This is so spot-on, I kept feeling like I was watching something important. All the cues are there….
Includes the Most British Word Ever: “Dowdy”.
Archive for the ‘News Media’ Category
“It’s Just News”
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010PJTC: Whittle Kicks Butt; Klavan Plays Doctor
Saturday, December 5th, 2009On PJTV, Andrew Klavan explains that you shouldn’t be prejudiced against that “Happy Spot” that showed up on your lung x-ray. See, VL, breast cancer isn’t the only good analogy….
Bill Whittle explains that he disagrees with many of President Obama’s decisions, but: he did the right thing by putting 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
Then he explains what bone-headed traitors many of Obama’s supporters are, including Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, and especially and most spectacularly Keith Olberman.
If you enjoy watching evil being flayed alive, you will love this broadcast. An amazing invective tour de force.
“$200 Haircuts on 88-cent Heads”
Thursday, November 12th, 2009Mark Shea, one of many outside the mainstream pointing at the blatantly obvious truth the mainstream insists on not seeing:
One thing you can give our media Chattering Classes: They are utterly consistent. After Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on a roomful of defenseless people in Fort Hood, it was absolutely assured that we would immediately be told that this outrage had nothing to do with his Islamic faith and that it was not an act of terror. Then, as time went on and the bleedin’ obvious became bleedin’ obvious, we would spend all weekend enduring TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads and pondering the question of whether there might be some remote connection between Islamic belief and a guy who praises Muslim suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, sits under the teaching of a Radical Islamic imam who praises his act of slaughter as heroic, uses his authority as a psychiatrist to proselytize vulnerable patients with Islamic agitprop, and dresses in traditional Muslim garb and shouts “Allahu akbar!” as he guns down his prey.
It was a spectacular display of deliberate willed stupidity by a media culture that demonstrates repeatedly it does not want to acknowledge that Islam tends to breed such acts of terror with startling frequency. And it was predictable because it happens every time some Islamic butcher opens up on innocent victims in the name of the Prophet.
Well worth your time to read the whole thing.
Shea points at something in particular I’ve been trying to find; more evidence of Hollywood’s cravenness, in particular:
For 2012, Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there’s one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn’t: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It’s the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, ‘I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.’ And he was right.”
Emmerich went on: “We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.”
Traditionally, a fatwa has meant religious opinion by an Islamic scholar or imam. The term has gained currency in the West after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence in the form of a fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemies in his book “The Satanic Verses” in 1989. As a result, the Indian-born writer was forced into hiding for most of the ’90s.
But noooo, we’re told to believe. “Jihad” just means “a peaceful inner struggle with one’s self”. We’re told, “religion of peace”. We’re told, “selective quotation of scriptures.”
NO. As I always say at this point:
There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammed, may piss be upon him, was nobody’s prophet, but a child-molesting mass murderer.
And I say that simply because, so far, I can, but I’m beginning to fear the day is coming when I dare not say such things in public.
And when that day comes, you watch: I won’t be able to say that, but anyone will be able to piss on a statue of Christ, or daub the Virgin Mary with shit, and will get public funds to do it.
Jesus Incites Violence
Sunday, November 8th, 2009Oh, wait, no, sorry; that would be Mohammad who incites violence amongst his devout.
Osama bin Laden’s communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5. Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” (22:39) and “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan” (4:76).”
…
One pro-Osama website put it this way: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad.”
And yet, Spencer points out, it is not the kufaars, the non-believers, who need to be worried about harassment and, uh, getting killed and stuff. No, no.
Silly me. I thought that after an Islamic jihadist murdered twelve innocent non-Muslims, it would be the non-Muslims who would need reassuring and protecting. But of course that non-existent backlash takes priority over 12 dead unbelievers.
“Some Muslims fear backlash after rampage: In the wake of Fort Hood tragedy, Houston authorities try to assure the faithful steps are being taken to keep followers safe,” by Moises Mendoza and Lindsay Wise for the Houston Chronicle, November 7:
In Houston, government officials have been working to reassure Muslims that they’re safe, pointing out that there have been few cases of retaliation locally after previous attacks involving Muslims.
There have been few cases anywhere. So few that CAIR has had to invent them.
As always, I have to say (just because, so far, anyway, I can, and because it really upsets some people): There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammad, may piss be upon him, was no prophet, but a child molesting mass-murderer.
Tom Maguire, over at JustOneMinute, points out “Some dots just can’t be connected.” He points to this piece from the New York Post:
What interpretation of Islam influ enced Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? As often before, the trail leads to the official sect of Saudi Arabia — known as Wahhabism to most of us of who denounce it.
…
We’ve also learned that, before his transfer to Ft. Hood last year, Hasan served as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, and regularly attended Friday prayer at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md.The Silver Spring clerics have issued formal statements condemning the carnage at Ft. Hood. But Imam Faizul Khan, long the main prayer leader at the mosque and a friend of Hasan, said he never believed Hasan capable of such an act.
Yet what docrines did Hasan absorb at the mosque? While he was a communicant, it hosted at least four talks by Enver Masud, the founder of The Wisdom Fund, the main Muslim “truther” group in America [link, link].
And Khan is a leading board member of the Islamic Society of North America — the main Wahhabi-lobby group in the United States, established by Saudi Arabia to impose extremism on American Muslims. ISNA has a long and disgraceful record of promoting radical Islam.
Read the whole thing for the links.
Here’s the problem: it’s cover-ups, misdirection, and denial like the Chronicle engages that will eventually result in exactly the kind of “backlash” they claim to be trying to head off.
The NYPost gets it more right:
Confronting the role of radical Islam here is not Islamophobic, but common sense — and the first response moderate Muslims themselves will have.
“More right”, because the only way to ensure that moderate Muslims confront radical Islam, and pull it out by the roots, is to make America a very uncomfortable place for Muslims generally as part of the aftermath of incidents like Ft. Hood.
Let me point out that I believe the overwhelming majority of American Muslims to be “moderate”, i.e., non-observant or minimally observant, about on par with most American Christians.
However, we absolutely must hold the moderates responsible for the actions of the jihadists sheltering among them.
They should be every bit as afraid as the rest of us should be. Coddling them, and their viper brethren, is close to suicide.
Female Police Officer Heroically Wounded….
Friday, November 6th, 2009… protecting unarmed, defenseless American soldiers being shot on American soil in an American military base by a Muslim jihadist wearing an American uniform, sworn to save lives as doctor, and sworn to defend the Constitution as a soldier himself, but mostly sworn to kill those who kill the followers of Allah.
Kimberly Munley, thank you for stopping this outrageous attack.
Officer Munley, you were the hero of the day yesterday. Whatever a skeptic’s prayers may be worth, you have mine. You certainly have my admiration and gratitude, as well as the gratitude of the soldiers and families who were spared further grief by your bravery.
Well done. Very well done indeed.
[This story subject to change as real reporters get out the details that the entertainment media of CNN, MSNBC, AP, and so forth, are frantically trying to hide.]
White House Speaks Truth….
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009Oh, this is too rich.
I mean, who are these people?
Valerie Jarret, “assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Obama administration”, a so-called “senior advisor”, gets interviewed by CNN’s Campbell Brown, and they start talking about bias in the news:
BROWN: So do you think Fox News is biased?
JARRETT: Well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.
BROWN: Well, then do you also think that MSNBC is biased?
JARRETT: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing. I don’t want to — actually, I don’t want to just generalize all Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is to look at it on a case-by-case basis. And when we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion.
BROWN: But you only see that at Fox News. That’s all, that you’ve only spoken out about Fox News.
JARRETT: That’s actually not true.
Well, yeah, actually, it is — at the very least, Fox is the one getting pretty much singled out.
But BUT, then Jarret delivers this priceless line:
I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power.
The White House.
The Official Residence of the President of the United States of America.
The most Powerful Office in the World.
Is going to Speak Truth to Powah!
As embodied in Fox News.
Excuse me while I giggle myself to death on the pure deliciousness.
update:
Of course, the moment I post this, I find Glenn Reynolds pointed this out less than an hour ago. He calls it “delusions of powerlessness”.
The No True Vampires Fallacy
Friday, October 16th, 2009Ace of Spades points to Howard Kurtz, Horror Movie Retard:
Ever watch a horror movie where there’s tons of vampire-shit going down — bitten necks, bodies drained of blood, wolves suddenly baying in suburban subdivisions, mysterious nosferatu-looking cats who just took over the local funeral home?
And for almost an hour of the film’s running time, no one will even utter the word “vampire.” They keep suggesting serial killers, animal attacks, and maybe the power lines are sending out strange radiation which is making the wolves all bitey.
Because, in the movie’s fictive universe as in real life, vampires don’t exist (well… except for this one time), so it seems insane to even postulate the existence of such things. Better to claim that maybe all these transparently-vampirish shenanigans are the work of “some local kids trying to scare us.”
Enter Howard Kurtz, Horror Movie Retard. He sees a lot of vampy kind of stuff happening all around him, but he’s furiously groping for alternative explanations.
…
In Howard Kurtz’ world, “liberal media bias” is as insane to posit as the existence of vampires, so despite glaring evidence of liberal media bias, he can only guess that maybe there’s a rabid wolf out there that somehow can drain blood from its victims.
An interesting counterpoint to Hume’s Maxim, as described in the Michael Shermer piece, How Thinking Goes Wrong, that I pointed to a bit back.
The weird thing is, of course, that while there are many reasons from physics, chemistry, and biology why vampires can’t exist, at least in the forms attributed to them by the popular culture, there is absolutely no reason at all why the news media can’t be biased, on way or the other.
Oh, except that liberals are always good, right, evidenced based, and cool, while conservatives are ignorant, superstitious, racist fools. There really is no liberal bias, because that’s not bias at all, that’s just good common sense.
I keep forgetting.
Dagwood Goes All Current Events On Us
Friday, October 9th, 2009
Remembering The Lion, NPR Style
Friday, August 28th, 2009This is from memory, while I was driving. Nothing in quotes, therefore, but I think I’m getting the gist.
National Public Radio, talking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy, says that already, a battle is shaping up between two factions: Those who will remember him as a champion of the oppressed, of minorities, of the underprivileged, of the poor; and those who favor his skills as a negotiator, as a compromiser, as a reacher across the aisles.
Nothing, not a word, about remembering the murderer of Mary Jo. Drunkard and a groper. Pal of communist thugs. Destroyer of the Constitution. Enemy of defense. Enemy of self-defense. Nothing about being one of the most hated politicians in America, outside Massachusetts, outside liberal circles, outside the fans of totalitarian statism.
And some say the media is biased. Wow. How short sighted.
Update: Ah, here’s the transcript of the debate between flaming liberal E.J. Dionne and glowing liberal David Brooks:
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:Joining us now, our two political observers: E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times. Welcome back to both of you.
Mr. E. J. DIONNE (Columnist, The Washington Post): Thank you so much.
Mr. DAVID BROOKS (Journalist, The New York Times): Good to be here.
SIEGEL: And we do have some other political developments to talk about. But first, you were both here earlier this week when Senator Kennedy died. You’ve both written about him this week: last thoughts about Ted Kennedy – first E.J.,.
Mr. DIONNE: You know, politics being polarized as it is, people are already arguing about the true meaning of Ted Kennedy’s legacy. On the one side, you have people saying he was an outspoken crusading liberal, a friend of the dispossessed. The other says, he was a warm bipartisan figure who could work with anybody. And of course, he was both of those. He was an empathetic and warm human being who could work with anybody. But he could make deals precisely because he knew what he wanted and where he wanted to move the country. And I think the lesson that Ted Kennedy teaches is that politicians with strong principles are better at compromise than people who don’t know what they really want or what they believe.
SIEGEL: David, you agree with that?
Mr. BROOKS: I do agree with that and he was formed by the constitution. That’s what the constitution wants. We have this, I think since even, since his brother John F. Kennedy, we’ve had the stream of the dominating politician, the charismatic leader who will sweep all before him, and I have to say, I think George Bush and Barack Obama are sort of captured by that image of what a leader is. But if you’re in the Senate in particular you can’t do that. You have to bring people together. It takes a different set of skills, a different set of intelligences.
And it’s a much more team-oriented sport, politics at that level. And I think Kennedy was raised with one style of leadership but emerged to find that he was very talented at the much more team-oriented style of leadership.
Wow, that’s some battle. Fierce. Uncompromising. Takes no prisoners.
Cute little girls in pink PJs have a pillow fight in a pink room.
I believe the Down-Tickling-Her-Button-Nose award goes to E.J., though.