"My Pants Were On Fire"

The Brian Williams story keeps getting more and more interesting. Brian Williams, for those who don't know, is the face of NBC Night News. Unfortunately for Williams, he's duller than dirt. And to make himself more interesting, he's invented a tale or two that he likes to tell to spice up his life. Turns out that may have been a mistake.

When Williams ascended to the big chair, NBC thought they had finally found a replacement for the much-respected Tom Brokaw, who had anchored NBC Nightly News for 22 years. But Williams never did live up to Brokaw's appeal. In any event, NBC saw him as their best chance to win over audiences. Unfortunately, Williams has a few skeletons in his closet. The biggest of those is a tale Williams has been telling this since the Iraqi war about being in a helicopter in 2003 that was hit and went down. Turns out, that was a lie. Whoops.

How this was uncovered is really quite interesting. Ever since Williams first told the story, the soldiers who were with him at the time have been calling "Bullship!" on this tale. But they were ignored. Then recently, the story boiled over when one of the soldiers pushed the story on Facebook. At that point, Williams was finally forced to recant his story. Said Williams:

"I feel terrible about making this mistake, especially since I found my OWN WRITING about the incident from back in '08, and I was indeed on the Chinook behind the bird that took the RPG in the tail housing just above the ramp."

In other words, it was another helicopter that was hit and Williams was never in any danger.

Williams tried to play this off as a mistake and called it the haze of combat and the problem of memories, but no one is buying that. Then this weekend, word came that Williams is being investigated by NBC for other sensational claims he's made. In particular, they are questioning his story of seeing a dead body float past his hotel as he covered Hurricane Katrina. There will probably be more.

With word leaking out that NBC is looking into these lies, Williams announced that he would be stepping away from the Nightly News "for a few days." Whether this lasts longer than a few days and/or continues indefinitely will depend on the damage done to NBC's reputation from retaining Williams.

This is interesting on several levels. First, I find it interesting that Williams got away with this without any hint of danger for 12 years now. But now, based on things everyone already knew, NBC decided to discover Williams' wrongdoing and turn on him. I wonder what changed? Sadly, I have no answer for you on this one.

Secondly, I find it interesting how many journalists get caught telling serious lies. We've seen everything from pointless self-aggrandizing lies like those told by Williams to reporters who made up whole stories. There seems to be some temptation among prominent journalists to make news when the real news doesn't fit their desires. Even worse, the length of time it takes to admit these flaws and offer some punishment even after the lies and faked stories had become obvious should be shocking to the journalism industry, but somehow doesn't seem to bother them.

Third, I wonder what this means for Hillary, who told a nearly identical story about landing under fire in Yugoslavia. She made that up, as the troops present at the time have confirmed. Will this reach her as it reached Williams? Or will everyone continue to look the other way on her? Personally, I suspect they will look the other way because there is no one obvious to take her place. If she had an acceptable replacement for nominee, then I think the Democrats would now discover this lie she has been telling and be done with her. But since there is no real alternative, they will continue to try to stick our heads in the sand.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Kit Had a Problem With Buzzfeed and You Won't Believe What He Did About It!

by Kit

Buzzfeed and the similar site Upworthy has recently become rather famous (or infamous) for its over-the-top style and content. It also gained some press for being Pew’s “Least Trusted Name in News” as it was the only news source every group, whether liberal or conservative or centrist, listed it as “More distrust than trusted” —and that was only among people who knew about it as many had never even heard of it. Other examples of its infamy include The Onion setting up a parody site, Clickbait, and College Humor doing a series of sketches mocking them.

But what is it about sites like these that annoy me so much? Well, they have two particular aspects which on their own can be only barely tolerable but fused make these sites absolutely intolerable:

(1) Click-bait Headlines with Sentimental Stories.

Buzzfeed and its darker cousin Upworthy are largely famous the way their headlines are written. This is probably the most famous complaint.

You see, whereas traditional headlines often attempt to give you a fair deal of information about the story, for example, “Motorcyclists Arrive at Funeral of Gay Soldier to Thwart Westboro Protestors”, their headlines are more obtuse, giving very little information about what exactly happened except what in writing classes would be called the “inciting incident” promptly followed with an exclamation that you would have difficulty comprehending what happened next, for example, “These Anti-Gay Protestors Showed Up at a Gay Soldier’s Funeral and You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!”

A more honest version of that headline would be “CLICK ME! CLICKE ME!”

And the stories are almost always sentimental, with the heroes standing up to the evil meanies or a shocking exposé of some “evil” injustice that everyone with access to the larger world was aware of. This leads us to our next topic:

(2) Shameless Pandering to Liberal Demographics.

The demographic they seek, especially Upworthy, is a specific type of person; the urban left-of-center millennial who is very nostalgic for the 1990s (for some reason) and obsessive about pop culture but who fancies himself or herself as a progressive nerdy outsider and thus cares deeply about issues like women’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights. Also, an occasional fear of being seen as racist by one’s ethnic minority acquaintances. Not necessarily bad people, in fact a number of them are rather good, nor would I describe all of them as unintelligent but they do view themselves as very enlightened in their understanding of the world around them; a self-assessment that is actually highly debatable.

The result of the fusion of the aforementioned overly-sentimental click bait-style and their attempt to appeal to this particular demographic is what can only be described as a left-wing version of a pop culture-obsessed Drudge Report with more lists than an anal-retentive . Stories about somebody starting off a “monologue on acceptance” or standing up to mean old bigots or charts that reveal how backwards the United States is, such as this headline: “The Chart That Will Make You Laugh At Anyone Who Says Pakistan is ‘Less Developed’ Than The US” (the chart is one on mandatory maternity leave).

Such stories and articles are solely about making the readers feel good about themselves for being on the right side of history. For, on these sites, history is a great epic where the heroes of progressivism and liberalism do battle with the villains of bigotry and intolerance. And they will win because the heroes are wise and good while the villains are wicked, insane, or mentally deficient or some combination of the three and the battles largely consist in staging peaceful counter-protests in a free country or simply giving a lecture on tolerance to some old unenlightened bigot. Not terrible or bad acts, sometimes quite good, but they are put on a pedestal of “heroic” when very few risks to the physical body were taken aside from a bad cold due due to staging a protest in the winter at a time when a teenager in Pakistan can be shot in the head for trying to promote a girl’s right to an education.

Of course, that is not to say the sites are not solely political. There are lists such as “36 Things That Are Going To Make You Feel Ancient” and “25 Things All Basic White Girls Do During The Fall”. These sites also have a pop culture-savviness and ingrained celebrity-worship, with articles covering such topics as “The Hard Truths Maisie Williams Growing Up on Game of Thrones” (Ms. Williams plays Arya Stark) and “These Pictures of Jon Hamm’s Little Hamm Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity” (It’s just a bulge in his pants). These, especially the celeb-focused articles, add a sense of superficiality to the sites, attempting to give the most trivial things to a feeling of deep significance. The simple facts of life one learns while growing up as a teen are recast as “hard truths” and a photo of the bulge of a famous man’s little man in his pants is capable of restoring one’s faith in humanity.

Like the stories of people “standing up” to bigotry through a long-winded lecture or Facebook profile picture these articles carry a sense of hyperbole that raises the trivial to a level equal to the historic. “Bravery” is telling an room full of voters in San Francisco’s Castro District that Gay Marriage is good. There are exceptions, of course, but this seems to be the rule, with the occasional in-depth article being the exception and frivolous political propaganda and celeb-worship being the rule. Its emotional manipulation plain and simple.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Opposition to Obamacare NOT Racist

Cynthia Tucker is a black, female journalist who gained prominence in the 1990s, and all the negatives that entails, i.e. she’s steeped in the race/gender wars. This last week, she laments that it’s hard to understand the “irrational hatred of Obamacare” (which of course is code for racism). But let’s put that aside. What Tucker doesn’t get is that the hatred of Obamacare isn’t irrational. Let’s discuss.

Tucker does what all politicized hacks always do: she creates her own facts to support the conclusion she wants you to reach. She begins with the fraudulent advocacy technique of talking about some woman she knows who is happy to finally have insurance. Whoopee! Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. In fact, I can counter with someone who thinks we should ban insurance. So what have proved? Nothing, Cynthia.

Anyways, she buys into Obama’s 7 million number and calls it “stark evidence of the overwhelming market demand.” Isn’t that cute, she’s a moron! Let us consider the seven million number and her point:

● First, it’s nonsense to call something that is forced upon people by threat of fine as creating “market demand.” That’s like saying Hitler created “market demand” for Nazism in every country he occupied by forcing it upon people. “Markets” imply willing buyers and sellers, not the coerced.

● Secondly, the 7 million number is obviously fake. Quoting it uncritically only demonstrates bias. Let’s see how many people actually have Exchange-sold policies three months from now, then we’ll talk Cynthia.

● Thirdenly, even if we accept the 7 million number, this is “stark” evidence of a lack of demand, not evidence of demand, you dingbat. There are 49 million uninsured. If we assume that all of the 7 million were uninsured before, then still only 1 in 7 signed up despite the threats of being fined if they refused. That’s evidence of horribly weak demand.

● Further, the evidence suggests that only 800,000 of the signups didn’t have insurance until Obamacare came along. That means only 1.6 in 100 of the uninsured responded. Again, how is that evidence of anything except disdain?

As for the other 6.3 million, those are people who were insured, but lost their insurance because of Obamacare and had no choice but to buy this inferior product at inflated prices. It’s not evidence of demand to ban all other alternatives and then point to your sales.

She then tells us that even though it’s too early to call Obamacare a success, it is a success. According to her,

● “It made great strides in improving access to health care.” Uh, not really. More people lost insurance than gained insurance. And only an idiot would say that disrupting the entire system to get 800,000 coverage is making strides.

● She says it will be a “boon” to the economy that young people can stay on their parent’s plans.... as if that made any sense at all.

● Now you can’t be denied coverage! That’s true, but you can be denied treatment. Which would you rather have? In fact, the biggest problem Obamacare will encounter is that people will buy this insurance, but won’t be able to find doctors, and certainly not good ones. Basically, Obamacare will cause the “two America’s” dystopia liberals always whine about, with rich people getting to see great doctors and getting treatment anywhere they wish, while poor and average people get handed worthless policies that leave them dying in the waiting rooms of third-rate converted animal hospitals. Thanks Cynthia, may it happen to you and yours first.

● Now you can get affordable insurance away from your employer! LOL! Actually, Obama killed the affordable policies. So to restate this truthfully, “Now you will lose your employer-sponsored plan and you can go buy way overpriced, underprovided phantom-coverage from Obama’s website.

Next she takes on those nasty, racist Republicans. She points out that they should love Obamacare because it “adheres to market-based ideas.” Yeah, right. There isn’t a market-based idea in the whole bill. Further, she whines, the Republicans are free to offer alternatives. This is, of course, revisionism. This bill was written in secret by a couple Democrats and the insurance companies. It was voted on without amendments, without reading, without Republican input or public input being allowed. It even got pushed through on an abusive procedural motion. I guess Cynthia wasn’t paying attention.

Of course she finishes with a nasty, slander: “Could it be that Republicans are simply furious that millions of Americans like [her friend] finally have health insurance?” No, Cynthia, racism is your obsession, not ours.

Anyways, let’s cut to the chase. She just doesn’t understand the hate. Ok, how about this...

Why should we like a law that forces us to buy a product we don’t want, a product that costs more and provides less coverage than we could have obtained on the open market before Obama banned those policies. A law which ham-fistedly attempts to reshape 1/12th of our economy. A law which has cost nearly ten million people the insurance they liked (more to come), that has severed their relationships with their doctors, which put many independent doctors out of business, which cost people their jobs, which cut down the part-time hours available for part-time workers, which forced churches to provide abortion coverage and old people to pay for pediatric issues and males to pay for feminine issues and young people to massively subsidize the elderly. A law which promises huge, rich insurance firms subsidies all paid for on the backs of the middle class. A law which may yet wipe out unions. A law which will break various state and federal budgets.

Maybe that’s why people hate it, Cynthia. And if you weren’t a racist who is looking for anything you can spin into “white people hate us!” perhaps you would see this. The problem isn’t that Obama is the first black president, it’s that he’s the first abusive, incompetent, shithead black president.

Hating Obamacare is not an irrational response. It is quite rational. In fact, I wonder how Cynthia would respond if we passed a law which forced everyone to buy a 45 caliber (or above) handgun for home defense and we made blacks pay twice as much to subsidize old whites. Do you think she’d marvel and fake confusion at all the irrational hate coming from the left? Would she finish with, “Could it be that Liberals are simply furious that millions of Americans like old Earl finally have access to home protection?” Somehow, I doubt it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Fails By Not Hurting People Enough!

Things aren’t going well for Obama. His plan to “fix” his latest crisis isn’t playing too well anywhere in the country, least of all the editorial pages, where they are getting quite nasty about our Kenyan Overlord and his plan. It’s also interesting how carefully they avoid recognizing the people they are hurting.

So you know, “the fix” is Obama’s response to the problem that 50 million Americans are going to lose their insurance when Obama claimed they could keep it... he claimed that 29 times, though he now denies he said it. His proposed fix is to let insurers keep selling “substandard” plans for one more year. Essentially, the goal is to put this issue off until after the 2014 elections.

That said, however, there are three problems with this. First, it’s highly unlikely that insurers will actually offer those policies even if allowed, and many states (especially liberal ones) won’t allow it. Secondly, the election is in November 2014. When exactly do you think the cancellation notices will go out with a one year fix? That’s right, end of summer 2014... right before the election. I guess no one in the White House owns a calendar. Third, the plans in question will absorb away healthy people, which will cause Obamacare rates to spike.

The newspapers seem to get this and they are very upset with our Overlord. Observe:

● The New York Times said Obama’s proposed fix was better than the “destructive” Republican plan whatever that was (the Times doesn't seem to know), but Obama’s proposed fix “raises troubling questions.” Ya think? What questions are those? Well, the paper says that raises questions of “incompetence” on the part of the administration and it damages Obama’s credibility. But it then says that those questions “cannot be answered easily.”

Ha. Wrong.

(1) Did Obama knowingly lie to 50 million people? Yes.

(2) Why did no one at The Times question these obvious lies even as the Republicans pointed them out? Because you’re partisan hacks.

(3) Is it clear that Obama intended to strip 50 million people of insurance to help 7.3 million people this year? Yep.

Simple. But of course, that would require integrity... something The Times lacks.

The Times then says this, which is rather interesting:

“If a relatively small population of people get extensions, as some experts think likely, the effect on premiums in the overall health insurance market may be minimal. Even so, this disturbing reversal is caused by the incompetence of the administration in ushering in reforms that millions have been waiting for.”

Ok, let’s use our brains. (1) If 50 million people is a “relatively small population,” then why are we worrying about the 40 million uninsured? (2) If the effect on premiums is “minimal,” then why object to this fix at all? Spite? (3) If millions are waiting for Obama to usher in these reforms, then why did The Times applaud when Obama granted extensions to unions, big business, and even some small businesses? Why exclude Congress? Selective application of arguments is evidence of advocacy.

● The Washington Post actually thinks people losing their insurance is a good thing (as does Nancy Pelosi), though they didn’t have the integrity to say so. Instead, they question Obama’s integrity for not saying so... the hypocrites said:

“Unfortunately, it was his promise that was wrong, not the design of the law. At best, his proposed fix will have little impact except to let him shift the blame; at worst, it will undermine reform.”

So the real problem is that Obama doesn’t have the courage not to lie. Hey, I agree with the Post for once! Wow! I never thought this day would come!

● The Wall Street Journal called this a “nonfix,” designed to avoid needing to work on a genuine fix. The Journal then summed up modern liberalism pretty well:

“They are trying to impose on Americans insurance they don’t want, at prices they don’t want to pay, while limiting their choices of doctors and hospitals. This is the reality of modern liberal government.”

Yep. And they spy on everyone, they bomb Arab countries, and they hand out money to Wall Street like it was candy.

● USA Today called this a “punt” and titled their editorial, “Obama prescribes ugly fix for Obamacare.” Like The Post, USAToday notes that the problem with the fix is that it lets the healthy people escape from Obamacare, which means they won’t be subsidizing the people Obamacare was designed to help. It seems lost on them that this means they are choosing to hurt a lot of people to help a few others. They also note that Obama’s fix won’t work because states might not go along with it (especially liberal states... which will bring more bad PR to the Democrats) and because insurers aren’t going to play this game in any event.

It’s amazing how talented liberals are at ignoring the people they will hurt just so they can claim they helped someone. That’s usually called being sociopathic... or is it psychopathic?

Anyway, this weekend, Obama met with a group of CEOs from Big Insurance. They were working on a plan to save their dirty deal, known as Obamacare. Now ask yourself how the media would have responded if Bush had huddled with a group of CEOs to find a way to save some government handout to those same CEOs.

Oh wait, we already know. For years, the MSM was obsessed with how many oil industry executives the White House met and what they talked about. This was portrayed time and again as Bush dealing with cronies to rape the American people... a veritable outrage! It’s funny how those same MSM types can report an even more egregious situation with Obama, with a known plan to force consumers to buy their over-priced insurance and lavish government subsidies to cover the costs, and not a single “journalist” seems capable of noticing the problem.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Rick Perry Is A Mean Doo-Doo Head

Governor Perry's not the most popular guy around here (though that's his own fault), but in fairness, liberals really don't like him either. And they have much dumber reasons for not liking him. Observe.

A little backstory. Here in Missouri, our special legislative session is about to kick into gear, in which the lawmakers vote whether or not to override bills vetoed by the governor. There's several this year; you may have heard of a gun bill that would nullify all federal gun control laws, which won't go anywhere but I wouldn't mind seeing it passed, just to annoy our genius overlords. But I digress. Around these parts, the main thing being discussed is one House Bill 253, which would cut our state income tax from 6 to 5.5%, and the corporate income tax from 6.25 to 3.25%. Whether or not it'll pass, I don't know. Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed it, the Republicans have just about a supermajority in both chambers, but a lot of them are coming under pressure from school districts, which are afraid of losing funding if it passes and state revenue goes down. So pass or fail, it'll be close.

What does all this have to do with Rick Perry? Well, given the doubtful situation for the bill and the businesses in whose name the bill is being pushed, Perry decided to make some hay. For the past couple weeks, he's been running ads in Missouri, saying basically, "Hey, Missouri businessmen. Just to let you know, Texas doesn't have any state income tax. Also, it's f@#$ing Texas. So if this whole tax-cut bill doesn't work out for you, we're a pretty welcoming people down here. Just saying." Again, I paraphrase. And he's made a couple appearances in the state, and has the backing of the MO Chamber of Commerce, which I take it is looking to put pressure on the legislators rather than actually suggest businesses leave the state.

This has not pleased certain liberal organizations in the state, notably the news outlets. I speak in particular of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (known to some as the "St. Louis Post-DisTrash"), which put on its Indignant Face in the editorial page earlier this week. First paragraph:

A couple of weeks before Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed House Bill 253, the dangerous bill that would give wealthy Missourians a tax cut while starving education and other important state services....

You know they're upset when they don't even wait a few lines of text before the appeals to emotion.

And I'm guessing someone really wanted to work in "starving children" in that lead sentence, but then they thought it would be too on-the-nose.

But can they do ad hominem attacks? Yes, they can:

Mr. Perry likes to brag about his state's lack of an income tax. Never mind that he had nothing to do with it, and that the state's wealth of oil and gas reserves make such a tax unnecessary.

Er, I'm pretty sure his not having anything to do with it is irrelevant. I'm also pretty sure Perry never took all the credit for it. Whatever his faults, he doesn't claim to be responsible for all that is right with the world. I mean, he's not Al Gore.

Don't worry, though; the paper does put forward some actual, you know, facts. Like the fact that Missouri's corporate tax rate is actually much lower than Texas; and that its overall tax burden is slightly less than the Lone Star State's. From this, the editorial concludes, ours is "a low-tax, low-service state. Missouri's problem isn't that it taxes too much, it's that....we don't invest nearly enough in schools, in transit, in our future." So the "argument," for lack of a better word, is this: Missouri's taxes are very low, so there's no reason for businesses to leave for Texas, and really they should be higher to give us more services and make the tax burden worse than in Texas. Ummmm.....okay.

And just to let Perry know he's not wanted here, the Post-Dispatch adds: "Missourians don't unite behind many things these days, but we don't take too kindly to strangers not respecting our borders."

Unless they come from Washington, of course.

I assume that in this case the paper thinks it's speaking for all Missourians, including the rich ones who want tax cuts for themselves while they heartlessly starve state government. And probably children.

Do I have a point here? Not really. All things considered, the effects from the bill will be a wash either way, I'm guessing. And I'd rather not see our businesses leave the state for Texas, though I don't begrudge Perry trying to lure them away. But I do find it interesting/amusing, how liberals such as the Post-Dispatch's editors keep pushing their ruinous policies, and then when people try to escape those policies and their consequences, denounce them as traitors to the sacred Fatherland. Maybe that's what Ned Flanders meant when he said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."*

*There's a chance I have Ned Flanders confused with someone else.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

IQ, Race, Science and Politics

This will be an odd discussion. It's about IQ. But first, some background.

The article that sparked today's discussion was published at Politico by a man called Jason Richwine. I don't trust Richwine. He co-authored the ludicrous Heritage Foundation report about the supposed cost of immigration. Even worse, a thesis he wrote in college was then unearthed in which he made some racist suggestions about immigrants; he also wrote briefly for a "white nationalist" blog. The Politico article is his attempt to resurrect his reputation. In my opinion, he fails pretty miserably because he distorts what the problem was with his thesis: the problem wasn't that he discussed IQ, it was that he started suggesting that we keep Hispanics out because they have low IQs.

So why discuss his article? Well, before he starts spinning to defend his thesis, Richwine presents a credible set of facts that interest me. In particular, he notes that there is a huge disconnect between the scientific community and the media when it comes to the issue of IQ. He notes that if you listen to the media, you will hear that IQ is considered meaningless by the scientific community, that there are no ethnic and gender differences and those that do exist are the result of biased questions, and that no legitimate scientist really pays any attention to the whole idea. Science, however, has a different take. Indeed, Richwine notes that there IS a consensus in the cognitive ability field that:

● Virtually all psychologists believe there is an intelligence factor that explains the performance of individuals on cognitive tests, and IQ tests measure that factor.

● IQ scores correlate with educational attainment, income and other socioeconomic outcomes.

● A person's IQ score is influenced by their genetic make up and environmental factors. It tends to remain stable after adolescence.

● There is an observed difference in IQ scores among different racial/ethnic/gender groups, with northeast Asians scoring the highest, followed by whites, followed by Hispanics, followed by blacks.

● Psychologists have tested and rejected the notion that racial/gender differences are the result of biased testing. They have not, however, accepted the idea of a genetic cause for these differences because no link has yet been shown between DNA gene combinations and intelligence.

In other words, everything the media claims is false is actually true and media claims that the scientific community has reached a consensus that these things are false is backwards, as the consensus goes the other way. To prove the consensus, Richwine cites numerous books and studies and even a committee report by 52 experts from the American Psychological Association which noted the above; against these, he lines up quotes from hack journalists who say things like, “IQ is a metric of such dubiousness that almost no serious educational researcher uses it anymore.” (Ana Marie Cox -- The Guardian, May 2012).

So let's forget Richwine and talk about the above bullet-points. These strike me as true. I know this in two ways. First, since at least the 1980s, leftists have struggled to disprove the above. The fact they keep struggling and have now gone into "it is heretical to say this" mode suggests it is true. Moreover, they've even gone so far as to remove testing questions from things like the SAT when minorities or women fared poorly on those questions, yet the differences persist despite these efforts to rig the tests. In my book, massive continuing statistical consistency is proof. Secondly, anecdotally, some of this is obvious. It is obvious there is an intelligence factor. It is obvious that some people are more intelligent than others. The people who seem more intelligent not only tend to do better in education and employment, but they score better on tests too. That suggests that intelligence is real, can be measured, and does impact our success. I can also say that I've met a ton of geniuses and quasi-geniuses and successful people, and they are disproportionately Asians and honkeys and male. Thus, it seems there are race/gender differences as well.

Now, I can't and won't say that this is 100% true because it's not; there are individuals in every group who are near the top or near the bottom of the human race. There are people who are well above average and well below average for their own groups and for other groups. But as groups, there appears to be noticeable differences which lead to different outcomes for the group average. I also cannot tell you if the difference is genetic, cultural or environmental. I doubt it is genetic though, or you would have consistency. In other words, if being purple made you stupid, then there would be no smart purples... but there are. Ergo, I think the race/gender differences are the result of something other than race or gender.

Why this matters to me is this: it exposes the left's thinking and that they don't care about people.

If we know that purples as a group will have lower IQs by the time they hit adulthood than blues, and we know that IQ will correlate with other measures of success, then in my opinion, we should be looking for the cause so we can find a solution to help purples do as well as blues. If there's something purple parents or purple teachers or purple celebrities are doing wrong, then we should find out what it is and fix it. If it's something blues are doing to purples, then we should find it and fix it. If it's environmental, perhaps pollution in purple neighborhoods, then we should fix it. This is true of blacks, Hispanics, whites, or anyone else who doesn't do as well as the top group. Indeed, when we find evidence of something that negatively affects a group of people, we should always investigate and find solutions.

But that's not what liberal journalists and educators do. Instead, they scream bloody racist murder at anyone who dares to suggest there is a difference. Then they go back into denial mode because that is their dogma. But what kind of people are we that we let whole groups of people get handicapped just to "prove" dogma?

Unfortunately, this seems to be getting worse too. The go-to solution these days is to demand that problems not be discussed for fear of hurting "acceptance." Everyone from race groups to gender groups to fat groups are taking this stance. How idiotic. It's like a demand that we let people fail lest we suggest that people who are failing just might be failing. I can't say this is unique. In fact, it's been pretty common throughout history, but it is unhelpful.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Dishonest Conversation About Race

So the Zimmermann trial has come and gone, and those on the far Left still can't believe the outrageously outrageous acquittal of whitey. Big surprise.

Beware of anyone who says that "we need to have an open conversation about race in this country." Those words only come out if the person has already decided that America is a land full of racial animosity, and that most folks are really racist, especially whites; and nine times out of ten they personally have little or no social interaction with anyone outside their own race. Nowhere is this more the case than for the media, with networks and publications (often nearly lily-white in their staff's composition, by the way) continually talking about the need for an "honest dialogue," which, of course, always turns out to be making white people confessing how deeply racist they really are and enlightened minorities sharing their experiences of oppression.

With the media reporting it, race was always going to be a big part of the Zimmermann-Martin case; everyone knows that. Or to be specific, race-baiting. From the get-go, when the media insisted on referring to George as a "white Hispanic" (how often has that term come up before now, ever?), this case has been blown up into an innocent black "child" having his life snuffed out by "The System," represented here by a paranoid white(ish) dude. So of course, following the white(ish) dude's acquittal, talking heads on TV went through amazing mental gymnastics to continue to paint this as white-on-black crime.

Take MSNBC's Alex Toure. Last week, Toure went what some might call "full retard" in attacking Zimmermann--oh crap, am I not supposed to say that? Sorry, Toure went what some might call "full exceptional individual" in attacking Zimmermann, claiming that the guy is not Hispanic at all, because he is instead "Peruvian-American." ?!?!?!?!

Boy, how could I forget? It's true; Peru was in fact settled entirely by that strong, fair-skinned Nordic race that just happened to be hanging out in Spain at the time! My God, Zimmermann is even a German name! This explains everything!!

But at least the self-proclaimed advocacy group for all Hispanics, the National Council of La Raza, jumped right in there to protect Zimmermann from these idiotic charges, didn't it? No? No. Instead, La Raza announced long ago it would join with its allies in the "civil rights community" to protest on behalf of Martin. Other Latino groups joined suit, explaining once more that Zimmermann isn't really Hispanic, he's just "half-Peruvian." See? The Latino community gets what you mean, Toure. Those infamous, Aryan Nation Peruvians....

But what really takes the cake are the rules for the "national race conversation" proposed by TheRoot, which apparently is a website of some kind. Their proposals, issued in the wake of the trial, aren't all terrible-sounding--i.e. "talking about race isn't racist": okay, true enough--but then there are these gems. "....is one of the ways racism is maintained. So is acting as if 'blacks suffer from racism' and 'whites suffer from reverse racism' are equally valid points of view." "Being 'colorblind' is not helpful because it cripples our ability to deal with the tangible effects of racial inequality in just about every area of life." "A black person making a joke about race is different from a white person making a joke about race." Blah blah freaking blah. You can read the rest here if you're interested. Noticing that these were all misconceptions about and wrong expectations of black people, conservative blogger Patterico inquired of the writer on Twitter whether only white people had rules to observe, or if there are rules for black people to follow when talking about whites, too. No solid answer was forthcoming.

It's actually not hard to understand what's going on here. The Left, as represented by the Democratic Party, Hollywood, the media, etc., is of course on the side of the black man (or rather on the side of the black race, which doesn't come out to the same thing). And for years now, they've been beating the drum that Hispanics' time has come, too, talking endlessly about "the browning of America" and other marketed jingles. And then here comes a case of a Hispanic guy shooting a black teen dead under confusing circumstances. What to do, what to do? Well, as we've seen, they can always insinuate that the Hispanic guy wasn't really Hispanic; better yet, they can pivot to talking about racial barriers in general. Which is when we're told that it's time for a conversation about race, which of course means "time for whites to feel guilty."

Shameless and disgusting, yes. Still, I have to admit, the news about Aryan Peruvia is quite a gem. I'm glad someone finally shed light on those posers.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Where Is The Rage? Boo hoo hoo

Guns. Duh. Must stop guns. Durrrr. There are few issues that expose the inability of people to use their brains as clearly as gun control. Willful blindness and rank stupidity are the order of the day. Take, for example, an article in which the Christian Science Monitor tried to figure out why the public wasn’t outraged about the failure of the gun control bill in the Senate.

Said the article:

“Only 47 percent of respondents said they were ‘disappointed’ or ‘angry’ that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.

If Americans overwhelmingly support strict background checks, why aren’t they angrier that the Senate failed to pass even moderate background checks? How could 39 percent be "happy" or "relieved" by the result? Where is the outrage to which President Obama was appealing when he called the Senate vote ‘a pretty shameful day for Washington.’”

The article then goes on to look at some of the possibilities. Some apparently suggest that the reason gun control failed is because Americans have an “enduring libertarian streak.” Apparently, “Americans are loath to tell their neighbors what to do.” Maybe, but that doesn’t explain this issue. If it did, then you wouldn’t have the first poll showing that 83% of the American public support background checks, would you? Or are we to believe that people lie on polls to jack up the support for things they plan to oppose?

Others suggest that this shows that the gun lobby lies. In fact, a political scientist quoted in the article says “that’s the only way to make sense of that many people being happy with the outcome.” Idiot. This is usually how morons argue – the bad guys lied, the voters are low-information voters, etc. This is simple delusion for people who don’t like the fact that what they want doesn’t sell.

Others said that maybe the problem was the public realized that this bill wouldn’t have changed anything. Indeed, even the bill’s sponsor Dianne Feinstein “conceded that none of the proposed laws, including her assault weapon ban, would have stopped the [Newton] massacre.” Could be, but then why not be angry that Congress didn’t fix the problem?

In the end, the writer scratches his head, tries to evolve, and fails fails to reach any conclusion.

Ya know... this isn’t that hard. In fact, the answer is actually pretty obvious. When you ask a question in a vacuum, people will respond whether the issue matters to them or not. In other words, asking a question in a poll only tells you how they would answer that question, not whether they care about that issue. Thus, it’s apples and oranges to assume the 83% number in the first poll actually means anyone cares about this issue. And if they don’t care, they won't be angry, will they? This about it this way... if we asked people if they want lobster if given a choice, we may find that 90% of the public says yes, but odds are that few of those people have had lobster lately or intend to have it again in the future. It’s the same thing here. People might support background checks by 83% when asked to state an opinion, but they just don’t care about the issue when they aren’t asked. So why would they be angry if it doesn’t pass? Oh, we don’t get lobster, gee, I’m angry now.

This interpretation actually was born out by the “anger” poll, which showed that only 40% of respondents were following the vote.

IN OTHER WORDS, the public doesn’t care about gun control. We know this because six in ten weren’t paying attention even though this was an issue the media covered obsessively and which Obama talked about incessantly. Even worse for gun-control advocates, of the 40% who cared enough to pay attention, 31% said they were happy the bill failed (only 22% were angry). The rest were non-committal. That means the country breaks down this way on gun control:

That’s right: 72% of the public did not care or actively opposed the bill. 8% favored it. And 20% were open to it. That’s not a chart that’s going to change anything.

Another reason the failure doesn’t make anyone angry is that there is a huge difference between supporting something in principle and supporting the specific bill in which it’s included. Supporters admitted this bill wouldn’t solve the problems they claimed it would. So why would anyone care if it fails unless they are an ideologue who wanted this to pass on principle? Moreover, they tried to fill the bill with all kinds of things with which the public did not agree. Again, this is something only ideologues want and, apparently, there are only 8% of them.

So there’s no contradiction at all between these two polls. To me, it’s pretty obvious that what’s going on is that the public just isn’t ideological on the gun control issue. They will accept reasonable restrictions if they think they will work, but they don’t want solutions that don’t work and they don’t want ideological crap rammed through on the back of the reasonable stuff. Sadly for the ideologues, that’s not enough.

The lessons here are that the liberal media is out-of-touch with the public and this should be a huge warning bell for them -- I kind of laughed when I saw an article the following day talking about how the Republicans who voted against this are now in danger with the voters. Talk about delusional. The other lesson is that the public remains much less emotional and much less ideological than people think.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

WHCD = Bias

Our media is pathetic, but then you knew that. They are biased. They are ideological. They are sycophantic. What’s even funnier though is when they pretend that they aren’t, like with the recent White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

The WHCD is a tradition which goes way back. Basically, the idea was that for one night a year, the media would call a truce with the politicians they supposedly ruthlessly cover like bulldogs, and they would all get together for a few drinks, some heavy petting and more drinks. An honorable tradition... wink wink.

But now, sadly, things have gone off-kilter. See, at one point, this was just journalists and a few politicians trading favors in darkened restrooms and coat closets. But now, Hollywood has gotten into the act. Thus, luminaries like Tom Brokaw are upstaged by Lindsay Lohan (right). . . which made poor Tom denounced the WHCD.

Poor Tom, what has become of his noble profession.

Ok, enough facetiousness. Let’s state the obvious: this whole idea is rotten to the core. The theory behind journalism is that journalists are unbiased reporters of all the ugly things that powerful people don’t want told. Indeed, being unbiased and avoiding the appearance of bias is such a big deal that it’s part of their code of ethics. It’s also the excuse they use for horrible misconduct like the guy Bev reported about who watched someone get killed by a train rather than helping or for being disloyal, like when Mike Wallace claimed he would not warn US soldiers “if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit.” Apparently, his duty as a journalist comes first... humanity and loyalty come second.

So how can journalists be unbiased and avoid the appearance of bias if they attend a big old get-together with the people they’re supposedly covering so mercilessly? They can’t and they know that, but they still try to justify it.

Take for example, Roger Simon of Politico, who lashed out at those attacking the ethics of those who attend the WHCD. He notes that this is just a party and it’s no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner at the ballpark. Really? So let me ask this... assume that Fox News held such a shindig for conservative politicians, do you think Simon would just excuse that as a party and being no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner? I doubt it. He’d be attacking the ethics of Fox News.

The New York Times has taken a strange, hypocritical stance on this dinner. They used to sponsor a table, but now they don’t. According to the Times:

“[W]e came to the conclusion that it had evolved into a very odd, celebrity-driven event that made it look like the press and government all shuck their adversarial roles for one night of the year, sing together (literally, by the way) and have a grand old time cracking jokes. It just feels like it sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game. It feels uncomfortable.”

Interesting. So the problem is that this creates the appearance of bias because it makes it look like journalists and politicians are all playing a game together... YET it wasn’t a problem until all the celebrities started showing up and people started seeing what was going on. In other words, secret violations of ethics aren’t violations of ethics. Incidentally, the Times won’t criticize anyone who goes because they always protect their friends.

This is yet another dagger in the heart of the public’s perception of the media. According to a Pew Poll, 80% of the public thinks journalists are influenced by powerful people or organizations, 77% think they favor one side, 72% think they try to cover up their mistakes, and 63% think journalists are biased. Do you think attending this party will help or hurt those perceptions?

As an aside, here are some other interesting findings from Pew. Apparently, 46% of CNN’s coverage and 45% of Fox’s coverage in 2012 was devoted to news. The rest was opinion. Pew thinks that’s bad because it means the public is less information and it used to be well above 50%. Oh... and I should mention that MSNBC was examined too. They didn’t do so well: 15% news, 85% opinion. No wonder their audiences are idiots.

Here are some other things you may find interesting about the media:

● There are now 40,000 fewer employees in newsrooms than in 1978.

● Local TV news coverage of government politics has been halved since 2000.

● One in three people reported that they stopped going to particular news sources because they felt they no longer offered them the news they were used to getting.

● In 2012, only 27% of statements about candidates records were from news reporters, the rest came from partisan talkers, which is a complete reversal of 2000, when 67% came from reporters.

None of this bodes well for the media. On the plus side, it does seem to open the door for whoever is smart enough to seize the market the media is abandoning.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

"Some of CNN's Best Friends are Black"

The media is racist. We've known for a long time that they're deeply liberal, of course, and unable to be objective. But they've also proven themselves to be guilty of very racial thinking, especially this week. Read on.

As you may have noticed, CNN has been making an effort in recent months to re-establish itself as an objective, authoritative news network, in opposition to Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. (It's not like they wouldn't still lean left, but sure, we'll say they're trying.) Part of this effort involved a major shake-up among the news anchors and pundits. Among other changes, Mary Matalin and James "Ragin' Cajun" Carville have been dropped (aw), as has Erick Erickson of RedState.com (meh), while NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's son Chris has been hired (????). Also, Jake Tapper, one of the few fair-minded guys in the MSM, has been given his own show, possibly in a prime-time spot.

Now, I don't particularly care about these changes, and neither should you (unless you're a fan of one of these guys or something). But one aspect of all this is rather enlightening. Among those sacked at the network was news anchor Soledad O'Brien, or as Twitter apparently likes to call her, "Special Snowflake." I know very little about O'Brien; I seem to vaguely remember her hiring being announced as an example of current-day diversity, because she's part-black, part-Irish, part-Hispanic, which as we'll see is somewhat involved here. I think she did that "Black in America" special once or twice, or maybe more. I don't know; I honestly didn't bother to look it up. But she did read talking points from Talking Points Memo on the air once as "research," shortly before claiming that as a true "journalist," she didn't suffer from bias. So yeah.

No, it's the circumstances surrounding her firing, rather than the fact of her firing, which deserve attention. Recently, a VP for CNN complained about O'Brien's show, not on the basis of its content, or even its ratings--which would be reason enough; "Starting Point," as it's called, lags behind every other network, even MSNBC--but because the program, specifically its audience, is "too ethnic." Yes. Their beef with the show is that there are too many black people watching it. That's the sort of comment only a liberal can get away with making--and not always even then.

As soon as word of this got out, of course, the network raced to spin it away. A "clarification" from CNN Wednesday about all this "explained" that this VP was complaining about the size of the audience, not its racial composition, and that he in no way meant to suggest that ethnicity was the problem. Which makes sense. Slips of the tongue like that happen. I know that I, for one, frequently slip up and say "Negro" when I mean to say "pizza." They're very similar words, after all. What's really disgusting about this is that the handful (and I do mean handful) of minority figures at CNN, people like Roland Martin, people who can't shut up about racism when they perceive it in conservatives or any institution to their right, will not talk about this at all. Conservative bloggers and those on Twitter have been trying to pry any comment on O'Brien's firing and the "ethnic" remarks out of them, to no avail.

This whole farce displays the race issues our media has. It's no secret that the people who staff the news networks and the publications live in a cultural bubble of their own--East Coast, upper-class, and therefore lily-white. For all their liberalism, these are exactly the sort of people who would complain about something being "too ethnic." Note, for example, that although the mixed-race O'Brien has been canned, our dear Piers Morgan has not. Insufferable? Yes. Pompous? Yep. So lacking in standards that his fellow Britons don't even want him back? You got it--but to the media, he's "one of us," and that's all that matters. As long as they continue to stand up for the Left and their supposed goal of racial equality, that counts for more than whatever biases they might have personally. These are the people who continue to control so much of our information. Sucks to be us, huh?

(Oh, and by the way, this isn't the only incident of egg-on-your-face for the media this week.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Conservatives versus The Media

Let’s hit this straight up: the media is not all powerful. I know that much of the conservative world is convinced that the media has some voodoo power over the electorate which is the only reason Obama won and why we have such a bad image, but it’s just not true. The truth is WE are causing our own problems. Here’s why.

● The Public Is Not Brainwashed.

Let’s start with something that should be obvious, but apparently isn’t. The media has NO power to brainwash the public. If the media had such power, the election results would have been a lot different. Of the 310,000,000 Americans, there are 208,000,000 eligible voters. Obama got only 60 million votes. That’s only 28% of all eligible voters (19% of all Americans). If the media really had power to brainwash people, WAY MORE than 28% of eligible voters would have turned out to support Obama.

Likewise, Obama lost 9 million votes between 2008 and 2012... 13% of his total. How can that be explained if the media has this magical power to make the public do as they wish?

Also, if the media had this power, why are people in certain states immune to their manipulation? And why does the media mysteriously lose this power on issues like guns? The “the media brainwashed people” argument has no merit and conservatives should stop hiding behind it.

The truth is, the public did not “buy” Obama, nor did people do what the media wanted. The public stayed home. The public stayed home because it saw no reason to vote for either side. In fact, the biggest winner on election night was None of the Above at 44%. Obama and Romney were a distant second and third at 28% and 27%. That’s on us. We need to focus on why we couldn’t get more than 27% of eligible voters to support us. We need to look at ourselves. Observe...

● Why Our Image Stinks: We Do It To Ourselves.

Ok, so if the media can’t brainwash the public, then why does the public believe that conservatives are extremists? The answer is simple: that’s what WE tell them. In the entire universe of political movements, conservatives are the only ones (except maybe anarchists) who disdain the moderate label. Everyone else, from the Nazis to the Commies to the Democrats, claims to be moderates who speak for the forgotten man in the middle. They do this because the goal of politics is to win a majority of the electorate, so it’s important to tell the public that you and they are the same.

Not conservatives. Conservatives have developed a bizarre mentality where they compete with each other to prove how extreme they are. Conservatives brag about being “genuine” conservatives, they use the word “moderate” as a slur, and they equate moderates with traitors. Because of this mentality, our candidates routinely proclaim their purity and try to attack their primary opponents as being secret moderates. This implies (and is sometimes explicitly stated) that being a moderate is something we disdain, which translates into a message of “we are extremists.”

Make no mistake, the media could not sell the public on the idea that conservatives are extremists if we weren’t busy selling the image ourselves.

● Why Don’t We Get Credit For Things We Do: Because We’re Nasty.

But wait, you say, even when conservatives act like moderates, we never get the credit! Isn’t that the media’s doing? Well, no. The problem is that while conservatives sometimes do “moderate/liberal” things, they do them kicking and screaming and lobbing insults. No one is going to give you credit in that type of circumstance.

Take the upcoming immigration reform effort. It will pass with Republican votes. As it does, talk radio, pundits, various grandstanding politicians, and bloggers will scream racist sentiments at the top of their lungs and whine about how these dirty Mexicans will forever destroy America and how any Republican who votes for it is a dangerous RINO who needs to be driven out of the party. These same conservatives will wonder a year later why conservatives got no credit from Hispanics for passing the bill.

Think about it this way. Suppose you want to post an article about your ugly, stupid kid at the blog. You nag the crap out of me to post it because you’re an a*hole who won’t shut the f*ck up and doesn’t realize nobody cares about your lame kid. I finally have enough of you and decide that I’ll let you talk about your dumba*s spawn. So I post the article with this disclaimer: “Here’s an article about some retarded kid you won’t care about, but ___ won’t leave me alone, so I’m only doing this to get them off my back.” How happy are you going to be with me? And are you going to give me any credit for posting your article?

It’s the same thing in politics. Conservatives don’t get credit for things they do because they do them kicking and screaming and making it clear in no uncertain terms how much they hate doing them and how, if it was up to them, they wouldn’t do them.

● Why Are Scandals Worse For Us: We Mishandle Them.

That brings us to the next issue. Conservatives claim bias in how scandals get portrayed. They claim that nothing the Democrats do sticks to them because the media covers for them, but everything sticks to us. Again, this isn’t accurate. Yes, the media covers for them, but the Democrats are better at separating themselves from their lunatics.

When the Democrats get a lunatic, they immediately dismiss them as not representative of the party. Essentially, they tell the public, “oh, that’s just crazy uncle Joe. He’s harmless.” This works because the Democrats claim the moderate label, and thus, they can put space between themselves and their fringe. Conservatives, on the other hand, do this backwards. First, we all claim to be at the fringe, so there’s no space to be had. Secondly, we attack our own right out of the gates and then try to circle the wagons after we’ve told the public this issue is an outrage. The Democrats don’t do that. They remain flexible until they see how the wind is blowing and then they act accordingly. And contrary to conservative belief, when the Democrats get someone they can’t explain away (e.g. Weiner), they disown them in a heartbeat and they don’t keep trying to prove that they were actually right. We do.

● Why Doesn’t Democratic Hypocrisy Stick: Because We Help Them.

Conservatives complain that Democratic supporters are blind to their hypocrisy. But the problem is actually that we help the Democrats sell their false image. Look at the issue of cronyism. Republicans are seen as cronies because. . . well, they are. So are the Democrats, but they aren’t seen as cronies. What accounts for the difference? For one thing, Republicans brag about helping Big Business, whereas the Democrats lie about hating Big Business. More importantly, however, we help them sell that lie.

Consider Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing more than a power grab on behalf of insurance companies. But no one is telling that to the public. The Democrats certainly won’t say it, and the Republicans won’t say it because they’re working for those same companies. Moreover, conservatives don’t say it because they’re busy mischaracterizing Obamacare as “government run, socialized medicine.” And in screaming that, they reinforce the false sales pitch the Democrats are trying to sell to their own people.

Any liberal who has doubt that the Democrats really are liberals gets constant reinforcement from conservatives that everything the Democrats are doing is “liberal/socialist.” Look at the gun control debate. Obama’s gun control plan is nothing more than a placebo, yet conservatives are screaming that it’s one step away from banning guns. Obama’s environmental agenda is a sop to unions and GE, yet conservatives scream about it being “anti-business” and “wacko environmentalism.” On issue after issue, WE are the Democrats’ best salesmen because WE are pushing the very false image the Democrats need their followers to believe.

Anyway, believe it or not, all of the above is good news. It really is.

The American people did not “buy” Obama. They are not brainwashed by some all-powerful svengali media. And our problems are of our own making: WE poisoned our own brand and WE protect the Democrats from their stupidity with our misdirected hyperbolic rhetoric. That means WE can fix these issues OURSELVES because we are victims of our own stupidity and not of some powerful external conspiracy.

I know it may not seem like it, but that really is a good thing. It means that we are not doomed. It means that we just need to make a few changes and we need to work on winning back those None of the Above voters. And our only enemy is ourselves.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

“Fact Checking” Must Die

Conservatives are always behind in the information wars because they don’t understand how the culture works, and it’s about to get worse because they are missing something big. The left has created a new weapon which conservatives need to learn to counter: the fact check.

The “Fact Check” is the name given to a type of article now run by most MSM news organizations after all events. What these articles are, in theory, are unbiased journalists examining something like a speech and comparing what was said to the facts. These are particularly catchy articles because of the promise of delivering truth to the reader instead of spin. Basically, the reader “knows” that by reading this article, rather than listening to the speech, the debate or the press conference, they will get both a synopsis of the important points made during the event and an analysis that cuts through the lies and spin and tells them what to really believe.

That’s a pretty powerful promise. . . but it’s a lie.

In reality, these fact check articles are written by leftist journalists with an agenda. They spin and distort what was said and then they label things as true or false to fit their agenda. To back up their assertions, they cite garbage studies or analysis performed by leftist groups as if those things were unbiased and uncontroversially proven true. Sometimes, they even cite directly to organizations like Fact Check as unbiased sources who have researched various claims. Fact Check, however, is left leaning and I can tell you that (1) they almost never accuse a leftist/Democrat of being untruthful and they almost never admit a conservative is being truthful, (2) I have found many examples of lies and distortions within their data, (3) they resolve all policy disputes in favor of the left’s position as being truthful and the conservative position as being merely an unfounded assertion, and (4) their research relies on leftist think tanks or newspapers and is woefully incomplete and biased.

. . . but the public doesn’t know this.

So when they hear “an unbiased research organization has declared this a lie,” they believe it. This is a serious problem in the making. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THIS!

At first, these fact check articles were only used in debates, where the lies and distortions come fast and furiously. But now I’m seeing them everywhere. They fact check Obama’s speeches and find them almost entirely truthful. They fact check Republican speeches and find them to be packed with lies. Before Christmas, they fact checked a speech by the NRA and tore it apart even though I could actually cite proof to refute the fact check article.

Unfortunately, this is where conservative blindness kicks. Most conservatives will dismiss that as “well, it’s the MSM, we expect that from them so who cares?” The public cares. . . that's the problem.

This is critical. The left, through the MSM, is staking out ground as the arbiters of what is true and what is not, and the public doesn’t have the tools or inclination to know that they are being spun. If we let this go unchallenged, you will find the public being slowly pulled into believing that leftist analysis and spin is truth. Conservatives cannot let that happen.

So how do we fight this? The conservative instinct, as always, will be to point out the bias. But that’s hopeless, that will come across as someone with a bias attacking an unbiased organization because they don’t like their side being exposed. Instead, there is only one way to fight this and that is to destroy of the idea of the “fact check.” To do this, conservatives need to create “unbiased organizations” to watch every single speech, debate or announcement (liberal or conservative) and they need to start running “fact checks” on those. And those fact checks need to be heavily partisan -- partisan that they get mocked by the left. That will get the left to do our work for us by discrediting the idea of the “fact check.” At the same time, conservatives need to start referring to all other fact checks a “liberal” or “leftist” and never admit they are right, even when they are. That is the only way to put the idea of the fact check into such ill repute that the public stops paying attention. If conservatives don’t do this, they can forget winning the info-wars because the left will be in charge of telling people what is true and what is not. This is a problem.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

No News Is....Good News?

For the MSM, when covering for Obama, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Spinning a story to make it favor the Left is a tried-and-true method, but the art of simply burying it so it never becomes a story at all is not to be overlooked. Witness the latest egregious act(s) of bias this week.

In case you missed it in all the fiscal cliff blah-blah-blah this week, Michigan on Tuesday became the 24th Right-to-Work state, meaning union control of employees has been drastically scaled back. Given that it's Michigan, you can imagine this was a pretty big deal, given the historical importance of Detroit and the UAW and so on. If I weren't completely burned out right now from finals week and the end of the semester, I would get into the details of this legislation and what it means for unions and Michiganders (Michigandees?). But since I am, you're going to get a story that requires less research on my part.

Living up to their standards of calm and rational discourse, thousands of union activists descended on the state capital early this week to protest the bill, and of course by "protest" I mean "threw the mother of all temper tantrums and threatened violence if Republicans dared take away their entitlements." So did the Democratic lackeys who represent them, naturally. Inside the Capitol, one state rep said of the consequences of passing right-to-work, "There will be blood." (A follow-up statement from state Democratic leadership explained that the legislator was only talking about getting passionate and he didn't literally mean blood would be shed. I assume they settled on this excuse after deciding no one would believe he was just randomly noting the titles of Paul Thomas Anderson movies.) Of course, Jimmy Hoffa did follow up on CNN by saying of the fight over right-to-work, "We're going to have a civil war," so I guess the messaging hasn't quite been straightened out yet.

Happily, protestors outside were already fulfilling said prediction. Tuesday morning, the day the bill was passed, a tent set up by the conservative group Americans For Prosperity, was violently tore down by unionists, reportedly armed with knives. At about that time, commentator/comedian Steven Crowder, who you may know from occasional appearances on Red Eye or his contributions to Breitbart, was physically assaulted, by at least two different union guys, leaving cuts on the head and a broken tooth. To provide context for the link, Crowder produces videos like these on a regular basis, asking liberal protestors questions about why they're supporting or attacking X, which is what he was doing here before the AFP tent started to get torn up. The video jumps around a bit, but you can clearly see one guy at the end grab Crowder from behind and punch him before getting pulled away, shouting what are unmistakably death threats. From the pics Crowder posted after the fact, you can see how violent things got.

Oh, and this wasn't the only incident. In the course of destroying this tent and all, the protestors also smashed up the cart of a popular hot dog vendor whose sole crime was to cater for the AFP folks--and also to be black, which brought on shouts of "N***er" and "Uncle Tom."

No doubt some (or most) of you had already heard of this. But that's because you don't watch the network news or read the big-name papers, at least not exclusively. Needless to say, none of those guys mentioned this at all. Brian Williams started off NBC's Nightly News on Tuesday with (I'm paraphrasing): "For generations, unions have served as a gateway to the American dream. But now in their heartland, new legislation looks to change all that." With the poor little union guys cast in the light of victims (and really, who making $32/hour can't be considered victims?), there was no way stories like this would see the light of day. As usual, Fox News, talk radio, and the blogs were the only ones running with this.

Well, that's not entirely true. MSNBC's website did give the story of violence at the AFP tent some air--or at least, they reported a union member's claims that he saw an NRA guy tampering with the tent to make it look like union people destroyed it. So, same thing, basically.

As for Crowder personally, one Washington Post blogger did address his attack and asked, "Are the media ignoring thuggery?" Erik Wemple considered his own question and then ended with a thoughtful No. His explanation: Hey, the union guys probably shouldn't have attacked that right-winger, but he jumped up and down about it so much to get the media's attention, who can blame them for ignoring him? No, really. People "should take a second look at Crowder's actions....he's gone buffoonish since then." "Given how Crowder has carried on, I, too, may well pass on the story of his beating, were I a network executive producer." So, for those keeping score at home, a conservative who gets assaulted by leftists and then, seeing it going unreported by other leftists in the media, tries to raise enough of an alarm that it will be noticed, is "carrying on" and "buffoonish" and therefore below the media's notice.

You know, I changed my mind. Maybe I don't want the media covering stories like this.

P.S. In case you were worrying (and I know you were), the White House did weigh in on this. Jay "Twerp" Carney called the incidents a "civil" form of debate; as for the "There will be blood" line: "I haven't seen those comments, and I'm not sure they mean what someone interprets them to mean." Someone better tell Jimmy Hoffa.

P.P.S. I will be on the road most of the day tomorrow, so y'all will have to carry the conversation yourselves for a while. I'll do what I can.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Breitbart's Rules For Righties

Following Andrew Breitbart's death early this year, I bought his memoir/call to action Righteous Indignation, in which he explains his career and how it serves as a model for conservative behavior. In the interests of effectively pursuing our bitter war on liberals, I thought I would discuss his tactics a bit and how we can follow his example.

Keep in mind, these are activist, in-the-trenches methods, not a coherent ideology. I doubt many people on either side have much idea what Breitbart actually stood for, except that he didn't like liberalism (with good reason, I might add). Nonetheless, he was the best warrior for conservatism we've had in some time, mainly because he was so good at confronting the Left and showing its lies and hypocrisy for all to see. Sadly, Breitbart isn't here to fight our battles anymore, so we have to do it ourselves. With that in mind, here are a few of the ground rules he laid out in his book for battling liberals.

Rule #1: Don't be afraid to go into enemy territory. Heck, it's kind of a requirement. Think the Agents in The Matrix: Liberals hold all the levers of power; they are guarding all the doors; they are holding all the keys. They control academia, the media, the unions, one of the major parties, etc. We have a few institutions on our side--Fox News, talk radio, and...that's about it. You want to reach more people with conservative ideas, you have to engage the Left on its own ground. Our message won't get out otherwise. You don't think I'm in grad school for my health, do you? There's got to be more conservative professors and other opinion-shapers.

Rule #2: Expose liberals for who they are--in their own words. Fortunately, the advance of technology (much as I sometimes hate it) makes this easier all the time. Today, we have Twitter, the ability to record things with our phones, enormous "paper trails" to dig through on the Internet--all sorts of ways for the Left to inadvertently reveal its true nature and for us to get it on the record. Use them.

Rule #3: Be open about your secrets. As part of a religion whose pastors are periodically caught with young girls (or sometimes boys), I place special stress on this rule. If you're going to say X is wrong and take a big stand on it, either make sure you're not guilty of X, or admit that you are up front. And then never do it again. Your opponents will find out, and people don't like hypocrisy, so if you're honest about the skeletons in your closet, that deprives them of one of their biggest rhetorical weapons.

Rule #4: Don't let the Left shape the narrative. Breitbart himself was a master at this. As everyone knows, liberals' favorite line of attack is to call conservatives racists/sexists/homophobic. Don't--do not--get defensive and start trying to prove that you're not in those categories. That's just playing their game (see also: Todd Akin). Dismiss the charges out of hand, simultaneously accuse the Left of using red herrings and lowering the tone of debate, and move on with the argument before they can recover.

Rule #5: Control your own story, don't let the Left do it. Again, something Breitbart did to perfection, as the famous O'Keefe videos proved. If you have something good on the Left, don't release it all at once. Instead, release a little bit to begin with, then let the liberals make up whatever kind of narrative they want, saying it's a lie or an isolated event--give them enough rope to hang themselves. Then, let more of it go and catch them in their own words.

Rule #6: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. Mock their sacred cows. As Breitbart puts it, "Tina Fey, not the MSM, sullied Sarah Palin's image." If level-headed arguments aren't winning the fight against liberals, use public ridicule. Bust up Pelosi and Reid's press conferences, infiltrate Letterman's or Maher's audiences of trained seals--whatever works to make them look foolish. It's cathartic--well, it is to me, at least--and it might force the other side to take things a little more seriously.


There are more of Breitbart's rules I could add with more space, but I'll end with one of my own: Do. Not. Play. Fair. The Left doesn't believe in showing any mercy, so we should show them none as well. Personally, I would rather win my arguments with reason and calmness. But if those aren't working--and they apparently aren't--I have no problem going with mockery and bomb-throwing. Like I said, it feels good.

Anyhoo, those are some rules for combating liberals. Any suggestions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Journalists Are Unbiased?

Politico ran an article recently under the headline “Journalists open wallets for Obama and Romney.” If you take this at face value, you would think that journalists must be pretty unbiased as a group since they gave to both Obama and Romney, right?! Forget it, it’s a lie.

Journalism is in disgrace. As late as the 1970s, journalist were still considered trustworthy, but that’s changed. For the past four decades, we’ve seen a never-ending parade of journalists skewing facts to favor the left, selectively reporting stories, adding spin instead of research, politicking, carrying water for leftist causes, and even flat out lying and distorting events and facts. This has destroyed their credibility, which is now down to 40% of the public believing them to be free of bias, and only 26% finding them to be ethical.

This actually fits perfectly with Pew Poll results which found that only 6% of journalists consider themselves conservatives (compared to 40% of the public) and 24% admit to being liberal. . . with the rest claiming to be “moderate,” which is usually a codeword for liberal. In fact, a 1992 poll found that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton.

In fact, if you want evidence suggesting much greater bias than these numbers predict, consider campaign contributions – which most news organization claim to ban, but really done. A study done in 2008 found 235 journalists who donated to Democrats compared to only 20 who donated to Republicans. But don’t worry, the Los Angeles Times assured us, this doesn’t mean they are biased. Backing this up, a similar study by MSNBC of 2004 donations found that 141 of 144 journalists examined gave to campaigns with the breakdown going 125 to Democrats, 16 to Republicans.

This is very bad news for a profession that trades in credibility.

So every once in awhile, along comes an article like the Politico article to convince the weak minded that journalists really aren’t as biased as the rest of us believe. Indeed, if you accept the headline, then you would actually believe that journalists split politically. Further, here is how the article begins: “Reporters for Romney? Editors for Obama?” Interesting. So apparently, reporters prefer Romney and editors prefer Obama, right? Well, not really.

See the article then proceeds to discuss various journalists who gave to each side. Giving to Romney were (1) two editors from the Washington Times, a known right-leaning paper, (2) an editor from an obscure Florida newspaper, and (3) a sport editor at a television station in Philadelphia. That’s hardly the A-Team. By comparison, those giving to Obama included ten specific individuals from organizations like the Wall Street Journal to the New York Daily News to Bloomberg to Reuters. Moreover, each of these journalists did so despite policies in place forbidding the giving, but their editors found reasons to excuse them each time.

What you have here is more evidence that the media is deeply biased (on the order of 8-1 if you follow the money), and yet they insist on lying about it to make you think otherwise. The fact that they can violate their own company policies against giving to political campaigns and yet face no consequences is evidence of just how much those policies about being non-biased are for show.

And don’t forget that

Also, don’t forget how many journalists got their start working for Democratic White Houses, and how many are married to prominent Democrats. How about these examples:

● George Stephanopoulos was Clinton strategist before becoming Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News.
● Jay Carney left Time to work for Biden and the Obama.
● Shailagh Murray left the Washington Post become Biden’s communications director.
● Jonathan Allen of Politico worked for Debbie Wasserman Schultz
● Andy Barr of Politico worked for the DNC
● Linda Douglass left ABC News to push Obamacare for the White House
● NBC’s Chuck Todd is marred to a DNC staffer and worked for Democrat Tom Harkin.
● Chris Matthews worked for congressional Democrats and Jimmy Carter.

I could give you pages and pages of this, with one exception. . . I can’t give you conservative equivalents.

So when you see a headline like this, don’t buy it. And when you hear journalists claim they are unbiased, don’t buy it. And don’t let your friends believe it either.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hurricane Politics

Hurricane Sandy has arrived, and putting aside the fact that Bev was reduced to chasing a man dressed like a taco down the street to avoid starvation, the MSM has been busy doing what they do best – spinning this storm for political gain. Here are three big examples.

● The “Craven” Mitt Romney Exploits Your Pain: On Tuesday, Romney turned a campaign rally in Ohio into a hurricane relief rally. He asked people to bring food and supplies and to donate money to the Red Cross. Who could object to that? MSNBC.

MSNBC spun this story in the most despicable and deceitful way. First, they claimed that Romney “dressed up” a campaign rally as “a charity drive.” Then Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, said:

“I think that this is just another moment where you see the clear striking difference between a president who has a heart for the American people and someone who simply wants to be president of the United States.”

Huh?! This was seconded by MSNBC host Martin Bashir and other guests. Then they accused Romney of “politicizing” the storm and said “in this sort of disastrous moment [we] can really see in bold relief the differences between President Obama and former Governor Romney.” Really? All Obama has done is his job – he gave a speech asking for donations. . . the exact same thing Romney did. Yet, Romney is rotten and Obama is great? How does that work? Finally, they brought on GQ’s Ana Marie Cox, who said of Romney’s efforts: “I found that sort of fake, relief rally, whatever it is, to be pretty offensive, and also wrong-headed.” And then this hag called Romney “craven.”

Wow.

So what is this character assassination based on? They claimed that Romney was collecting goods and not asking people to donate money, which is what the Red Cross “really wants.” Ok, for starters, any sort of aid is helpful in these situations, that’s why aid organizations always ask for stuff, not just money. And who are these jerks to impugned anyone’s charity? I doubt they gave a penny. . . unlike Romney who has given millions. Moreover, Romney DID ask people to donate. The video of the event shows two huge screens with the Red Cross donation number on them. So their entire argument is not only vile character assassination, but it’s based on an intentional lie. Talk about politicizing a tragedy!

● The Evil Mitt Romney HATES FEMA and you!!: Almost the moment Sandy hit radar screens across the country, the MSM started running with this question: “Does Mitt Romney want to shut down FEMA?” Uh, no. He’s never advocated that. Yet, reporter after reporter began asking this question. They were always told “no,” but that didn’t stop them from suggesting the answer was really “yes.”

Where did this idea come from? Last year, a group of leftist bloggers claimed that Romney called FEMA “immoral” and said disaster aid “makes no sense at all.” This was picked up by reporters who surprise, surprise, read leftist blogs (“Journolist II” anyone?), and was even brought into a New York Times editorial smearing Romney two days ago. The problem is, it’s a lie.

What Romney actually said was this. He was asked by CNN’s John King in June 2011, during the primaries, what Romney would do about FEMA which was about to run out of money. King asked, “[aren’t we] learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role?” Romney responded: “Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction.”

Notice that Romney does not say to shut down FEMA, nor was he asked about it.

He then went on to talk about the debt and the need to trim the federal budget. He said, “We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.” During this speech, King tried to speak over Romney and asked, “including disaster relief?”

These leftist bloggers are pretending that Romney’s entire speech became about disaster aid the moment King threw the question out there, even though Romney was already talking about something else and never acknowledges King’s addition. Romney never said disaster aid was “immoral” or “made no sense at all,” as they now claim he did. What he said was that disaster aid should be applied at the state level and he said continuing to raise our debt was “immoral.” But that doesn’t make Romney seem heartless.

By the way, no one in the MSM is mentioning that Obama proposed a $900 million cut of FEMA’s budget.

● The Hurricane “Stole” The Election!: Finally, the MSM is trying to plant the idea that Hurricane Sandy “stole the election.” They are setting this up by claiming that the hurricane has unfairly taken Obama away from the campaign and will disrupt the very liberals Obama needs to win by disrupting the Northeast.

Of course, Obama will still win these states, so the hurricane doesn’t really change anything substantive. Also, it’s only taking him away for a few hours, and even then he’s getting tons of free media coverage out of it. But never let the facts stop a new “conventional wisdom.”

So why would they do this? They want to delegitimize Romney’s victory, just as they tried to delegitimize Bush by claiming he stole Florida (when even their extensive media-sponsored recount effort found that Bush did win), and just like they did with claims about electronic voting machine fraud in 2004 and the Swift Boat “smear,” as if harsh ads were somehow something new. Why do this? Because they think the only way the left can return to power will be to make Romney seem like an illegitimate president presiding over a chaotic and hopelessly gridlocked Congress. To do that, they need to fight everything he does. And to do that, they need to keep their mindless followers feeling victimized so they keep turning out for protests, keep supporting hateful propagandists like MSNBC, and keep sending death threats to prominent Republicans. They need chaos and anger. Hence, “Romney cheated.”

Trust me, 2013 is going to be an ugly year on the left.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...