The Left, the Media and Slander

I read an article by Michelle Malkin a couple of weeks ago, A Christian Business in the Left's Crosshairs. It's about how Chick-fil-A is being targeted by some lefties. I didn't think much of it at the time. It seemed as if it was just more of the same. Then, a friend of mine sent it to me today. As I reread it, I began to think.

This is a common tactic of the professional intolerance police and the perpetually offended of the left.

Of the left? Yes, of the left. While granting that it is theoretically possible for some “on the right” to use this tactic, I can’t recall any examples. If it has occurred, it was likely executed by someone masquerading as a “rightwing” ideologue in an attempt to discredit a group or a movement. Remember when lefties were attempting to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings? The right just doesn’t have anyone like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. Let’s face it, the left has a monopoly on professional grievance-mongering.

So, what’s the tactic? The tactic is slander and here's how it's done.

The first two steps come in no particular order. Find a target and find something “offensive”. Notice that finding a target can come first. As this is not about legitimate grievances and their resolution, it’s perfectly acceptable to determine who you want to injure and then later figure out how it is that they’ve offended you. You can also be opportunistic when acquiring a target. Sometimes, a potential target can say or do something that is particularly easy to take offense at. Remember Don Imus? Lefties didn't have him in the crosshairs. He just said something that was too easy to exploit.

And the offense? It can be anything. It doesn't matter how small, insignificant, irrelevant or false. Candidates are anything that can be stretched, twisted or otherwise morphed from a phony offense into something that, to stupid people and people on the left, could conceivably resemble a legitimate offense. (Yes, I realize that was redundant). I once heard Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee pontificate that the label, "sergeant" as it had been applied to MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz, might be an ethnic slur.

Then, make a big deal out of the phony offense. The leftist media will happily publicize your charade, er… complaint. They’ll be happy to pick it up and begin to report as if it’s a legitimate story. In fact, the leftist media originate many of these incidents. And when I say leftist media, I’m not talking about the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or MSNBC. I’m talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc. I recall many of the talking heads somberly reporting on the “Macaca” controversy.

Now that you’ve obtained the support of the leftist media, begin to harangue the “offender” to apologize for the phony offense. Find weaklings who are ostensibly on the side of the “offender”. Get them to wax serious about the “strawman” and encourage them to call on the “offender” to apologize. This is something that RINO’s are especially good for. This step of the process is to lend legitimacy to an otherwise obviously illegitimate claim. “Hey, if John McCain is calling for them to apologize, then there must be something to the charge.” Often, the “offender” will try to diffuse the situation by attempting some generic apology, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended. I never intended to...”. This never diffuses the situation. It simply encourages the slanderers. Remember Trent Lott?

Begin to demand that the “offender” disavow all sorts of crazies. The purpose of this step isn’t to get the “offender” to moderate or to cease offending. No, this step is all about associating the “offender” with crazies. The person or group being slandered should never participate in this step. If the “offender” does disavow some crazy or group of crazies, the media can report it while shaking their heads and giving the impression that they just don’t believe it. And then, after reporting that the “offender” has disavowed some crazies, they can always go get the other side of the story. Sweet! "So-and-so says that the disavowal is insincere". I mean after all, they wouldn't want to report only the “offender's” side of the story would they? Who can forget the demands for the Tea Party to disavow racism and racist groups?

As the controversy develops, you can demand that the “offender” resign, get sensitivity training, make reparations payments or any of dozens of potential acts of supplication, humbly begging for forgiveness. If the “offender” succumbs to any of these demands, it will be perceived as an admission of guilt.

This tactic is not about settling grievances. It doesn’t seek to repair differences or clear up misunderstandings. It’s all about attempting to destroy those with whom you disagree by using any means necessary. Lies, deceit, slander... they’re the tools of the leftist's trade.

Civility anyone?

Where is Horatio Bunce?

While doing some office cleaning recently, I ran across a pamphlet that had found it's way into a pile of papers needing some organization. Coincidentally, a friend of mine had recently sent me an e-mail version of the pamphlet which I shared with some other friends. I found that the pamphlet's contents are available on the web. As internet content goes, it's a bit of a long read but, in my opinion, well worth it.

Sockdolager - A Tale of Davy Crockett

One of the friends with whom I shared the story lamented the current state of Congress with respect to the principles espoused in the pamphlet. I agreed. However, as I pondered the topic a bit more, I became more concerned about the state of modern Horatio Bunces. Granted, there's some overlap in that venn diagram... Congress and those who play the role of the conscience of Congress.

Where are today’s Bunces? Apparently, there aren’t many. If there are, they’re awfully quiet. I’ve hoped that the tea party might be a bit Buncian. It does seem clear that there’s a little more Bunce in the tea party than in either of the establishment parties. But when the rank and file tea party folks are polled, a great many seem to be looters just like the others. They just have a different set of priorities when it comes to how much should be looted, from whom it should be looted and to whom the loot should be dispensed.

There are those who fancy themselves a Bunce and those who the conservative intelligentsia attempt to pass off as a Bunce. Most fall incredibly short. I speak only of conservatives because seeking a Bunce among today’s liberal establishment would obviously be an hilarious exercise in futility.

Starting with the “establishment” or “moderate” republicans. They’re the ones who lament the co-opting of the “conservative” label. To think of them with principles such as Bunce’s is laughable. Michael “Bunce” Steele? “Horatio” Rudy Guliani? John McCain, Horatio Bunce of the Senate? I don’t think so. They themselves admit that they’re “pragmatic”. They like to “reach across the aisle”. They think of themselves as the rational ones. They eschew the “extreme right wing” of their party. No, we won’t find a Bunce there.

Then we have the “extreme right-wing”. I put that in quotes because as extreme goes, they’re pretty tame. These are ones who commendably speak with passion against things like Obamacare, stimulus and TARP. But, at the same time, they quail at the thought of rolling back entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. They say things like, “we owe it to our seniors” or “we made promises”. Excuse me? I made no promises. Is a promise to one person valid if it presupposes theft from another? No, you’re no Horatio Bunce if you’re willing to continue to looting current and future generations in order to pay a phony debt to those who saw fit to establish the entire looting enterprise in the first place.

I think it more likely that we might find a Bunce among the Libertarians. But, they’re constantly denigrated by the conservative establishment and even the “extreme right-wing” as “loonytarians” or worse. They need to overcome the preconception that they just want to smoke pot and make the world safe for child pornographers. An invalid preconception to be sure but one that the conservative establishment is all too willing to continue to feed.

Yes, a few Bunces would definitely do the country some good. I’m hopeful but, I’m not holding my breath.

Journalism, Stupidity and the iPhone

Perhaps you've heard, Verizon is joining the iPhone craze. It seems as if AT&T got a pretty big headstart. But with the mi-fi feature that Verizon is offering... well, we'll see.

The announcement did remind me of an articile I read in infoworld a few months ago titled, Suicide, Stupidity and the iPhone.

The eye catching summation is, “Factory workers who can't stand to crank out even one more iPhone are killing themselves, while cell phone users careen about the highways”.

In the article, Bill Snyder tells of a city-like factory complex in Shenzhen, China housing 250,000 employees. The factory makes iPhones, iPads and other consumer electronics, apparently of the computer variety. However, the real news is the bleak conditions. Bleak conditions driven by the American consumer’s desire to get cool devices “cheap”.

This story says that the factory made $2.3B last year but only paid employees about $300 per month. I’m not sure how those two numbers relate to each other but this would indicate that payroll for the factory approached $1B. Ok. So what’s the point? That the factory should pay its workers more? I realize that Wikipedia isn’t particularly authoritative but I searched them anyway. I found out that per capita income for the People’s Republic of China is approximately $3600 per year. So, assuming that there are some rather wealthy Chinese, whose income is quite a bit greater than $3600/year, that would indicate that these employees earn an income greater than the Chinese mean. Is that a “bleak” condition?

Further, this story says that conditions are so bad at this complex that, horror of horrors, 10 people have committed suicide so far this year. I decided to take upon myself the role that Snyder labels, “apologist” and did a little more research. ChinaToday.com says that in 2008, there were 260,000 suicides in China. In 2008, the World Bank reported Chinese population at ~1.3 billion. That puts the suicide rate in China at .02%. The suicide rate at the factory appears to be approximately .008% (assuming 10  suicides for the first half of the year and 10 for the second half). So, we have a suicide rate that is less than half of the overall rate in China. Statistically, that’s a larger gap than the “slightly lower than that of the country as a whole” that Snyder suggests. I suppose that’s because the conditions at this complex are so horrible.

Additionally, Snyder says that all of these suicides occur at work rather than at home, so “there's obviously a link between the work environment and the deaths”. However, in his description of the “city-like factory complex”, he says that employees live in “dorms on the complex grounds”. Do suicides in the dorms count as “at home” or “at work”. He doesn’t say. But, it may be that the link between the work environment and the suicides isn’t quite as obvious as he indicates.

I'm not sure if this is just lousy reporting or just another anti-business, anti-free market, anti-consumer screed. Either way, I think I'm beginning to understand the “Stupidity” portion of Mr. Snyder's article.

This is Progress?

Apollo program…

So, on May 25, 1961, JFK does his little “put a man on the moon” speech. (Granted, the program was already started before this speech. In fact, it got started during Eisenhower’s administration. But, it really got moving after this speech.) On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the moon. The entire Apollo program cost $170B (in 2005 dollars). That goes even past 1969 all the way to 1975 and included 6 moon landings. So, in 8-10 years, after deciding to start the program, we put a man on the moon. In the 1960’s.

Constellation Program…

On Jan. 14, 2004, Bush gives his “go back to the moon” speech. NASA estimated that the cost would be $230B (in 2004 dollars) through 2025. I think it’s safe to assume that the program would have exceeded that number by at least 50% (over 12 years of operation, the Space Shuttle program went over by 55%). So, that would put it at about $345B (2004 dollars). When Constellation was cancelled, they were thinking that they wouldn’t be able to put a man back on the moon before 2028.

Comparison…

So, in the 1960’s we put a man on the moon…

·         In 8 years

·         With technology 50 years older than today

·         For $170B

Fifty years later, we can’t put a man back on the moon… (something we’ve done before)

·         In three times the time (24 years)

·         With technology that’s many orders of magnitude better than in the 1960’s

·         For twice the cost ($340B)

This isn't progress. This is decline.

Chicago Politics

With Rahm Emmanuel running for Mayor, William Daley becoming President Obama's Chief of Staff, David Axelrod's imminent departure, and other recent events, it seems that Chicago politics is back in the news.

I was reminded of an article I read in the LA Times almost a year ago about how "tough" Chicago politics are...

President Obama Day 386: What happened to him?

While I agree with the overall observation of this article (basically that the Chicago mob is out of its league in Washington), I find it lacking.

I do not agree with Mr. Malcom’s use of the word “tough” and his descriptions about how “tough” Chicago politics are. Is it physical toughness he’s talking about? In spite of the example of the guy who gave up jogging to lose weight because he didn’t get to “knock anyone down”, I don’t think so. I think their definition of “tough” is that they don’t have any rules. You know, little rules like telling the truth.

Chicago politics is “tough” because the brand of Chicago politician with which we are most familiar, will say anything about anyone without any regard for accuracy or truthfulness. Granted, a not unusual behavior in politics in general but, in Chicago, perhaps it's a bit more extreme. Chicago politics is “tough” because politicians there are willing to destroy other people’s lives in order to get their own way. And, it’s not just political opponents. It can be people who just happen to be in the way. You can almost hear the whiny and petulant, “I want, I want, I want…me, me, me”.

Many seem to be fearful of retribution from this administration. Why is that? Because Rahm Emmanuel might scream obscenities at them. Yeah, there’s probably some truth to that. But more likely, it’s because he’ll try to destroy your life because you accidentally bumped into him in the elevator. These people are those bratty little kids you saw years ago in the supermarket, lying in the aisle, kicking and screaming while parents softly cooed, “Now, now. Let’s not act that way little Rahmmy”. They were never taught to control themselves and eventually developed a steroidal sense of entitlement.

That’s not tough. That's pathetic.

Man Up, America?

I read this article in Vanity Fair in November. I sat down and wrote this response. As I just started blogging, I decided to make it my first post.

Man Up, America! - Graydon Carter

Mr. Carter claims, “The general anti-Obama rage out there is palpable. But it’s no more virulent than the anti-Bush sentiment that has pervaded the country for much of the past decade—although this being America, there’s an attendant hatred for Obama that has more to do with race than anything else.”

Actually, I don’t believe that Mr. Carter really thinks that “hatred” for Obama is based on race. I think that he wishes that it was based on race.

I’ve been told since childhood that people often “see what they want to see”. I believe this to be true. I know I’ve practiced the behavior. Further, this practice is very common. One doesn’t have to look far to find parents who are unable to comprehend that their child could do something malicious, or wrong. Or, parents who believe that their child is above average when it is clear that he is not. There are wives who believe that they “deserve” it. Yes, seeing what we want to see is very common. And, the temptation is often strong. Seeing things the way they really is sometimes almost unbearable.

So, when someone sees something that obviously doesn’t exist, I begin to wonder why they want to see it.

Mr. Carter sees many things. He sees hatred and that this hatred is based on race. While I’m sure that there is some hatred “out there”, it seems to me that most of what I’ve observed is righteous indignation. I would expect someone of Mr. Carter’s obvious enlightenment to be able to discern the difference between righteous anger and hatred.

So, why does Mr. Carter want to see hatred instead of righteous indignation? And, why does he want that imaginary hatred to be based on race?

Mr. Carter wants objections to Obama to be hatred and for that hatred to be based on race because Mr. Carter wants those objections to be illegitimate. From there, all of the pieces fall into place. I do not know Mr. Carter but I see that he is the editor of Vanity Fair. I think I’m probably on pretty solid footing when I say he is likely a big fan of the president and enthusiastic about the president’s policies. Were objections to those policies legitimate, and Mr. Carter honest with himself (admittedly a stretch), he would have to do some soul searching. He might even have to admit that he’s been wrong.

No, Mr. Carter has way too much invested in his own arrogance and liberal philosophy than to give it up that easily. Better to smear one’s political opponents with claims of hatred and racism than to have to examine one’s own self.

Mr. Carter says, “Man Up, America!”. I say, "Physician, heal thyself."