Archive for the ‘Media Watch’ Category

“A BLT, another Spaten, and a high chair for my wife.”

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Both Molly Norris, the original cartoonist who came up with Draw Mohammed Day, and Jon Wellington, the creator of the Facebook page dedicated to it, have dropped out of the effort. Funny how Los Angeles Times writer Jimmy Orr never seems to have thought to ask the single most obvious question about their change of heart: Have you received any death threats from Muslim extremists, and is this why you changed your mind? You would think that would be an obvious question to ask when dealing with Islamic extremists, but evidently the question is not of particular interest to those fabled watchdogs in the media.

However, just because the originator pulled out doesn’t mean that Draw Mohammed Day is canceled. After all:

Bloggers made of sterner stuff have picked up the idea and run with it, including:

I plan on contributing my own modest graphic skills to the endeavor. Moreover, I think we should go beyond individual efforts and ask every single professional cartoonist to participate. I encourage you to write your favorite cartoonist and ask them to join in.

And, as he so frequently does, Chris Muir’s Day by Day nails the dismount (and is the source of the blog title).

Updated the Blog Roll

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

I’ve added a few more sites to the blog roll, especially those focusing on local politics and gun rights. So feel free to give them some sweet link-clicking goodness.

A Reminder of Why I Dropped CNN As My Browser Home Page

Friday, March 26th, 2010

Some of you may remember that I used to have CNN as my browser homepage, but changed to Instapundit instead, mainly due to CNN’s liberal bias, the ever-shrinking amount of real news, and their fugly redesign.

So today, with a possible war brewing between North and South Korea, what do you think CNN’s top story is?

“Model, alleged drug queen on the lam”

Also, it’s an embedded Flash video, with no apparent transcript available, and seems to exist mostly to pimp the story on one of their shows tonight.

Thanks, CNN, for reminding me why I dropped you, and why Fox News is kicking your ass.

Steven Seagal: Pistolero?

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

You may have noticed the (relatively) new show on A&E (A&E?) called Steven Seagal Lawman, which features his real-life work with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana.


In Full-Bore Squinty Mode

Seagal is an easy person to dislike. As an actor, he’s a fine martial artist, and as a movie martial artist, he’s not 1/10th as engaging as Jackie Chan or Chuck Norris. Plus there was that scathing article in Spy magazine back in the 1990s that basically accused him of being an asshole phony who hung out with mafia figures. And don’t get me started on his music career.

So it’s easy view his job as a part-time police officer as some sort of publicity stunt. On the other hand, Seagal has evidently been doing this for 20 years, which is an absurdly long time to do something just as a publicity stunt, especially since Seagal was a big enough star in the late 80s and early 90s that he probably could have spent the time snorting blow off the backs of hookers instead. So more power to him.

Since Dwight over at Whipped Cream Difficulties has some sort of ironic attachment to Mr. Seagal (it was his fault I ended up watching Urban Justice, and lo it did stink unto the heavens), he insisted that we watch the premier episode of Steven Seagal Lawman, which is basically Cops except duller. But what made me bring it up for the purpose of this blog was the part during the show where Seagal offers some firearms training to a fellow officer, during which Seagal seemed to shoot some nice tight groups.


Dwight made me watch it. Learn from my misfortune.

Since I know noted firearms instructor Karl Rehn (who you may remember from his piece on the Ft. Hood shooter), I thought I would solicit his impressions on Mr. Seagal’s training technique.

Here are Karl’s comments:

Observations:

Seagal appears to be a good shot and does seem to understand the fundamentals.
The grip he uses is “state of the art” circa 1975 – not a bad grip but not as good as what 99% of the schools teach now.
The more upper body and grip strength you have the less technique matters when it comes to grip and stance.

Grip’s not as important as trigger manipulation and that’s basically what he was telling his student, and that’s what they were working on during the session.

You can always teach an accurate shooter to go faster; it’s harder to teach a fast, sloppy shooter to shoot accurately.

Minus a few points for the student not wearing eye protection when shooting – particularly since they were shooting steel plates for some of the drills. You never know with these TV things whether the student chose to wear his sunglasses on his hat instead of on his eyes because the producer told him to, or because he was having trouble seeing the sights through the dark glasses and they didn’t have any clear glasses with them, or nobody thought about it because there are still a lot of folks out there that don’t treat eye protection as mandatory when shooting.

So, in summary: Seagal’s firearms advice may not be state-of-the-art, but you could do worse.

FWIW, here’s another view of Seagal’s pistol prowess, this one from a first-hand perspective.

The Hurt Locker Beats Dances With Smurfs For The Best Picture Oscar

Monday, March 8th, 2010

An outcome I found quite gratifying. (Especially since The Hurt Locker is actually a very good movie.) I’m not the only one to think so.

So let’s see: Every time Hollywood makes a film that shows American soldiers as heroes fighting difficult wars (The Hurt Locker, Black Hawk Down), they make money. Every time Hollywood makes a film depicting U.S. troops as bloodthirsty psychopaths (Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.), they don’t just lose money, they hemorrhage it.

Is it possible for Hollywood to figure out that left-wing anti-war films with American troops as the villains don’t sell? (At least not unless you put tall blue aliens in as they good guys.) It’s probably too much to ask…

Oh no! Not an ad in The New York Times! We’re DOOOOMED!

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

Via Instapundit comes word that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are getting tired of all that annoying skepticism over tiny little things like “missing data,” “corrupted peer review processes” and “stuff just made up out of thin air.” And they’re not going to stand for it any more! They’re going to hit back at those skeptics hard, real hard! They’re going to (brace yourself for this) take out an ad in The New York Times!

Oh no, not The New York Times! Not that! Just imagine the impact that will have on the 3% of the NYT readership that doesn’t already believe in global warming! It’s like trying to influence the NRA by threatening to take out an ad against them in the local vegetarian newsletter.

But on reflection, a global warming ad isn’t designed to change minds the minds of skeptics any more than a papal encyclical on original sin is designed to sway the mind of Christopher Hitchins. It’s designed to reassure the global warming faithful that the high priests of AGW will fight to maintain the faith, and that unbelievers and heretics will be punished. For that, The New York Times is the perfect vehicle.

They’re not trying to convince the other side. They’re preaching to the chorus.

New York Times Tells Instapundit to STFU

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Some The New York Times employee took time out from their busy schedule of losing money and praising Obama to tell Instapundit Glenn Reynolds to “STFU.”

This is indeed amusing. However, I think it’s high time we stopped trotting out the “look at the mighty newspaper taking on the lowly blogger” cliches, even for the sake of irony. The stark fact of the matter is that Instapundit has more readers than The New York Times. If i wanted to reach readers outside the Greater New York Area (and, more honestly, Manhatten), I’d rather get a link from Instapundit than a profile in the The New York Times.

Half-Blind Squirrel Finds Acorn (not ACORN)

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

I’ve often fantasized about being elected President. (I suspect I’m not alone among political pundits in this regard. But I have a cunning master plan. &#60strokes white cat&#62Soon, my precious, soon!&#60&#47strokes white cat&#62. One thing I’ve thought about is answering that question: “What will you do to facilitate the Middle East Peace Process?” To which I would reply: “Stay as far away from it as possible. It’s a scam and illusion and it only makes things worse.” Shock! Outrage! How dare you criticize our beloved emperor’s splendid new garments?

However, Thomas Friedman beat me to the punch:

“The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play. It is obvious that all the parties are just acting out the same old scenes, with the same old tired clichés — and that no one believes any of it anymore.”

I would be lying if I said I knew exactly where to place Friedman on the political map. Since (like everything else in the New York Times) I don’t read him on a regular basis, only when one of his columns gets linked to by someone else, my impression of him (a squishy moderate with a “globalization will solve everything” outlook, a healthy distaste for jihad, and an occasional a voice of reason on foreign policy) could be woefully mistaken. But to have someone who was previously a big peace-process backer in the heart of NYT-dom turn around and call it for the sham it is, that’s a huge turnaround.

The penultimate paragraph:

“If we are still begging Israel to stop building settlements, which is so manifestly idiotic, and the Palestinians to come to negotiations, which is so manifestly in their interest, and the Saudis to just give Israel a wink, which is so manifestly pathetic, we are in the wrong place. It’s time to call a halt to this dysfunctional ‘peace process,’ which is only damaging the Obama team’s credibility.”

Actually, I don’t think the Obama Administration has any credibility left to lose, especially on foreign policy, but that’s a quibble. Sadly, I also think there’s very little chance of Obama and his foreign policy team taking Friedman’s advice…

Ft. Hood Shooting Spin

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

No one should make light of the horrible tragedy at Ft. Hood today. However, it’s very discouraging to read how the MSM refuses to cover the story’s stubborn, politically incorrect facts:

In this CNN report, there’s still no mention of the fact the shooter is a Muslim some ten hours after the shooting, and eight after Major Malik Nadal Hasan’s identity was first reported. (Of course, CNN has a history of refusing to report “inconvenient” facts.)

Likewise, the LA Times refuses to cover those same details.

Here’s the rub: This is a huge national story with tons of coverage…and it’s obvious that the MSM is lying to us by omission. The chances are extremely strong that they’re lying to us just as much in thousands of stories every year that garner less attention. And they wonder why their circulations/ratings are in freefall and no one trusts them anymore…

Patterico has more on the subject.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

I used to have CNN.com as my browser home page…

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

…so I could get a quick read on top headlines. It also provided a good example of what the MSM sounded like when they thought they were being objective, and I resisted switching over to FoxNews.com, because I found their homepage somewhat garish.

Then I came home yesterday to find that CNN had tarted up their homepage in colors at least as garish as FoxNews (which, interestingly enough, seems to have calmed down some).

So I went ahead and switched my homepage to Instapundit, who I hit several times a day anyway. (It was either that or Fark.)