Tag: media

Women Shouldn’t Have Guns . . .

KevinLeave a comment

Women Shouldn’t Have Guns . . .

. . . for self-defense. Assailants will take them away and they’ll be shot with their own guns!

At least, that’s what I’ve heard from about the time I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

Apparently nobody told this woman:

“A seventy year old Indiana woman stops an intruder in his tracks and 911 tapes just released prove she was not going to back down.”

“The woman held a suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.”

But remember: this apparently doesn’t qualify as a “defensive gun use,” since nobody died. That seems to be the criteria used by anti-gun forces. It’s only a DGU if a perp (often referred to as “the victim”) assumes room temperature.

Anybody have more detailed information on this one?

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

I’ve always loved movies. I worked in a movie theater my senior year of high school and my freshman year of college, and I still enjoy seeing a film projected on a big, wide screen in a big, dark room, even though the experience now sets me back $9 plus another $10 for 35¢ worth of popcorn and fizzy sugar water.

I love movies.

The pickings have been slim of late.

Here’s the QotD:

Worst lists are somewhat disingenuous. The truly worst films of the year are always the cheapie slasher flicks and pretentious independent films Blockbuster only buys a single copy of. But my definition of worst is “worst experience,” as in crushing disappointment, as in There’s A Special Place In Hell For All Involved And We Call It “The George Lucas Wing.” – Dirty Harry’s Place, 10 Worst Films of 2008

I could not agree more.

Another Debate Invitation

KevinLeave a comment

Seems like a good way to start the year off.

Breda‘s husband Mike wrote a rather scathing piece in response to an op-ed in the Detroit News blogs (so I didn’t have to). From that same source, one Libby Spencer wrote to defend the author of the piece against the verbal abuse strongly-worded missives hurled at him by us, the “vicious mindless mob” of gun owners who responded. (h/t to The Pistolero for the pointer.) So I dropped a comment of my own there. We’ll see if this goes anywhere.

Ms. Spencer, you make a good point about the (relatively small) percentage of gun owners who are abusive when responding to people such as yourself. I have said, on numerous occasions, that we are often our own worst enemy when it comes to public perception.

But I’d like to make some comments about this subject. Gun owners are, as Dr. Michael S. Brown once stated, the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime. It is we who are routinely blamed for the deaths of others because the weapon used was a firearm. It is we who are demonized for being members of a culture that was once admired in this country. A lot of us are tired of it. A few of us are more than tired.

You characterized what I like to refer to as “The Great Zumbo Incident of 2007” as the act of a “mindless vicious mob.” So sorry, but no, it wasn’t. That was the impression the media sold – about a week and a half after the fact – but I was there from about the Saturday after Jim Zumbo (in the words of one blogger) “apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.” That same blogger also said this (and no, it wasn’t me): “Ten years ago, had his statement survived the editorial process and made it into print, we would have seen a handful of cherry-picked letters on the ‘Letters to the Editor’ page of Outdoor life, and things would have pretty much proceeded along at status quo ante. Not now. Not today.” Zumbo called the AR-15 rifle – one of THE most popular target and hunting platforms in existence – a “terrorist rifle” and advocated that they be banned from hunting.

He did so out of ignorance. The literally MILLIONS of us who own them were, understandably, angry. And we spoke up. Some, of course, excessively. Most, however, were not. And Zumbo’s sponsors (one of which was Remington, a company about to begin selling hunting versions of the AR-15) dropped him like a hot rock.

Welcome to the Internet age, where feedback is now instantaneous. Now when people such as yourself spout idiocy out of A) ignorance, or B) malice [or C) all of the above), there’s feedback.

I’m a fan of “reasoned discourse” myself, but I understand the anger and frustration of other gun owners who see what gets published as “fact” in today’s media and who KNOW that it is at best misconception, or at worst deliberate lies.

We’re tired of it. I’m tired of it. It’s why I became an advocate.

Here’s an offer: I invite you to debate the topic of “assault weapons.” The choice of forum is yours, but anything I write I will publish – in full – at my blog. I promise to be civil, to cite fact, and to provide references for you to verify. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do think you’ll be surprised by what you learn.

If you don’t have access to my email address from this comment, do a Google search on “The Smallest Minority.” That’s my blog, and my contact information is on the left sidebar.

I’d make the same offer to Rev. Smith, but I doubt he’d accept. Besides, he wants to ban everything. You just don’t like “assault weapons.”

Think they’ll publish it?

UPDATE: That was quick. Now the question is, will she respond?

UPDATE II: Well, it’s a response:

Thu. 01/1/09 03:32 PM
Hey Kbaker. I believe we had that conversation on my personal blog back when the Zumbo thing went down. As I recall you were one of the few who were at all civil about it at that time. I still think that was completely unfair to him for the reasons I gave at the time.

I’m not at all equipped to debate the subject. I’m clueless on guns. All I can do is tell you how it’s playing among my fellow clueless citizens. Again, I’m on your side. The last thing I want to see is our citizens disarmed.

My reply:

Ms. Spencer, you state “I’m not at all equipped to debate the subject. I’m clueless on guns. All I can do is tell you how it’s playing among my fellow clueless citizens. Again, I’m on your side. The last thing I want to see is our citizens disarmed.”

The problem is, as most of us see it, is that those of us who ARE “equipped to debate the subject” are ignored. The level of vitriol you object to is one result of that. It seems, on many levels, that such language is the only thing that gets anyone’s attention any more.

Unfortunately, it’s gotten even worse, as many of us in the gunblogosphere have been discussing in recent months.

If you’d care to discuss THAT, I’m game. Because if people like you – people who don’t want to see the citizenry disarmed, but are unable to defend their position logically, factually, and (yes) aggressively – don’t do something to stand up to those who DO want to see us disarmed, then by all appearances harsh language may become the least of (y)our worries.

We’ll see where that leads . . .

Oh, and the post she referenced was, I think, this one: Boys and their toys – gun owners gone wild. Libby came into the subject only after the WaPo wrote an article on it. I’d forgotten, but I’ve debated Libby before on the Zumbo topic. Go here and read the comment thread, if you’re interested.

Nothing much has changed.

An Example of “Grass-Eating”

KevinLeave a comment

An Example of “Grass-Eating”

From the piece linked in the previous post:

Grass-eaters are deathly afraid of anything resembling personal responsibility. They are prohibited from assigning blame to any human being — such an act, after all, would imply that they themselves might someday be blamed for some transgression! Therefore, grass-eaters blame just about anything that isn’t animate for society’s ills — weapons, rap music, video games, black trenchcoats, money, red meat, or the hormone testosterone.

Or, in this wonderful example of “journalism” (wherein someone wrote it, and someone – supposedly – reviewed it before approving it for publication):

SUV hits kids outside suburban Los Angeles school

DIAMOND BAR, Calif. — A sport utility vehicle has struck and injured several people — including at least two children — outside a suburban Los Angeles elementary school. One is listed as critically injured.

Los Angeles County fire Inspector Sam Padilla (puh-DEE’-uh) says firefighters have been called to Maple Hill Elementary School in the town of Diamond Bar, east of Los Angeles.

He says it appears a car struck three people outside the school Wednesday. Two were moderately injured, and the other is listed as critical.

Televised news reports showed an adult and two children being treated. One child was to be airlifted to a hospital.

A black sport utility vehicle was up an embankment near a sidewalk.

(My emphasis.)

Is it racist to note the color of the SUV? And was it trying to flee the scene?

No mention of a driver, is there? No, apparently the SUV is at fault!

And to top it all off, for some reason Comcast seems to believe this should be National News!

Sheesh!

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” – As quoted at Politico

The next paragraphs are interesting, too:

Halperin, who maintains Time’s political site “The Page,” cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

“The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies,” Halperin said. “The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.” The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is,” according to Halperin.

But Halperin’s comments met with some disagreement from his colleagues:

New York magazine’s John Heilemann, one of Halperin’s co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

“The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness,” said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

“We love things that are smart.”

No, you have an administrative control bias, and you prefer when that administration is Leftist in orientation, because then it behaves like you think it ought to – and is therefore “smart.”

Movie Review – Changeling

KevinLeave a comment

Movie Review – Changeling

My wife and I just got back from seeing Changeling. I have to agree with Roger Ebert:

Jolie plays Christine Collins without unnecessary angles or quirks. She is a supervisor at the telephone company, she loves her son, they live in a nice bungalow, all is well. She reacts to her son’s disappearance as any mother would. But as weeks turn into months, and after the phony “son” is produced, her anger and resolution swells up until it brings the whole LAPD fabrication crashing down. Malkovich as the minister is refreshing: He’s not a sanctimonious grandstander who gets instructions directly from God, but a crusading activist.

—

Eastwood’s telling of this story isn’t structured as a thriller, but as an uncoiling of outrage. It is clear that the leaders of the LAPD serve and protect one thing: its own tarnished reputation. Collins joins many other female prisoners whose only crime was to annoy a cop. The institution drugs them, performs shock treatment, punishes any protest. Mental illness is treated as a crime. This is all, as the film observes, based on a true story.

Eastwood is one of the finest directors now at work. I often say I’m mad at Fassbinder for dying at 38 and denying us decades of his films. In a way, I’m also mad at Eastwood for not directing his first film until he was 41. We could not do without his work as an actor. But most of his greatest films as a director have come after “retirement age.” Some directors start young and get tired. Eastwood is only gathering steam.

It’s a damned good film.

I saw it because A) it’s directed by Eastwood, and B) it was written by J. Michael Straczynski – the guy who conceived, wrote and brought to life Babylon 5. What an interesting partnership that had to be. I was not disappointed.

This is not an edge-of-your-seat thriller, but – if for no other reason – I recommend it to readers of my blog because you need to see what unfettered police power, Cartman’s “RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!” can really, has really produced here in America’s history.

It can happen here. It has happened here.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts. – Peter Hitchens, The night we waved goodbye to America… our last best hope on Earth

Hitchens will now be ridiculed as a racist. You heard it here first.

Here’s that Brokaw & Rose Exchange

KevinLeave a comment

Here’s that Brokaw & Rose Exchange

http://img.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/BrokawandRose.flv
It was mentioned in the post below, That’s What I’ve Been Saying for over Five Years. Good commentary by whoever did the YouTube video.

UPDATE: Commenter Mark (no, not that Mark) gave a link to the full interview and said “I’m seeing reports of quotes out of context.” I watched the whole thing. Here’s my transcription of part of it:

Brokaw: There are conservative commentators who say there’s a lot about him we don’t know, because we haven’t asked enough tough questions; the Bill Ayers relationship, even those who say we’ve got to go back and explore what his drug use was, . . .

Rose: Even though Senator McCain had a chance to do that very thing, and ask him about it in one of the debates

Brokaw: And did not, chose not to go there.

—

Rose: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

Brokaw: Well, he uh, Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He’s got a picture of him in his office.

Rose: Is that because of his central role in arguing Brown v. Board of Education?

Brokaw: Well, I think, remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, taught at the University of Chicago. And there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or even signs that America was changing than Thurgood Marshall, so that makes perfect sense. Um, you know it’s an interesting question. I don’t know what books he’s read. I know that he’s uh, he’s got a great curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He’s always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter who’s a first rate writer . .

Rose: Is his old best friend.

Brokaw: Right. They’re trading book ideas constantly.

—

Rose: Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?

Browkaw: No. We’ve not had. There are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy – putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer wrote that that was, he couldn’t say and I can as Charles put it, that was designed to kill the United Nations which is a good idea. We didn’t examine that very carefully. We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.

Rose: At all.

Brokaw: Which is astonishing.

Rose: But do we know about what they think? It is more likely that we’ll know about John McCain because he’s been speaking about foreign policy over a longer period of time.

Brokaw: Right.

Rose: But I don’t really know, and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean in terms of whether – Susan Rice and where they are. And do we know who might populate these governments.

Brokaw: Tony Lake who worked in the Clinton Administration. Dick Holbrook obviously is eager to be involved in the briefings. There are some kind of neutral foreign policy specialists in the academies and the Council of Foreign Relations that Barack Obama has been reaching out to. John McCain has been reaching out to those think-tanks and institutes

Rose: AEI and others.

Brokaw: Right of center. Sure. We do know, who, do we know is going to be secretary of state? No.

—

Rose: I think it was you, and maybe not and you’ll correct me, but after we began to understand the implications of terrorism and someone asked you whether there was subjects that you thought journalism hadn’t done its job, media hadn’t done its job, you suggested understanding what was brewing out there.

Brokaw: That was me, and I talked about all the incidents that were building up, the Cole, the attack on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and we would report them but we didn’t connect the dots. And I went to see Louis Freeh about something else one time – we were talking about computer crimes – and he said “You should look into terrorism.” And I walked out thinking “We should look at terrorism,” and didn’t.

—

Rose: There are so many things I don’t know in terms of the makeup of. . . we’ve gone through this long campaign. I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie. But there are questions you don’t know in terms of. . . I don’t know know what Barack Obama’s world view is. I really don’t know.

Brokaw: No, no, I don’t either.

Rose: I don’t know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go, and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.

Brokaw: Well, one of the . . .

Rose: Or John McCain either.

Brokaw: Yeah, one of the things I tried to get out of the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which I think is an important question: what is the Obama Doctrine and the McCain Doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis? We’re going through one this week in the Congo. Again, I raised the Congo as an example of that. And the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in kind of the broadest possible terms, “Well we should go help out.” but you didn’t get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That’s an important discussion for this country to have.

Rose: If you look at Rwanda, and where you’ve been, and the Secretary – former Secretary of the United Nations has said “We made mistakes.” The President of the United States has said “We’ve made mistakes.” Where would they be if they faced the same choices with respect to that kind of genocide?

Brokaw: And that’s what we should know.

Rose: And we don’t know.

Out of context? Somewhat. But I think this comment left at Charlie Rose’s site pretty much sums it up:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who’s only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama’s run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

Or this one:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who’s only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama’s run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

And, finally, this one:

The apparent lack of any knowledge of who Barack H. Obama is, what he stands for, who his heros are by you and Mr. Brokaw and the misnamed MSM is absolute proof of the pro-Obama, anti-McCain journalists failure to report any of the negative information that is available on all of details in BHO’s past. His friends, advisers, heroes, counselers are known,Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, “Frank a well documented communist and many others leftist academics.What he stands for is a socialistic spread the wealth big governemnt, tax those who earn, give it to those who don’t calling it a tax cut when it is welfare and a truly anti-military administration. When a sucker buys a pig in a poke he finds a rock when he open the poke. The democrats chose a candidate in a poke and when the poke is opened out comes a socialist/Marxist.

And with that in mind, Bruce has a bumper sticker for sale you might want.

One more thought: All the commentary in the interview about Obama having to “move to the center to govern” is going to be pretty funny about this time next year, I think.