Entries in the Category "media"
Berkeley Breathed gets censored
It was the horrible filthy right-out-there-for-children sex joke that did them in, right?
LOLA GRANOLA:You're not getting a girlfriend obsessed with decadent Western crud. You're not getting a girlfriend obsessed with "American idol". And you're not getting a girlfriend who resists a man's rightful place.
STEVE: Anything else I won't be getting, Fatima?
LOLA: God willing.
No? Then it was the threat of Amish nudists plowing buggies full of ANFO into the Washington Post, right?
Hmm, there must be a reason the WaPo, Boston Globe and others protected us from this. Let me check in my copy of Journalism for Dhimmis.
Who is Jane Galt?
Yesterday I read a chirp on Hit and Run about how "Jane Galt" (Megan McArdle) was now blogging for Atlantic. I kind of blew it off, until Beck rubbed my nose in it. And it really is JUST as bad as he says.
In discussing the morality of a single-payer system, those efficiency considerations are irrelevant. In discussing the morality, one thing matters: who is made better off, and who worse off, by the system? ... But I think many of those who read the post attributed to me a much broader claim that no government transfer would be moral. That is not so. I was questioning the moral justice of the enormous, blunt transfer between huge classes that is necessarily embodied in a single payer system, or at least one such as the versions of mandatory pooling envisioned by wonks like Ezra. Many people took that to mean that I believed there was therefore no moral argument in favor of caring for the sick. I confess that I'm surprised that someone like Scott Lemieux would make such an error, but as I say, perhaps I was unclear.
There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment. Some of my libertarian readers will say that this still doesn't give the government the right to take the fruits of our labor by force, but in fact, I find this argument fairly convincing.
I don't know what's more appalling: that...or 90% of the comments after it...or the blase reaction of the libertysphere to it. But I must say that Andrew Sullivan is becoming a most accurate indicator of quality and truth; if Sully likes it, it sucks.
WND goes tabloid on Alltel
WorldNetDaily wants to be considered the journalistic equal of the mainstream media. Then they publish crap like this, in which a snark about the pentagram earrings in the new Alltel ad prefaces a bunch of guilt-by-association equating Alltel with Clinton and the Commie Chinese.
So what's the big deal with pentagram earrings as opposed to, say, dove earrings? Those huge pents offend my fashion sense, and I would tend to think less of somebody who was that in-your-face about their religion, no matter what it was. But I can't divine any symbolic message, other than general with-it-ness.
All told, it makes me proud to be an Alltel customer...and less than proud to be a WND reader.
GreenStone claimed it would deliver "de-politicized, de-polarized talk radio by women hosts for female listeners,” and Steinem said it would offer an alternative to current radio talk, which she described as "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated.”
Which may be why it only had 8 outlets, in small and mid-sized markets. I've got an email out to my wife, who listens to talk radio quite a bit (I have no time for it) to see if she ever heard of these folks. Certainly I never heard her say, "Oh, honey, now there's talk radio just for us womyn."
It sounds to me like they misunderstood the basic dynamic of talk radio. It's an adrenaline experience; it's supposed to piss people off. And that "argumentative, male-dominated" stuff is called "logic"; those unfamiliar with it might try it sometime.
Lukas observes: "Perhaps Ness should use her time off to tune in to other stations. She’ll find there are many prominent women on the airwaves – they’re just not saying what she thinks they should.”
More (negative) background to the network here, including this pungent comment:
Note the subtle stereotyping: Women don't really want to discuss news and politics, so a network that caters to them has to lure them in with fluffy celebrity chat and shopping and decorating tips. It may be an accurate stereotype, but it's interesting to see uber-butch feminists embracing it.
Thanks to Boortz.
And in anoher case of messing things up...
Drive-in theaters are starting to charge people for bringing in coolers. I understand that they're desperate for money. But cheap food is one of the main reasons to go to a drive-in. It would be better to raise the gate. This is just going to encourage people to sneak food in, which will encourage the proprietors to patrol cars, which will ruin the experience and lead to their demise. As somebody who grew up on drive-ins, I don't want to see that.
Pending Digital TV train wreck
It seems that our masters are a little nervous about the unintended consequences of what they've wrought:
Some committee members were clearly worried. A poll released in January by the Association of Public Television Stations indicated 61 percent of respondents had ''no idea'' that the digital transition was going to take place.
There is a ''high potential for a train wreck here,'' said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
Funny, Maria; people die in train wrecks. The big worry?
A number of organizations are concerned that many people, particularly the elderly, the poor and minorities, will be caught off guard when the change occurs.
Oh horrors! The poor won't be able to watch television! God, they might have to work to alleviate the tedium! And Jerry Springer's ratings might drop! Can't have that happen to a good Democrat, can we?
No more Weekly World News?
How will I know when the 3-headed space aliens are going to bring Jesus back?
The devil's minions...
...are listed here.
Classic devils include:
Angel -- Arte Nova -- BMG Classics -- Calliope -- Catalyst -- Classics for Pleasure -- EMI Classics -- Seraphim -- Virgin -- Columbia -- Conifer -- Cypress -- Decca -- DGG -- Delos -- Denon -- Editio Classica -- EMI -- Erato -- Finlandia -- Melodiya -- Naive -- Nimbus -- Nonesuch -- Philips -- RCA Victor -- Seon -- Sony Classical -- Teldec -- Universal -- Warner Classics
There may be more...these are the labels I recognize.
Robbing Lincoln's grave
Here's an interesting story about the 1876 plot to snatch Abraham
Lenin's Lincoln's body and hold it for ransom.
I wonder if anyone has tried to take "the other Lincoln" out of his pickle jar on Red Square?
Google shareholders say: don't be evil
Next week, Google shareholders will vote on a proposal requiring the company to legally resist government censorship efforts. Ironically (since it's not a city noted for freedom), the proposal was submitted by New York City's Office of the Comptroller. It's not likely to go anywhere though:
Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin together hold 66.2% of Google's total shareholder voting power, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing. All three are members of the board of directors, which has recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal at the company's annual meeting on May 10.
I'm sure you can find more information about this here.
Matt Taibbi on the Imus Affair
The Imus affair hasn't totally died out yet. This Rolling Stone post-mortem from Weds. takes no prisoners:
First of all, let's just get this out of the way: The idea that anyone in the media world gives a shit about the dignity of women, black or white, is a ridiculous joke. America's TV networks have spent the last forty years falling over each other trying to find better and more efficient ways to sell tits to the 18-to-35 demographic. They make hour-long prime-time reality dramas these days about shopping-obsessed sluts hitting each other with pocketbooks, for Christ's sake. Paris Hilton -- dumb, rich -- gets her own prime-time show. MTV, the teenie mags, the pop music industry, they're basically all an endless parade of skinny, half-naked brainless women selling makeup and jeans to neurotic, self-hating, weight-obsessed little girls.
The idea that NBC -- the company that proudly produced 241 episodes of Baywatch, a show whose two main characters for nearly a decade were Pamela Anderson's tits -- was "offended" by the use of the word "ho" is beyond preposterous. Until this incident, I would have wagered very good money that "ho" would be in the title of at least one NBC-produced reality pilot within the next ten years. You can't see that? Trivia-battling sluts in Ho-llywod Squares? An irony-for-irony's-sake callgirl-improvement show called Pimp My Ho? Would you bet real money that the Paris-and-Nicole vehicle The Simple Life wasn't originally called Whore Acres at some stage of the pre-production process? I sure as hell wouldn't. Programming decisions of the The Bachelor ilk aren't spontaneous mid-show farts by an aging drug-battered brain like the Imus deal -- they're wide-awake decisions, forged in the crucible of number-crunching corporate reflection, to use reactionary images of cheap brainless skanks to sell Fritos and pickup trucks.
And that's only a taste.
Debbie does jihad
Thanks to Mano, we now have the source (or at least an early spreader) of the "Cho-as-Muslim" meme: dollar-store Ann Coulter knockoff Debbie Schlussel. Apparently the post that Mano linked to was too stupid even for Schlussel's low standards, and has been removed. But there's plently of other prejudice and vitriol. I blush with embarrassment that she is a fellow Michigander and U-M grad (and at my comment at Mano's: apparently she does NOT write regularly for the Detroit News/Free Press).
In these times, one has to consider the possibility of terrorism, in the same way that one would consider the possibility that it was a psych drug reaction, as most school shootings have been. But that doesn't make it so, in either case, and to stretch circumstantial evidence to fit prejudice makes one look bad, and would certainly make any peaceful Muslim in this country feel threatened.
Did Mike Adams step in it?
There seems to be a bit of furor over Mike Adams' article linking a jihadist website to Prof Julio Pino. I read the article yesterday, and decided to hold off blogging it, for several reasons. One was that I didn't see anything on the site connecting it to Pino, and Adams didn't "show his work". The other was that Adams was stirring up outrage against Pino's university for something one of its employees was doing on his own time, in his own space. That's a good-sized brick Prof. Mike is tossing round in his greenhouse, and this being a Case blog, it would be a catapult in mine. Any negative repercussions we could recommend for Pino would rebound to us, in spades.
If "global-war" were treasonous, Pino (if it is in fact his site) could be dealt with criminally, and his academic connection would be irrelevant. I took a brief tour, and while what I found was disgusting, it did not rise to the level of treason ("AID AND comfort"-- if comfort alone were sufficient, 90% of the Democratic Party would meet the firing squad). And disgust is not a reason to abrogate freedom of speech, academically or in larger society.
I'm interested to see how Dr. Mike will handle this. I didn't see anything yet at http://www.dradams.org/ I've seen him as one of the Good Guys, but if you're a Good Guy, you need to be twice as careful with your facts as the Bad Guys are. And it's not clear that's happened here. The school appears to be handling this correctly; apparently Pino has published some opinions in the student paper that were congruent with "global-war", and they let that go (did you really want them censoring the student paper?) That's what I hate about conservatives and liberals: they complain when they're shut out of the debate, but are anxious to shut others out as well.
What's worse than showing your behind on network TV?
I mean, really, I'm sure the CPS goons watch TV; it's not like they have any real culture.
No quarter for gun-rights Quislings
Since I couldn't say it better myself:
On Friday evening, a gunwriter who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.
The gun writer was Jim Zumbo of Outdoor Life, and the bullet was this.
The first link summarizes what happened quite nicely. And for those of you who might be inclined to see this as a kind of Internet lynch mob, Beck nails, quite precisely, why it had to happen:
This is justice in action. These are not times for craven, flubber-spined, and supine throat-displays to tyranny by someone with the firearms authority that Zumbo carried until he spoke his mind on the matter of "assault weapons". If his sense of fashion does not permit him to carry an AR-15 in the woods, then he should not do so, but he has no right to call for their prohibition. "Opinion" be damned. When an "opinion" demands the suppression of other peoples' rights, then it is to be completely condemned as wrong for its disconnect from the facts of reality. It is a fact that the essence by which to define a "terrorist" is not the weapon that he uses, but the use to which he puts a weapon. I am fully aware that, in this day and age, a statement like that arrives with such blinding acuity that untold millions of utterly stupid people will simply not be able to see it. However, there are enough remaining who can to dispose of a punk like Zumbo by popular market demand, and that's good enough for today.
Somebody working in that field for 42 years, and seeing the politics, would not have said what Zumbo said unless he believed it. And it is not just "expressing an opinion"; it's giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Zumbo has been tried for treason to the cause of 2nd Amendment rights. He still has his 1st Amendment rights, to say what he believes in any forum that will have him, to any audience that will listen. Unfortunately, that's no longer the gunnie community. And anyone out there who actually thinks this is a free-speech issue had better not start with me.
UPDATE: check out this from Tom Gresham, who just may fall heir to the mantle of Col. Jeff.
I guess I'm the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier
Taranto (who doesn't believe in trackback URLS) nails the problem quite precisely:
Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?
That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.
Well, let's say that global warming will be a Holocaust (a burnt offering? Did she really mean that?), and that man has the power to stop it by shrinking his carbon footprint. Will Ellen take responsibility for the Indians and Chinese (not to mention poor Americans) who will die to accomplish that? It may be corpses now, or more corpses later. But since she wants government action, it is her responsibility. She can buy Priuses and fluorescent bulbs all she likes. But if she really wants to reduce her carbon footprint...naw, she can't do that; liberals don't own guns.
"Making a list and checking it twice"
The Westchester Journal News has followed the illustrious lead of the Pee Dee in publishing firearm permit holder's names, and they don't like it there any better than we do here.
"I just question the judgment," said Rockland pistol permit holder Rich Himes. "As far as I'm concerned, I've done everything legally. I've been fingerprinted and everything's on record. And I understand Freedom of Information. But maybe because we can publish information, maybe it's not always a good idea."
Poor boy! You're the one who begged the Vampire State for permission to exercise your natural right of self-defence, instead of just exercising it.
"The Constitution gives people the right to own guns in this country, and it also gives people the right to know whether they own a gun or not," said Henry Freeman, editor and vice president/news at The Journal News. "This is a public record. People have a right to know that.
OK Henry. The Constitution does not "give" people rights; it only agrees to protect rights that exist. And show me where in the Constitution is the "right" to "know if your neighbor has a gun" (or a dreidl, or Care Bears, or a drill press, or...). I assume that you're pro-choice, being a N'yawker and all...what about that "right of privacy" the Supreme Court found? Is it there, or not?
"Driver...MOVE THAT SWAT TEAM!"
We've talked before about the sappy "Extreme Makeover, Home Edition" and their glorification of need above all. Last night, my wife was watching, and she reports that they hit a new low. Some cop had died in the line of duty, and the crew was building his family a new house. The police sent in a SWAT teach to batter the old one down! My wife said that they did it all "by the book", even announced "Police!" before they battered the front door down.
"Did they have a no-knock warrant?"
"Kill any 92 year old ladies?"
"Hmmph, what good were they?"
I suppose it's good to see a positive use for a SWAT team's destructive talents. But given the context of the show, and the news of late, it just seems like shilling for the State.
Hammer of Truth has been down "for major upgrades" since Election Day. Come on, guys (and Michelle); we need you.
Frat boys sue 'Borat'
The young men "engaged in behavior that they otherwise would not have engaged in," the lawsuit says.
No. They engaged in behavior they would not have engaged in in front of anyone but their friends, and as long as the movie was only going to be shown overseas, it was fine. They could make Americans look bad; that was OK. But themselves?
This isn't about "loss of reputation"; they gave that away. This is all about the Benjamins.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I want to.
Issue to allow smoking in some places makes ballotThere's the headline.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An issue that would ban smoking in most public buildings but allow it in bars, parts of restaurants and some other places, has enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, elections officials said Wednesday.There's the first paragraph.
Think somebody at AP has an agenda? Would they mind explaining where people could smoke under the SmokeFree Ohio proposal that they can not smoke in NOW?
Air America going bankrupt.
I've got to regret this particular flop-in-the-marketplace. If these people can't get their message out in a moral manner, they'll be lobbying the gooferment for a revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" (censorship by cost imposition). Besides, it's a GOOD thing to have people be reminded of the idiocy and intellectual bankruptcy of the Left on a regular basis, just like it's good that folks like Ernie Sanders are on the air, preaching theocracy.
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Path Pt. 2
Yes, I sat through it, and Leerless Feeder's address. By the end, I wondered why I felt compelled to relive that horror. I mean, I have never listened to John Adams' On the Transmigration of Souls. I've heard a bit, enough to guess that he did that about as well as it could be done, but the taste was enough to tell me to stay well away, for my mental health.
The worst part: after the sheeple were good and riled up, ABC had to have an "investigative report" saying that they were shocked, SHOCKED that people could still buy ammonium nitrate. Oh yeah, lobby your congressman, screw the farmer. I turned in late, and in bad humor.
Path to 9/11
I don't watch TV, but made an exception last night to watch the ABC miniseries. Why? Because the Left had done such a good job of advertising it. Yes, Wile E. Coyote is a client of Acme Political Strategies, Inc., and has managed to blow himself up again. Apparently they succeeded in censoring the series, leaving it to end early by about the amount of time taken by the erased portion of the Watergate tapes. (Some of the missing scenes are discussed here.) But Berger and Albright still come off badly, and as for Clinton, his first appearance is saying "I did not have sexual relations...", and after that, it's impossible to take him seriously. Come on, most of us lived through that; did Clintoon really think he could shove those years down the memory hole?
The reason the Clintoon admin comes off badly is simple truth, and it really makes me wonder why they raised such a brouhaha. The Democratic position, then as now, was that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. (A current iteration of that position may be found here.) If they truly believe that this position is correct, then they should be HAPPY that Albright and Berger are shown putting the position into practice, defending the forces of law and order against those who would violate the rights of weirdbeards. But they know, as the American public knows, that this position has been discredited by history. They want to continue to hold the position (largely because it is not the Republican position) while not having the embarrassing history around. Thus the censorship (and when politicians start talking about broadcast licences, it IS censorship, as much as taxation is robbery at gunpoint, even if the gun isn't brandished at the time.)
I'll be watching tonight to make sure (as rumor has it) that the non-whiny group of clowns is also made to look bad.
Who's more clueless about Bach: PD or AP?
BERLIN (AP) — A previously unknown work by Johann Sebastian Bach has turned up in a crate of 18th-century birthday cards removed from a German library shortly before it was devastated by fire last year, researchers said Wednesday.
This is extremely old news, about a year anyway. The edition "to be published in the fall" was added as a bib record to Kulas on 3/29, and the actual item was put on the shelf this summer. I guess that now that JonBenet's killer is again a mystery, it's a slow news day for entertainment reporters.
John Carroll radio goes sterile
When I first came to Cleveland (late 1986), I always tuned in Fred Ziwich's polka show on WJCU. Now it's to be "new rock and alternative music" (Hey, I thought polka WAS alternative music.) A pity...it would have been better to make it all-Catholic radio, to fit the school's mission. At least there's still WRUW.
In the time and place where I grew up, the word was just below the "N" word in offensiveness, synonymous with several other terms that racists used for black people. That kind of language in the wrong crowd could leave you with a bad pain where your front teeth used to be.
Fulwood didn't see it that way, and in his defense, I wonder if generational and regional issues aren't at play in how the word hits one's ears. He and several others around the newsroom who are younger and from a different part of the country than I, say that they first heard the term in the original "M"A"S"H" movie, which had a black character named Spearchucker Jones, and were not offended by it.
Fulwood says he considered the word no more volatile than spear carrier - a term I think would have better expressed what he wanted to say.
If that's the case, Fulwood is just tone-deaf. A "spearchucker" is somebody so primitive that they have to fight with hand projectiles. It's allied to the adage that "You can take the [certain ethnic] out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the [certain ethnic]". In the 60s, it was cuter than "pickaninny" and less offensive than "the n word".
It's not my place to recommend action here. If the PD readership falls off in the demographic Fulwood appeals to (guilt-ridden white liberals?), they'll do what they need to do. I much preferred Afi-Odelia Scruggs, even with her Slats Grobnik (Ebonee) in burnt cork drag. My whole point is this: had I used "spearchucker" to denigrate a black person around here, I would (if I were lucky and not fired) be sent for immediate Sensitivity Training. But it looks like the guy with all the melanin will walk. 'Sup with that?
FWIW, Neal Boortz agrees.
The usually soporific Sam Fulwood engages in some, uh, colorful writing:
Still, Powell rose higher than almost any black Republican by making the party faithful comfortable with his non-threatening and non-demanding presence on racial issues. Powell flamed out after his ego no longer allowed him to be an unquestioning spearchucker in Mr. Bush's war.
As a white boy in the sticks, I grew up with "spearchucker"...and I don't see any way that it's less offensive coming from a Black-operated keyboard.
Fulwood is right to call the conservative punditocracy on making such a big deal of Blackwell's race; it's conservatives who are supposed to stand for colorblindness and "judging on the content of character." But he repeats the canard about Blackwell suppressing the Black vote (and while he can't present evidence in the print version of the PD, hyperlinks could be available online),as opposed to the Libertarian vote, and is convinced that the Gravy Train is more important to black voters than Blackwell's social positions. That may be so. But I can't imagine that referring to the first Black Secretary of State as a "spearchucker" will help him in persuading the burgeoning Black middle class that could go for a Blackwell.