This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Media

  • Racist media?

    A lot of people have died in Kiev this week. We know that because the media has been showing us the dramatic images of fires and clashes. The Washington Post has two articles about the Ukraine on it’s front page today, including the lead article. Same thing on the New York Times. But, you know what’s not on the front page of either? The riots in Venezuela which are just as dramatic and violent. The riots in Venezuela began when the main opponent of the current regime, Leopoldo Lopez, was arrested and tossed in jail on charges of murder, terrorism and arson. The murder and terrorism charges have been dropped, but Lopez remains in jail. The riots in Venezuela have claimed lives, including a Venezuelan beauty queen, in a country jam-packed with beauties, 22-year-old Genesis Carmona. But, the media is reluctant to cover it. I wonder if it’s because it’s only a bunch of brown people.

    The blogger, Francisco Toro, a Venezuelan ex-patriot at Caracas Chronicles writes;

    Throughout last night [Wednesday-Thursday], panicked people told their stories of state-sponsored paramilitaries on motorcycles roaming middle class neighborhoods, shooting at people and storming into apartment buildings, shooting at anyone who seemed like he might be protesting. People continue to be arrested merely for protesting, and a long established local Human Rights NGO makes an urgent plea for an investigation into widespread reports of torture of detainees. There are now dozens of serious human right abuses: National Guardsmen shooting tear gas canisters directly into residential buildings. We have videos of soldiers shooting civilians on the street. And that’s just what came out in real time, over Twitter and YouTube, before any real investigation is carried out. Online media is next, a city of 645,000 inhabitants has been taken off the internet amid mounting repression, and this blog itself has been the object of a Facebook “block” campaign.

    What we saw were not “street clashes”, what we saw is a state-hatched offensive to suppress and terrorize its opponents.

    Armed thugs are roaming the streets suppressing opposition to a thuggish regime. Sounds like the stuff that the liberals in this country could get vocal about, doesn’t it? I mean, that’s what liberals like to claim about themselves – they’re human rights activists, right? But they’re strangely silent now. Three US diplomats have been expelled from Venezuela, because the government claims that the Great Satan is behind the protests in an attempt to get a regime change. As if this president has the cojones to sponsor a regime change anywhere. But, the US is to blame for anything in that part of the world.

    A CNN news crew was relieved of their cameras and broadcast equipment at gun point by a group of secret police on motorcycles;

    The Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, has threatened to toss CNN out of the country if they don’t “rectify” their coverage. The local media has been effectively silenced by the government, as well as internet activity.

    So are liberals working to get the government there to stop killing their citizens? Um, nope. Venezuelanalysis, the home of American liberals who focus on Venezuela blame the US and cheer on the Venezuelan government in their murderous rampage. From El Universal, a Venezuelan, normally Spanish-language, newspaper;

    Capriles Radonski noted that while the government has warned against a coup, there are not detainees or proof of that. That is why he suspects of conspiracy inside the government, that is: “self-coup.”

    Capriles Radonski referred to repression, including torture, sexual abuse and ill-treatment by the National Guard and the Bolivarian National Police backed with videos, testimonies and photos.

    “A student reported to a judge that he had been violated with a rifle. I wonder why that was not said in the obligatory simultaneous broadcast. (…) Some others related that they were given cloths soaked with gasoline to clean their wounds; some others were put down on their kneels or more than five hours and their heads hit with helmets, and some others complained about torture with electricity.”

    So, the US media is perfectly happy to focus on the repressed white people in the Ukraine and totally ignore the equally repressed brown people in Venezuela. I guess it’s a matter of convenience, since so many in the media and Hollywood have supported the Venezuelan government’s slide into a repressive communist morass for so long, this might make them look stupid and corrupt themselves.

  • You’ll put your eye out

    CNN's BB gun sniper

    Those firearms experts at CNN are on the job again. Reporting from the Ukraine, where there is real violence, real snipers, real casualties, they headline their coverage with a photo of a BB gun sniper. The folks at Professional Soldiers noticed it first.

    You’d think after a while the media would learn, but hey, it has a scope on it and someone is pointing it menacingly, so it must a sniper. I guess we’re just lucky it’s not a Nerf gun – those are scary looking, too.

  • Time’s Swampland; Are Veterans Selfish?

    Mark Thompson asks that question today in Time’s Swampland, which, in effect, is an answer in the affirmative. In regards to the Cost Of Living Allowance (COLA) cuts to veterans pensions, Thompson writes;

    Then last week, a new storm arose when the Pentagon said it was considering cutting the subsidies it pays to military commissaries—on-base grocery stores boasting lower prices that are reserved for military personnel, including many veterans—that could force many such facilities to close their doors.

    “This is yet another undeserved blow to our men and women in service—and their families—in the name of ‘necessary cutbacks’ to reduce an ungainly national deficit,” American Legion National Commander Daniel Dellinger said, after learning of the commissary proposal. “Like the trimming of expenses to be made by reducing military retirees’ pensions, this is an inexcusable way of attempting to fix a fault by penalizing the blameless.”

    The notion that vets are seeking more than their fair share upsets some of their leaders. “Vets are anything but selfish!” says Norb Ryan, president of the Military Officers Association of America. “If anything, vets are too selfless. They are also idealistic…Vets are fair and therefore, they expect others to be fair.”

    Yeah, that’s kind of the point. We planned for our later years based on what Congress and the White House promised us for our loyal service, and sometimes asking of us more than would be considered reasonable by most of the people in this country. But we remained loyal and did what we were told. And this is the thanks we get;

    It suggests that the nation is developing a military caste, separate and apart from the nation. It seems the military is in danger of becoming just another special interest group.

    Yeah, well, we took it in the ass after Vietnam, we took it in the as in the 90s and now we’re expected to take in the ass again. Like it’s our job to take it in the ass. We didn’t become “another special interest group” all on our own – we were pushed. We were pushed by congressmen who won’t cut spending for illegals and criminals, but won’t blink an eye to slash a cost of living allowance for a widow or disabled veteran who gave as much as they could give. Those are people who can’t just go out and find a job to supplement their pensions, they depend on their pensions and and the cost of living increases. But the votes are what count, and military spending, especially personnel cuts are popular ecause it doesn’t cost them much politically.

    You’re darn tootin’ we’re another special interest group, but we were forced into it. We’ve always sat quietly we bore the burden of politicians’ vote buying frenzies. We’ve also watched the cost which always pays for the electioneering in blood and lives. We were treated like a special uninterest for centuries. Now because we won’t take it sitting down, somehow we’re filthy special interest beasts.

    Just because the 99% don’t accept us unless we’re fighting their wars, or digging them out from avalanches, or pulling them from the roofs of their flooded homes, or bringing them chow during power outages, or marching in their pretty parades so they can feel good about themselves, well, that doesn’t mean we will remain silent when they threaten our livelihoods. Unlike the illegal aliens who want a tax break, we only want what we earned for doing what the country wanted us to do, and we only want what we deserve, not a penny more. Is that really too much to ask?

    Thanks to ChockBlock and ANCCLT for pissing me off with the link.

  • Do your research, Willard Scott

    MrBill sends us a video from Willard Scott’s usual shout outs to centenarians. At about 34 seconds into the video, Scott mentions 104-year-old Walter Crenshaw who he says “won” the Congressional Medal of Honor

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    Of course, five seconds of research reveals that Walter didn’t “win” the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor was he awarded it. But another five seconds of research reveals that Walter was a Tuskegee Airman, and the Tuskegee airmen were, as a unit, awarded a Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. We have the Tuskegee Airmen’s Historian on the line and he tells us that it’s a common misconception among the media and family members that those brave pilots were awarded a Medal of Honor when they really weren’t. But, you’d think someone at NBC who has unrestricted access to interns and fact checkers would get that right.

    I don’t blame Walter, I blame Willard, who should have gotten this one right. Membership with the Tuskegee airmen would have made this a better tribute than the announcement of an award that he never received. Scott dishonored Crenshaw’s service by not doing even ten seconds of research on the man before the show.

    And Happy Birthday, Sergeant Walter Crenshaw, Tuskegee Airman, and may you have many more.

  • The Media Gets It Wrong about Gun Violence – Again

    Many regular readers of TAH probably are probably of the opinion that the media grossly exaggerates and/or deliberately slants any story that can possibly reflect badly on legal gun ownership.  Regular readers are also probably convinced that the media often “gets it wrong” on such stories.  Well, here’s yet another bit of support for those theses.

    If one listens to the mass media, one would think that US mass shootings are increasing, killing more people – indeed, that they have become a veritable “epidemic”.  Listening to the media, you’d also think that mass shootings are eminently preventable by “common sense” gun control measures and more/better mental health care.

    Bottom line:  actual research – something that the media rarely if ever does – concerning the issue shows the media has it 100% wrong.  Again.

    Two researchers, James Alan Fox and Monica J. DeLateur – both of Northeastern University, Boston, MA – recently studied US mass shootings on their own time and dime.  They recently published their results in Homicide Studies: XX(X) 1–21.  A synopsis of the article may be found here; the latest full version (PDF) may be found here.

    Here’s the “Cliff Notes” version of some of Fox and DeLateur’s conclusions:

    • Myth #1:  Mass shooters snap and kill randomly.  Not true.  Mass shooters typically thoroughly plan their crimes in advance. Common motives are revenge, power, loyalty, terror, and profit.  They may be disturbed, but they generally don’t “snap suddenly” and commit their crimes.
    • Myth #2:  Mass shootings are on the rise.  Also not true.  FBI data from 1976-2011 shows that there has been an average of roughly 20 mass shootings in the US annually over that period, with no apparent trend of either increase or decrease in the number of such annual period over the past 35 years.  (They also indicate how recent Mother Jones “studies” purporting to show otherwise use arbitrary definitions and inconsistent methodology to falsely portray a recent rise in US mass shootings.)
    • Myth #3:  The trend in mass shooting incidents is one of increasing severity in terms of numbers killed.   That’s simply not the case.  Random variability seems to be more at play than anything else in determining the number killed in mass shooting incidents in any given year.
    • Myth #4:  “Scary black guns” (AKA “assault weapons”) are primarily to blame for mass shooting incidents.  Not at all.  They’re used in less than one fourth of mass shooting incidents.  Handguns and shotguns account for over 3/4 of all mass shootings.
    • Myth #5:  Violent entertainment, especially video games are causally linked to mass shootings.  Again, a myth without substance.  Scientists cannot find a causal link between video games and mass shootings.  The preference for violent video gaming on the part of those committing mass shootings may well be a symptom of an underlying disorder vice a cause of aberrant behavior.  Or it may be a completely unrelated thing.  We just don’t really know.
    • Myth #6:  There are telltale signs that can help us to identify mass shooters before they act.    Not really.  About 62% of mass shooters tend to be male Caucasians with subclinical psychological issues; blacks are overrepresented as well, constituting approximately 33% of mass shooters.  These characteristics apply to a very large portion of the population – only a tiny fraction of which ever commit mass shootings.  Given that only about 20 such incidents on average occur each year, figuring out who will and who won’t commit this type of crime a priori just simply isn’t possible.
    • Myth #7:  Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of murderers.   No.  “A recent examination of 93 mass shootings from 2009 through September 2013, conducted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2013), found no indication that any of the assailants were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms because of mental illness.”   (emphasis added)
    • Myth #8: Restoring the Federal ban on assault weapons will prevent this type of crime.  Not at all.  About the same fraction of mass shootings – between 17% and 21% – were committed using “assault weapons” in the periods before, during, and after the effective period of the Federal assault weapon ban.

    IMO, Fox and DeLateur missed two items worth stressing.  First:  a primary reason that none of those committing mass shootings between 2009 and Sep 2013 were prohibited from possessing firearms due to mental illness is the extreme difficulty in many jurisdictions in getting an obviously sick person involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment.  (We can thank our liberal “brethren” for that, since laws they championed require courts to give greater deference to the rights of those who are mentally disturbed than the safety of society.)  Indeed:  as the Aurora incident shows, that difficulty extends to even getting a disturbed individual’s mental health counselor to alert law enforcement of a potential problem.

    Second:  the US population increased dramatically between 1976 and 2011 – from 218.04 million to 311.59 million, or by 42.9%.  Since the number of mass shooting incidents has remained essentially constant since 1976 at an average of roughly 20 per year, that means the rate of mass shootings has declined substantially.  In 1976, it was 1 such incident for roughly every 10,900,000 US residents (20 incidents in a population of 218.04 million); in 2011, it was roughly 1 incident per 14,180,000 US residents (22 incidents in a population of 311.59 million).

    Finally, the true “money quote” is at the end of the article:

    Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious.  Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.  (emphasis added)

    In plain language:  the only potential “cure” would be to impose an all-powerful police state that enforces conformity throughout society and stifles all dissent or eccentricity.  Um, well, thanks – but no thanks.

     

    Author’s Note:  Hat tip to Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner for his article that pointed me to the Fox and DeLateur study.

  • NBC: Global jihadis or al Qaeda wannabes

    Pinto Nag sends us a link to NBC News which writes about “Global jihadis or al Qaeda wannabes: Who are the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?” The most newsworthy part of the article is that NBC recognizes the fact that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the evil George W. Bush invaded the country;

    After he was released from prison in his homeland, Zarqawi commanded fighters in Afghanistan, where he met Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

    He reportedly moved to Iraq in 2001, and in anticipation of the U.S. invasion in 2003, built a network of contacts, recruited fighters and became the default “emir” of Islamist terrorists in Iraq, a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. His group then targeted international forces, government infrastructure and personnel, aid workers and reconstruction efforts.

    See, I’ve been preached to that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until we provided them with US soldiers as targets in 2003, I guess, now that that particular meme is part of the popular culture, they go back to admitting the truth that most of us knew anyway.

  • USAToday; cut military pensions

    The editorial board of the USAToday comes out in favor of military pension cuts in a green-eyed envious opinion piece today, sent to us by Chock Block. Of course, they blame Reagan for our “generous” retirement benefits;

    But one big group was largely untouched by Reagan’s overhaul: members of the military. They are still on a plan so generous that it allows them to retire in their late 30s or early 40s and collect a pension, with cost-of-living increases, for the rest of their lives. This is accompanied by lifetime health coverage whose premium, $460 per year for a family policy, has not risen since 1995 even as costs for everyone else have skyrocketed.

    In last month’s bipartisan budget deal, Congress made some wholely defensible trims in military pensions, prompting a howl of complaints from veterans groups.

    They protest too much. Way too much. The military pension system is not only extremely generous, it is also counterproductive. It drains defense money from today’s troops and weapons. And while the system encourages some people to consider the military who otherwise might not, it also encourages them to leave early, taking their first-rate training to go double-dip by moving into a civilian government job. In any case, they can collect pensions — intended as old-age protection — in the prime of their working lives.

    Yeah, the system is way too generous. When I retired, twenty years ago yesterday, my pension was less than $12,000/year. In those twenty years, the generous COLA increases have brought the generous pension to a little more than $18,000 last year. So yeah, I’m cleaning up. I’d like to see some of the editorial board of the USAToday eat the shit I ate for two decades and settle for $1500/month before taxes. The thing that kept me in the service for twenty years was the FREE medical care I knew I’d need after gobbling down those shit sandwiches everyday. Before I got out, the FREE medical care was gone, but it was at least affordable. But obviously, it’s too affordable – while the Obama Administration and the editorial board of USAToday want lower medical for everyone else in the country, they want raise the medical costs for veterans, as a way of saying “thanks for your service, asshole”.

    They want single-payer healthcare for illegal aliens, but screw veterans for expecting the government to keep their promises.

    The editorial board of the USAToday continues;

    This approach would save taxpayer money and help reach budget targets. It also would discourage people from leaving early after the government has invested so much in them.

    The change would also make military pensions less wildly out of line with most Americans’ experience. Private-sector pensions, to the extent that they exist at all, are routinely scaled back or frozen in ways much more dramatic than these changes.

    Certainly, protecting veterans impaired by their service is a different sort of issue. But the current system rewards all equally, including the 40% of servicemembers who have never seen a combat zone.

    Yeah, suddenly the Left is worried about saving the taxpayers money – I almost believe that. And, oh, yeah, all veterans participated in war in some manner or another. Those who haven’t deployed filled some necessary function that contributed to the war effort, so don’t try to pit combat veterans against POGs with this battle, especially what with you, the editorial board of USAToday, being the most POG in this discussion, you cowardly assholes who rode out the war from behind your glass-topped desks, sniping at the troops every time you had the opportunity. And the sniping continues. Assholes.

  • The NYT & Benghazi

    The other day we talked about the New York Times faulty assessment that al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 and that some poorly made YouTube video is at fault. Of course, we’re having this discussion because the public hasn’t been granted access to the reports on the attacks to begin with, but folks in the intelligence community dispute the New York Times article, according to the Washington Times;

    [Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia Republican] said The New York Times evidently spoke with many militants and other sources on the ground inside Libya for its article, but he got “kind of a shock” that it appeared the paper was making assertions without having interviewed any of the U.S. intelligence officials on the ground at the CIA annex in Benghazi when it came under attack last year.

    […]

    Although transcripts of the testimony provided by intelligence officials during the October hearing remain classified, Mr. Westmoreland said that “from their observation, it was a planned attack.”

    “These guys just saw that the attackers had at least some type of training, or coordinated movements about where to go and what each person was going to do when they were on the ground,” Mr. Westmoreland said. “So from that standpoint, it was a coordinated attack.”

    Furthermore, he said, the overall assessment provided to the committee by the intelligence community “just leads you to believe, or to know that [the attackers] were al Qaeda-related.”

    Of course, most people think that the New York Times manufactured this assessment in order to “clear the decks” of the issue for the expected run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton. The New York Times‘ Andrew Rosenthal writes today in the Times that nothing could be further from the truth;

    Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday.

    Yeah, he’s such a big deal at the Times, yet he didn’t know that their biggest story of the past few weeks was going to be in the paper. And anyone who doesn’t believe that the New York Times’ choice for 2016 wasn’t made in 2008, I have a bridge in New York City that I can sell you, cheap.