Recently in Media Issues Category
Alan at Think New Orleans documents the latest smackdown on one of the "why bother rebuilding New Orleans" crowd. I suppose it's better to increase awareness and refute these assholes, so to that extent, I'm glad Kevin, Tim, Alan and company are willing to do that.
Personally, I don't have either the time or the desire to engage the Flat Earth Society.
It's not like there's any question about rebuilding New Orleans. Those who suggest any outcome other than the city returning to its pre-storm role in the economy and culture of the country are as far out on the fringe as the folks who think they can put up a fence and keep out our little brown brothers and sisters from Mexico, or those who thought that the Eebil Coloreds would stay in Houston after they were bused away during the storm.
Still, just like the ADL engages holocaust deniers, I suppose there's merit in engaging these people.
I just don't have the patience.
That, and I'm talking to a guy who wants to donate a 50+ year old NOPSI bus to NOSRA, so we can restore it and run it in this city that shouldn't be rebuilt.
...but I can see where some might see six black guys bowing down to massa. Gizmodo says it best:
One of Intel's latest ad's shows six athletic black dudes bowing down before a dorky white guy in khaki pants. Lousy, barely subliminal racist advertising or just plain lousy advertising? You be the judge.
I see what Intel was trying for, though. I mean, if you're advertising a fast product, you wouldn't use six white guys here.
I'm not talking about the outright make-shit-up mode that people like OReally and "William the Bloody" Kristol use regularly, but when a conservative uses classic propaganda tactics.
I was pointed to this Michael Gerson column in WaPo from Atrios and Thers. Their snarky take on this idiot is enjoyable, but the subject of abstinence programs is one i feel a bit closer to, being the father of teens.
Gerson uses statistics from a sociologist from UVA named W. Bradford Wilcox, and the intellectual obfuscation starts right at the mention of the man's name. Gerson's on-line editor provides not a link to Wilcox's data or paper, but a generic search link for UVA--no mention of Wilcox. Then Gerson cites Wilcox's work for something called the "Russell Sage Foundation," with simply a link to the foundation's home page. In both of these cases, WaPo makes it extremely difficult to get to the souce data. Maybe I'm just spoiled with sites like Wired or Salon, but when someone cites statistical data without giving me a crack at the source, I get suspicious. When WaPo does it, I figure it's more than a simple oversight. When a conservative writing for WaPo does it, the words "fucking liar" pop up in my mind.
But OK, let's work under the assumption that the study is legitimate at some level. Gerson's personal dishonesty starts to kick in. He says:
When the statistics on teen sexuality are controlled for social and economic factors, conservative Protestant teens first have sex at about the same time as their peers -- the average is midway through their 16th year. That is hardly comforting to conservative Protestant parents, who would expect more bang for the bucks they spend funding Sunday schools -- well, actually, less bang.
For openers, I'm amazed that a WaPo columnist feels the need to go for Beavis-and-Butthead humor: "huh huh huh, he said 'bang'." Look at his conclusion:
But these numbers shift when controlled for religious intensity. For those who attend church often, sexual activity is delayed until nearly 17, while nominal evangelicals begin at 16.2 years, earlier than the national average.
Yup, lies, damn lies, and statistics. What percentage of the total surveyed in the first paragraph are we talking about here? But I don't know because Gerson didn't make it very easy for me to look at the source, did he?
Now, Gerson starts to truly deceive:
This trend is more pronounced in other measures of sexual behavior. Only 1 percent of conservative Protestants who attend church weekly cohabit, compared with 10 percent of all adults. (On this statistic, nominal evangelicals almost exactly mirror the nation.) Twelve percent of churchgoing evangelicals have children out of wedlock, compared with 33 percent of all mothers.
He's using adult numbers. Teens sex around in cars and in the back of movie theaters. Adults cohabit. He uses "out of wedlock" stats that are not adjusted for age.
But Gerson's just warming up. Here come the total bullshit conclusions:
These facts, according to Wilcox, support some liberal claims and some conservative ones. Liberals are correct that economic and cultural factors matter greatly, sometimes more than individual belief. Teens with good life prospects and a strong sense of the future -- kids with economic and educational ambitions -- tend to avoid risky behavior such as drugs and early sex. Without those prospects, the temptation to live for the moment is strong.
I suggest that Gerson sit his sorry ass in the back of a theater at a multiplex at the mall, so he can watch affluent, christian, suburban teens go at each other. That would at least give him an anecdotal perspective on the situation before his kid gets pregnant. Affluent kids avoid drugs and sex? So, all the kids driving their Hummers into ditches and trees are poor? This is the kind of paternal blinders that always amaze me. Usually you hear statements like "we gave that child every economic and educational advantage" at said child's funeral.
But, for all that Gerson talks up a load of crap, it's good to see that he endorses Hillary Clinton:
The facts also support a basic conservative belief: that it is difficult for teens to be moral alone. Wilcox argues that teen sexual behavior can be influenced -- that teenagers can be more than the sum of their hormones. But responsible behavior requires both "norms" and "networks." An intellectual belief in right and wrong is not sufficient. Teens require a community that supports their good choices, especially in times of testing and personal crisis. "Kids who are embedded in a social network with shared norms," he concludes, "are more likely to abide by them."
Yes, Mikey, it does indeed take a village.
NPR on-air reporters:
Margot Adler:
(and yes, that's the Drawing Down The Moon Margot Adler)
Lakshmi Singh:
*sigh* isn't she just a doll!
and let's not forget my all-time favorite, Susan Stamberg:
I did notice, however, that one of my other favorite NPR-hotties, Snigdha Prakash, wasn't in the list anymore, and I haven't heard her on-air in ages. I guess she's moved on. That's a shame, because she's another with a great voice and good looks...
and I can't imagine why Michael Moore does:
I have to admit, though, I do feel kinda bad taking it all out on Wolf Blitzer. It's not like he's the official representative of the mainstream media.
(via MediaBistro)
Actually, Mr. Moore, Blitzer is essentially a representative of the MSM. He's been around since the first Iraq war, and he's now one of the most senior newsreaders on the teevee these days.
And, if you search his name on Media Matters, you'll find that he's a fucking moron who panders to wingnuttery every chance he gets.
As a dad who's been to "bat night," "ball night," "hat night," and goddess-knows-what-else night, I can safely say that O'Really has no idea what he's talking about here.
O'Reilly: To "cluster" gays near children is "insane" and "inappropriate"It's common sense by the Padres, you moron. You see, it doesn't matter who is at the ballgame--if the home team is doing "hat night," then your kid is going to drag your sorry, lazy ass out to the ballpark. Simple as that. The kid could care less if Harry and Larry are sharing a hot dog two rows down, so long as you're there in time to be the first 5000 so he gets the bloody hat.
On the July 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called the San Diego Padres' decision to host a gay pride night and a children's hat giveaway promotion during the same July 8 baseball game "insensitive," "dumb," "almost unbelievable," and a "mistake." He called it "insane" to "cluster" gay men and lesbians during a "hat giveaway for any kid under 12." O'Reilly reported that "thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families," and stated, "[C]lear-thinking people understand it is completely out of context and inappropriate." When San Diego Pride executive director Ron deHarte said that it "was no different than any other game," O'Reilly responded: "But you are focusing in and putting more homosexuals into an area. OK? See, that's the problem," adding: "You're putting it in a kid's face at a baseball game." O'Reilly later asserted: "This is social engineering by the Padres."
World O'Crap gave a great smackdown to Townhall asshole Dennis Prager's contention that name-rape is as bad as real rape:
The rape of a name can be as vicious a crime and as destructive an act as the rape of a body. Sometimes the rape of a body is worse, sometimes the rape of a name is worse. But they are both rapes.
Scott at WOC's response:
Yes, nothing is sadder than a name huddled on a gurney in the ER with a black eye, a broken collarbone, and severe vaginal tearing. A body, on the other hand, pretty much deserves what it gets for wearing provocative clothes and being corporeal.
One of the reasons we have such a problem preventing rape and dealing with the aftermath of rape is that assholes like Prager try to reduce the seriousness of the crime with these Very Silly analogies.
Crooks and Liars has the video of EE calling into yesterday's "Hardball" show, challenging AnnThrax. It was a thing of beauty, listen to it.
There's a gal in pink standing behind AnnThrax whose nipples are getting hard as EE asks AnnThrax to stop with the attacks on her family. The end of the segment is telling--Tweety actually sounds like he regrets having this slime on, because she's just so intellectually dishonest.
AnnThrax's stock response to all of this is her usual, "you're trying to deny me my right to free speech" line.
Tweety asks her, "why do you make fun of Hillary Clinton's chubby legs?" AnnThrax responds by demanding he show her the sentence in context rather than giving a direct answer. You authors out there know how dishonest this is--you know full well she knows why she wrote everything she's written.
Olbermann named AnnThrax WPITW last night for her performance on Hardball. He should have given it to Tweety Matthews for giving this piece of crap a soap box.
Speed Racer's Mach 5 comes to life
Filed under: Transportation
[Via CNET]
Continue reading Speed Racer's Mach 5 comes to life
...and it sounds like he is here...will he advocate that the CBC withdraw its sponsorship of a Democratic Presidential Debate on Faux?
Yesterday, Fox News Channel broke the story of Rep. William Jefferson’s indictment with video of Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers greeting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing. The network apologized on-air for airing the wrong video; however, they did not personally apologize to Mr. Conyers or describe the video they aired the previous day. Chairman Conyers responded today:“Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced. This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network’s complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology.”
(h/t Crooks and Liars)
What's the point of outrage if you're going to turn around and play ball with the same people that think you all look alike?
