Category Archives: The Media

Vintage Culture

Offend A Feminist week has sent me off to find vintage ads, because searching the ‘net is way easier than writing.  Here’s the best I’ve found:

I can’t help but chuckle at the use of “B.O.” as an acronym for something other than “Barack Obama,” which is no less odious as far as I’m concerned.

I also found this beautiful shot, which I’m assuming is sexist because women aren’t allowed to be on a pedestal anymore, are they?

Me, I’d be happy to be on that pedestal, looking all pretty. What is she wearing, anyway?  Daywear, sleepwear, evening wear?  I can’t even tell, frumpy ol’ me.

Then, I found this gorgeous image of a manly man.  Check out the fedora on this one:

Fedoras, of course, make me think of Da Tech Guy, who recently enjoyed a well-earned laugh over leftist anxiety about size . . .

Size of the crowd, that is.

Hah.  I remember fussing about the size of my crowd, too.

Da Tech Guy concludes his post:  “God these guys must hate the internet.”

Um, yeah.  They must.

Want to see what it was like when the left wasn’t threatened by the internet?  Check out this vintage news footage:

“Engineers now predict, the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by computer, but that’s a few years off.  For the moment at least, this fellow (a newspaper seller is depicted) isn’t worried about being out of a job.”

A local station news babe continues, “Now, it takes over two hours to receive the entire text of a newspaper by phone, and with an hourly use charge of 5 dollars, the new tele-paper won’t be much competition for the twenty-cent street addition.”

Nope.  No competition at all, my pretty.

Occupying the Occupy Narrative

The title describes what I’ve done all day.  I don’t recommend it.

“Why hasn’t the ‘Occupy Movement’ died out yet?” I asked myself yesterday.  You see, I’m a rube.  Once news about the crime, violence, and general mayhem started trickling (then pouring) in at a steady pace, I figured the Occupiers would pack up and go home.

In the early days, the mainstream media tidily airbrushed the movement, but surely they couldn’t keep that up.  Not when words like “rape” and “murder” began popping up.  The media would be forced to ignore Occupy.  Without media attention, the whole affair would wither and die.

So I thought.

Analyzing news coverage is harder than it used to be, thanks to Google’s elimination of the “timeline” search feature.  Still, I found more than enough to fill a longer-than-usual post.  Settle in with some popcorn, readers.  Today, I googled “occupy.”

My search for current news produced predictable results.  The top four hits are for larger news entities, whose articles still sound like a whole lotta airbrushing:

  1. Occupy Wall Street Plans Return to Spotlight – But in What Form?
  2. Occupy’s Six Month Anniversary Promises a Revival
  3. Legal or Not, ‘Occupy’ Movement Comes to Fort Greene Park on Sunday
  4. Occupy Movement Seeks Renewed Physical Presence

One has to click onto local news, or a blog networking site Gothamist, or the town hall site Gather, or even (gasp) Faux News to get the latest sordid details.  You know, details like the Great Poopy Dumping, the Clever NYPD “Piggy” Taunting, and the Artistic Renderings on Stupid Boring Monuments.

Of course, Andrew Breitbart’s site tells it like it is:  Media Ignores Occupy’s Violent Hijacking of Trayvon Martin.  This hijacking occurred on Wednesday, March 21, when Hoodie Marchers fused with Occupiers.  Large crowds became “increasingly raucous.”  One guy walked over (thereby damaging) a slowly moving car.  (How frightening for the driver and any passengers.)  Others removed barricades.  A couple of glass bottles got thrown at NYPD when they cleared Union Square’s plaza.

Folks not informed enough to follow The Bigs, however, are not likely to hear these details.  They are more likely to read this bland article on Yahoo, where the fecal matter is discreetly buried at the bottom of the page.  They may see this photo on Yahoo, depicting the conflict between NYPD and Occupy as a mild verbal debate.  Possibly, the public at large will stumble onto AP’s announcement of Occupy’s upcoming “spring training:”

“Activists inspired by Occupy Wall Street are gearing up for spring training. They say they will teach thousands of people to lead nonviolent protests aimed at reinvigorating the spirit of the movement against economic inequality.”

Uh-huh.

Now let’s look at the other side of the coin.  The Occupiers themselves are not using mild terms.  No sirree:

” . . . we are fearless in the face of state violence. . . . the police department broke up a peaceful Spring celebration in Liberty Square by kicking, punching and beating . . . .  Since then, NYPD has conducted nightly raids . . . to enforce arbitrary rules as an excuse to harass, intimidate, brutalize, and arrest those gathered peacefully . . . .”

This violence allegedly occurred on Saturday, March 17th, when Occupiers attempted to reoccupy Zuccotti Park in honor of their six-month anniversary.  (Cute.  Like teenagers in love, they can’t wait a whole year to celebrate.)

I say “alleged” because the video used to back up this claim is curiously devoid of kicking, punching, and beating.  (Also, it ate up seven minutes of my life that I can never get back.)  The police attempt to restrain a man.  He resists, and in the ensuing shuffle he careens into a door hard enough to crack the glass.  It’s impossible to tell who instigated what from this video, however.

The overall impression is that of a crowd trying to antagonize and provoke the police.

The Occupiers also claim Cecily McMillan as a victim of police brutality that same night.  A video at the link began with some real fightin’ words from protester Jen Waller:

“It is when we speak out against the 1%, and defy them, by fighting for public space that we are brutalized.”

Ms. Waller spoke of “bloodthirsty cops” who “stomped on their faces” at Zuccotti Park.  Yikes!  The Democracy Now! lady then interviewed a bruise-brandishing Ms. McMillan (who has either a broken or bruised rib, depending on who is speaking) ostensibly to expose all this violent, face-stomping bloodthirstiness with a little dose of actual, you know, evidence:

“I have an open case so I can’t talk about it, and I’m sure you can tell that it would be difficult to remember some things . . . .”

Or, not.

Well, scene footage is featured in the background of the interview, so maybe that has some evidence in it . . . hey, what?  The footage stopped playing.  At 6:40, the interviewer says to Ms. McMillan:

“We’ve also turned off the monitors because you said you couldn’t see the footage.  Why?”

“My friends have told me that I might want to refrain from watching because some of them have cried or even gotten sick when watching, and my therapist has said that if I were to watch . . . it might trigger further psychological damage.”

Whoo boy.  The footage must be awful.  As a public service, I have found, viewed, and embedded it below.  All six minutes and forty-three seconds.  Ms. McMillan is absolutely right:  this video features frightening and sickening behavior.

Just not the behavior of the police.

Let me guide you through it.

The police were arresting and loading onto a bus all protesters that refused to leave their new Zuccotti encampment.  Ms. McMillan apparently has a seizure.  She hits the pavement at 1:15.  You can’t see her, but you can see the police reaction.  Within the next ten seconds, she comes into view.  She is twitching and jerking on the ground.  The crowd gets angry at the way policemen are standing about.

By 2:33 (a whopping 93 seconds later), the crowd is screaming things like “you f***ing scumbag!”  At 3:10 they are screaming “call 911!” A policeman answers, “we’re on the phone ma’am; it’s already happening.”  At 3:14 they carry her off the street and to the sidewalk.  At 3:23 you can see that her hands are no longer cuffed.

4:02 is the point at which the crowd, quite simply, goes berserk.  For the next minute or two, they unleash a vile display of hatred and rage:  “f***ing animals!”  “these c**ks**ker f***ing police!”  “f***ing scumbag mother f***ers!”  “you incompetent mother f***ers!”

And the piece day la resistance?  The threat at 5:14:

“. . . check it out on the website!  Your faces!  And your family’s faces!  On the internet!  At the pizza shop!  At the bar!  Twenty four hours a day!”

 

What do the police officers do in the face of this barrage?  Nothing.  The stony, stoic looks on their faces made me feel both sadness and pride.  They have to just stand there and take it.  At least they are taking it like men.

The only other useful footage I found was another Democracy Now! report, which at 1:07 briefly shows Ms. McMillan rousing from her unconscious state on the sidewalk.  She looks more like a lady with a bad case of vapors than a victim of police brutality.  (If you click over to see it, be sure and stop viewing by 1:43, or you’ll get an eyeful of Michael Moore.)

Well, there you have it in a nutshell:  a frightening and volatile group that will continue provoking law enforcement as long as they are allowed, and a mainstream media that will continue to overlook and airbrush this group’s antics no matter what.

Not a good combination.  After reading and watching the Occupiers’ own words and actions for the better part of a day, I am well and truly disturbed.  These folks seem comfortable with lawlessness.  They seem comfortable demonizing a faceless, unknown Other.  They unblinkingly demand to be more equal than everyone else:  “This is god**** our park!  This is our park!  The real people’s park!”

If the situation is allowed to fester indefinitely, Occupiers will find the breaking point they seek.  Let’s just hope that local news reports and the blogosphere provide enough daylight to disinfect the whole dirty, sorry mess first.

When Politicians Avoid Questions

. . . you know that the right questions are being asked.

I don’t normally watch Hannity, but with the promise of releasing a Breitbart video, well, how could I not?  Hannity himself admitted that the video is not a smoking gun, and he is correct, in regards to the President.

The video is, however, pretty damning as evidence that the “mainstream media” has no interest whatsoever in objective journalism.

Go ahead.  Claim that the President’s youthful endorsement of radical Professor Bell means nothing.  Don’t we viewers get to judge that for ourselves?  Well, no.  Not until Andrew Breitbart acquires and releases the information three years after vetting should have taken place.  Then we can judge, and the mainstream media can go into overdrive on the narrative spin.

Anyhoo.  On to the subject of my post:  when politicians avoid questions.  Hannity played the following video tonight, and I saw a familiar name on the top of the YouTube footage:  Frank Strategies!  Well done, dude!

I don’t know Frank, but I have a vivid memory of leaning over the bed of my hotel room, watching his 9/12 Taxpayer’s March footage in September of 2009.  I was uploading photos and posting on Facebook about my own experience at the march.  Mr. Frank’s video was one of the first uploaded on YouTube.  It is an excellent representation of what the march actually felt like.

I was not yet blogging in September 2009, but that day was pretty daggum pivotal.  Imagine having no idea whether 50 or 5000 people were going to show up to this so-called “march.”  (Turns out the number had to be in the six digits.)  Imagine walking out of your hotel two hours before the scheduled start, and seeing nothing unusual . . . until a few blocks later . . . when you find The Crowd.

Imagine being swallowed up and overwhelmed by this crowd of like-minded people for the next several hours.

Pretty invigorating.

Here is Mr. Frank’s latest.  Please do share and enjoy:

News from the Rabbit Hole

Because we are in it, folks.

1.  Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs.  This is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.  Hey, don’t look at me like that.  Vice-President Biden says so.

2.  Perhaps someone should tell Biden that government spending is already 41% of our entire Gross Domestic Product.  Forty-one percent!

3.  A mayor in the grip of the Obama administration’s regulatory stranglehold cries, “uncle!”  Oh, and she’s a Democrat.

4.  Organizing for America is running an art contest.  Submit your Agitprop for Obama Government, and you may be a winner!  Really, it’s not just satire.  It’s a real contest.

5.  Some writer over at the Business Insider thinks it’s hard to tell the difference between her selection of Tea Party v. Occupy Wall Street signs.  (Psst.  Each sign is dead easy to judge, if one is actually familiar with the Tea Party Movement.  Here’s a couple hints for the uninitiated:  American flags in the background=Tea Party!  Sign makes little or no sense=OWS!)

Have a great rest of the week.  If you find a way out of this rabbit hole, do let me know.

An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions

I have neither interest nor opinion on the Casey Anthony acquittal. 

No offense to those who followed the trial.  It is interesting.  We all love a “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” tale.  (My weaknesses are natural disasters and survival stories.)

I do have an opinion on the reaction to the acquittal, though.  The word that best describes this reaction:  visceral.  On Facebook, folks are lamenting how stupid we Americans are, or at least twelve particular Americans, and how broken our system is, and how really terribly awfully difficult it was to watch that terrible awful woman’s reaction to the verdict that frees her.

I’m thinking:  why are you watching then?  Why does her reaction matter to you?  Who can judge a human’s reaction to the announcement of her fate?  Even hubs got into a wee bit of a familial Facebook debate on the topic.

It should be no surprise, then, that I avoid these publicized trials like the plague.  What is this need to pick a side?  What is the point of picking a side in a situation where you have no control nor firsthand knowledge?

How do folks so easily assume they know better than the twelve who sat and watched the trial, weighed the credibility of witnesses, took the judge’s instructions, and pored over the evidence?

Suddenly, I’m reminded why lynch mobs are a bad thing.

You’ll find no debate over facts of the case here.  You’ll find a lively discussion at Stacy McCain’s Big Dog Blog, as usual.  The best “pro-acquittal” comment is here, and the best “anti-acquittal” here.

In that comment string, reasonable minds are definitely differing as to the merits of the prosecution’s case.  The jurors probably had differing opinions, too.  Trouble is, they all have to agree in the end.

Trouble is, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a stiff standard.  Is that gal guilty?  Let’s see . . . the victim was two years old, she’s the victim’s mom, and she’s a lying eejit.  So yes, she is likely guilty.  More likely than not.

Oops.  “More likely than not” is the standard in a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I know, I know, the CSI effect.  Supposedly, folks aren’t willing to convict unless the case is wrapped up with Christmas bows, as tidy as the TV shows.

To those who blame the CSI effect, I ask:  did it prevent Lizzie Borden’s conviction?

That’s right, Lizzie Borden, circa 1893.  We all know her as the chick that axe-murdered her parents.  She was acquitted, notwithstanding boatloads of circumstantial evidence.

I repeat, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  It stinks, sometimes.  The murderer gets away with it, sometimes.

That fact is proof that the system is still working.

We should be more alarmed about an unchecked prosecuting government than an unhinged partying woman who may have killed her own child.

Cold?  Maybe.  But it’s cold comfort for the innocent whom the state still managed to wrongfully convict, even under the “reasonable doubt” standard.

Which is worse?  The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted?  As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say:  the innocent getting convicted. 

Moreover, should I ever serve on a jury, I expect folks to respect my decision.  That means I have to respect their decisions, too, doesn’t it?

A shorter Linda:  Da Tech Guy.

Oh dear:  She’s pregnant?  Let’s hope not, for safety’s sake.

An interesting theory.

An even more interesting argument:  it’s just a late-term abortion.

Instalanche!  Thank you, Glenn Reynolds.  Especially for the “read the whole thing.”  Wow, I’m smiling.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 658 other followers