NYT blogger who complains about Fox News' viewership demographic suffers from the same problem.
How is it "racism" on the part of a network when members of a particular ethnic group don't tune in? I'm sure that Hee-Haw was not high on the list of BET fans, but does that make Roy Clark the head of the KKK?
These people don't seem to know what racism actually is. It has devolved into this catch-all describe-all term that they bandy about and throw at everything they don't like but cannot find honest fault with.
Are you left handed? Racism.
Are you right handed? Racism.
Did you eat your peas? Racism.
2+2=4. Must be racism cause none of those numbers are black.
I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but not by much.
Leftists have always been wrong (most of the time), but now they're going off the rails into the realm of full-blown crazy. With each passing day their desperation grows while their grasp of reality falters. They seem to think that they'll be able to convince people that conservatives and libertarians are wrong simply by calling us names.
Ad hominem attacks are the last retreat of the intellectually bankrupt.
Besides, why should news channels or newspapers or blogs be judged based upon the skin color of the people who consume them? Shouldn't these sources of information and commentary be judged on the basis of whether they provide factual reporting and insightful analysis?
Truth and reason are color blind. Something is very wrong when a news outlet is judging itself by the skin color of its patrons instead of the quality of its reporting.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Lies, lies and more lies
Yes, elite colleges are biased against poor whites
(Ya gotta click and read from the link before this post will make sense).
It seems to me that the entire response from Espenshade is dishonest. Success in groups such as 4-H indicates that a person is likely to be grounded in reality and possess a level of maturity that might be lacking in their peers.
It is precisely this that makes such applicants undesirable from the standpoint of these universities. A student who knows who they are and has some idea of how the world works will be resistant to indoctrination and also undermine the university's efforts to indoctrinate others.
To describe these groups as merely "career oriented" and then claim that success within one might indicate someone is unserious about their education is completely dishonest. It takes independent initiative and diligence to succeed in such groups, which are precisely the qualities necessary to succeed in any endeavour, including academically. Show me a student who is intrinsically motivated to work harder, who does not give up in the face of hardship, and I'll show you a student who will succeed.
This is also perhaps part of why such students are not desired by these universities. When individual character, effort, and merit are on full display, it is difficult to convince someone that their fate is bound by the color of their skin or the contents of their family's bank account.
Also lets not forget that the ONLY reason why anyone with a clue pursues higher education is to have a better career. That better career might not pay more than another they would have had otherwise, but it is a career that they prefer and for which education is a prerequisite. To complain about students being "career oriented" patently insane. That's like GM complaining about its potential customers being "car oriented." Cars are what GM sells, and career enhancing education is what universities sell. Students don't go to college to bask in the pontifications of tenured radicals, they go to learn what they need to know to pursue the career they desire.
Academics lie when they pretend the classes they teach that do not directly contribute to a person's career are somehow valuable. Predictably those academics with the least useful subjects to teach are the ones who most vocally cry for the value of these useless subjects for making a person "well rounded" or contributing to the "college experience." They're useless liars. Luckily for us they're also the least well paid of all academics.
(Ya gotta click and read from the link before this post will make sense).
It seems to me that the entire response from Espenshade is dishonest. Success in groups such as 4-H indicates that a person is likely to be grounded in reality and possess a level of maturity that might be lacking in their peers.
It is precisely this that makes such applicants undesirable from the standpoint of these universities. A student who knows who they are and has some idea of how the world works will be resistant to indoctrination and also undermine the university's efforts to indoctrinate others.
To describe these groups as merely "career oriented" and then claim that success within one might indicate someone is unserious about their education is completely dishonest. It takes independent initiative and diligence to succeed in such groups, which are precisely the qualities necessary to succeed in any endeavour, including academically. Show me a student who is intrinsically motivated to work harder, who does not give up in the face of hardship, and I'll show you a student who will succeed.
This is also perhaps part of why such students are not desired by these universities. When individual character, effort, and merit are on full display, it is difficult to convince someone that their fate is bound by the color of their skin or the contents of their family's bank account.
Also lets not forget that the ONLY reason why anyone with a clue pursues higher education is to have a better career. That better career might not pay more than another they would have had otherwise, but it is a career that they prefer and for which education is a prerequisite. To complain about students being "career oriented" patently insane. That's like GM complaining about its potential customers being "car oriented." Cars are what GM sells, and career enhancing education is what universities sell. Students don't go to college to bask in the pontifications of tenured radicals, they go to learn what they need to know to pursue the career they desire.
Academics lie when they pretend the classes they teach that do not directly contribute to a person's career are somehow valuable. Predictably those academics with the least useful subjects to teach are the ones who most vocally cry for the value of these useless subjects for making a person "well rounded" or contributing to the "college experience." They're useless liars. Luckily for us they're also the least well paid of all academics.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Rodney King, part 2,353,345
Taking photos in public places is not a crime
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Graber_Factsheet.pdf
This is the lesson that law enforcement learned from the Rodney King episode: Attack those who would hold you accountable for complying with the law you are sworn to uphold.
Police fear video cameras because they cannot be impugned.
Normally cops are able to get away with murder, sometimes quite literally. They can conspire to lie and make up pretty much any story they like as long as it is even marginally consistent with the known facts of the case. When push comes to shove it is the word of several police officers against someone accused of a crime. Who are the judge, the jury and the public, going to believe?
But when those cops are videotaped, their ability to spin-doctor what happened in order to bury the accused and/or cover up their own wrongdoing is extremely limited.
They especially fear being taped without their knowledge and having that evidence show up AFTER they've perjured themselves or filed false reports.
It is for this very reason that the right to videotape police conduct, especially surreptitiously, should be protected by law. It is at least as fundamental a right as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. When agents of the state are empowered to detain and incarcerate private citizens for violations of the law, those citizens have the right to an impartial observer to ensure that those agents are conducting themselves in accordance with the law and with respect for the truth.
There was another case not too long ago where a teenage hoodlum used an MP3 device to record his own interrogation at the hands of the police. One of the cops he dealt with later lied on the stand about what took place during that interrogation, only to be destroyed by the truth.
Now the teen in question was a criminal. He was guilty of the charge, but because the police lied those charges were thrown out. Furthermore the police who perjured themselves destroyed their careers and opened themselves up to criminal charges of their own.
A good cop who does his job honestly and tells the truth has nothing to fear from the truth. Only dirty cops who look to shortcut the due process of the accused, or who are criminals in their own right, fear having their official actions recorded.
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Graber_Factsheet.pdf
This is the lesson that law enforcement learned from the Rodney King episode: Attack those who would hold you accountable for complying with the law you are sworn to uphold.
Police fear video cameras because they cannot be impugned.
Normally cops are able to get away with murder, sometimes quite literally. They can conspire to lie and make up pretty much any story they like as long as it is even marginally consistent with the known facts of the case. When push comes to shove it is the word of several police officers against someone accused of a crime. Who are the judge, the jury and the public, going to believe?
But when those cops are videotaped, their ability to spin-doctor what happened in order to bury the accused and/or cover up their own wrongdoing is extremely limited.
They especially fear being taped without their knowledge and having that evidence show up AFTER they've perjured themselves or filed false reports.
It is for this very reason that the right to videotape police conduct, especially surreptitiously, should be protected by law. It is at least as fundamental a right as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. When agents of the state are empowered to detain and incarcerate private citizens for violations of the law, those citizens have the right to an impartial observer to ensure that those agents are conducting themselves in accordance with the law and with respect for the truth.
There was another case not too long ago where a teenage hoodlum used an MP3 device to record his own interrogation at the hands of the police. One of the cops he dealt with later lied on the stand about what took place during that interrogation, only to be destroyed by the truth.
Now the teen in question was a criminal. He was guilty of the charge, but because the police lied those charges were thrown out. Furthermore the police who perjured themselves destroyed their careers and opened themselves up to criminal charges of their own.
A good cop who does his job honestly and tells the truth has nothing to fear from the truth. Only dirty cops who look to shortcut the due process of the accused, or who are criminals in their own right, fear having their official actions recorded.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Harvard engages in creative accounting
Harvard Kennedy School Revokes Degree Awarded to Russian Spy
I find it interesting that Harvard thinks it can "revoke" a degree.
This guy lied about his identity. He was a Russian spy sent here to gather intelligence to be used against us by a foreign power. He was not a good man.
However, an education is not a piece of paper. Harvard cannot deprive him of the education he received while he was here. The most that the university can do is pretend that he didn't receive it, which is itself a lie.
To put it another way imagine this: A man goes to a car dealership and buys a car. He pays cash. Later it is discovered that the money he used was stolen and the identity he used was false. The police have no idea who he was and there is no way to recover the car. It is gone and will never be seen again.
Does the dealership still possess that car, or does the man who bought it under fraudulent terms possess it? Would it be rational or true for that dealership to "revoke" that car on paper and pretend that it is still in their inventory?
That is pretty much what Harvard is doing here. A difference of opinion about where a car is physically located is easily resolved by referring to objective reality. That car is either still on the lot, or it isn't. There is no ambiguity there. The same is true here as well. Either this man completed the course work necessary to earn his degree, or he didn't. That question is easily answered by referring to his academic records and the evaluations of his instructors. If he completed his coursework satisfactorily, then he has that degree. Harvard cannot deprive him of the insight, understanding, and enlightenment that he now has as a result of completing that degree program. If these intellectual enhancements were never received as part of earning that degree, if the only value to that degree is that Harvard now claims you as one of its graduates, then that degree is already worthless except as something to pad one's resume and Harvard is nothing but a diploma mill.
But I for one do not believe that the degree he earned amounted to nothing but fluff and busywork. I believe that earning a master's degree in public administration requires a student to actually learn and master real knowledge. If this is true, then for them to say that they have "revoked" his degree is a misrepresentation of the truth equal to the one he perpetrated by pretending to be someone else while earning it.
The honest thing for Harvard to do, if it wishes to disassociate itself from this man, is to simply state that they are doing precisely that. Divorce him. Disown him. Disclaim him. But don't pretend that his degree is non-existent because that simply isn't true. Harvard lessens itself by publishing that fiction.
I find it interesting that Harvard thinks it can "revoke" a degree.
This guy lied about his identity. He was a Russian spy sent here to gather intelligence to be used against us by a foreign power. He was not a good man.
However, an education is not a piece of paper. Harvard cannot deprive him of the education he received while he was here. The most that the university can do is pretend that he didn't receive it, which is itself a lie.
To put it another way imagine this: A man goes to a car dealership and buys a car. He pays cash. Later it is discovered that the money he used was stolen and the identity he used was false. The police have no idea who he was and there is no way to recover the car. It is gone and will never be seen again.
Does the dealership still possess that car, or does the man who bought it under fraudulent terms possess it? Would it be rational or true for that dealership to "revoke" that car on paper and pretend that it is still in their inventory?
That is pretty much what Harvard is doing here. A difference of opinion about where a car is physically located is easily resolved by referring to objective reality. That car is either still on the lot, or it isn't. There is no ambiguity there. The same is true here as well. Either this man completed the course work necessary to earn his degree, or he didn't. That question is easily answered by referring to his academic records and the evaluations of his instructors. If he completed his coursework satisfactorily, then he has that degree. Harvard cannot deprive him of the insight, understanding, and enlightenment that he now has as a result of completing that degree program. If these intellectual enhancements were never received as part of earning that degree, if the only value to that degree is that Harvard now claims you as one of its graduates, then that degree is already worthless except as something to pad one's resume and Harvard is nothing but a diploma mill.
But I for one do not believe that the degree he earned amounted to nothing but fluff and busywork. I believe that earning a master's degree in public administration requires a student to actually learn and master real knowledge. If this is true, then for them to say that they have "revoked" his degree is a misrepresentation of the truth equal to the one he perpetrated by pretending to be someone else while earning it.
The honest thing for Harvard to do, if it wishes to disassociate itself from this man, is to simply state that they are doing precisely that. Divorce him. Disown him. Disclaim him. But don't pretend that his degree is non-existent because that simply isn't true. Harvard lessens itself by publishing that fiction.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Goebbels Lives!
Leftist journalist calls for government to shut down Fox News
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
This is genuinely fascinating.
Think about what he is saying here for a moment. He is calling for government control over the press.
Wow.... just wow....
When I read statements like his, and this is not the first time I've seen such sentiments, I'm always reminded of something that Joseph Goebbels said:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
When someone has the truth on their side, they do not fear those who disagree with them. They respond to challenges and criticism with the truth. (And few are in a better position to make their voices heard than journalists.) Only someone who is committed to lies is fearful of disagreement. It is this sort of person who seeks to silence their opposition, not with the truth, but with brute force.
Everything you need know about this man and people like him can be summed up by his own words. He fears an open marketplace of ideas because he knows that his own beliefs will be rejected. He doesn't want to know and follow the truth. He wants control. He became a journalist in order to control what other people think, and he is now upset that his ability to do this is draining away.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
This is genuinely fascinating.
Think about what he is saying here for a moment. He is calling for government control over the press.
Wow.... just wow....
When I read statements like his, and this is not the first time I've seen such sentiments, I'm always reminded of something that Joseph Goebbels said:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
When someone has the truth on their side, they do not fear those who disagree with them. They respond to challenges and criticism with the truth. (And few are in a better position to make their voices heard than journalists.) Only someone who is committed to lies is fearful of disagreement. It is this sort of person who seeks to silence their opposition, not with the truth, but with brute force.
Everything you need know about this man and people like him can be summed up by his own words. He fears an open marketplace of ideas because he knows that his own beliefs will be rejected. He doesn't want to know and follow the truth. He wants control. He became a journalist in order to control what other people think, and he is now upset that his ability to do this is draining away.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Victor Davis Hanson does it again
I’ve long said that civilization trumps natural selection. I’d like to now add that persistent affluence reverses it.
These people are as they are precisely because they have not had to deal with reality. They are victims of our nation’s economic and material success. They receive all of the benefits that affluence bestows, without ever having to manifest any of the virtues that made that affluence possible in the first place.
Our nation is DOOMED because our culture has decayed from within. Character is destiny, and the character of a nation is its culture.
It won’t matter who gets elected this fall, or in 2012, because both the voters and the candidates will be cut from a fraying and substandard cloth that grows thinner each day.
If you’ve ever wondered how great civilizations decline and perish, take a look around. You’ve got a front row seat.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The truth about the NAACP
"I've looked into the heart of the NAACP and I know that at its core, the NAACP is founded on a platform of hatred towards people who write with their left hand.
I officially call upon the NAACP and all people of good will to repudiate the handist element and activities within the NAACP.
It's time for the NAACP to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members."
Sound silly and a little out of touch with reality?
Well no more so than the NAACP joining the chorus of leftards accusing the Tea Party of racism.
Think about the word racism for a minute. With the way that it is tossed about and the quickness with which the left uses it as a gratuitous accusation, does it really mean anything anymore?
Think for a moment about the definition of the term. Now look at all of the people and groups and situations where someone is being accused of it. Does that definition in any way fit the way the term is actually used in practice?
Racism, at least according to the uncorrupted definition of that word, is a social ill that is at an all time low. Show me someone who hates other human beings because of their ethnic background and I'll show you an ex-con with an 8th grade education and a room temperature IQ living in a trailer park. Decent human beings don't look for someone to dump on so that they can feel better about themselves. Decent human beings see people as individuals and judge them accordingly, not as members of some tribal group to be judged en masse. When leftists harp on and on about racism without any grounds for that accusation, I do have to believe that it is a case of psychological projection. So much of what they scream about is precisely what they do, to the point that their own accusations can be used as a pretty good indicator for what their own crimes are.
The Tea Party that I'm a part of is comprised of decent human beings. To accuse us of something as sordid and ignorant as racism pathetically absurd. Even more absurd than my accusing the NAACP of hating people who are left-handed.
Why would they do this? Because we represent ideas and principles that they do not agree with but cannot refute nor publicly deny. So instead they resort to ad-hominem attacks against us, which is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. It would be truly fascinating to hear what they say about us in private amongst themselves.
I officially call upon the NAACP and all people of good will to repudiate the handist element and activities within the NAACP.
It's time for the NAACP to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members."
Sound silly and a little out of touch with reality?
Well no more so than the NAACP joining the chorus of leftards accusing the Tea Party of racism.
Think about the word racism for a minute. With the way that it is tossed about and the quickness with which the left uses it as a gratuitous accusation, does it really mean anything anymore?
Think for a moment about the definition of the term. Now look at all of the people and groups and situations where someone is being accused of it. Does that definition in any way fit the way the term is actually used in practice?
Racism, at least according to the uncorrupted definition of that word, is a social ill that is at an all time low. Show me someone who hates other human beings because of their ethnic background and I'll show you an ex-con with an 8th grade education and a room temperature IQ living in a trailer park. Decent human beings don't look for someone to dump on so that they can feel better about themselves. Decent human beings see people as individuals and judge them accordingly, not as members of some tribal group to be judged en masse. When leftists harp on and on about racism without any grounds for that accusation, I do have to believe that it is a case of psychological projection. So much of what they scream about is precisely what they do, to the point that their own accusations can be used as a pretty good indicator for what their own crimes are.
The Tea Party that I'm a part of is comprised of decent human beings. To accuse us of something as sordid and ignorant as racism pathetically absurd. Even more absurd than my accusing the NAACP of hating people who are left-handed.
Why would they do this? Because we represent ideas and principles that they do not agree with but cannot refute nor publicly deny. So instead they resort to ad-hominem attacks against us, which is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. It would be truly fascinating to hear what they say about us in private amongst themselves.
Competition in education as a solution to the iron cage of school bureaucracies
This was originally posted to a forum on Amazon.com of all places:
Teacher's comment questioning the qualifications of homeschoolers
Public schoolteachers believe that we should be FORCED to purchase their services. They believe that they should have a monopoly on the education of the young, one backed up by the force of law. This sense of entitlement is truly breathtaking. Contrast this with professionals whose paycheck is contingent on the quality of their services.
When the state has a monopoly on the means of production we call it communism. Our public schools are a case study for why communism doesn't work. Communism doesn't just have economic effects, it destroys the virtue of the people who are subjected to it. Public schools are such a horror precisely because of this.
The only real solution is to take the government out of the business of delivering education. Public he roads are maintained by private firms under contract with the state. The same should be done with education. Only instead of some government bureaucrat deciding which school gets the money, the parents of each individual child should decide. Make schools compete for students and for the state funding that each student represents.
Effective teachers who care about their students welcome this idea. They have nothing to fear from increased competition. In fact they have everything to gain from it as this would make their own competence an asset rather than a liability. Political intrigue, which public schools are notorious for, is the pastime of those whose position isn't based on on performance. Tie continued employment and promotion to objective standards of achievement instead of political wrangling and that intrigue will evaporate.
Bad teachers naturally don't like this idea. They want to nurse from the teat of the public treasury, secure in the knowledge that they can never be dislodged, no matter how useless or even destructive they are. They are what is known as a parasite, and should be treated as such.
Remember this the next time someone tries to feed you the standard sob story about how teachers are so underpaid and under-appreciated. More money is not what they need. Accountability that only the free market can create is what they need.
Teacher's comment questioning the qualifications of homeschoolers
Public schoolteachers believe that we should be FORCED to purchase their services. They believe that they should have a monopoly on the education of the young, one backed up by the force of law. This sense of entitlement is truly breathtaking. Contrast this with professionals whose paycheck is contingent on the quality of their services.
When the state has a monopoly on the means of production we call it communism. Our public schools are a case study for why communism doesn't work. Communism doesn't just have economic effects, it destroys the virtue of the people who are subjected to it. Public schools are such a horror precisely because of this.
The only real solution is to take the government out of the business of delivering education. Public he roads are maintained by private firms under contract with the state. The same should be done with education. Only instead of some government bureaucrat deciding which school gets the money, the parents of each individual child should decide. Make schools compete for students and for the state funding that each student represents.
Effective teachers who care about their students welcome this idea. They have nothing to fear from increased competition. In fact they have everything to gain from it as this would make their own competence an asset rather than a liability. Political intrigue, which public schools are notorious for, is the pastime of those whose position isn't based on on performance. Tie continued employment and promotion to objective standards of achievement instead of political wrangling and that intrigue will evaporate.
Bad teachers naturally don't like this idea. They want to nurse from the teat of the public treasury, secure in the knowledge that they can never be dislodged, no matter how useless or even destructive they are. They are what is known as a parasite, and should be treated as such.
Remember this the next time someone tries to feed you the standard sob story about how teachers are so underpaid and under-appreciated. More money is not what they need. Accountability that only the free market can create is what they need.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Oakland circles the bowl
Suffer these crimes in Oakland? Don't call the cops.
Here is a partial list of the crimes that the Oakland police department will no longer trouble itself with:
It looks to me like child molesters and firebugs have found themselves their very own Sanctuary City.
Given the efforts by the usual suspects in California to deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, I suspect that crimes like burglary will increase dramatically.
Here is a partial list of the crimes that the Oakland police department will no longer trouble itself with:
- burglary
- theft
- embezzlement
- grand theft
- grand theft:dog
- identity theft
- false information to peace officer
- required to register as sex or arson offender
- dump waste or offensive matter
- discard appliance with lock
- loud music
- possess forged notes
- pass fictitious check
- obtain money by false voucher
- fraudulent use of access cards
- stolen license plate
- embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
- extortion
- attempted extortion
- false personification of other
- injure telephone/ power line
- interfere with power line
- unauthorized cable tv connection
- vandalism
It looks to me like child molesters and firebugs have found themselves their very own Sanctuary City.
Given the efforts by the usual suspects in California to deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, I suspect that crimes like burglary will increase dramatically.
Friday, July 9, 2010
They just don't get it.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/08/ann-coulter-vs-bill-kristol-beginnings-of-a-conservative-schis/
The left loves to latch on to disagreements among conservatives and pretend that civil war is on the horizon.
Ha!
But that isn't the reason I'm posting about this article. I'm doing so because it keeps talking about something it calls "the war in Afghanistan."
Once again the left just doesn't get it.
The war in Afghanistan is not the war in Afghanistan.
The war is global because our enemies are global. A religious ideology of hatred knows no national boundaries.
There is no way to "win in Afghanistan" in any meaningful sense because Afghanistan is merely one of many battlefields.
Places like the UK, Holland, and Michigan are where the real battles will be fought, and it won't be with bullets and bombs, but with babies. Demographics is destiny.
Naturally we should deprive our enemies of Afghanistan as a base of operations and a source of cannon fodder and suicide bombers, but we should not confuse our ability to do this with some sort of cosmic "victory."
Victory will come when our enemies are dead.
The left loves to latch on to disagreements among conservatives and pretend that civil war is on the horizon.
Ha!
But that isn't the reason I'm posting about this article. I'm doing so because it keeps talking about something it calls "the war in Afghanistan."
Once again the left just doesn't get it.
The war in Afghanistan is not the war in Afghanistan.
The war is global because our enemies are global. A religious ideology of hatred knows no national boundaries.
There is no way to "win in Afghanistan" in any meaningful sense because Afghanistan is merely one of many battlefields.
Places like the UK, Holland, and Michigan are where the real battles will be fought, and it won't be with bullets and bombs, but with babies. Demographics is destiny.
Naturally we should deprive our enemies of Afghanistan as a base of operations and a source of cannon fodder and suicide bombers, but we should not confuse our ability to do this with some sort of cosmic "victory."
Victory will come when our enemies are dead.
Murrow to Goebbels to the dustbin
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/08/beyond-the-killing-fields-why-journalism-is-in-a-state-of-ch/
He doesn't get it I'm afraid.
The craft of "credible, serious journalism is in a state of chaos" because journalists are no longer credible.
Money is not a the heart of the issue. Honesty is.
Journalism, once based on the ideals and ethic of Murrow, now follows a different school: that of Goebbels.
The media does one of two things. It seeks to distract the public with "news" stories about celebrity gossip. When it does cover real news, every word is an attempt at manipulation. Stories that cannot be spin doctored are ignored.
This isn't a matter of bias, but of simple honesty.
Like all propagandists, the media lies even when it tells the truth.
Naturally, the public is increasingly looking for news and analysis from other sources.
In Nazi Germany, people simply stopped reading newspapers because all of them contained the very same propaganda.
In America, people are disregarding "liberal" papers and magazines for the very same reason.
He doesn't get it I'm afraid.
The craft of "credible, serious journalism is in a state of chaos" because journalists are no longer credible.
Money is not a the heart of the issue. Honesty is.
Journalism, once based on the ideals and ethic of Murrow, now follows a different school: that of Goebbels.
The media does one of two things. It seeks to distract the public with "news" stories about celebrity gossip. When it does cover real news, every word is an attempt at manipulation. Stories that cannot be spin doctored are ignored.
This isn't a matter of bias, but of simple honesty.
Like all propagandists, the media lies even when it tells the truth.
Naturally, the public is increasingly looking for news and analysis from other sources.
In Nazi Germany, people simply stopped reading newspapers because all of them contained the very same propaganda.
In America, people are disregarding "liberal" papers and magazines for the very same reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
