Star Tribune playing the race card for Somali terrorists. The reporter asks why there are no Blacks on the jury. The reporter is stuck in a mental rut, asking the wrong question.
Americans are entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers, but what does that mean? “Black” in the context of American racial relations means “descendant of African slaves.” Those Blacks are supposedly entitled to special privileges as compensation for centuries of slavery and Jim Crow which included all-white juries convicting Blacks solely on the basis of race. The courts have elaborate procedures to protect Black defendants’ right to a fair trial.
“Black” in this context does not mean “anybody whose skin color is darker than mine.” Somali immigrants were never slaves in America, they never suffered under Jim Crow, they’re not entitled to special privileges as redress. American Blacks might look upon Somali refugees as brothers-in-arms because they’re all struggling against The White Man; I sincerely doubt that Somali refugees look upon American Blacks as their peers.
This trial is not about race, it’s about religion. It’s not about Black, it’s about Islam. Scott Johnson nails it. But the Star Tribune reporter – terrified of mentioning Islam in an unfavorable light and stuck with Approved Victim categories established in the 1960’s – misses the point.
The Strib editorial board cut its teeth in the sixties and seventies.
The world needs some eighties people running things.
Because I don’t think the 2000s and 2010s people are going to be much of an improvement.
All fairly passive verbs; imploding, collapsing and melting down are all actions without authors.
It’d be much more accurate to say the session was killed. By the DFL. For political reasons.
Choo Choo Trains Are The New “Shutdown”: As of yesterday, the Legislature had reached an agreement on a Bonding Bill. The bill had been through conference committee. The DFL Senate and GOP House had agreed to a bill without funding the Southwest Light Rail Transit line – a big GOP promise. The bill – as bills coming out of Conference Committee are supposed to be – was ready for the governor’s signature. It was ready to be passed with no further fanfare, assuming both sides went at it in good faith, of course).
As always, the DFL did not.
Two Minute Drill: With five, count ’em, five, count ’em again, five minutes left in the session, the DFL introduced an amendment reintroducing Southwest Light Rail into the Bonding Bill.
Could this be because the DFL really likes their trains, and really really wants to see the choo choo built to Eden Prairie?
More likely? As DFL legislative candidates are starting to fan out across the state, trying to woo voters in a year when they have a Presidential option not much more inspiring than Ole Savior, the DFL wanted to induce a crisis – the death of the Bonding Bill, funding one of this state’s precious few legitimate jobs – and turn around and blame it on the GOP.
So the Transportation Bill didn’t “implode”, “melt down” or “collapse”. It was given a poison pill. It was blown up. It was shot in the face.
Preparing The Battlefield: But by taking a murder and calling it an accident, the media gives the DFL, and their propaganda arm Alliance for a Better Minnesota, a wide-open playing field on which to romp and play with public perception of the issue.
Baltimore Sun “reporter” Tricia Bishop, on her way to admitting she worries less about criminals than law-abiding gun owners (in Baltimore. I’ll let that bit of knot-headedness sink in), says:
And so, as President Barack Obama announced plans this week to tighten background checks for gun buyers and increase gun tracking and research, I thought, that’s all well and good, but how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.
Ms. Bishop: First, how about we have a database of people who don’t like guns. I mean, you’re the ones trying to shave away at the edges of a constitutional right – isn’t the burden of, well, being burdened, on you?
Why not let’s try this: we put in in a public database that says:
I, TRICIA BISHOP, AM UNARMED AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!
Sources tell Gizmodo that Facebook routinely gundecked “conservative” news – spiking it from the “trending” news section, even if it was legitimately, y’know, trending (and buffing up stories that management wanted pushed):
These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.
Tangential note: you’re a young “journalist” with an Ivy-League degree. You’re working as a “curator” for Facebook.
Contact me. I’ll refer you to a good suicide hotline. You’re gonna need it sooner than later.
“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”
It’s really no different than any newspaper. Just big and financially successful.
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.
It does bespeak a certain insecurity, doesn’t it?
(It also introduces a conundrum: which do more hope to see crash and burn? Facebook or Twitter?)
A buddy had an insight why Hillary won’t be indicted, won’t even be seriously questioned, about her ever-shifting lies:
The standard has shifted. Washington’s “I cannot tell a lie” was replaced by Hitler’s The Big Lie which was replaced by Bill Clinton’s The Great Lie.
The Great Lie does not mean the person is a convincing liar. That went out the window with Slick Willie. We all knew he was lying, but the media decided that as long as his lies were told in furtherance of the Progressive Agenda, the media would let them ride. This is the mindset of reporters like Nina Burleigh, who graphically described how she would reward President Clinton for keeping abortion legal. That attitude brought us the era of The Great Lie, the lie that is, in modern parlance, “too big to fail.”
The frustration of Democrats and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, is the GOP hasn’t accepted the new standard. The GOP still thinks it’s fair to indict Hillary for lying about her crimes. Hillary’s lies are, of course, brazen and transparent. But the objective that the lies are protecting – electing her President – is too important for the media to call out the lies, as that might jeopardize attainment of the objective.
The stakes are too high to hold Hillary to the truth because the truth would derail the process of crowning her to lead us into the abyss.
The Great Lie has become the accepted method for every Progressive issue. Universal free medicine is too important to allow truth to interfere with the dream, so The Great Lie that Obama-care is working must be accepted without question. Climate change is too important to be clouded with truth so The Great Lie must prevail even if we have to silence scientists and distort the data to fit the theory. Gun control, Muslim terror, campus rape, the methodology is always the same.
There is an added incentive for the mainstream media to endear themselves of The Great Lie: it frees them from the shackles of ethics, truth, due diligence, etc. If the issue is sufficiently important in the Progressive Agenda, then no outdated journalistic ethos need slow down the machinery of printing garbage for the masses. It’s a much more efficient than the old methods of sourcing facts, confirming identities and access of the informants or suppliers of facts, editorial oversight to check for balance and fairness. The only people who suffer are those who care about the truth.
The idea of “journalistic ethos” is to news consumers (and journo students) what Santa Claus is for children.
The Star/Tribune’s editorial board is a group of people, apparently in their sixties and seventies, who seem to spend their days pining away for a time when the media could say anything they want without fear of being caught out in public by people who know better.
SCENE: At the offices of Kornbluth Chadwick Communications – a big Democrat-leaning PR firm in Boston. A tastefully spare room furnished in the Danish style, with a full-height window overlooking downtown Boston, includes a number of people in just-ahead-of-the-fashion-curve PR-wear.
Hanna EPSTEIN-FAEGER, director of the firm’s political communications practice, sits at the head of a glass table and calls the meeting to order.
EPSTEIN-FAEGER: We’re here to find out what went wrong with the independent expenditure ad we did against Ted Cruz. Ruth?
Ruth LOWENSTEIN-NEDZVINSKI, an assistant project manager, picks up a sleek, buttonless remote, and presses “play”
EPSTEIN-FAEGER: I think we can all agree it was brilliant. Joshua?
Joshua-Micah KORN-FLEEBER, the ad’s producer – a slight man in a lumberjack beard wearing a “Feel The Bern” t-shirt under his hemp sports jacket, speaks up.
KORN-FLEEBER: That’s correct, Hanna. The ad includes all the things that we believe that the vast majority of voters respond to: belief in the need to reinterpret the Constitution, the throbbing desire throughout the country to repeal the Second Amendment and the traditional view of marriage and remove all reference to faith from public life – and, of course, Robert Reich himself.
LOWENSTEIN-NEDSVINSKI: Americans love Robert Reich!\
(Entire table nods assent)
EPSTEIN-FAEGER: And yet the focus groups, one after the other, showed that representative voters from west of the Hudson River and east of the Sierra Madre unanimously thought it was an ad for Ted Cruz?
KORN-FLEEBER: I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.
LOWESNSTEIN-NEDSVINSKI: One quote from one focus group said “this is a fiendish parody of the east-coast liberal echo chamber”.
EPSTEIN-FAEGER: The what?
LOWENSTEIN-NEDSVINSKI: No idea.
EPSTAIN-FAEGER: So – middle-Americans unanimously thought it was a pro-Cruz ad, and some thought it was a parody of how the left thinks?
EPSTEIN-FAEGER: I say it’s a blip in the data. Let’s run it!
(Everyone nods and gathers their notebooks, phones and tablets and moves to their next meeting)
I’ll admit it; I’ve gotten into a bit of a rut when dealing with the left and media (pardon the redundancy).
Especially when they talk about “reaching across divides”. Whenever people on the left talk about “Reaching” across one “divide” or another (let’s leave aside the fact that divides are always of their making), the best one can hope for is that they’ll act like Jane Goodall – ideological anthropologists, here to furrow their brows and write about the Conservatives in the Mist. At worst, they come to mug for their fans and exude their self-perceived superiority and laugh at the locals.
Both efforts pretty generally backfire when the subject is firearms and the Second Amendment. The mugging and smugging usually gets undercut by a lot of unforced errors. And once in a while, the lefty has a Road to Damascus moment and sees the light. Yes, it happens.
The City Pages – the Twin Cities’ media’s aggressively dumb and mindlessly aggressive little brother – engages in “Trump-shaming”, in an article that asks the question that’s on every Minnesotan’s “mind”:
Who among us would give to Donald Trump? These people, that’s who.
The article then publishes the names of everyone (they could find) who’s donated to Trump, from the $1,000 donations down to $19.
Now, let nobody be under the delusion that the City Pages is anything but the low end of the DFL’s PR chain, covering the “dumb, entitled, self-impressed would-be hipster” market segment.
I caught some of Morning Joe from my hotel room before I left for the airport. The caption for one discussion was “Were They Radicalized?” I keep seeing stories asking this question as if it’s some great mystery we may never get to the bottom of. The media and the Democratic party are working very, very, hard to pound the wet clay of San Bernardino into a story about runaway gun violence in America.
Just curious: What discrete piece of info are we waiting for to get a definitive answer to that question? Because I thought it might be the thousands of rounds of ammo, the remote-control-car-bombs, the decision to abandon their six-month-old daughter, the contacts with terror suspects and, oh yeah, the murder of 14 people. But hey, that’s just me.
I used to think PJ O’Rourke was being hyperbolic when he said J-school students were the ones too dumb to get into Education.
Still, amid the japing about our dimbulb journalistic “elite”, there’s a serious issue. The people are being actively disinformed:
Right now the media and the Democratic party are working very, very, hard to pound the wet clay of San Bernardino into a story about runaway gun violence in America. Bogus stats about there being a mass shooting on average once a day streak across the media firmament like so much St. Elmo’s Fire. The fact that gun violence has been in a decades-long decline doesn’t count for much. Poor Charlie Cooke is running around like the last artillery officer on a 19th-century British warship, trying to return fire from each cannon station.
Cook is doing his usual great job. But he’s far from alone on the, er, gun deck.
So the next time some anti-gun talking head says “There’ve been 355 mass shootings so far this year”, remember – the figure comes from this site, “Shootingtracker.com“. It’s a crowd-sourced site that allows pretty much anyone to report a “mass shooting” – defined as any event where three or more people (including the shooter) get shot.
Now, the media presents this as if every incident is a spree killing – someone setting out to kill innocent people at random (Columbine, Red Lake, the DC Navy Yard et al) or as acts of terrorism (San Bernardino, Chattanooga etc).
Of course, it includes many more mundane crimes; thugs shooting into crowded bars, family murder-suicides, and many, many criminal acts gone terribly awry.
Check out #345. It was the shooting in North Minneapolis on November 23.
Now, you can find Mr. Scarsella’s motives repugnant – I certainly do, if they are as alleged. And you can note, very correctly, that if Messrs Scarsella, Macey, Gustavsson and Backman wanted to claim self-defense, waiting for the Minneapolis Police to find them was the wrong way to do it.
But they do, in fact, seem to have at least a passing claim at self-defense, not something that can be dismissed out of hand no matter how much one may wish to.
So while it may be legitimate to count it as a “mass shooting” – a mass of three or more people were shot! – lumping it in there with San Bernardino, and the Navy Yard, and Umpqua, with their perps that fully intended to kill innocent people for purposes of either media immortality or political terror, is deeply dishonest – whether on “Shootingtracker.com”‘s part, or on the media’s.
It also introduces the question: does it include other shootings, where a citizen interrupted a mass shooting with return fire?
Of course, it’s a misleading point – in keeping with the gun control dictum to “Lie First, Lie Last, Lie Always”. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides – and this is especially true in the rural west, as a disproportionate number of people, usually older, male, depressed, often very ill, decide to check out via the most reliable means they have available, their firearms. It’s tragic; it’s also not the same as murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault or other violent crimes committed against others. And it doesn’t take many suicides in a thinly-populated rural western county to send that per capita death rate soaring.
But no mind; fake as it is, this particular narrative made the usual rounds:
Through the various far-left blogs that pretty much exist to recite the left’s chanting points
To the various gun grabber groups, whose only real source of “information” is the chanting points they’re fed by their superiors in the “progressive” food chain
Bear in mind that Macey was one of those rare Asian white supremacists.
Quite the melting-pot we have, here.
Anyway – as the media begins the process of trying this case in public, some people are going to be disappointed right out of the gate:
Freeman said the Minnesota hate crime law only moves a misdemeanor crime to a gross misdemeanor and a gross misdemeanor to a felony. The four men were not charged with that because the sentences for them, especially the suspected shooter, Scarsella, would be significantly longer for the riot and second-degree assault charges. However, Freeman noted he has been consulting with U.S. Attorney Andy Luger about this case and if federal hate crime sentences would draw a longer sentence, he would be willing to turn the case over to them.
There is no doubt, he said, that this attack by the four was racially motivated.
“The defendants’ own statements, their videos, show that these are sick people,” Freeman said. “Maybe I shouldn’t say that, but the language they use, and what they say about fellow Americans, citizens, are just not acceptable.”
Unlike every media outlet in the Metro, I’m not going to attempt to try this case on this page. As we discussed the other day, there’s at least a chance that this could be tried as self-defense – although as I pointed out at the time, if one plans to try to plead self-defense, it’s best to go to the police, rather than having them come and get you first.
The biggest news this past year is the general consensus (among those who are paying attention) that Barack Obama is worse – much worse – a president than Jimmy Carter. He’s more along the lines of Woodrow Wilson or LBJ.
Between the race riots, the campus riots, the massive expansion of the federal government and the concurrent belief in its infallibility, the military debacles overseas, a feeling in general that the nation was out of control and now this latest call for the wise men to bail him out, it really does feel like we’re living out the last year of the Johnson administration, doesn’t it? Funny, when Democratic operatives with bylines were submitting Tiger Beat-style articles in 2007 and 2008 dreamily forecasting which Democrat presidencies Obama’s would most closely resemble, LBJ’s rarely made the list. Wonder why?
…in the media, these days, seems to be the idea that “the GOP is racist”, since Donald Trump, who has certainly brought out more than his fair share of the angry and the ignorant (sort of the flipside of Bernie Sanders, who, let’s not forget, is pimping xenophobic socialism himself) and who will be out of the race in a couple of months, is being closely tailed, and in the aggregate outnumbered, by two Latinos, a woman, and an African-American, all vying for the chance to take a shot at one of the three geriatric honkies on the Democrat side.
Which, in turn, is the sum, total, entire reason the media is obsessing over “racism”.
Listening to NARN, you quoted someone saying an adult writing a book should know that no students at West Point have scholarships, they have commissions, and failure to clearly say this makes one unqualified for President. Similarly, an adult writing a book about his life should know where he was born – Africa or America – and failure to clearly state the truth he later chooses, disqualifies him for president. Unless, of course, it’s a form of simplification for explanation, or dramatic license, or hyperbole, or…
Carson could simply, a la Obama, say it was a “composite” of several schools, military and civilian…
For years, I’ve been listening to my various liberal friends grunt and shriek in horror as various school boards around the country adopt policies that call for their various school districts to recognize, in one curricular form or another, the existence of creationism.
To which I’ve responded with two questions:
“First – if someone who’s refinishing your driveway, or checking out your groceries, or working on the app that you use to calculate your heart rate, is a young earth creationist [because the type of liberals who always huff and puff about creationism tend to own fitbits, naturally, believe everyone who isn’t like them is in the service class], what difference does it make to you?”
The answer, generally, is something with pretensions to altruism with overtones of intellectual thuggery; “we want everyone in our society to start with the same basis of actual knowledge,” or some such.
Which leads to my second question: “So – let’s say that you go to the hospital with a life-threatening aneurysm in your brain. And as you’re getting ready for surgery to stent a weak spot in a cranial artery to prevent it blowing like a water balloon, killing you in less time than it takes me to say this, you find out that your brain surgeon – a person who spent four years in a hypercompetitive hard-science-based pre-med program vying for a seat in a medical school, and then four more in a medical program designed to weed out the non-hackers, and not only surviving the cut but doing it brilliantly enough to get accepted to post-doctorate training and residency as a brain surgeon, and then years of experience operating on peoples’ brains – is a creationist? Do you get up off the operating table, loudly proclaim “you, madame, have no respect for science!” and walk away, looking for a non-creationism brain surgeon?”
Now, Carson isn’t my guy at this point, although he’d be a better President than anyone on the Democrat ticket.
But let’s acknowledge a few things; he’s a very smart guy. Literally, a brain surgeon. To quote a less brilliant candidate, “that’s f****ng huge!” But he believes in creationism, and that pyramids were used as granaries.
But I have a quesiton: is that any wackier than believing you can offer free college tuition without blowing up the deficit and distorting the higher education market out of recognition? Or in believing that storing classified emails in a bathroom and telling the American people that the Benghazi attack was caused by an anti-Muslim video were good ideas?
“Even Brian Williams is saying he wasn’t there” — Mark Okern (from Facebook)
I watched the first half of yesterday’s GOP debate, before I had to go do some family stuff.
There had been some hope that CNBC – an ostensible financial network – would ask some substantial questions about financial policy. And there were a few, sort of, in a way.
But “are you an evil comic book villain?”
John Harwood came across as a Liberal snidely whiplash. Becky Quick…wasn’t very. Carl Quintanilla sounded like he was hosting a cable access production of Jimmy’s First Debate. And Jim Cramer? I don’t know if he was on cold medicine or had taken a couple of shots to the head before he went on the air, but good lord, that performance will be taught in broadcast schools for decades to come as an example of how not to sound when reading off a teleprompter.
It’s entirely possible (except for Harwood) that they were just trying to come across as tough, hard-nosed “journalists” – an effect that lasts precisely until the phrase “evil comic book villain” came up.
But the hour I spent was worth it, if only for this; Ted Cruz’ jeremiad against the media was one for the ages:
“But he should have answered Quintanilla’s substantive question!” Er, did you catch the question? “Does your opposition to a “moderate” budget deal mean you’re unqualified?”
UPDATE: As I put this morning’s piece together in my head last night, I thought – as I often do when matters of discerning bias in others come up – “Am I right, or is this just confirmation bias?”
The big story — the A-story — on Wednesday night — the actual full blown case of seppuku — was CNBC. The network will never seem the same. Their moderators — Becky Quick, John Harwood, and Carl Quintanilla — were so obviously biased you would have thought it was a parody, if you hadn’t known it was real, a kind of black comic nightmare out of a leftwing theatre of the absurd.
I thought that very thing as I was sitting at O’Gara’s watching the show last night; “this is like an SNL sketch”.
And there was this bit, that I didn’t catch last night; as part of the moderators’ attempt to gut-shoot Rubio, the non-Trump front-runner, John Harwood doubled down on a lie he’d already apologized for:
But more than that, the debate revealed something I had thought about before, but never seen so clearly — how bias can affect the brain, almost make it dysfunctional. I assume John Howard is an intelligent man. He writes for the New York Times. (Make of that what you will, but I did write for that newspaper myself once upon a time, so mind your manners.) Nevertheless, Harwood did something extraordinary. He lied about Rubio’s tax plan in the exact same way not once but twice — once at the debate and once about two weeks before the debate. What made it extraordinary was that Harwood had apologized for that same lie the first time on Twitter on October 14 and then lied again Wednesday night as if he didn’t remember his own apology and correction. (The Federalist has the full story with the tweet – Surprise! John Harwood Lied About Rubio’s Tax Plan…)
Simon continues – pervasive bias acts as a form of cognitive disorder, blotting out right and wrong in extreme cases.
It’ll never get in the DSMVI, but we all know it’s there.