Archive Listing
July 2, 2011 - June 25, 2011
Friday, June 25, 2010
Flashback:
Army-Navy 2009
SOMETHING ABOUT HONOR. There's a problem in Afghanistan and it isn't just Stanley McChrystal. Here's what we pointed out last fall:
Like many others, I watched as much of
the football game as I could
bear to. For several years now, I've been rooting all out for Army
because they're on a losing streak that shows no sign of ending anytime
soon. The CBS coverage was indifferent at best. We don't get to see the
grand entrances of the cadets and midshipmen into the stadium, and
thanks to TV avarice, we don't get to see any half-time activities at
all. The
announcers (Vern Lundquist and Gary Danielson) were almost boasting
about their determination to cover the event "as a football game," which is
weaseling to an astonishing degree, because it is clearly far more
than that...
So maybe I imagined more than saw the ESPN post-mortem of another dismal performance by Army -- their third straight year without a touchdown against Navy -- and the complete silence on what I considered the biggest story of the game. The absence of the Commander-in-Chief for whom the game's trophy is named. I know that presidents usually attend only a game or two even in eight years of office, but surely this was a year in which Obama should have attended. Barely a week ago, he ordered 30,000-plus new troops into Afghanistan, choosing as his backdrop for the announcement West Point and its corps of cadets. Cynics accused him of using the U.S. Military Academy as a prop. Defenders said, as is their wont, "Oh stop it"...
But the president wasn't there. Secretary of Defense Gates tossed the coin before the game. Cool. But where was the president? Resting up between his overseas trips to Norway for personal honors at the Nobel ceremonies and to Copenhagen for another egoistic commitment to spend American treasure on behalf of the 'world community' while his own country languishes in economic adversity and uncertainty. So much for fine words at West Point and Oslo. But I haven't heard a single solitary word of recognition, let alone criticism, that the president of the United States didn't see fit to honor the youth, vitality, and humanity of the U.S. military by participating in the pageantry of the great annual contest in Philadelphia.
So maybe I imagined more than saw the ESPN post-mortem of another dismal performance by Army -- their third straight year without a touchdown against Navy -- and the complete silence on what I considered the biggest story of the game. The absence of the Commander-in-Chief for whom the game's trophy is named. I know that presidents usually attend only a game or two even in eight years of office, but surely this was a year in which Obama should have attended. Barely a week ago, he ordered 30,000-plus new troops into Afghanistan, choosing as his backdrop for the announcement West Point and its corps of cadets. Cynics accused him of using the U.S. Military Academy as a prop. Defenders said, as is their wont, "Oh stop it"...
But the president wasn't there. Secretary of Defense Gates tossed the coin before the game. Cool. But where was the president? Resting up between his overseas trips to Norway for personal honors at the Nobel ceremonies and to Copenhagen for another egoistic commitment to spend American treasure on behalf of the 'world community' while his own country languishes in economic adversity and uncertainty. So much for fine words at West Point and Oslo. But I haven't heard a single solitary word of recognition, let alone criticism, that the president of the United States didn't see fit to honor the youth, vitality, and humanity of the U.S. military by participating in the pageantry of the great annual contest in Philadelphia.
There's a good deal more to the post, which is titled "What Obama doesn't know about America." Take a look. He still doesn't. And even General Petraeus can't fix that.
posted at
12:16 pm
by
CountryPunk
The Curse of "Friendly
Terms"
The Washington Post's reporter on the conservative beat.
SEEING ALL SIDES. I admit right up front that I'm writing this post in disgust. The way it is. The activating story is this:
FishbowlDC has obtained e-mails written
by WaPo's conservative-beat blogger Dave Weigel, that the scribe sent
to JournoList, a listserv for liberal journalists. (Read up on
JournoList with Yahoo! News's Michael Calderone's 2009 story that he
wrote for Politico).
Seems Weigel doesn't like (and that would be putting it mildly) at least some of the conservatives he covers. Poor Drudge - Weigel wants him to light himself on fire.
Weigel's Words:
Seems Weigel doesn't like (and that would be putting it mildly) at least some of the conservatives he covers. Poor Drudge - Weigel wants him to light himself on fire.
Weigel's Words:
•"This would be a vastly better world
to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more
responsibly, and set himself on fire."
•"Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there -- nor in DC at all."
•"I'd politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it."
•"It's all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn't get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV."
•"Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there -- nor in DC at all."
•"I'd politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it."
•"It's all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn't get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV."
Surprising? No, actually. I saw Weigel participate on a C-Span panel about the Tea Parties hosted by Jonah Goldberg, and I could see exactly who he was and where he was coming from, despite the fact that he was being lumped in as a "conservative" pundit. He was sullen, distant, overly careful with his words, and 100 percent transparent about the fact that however clandestinely, he despises the whole Tea Party phenomenon. He looked like he'd need to take a shower afterwards to wash away the stink. I'd never seen or heard of him before, but I was, uh, not impressed. I wondered why Goldberg never called him out. Civility and journalistic professionalism, I figured.
Now, apparently, the shit has truly hit the fan. He's had to resign. Fine with me. But not so much with the burgeoning camaraderie of the New Media. Hotair's Ed Morrissey:
I should note that Dave and I are on
friendly terms, and he appeared on my show this week to talk more about
the flap over his Etheridge reporting. That criticism had a
little more merit than his JournoList commentary, since it had to do
with his actual reporting and not his conversations among friends and
colleagues not intended for public consumption. Most of these
comments are fairly laughable and I’m certain routine in parlor
discussions on the Left. What matters, as Dave says, is his
reporting, although it’s fair to say that this kind of exposure of his
attitudes towards the Right won’t help build credibility for his
reporting on conservative politics, which is his beat for the
Washington Post.
That’s why I wonder why someone on JournoList decided to leak Weigel’s commentary. Dave is hardly the most high-profile contributor on JournoList (well, before today), and he seems a strange choice for someone’s animus. His incendiary comments certainly are sensational, but that’s about the only thing about them that makes them at all pertinent — unless someone on JournoList doesn’t like the fact that the Washington Post is focusing on conservative issues in any way, shape, or form. While I don’t think Dave has been unduly hostile in his reporting, he’s not exactly been cuddling up to the Right, either, but that may not be enough for someone on JournoList. Or, conversely, it could be a JournoList member with more sympathy towards conservatives than his colleagues suspect that has objections to Dave’s coverage of the Right. Either way, it’s hardly a fair way to go about criticizing the work Dave does.
That’s why I wonder why someone on JournoList decided to leak Weigel’s commentary. Dave is hardly the most high-profile contributor on JournoList (well, before today), and he seems a strange choice for someone’s animus. His incendiary comments certainly are sensational, but that’s about the only thing about them that makes them at all pertinent — unless someone on JournoList doesn’t like the fact that the Washington Post is focusing on conservative issues in any way, shape, or form. While I don’t think Dave has been unduly hostile in his reporting, he’s not exactly been cuddling up to the Right, either, but that may not be enough for someone on JournoList. Or, conversely, it could be a JournoList member with more sympathy towards conservatives than his colleagues suspect that has objections to Dave’s coverage of the Right. Either way, it’s hardly a fair way to go about criticizing the work Dave does.
Time out for a loooong sigh. The problem I've had with Hotair from the beginning. They still think it's a fucking game. They have their ideas, we have our ideas, and we all have to agree to disagree in some grand souffle of collegiality. Ed even goes so far as to pretend that he's learned to be guarded about his (and Hotair's) casual communications:
One of the toughest lessons to learn in
business, and in media relations, is that written communications will
never be entirely secure or private. In the corporate world, I
had to learn that lesson the hard way — that my e-mails and messages
would get forwarded without my knowledge or permission, and that
whatever I thought I had said in private could become public at any
time. Over the same period, roughly that of my entire adult life,
I have also had to learn the hard way that ill-considered eruptions of
anger would also become public eventually, and that angry responses to
e-mail and to events around me may prove satisfying in the moment but
lead to headaches and regrets in the future, and usually in the near
future.
uh, right. Stonewall your friends and suck up to your enemies. That always works.
Moving on. Just to recap. The establishment liberals are trying to destroy our country, by whatever means, overt or stealthy, they can make work. Schmoozing with them is just stupid. Pretending that they can be or intend to be objective while they pursue their mission is idiotic, contemptible folly. The fact that they're nice to you in social situations doesn't change that. They're the enemy. Period.
Weigel isn't a good journalist who committed an indiscretion. He's a mole who got caught. Reading Morrissey's defense of him makes me want to throw up.
I keep trying to warn you all. The biggest danger of the New Media is celebrity, the "club" aspect of those whose boats are rising on the Internet tide.
We have to be ruthless about that. And denounce the "club" whenever it starts closing ranks around phantasms like the defunct definition of journalism.
posted at
2:14 pm
by
InstaPunk
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Post-Modernism: Are
there really no facts?
there really no facts?
Local
residents were forced to tour the hell they lived silently next to.
ACHTUNG. There are pictures and film footage that can't be faked. We all have access to them if we would only look and learn.
Thing is, if you go to Youtube and search for the term "liberating death camps," the first video that comes up is this:
There's really no limit to the banality of human evil. I've had satirical videos banned at Youtube because they were "objectionable" (e.g., my take on the "Breasts Not Bombs" loons). Objectionable? Really?
Who's minding the store for western civilization?
UPDATE. Our old friend Null wants us to add this video clip from Band of Brothers. Here it is, but it's not proof against the deniers and it can't show just how nightmarish the situation was. Video has no smell, and no actors anywhere on earth can be as starved unto death as what troops found when they entered the camps.
But it does remind us of what our reactions should be when the most "enlightened" among us seek once again to blame the Jews for the fact that so many millions want them dead. Not just in the middle east, where we automatically grade their hatreds on a forgiving Third World curve, but in Europe, too, where these camps were located and where the "civilized" social democracies, once again, want them all dead.
Our president went around the world apologizing to people who did this and want to do it again. We remain the decent ones -- if we're not too bored and lazy and uncomprehending to recognize that our own president wouldn't shed a tear over this, either.
If you crave release, go here and listen.
