Category Archives: Media

‘Fat And Furious’ And Other ‘Complicated’ Folderol

Gender, Intelligence, Media, Politics, Republicans

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was christened “fat and furious” at GlenBeck.com, following what appears to be the governor’s feigned outrage over his administration’s intentional closing of the George Washington Bridge as political retribution.

I got a kick out of the reaction of those “great minds” of Crossfire.

“Great minds don’t always agree” goes the once-illustrious show’s new motto. Nothing they can say or write will even make Cupp, Cutter and the other two co-hosts worthy of the great-mind moniker. At best one can call Neut Gingrich a mercurial mind.

Rasped S.E. Cupp the cretin:

“[I]f you’re in not New Jersey or not D.C., you look at this story, which is actually pretty complicated, … and you think, he did what, to who, when, where, what?”

Replied co-host Stephanie Cutter, who is indisputably less of a fool than Cupp:

“I think it’s not hard to follow the story, regardless of where you live.”

… somebody is seeking political retribution and … somebody is bullying somebody on the other side of the aisle

Pretty much politics as usual.

MMA Hero Vs. CNN Cowards

GUNS, Media, Private Property, Propaganda

Mixed martial arts fighter (MMA) Joe Torrez is the hero in this story, the men who invaded his home and attacked him deserved death all, their sympathizers at CNN are worthy of ignominy.

The broadcasters that have extended their mandate to annually anointing the nation’s politically acceptable heroes know just how to shape debate. A Latino “reporter” oozed his sympathies to bimbo anchor Brook Baldwin—sympathies to the “victims” of a homeowner who defended home and hearth with all the MMA might he could muster.

Torrez refused to curl up in the fetal position upon being savagely attacked in his inner sanctum. Most importantly, the MMA lightweight did not risk sure death, which would have been his lot had he extended an invitation to the local Polizei to break down his door and “help” him. (Or shoot him, or his kid, or his lady friend, or his best friend The Dog.)

Joseph Torrez, 27, repelled a home invasion, killing one man, injuring another so badly he left in an ambulance and persuading two others to run in fear, authorities said.
Torrez and the men clashed on New Year’s Day at his home outside of Las Cruces, reportedly part of an ongoing feud. One of the attackers, 22-year-old Leonard Calvillo, called ahead to threaten Torrez, the Las Cruces Sun-News reported, citing court documents.
Mixed Martial Arts fighter Joseph Torrez fought off four men who broke into his house, killing one and putting one in the hospital, authorities say.
“I’ll kill you and your family … I’ll go to your house,” Calvillo reportedly said.
Calvillo arrived shortly after with 20-year-old Nathan Avalos and brothers Sal and Raymond Garces and pounded on Torrez’s door, authorities said.
Torrez’s fiancee, son and the fiancee’s sister were all home at the time, authorities said.
The fiancee leaned against the door of the mobile home, trying to keep them out, but they busted through, authorities said.
There they met Torrez, a 155-pound lightweight with a record of one win and five losses, according to the fight website SherDog.com.
The four men are all gang members, a Dona Ana County Sheriff’s spokeswoman said.
C.J. McElhinney, an attorney for Torrez, told the Sun-News witness said the attackers brought a crude shank and one picked up a knife once they forced their way inside.
Sal Garces, 25, was stabbed to death during the fight. Avalos suffered “severe” facial injuries and was taken to a New Mexico hospital, authorities said.
Torrez endured [the NYD writer meant to say “sustained,” surely] only minor injuries, his lawyer said.
Calvillo and Raymond Garces were both arrested on charges of conspiracy and property damage after they ran from the house.

MORE @ The New York Daily News.

Decentralized ‘Al Qaeda’ Represents Ordinary Invaded Muslims

Foreign Policy, Media, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Terrorism

“Us against Al Qaeda” is the narrowly conceived narrative among neoconservatives. As the politically provincial neoconservative foreign-policy paradigm has it, those were the forces that allegedly played out in Benghazi.

Understandably, Fox News is fuming over “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” David D. Kirkpatrick’s expose in the New York Times. For these Republicans hold that:

Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times, however, shows:

…that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

In particular are neoconservatives fulminating over the NYT findings that “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” “The attack,” it was revealed, “was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.”

I have no doubt, simply based on the history and policies of the US in the Middle-East, that to the extent the “American-made video denigrating Islam” is a symbolic proxy for the hatred harbored by the invaded Muslims for the invading Americans-–to that extent it is probably correct to say that the video, more so than the mythical Al Qaeda, was a catalyst for the attack on our embassy in Benghazi.

However, the NYT is hardly unsparingly honest; it is, in fact, as dishonest and politically provincial as the neocons of Fox News.

Predictably ignored in the Kirkpatrick article is that Al Qaeda has morphed into many decentralized operations that mirror the aspirations of the invaded Muslims to be free of invading Westerners—unless of course they can get us to bankroll their Baksheesh economy.

There is cross-pollination between these double-crossing entities. So wrong was the Gray Eminence on Iraq that the NYT reporter who piped lies straight form Bush’s White House to her Times readers was recruited to Fox News: She is Judith Chalabi Miller.

UPDATED: ‘What’s Up With Peter Lavelle’s Treatment of Ilana Mercer?’

Feminism, Ilana On Radio & TV, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, South-Africa

Writes Robert Wenzel, editor of Economic Policy Journal:

“Earlier this week EPJ contributing columnist Ilana Mercer appeared on RT’s show “Crosstalk,” which is hosted by Peter Lavelle. After seeing an earlier edition of “Crosstalk,” I gave Lavelle and the show an enthusiastic endorsement. But, a funny thing happened on the way to Ilana’s participation on the show.

Lavelle provides brief but detailed background introductions of the two other guests appearing on the show with Ilana, when he gets to Ilana, he merely states that she is a paleo-libertarian journalist and writer. He fails to mention her important book …”

Read the complete Wenzel post.

Here’s what happened on the way to the show: Participants are required to return brief answers to questions to indicate their positions. I complied promptly and with brutal honesty. As did I twice provide producers with a bio.

At the studio, I was told by Mr. Lavelle not to worry. He had prerecorded our credentials. Right away I suspected the worst when he proceeded to wax about the other two’s affiliations (but not mine), and their yet-to-be published books (but not my own published work). I have some experience with media’s reaction to my opinions. This is precisely why I mentioned my book first up. I had the feeling that it would go unmentioned.

Except for the “paleo” appellation, 100% of my bio was left off.

As I mentioned in discussion with Robert, it is not my affiliations RT had a problem with (WND, Economic Policy Journal, Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies), but my position and book (published in 2011) on the topic.

Mr. Lavelle intended to present me as a voice from the (Pacific Northwest) wilderness. Had the other two panelists not been the unsharpened pencils they were—I would not have gotten to speak up about the little I did.

The TV embed is reproduced in this EPJ article.

Not that I want feminists on my side, but were they in the habit of standing up for ALL women, they might have protested the marginalization of the only woman on this panel (even though my gender had nothing to do with my marginalization, not that that would have mattered to these generally intellectually dishonest fems, provided I was parroting politically pleasing opinion).

UPDATE: Granted, Mr. Lavelle may never intend to invite me on “Crosstalk” again for reasons noted above. However, he risks not getting controversial guests with whom he disagrees to revisit his set. Who would go through that exercise again for such shoddy treatment? Not me. It is, moreover, dishonest to lure guests to a studio (at the early AM), when there is no intention to treat their work with respect. When you make the effort, you expect that your work, which has gotten you the invite, will be at the very least mentioned.