Thursday, February 23, 2017
Dear AP, I want to go to your bathroom. do you mind if I use the ladies room, or are yours all unisex?
An Arlington preschool teacher has been fired over a series of anti-Semitic posts on social media, including a tweet that said “kill some Jews.”Nancy Salem, who was fired from The Children's Courtyard, also retweeted: “How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough!”Tweets by Salem and other University of Texas at Arlington students were made public after watchdog group Canary Mission reported that 24 current and former students had made anti-Semitic comments online.Salem, along with 18 other students in the report, belonged to the UTA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which Canary Mission said was a “focal point for campus anti-Semitism.”
This kind of thing will not make it to the MSM.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Love or hate Donald Trump, one of the reasons he managed to win the election was that he spoke a truth we’ve all known for quite some time now, but which few others were willing to say openly: the press is the enemy of the American people. It’s a sad state of affairs, and indicative of the descent into technocratic government.
Why are blogs so popular on the Right?
The intrepid anti-blog freeper missed that point. No matter how much training the technocrats in government and media receive, we cannot trust them. They are no longer reporters of facts, they are agents of propaganda as dishonest and skewed as the editors of Pravda.
Blogging is relatively popular in the right-wing world, not necessarily because we are the best, or the most highly trained professionals, but because most of the highly trained professionals have stopped doing journalism at all. They are pure propagandists, at this point. The market had a demand for news that was either unslanted, or slanted the other direction in a sort of compensation for the blatant left-wing agitprop spewed 24/7 from the major news outlets (Fox possibly excepted).In other words, the proliferation of bloggers like myself is due almost entirely to the media not performing its own stated function. Some time ago, Tom Nichols and I got into it over whether or not the public ought to be informed about unclassified material. Tom took the position that it was better to keep as much as possible out of the public eye, because the public is too stupid, and decisions are best left to the experts.
Tom isn’t even a Leftist, but he is a technocrat. And his default position is trust the experts. He used the example of airline pilots. Certainly we trust them, right? The comparison was all wrong. Airline pilots are observably good at their jobs. We can see their record, and determine that for the most part, they do a wonderful job. The media, on the other hand, is observably bad, and in many cases intentionally so. We can see it in our own lives, when they misreport everything with a political spin. But some people still believe it is better to trust them because they are the experts? It doesn’t make any sense.
The media doesn’t like you. They wish you ill. If they could dispose of right-wing America with a wave of their hand, they would do it without hesitation. Their contempt for you is open and obvious.
I’ve had my issues with Donald Trump, and no doubt I will continue to have them. But on this matter, he is 100% correct, and conservatives ought to take note. The media is your enemy. They don’t merely disagree with you, they hate you. You are a basket of deplorables. You are bigots. You are the whitelash (even if, paradoxically, you are not white). You are stupid hicks, fundie Christian loons, or whatever else they might come up with.
They see you as the enemy. You ought to see them as the same. And, having done so, the advice of Francis Porretto is important to digest and understand fully.
Kevin Williamson does a pubic service by giving us a reminder of how the press described Mitt Romney.
The problem with the man currently leading the Republican party is that he is, as the Washington Post puts it, a hostage to the “fanatical policies of the extreme right.” His administration “insults women” and his unwelcome presence in public life “insults us all.” And, because the Republican party is all about the winning these days, the GOP establishment is “ready to forgive” . . . what? . . . “just about anything — as long as he wins.”
So says the Post, which is not alone in this estimate: Extreme on economic issues, extreme on the so-called social issues, he even has had an “extreme foreign-policy makeover,” according to The Atlantic. His views on immigration, MSNBC says, represent the Republican party “shrinking down to its most extreme elements.” One cable-news panelist insists he was the most extreme Republican presidential candidate ever. Paul Krugman laments that he has forsaken all serious policy thinking for “dangerous fantasy.” Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times is also alert to the “dangers” he presents, the “most dangerous of all” being his views on Iran, though Kristof also worries that he is too buddy-buddy with that awful, scheming Benjamin Netanyahu. Predictably, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow dogpiled him for his perplexing relationship with Moscow. Vice calls him a “sociopath” and Maureen Dowd dismissed him as “an out-of-touch plutocrat” who keeps “his true nature . . . buried where we can’t see it,” a devious figure who is so awful deep down inside that he “must hide an essential part of who he is” from the public.
that's when he springs the surprise and lets us in on the joke that his is how the press referred to Mitt Romney
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Dickerson tells Hewitt that we can’t throw out our standards on how presidents handle the media, but that “the press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own.”
Dickerson specifically pointed out the tendency of the media to provide “hysterical coverage to every little thing”:
Right on!But that one comment, they don’t trust you anymore, is a summation of where we are in America, because I really do think Manhattan-Beltway elites have lost the country.
The liberal talk show host and conservative Breitbart editor tried to find common ground during an 11-minute discussion, which made national headlines earlier this week after previously scheduled Real Time guest The Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill dropped out of the show to protest Yiannopoulos’ booking.
“The reason [liberals] want to police humor is they can’t control it — because the one thing all authoritarians hate is the sound of laughter,” Yiannopoulos said.
“And also because when people laugh they know it’s true,” Maher agreed. “… You are so helped by the fact that liberals always take the bait.”
Labels: Milo Yiannopoulos
I don't think that first Amendment you refer to says what you think is says.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Her version of the story is false and the White House has the tape to prove it.
A work in progress. Read the whole thing:
The press has a problem, and it seems to be getting worse. Whether through bias, sloppiness, or sheer panic, the mainstream media has dropped its standards since President Trump was sworn in.Rather then adjusting adeptly to Trump's easy relationship with the truth and his tendency to abuse members of media, by dialing up their standards, a significant number of journalists have tripped over themselves recently to repeat every bit of gossip and half-cocked rumor involving Trump and his administration.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
More mainstream media mess-ups: The Muslim Olympian 'detained because of President Trump's travel ban' was detained under Obama
Who's the liar, the press or the Muslim?
Reporters have done it again.
The latest media misfire on the Trump administration involves Ibtihaj Muhammad, a New Jersey native who made headlines last year when she became the first female Muslim-American to win an Olympic medal for the United States.
Muhammad, a lifelong American citizen, claimed in an interview last week that she was detained "just a few weeks ago" by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. She said she was held for two hours without explanation.
Her remarks on Feb. 7 earned her an entire news cycle, as several journalists ran with reports suggesting, and alleging outright, that the American Olympian had been ensnared in the president's executive order temporarily barring immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries.
But Muhammad has since clarified crucial parts of her story, including the date on which she was detained. A Customs official with direct knowledge of the incident has also disputed much of how she characterized what happened.
"She comes and goes many times. She travels quite extensively. She has never been stopped before," the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Monday in an interview with the Washington Examiner, confirming that she was indeed detained. "She wasn't targeted. The checks are totally random; random checks that we all might be subject to."
Journalists reacted to the story on social media with the usual mixture of despair and outrage.
The problem with this particular news cycle is that Muhammad was detained in 2016, weeks before Trump had even been sworn in as America's 45th president.
To put it plainly, reports suggesting, and alleging, that the executive order had ensnared an American champion are totally false.
Before we go, a few points bear further discussion, and none of them reflect well on Muhammad or the press.
First, it's mind-boggling that no one in that room on Feb. 7 thought to ask her for the exact date on which she was detained. It's a basic duty of journalism to get the who, what, where, when, why and how to every story. That Muhammad's interviewers didn't think to pursue the "when" is astounding.
Secondly, Muhammad isn't blameless in all of this. A less-than-charitable person would suspect her of being intentionally vague and imprecise. She was asked a simple "yes or no" question about the president's immigration order. Instead of giving a simple answer, she provided an anecdote involving the very misleading use of "just a few weeks ago."
Her follow up remarks in that interview are also suggestive. Here's the next part of the transcript:
PS: That must have been a scary moment for you.
IM: It's really hard. My human response is to cry because I was so sad and upset and disheartened — and just disappointed. At the same time, I'm one of those people who feels like I have to be strong for those people who may not be able to find that strength.
I feel like I have to speak up for those people whose voices go unheard. It was a really hard two hours, but at the same time, I made it home. I try to remember to be positive and to try to leave all these situations, even if they may be very difficult, with love. I think that we will come out on top as women, as people of color, as Muslims, as transgender people, as people who are part of the disabled community — I think that we'll come out on top.
Muhammad, who did not respond to the Examiner's request for comment, did no one any favors with her language. Her remarks seemed to suggest her detainment had something to do with the president's executive order. Based on the press' coverage of her comments, many reporters clearly took that to be her meaning.
Lastly, the biggest problem with this particular news cycle is that so many reporters took Muhammad at her word. Few attempted to corroborate her story with Customs. That much is evident from the fact that several journalists thought the incident occurred post-Jan. 27.
In short, this entire news cycle is the result of reporters rushing to fill in the blanks in vague remarks made by a Muslim woman who, they thought, had been affected by the president's immigration executive order. They thought wrong.
Monday, February 13, 2017
A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit fly over Guam after launching from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, for an integrated bomber operation Aug.17, 2016. This mission marks the first time in history that all three of Air Force Global Strike Command's strategic bomber aircraft are simultaneously conducting integrated operations in the U.S. Pacific Command area of operations. As of Aug. 15, the B-1 Lancer will be temporarily deployed to Guam in support of U.S. Pacific Command's Continuous Bomber Presence mission. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Smoot)
The administration is considered truthful by 49 percent of registered voters and untruthful by 48 percent.
But the news media is less trusted than the administration, with 53 percent calling it untruthful and just 39 percent finding it honest.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Interesting blog post. Examples ...
- Neo-nazi James von Brunn, the US Holocaust Museum shooter, June 2009, has been labelled a "right-wing" terrorist, and no doubt many vaguely think of him as a "Christian" terrorist.
- In fact, he could just as easily be called a "left-wing" terrorist: He hated Israel, opposed the Iraq War, thought 9/11 was an inside job, hated Fox News, hated neo-cons, hated Bush and McCain, and finally he hated Christianity, and said he was a socialist(the Nazis were collectivists).
- He referred to "the insane teachings of Jesus", and said the gospels are: "stuffed with lies, miracles, guilt trips, betrayal, virgin birth, eternal damnation, salvation - a scenario appealing to the superstitious, vulnerable, ignorant yearning sheep - he named his hoax "Christianity." ... "Christianity" destroyed Roman Civilization." So he is not a Christian terrorist.
- Andrew Joseph Stack, the perpetrator of the Austin tax office suicide attack in Feb 2010, has been labelled a "right-wing" terrorist.
- John Patrick Bedell, the perpetrator of the Pentagon shooting in Mar 2010, has been labelled a "right-wing" terrorist.
- Roger Stockham arrested in Jan 2011 for threatening a Detroit mosque.
- But, far from being a Tea Party member, he's leftist / Islamic / mentally ill.
- He is a convert to Islam, and said in the threats that he was: "a local Muslim terrorist on a roll." A witness says that he: "called himself a mujahedeen".
- In fact, this seems to be a case of a Sunni threatening a Shia mosque. And more. Not quite the Tea Party narrative, then.
- Acts 17 Apologetics point out that some people rushed to call him a "Christian" terrorist, and the local Police Chief even said:"He picked Dearborn as a stop because of the huge Arab and Muslim population." When in fact he picked a Shia Muslim mosque because he was a Sunni Muslim.
- In a similar phenomenon to the Tucson blood libel against Sarah Palin, people even accused Acts 17 Apologetics of inciting the attack! They have a lovely response: "It seems that our hate speech (i.e. drawing attention to disturbing facts about Islam, while maintaining our love for Muslims) somehow caused the Sunni-Shia split. Perhaps Jem believes that Nabeel and I constructed an Acts 17 time machine, travelled back to 632 and caused division in the Muslim community right after Muhammad died. Perhaps I went to Abu Bakr and said, "Hey! You should be leader!" Then Nabeel went to Ali and said, "You're better than Abu Bakr!" Fourteen centuries later, the division we caused led a Sunni convert to attack a mosque. Acts 17 must be even craftier than we thought!"
- The Washington Navy Yard shooting of Sept 2013 was not blamed on the right, but it was fascinating that the shooter turned out to be an Obama supporter.
- A friend said about him: "He was more of a liberal type; he wasn't happy with the former [Bush] administration. He was more happy with this [the Obama] administration -- as far as presidential administrations."
- Of course, primarily he was mentally ill.
- But don't you think that if he was a Tea Party supporter, all hell would have broken loose?
- It also emerged that the shooter created a webpage with the name "Mohammed Salem", though there is no evidence he was Muslim.
- The Las Vegas shooters in June 2014 were labelled as "right-wing".
- However, it turned out they were supporters of the left-wing "Occupy" movement.
Before the election, we were told that Trump was a Nazi and his jackbooted thugs would take over and put people into camps and treat them as nonhumans. That is, to do what was only done previously in America by Democrats.Society is more divided now than at any time since the Civil War. People hate other people because of who they voted for. People are even choosing friends and breaking apart from family members based on who they supported in the last election. Beyond Facebook unfriending, relationships are impacted. It’s based on fear, disappointment, and hatred, and it seems to be all coming from one side.Leftists said if Trump won, that there’d be violent mobs of hate, and intolerant fascists would try to silence those with whom they disagree. And they were right. It just was by a group of people from which they didn’t expect it: themselves.What is happening, in the larger sense? Historians will study this election and our times as unique, but what seems to be unfolding in politics and America overall is stunning not only in its scope, but hypocrisy.The “othering” of a group of people
They said that if Trump won, that groups of people would be identified and persecuted. And again, they were right. There is now a movement to identify anyone who supported the current president as an an extremist, which is kind of hard to do when he won the Electoral College by 70 votes, which means his support is hardly extreme and maybe, you know, mainstream.
Labels: liberal fascism
One of the great things about being a pundit is that they don’t dock your pay for being wrong.
Headline thanks to Glenn Reynolds.
Comments by Matthew Continetti
"Republicans seized her microphone," writes the New York Times. "And gave her a megaphone."Who's she? Elizabeth Warren, the overrated Democratic senator from Massachusetts. The other night Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell rebuked her for impugning colleague Jeff Sessions. Exercising a little-known rule, the Senate revoked Warren's floor privileges for 24 hours. Now, says the Times, "Ms. Warren is considered a very early frontrunner for 2020, should she run."I'm sorry. I just can't. We are three weeks into the presidency of Donald J. Trump, the most unusual and unconventional man to inhabit the White House in a century, possibly ever, and the New York Times is already naming the frontrunner to replace him? The same media and consultant class that assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in 2008 and again in 2016 presumes to declare how a Senate kerfuffle in February 2017 will affect Iowa caucus-goers in 2020? Who are these people? Where did they come from? What makes them so obtuse, so beholden to gossip, so given to wish-casting, so certain that their momentary impressions of trivial matters carry cosmic weight? Was it college that inflated their sense of self-worth? Is that what $50k a year buys you—a degree in smug? We may never know.Let me make a confession. I have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. Nor am I completely sure, since we are being honest, who the Republican nominee will be. (Trump, I guess?) McConnell's decision to cut off Warren may have been a disaster of epic proportions for the GOP. Or it could have been a brilliant strategic move, elevating an unlikable Massachusetts liberal to the top of her party. McConnell himself is probably ambivalent.I do suspect, however, that if Harry Reid had cut off Ted Cruz's microphone in 2013 the Nevada Democrat would have been hailed as a hero and genius. Even so: The shoe-on-the-other-foot argument may not count for much any more. Nothing may count for much any more. If the last year and a half has taught us anything, it is that what we think is supposed to happen does not. Brexit was not supposed to happen. Trump was not supposed to happen. The Patriots' comeback was not supposed to happen. Yet here we are.And no one seems to be drawing lessons from any of this. I open Twitter and see the very people who were convinced Trump wouldn't win the Republican nomination, who were convinced he'd lose the general election, immediately embrace the most negative interpretation of anything Trump says or does, of any event that might impact him in the slightest. They may well be right. But they just as easily may be wrong, as they have been, consistently, for some time. A modicum of humility and skepticism would go a long way. I understand that these qualities are not especially useful in a city of careerists and poseurs and pseuds. But why not give them a whirl nonetheless.