Category Archives: Media Criticism

The Second Boston Tea Party

I think that this reader of KLo’s has it right:

For the better part of a year, Tea Parties have sprung up around the nation. If they are not ignored by the press, they are largely dismissed or characterized as “loons,” “bigots,” or “extremists.” I have read countless articles and columns which criticize the “tea baggers,” claiming that the protestors don’t even know what they are protesting.

All the while, people involved in the Tea Parties have claimed that they are not necessarily Republican, but include many Democrats and Independents as well. They claim that they attend rallies for various reasons (as opposed to not knowing their reasons). They often cite “out of control spending,” “runaway government,” or a “move toward socialism” as their top concerns. Their opposition to the monstrous health care reform bills has been consistent with this thinking. Despite rigged 10-year projections which claim the bill will be budget neutral, they rely on common sense which tells them that like Medicare, Social Security, the USPS, and Cash for Clunkers, government-controlled health care will end up being another entitlement albatross our country cannot afford in the long run. Because of this sound thinking, a national poll in December showed that the Tea Party movement enjoys more public support than either of the two major parties.

In spite of this, the MSM continues to dismiss, downplay, or deride the sentiments of Tea Partiers. Massachusetts has now shown that the Tea Party mentality is not an extreme, angry, southern, bigoted bunch. They are in fact independent thinkers, who are deeply concerned about our direction and politicians drunk with government power. The MSM has lost their battle.

And it’s only the first battle (second, if you count New Jersey and Virginia, but this is different, because it involves a national politician who will actually have a wrench to throw in the works of monstrous contraption that the Dems have been building in DC). Continuing retribution like this will occur this fall, and it will be terrible for them to behold, but liberating for the rest of us.

And as a California resident, I’m hoping that this was the template for, at a minimum, removing from power, if not office itself, the leftist harridans Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi.

Who Are The Environment Correspondents?

Apparently, the people who have been reporting on climate change are as incestuous (and even more incompetent) as the people studying it. Color me unshocked. They’re likely economic ignorami as well.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Well, here’s one reporter who’s strayed from the reservation. A “saturated greenhouse” theory? If true, this would be huge. There are good reasons to wean ourselves from fossile fuels (if done in an economically sane manner), but climate change wouldn’t be one of them.

[Late morning update]

“AGW? I refute it thus.”

If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.

It’s pretty striking.

Unspeakable Truths

Thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:

I am fortunate for a wonderful graduate education in the PhD program at Stanford, but I learned more about the way the world works in two months of farming (which saved a wretch like me) than in four years of concentrated study.

In short, the world does not work on a nine-month schedule. It does not recognize concepts like tenure. It does not care for words without action. And brilliance is not measured by vocabulary or SAT scores. Wowing a dean, or repartee into a seminar, or clever put-downs of rivals in the faculty lounge don’t translate into running a railroad—or running the country. One Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower is worth three Bill Clintons or Barack Obamas. If that sounds reductionist, simplistic, or anti-intellectual, it is not meant to—but so be it nonetheless.

I’ve never been less impressed with Ivy League degrees than I am now.

Diversity-Driven Disasters

I blame that progressive, George Bush.

Really. I think that the Mineta nomination and retention was one of the stupidest (among many) things that he did.

The problem is, of course, that the alternatives (Gore or Kerry) would have been even worse. And at least he tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, against the successful opposition of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Double Standard Alert

He’s right:

If Romney had used the phrases “light-skinned” and “Negro dialect” his religion and his religion’s history in this matter would have been noted high up in every story.

But Romney is a Republican. It’s only Republican Mormons who are evil.

Really, Reid and Pelosi are embarrassments. I’m glad that they’ve become the public face of the Dems in Congress. Long may they reign, until November. Hang in there, Harry.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Gee, the Black Congressional Caucus is totally down with the “light-skinned Negro” thing. Who would have thought?

[Evening update]

Here’s a handy flow chart to parse and analyze pseudo-offensive racial (and sexual, and gender) statements.

[Monday morning update]

Can someone please explain to me exactly what it was that was so offensive about what Harry Reid said? At least to Barack Obama? Because I’m not getting it. If he owes anyone an apology, it’s the American voters that he slandered and implied were racists. Forgiveness from the president is meaningless.

[Update a few minutes later]

I agree with Roger Simon. Reid isn’t a racist — he’s a hack. And a fool.

Why The Press Is Finally Turning On The One

They’ve been made fools of once too often:

It’s not just that Obama lied, it’s the obviousness of the mendacity. There’s no wriggle room on this one; anyone who’s been paying any attention for the last two years knows it’s a bald-faced lie. And in addition, there’s been no explanation for it, and no excuses. The administration is simply ignoring the lie as though it doesn’t matter, and insulting the press in the bargain. This makes pundits who liked and supported Obama look foolish, and they don’t like to look that way. Thus, the anger—it’s personal now.

Maybe they’ll attack him in his sleep with a golf club. Good thing he has Secret Service.

A New Science Movement

Did Climaquiddick set one off? If so, it’s not just a new, but a real (as opposed to politically ideologically driven) science, returning it to free inquiry.:

Remember these names: Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Jeff “Id” Condon, Lucia Liljegren, and Anthony Watts. These, and their community of blog commenters, are the global warming contrarians that formed the peer-to-peer review network and helped bring chaos to Copenhagen – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. One may have even played the instrumental role of first placing the leaked files on the Internet.

This group can be thought of as the first cousins to Andrew Breitbart’s collective of BIG websites – obsessively curious, grassroots investigators that provide vision to the establishment’s blind eye. Peer-to-peer review is the scientific version of the undernews.

Call it Big Science.

[Update a few minutes later]

I liked this comment, which puts it all in perspective for those who remain willfully blind to the implications of the data dump:

Imagine for a moment that a high school student submitted a project for competition in which he offered up the hypothesis that tree rings gave a historical blueprint of climate change.

Competition Judge: “Ok, Johnny, this is a very interesting theory. May I see your data?”

Johnny McFibber: “I lost it.”

Competition Judge: “Hmmm. That will make it nearly impossible to win, Johnny. Can you duplicate it or give us a detailed description of what it showed”

Johnny M “Actually, I hid the parts that didn’t comport with my theory., in fact, showed the exact opposite of my theory,..and I emailed all my friends to do the same”

Competition Judge” “Johnny, that’s not the way we conduct ourselves in the sciences, you must be confused with your humanities classes. Over here, we strictly scrutinize the facts.

Johnny M: There’s a reporter here I would like to introduce you to…he wants to ask some questions about your first marriage.

Competition Judge: Great work on this project, Johnny. The science is settled. You win.

Moral? Research softly and carry a big hockey stick.

Fortunately, the hockey stick is broken, probably for good.