Archive for Media Morons

Heard On NPR [Update: Apparently The Islamic Terrorist That NPR Didn’t Know About Killed A Couple Folks

I was gobsmacked this morning during drive time when I heard the NPR news report on the Islamist hostage situation in Sydney. The NPR reporter said, approximately, that there was a hostage situation in Sydney and that the Australian PM says it is probably political in motive. That’s all. Every other news source that I checked correctly noted that there was something resembling an ISIS flag in the window, being held up by the hostages. NPR tried to shield its listeners from the unpleasant fact that the Religion of Peace (or a minority thereof) was carrying out a terror attack in Sydney. What in the world does NPR have to gain by covering this up? And no matter what the answer is, why do I have to pay for it?

And here’s the latest, which you can share with your NPR-disabled friends:

Sydney siege live: Loud explosions heard as police storm Lindt cafe
Updated 14 minutes agoMon 15 Dec 2014, 10:38am

Police have stormed the Lindt cafe in Sydney after an intense period of loud explosions or gunshots and flashes of lights.

Several ambulances are on the scene.

Earlier, police identified the man behind the siege as Iranian cleric Man Haron Monis.

Monis has been holding an unknown number of people hostage at the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney’s Martin Place since Monday morning.

Three people emerged from the building about 4:00pm (AEDT) and they were followed by another two an hour later.

Hostages were earlier seen pressing a black flag with Arabic text against the cafe’s windows.

Monis is on bail for a string of violent offences and has a conviction for sending offensive letters to the families of deceased soldiers.

And this is from CNN

Chilling images from Australian media on Monday showed people, believed to be hostages, with their hands pressed against the cafe’s windows. They were holding up a black flag with Arabic writing on it reading, “There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God.”

Sounds like angry Congregationalists to me. Again, why are we spending tax money on NPR? They couldn’t find the news if it was handed to them in a brown paper bag.

Update: Two or three dead.

– Aggie

Comments

Mr. Tingle-Down-My-Leg Comments: Hope ‘N Change Baby!

He must be worried about the MSNBC ratings…

– Aggie

Comments

Rolling Stone Apologizes For Accusing Frat House Of Rape

This reminds me of the Duke lacrosse scandal.

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

That’s OK, Mr. Dana. This is just another example of journalists being journalists.

– Aggie

Comments

Left Wing Civility Watch

I knew I had used this post title before, but this is the 22nd time:

The real haters are in the media, some of them the openly left-leaning media and some of them claiming to be mainstream. But oh, how vilely they spew their hatred.

They accuse us of being “haters.” They, by contrast, are rational, fair-minded, and kindly. Really, they are. Consider, for example, the gentlemanly Chris Matthews on Hardball on October 27, speaking of the Republican nominee for Senate from North Carolina: “What’s worse: Thom Tillis, or Ebola?”

Here’s Andrea Mitchell reporting on MSNBC on Election Night about why Republicans were winning: “It was a scare tactic by the Republican opponents of Democratic incumbents, who tried to focus on ISIS and Ebola in the scariest, most nonfactual ways.”

Here’s Alan Pyke, deputy economic policy editor for the far-left Think Progress blog in reaction to the Fox News Channel’s coverage of the unrest in Ferguson: “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.”

Matthews (again), with regard to conservative support for voter-ID laws: “Believing they can’t convert the African-American vote, they’ve decided to slaughter it. . . . This is murder in broad daylight.”

But at least our economics aren’t lethal — merely bigoted. Just ask MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who on April 30 discerned our real motives: “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy. . . . Not raising the wage, the minimum wage, is every bit as racist as comments made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. It’s just displayed in a different way.”

Charles Pierce, who wrote this blog post about Palin’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference: “[Senator John] McCain should pay a heavy price for unleashing this ignorant, two-wheeled bilewagon [Sarah Palin] on the country’s politics. If you think she’s a legitimate political leader, you’re an idiot and a sucker, and I feel sorry for you. . . . She is the living representation of the infantilization of American politics, a poisonous Grimm Sister telling toxic fairy tales to audiences drunk on fear and hate and nonsense. . . . It was the address of a malignant child delivered to an audience of malignant children. If you applauded, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.”

Compared with that, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was quite kind to Palin, calling her merely “a multimillion-dollar moron selling a message.”

Max Brooks on HBO with Bill Maher pretended to be a Deep Thinker delivering a sober analysis. The rise of the Tea Party “has happened before in history,” he sagely intoned. “In Germany in the ’20s and ’30s…

Gawker’s staff writer Adam Weinstein shared this bit of policy advice:

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . . . Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. . . . I’m talking about Rush and his multimillion-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I’m talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. . . . Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

In case anybody missed the point, the blog post’s headline was “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.”

These are talking heads, but are they any different from our co-workers, our acquaintances, our family members? We called it Bush Derangement Syndrome back when Bush was president. But Bush hasn’t been president for almost six years. It should have been called Liberal Hate Syndrome, and there is still no known cure. (Of course, the first step is wanting to be cured.)

Comments

When White Columnists Just Don’t Get It

Someone named Nicholas Kristof (whoever he is) in something called the New York Times (whatever that is—I get my news from the Onion) has just published a fifth installment of a Dickensian serialization called “When Whites Just Don’t Get It”. I don’t link to dubious websites, so you’ll have to find it on your own.

If it’s posed in the from of a question, the answer would be “all the time”. Whites seem incapable of “getting it”, whatever “it” is. That would make them more to be pitied than censured in my book, but I’m still a bleeding-heart liberal inside my crusty conservative exterior. I have a soft spot for the differently-abled.

But liberals don’t share my generosity of spirit, my love for fellow men and woman. They’re pissed. Whites don’t get it, and have to be told so repeatedly (five times so far) how far short of getting it they continue to fall. Never mind a war to free blacks from bondage, a series of Congressional acts guaranteeing equal rights, dozens of programs, initiatives, and outreaches, and scores upon scores of “conversations” on race seeking to define “it” and then set about “getting” “it”.

“It” is something beyond mere law or statute. “It” is a state of mind. And there are no two sides, let alone polygonal approaches, to “it”. Whatever “it” is, it is as narrow and doctrinaire as North Korean orthodoxy. Those who wept with insufficient anguish on the death of Kim Jong Il were treated more kindly than those whose embrace of “it” falls short of the expected, mandatory clinch.

Seen thusly, the topic of whites and “it” is boundless. I called it Dickensian above, but I would amend that to Proustian. As macaroons were to mopey Marcel, so race is to knickers-in-a-twist-Nick.

Comments (1)

Blecch!

Why does this sound familiar?

NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday night found a new way to compliment Barack Obama. Politicking host Larry King asked the Meet the Press anchor if he “liked” the President.

KING: Do you like him?

TODD: Oh, he’s a very likable guy. Yes.

KING: I agree.

TODD: He’s very friendly. I mean, he’s very easy to talk to – You do – you sit there and have these off-the-record sessions with him. You’ve had them. And – They’re just very nourishing conversations.

Edward R. Murrow is rolling over in his grave.

Remember this?

JEFF ZELENY, NEW YORK TIMES: During his [sic] first one 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?

OBAMA: Now, let me write this down.

(LAUGHTER)

I’ve got…

ZELENY: Surprised, troubled.

OBAMA: What was the first one, surprise?

ZELENY: Surprise, troubled.

OBAMA: Troubled.

ZELENY: Enchanted.

OBAMA: Enchanted. Nice.

(LAUGHTER)

ZELENY: And humbled.

OBAMA: And what was last one, humbled?

ZELENY: Humbled. thank you, sir.

OBAMA: All right.

I don’t know what acts Marilyn Monroe performed on President Kennedy, but they couldn’t have been more lewd and lascivious than that.

And then there’s Tingles:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Chuck Todd is in good company—well, company.

Comments (2)

Is Obama Nuts?

Or is he just an Islamophile?

This is a new take on our question: Is Obama malevolent or merely stupid? And this guy is channeling me, so I thought I’d share his thoughts:

Why do Muslim extremists continue to behead people with impunity? Why do Palestinians continue to celebrate terrorist acts?

The answer is easier than you think.

They keep doing it because it works. When ISIS executed American aid worker Peter Kassig, President Obama took the occasion to show off his Islamophilia, his reverential respect for Islam.

Asked yesterday why Palestinians continue to engage in murderous acts of terror Prof. Alan Dershowitz explained that their actions have cowed much of the Western world… to the point where more and more Europeans and Americans favor giving Palestinians whatever they want.

When Palestinians attack Israel the American Secretary of State and other Western leaders conspicuously call for Israeli restraint.

When terrorism is rewarded, it is likely to continue.

Now, he is writing from the perspective of a therapist, which tells us all that it isn’t particularly healthy for us to reward genocidal behavior. Here’s more of the article:

Mona Charen has shown that Obama manifested his Islamophilia in his official statement about the recent murder of Peter Kassig.

First, the White House statement:

Today we offer our prayers and condolences to the parents and family of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known to us as Peter. We cannot begin to imagine their anguish at this painful time.

Abdul-Rahman was taken from us in an act of pure evil by a terrorist group that the world rightly associates with inhumanity. Like Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff before him, his life and deeds stand in stark contrast to everything that ISIL represents. While ISIL revels in the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims, and is bent only on sowing death and destruction, Abdul-Rahman was a humanitarian who worked to save the lives of Syrians injured and dispossessed by the Syrian conflict. While ISIL exploits the tragedy in Syria to advance their own selfish aims, Abdul-Rahman was so moved by the anguish and suffering of Syrian civilians that he traveled to Lebanon to work in a hospital treating refugees. Later, he established an aid group, SERA, to provide assistance to Syrian refugees and displaced persons in Lebanon and Syria. These were the selfless acts of an individual who cared deeply about the plight of the Syrian people.

ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own. Today we grieve together, yet we also recall that the indomitable spirit of goodness and perseverance that burned so brightly in Abdul-Rahman Kassig, and which binds humanity together, ultimately is the light that will prevail over the darkness of ISIL.

What’s wrong with this statement?

A great deal.

First, Charen points out, Peter Kassig converted to Islam when faced with a death threat. He did not voluntarily embrace the Muslim faith. When Obama insists on using Kassig’s Muslim name he is effectively affirming the legitimacy of the conversion.

She explains:

Peter Kassig converted to Islam and took the name Abdul-Rahman, but only in captivity. President Obama’s insistence upon using his Islamic name reflects his continuing belief that by denying Islamic extremism, he can promote peace….

When someone converts at the point of a sword, in hopes of saving his life, is that “adopting the Muslim faith as his own”? Whom is Mr. Obama respecting by using the Islamic name — Kassig, or his executioners?

Note well: Obama’s use of the Islamic name is a gesture of respect for Kassig’s executioners!

Even more appalling is Obama’s insistence that ISIL’s actions represent no faith, and certainly not the Muslim faith.

Who is he trying to fool?

Charen replies:

But Mr. Obama is still at pains to protect the good name of Islam. He condemns the barbarism of the Islamic State and other terrorists, but feels the need to quickly add that their crimes “represent no faith, least of all” Islam.

Throughout the Muslim world, extremism is in full bloom. Only a minority of Sunni extremists travel under the name al-Qaeda. Others are called al-Nusra (Syria) and AQIM (North Africa) and ISIS (Syria and Iraq) and Wahhabi (Saudi Arabia) and Boko Haram (Nigeria) and Abu Sayyaf (Philippines) and Taliban (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (Pakistan) and al-Fatah (Palestinian territories) and Hamas (Gaza). The Shia extremists include the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah (Lebanon), and the Madhi Army of Iraq.

Why does Obama feel compelled to protect the good name of Islam? Surely, that good name and the reputation of people who profess the Muslim faith has been sullied by the actions of multiple Islamist terrorist groups.

If Muslims want to restore their good name they will need to destroy the terrorists in their midst.

Obama’s servile profession of respect for Islam denies reality and tells the terrorists that their actions have not compromised the reputation of Islam. Their actions seem to have terrorized him to the point where he can only show respect for the terrorists’ faith.

Islamophilia is the other face of Islamophobia… the latter meaning, fear of Islam.

Charen is right to say that Obama is in denial. She might have added that the Islamic State will continue to do what it does because its actions have caused world leaders to show greater and great respect for the religion it represents.

It isn’t just that ISIS and Palestinian terrorists have barely paid a price for the horrors they have unleashed on the world. They have been rewarded for it.

And he’s exactly right. In the language of psychology, if you want more of something, reward it. In the language of economics, if you want more of something, incentivize it. Two words with approximately the same meaning – a reward happens after the behavior and an incentive precedes it, but the goal is the same. And why? Because there is a strong correlation between those statements and reality. It is a useful concept in bringing up kids, running a classroom, or a grocery store or a nation of over three hundred million. If you want more of something, reward it.

The West has been rewarding terrorism for decades. And, predictably, we are getting more and more terrorism.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

War on Women Watch

Huh?

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: The GOP’s right-wing clown car returned to DC today, it was full of familiar faces like the Senate’s #1 troublemaker Ted Cruz…

But at least one new passenger has arrived, Joni Ernst of Iowa, the castrator.

Clown car is fine, almost funny. But “castrator”? Sounds like somebody missed therapy this week. What is it with Democrat men? Tom Harkin called her a hottie, Matthews calls her a castrator.

Why not just call her Senator?

Comments (2)

Epiphany

Who does Jonathan Gruber think is stupid – the Conservatives who never believed a word of ObamaCare nonsense or the NPR/NY Times/Boston Glob crowd who licked up every syllable and accused those who didn’t believe in it of racism? When he says that the American voter is stupid, he means them. Because the Limbaugh crowd and the Wall Street Journal crowd and the Libertarians and Fox News and the small business community and the Tea Party all knew that he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi lied about this every time they spoke. It was the Charlie Rose crowd, the Terry Gross crowd, the earnest little twits who gobbled this nonsense up with a spoon. No wonder the MSM isn’t covering any of this. It’s embarrassing.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

She’s Tanned, Rested, and Ready

Well, ready, anyway:

BTL’s private army of moles, spies, and operatives spotted Lieawatha on the local streets yesterday. They said she looked angry. Ugly and angry.

Can’t see it myself:

Anyhow, get ready for more of same:

4 Reasons Elizabeth Warren Should Run for President

President of what? The Rotary Club? Ha-ha, very funny:

1. She Fits the National Mood

Voters aren’t just dissatisfied with Washington, D.C. They’re angry, and they’re anxious.

According to exit polls conducted Tuesday, about two-thirds of voters said the country is on the wrong tack — an even higher percentage than said the same thing during the Republican wave of 2010.

Additionally, voters by a 2-to-1 margin said they expect life will get worse for the next generation of Americans, while about two-thirds said that the economy favors the wealthy.

Just what the “national mood” needs: a class warrior. Can I say “warrior”?

2. Clinton’s Current Standing in the Polls Won’t Last

As anyone who follows politics knows, at around this time eight years ago, Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as her party’s “inevitable” 2008 presidential nominee.

Her eventual loss to Barack Obama demonstrated once again the folly of considering anything in this business to be preordained. And yet, here we go again.

Can’t argue there.

3. Someone Has to Do It

Really? You’re going to take our “senior senator” away from her constituents because “someone has to do it”? Take my senator, please!

4. She Has Little to Lose and a Lot to Gain

When Obama was mulling whether to make a 2008 White House bid, the reasons for him not doing so were clear: He was too inexperienced and too much of an underdog. If he bided his time for another four or eight years, most analysts concluded, he might have a real shot at the presidency somewhere down the line.

Obama ignored that advice, and the rest is history.

Just like our nation: history.

Comments (2)

Why the Democrats Got “Shellacked”

No fried chicken for you:

I’m not going where you (especially if you’re conservative) suspect I’m going with this—the standard liberal moan that working class white people are voting against their interests. That’s something Democrats have to get out of their heads and stop saying. People don’t vote against their interests. They vote for their interests as they see them. And right now, working-class and blue-collar whites think the Democratic Party is just implacably against them.

Of course I don’t think it’s true that the Democratic Party is implacably against them. I think they just think the Democratic Party is implacably against them, and part of the reason—not the whole reason, but part of the reason—they think the Democratic Party is implacably against them is that Democratic candidates in red states have no idea how to tell them they’re on their side.

Right now, working-class and blue-collar whites think the Democratic Party is just implacably against them.

Look at this map. This is something The New York Times posted a week ago showing the percentage of people who gained health insurance under Obamacare, broken down into every county in the country. Look at the map, and look at Kentucky. Huge gains. Just huge. Throughout the state, the percentage of insured doubled in many counties. The Democratic Party has been implacably for the people—in this state, most of them white—who got insurance.

And yet, could Alison Grimes go around the state bragging about this? No, she couldn’t. It’s Obama and race, yes. For sure. But it’s more. It’s hatred of government. In a lot of places, you can’t even get people to believe that Washington had anything to do with them getting insurance. So they sent back to the Senate, by a shockingly high margin, the man who has pledged that he’s going to repeal root and branch the law that got them that insurance.

How could it be “Obama and race” when he won two elections? Granted he never won Kentucky, but he lost by much greater margins than Ms. Grimes did (by 16% in ’08, 22% in ’12). Kentucky knows how to vote like the racists they are. Yesterday they did not.

I guess it never occurred to the writer that all those people who “got” health insurance thanks to ObamaCare got it thanks to a whole lot more people who have to pay for it with higher premiums and deductibles, and lower coverage and choice. Why doesn’t the New York Times print that map?

[T]hey sent back to the Senate, by a shockingly high margin, the man who has pledged that he’s going to repeal root and branch the law that got them that insurance.

Fancy that!

Comments

How Bad Does it Look for the Dems in the Midterms?

This bad:

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! Hey, why not cancel elections entirely? Just keep Obama as president forever. Handsome (so says Gwyneth Paltrow), sharp of pant crease (according to David Brooks), he looks the part.

And doesn’t it make sense to you that “when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low”, we should give them twice as much of it? Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation.

Awwwwww…woozums.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

Let’s end this nonsense. What these two bozos fail to notice is that this was precisely the intent of the framers of the Constitution. There were those who thought the president should be all powerful, as the writers suggest. But they were overruled. No one wanted another king after fighting a war to rid themselves of one. If the president’s agenda is so “well-developed”, let it make its case. The writers complain that it’s all about fundraising, but I would argue that incumbency is a bigger decider of elections. And what better way to challenge incumbency than to hold frequent elections?

And what better way to hold frequent elections than not to amend the freakin’ Constitution of the United States?

There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years.

For the love of God…

Look, I’m sorry your sainted Obama is about to get his ass handed to him in the midterms for the second time. But why on earth do you blame the midterms, and not Obama? If not for ObamaCare, part of his “well-developed” agenda, he might be enjoying near-universal acclaim right now.

Of course, if not for fascistic IRS intimidation, he might be a private citizen right now. But you don’t hear me talking Constitutional amendments.

What buffoons.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »