Tag Archives: Media

Here’s #GamerGate In 5 Easy Bites

Many people have noticed the #GamerGate hashtag floating around but still don’t know what it’s all about, so I’m going to try and distill it down to the very basics.

1. What is #GamerGate?

#GamerGate is the hashtag around which video game consumers have rallied to:

  • Demand an end to unethical behavior, corruption, and overt politicization in the video game industry, particularly among video game journalists
  • Boycott outlets that have attacked gamers with accusations of misogyny and sexism in response to the above demand
  • Share research  on and evidence of corruption in the industry
  • Support websites/causes that support gamers and inclusivity in the industry
  • Support each other against accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.

While the tag was coined by Adam Baldwin to reflect the Watergate scandal, it has since become synonymous with a gaming consumer revolt, as “supporters” of #GamerGate see themselves as a barrier to the corruption in the industry. It even has an unofficial mascot called Vivian James. Continue reading Here’s #GamerGate In 5 Easy Bites

Share

How’d this get past the editors…

…at The New York Times?

Anand Giridharadas’ “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide”

The NYT sees a “permanent political class” as a problem? That “corporate crony capitalism” corrupts both Republicans and Democrats? Who’d have thought!

Mr. Giridharadas observes the following:

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.        

Well, DUH! That is the essence of the Tea Party Movement you dolt!

It gets even better though as he concludes with:

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.

I wonder if he realizes that the “other side” is embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You know, those old pieces of paper we Tea Party folks have the audacity to believe in.

Ed Morrissey also weighs in at HotAir.

Share

In defense of Keith Olbermann

Yes, you read the title right.

It’s as ludicrous as NPR firing Juan Williams that MSNBC has suspended – which some accounts are characterizing as permanently – Keith Olbermann.

The myth that MSNBC would like to perpetuate is that they are an impartial news organization, when the truth is there is opinion interlaced with their entire lineup. They’re the de facto standard bearer for the liberal Statist in the media, why not embrace it?

They can’t, because (a) they have no audience and (b) with no audience, they can’t sell advertising.

Fox News, at least, does not try to hide the fact that Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity are on the network to put forward their opinions, which is why they hired Juan Williams for an expanded three-year role for a reported $2 million, surely a significant raise from his NPR gig.

Something tells me though that Mr. Olbermann won’t be getting a phone call from Roger Ailes anytime soon…

Share

Look who’s on our side!

Children of the Cold War will remember Pravda, the Soviet Union’s mouthpiece. From those days, “Pravda” ironically is the Russian word for “truth”. Pravda ceased publication in 1991.

Well, the Internet remnant of what was Pravda has better insights into the destruction of American economy and society by the Obama Administration and our Congress then our own media: “American capitalism gone with a wimper”

Ironic again, that now we get the truth from Pravda and not our own media isn’t it?

Hat tip: Quinn & Rose

Share

David Brooks is a fool

From The New York Times:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.

Anybody who thought that Barack Obama would govern from the center is, to put it mildly, a complete idiot.

Brooks’ call for a “Moderate Manifesto” is completely laughable – moderates don’t stand for anything, that’s why they’re in the middle! What a doofus.

Even Maureen Dowd is starting to have buyers remorse.

Share

How did this story make it past an editor?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m pleased this story got past an editor at the Associated Press. I hope it gets read and talked about again, and again, and again. Exact headline (click for story):

Obama’s prime-time ad skips over budget realities

Sounds like the New Soviet Man’s infomercial wasn’t as successful as they’d have hoped. The first paragraph of the story is simply incredible by the simple fact it appeared:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

WOW! Could it be…the truth?

The author of this article is Calvin Woodward. Mr. Woodward, thank you for your factual examination of the fantasies that are Barack Obama’s policies and proposals. You might just be the only AP reporter to be critical of the most left-wing and inexperienced candidate for President ever.

Share

Who’s afraid of Sarah Palin?

The left-wing media/entertainment types are, apparently. (Hat tip: Drudge)

Why else would they be trying to get Governor Palin out of politics and on to television? The Left fears this woman, and hates her very existence because she puts the lie to all the liberal assertions of what it means to be a feminist and a woman.

It’s surprising that the article suggested a reality show that just follows the Palin family and Sarah as Governor of Alaska. There is no way left-wing media power brokers would ever allow such a program on the air, at least, not in a form or outlet that would enable everybody to see it. The last thing the Left would want is for everybody to see that the Palin family is just like all of ours.

There’s another big, big point that this article misses. What makes any of them think that Sarah Palin would actually sign up for it? Don’t you all remember her line at the RNC about not going to Washington to seek the media’s approval?

Sarah might make TV a career, but it will be after her occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – as President, not just VP.

Share

Armed Citizens – Enemy of the Left

I’m off on a business trip. One of the things I “enjoy” about business travel is the free copy of USA Today that arrives outside my hotel room door. What I really “enjoy” about reading it is that I’m guaranteed to see some piece of left-wing scree that will just set the mood for the day.

This morning, USA Today comes through as expected with a below-the-fold front page article under Kevin Johnson’s byline headlined: “Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade, FBI says

No bias in these statements, none at all:

The number of justifiable homicides committed by police and private
citizens has been rising in the past two years to their highest levels in more
than a decade, reflecting a shoot-first philosophy in dealing with crime, say
law enforcement analysts.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in June carved out a right to
individual gun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment allows citizens to
keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

Add in a blowhard comment from a professor at my alma mater:

Alfred Blumstein, a Carnegie Mellon University criminologist, says the gun
“legalization movement” also may have helped create a “greater willingness”
among citizens to act in self-defense.

Now, it’s possible that Dr. Blumstein had his words taken out of context, but somehow I doubt it.

Mr. Johnson, the Supreme Court did not “carve out” a right – they simply read the Constitution and ruled on what it said, you fool! To quote the Second Amendment, and yes, I know it by heart:

…THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Hear that? “Right of the people” means you and me – I guess they don’t teach common plain English anymore in whatever so-called “journalism” school you went to. “Keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean the two appendages attached to your shoulders Mr. Johnson; it means my Glock 23 .40 S&W – or whatever your weapon of choice is. “Shall not be infringed” means that the government – who rules by only the consent of the governed – can’t do anything to stop us from keeping and bearing.

There is one statement in the article with which I can agree:

Some law enforcement analysts say the numbers represent changing attitudes on
the streets, where police have felt more threatened by well-armed offenders, and
citizens have taken greater responsibility for their own safety.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The solution to crime is to promote law-abiding, armed citizens.

Share

Did I miss a giant crack in the Earth’s crust?

Or perhaps the giant meteor impact? Or perhaps the LHC creating a black hole that has sucked up the Earth? What follows are all quotes from articles appearing today on a certain newspaper’s web site and print editions, emphasis illustrating what is exceptionally unusual in the passages is mine:

From reporting on the financial crisis:

With that self-assurance, the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010. All this helped supercharge Fannie’s stock price and rewarded top executives with tens of millions of dollars. Mr. [New Soviet Man economic adviser Franklin] Raines received about $90 million between 1998 and 2004, while Mr. [J. Timothy] Howard was paid about $30.8 million, according to regulators. Mr. [Daniel H.] Mudd collected more than $10 million in his first four years at Fannie.

Whenever competitors asked Congress to rein in the company, lawmakers were besieged with letters and phone calls from angry constituents, some orchestrated by Fannie itself. One automated phone call warned voters: “Your congressman is trying to make mortgages more expensive. Ask him why he opposes the American dream of home ownership.”…

Within a few years of Mr. Mudd’s arrival, Fannie was the most powerful mortgage company on earth.

Then it began to crumble.

Regulators, spurred by the revelation of a wide-ranging accounting fraud at Freddie, began scrutinizing Fannie’s books. In 2004 they accused Fannie of fraudulently concealing expenses to make its profits look bigger.

Mr. Howard and Mr. Raines resigned. Mr. Mudd was quickly promoted to the top spot…

Had Fannie been a private entity, its comeuppance might have happened a year ago. But the White House, Wall Street and Capitol Hill were more concerned about the trillions of dollars in other loans that were poisoning financial institutions and banks.

Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply.

The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move.

“I’m not worried about Fannie and Freddie’s health, I’m worried that they won’t do enough to help out the economy,” the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at the time. “That’s why I’ve supported them all these years — so that they can help at a time like this.”…

Mr. Raines and Mr. Howard, who kept most of their millions, are living well. Mr. Raines has improved his golf game. Mr. Howard divides his time between large homes outside Washington and Cancun, Mexico, where his staff is learning how to cook American meals. [Sounds like somebody won’t be spending as much time in his home “outside Washington”- one wonders why…]

From reporting on New Soviet Man Barack Obama:

At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.

Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors…

Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and “God damn America” sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired.

“I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications. “If you’re in public life, you ought to say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with this guy,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “If John McCain had a long association with a guy who’d bombed abortion clinics, I don’t think people would say, ‘That’s ancient history.’ ”

From reporting on the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s realignment with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone:

A wide majority of clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh voted Saturday to leave the national church and align with a more
conservative South American branch, adding to the fallout from the 2003
appointment of an openly gay bishop…

The movement is driven by theologically conservative leaders who believe
the church has turned away from traditional biblical teachings on issues like whether Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation.

What the heck is going on today at The New York Times???????? It could be sanity – or perhaps honesty – but they’ll have to keep it up for me to believe it.

Even this earlier NYT article talking about the Liberal vs. Conservative conflict in TEC that my diocese has now relieved ourselves of is incredibly fair.

I’m amazed that (a) the NYT is reporting facts detrimental to the Left and (b) they’re actually treating the Conservative point of view fairly.

A strange, strange day for the paper where “All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate“.

Share