastes, but he had some of the greatest minds in politics and covering politics in America on his show from John McCain to Tom Brokaw. The show was irreverant, funny, and informative. My favorite part was the show's really good Richard Nixon and hilarious Walter Cronkite impersonations. Hard news was mixed in with humor and, sometimes a little too much, pop culture; but on the whole, the show was 10x more enlightening than most of the other tripe on morning radio.
With this announcement, the ballgame is pretty much over.
I won't start to defend the I-man's comments. They were over the line (period).
However, we have a double standard in this country. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are using this controversy to build power, plain and simple. When they have made equally reprehensible statements and done inappropriate things in the past, they have gotten a free pass. The Duke lacrosse team had an entire season destroyed by Jesse and Al, and no one is calling for their livelihoods to be destroyed. Several players may have been falsely sent to jail if they didn't have rich parents.
Al Sharpton talks about how this is a blow for decency. We haven't made our culture any more decent, but we have taken an entertaining source of real news from the airwaves. In addition, the IMUS ranch for kids with cancer will suffer as well. I hope someone picks up the Imus show, but in this culture, $$$ dictate corporate policy, first and foremost.
UPDATE: Kudos to the Rutgers women's basketball team for taking the high road here. This should have been the response all along.
The Ann Coulter remarks from Friday have created quite a to-do and resulted in some unfortunate confusion which I herewith intend to clear up.
Here is the exact quote from Ms. Coulter's address at CPAC:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' So I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions.
First, some initial points that need to be made:
Let me state for the record that I do not recommend anyone use the word "faggot" under any circumstances. It upsets people such as the folks at Equality Loudoun, who became quite agitated and unwittingly added to the confusion by making a number of misinformed claims - such as that this was Ms. Coulter's biggest applause line of the afternoon, when in reality it was about 5th. Furthermore, "faggot" is inarguably a pointed epithet which can evoke strong negative emotions from listeners and, as a general rule, for the sake of one's well-being, it is prudent to avoid doing this in the course of everyday life. It is also goes without saying it is a VERY rude thing to say in reference to gay people, in the same class as the n-word, although as will be noted I think such usage is about as common as the n-word nowadays.
Also, it is important to note that Ms. Coulter did not call John Edwards a faggot. The sentence structure is a combination of the pluperfect and future subjunctive forms and yields a hypothetical statement regarding both Mr. Edwards and the term in question. There is no reason to assume she did not choose her words carefully, because regardless of whatever else one might say about Ann Coulter few accuse her of being a poor writer. Her actual statement concerned what happens if you use a particular word. Considering that the public response to her statement has precisely confirmed what she said, there is a simple factual accuracy to the remark. In addition, as John Hawkins observes in the course of denouncing the remark, she was without doubt referencing an incident several weeks ago in which an actor went into rehab after publicly using the word 'faggot'. Ms. Coulter simply took a joke that was already half-made and plugged herself and Mr. Edwards into it.
Finally, before the false idea that Ms. Coulter's remark was representative of the outlook of "conservatives" in any degree goes any further, it must be noted that the universal "conservative" reaction has been negative. As noted in both the New York Times and Washington Post, the major Republican candidates have denounced it. In addition to Hawkins, every major right-of-center blogger I've found to have commented on the remark has denounced it: See Michelle Malkin, Ace, Captain's Quarters, American Mind, Right Wing Nuthouse, American Spectator, The Corner. I spoke with several bloggers at the conference and to a person they also denounced it.
The contention of this essay is that Ms. Coulter's remark is undeserving of the degree of opprobrium that has been heaped upon it and that conservatives, such as they are, do not need to be sprinting away from Ms. Coulter with such knee-jerk haste. In order to prove this point, we will focus on the word in question, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Coulter, and the context in which the word was used.
As a ham-handed conservative power broker whose local reputation can best be described as "radioactive," I am pleased to announce and strongly recommend a late addition to the Conservative Political Action Conference agenda:
See you there!
The former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU was arrested last week and charged with possession of child pornography. According to the Friday ABC News report, it does not sound like the charges involved quasi-porn nor does it appear that Rust-Tierney was set up:
Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.
There is a cushion of plausibility that Mr. Rust-Tierney is innocent, so one would not want to insist the story deserves any coverage at all. In reality, however, normal journalistic practice seems to be to ferret out relevant details regarding the potential importance of the case if such details are available.
Understandably, with the Academy Awards, a snowstorm and spring training hard upon us, a major newspaper certainly faces the quintessential "perfect storm" of de rigeur news, so it's a small wonder the Post managed to cover anything else at all this weekend.
But one can surmise if the alleged offender had been a former official with the Family Foundation or Concerned Women for America, a story the local NBC affiliate had managed to break Friday evening would have been a 2-page spread in the A section of Sunday's Post.
Instead, here is the total WAPO coverage, tucked into a news roundup inside Saturday's Metro section (B-5):
An Arlington County youth sports coach and former ACLU chapter president was arrested on child pornography charges by federal agents who accused him of viewing Web sites filled with explicit images of pre-pubescent girls.
Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington was charged with receipt and possession of child pornography. He was ordered detained pending a preliminary hearing Wednesday. Prosecutors said Rust-Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington. A 2002 Virginia ACLU newsletter identified him as the group's president.
The Saturday edition of the local paper of record - which, granted, is a media leviathan with 10 reporters for every 1 at the lowly Post - managed to dig a bit further into the story, and highlight a relevant local angle the Post's Lexis-Nexis search filter may have blocked:
Speaking for the ACLU, Mr. Rust-Tierney was a leading proponent in the late 1990s for unrestricted access to the Internet, arguing before the Loudoun County Library Board that people would "continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library" and that "maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet" should be allowed...
Mr. Rust-Tierney also argued that parents should have the primary responsibility for setting rules for their children regarding Internet access, and that "older minors should have access to resources appropriate for their age group, even if such materials may be considered by some parents to be unsuitable for younger minors."
A search for "Charles Rust-Tierney" on Google News about 11:00 pm Sunday brought up roughly 7 different stories, none different that the 4 listed above and none, alas, from Sunday's Post.
Bloggers, as expected, are gamely doing the job the mainstream press just won't do:
Good Stuff from the New Yorker, passed along by a friend of mine:
Virgin No. 16: Even I know that's tiny.
Virgin No. 17: "Do it"? Meaning what?
Virgin No. 18: I'm saving myself for Jesus.
Virgin No. 19: Somewhere on my body I have hidden a buffalo nickel.
Virgin No. 20: Don't touch my hair!
Virgin No. 21: I hope you're not going to sleep with me and then go sleep with seventy-one others.
Virgin No. 22: Do you mind if we listen to Mannheim Steamroller?
In my travails across the 'internets' I've come across some interesting links. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan study group by Wiki standards (and actually by their own self-proclamation) did a report, of which a summary was "Posted to Web: June 30, 2000", entitled "Illegal Aliens in Federal, State, and Local Criminal Justice Systems" Quite interesting, in fact, though a little outdated. But then that makes this an interesting topic for debate:
The increase in prosecutions and convictions of illegal aliens appears to have significantly affected both the number and the estimated costs of incarcerating and supervising of defendants convicted in federal courts. Since a substantial share of the increase in illegal aliens convicted appears to be due to increased border enforcement, this increased burden on the federal criminal justice system can be seen as a secondary cost of such border enforcement. If border interdiction efforts successfully reduce attempted illegal entry, this negative impact on the federal criminal justice system may be short-term.
More below. . .
85% of the 400+ people that bothered to watch Fox45, and bothered to sit down and send in a reply, responded "Yes" to this question. I guess it was a "hot button issue".
You may already know about it or you may not. Whichever the case, you should definitely go check out 3hive, the blog that is "sharing the sharing". It's likely that no matter what your musical tastes are, you'll find something you like at 3hive. A collective, 3hive is contributed to by Sam, Sean, Jon, Clay, Shan, and Joe. These guys review bands and provide links to mp3s posted on the bands' record label websites (translation: totally free and legal music). If you hear something you like, buy it. If there's a band you're wondering about, or if you're just interested in a particular genre (they've even reviewed Sufjan Stevens), search for it with the Navotron (right hand column). Some of the older posts have links that have since been killed, many appear intact. For those of you with dial-up you'll just have to exercise a little more patience. Worth it.
I saw this on Republitarian:
...10. Best paid blogger....Vince Harris
Comments on Republitarian confirm the paid status. Hmmm... this raises some interesting questions.
This is old news, but I didn't have internet access while I was out of town and I still think it is worth a discussion.
The May 12-14 paper issue of USA Today's headline reads "Furor erupts over NSA's secret phone call database" over a picture of President Bush. Interesting, since the word "furor" is a close homonym for the way most Americans pronounce the title for Adolf Hitler.
Is USA Today trying to suggest something, or has the liberal media got me paranoid?
What a nice surprise I found when I got back from being out of town. Mick Staton's blog looks like it will be a great way for him to communicate with and get feedback from his constituents. Let's hope it goes well and more elected officials in this area follow his lead.
I found out about this over on Too Conservative.
While South Park has gotten a little too extreme for my tastes in recent years, I can't condone the ridiculous censorship.
Is anyone else becoming a fan of the new NBC game show Deal or No Deal ? I am not one who usually watches game shows but this unique yet simple show based on managing risk is extremely addictive. A recent USA Today article succinctly describes the game's premise:
The way it works is simple: A contestant chooses a briefcase from the models posed on stage. But the inside cash amount is not revealed. As each round progresses, host Howie Mandel (who has a shaved head) offers the contestant a choice of staying with the original briefcase or making a "deal" with the bank for cash in exchange for whatever amount is in the chosen case, as other briefcases are opened, their values revealed.
I know where I'll be at 8 p.m. each Monday.
It's already been posted by Riley on TC but this WSJ article is too fantastic not to post here as well. It's below the fold.
Now I am sure British historian David Irving is an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi lunatic and the twisted view of history he supports in his literature is downright disgusting and painful to the millions of victims of the evil of National Socialism during WWII. By all accounts Irving is a scum-of-the-earth slime-ball.
Even with that said this seems pretty absurd, especially given the debate over freedom of expression that is raging across Western Europe after the printing of the Muhammad cartoons:
VIENNA, Austria â€” Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison, even after conceding he wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
It really seems that Western Europe, the mother of the Enlightenment and the concept of individual liberty is imploding on itself- now egregious thoughts can earn you a prison sentence and Islamo-Facists are burning flags and instigating deadly protests across Europe because of a cartoon. Wow.
I really get exasperated reading the drivel in the Washington Post. Of course it is not the Washington Postâ€˜s fault, they are only the conduit for secularist liberal socialists.
Like the letters to the editor in the Washington Post - Loudoun Extra today [September 29, 2005]. One is anti-Dick Black, one is anti-Jerry Kilgore, one is pro-illegal immigration, and one is pro-gay. (Sorry, no online links).
They know half the population feels differently, yet they have 100% leftist coverage today.
I cannot believe they had no letters supporting conservative values and positions. If they had none, shame on us conservatives for not writing more letters. If they had some, shame on them. I know it is frustrating to write letters that do not get published. However, we need to step it up a notch. If we do nothing, evil wins.