Archive for the ‘Media’ Category
Kids from the Ron Clark Academy sing a song promoting health care reform on CNN:
Should Murdoc be troubled by this or just embarrassed?
UPDATE: IRS Made Errors in Stimulus Payments to 400,000 Taxpayers
Via Instapundit who writes BUT DON’T WORRY, THEY’LL HANDLE HEALTH CARE JUST FINE
A few clowns shout at a “tea party” and the media starts worrying about the resurgent Klan, but the left literally attacks the police at the G20 protests and nobody says anything.
Via Instapundit.
UPDATE: LOL! Get a load of this video forwarded to MO by a reader:
Nice surplus store BDUs.
UPDATE 2: More info on this HERE. Apparently these BDU guys are some sort of G-20 “tactical response team” and the guy they nabbed was accused of vandalism. Not military or police. Probably cheap contractors.
This was the lead item on my Yahoo! home page today: Why Michelle Obama’s Hair Matters
Murdoc’s initial reactions was “It doesn’t matter.”
After reading about why it does, Murdoc has revised his reaction to “It REALLY doesn’t matter.”
Without getting too deep into it, Jenee Desmond-Harris of Time thinks it matters because hair is so important to black women. And therefore it matters enough to warrant press coverage.
You know, if Murdoc wrote something like that on his little site, he’d be instantly labeled a clueless white guy with dumb stereotypes and probably a racist. But in the pages of Time it’s deep insight.
If Michelle Obama’s hair style really matters, it’s over for America. Luckily for us all, it doesn’t matter.
A couple of days back I posted a bit on how the anti-war movement has basically fallen off the radar.
At the end, I wondered how much the media had to do with the story disappearing:
One other thing, though, is that maybe the “silence” of the anti-war voices is due more to lack of coverage by the media. At one point, the anti-war types were the darlings of the newscast. Now, if there are solid anti-war types out there still making noise, decision-makers might rather that no one see or hear them.
Byron York points out this bit by ABC’s Charles Gibbons, who was a major promoter of Cindy Sheehan back in the day:
And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already.
But enough already.
via Lex.
UPDATE: York has more:
Sheehan: Pro-Obama media want the anti-war movement to go away
Useful idiot discovers that she’s been a useful idiot.
I’ve seen a number of “I don’t like Sheehan but I’ll give her points for consistency” remarks as she heads to Martha’s Vineyard to protest, and I guess that’s a fair way to look at it.
Just don’t equate “consistent” with “right”. She’s consistently wrong.
For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all
At one point the war was the biggest talking point on the Liberal radar.
Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan — 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 — anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.
What’s most telling is that, so far, Obama’s war policy has been pretty much a continuation of the Bush administration’s war policy. If Obama was changing things up, I guess Lefties could argue that he inherited Bush’s mess but was turning things around. But the fact that things are pretty much unchanged means, of course, that it wasn’t the war at all that they were against.
Compare this to the Conservatives’ big issue these days. Sure, few Conservatives have much love for Obama. But are they protesting the proposed health care reforms out of hate for the President? Or because they dislike the proposed health care reforms?
One other thing, though, is that maybe the “silence” of the anti-war voices is due more to lack of coverage by the media. At one point, the anti-war types were the darlings of the newscast. Now, if there are solid anti-war types out there still making noise, decision-makers might rather that no one see or hear them.
Over at GunPundit, I write a little about the “new craze” of open carrying at political events.
UPDATE: More here.
Troops could be sent to battered Iraqi region
The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday that he wants to deploy American soldiers to disputed territories in northern Iraq following a recent spike in bombings there.
The move would be a departure from the security pact that called for Americans to pull back from populated areas on June 30.
The U.S. soldiers would partner with Iraqi government and Kurdish troops to secure the largely unguarded villages along the fault line of land disputed between Arabs and Kurds, Gen. Ray Odierno said.
He stressed that no final decision has been made but said Iraqi and Kurdish leaders were receptive to the idea.
Everyone should realize that no one thinks things are all hunky-dory in Iraq, and if US troops need to re-enter the fight in areas they’ve pulled back from, they will. Though violence isn’t spiraling out of control and Iraq isn’t on the verge of a major civil war, things are a bit shaky in some areas.
If someone else was in the White House, I suspect that the headlines about the situation in Iraq would be slightly more alarmist. But, then, Murdoc’s a bit cynical at times.
Early in the Iran-Iraq War, an AK-47-toting Iranian soldier watches smoke rising from burning oil refineries near the Iranian city of Abadan. The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, armed and supported by the United States, used mostly M16s. Photo: Henri Bureau/Sygma/Corbis
UPDATE: The big thing I was questioning was “The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, armed and supported by the United States, used mostly M16s.” I’m unaware of M16s being present in either country in any significant numbers, let alone arming “most” of one nation’s army.
Though DJ Elliot comments that the Iranians had M14s.
Remember, the US had been arming Iran (not Iraq) until the overthrow of the Shah the year before the war started. MO readers will know that Iran still has at least a few F-14 Tomcats in flying condition.
Letterman
Murdoc thinks the joke was fairly tasteless regardless of who he meant.
He and his writers should have been sure about what they were talking about, though I guess I buy the explanation that he thought it was Bristol Palin at the game, not 14-year-old Willow.
As an aside: Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. The defense seems to be arguing “what’s wrong about making jokes on national television about a sports star impregnating a woman?” That’s the defense? Talk about a weak position. Anyway.
However, at this point I guess I see the issue as pretty much closed. Whatever he really meant or really thinks, he’s done the apology. I’m no fan of Letterman, but I don’t see what else could be expected. Sure, Gov. Palin is probably still pissed. I would be, too. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous.
But I guess I don’t agree with calls for Letterman to be fired over this. It’s a stupid late night show with a host known for making stupid remarks. Shockingly, he said something stupid.
