Alas, right now I'm putting this in the category of "Things That Are Doomed To Happen And The Only Question Is When."

Posted by: Ace at 07:59 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

It's always a challenge for PR types to come up with a fresh new angle on the same old, same old. You can only hawk a product with the same sales pitch so many times before people tune out.

Yesterday the media and the left (bit I repeat myself) spent the day complaining that Sarah Palin "inserted herself" into the Arizona story. They failed to mention they were the ones who dragged her by blaming her for the shooting before the bodies were even cold.

Today's fresh new narrative is, Palin's speech was awful by itself but it was positively wretched compared to the wonderful and masterful job done by Obama. My personal favorite in this category is by Jonathan Martin who is masquerading as a reporter at Politico but he's really auditioning for Robert Gibbs' job with this piece.

In the span of a single news cycle, Republicans got a jarring reminder of two forces that could prevent them from retaking the presidency next year.

At sunrise in the east on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest—or capacity—in moving beyond her brand of grievance-based politics. And at sundown in the west, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation.

Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation’s heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the shootings a “blood libel.” (See: Shooting presents 2012 test)

Obama, speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona, summoned the country to honor the victims, and especially nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, by treating one another with more respect. “I want America to be as good as Christina imaged it,” he said.

And then it gets really sickening.

Mind you, Martin is listed as a "Reporter", there's nothing IDing this story as Opinion (or more accurately "Propaganda").

Martin and others fail to note it's not Palin's job to bring the nation together or that Obama hadn't spent four days being held responsible for a despicable crime he had nothing to do with.

If Palin had given the speech hacks like Martin are now demanding from her, they would have simply attacked her for overstepping her bounds (Who is she too upstage Obama!? She's not the President) or for ignoring her "responsibility" for the shooting (Sure it was elevated in tone but where was the apology?)

I thought Palin's video was fine. No one should be expected to take the crap she took with out setting the record straight. I'm not sure how long Jonathan Martin would keep quiet if he were falsely blamed for the deaths of people for days on end.

Personally, I thought Obama's speech was very good. We can argue about his motives and how much more emphasis certain parts should have gotten but on the whole it was far better than I had hoped for or thought he had the ability to deliver.

In the end though, no one ever compares well with a President. Think of the State of the Union and the response. The poor bastard who gets stuck with that always looks small by comparison. It's not the man who is President that is big (the current occupant is pretty small for the gig) but the Presidency is huge. You either are speaking from the podium in the House of Representatives or the White House. If it's a road trip, you show up in your own 747, motorcade and have thousands of people hanging on your every word.

A responsible press might point out all these differences but today's media isn't beholden to the truth or their audience, the overwhelming majority have simply and unabashedly tied themselves to the success or failure of Barack Obama and the destruction of Sarah Palin.

Comparing Palin's and Obma's is simply unfair and irrelevant. As I said, their involvement and roles are simply to dissimilar to expect

Added: About Obama's speech. We spent 8 years ridiculing the fact that the left wouldn't say a nice word about George W. Bush if he rescued an old lady and her cat from a burning building. I'm not sure what it's suddenly a great idea to adopt that attitude because we don't like Obama.

I don't blame Obama for the raucous nature of the crowd (made up primarily of college kids being college kids). You could tell that he was annoyed with the interruptions and the overall tone at the start of his speech. I think he actually did a very good job for the most part of imposing the proper attitude on the crowd. That's not an easy thing to do.

As for the overall message...some people are going after him for even mentioning the political climate saying there was no point in bringing it up since it was a non-factor while others are saying he didn't go far enough in making it clear only the gunman was responsible for the crime.

I thought he did a fairly good job of navigating that divide. His ad-libbed "it did not" when acknowledging the talk about whether or not harsh rhetoric played a role in the shooting was an important statement. No, the left will not take up that statement but it was important that he make it. Could he have gone further? Of course but that's a question of degree. It was important that the statement be made and it was.

I honestly thought Obama would go the Clinton/OKC Bombing route and directly blame his opponents for the shooting, he didn't. In fact, he went the direct opposite way. It seems that's worth acknowledging.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:25 AM | Comments (373)
Post contains 992 words, total size 6 kb.

It's Old

In 1941, a Finnish businessman named Tor Borg trained his dog to raise it's paw (heil) in response to the verbal command 'Hitler.'

Well. Well, well well.
Mocking the Fuhrer?
This won't do.

In the months preceding Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, Berlin's Foreign Office commanded its diplomats in the Nazi-friendly country to gather evidence on the dog and its owner - and even plotted to destroy the owner's pharmaceutical business.

----------------------------------snip------------------

Borg was ordered to the German Embassy in Helsinki and questioned about his dog's unusual greeting habits.

The businessman denied ever calling the dog by the German dictator's name, but acknowledged that his wife called the dog Hitler. He tried to play down the accusations, saying the paw-raising only happened a few times in 1933 - shortly after Hitler came to power.

Unbelievable. I love this story.

Fortunately, the secret rats witnesses backed out of testifying in court. Which is eminently sensible when you imagine how petty and stupid the testimony would have sounded.

This is why parody and mockery are the finest political weapons* ever devised. It is very hard to publicly prosecute a joker without making an ass of yourself in the process.

*Intended metaphorically. Any inadvertent absorption and/or use or misuse of the political atmosphere this martial verbiage creates is not attributable to this author, this blog, or the right wing in general. Fuck yourself.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:23 AM | Comments (109)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

This space is for comments on headlines and other stuff in the Top Headlines sidebar. It's also a place to suggest what you think are top headlines. A link to these comments is stickied at the top of the Top Headlines sidebar on the main page.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (398)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

And now for something really important...

In Praise of the Sci-Fi Corridor

A photo essay on the importance of corridors in making science fiction movies work:

Corridors make science-fiction believable, because they're so utilitarian by nature - really they're just a conduit to get from one (often overblown) set to another. So if any thought or love is put into one, if the production designer is smart enough to realise that corridors are the foundation on which larger sets are 'sold' to viewers, movie magic is close at hand.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:03 PM | Comments (453)
Post contains 591 words, total size 7 kb.

If, like me, you were just thinking, "Hey, he's keeping the focus on the victims, that's good" (and by good I mean awful, because they were real living people, once), brace yourself, he's about to turn bad.

He doesn't so much make accusations as continue to pander to deranged leftists who insist that Sarah Palin is an accomplice to murder. But who knows -- given that the left is now determined to avenge the shootings via some eliminationist rhetoric and possibly actions of their own, maybe it's helpful and will save lives.

If he wants to make the left understand I mean you too he has to say so though, because of course otherwise they assume they can do no wrong.

"We cannot use this occasion as one more reason to turn on each other." Nice thought, but I sure hope that at some point the word goes out I mean the left too.

No... I tried to give him a break, but it's the heavy implication this was a political attack (why else all the emphasis on disagreeing without being disagreeable?).

Yup, trying to run the Bill Clinton 1995 playbook.

Question: Why did he stage this yet again at a college? I know that's where he prefers to campaign, but, um, this wasn't supposed to be a campaign event.

Why was the audience filled with people entirely unconnected to the victims? Was it an accident these people were college students? I.e., Obama fans?

All the audience cheering? What?

Posted by: Ace at 05:03 PM | Comments (795)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

This has nothing to do with photo-ops. All memorial services and funerals have their own slogans and t-shirts these days. Didn't you know that?

Here's the program. No word if additional merch will be available after the show.

Unfair: Actually, I don't have any evidence the t-shirts were put out by Obama's people. I suspect they were, but it could have been Brewer's people. It could also have been Giffords' family or supporters.

For all I know Obama is just going along with this and might even have objected himself by saying, "T-shirts? Really?"

But while I have no evidence it's Obama's fault I'm sure he is just the same.

I learned that from the MFM.

The Idiot Killer's Records Released (?) Oddly enough no mention of those death threats Dupnik had mentioned. And in fact no reports at all from 2008-2010, until that one traffic stop on the day of the massacre we don't know about.

So the file is... all clean and tidied up for public consumption.

(That's a dog-whistle, yes.)

Posted by: Ace at 03:29 PM | Comments (1206)
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

But the fish are a-ok, before you ask! So everything's jake.

In other climate news:

Why, I remember when the biggest evidence-deficient fantasy we had to worry about was Global Warming.

Question about these Xtranormal videos: At some point they'll be better able to mimic speech, including proper cadences, right? So here's my question: At this point, hasn't the Robot Voice and the screwed-up cadence become a feature rather than a bug? If next year Xtranormal introduces more natural sounding voices, don't you think people would demand "Xtranormal Classic"?

Funny stuff. Swiped it from Planet Gore on NRO. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 172 words, total size 2 kb.

Taranto's been really good on all this, so here's my excuse to link him, especially on calling the media The Authoritarian Media and deciding it's crossed a moral line.

I think that's sort of right. But then, I keep thinking there are no fresh hells for it to descend into, and it keeps proving me wrong.

This does feel different, though. This feels, as another writer (forget the name) said, as if the media has formally declared war.

And yeah, I guess gee whiz I can't say war anymore; but it does feel like they've decided there's no sense in a covert, or cold war, with us anymore; now it's out in the open. They'll say whatever they like. Truth has never been much of a restraint, but now it's not even a consideration. What they are required to print to advance their agenda, they will print, period, full stop.

And what is this war being fought over? Over the slight they feel that we no longer pay attention to them, that we no longer care what the fuck they think; since we're not listening, they'll just have to SAY IT LOUDER THEN WON'T THEY?

The campaign of vilification against the right, led by the New York Times, is really about competition in the media industry--not commercial competition but competition for authority. When Bob Schieffer and Steny Hoyer were growing up, the New York Times had unrivaled authority to set the media's agenda, with the three major TV networks following its lead.

The ensuing decades have seen a proliferation of alternative media outlets, most notably talk radio and Fox News Channel, and a corresponding diminution of the so-called mainstream media's ability to set the boundaries of political debate.

Its authority dwindling, the New York Times is resorting to authoritarian tactics--slandering its competitors in the hope of tearing them down. Hoyer is right. Too many news outlets are busy "inciting people . . . to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral." The worst offender, because it is the leader, is the New York Times. Decent people of whatever political stripe must say enough is enough.

NYT Ten Years Ago: We don't like you.

Us Ten Years Ago: Oh? Why?

NYT Eight Years Ago: We really don't like you.

Us Eight Years Ago: You don't even know us. Maybe you should try to get to know us.

NYT Six Years Ago: We really still do not like you.

Us Six Years Ago: Yeah. You said that.

NYT Four Years Ago: We really do not like you.

Us Four Years Ago: Whatever.

NYT Three Years Ago: We don't like you.

Us Three Years Ago: --

NYT Two Years Ago: Did you hear us, we don't like you.

Us Two Years Ago: --

NYT One Year Ago: Are you getting this? We don't like you!

Us One Year Ago: --

NYT One Month Ago: We repeat: We really do not like you! Please acknowledge if you have received this message.

Us One Month Ago: --

NYT, This Week: MURDERS! KILLERS! SOCIOPATHS!!! AAAAUGH!!! PAY ATTENTION!! PAY ATTENTION, KILLERS!!!

Us, This Week: What is your problem, psycho?

NYT: Oh, thank God! We thought you'd gone!!!

Thanks to Slublog for putting together that p-shop for me.

Sorry, Right-Wing! There Was Only So Much Incitement Available And I'm Afraid We Used It All Up Ourselves! You want more? Geoff has more. Much more.

Posted by: Ace at 02:41 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

MEDIA: Sarah Palin directly and knowingly caused the murders of six innocent human beings.

PALIN: No, I didn't.

MEDIA: Stop making it all about you!!! This is about the people who were shot!!!

A commenter wrote that (paraphrased). Forget who.

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (216)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.