I'd been toying with a similar comment for awhile, but Choire at Gawker beat me to it. TimesSelect has been unwalled for some time now, yet I haven't felt the need to praise or throw tomatoes at, or even pay much attention to any of their stable of OpEd writers.
Did the wall lead to their increased irrelevance? Or did it merely reveal how uninteresting most of their observations have been? When you couldn't link to them, you didn't really miss linking to them, and now that you can link to them again, it hardly seems worth bothering to link to the latest entirely predictable screed from Friedman, or Dowd, or Hebert.
The article by Thomas Friedman that hacked off the blogger at Gawker enough to unload both barrels of snark at Friedman was an article about the current college age generation. He's determined that letters continue to be the best way to define generations, so he assigns "Q" to the current kiddies, for the 'Quiet American' generation. He praises them for all their commitment to service, and derides them for not noisily protesting crap the way the 60s generation did.
So dumb, but where to begin with how and why it's dumb? Seems the 60s is remembered differently than it actually was, for one thing, the majority of folks, even the majority of college aged folks, weren't full time marchers, protesters, and hippies. Nixon won the 'youth vote' in both 68 and 72, so this perception that kiddies then were all this progressive vanguard doesn't match the facts. The hippies and freaks dominate the discussion and the nostalgia industry about those years, but they were never the majority, just a vocal, dirty, hairy, drugged-out minority (I forgot smelly). The squares were the 'silent majority' then, and continue to be the silent majority now. Friedman is just seeing that fact with different eyes when he looks at people his daughters' age.
So the kiddies today would rather meet and greet via facebook and myspace instead of at a sit-in, march or rally in the quad. The end result is the same, though. The dirty secret of the protest movements back in the 60s, is that for a great many of the participants the primary motivation was avoiding military service (for the guys) and getting laid (for both the guys and gals). The internet makes it so the kiddies can hook up much easier now, no need to pretend to care about more than getting sweaty together, and the lack of a draft makes protesting the current conflict about politics only. Today's kids aren't political in that sense, they're joiners, and doers, and even activists, but they've also grown up with a touch of a libertarian streak and appreciate being left alone to do their own thing, and seem to understand that implicit with that expectation is to get out of the way and let others do their own thing, too.
This in part might explain the core of the young Ron Paul supporters, they've been so used to being told that everything must be designed to cater to them, and that limits must be put on all their activities and options, that when somebody comes along saying the only limit that should be put on a citizen is what the constitution says, and beyond that, you should be left to your own devices, that message strikes a chord. Unfortunately, Paul is a nutbag who adds in all sorts of extreme isolationism and entirely unrealistic economic policy ideas to destroy the good of his core libertarian message, but it's forgivable for young college kids not to get how dangerous Ron Paul would be if he actually got the job of President. Nothing explains their insistence on wasting their time and subverting every poll that his name pops up in, though, that's just being asinine and demonstrates nothing more than too much time on their hands.
Showing posts with label Media Cluelessness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Cluelessness. Show all posts
10 October 2007
28 August 2007
The Thing Not Said . . .
. . . not mentioned in this USA Today article (hat tip Instapundit) regarding "black flight" from San Francisco is homophobia within the African American community.
The loss of the black community in San Francisco coincides with the rise in the political influence of the gay community. It could be completely coincidental.
But many have argued that black communities (and there are those who resist that notion) tend to be more homophobic than the population in general (especially amongst blacks who attend traditionally black churches), more predominately black churches than not openly discriminate against homosexuality. This WaPo article from 2004 would seem to support that claim. This article from the SF Chronicle (also from 2004) about black clergy rallying against same sex marriage would also suggest that there's strong resistance within the religious black community towards accepting homosexuality.
Seems like a funny oversight within the article to not even pose the question.
The loss of the black community in San Francisco coincides with the rise in the political influence of the gay community. It could be completely coincidental.
But many have argued that black communities (and there are those who resist that notion) tend to be more homophobic than the population in general (especially amongst blacks who attend traditionally black churches), more predominately black churches than not openly discriminate against homosexuality. This WaPo article from 2004 would seem to support that claim. This article from the SF Chronicle (also from 2004) about black clergy rallying against same sex marriage would also suggest that there's strong resistance within the religious black community towards accepting homosexuality.
Seems like a funny oversight within the article to not even pose the question.
25 August 2007
Maybe, Just Maybe, It's Because the District is Too Big, and the Union Rules Too Restrictive . . .
. . . a continuing massive breakdown in a payroll system installed more than six months ago for LAUSD.
The whole thing is one nightmare after another, but the tone of the article is, 'these poor folks', 'too bad this stuff has to happen', 'they just need to spend even more money to fix the problem', etc.
$95M for a payroll system that doesn't work is absurd. $45M in overpayments to 28,700 employees, mostly on June 5th alone, should be a bigger scandal than it was.
To paraphrase James Carville, it's the bureaucracy idiotas.
When schools complain about not having enough money to pay teachers, maybe they should first figure out how to pay the teachers like any other company would. And I'll bet you any amount of money, that if Deloitte Consulting were contracting to upgrade the system for a similarly sized private company, that A) they would have been bid down to about $10-15M for the project instead of $95M, and B) it would have worked first time out or Deloitte would have had to spend their own money to fix it, and C) Deloitte would have worked with the Human Resources department of that company to fix the system from the ground up rather than try and kludge together a computer system to fit around the rules that already existed in place, and D) Wouldn't still be facing these sort of problems six months after the initial roll out of the system.
I'm guessing union intransigence and typical bureaucratic nonsense are responsible for 80% or more of the expected cost of fixing this problem (which given that they admit to spending $95M and look to spend tens of millions more). I'm thinking somewhere around $100M will be overspent to fix this problem they created. That's money that didn't go to learning, didn't find its way into teachers pockets, and taken directly from local, state and federal taxpayers. With a student body of around 700,000 that breaks down to a paltry $143 per pupil, so I guess it's no big deal, maybe they should go ahead and waste another $100,000,000 fixing this and take another $143 per kid away from the classrooms.
Funny how the LAT can manage to keep a mostly neutral and sympathetic tone while reporting on a story like this (I sense no finger pointing, just sympathy for the poor teachers who aren't getting paid properly), but write a story on some stupid puffed-up Congressional investigation into the Executive branch and objectivity gets thrown out the window.
(Given the photo used to illustrate this story, and the fact that the phrase, "hardest hit" is actually in the story, I could have titled this, "Bureaucrats Screw Up, Minority Women Hardest Hit . . .")
Bravo to Deloitte Consulting for milking this scam for all its worth (way to increase shareholders value!), and a boo and a hiss to the LAUSD Superintendent for gross dereliction of duty.
The whole thing is one nightmare after another, but the tone of the article is, 'these poor folks', 'too bad this stuff has to happen', 'they just need to spend even more money to fix the problem', etc.
$95M for a payroll system that doesn't work is absurd. $45M in overpayments to 28,700 employees, mostly on June 5th alone, should be a bigger scandal than it was.
To paraphrase James Carville, it's the bureaucracy idiotas.
When schools complain about not having enough money to pay teachers, maybe they should first figure out how to pay the teachers like any other company would. And I'll bet you any amount of money, that if Deloitte Consulting were contracting to upgrade the system for a similarly sized private company, that A) they would have been bid down to about $10-15M for the project instead of $95M, and B) it would have worked first time out or Deloitte would have had to spend their own money to fix it, and C) Deloitte would have worked with the Human Resources department of that company to fix the system from the ground up rather than try and kludge together a computer system to fit around the rules that already existed in place, and D) Wouldn't still be facing these sort of problems six months after the initial roll out of the system.
I'm guessing union intransigence and typical bureaucratic nonsense are responsible for 80% or more of the expected cost of fixing this problem (which given that they admit to spending $95M and look to spend tens of millions more). I'm thinking somewhere around $100M will be overspent to fix this problem they created. That's money that didn't go to learning, didn't find its way into teachers pockets, and taken directly from local, state and federal taxpayers. With a student body of around 700,000 that breaks down to a paltry $143 per pupil, so I guess it's no big deal, maybe they should go ahead and waste another $100,000,000 fixing this and take another $143 per kid away from the classrooms.
Funny how the LAT can manage to keep a mostly neutral and sympathetic tone while reporting on a story like this (I sense no finger pointing, just sympathy for the poor teachers who aren't getting paid properly), but write a story on some stupid puffed-up Congressional investigation into the Executive branch and objectivity gets thrown out the window.
(Given the photo used to illustrate this story, and the fact that the phrase, "hardest hit" is actually in the story, I could have titled this, "Bureaucrats Screw Up, Minority Women Hardest Hit . . .")
Bravo to Deloitte Consulting for milking this scam for all its worth (way to increase shareholders value!), and a boo and a hiss to the LAUSD Superintendent for gross dereliction of duty.
22 August 2007
Amanpouring Myself Some Drunk-Blogging . . .
. . . I just like typing Amanpouring. But the show just started, and I'm about to unleash the DVR and see what's about to come.
Here's the draught keg, ready to pour some ice cold shatan's brew.
Here's the 2oz shot of Jack Daniels I'm about to fortify the beer with.
Now on to drunkblogging! Updates to come . . .
UPDATE: 6:24pm (6:10:50 on the video), OK, Amanpour is conspiring to keep me sober, for the first ten minutes, no moral equivalizing, I'm getting worried . . .
UPDATE: 6:29pm (6:14:25 on video), I'm changing the rules, cause I'm getting thirsty, I'm adding the category, "it's all America's fault" to the list of drink-worthy phrases or tropes. Poor Syed Qutb, he was a young innocent poet and scholar with a stylish Hitler moustache, until he came to America and was exposed to women in two piece swimsuits. Naturally it follows that from there he calls for the destruction of the west and inspires generations of radicals. It's all our fault (two gulps just to get things started).
UPDATE: 6:36pm (6:17:45 on video), OK, now I'm angry, Ms. Amanpour is totally drink-blocking me now. I changed the rules to add the 'blame America' category and she completely misses a golden opportunity. She mentions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a radicalizing moment in Islam, and profoundly influential in making Bin Laden and Al Qaeda important, yet doesn't mention that the muhajideen didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of driving off the Soviets like they did without training and material support by the CIA. Charlie Wilson was more important in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan than either Al Qaeda or the Taliban (and don't you forget it). In this case, I'm very suspicious of her studied avoidance of blaming America in this instance (and you can tell how sober I still am, I don't think 'studied avoidance' would fly from my fingers once I'm on my 2nd or 3rd boilermaker).
UPDATE: 6:42pm (6:23:10 on video), Karen Armstrong will do me solid. She's a big time apologist for radical and violent Islam. It's that awful forced modernization commited by that puppet of the CIA, the Shah. All praise Ayatollah Khomeini. They "stood up to the United States and humiliated a superpower" (woohoo!?) That's worth two gulps.
UPDATE: 6:55pm (skipping ahead . . .), I might have missed some drink-worthy moments, but all this talk of the joys of martydom is depressing and not a particular at all revealing, moving on . . . made it up to 6:41 on the video, finally blaming the current operations on Iraq for a whole generations of jihadis and radicals (woohoo!?) I think that's worth two gulps.
UPDATE: 7:02pm (6:46:49 on video), If only we hadn't staged troops in Saudi Arabia when we repelled Iraq from Kuwait, maybe Bin Laden wouldn't have gone and done all those awful things (definitely worth two gulps).
UPDATE: 7:09pm (skipping . . . skipping . . .) After some nonsense about Ms. Amanpour trading her less modest normal veil for the even more modest full on mullah approved extreme veil, she visits a mullah/scholar on the Hidden Imam. Fun stuff that, but not drink-worthy, so skip, skip, skip, and now I'm caught up, so I'll polish off the rest of my current glass, eat diner and return in about 45 minutes to watch the last 50 minutes of this program. . . (a few gratuitous gulps to empty my glass)
UPDATE: 8:07pm back to watching this, after a nice hot sliced beef (slathered in bbq sauce) sandwich. Ohh, Karen Armstrong again (7:14:10 on video), "It's important to say that none of the great world religions has been good for women." That sounds like moral equivalency to me (only one gulp). One point about that, yes, all religions have practiced some form of repression, but so to say that because women were oppressed by most Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus or Taoists up through the 19th century (and even into the 20th century) gives Muslims a pass to kill unmarried couples who dare walk together in Iran today, is the worst kind of moral equivalency. And the kind of actions we see in Iran with their violent religious authorities haven't been seen anywhere in the West in this kind of overt way since the 18th century. So no, there is no equivalence there, no matter what Karen Armstrong chooses to state.
UPDATE: 8:27pm This crap is boring, Christiane is talking plenty, but she ain't saying nothing. Blah, blah, blah, only a few radicals, blah, blah, blah, Islam is actually feminist friendly, blah, blah, blah, jihad isn't evil, blah, blah, blah, those evil right-wing politicans in Europe are stirring racism, blah, blah, blah, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an evil apostate attacking Islam, blah, blah, blah, Muslims are fluffy peaceful bunnies so long as you don't offend them, then they're pushed towards a tiny cohort of radicals.
Meh. God's Bollocks more like it.
Made through, barely got a buzz on. I'm seriously disappointed. Jack and Ale do go together nicely, though.
If you were completely uninformed before, than there might have been a few bits of interest mixed in, but if you've been a good consumer of news and current events and prevailed upon yourself to be informed about the issues of the day, then this was just a seriously soft-pedalled treatment of old material.
Useless stuff, and maybe even dangerous given that the threat a place like Iran represents was greatly downplayed.
Here's the draught keg, ready to pour some ice cold shatan's brew.
Here's the 2oz shot of Jack Daniels I'm about to fortify the beer with.
Now on to drunkblogging! Updates to come . . .
UPDATE: 6:24pm (6:10:50 on the video), OK, Amanpour is conspiring to keep me sober, for the first ten minutes, no moral equivalizing, I'm getting worried . . .
UPDATE: 6:29pm (6:14:25 on video), I'm changing the rules, cause I'm getting thirsty, I'm adding the category, "it's all America's fault" to the list of drink-worthy phrases or tropes. Poor Syed Qutb, he was a young innocent poet and scholar with a stylish Hitler moustache, until he came to America and was exposed to women in two piece swimsuits. Naturally it follows that from there he calls for the destruction of the west and inspires generations of radicals. It's all our fault (two gulps just to get things started).
UPDATE: 6:36pm (6:17:45 on video), OK, now I'm angry, Ms. Amanpour is totally drink-blocking me now. I changed the rules to add the 'blame America' category and she completely misses a golden opportunity. She mentions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a radicalizing moment in Islam, and profoundly influential in making Bin Laden and Al Qaeda important, yet doesn't mention that the muhajideen didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of driving off the Soviets like they did without training and material support by the CIA. Charlie Wilson was more important in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan than either Al Qaeda or the Taliban (and don't you forget it). In this case, I'm very suspicious of her studied avoidance of blaming America in this instance (and you can tell how sober I still am, I don't think 'studied avoidance' would fly from my fingers once I'm on my 2nd or 3rd boilermaker).
UPDATE: 6:42pm (6:23:10 on video), Karen Armstrong will do me solid. She's a big time apologist for radical and violent Islam. It's that awful forced modernization commited by that puppet of the CIA, the Shah. All praise Ayatollah Khomeini. They "stood up to the United States and humiliated a superpower" (woohoo!?) That's worth two gulps.
UPDATE: 6:55pm (skipping ahead . . .), I might have missed some drink-worthy moments, but all this talk of the joys of martydom is depressing and not a particular at all revealing, moving on . . . made it up to 6:41 on the video, finally blaming the current operations on Iraq for a whole generations of jihadis and radicals (woohoo!?) I think that's worth two gulps.
UPDATE: 7:02pm (6:46:49 on video), If only we hadn't staged troops in Saudi Arabia when we repelled Iraq from Kuwait, maybe Bin Laden wouldn't have gone and done all those awful things (definitely worth two gulps).
UPDATE: 7:09pm (skipping . . . skipping . . .) After some nonsense about Ms. Amanpour trading her less modest normal veil for the even more modest full on mullah approved extreme veil, she visits a mullah/scholar on the Hidden Imam. Fun stuff that, but not drink-worthy, so skip, skip, skip, and now I'm caught up, so I'll polish off the rest of my current glass, eat diner and return in about 45 minutes to watch the last 50 minutes of this program. . . (a few gratuitous gulps to empty my glass)
UPDATE: 8:07pm back to watching this, after a nice hot sliced beef (slathered in bbq sauce) sandwich. Ohh, Karen Armstrong again (7:14:10 on video), "It's important to say that none of the great world religions has been good for women." That sounds like moral equivalency to me (only one gulp). One point about that, yes, all religions have practiced some form of repression, but so to say that because women were oppressed by most Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus or Taoists up through the 19th century (and even into the 20th century) gives Muslims a pass to kill unmarried couples who dare walk together in Iran today, is the worst kind of moral equivalency. And the kind of actions we see in Iran with their violent religious authorities haven't been seen anywhere in the West in this kind of overt way since the 18th century. So no, there is no equivalence there, no matter what Karen Armstrong chooses to state.
UPDATE: 8:27pm This crap is boring, Christiane is talking plenty, but she ain't saying nothing. Blah, blah, blah, only a few radicals, blah, blah, blah, Islam is actually feminist friendly, blah, blah, blah, jihad isn't evil, blah, blah, blah, those evil right-wing politicans in Europe are stirring racism, blah, blah, blah, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an evil apostate attacking Islam, blah, blah, blah, Muslims are fluffy peaceful bunnies so long as you don't offend them, then they're pushed towards a tiny cohort of radicals.
Meh. God's Bollocks more like it.
Made through, barely got a buzz on. I'm seriously disappointed. Jack and Ale do go together nicely, though.
If you were completely uninformed before, than there might have been a few bits of interest mixed in, but if you've been a good consumer of news and current events and prevailed upon yourself to be informed about the issues of the day, then this was just a seriously soft-pedalled treatment of old material.
Useless stuff, and maybe even dangerous given that the threat a place like Iran represents was greatly downplayed.
Amanpouring Myself Another Drink . . .
I'm thinking of drunk-blogging tonight's CNN Special Presentation of "God's Warriors: Muslims".
Anytime Ms. Amanpour says anything that draws moral equivalence between evil deeds done by folks in the name of Islam with other faithful, I'll imbibe in some of Shatan's own brew.
I expect to be completely ripped by the end of this presentation.
I'll be DVR-blogging, so it won't be 'live', I'll try to keep up with the first broadcast (6PM my time) best I can, but that's a bit early in the evening to get plastered.
My drug of choice for this evening will be a hearty mix of Heineken and Jack Daniels. I won't be chugging my Boilermakers Purdue style, and since I won't be dropping the shot into the beer mug, technically it's not a true boilermaker, but the taste and effect is largely the same. So that I'll still be alive by the end of this program, I'll limit myself to a sizeable gulp at each instance of moral equivalizing. Any other rules I should follow? Should I finish off whatever's left in the glass for each use of the phrase "religion of peace"? Should I do two gulps each time Ms. Amanpour brushes aside those oppressive bangs? Go ahead, you have a few hours to suggest a few rules.
Since I mentioned Heineken, I love those Heineken 5 liter draught kegs. I'd love them more if I could get one full of MGD light, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or Guinness instead (Heineken isn't my favorite beer, but this new beer delivery system is my favorite beverage delivery system), but that will have to wait. Once these miracles of modern technology are proven successful in the marketplace, the other brewers will follow suit. I'd love one of these things for soft drinks, too. Freshly pulled, and perfectly mixed Diet Coke from a keglike dispenser with its own CO2 system would be awesome.
Anytime Ms. Amanpour says anything that draws moral equivalence between evil deeds done by folks in the name of Islam with other faithful, I'll imbibe in some of Shatan's own brew.
I expect to be completely ripped by the end of this presentation.
I'll be DVR-blogging, so it won't be 'live', I'll try to keep up with the first broadcast (6PM my time) best I can, but that's a bit early in the evening to get plastered.
My drug of choice for this evening will be a hearty mix of Heineken and Jack Daniels. I won't be chugging my Boilermakers Purdue style, and since I won't be dropping the shot into the beer mug, technically it's not a true boilermaker, but the taste and effect is largely the same. So that I'll still be alive by the end of this program, I'll limit myself to a sizeable gulp at each instance of moral equivalizing. Any other rules I should follow? Should I finish off whatever's left in the glass for each use of the phrase "religion of peace"? Should I do two gulps each time Ms. Amanpour brushes aside those oppressive bangs? Go ahead, you have a few hours to suggest a few rules.
Since I mentioned Heineken, I love those Heineken 5 liter draught kegs. I'd love them more if I could get one full of MGD light, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or Guinness instead (Heineken isn't my favorite beer, but this new beer delivery system is my favorite beverage delivery system), but that will have to wait. Once these miracles of modern technology are proven successful in the marketplace, the other brewers will follow suit. I'd love one of these things for soft drinks, too. Freshly pulled, and perfectly mixed Diet Coke from a keglike dispenser with its own CO2 system would be awesome.
20 August 2007
LOL Amanpour?!?
(does anyone expect this CNN special series to be anything but a 'moral equivalence' fest?)
(and the 'oppressive bangs' phrase, borrowed from amba's description of Christo's Gates)
27 June 2007
How Long Before Slate Notices . . .
This will be a good experiment to see the kind of readers Slate still has.
In her review for Live Free or Die Hard, Dana Stevens writes this
They even link to a site that shows Harriers. I've seen the trailer, and the hovering jet in the film is clearly not a Harrier. The Harrier is being replaced by the F-35B Lightning II, aka the STOVL version of the JSF. The F-35A has only just begun flying, the F-35B won't be operational until 2012 (according to the linked wiki), but that doesn't stop Hollywood from throwing their CGI'd versions of the machine into the latest action flicks.
Slate's usually pretty good about corrections, plus they include the original information that they corrected, so no memory holes there (unlike at the memory hole filled wire services).
She's letting her military ignorance show, not surprising, easily corrected, but they don't have an editor over her, or a fact checker under her who's aware that the Harrier is no longer the only "jump jet".
It's an easy catch, too. The intakes are trapezoidal on the F-35B, on the Harrier they're rounded, plus the Harrier has a single vertical stabilizing wing, whereas the F-35B has two. It would be like looking at a 05 Viper and describing it as a 68 Charger. Sure, they're both muscle cars, they're both Dodges, but they're worlds apart in design.
I'm not a plane nut, or in the military, but I could still tell from a 2 second shot in a trailer whether or not a hovering plane is a piece of 35+ year old technology or something that is bleeding edge.
Do I suspect that the probable lack of anybody with any interest or history in the military (other than as a target for invective) at Slate has something to do with missing this obvious mistake?
Do I have to answer that?
In her review for Live Free or Die Hard, Dana Stevens writes this
Thus begins a jolly chase in which McClane and Matt, pursued by international villains, airborne cars, and at one point, a Harrier jet, make their way toward the top-secret NSA facility that's become Gabriel's command center.
They even link to a site that shows Harriers. I've seen the trailer, and the hovering jet in the film is clearly not a Harrier. The Harrier is being replaced by the F-35B Lightning II, aka the STOVL version of the JSF. The F-35A has only just begun flying, the F-35B won't be operational until 2012 (according to the linked wiki), but that doesn't stop Hollywood from throwing their CGI'd versions of the machine into the latest action flicks.
Slate's usually pretty good about corrections, plus they include the original information that they corrected, so no memory holes there (unlike at the memory hole filled wire services).
She's letting her military ignorance show, not surprising, easily corrected, but they don't have an editor over her, or a fact checker under her who's aware that the Harrier is no longer the only "jump jet".
It's an easy catch, too. The intakes are trapezoidal on the F-35B, on the Harrier they're rounded, plus the Harrier has a single vertical stabilizing wing, whereas the F-35B has two. It would be like looking at a 05 Viper and describing it as a 68 Charger. Sure, they're both muscle cars, they're both Dodges, but they're worlds apart in design.
I'm not a plane nut, or in the military, but I could still tell from a 2 second shot in a trailer whether or not a hovering plane is a piece of 35+ year old technology or something that is bleeding edge.
Do I suspect that the probable lack of anybody with any interest or history in the military (other than as a target for invective) at Slate has something to do with missing this obvious mistake?
Do I have to answer that?
24 June 2007
Photos That the Ahmadinejad Administration (and Their Mad Mullah Enablers) Show With Pride . . .
The state run news agency in Iran posted a bunch of photos showing how they treat folks they deem not Islamic enough.
Michelle Malkin puts together the photos along with many links, YouTube footage and commentary. She can be strident and shrill, but in this case her target deserves all the anger she can generate.
I would love to see Hollywood make a picture about a dystopian big brother government running rough shod over the lives of their citizenry and not set it in the United States or Great Britain.
Here we have a real life 1984 society that has exhibited many of the Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace virtues that so many like to accuse our society of having.
That picture won't ever get made, instead we get the Flood tale turned into a eco-friendly bumper-sticker message movie. Or you get the beheading of a journalist turned into a moral-relativist tale about how we just need to understand each other better.
I can enjoy pictures where the politics don't match my own. The current run of Dr. Who throws in digs against the U.S from time to time and I'll let it slide cause it's entertaining. Listening to the director's commentary of Pan's Labryinth and while watching it completely passed me by that it was all really about Boooosh and the evils he unleashed since 9/11. I still love that show, and the director's personal political idiocy won't prevent me from thinking or saying that Pan's Labryinth was the best film of 2006 by far. Where I take exception with the politically correct nonsense and groupthink endemic in Hollywood is when it leads them to make bad narrative and artistic decisions in the service of making a stupid political point, or worse yet, where they forget that they are primarily artist and just pound home their stupid politics without offering any entertaiment in exchange.
We've got everything Orwell ever warned about in Iran, and they're pursuing nuclear weapons on top of that, but it will be a snowy day at Hollywood and Vine (and not just a few flakes which happens once or twice a century, but I'm talking a foot of snow in a day) before they make a dystopian picture set in any of the modern day countries that see 1984 as a blueprint for governance.
Michelle Malkin puts together the photos along with many links, YouTube footage and commentary. She can be strident and shrill, but in this case her target deserves all the anger she can generate.
I would love to see Hollywood make a picture about a dystopian big brother government running rough shod over the lives of their citizenry and not set it in the United States or Great Britain.
Here we have a real life 1984 society that has exhibited many of the Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace virtues that so many like to accuse our society of having.
That picture won't ever get made, instead we get the Flood tale turned into a eco-friendly bumper-sticker message movie. Or you get the beheading of a journalist turned into a moral-relativist tale about how we just need to understand each other better.
I can enjoy pictures where the politics don't match my own. The current run of Dr. Who throws in digs against the U.S from time to time and I'll let it slide cause it's entertaining. Listening to the director's commentary of Pan's Labryinth and while watching it completely passed me by that it was all really about Boooosh and the evils he unleashed since 9/11. I still love that show, and the director's personal political idiocy won't prevent me from thinking or saying that Pan's Labryinth was the best film of 2006 by far. Where I take exception with the politically correct nonsense and groupthink endemic in Hollywood is when it leads them to make bad narrative and artistic decisions in the service of making a stupid political point, or worse yet, where they forget that they are primarily artist and just pound home their stupid politics without offering any entertaiment in exchange.
We've got everything Orwell ever warned about in Iran, and they're pursuing nuclear weapons on top of that, but it will be a snowy day at Hollywood and Vine (and not just a few flakes which happens once or twice a century, but I'm talking a foot of snow in a day) before they make a dystopian picture set in any of the modern day countries that see 1984 as a blueprint for governance.
04 June 2007
That Was Then, This Is Now . . .
Lileks, in his bleatings, posted the above photograph. He focused on the mysterious hatted gentleman standing on the building's roof.
I'm focused on the big fat 600,000 SUNDAY CIRCULATION sign.
Out of curiousity I checked wikipedia, and they show current Sunday circulation for the Minneapolis Star Tribune (as reported in this PDF) of 574,406.
Ouch.
But, then the population for the city of Minneapolis was over 500,000, and it's less than 400,000 now.
The suburbs surrounding Minneapolis have grown quite a bit, so all those folks haven't fled for better climate, and the area the paper serves targets more people, so as a percentage of the demographic the paper's penetration looks pretty meek compared to what it was 60 years ago.
That's the case for most every daily that was around back then as well, I would guess.
30 April 2007
Word of the Day (Media Edition)
Oh, wait, the news that newspaper circulation continues to plummet is actually the opposite of gobsmacking.
What is the opposite of gobsmacking anyway? Gobsatisfying? Gobkissing? Gobcarressing?
Also, somebody with trouble getting "it" quoted in the article
"While newspaper marketing practices continue to focus strongly on sustaining the core readership, newspapers are working hard to leverage the brand power of the core product to attract readers to their print and online publications that serve advertisers," said NAA president John Sturm.
So, Mr. Sturm (is his VP Mr. Drang?) feels the problem is marketing based and not, oh I don't know, maybe have something to do with the content being provided.
Might the downturn have something to do with the general non-news status of many of the news articles that get published and the frequent tendency for "news" stories to mix in the worldview of the editors and journalist who some studies have shown come from a narrow elite of liberal groupthinkers?
The papers that are more "just the facts" are doing better than the ones that try and tell you what to think about what they report as they are reporting it.
I have no objection to paper having an editorial outlook, but that outlook should stick to the editorial page, in the actual articles, they shouldn't frequently distort facts to reflect the bias of the newsroom.
That this distortion is finding a smaller audience over time shouldn't surprise anyone, yet few in the industry seem to think that the real problem is the problem, instead they just have to learn how to talk to younger folks better, and somehow better marketing will make all the structural faults that have crept into newsgathering disappear.
Writing better copy would be a start, if the nakedly biased reporting was also good writing then I would probably still read the paper, but on top of being biased the crap that is written is crap, and if I'm going to be insulted, I expect to at least be entertained.
24 April 2007
Word of the Day (Steve Capus Edition)
Almost made it through the day with an unsmacked gob, but then Steve Capus opened his mouth.
I'm not calling for any boycotts of advertisers, or suggest how you receive your news, but I know that I will likely never again watch NBC Nightly News, but then Nightly Newses ceased being a habit personally sometime in the mid 90s (about the same time I started using the internet regularly).
(network Nightly Newses are too slow, too uninformative, too biased to be of any use, I don't need a filter for my news, I'll find the stories on my own, I don't need the likes of Steve Capus deciding what's newsworthy)
Also, I'll refrain from watching Oprah to see the context in which his comments were made, there are somethings I will not do, watching an 'Oprah tackles a serious issue of the moment' episode is one of them.
(dumb self-involved Oprah episodes (like ear piercing, or travels with Gayle) can be fun, these other kind are infuriating).
18 April 2007
It's An Imperfect World
In a perfect world, things like what happened in Blacksburg, VA would never happen. In a perfect world, guns wouldn't be needed by anyone. But we don't live in a perfect world, and as has been proven again and again, determined people willing to do evil will get there hands on guns, regardless of the local regulations (that's true in the United States, and around the world).
So, given the imperfect nature of the world, it does seem to be the rational choice to make it easier for rational people to have the right to also carry firearms given that crazies and criminals won' t let niceties like laws keep them from arming themselves.
The reaction to this incident seems to be a watershed, maybe it's the internet, maybe it's an acknowledgement of the failures of tightened gun control, or maybe it's a fluke, but I don't think what a Tennessee house panel has done will be an isolated response. (hat tip Instapundit)
On to a different but related subject, the media is performing horribly in this mess. NBC is sowing the seeds of the next incident with their handling of the package they received from "Ismail Ax". I don't object to showing the tape, but I think embedded onto every frame of video should be words of ridicule aimed at this loser. A big LOSER mark should be flashing across his forehead, and on his torso should be a downward arrow followed by the words TINY DICK, and IMPOTENT, and ASSHOLE.
By displaying the tapes unaltered, you are giving this tiny dicked, impotent, loser asshole exactly what he wanted.
Also, the audio for all his tapes should be redubbed with silly, high pitched voices and fart noises thrown in. Do not let this tiny dicked, impotent, loser asshole get to speak 'from the grave' with his own voice. Wipe his voice out of existence. Cho does not get to choose how he will be remembered, we do.
If the next tiny dicked impotent loser asshole would see the kind of treatment I'm suggesting aimed at Cho, it will become perfectly clear that your ridiculous, disgusting and evil behavior may not be stopped, but it will be ridiculed.
These unbalanced assholes crave attention and feel they aren't noticed enough. They assume that an act of spectacular evil will garner a lot of attention and a sick kind of respect. Deny these jerks that respect. Honor the dead, celebrate the lives lost, and destroy, disturb and disrupt the image that these tiny dicked impotent loser assholes try and leave behind.
I single out NBC (no links, you can find the crap on your own) cause they received the tapes first, they should have done the responsible thing and screwed up Cho's attempt to become a media sensation in death. Instead they put his vile output out there, breathlessly, quickly, and far too respectfully.
These tiny dicked impotent loser assholes don't suffer from low self esteem, they suffer from a sense of entitlement for a life void of meaning or accomplishment. Do not give to them in death what they wished for in life, these crazed losers deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.
Ridicule should be the operative message and the message from the Chos of the world must be torn to shreds and turned into comedy. It's not to lessen the sense of tragedy, it's not to diminish the horrible loss suffered by people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, instead it's a way to make sure that any future tiny dicked impotent loser asshole knows that they have no hope of controlling the message that gets out after they commit some awful act.
Just cause someone is insane, doesn't mean that there isn't some rationale behind their actions. Cho's rationale involved becoming something big, something great, getting noticed, his paranoia, schizophrenia, and lack of empathy coalesced into a horrible need to kill others before killing himself.
Being mentally ill is no excuse for being evil. There are plenty of people suffering from disorders who don't act out in despicable ways.
Luckily, this confluence of factors rarely come together, but I strongly believe that by ridiculing these tiny dicked impotent loser assholes we will help give pause to any future tiny dicked impotent loser assholes that might be contemplating becoming the next media darling. So if the media won't do it, bloggers should.
UPDATE:
As if this post wasn't already long and rambly enough, I've just read James Lileks' Bleat from tonight and see that he had similar thoughts to my own, but he expresses them infinitely better, so I'll quote his words profusely and admire his skill. I will add that he just passively accepts 'the media's' transmission of the foul materials, while I offer a possible solution and course of action. Here's what he has to say, and needless to say, ditto
So, given the imperfect nature of the world, it does seem to be the rational choice to make it easier for rational people to have the right to also carry firearms given that crazies and criminals won' t let niceties like laws keep them from arming themselves.
The reaction to this incident seems to be a watershed, maybe it's the internet, maybe it's an acknowledgement of the failures of tightened gun control, or maybe it's a fluke, but I don't think what a Tennessee house panel has done will be an isolated response. (hat tip Instapundit)
On to a different but related subject, the media is performing horribly in this mess. NBC is sowing the seeds of the next incident with their handling of the package they received from "Ismail Ax". I don't object to showing the tape, but I think embedded onto every frame of video should be words of ridicule aimed at this loser. A big LOSER mark should be flashing across his forehead, and on his torso should be a downward arrow followed by the words TINY DICK, and IMPOTENT, and ASSHOLE.
By displaying the tapes unaltered, you are giving this tiny dicked, impotent, loser asshole exactly what he wanted.
Also, the audio for all his tapes should be redubbed with silly, high pitched voices and fart noises thrown in. Do not let this tiny dicked, impotent, loser asshole get to speak 'from the grave' with his own voice. Wipe his voice out of existence. Cho does not get to choose how he will be remembered, we do.
If the next tiny dicked impotent loser asshole would see the kind of treatment I'm suggesting aimed at Cho, it will become perfectly clear that your ridiculous, disgusting and evil behavior may not be stopped, but it will be ridiculed.
These unbalanced assholes crave attention and feel they aren't noticed enough. They assume that an act of spectacular evil will garner a lot of attention and a sick kind of respect. Deny these jerks that respect. Honor the dead, celebrate the lives lost, and destroy, disturb and disrupt the image that these tiny dicked impotent loser assholes try and leave behind.
I single out NBC (no links, you can find the crap on your own) cause they received the tapes first, they should have done the responsible thing and screwed up Cho's attempt to become a media sensation in death. Instead they put his vile output out there, breathlessly, quickly, and far too respectfully.
These tiny dicked impotent loser assholes don't suffer from low self esteem, they suffer from a sense of entitlement for a life void of meaning or accomplishment. Do not give to them in death what they wished for in life, these crazed losers deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.
Ridicule should be the operative message and the message from the Chos of the world must be torn to shreds and turned into comedy. It's not to lessen the sense of tragedy, it's not to diminish the horrible loss suffered by people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, instead it's a way to make sure that any future tiny dicked impotent loser asshole knows that they have no hope of controlling the message that gets out after they commit some awful act.
Just cause someone is insane, doesn't mean that there isn't some rationale behind their actions. Cho's rationale involved becoming something big, something great, getting noticed, his paranoia, schizophrenia, and lack of empathy coalesced into a horrible need to kill others before killing himself.
Being mentally ill is no excuse for being evil. There are plenty of people suffering from disorders who don't act out in despicable ways.
Luckily, this confluence of factors rarely come together, but I strongly believe that by ridiculing these tiny dicked impotent loser assholes we will help give pause to any future tiny dicked impotent loser assholes that might be contemplating becoming the next media darling. So if the media won't do it, bloggers should.
UPDATE:
As if this post wasn't already long and rambly enough, I've just read James Lileks' Bleat from tonight and see that he had similar thoughts to my own, but he expresses them infinitely better, so I'll quote his words profusely and admire his skill. I will add that he just passively accepts 'the media's' transmission of the foul materials, while I offer a possible solution and course of action. Here's what he has to say, and needless to say, ditto
I’m at the kitchen table; Nightline is on, and the host, Person Nonkoppel, is talking about the Virginia Tech Shooter’s video message, which he notes “is now going around the world.” Passively, without assist, it seems. From his lips to YouTube’s ears. They’ve cut to John Donvan, standing in a post office in Blacksburg, through which the package presumably moved; it’s a live shot. Perhaps he’ll interview a worker who may have handled the package or spoken to someone who saw it come through. We may even get a shot of the loading dock across which the package traveled on its fateful journey into the media bloodstream.
There is nothing to learn from listening to the killer. From looking at him or reading his writings or poking through his background or sticking mikes in the face of anyone who saw him across a cafeteria. Maybe it’s just me, but when I first heard of the case I thought: sociopath. A modern word for the man without a soul, the man who either had it stolen by deed or smothered in the womb. I think you can make a sociopath, if you hurt them early enough in a way they can never get their hands around. Others are simply bad seeds from the womb on up, I suspect. No matter what you do, you get a vacant Narcissus with an infinite supply of masks, a clever manniken who cannot apprehend the humanity of others. He could only feel empathy for the object in the mirror, and it’s hardly surprising this example spent his last hours posing for the camera. It was the only thing that understood him, and accepted him for the glorious, tragic creature he knew he was.
12 March 2007
Iceberg!? Pish Posh, Let's Work On What's Important, On To the DECKCHAIRS!!!
Time Magazine's turn to rearrange their deckchairs.
Good luck, it didn't work so well for the Titanic crew, but maybe you'll have better luck.
(and I don't think there's any record of actual deckchair rearranging on the Titanic, but sometimes the old memes are the best memes)
Good luck, it didn't work so well for the Titanic crew, but maybe you'll have better luck.
(and I don't think there's any record of actual deckchair rearranging on the Titanic, but sometimes the old memes are the best memes)
11 January 2007
"In 1989, Reagan resigned and Vice President George Bush took his place"
American history, BBC style.
(not exactly how I remembered it, but it's how his bio reads on the BBC website, so I guess Nixon isn't the only President to have resigned)
(not exactly how I remembered it, but it's how his bio reads on the BBC website, so I guess Nixon isn't the only President to have resigned)
02 January 2007
More of the Same
My reaction to this post over at Althouse regarding another WaPo time waster regarding Monica Lewinksy (which was a reaction to a snarkier WaPo time waster from last week). This isn't a tale of bias so much as cluelessness, and a lack of adaptability that will lead to irrelevance, if not extinction.
I'm most struck by this line, "I will not name names. But in recent days, Lewinsky has been back in the news".
The name he's not naming is LibbyColemanCopeland (oops!), who wrote this silly article about Ms. Lewinsky last week.
Why not call out his colleague by name?
Seems passive/aggressive not to.
Plus there should be a link to the original article that caused him to write his response, it's very unbloggerly not to.
First, if he was a blogger, he would have responded the same day, even if it was Christmas Eve, second, he would have addressed specific issues with the original article rather than write his own take off on it without directly referencing it. Thirdly and more importantly, he would have linked the article in the first place so that his readers could judge for themselves rather than forcing them to trust his opinion of the article.
Washington Post should have had the sense to include a link to increase traffic to both articles, but obviously their web editors don't yet think like people who are natives in the web, rather they treat it like a dirty, dank colonial outpost where they're stuck until they can get a 'real' job in the print division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)