Shout, Shout

In the bad old days, which I remember because I’m about half a century old, if the media wanted you to believe something, you would believe it.

Well, most of the time.  I was here for the apotheosis of Jimmy Carter’s term, and as hard as he was screaming that all our good days were gone and the American dream was over, people still refused to believe him.  Despite the low pall of depression over most people, it didn’t quite take.  I think part of the problem, of course, is that he wore those ridiculous sweaters and the press wasn’t QUITE absolutely dedicated.  Cracks appeared, like, for instance, we knew about the thing with the bunny.

But most of the time, the media controlled the narrative, and controlled it completely.  If they said the economy was booming, you believed it.  Or most of the time you believed it, even if your local economy sucked.

Though Americans were always pretty mobile, before the internet, how many people in other areas did you really keep up with every day?  Most of the time, for most people, you might keep in touch with family in another state or maybe two, but those were limited areas too, and even if you and your friends were all pretty broke, how did you know the rest of the country wasn’t booming?  Particularly when everyone in the press kept saying it was the best times ever.  Or the worst, or it was all your fault and you had malaise.

If you went against the media narrative, everyone looked at you a little funny, and as though you were going around with your pants on your head or something.  Or worse.  I remember Bradbury said that the economy wasn’t as bad as all that in 91/92, against the constant dinning narrative of “worst times evah” and many people in the field made ugly remarks about his mental health.  (I thought his injunction to turn off the TV and the recession would go away was very apropos.)

I always find it funny when people on the left accuse those on the right of following some news program or narrative, particularly if that person is over 40.  We not only had to disagree, but we had to find our path to disagreeing on our own, in our own way, and hold on to it, even when it seemed everyone disagreed with us, and we must be going crazy.

And the facts were out there and if you checked them again and again and couldn’t compromise, you resigned yourself to being alone and perhaps crazy.  Or at least being considered crazy.

Some people out there are still feeling like they’re going crazy, but not as many.  Do not mistake it.  It was the blogs, the chats, the alternative news sites that made “Summer of Recovery” an obvious myth and a bust.

Oh, sure, the news media still has power, particularly with older people, but even with some people my age. Humans are social animals.  They want to be in the right and know what “everyone knows”, they want to fit in.

Unfortunately our media is something like 90% leftist.  And we’re not talking leftist like your uncle, the union pipe fitter.  We’re talking to the left of Lenin, leftist.  They didn’t need to coordinate narratives about Mitt Romney — a man who is at best lukewarm right, or perhaps European Social Democrat — being to the right of Hitler.  They all really believed that because compared to them, EVERYONE is “extreme right”.  Perhaps it’s the echo chamber effect, or the J-schools, who knows?

What I know is that they’re out of control, and every shooting in a dinky country town is made major by the need to push a left wing narrative.  H*ll, remember the “bombing” of the NAACP in Colorado Springs.  National news.  International.  The story went around the world.  And yet, you know, when it came out, it was a guy bombing his accountant because he thought the accountant was ignoring him, and the accountant had died six months before.

Did anyone else ever hear of that correction?  Or only us in this city?  Do other people think Colorado Springs is some white supremacy town?  Heck, the reason I knew that the bombing made no sense is that there aren’t that many minority populations in town, and those that are here are varieties of Hispanic.  (And a thriving Portuguese community, too.)

However the attack on NAACP made perfect sense to the media, who looks for white privilege under every rock, while “it was just a crazy guy bombing his attorney” had no interest at all.

And that media — crazy as it is — still holds sway.  It just doesn’t have as much power as it once did because we’re here.  And we’re not quiet.  They also fight, who only sling words and puncture holes in the narrative woven by the entertainment-news-industrial complex.

I know a lot of you are deep undercover.  I even understand.  Before I worked only for Baen and Indie I had layers and layers of secrecy and a completely invented identity for blogs.  No, two identities, depending on the blogs.  And I was afraid of making donations, because what if a blogger talked?  And I lived in fear an in-joke from the blogs would escape during a party and people would figure it out.

Because being less than to-the-left-of-Lenin in my field amounted to career suicide, at least if you weren’t a bestseller or a Baen-only author.

I GET the secrecy.  It’s really had to put your political beliefs, your social beliefs, your life philosophy above “baby needs shoes.”

And we are the people that make the world work.  We’re the ones who look after others first.  We keep quiet, we keep our heads down.  We make things work.

But I want you to think about those narratives.  And then I want you to think how they can be pierced by… no, not one voice, but many voices.  What is it the professor calls it?  An army of David’s with our little slingshot of words against the Goliath of the media.

The battle is ours.  Or is starting to be ours.

This is the time we can use you, though.  Think through it very carefully.  If it’s not your life, not your livelihood, not your kids’ food, not your aged parents’ support — if you can sidestep, move aside into a career where that doesn’t matter as much; or if you can do it undercover, with a constructed identity– we need your voice.  An army of Davids needs to be immense, because the reach of the media is.  Shouting down Big Brother needs every voice.

If you can, if there’s any way you can join us, maybe all you’ll do is make someone else feel less alone, less crazy.  Maybe all you’ll do is make someone else realize facts are facts.  Maybe all you’ll do is give the next person courage to speak out.  And they’ll give the next person the courage to speak out.  And they’ll give the next person the courage.

An avalanche starts with a grain of sand, an insignificant, near imperceptible movement.

Which is to say: come out, come out, wherever you are!


Be not afraid.


258 responses to “Shout, Shout

  1. c4c

  2. “I always find it funny when people on the left accuse those on the right of following some news program or narrative, particularly if that person is over 40.”


    • In fairness, some of us do end up doing that–however, to be blunt, anyone who exclusively watches one TV channel, be it Fox, MSNBC, or CNN, is going to get a skewed point of view.
      That having been said, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been accused of getting my information from “Faux News” (Yes, yes, children, you’re very clever) or Rush Limbaugh when I never watch the channel, or any TV news for that matter, and almost never listen to talk radio.

      • I have only listened to Rush a single time. I was pumping gas, and a trucker was filling up at the same time. He had Rush playing loud enough to listen to while pumping.

        I forget the topic, but I was in total agreement with Rush’s point.
        One side appeals to reason, the other side to feeling. Look at the mess the ‘feel good’ have put us into. Obama is advising Turkey to ‘close their border’. Duh?

        • I’m one of the rare folks who doesn’t listen to Limbaugh: But I do read him.

          Back when I was more active on Livejournal, whenever someone on my Friends List would go off on a rant about some evil, stupid, ignorant (but I’m being redundant) thing Rush Limbaugh had said, I would think: Huh. That’s an astonishingly ridiculous thing for anyone to say, but it’s particularly unlikely for a conservative.

          So then I would go track down a transcript for whatever the show was, read it and discover it had been Maureen Dowd-ed. Sometimes to the point that Mr. Limbaugh’s actual speechifyin’ mean the opposite of what had been reported.

          And they’d backtrack… “Oh well this time…”

          Honestly, you’d think after a while, the reliability of their sources would begin to sink in.

      • See referenced chart:

        Note that this is about the news consumer, not the provider. Observe that the NY Times, Daily (Jon Stewart) Show, NPR, Al Jazeera America are all targeting the same ideological demographic.

        Note there is nothing competing with Fox for that audience.

        I find the best way to deflate proglodyte arguments is not rebutting with facts they will a priori reject (e.g., Faux News) but by hanging them with the internal contradictions of their own arguments. You never beat these idiots on defense, you beat them by making them defend their positions.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          It seems to imply that either an audience that clusters past +6 or -6 is too small a market to support a news source, or that the messaging such would prefer varies enough to split those markets.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            Or that I am an idiot, and failed to account for selection done by the mechanism that found people for the survey.

            • Also don’t fail to account (or discount) the ideological leanings of PEW research. I find that while they try to be ‘fair and balanced’ they are positioned to the left of center.

        • I’m doin’ it wrong. I’m somewhere over in the neighborhood of Breitbart, but got most of my news from sources left of WSJ.

          • I’ve been amused at the times I’ve listened to NPR and Rush (both quite rare nowadays) on the day or close, and got the same story. When those agree, chances are I actually got the real news or as close as I’m ever likely to get short of witnessing $EVENT myself.

            No TV signal for years, so some accusations are vastly amusing. XM means I do get various news sources, if I am so inclined. I give up on a lot not due to bias, but the inane chatter between ‘personalities’. If I want banter, I can switch over to the Jack Benny show, at least sometimes.

          • No, you’re just pointing out one flaw in the chart. Conservatives who watch the MSM because there isn’t much choice will pull those media outlets to the right of their “natural” audience. Since most liberal would rather be dead than admit to watching Fox, there is no equivalent moderating force for the dexter side of the chart.

        • There’s a “joke” that Fox News managed to get a foothold by targeting an underserved market–half the country.

          • ‘Average respondent’ would be the center of the curve, with half to the right. That gives Fox about 35-40% with no competition.

          • Yeah, that’s not wrong. At the time of Fox News’s creation we had several mainstream media outlets all targeting a left-of-center audience, plus various “alternative” outlets mostly targeting a far-left-of-center audience, plus the Wall Street Journal and US News and World Report. That left a vast swath on the right completely uncovered, which Fox took advantage of.

            • Sadly, Fox has been drifting leftward ever since. I don’t know of that many conservatives on Fox anymore (O’Reilly is NOT a conservative – he’s a moderate). Actually, leftists, and far leftists are now the majority over there, last time I checked.

              • Far as I can tell, O’Reilly is a nut.

                • As well as populist in the Huey Long style far too often. Heard his radio show a total of two times for less than a few minutes each time, widely spaced, and he was calling for nationalizing oil companies.
                  Has he ever climbed down from that?

                  • Ayup, O’Reilly was a populist; he has since become an O’Reillist and worships at the altar of his butt-hole (rather like Obama in that, but unlike Barry, Bill worships alone.)

                    • One Leftoid accused me of being a Bill fan and I mentioned that, no, I found him an idiot.
                      Maybe that time, or another (iirc back on the old Elf Life/Winger forum) one asked me what the difference was between Bill O and Rushbo.
                      Simple, I said, Rush acts absurd to point out absurdity and be somewhat entertaining … Bill O is absurd because he is an a**hole who likes to hear himself blather away.

          • Zsuzsa, Rush will mention from time to time that he has no competition from the Left. The Leftist radio is very small, and seems to keep going broke in their various markets. He attributes this to a) he wants to entertain his audience, and b) the Left only wants to give marching orders.

            • Rush has more leftoids listening at a given time than Air Am or Pacifica ever did

            • I attribute Rush’s success and the failure of his Left wing “competitors” to two things:

              (1) Rush is a radio guy first and a political guy second. He paid his dues as a disk jockey at a small local station, and broadcasting high school sporting events, eventually working his way up to the point where he is now, a political commentator with a national following. Thus, he knows a lot about radio, what makes for an entertaining show, and what does and does not work on the radio.

              The Leftists who want to emulate him, on the other hand, are mostly political guys who want to get a radio show. They want to be the “left-wing Limbaugh” but aren’t interested in putting in any time to figure out what Rush knows about radio.

              (2) If someone wants a left-wing perspective on things, they can listen to NPR, or watch CNN, or read just about any newspaper, or watch a Hollywood movie or TV show. A left-wing radio host has too much competition. Rush, on the other hand, is one of the few successful media voices giving the right-wing perspective.

              • > where he is now, a political
                > commentator with a national
                > following.

                I read his book “The Way It Ought to Be”. In its entirety, it consisted of various rephrasings of:

                “I don’t believe anything I say.”
                “I will say anything for ratings.”
                “I’m not a commentator, I’m just an entertainer.”

                Hey, I’m not about to argue with that…

          • Christopher M. Chupik

            “I can’t understand why our ratings are so low. We insult Christians, gun owners, Southerners, Tea Partiers. But half our audience is gone!”

        • If you want information about the providers, the 2005 Groseclose/Milyo study has a nice graphic on page 1228 (it’s not that big – the first page of the PDF is numbered 1191).

          There are people who disagree with the study, for reasons that vary from “valid methodology, but that’s a snapshot in time, and not valid outside the specific years noted” to “invalid because left-leaning think tanks are more credible, thus more cited.”

          • Interesting in the wide variance in the placement of Wall Street Journal and Drudge. On one Drudge is way right, the other moderate left.

            Social Science… It makes me like Physics and Chemistry much better.

            • The Other Sean

              Remember, its based upon the ideological leanings of the readers/listeners/viewers, not of the content, as reported in a survey.

            • Two considerations. One, the WSJ Editorial page has long been a distinct and separate operation from its news reporting, one which has been deliberately and consciously conservative, at least since Robert L. Bartley’s tenure began in 1972, but I believe including Vermont C. Royster’s tenure, which began in 1958, if not earlier. During this time the news side of the paper has included such as Al “I Sure As Heck Ain’t Conservative” Hunt as head of the Washington Bureau from 1969 until 2004,

              Two, the audience for the WSJ’s news coverage is comprised of people concerned about business, not politics (or rather, politics only so far as it affects business) and thus without ideological tilt. Since the Pew Survey reports on the audience for the various news sources, the conservative tilt of the paper’s editorial page (a page which makes an effort to include at least some Liberal voices — at one point they gave a weekly column to Thomas “Kansas Sucks” Franks) we should not be surprised to see a less conservative audience.

        • Re: Faux News

          “Faux” is a homonym for “foe”. It works for “Fox News” only when you see it in print and disregard the pronunciation — or if you view them as an enemy.

      • Yep — I am bitterly amused by that as well. I almost never watch TV news (unless it’s local and there has been an epic flood, fire or traffic disaster), and I’ve never listened to talk radio. I didn’t even know who Glenn Beck was, back when I got involved with the local Tea Party.

        True story – I somehow thought it was Jeff Beck they were talking about, in the very beginning, and thought to myself, “Oh, cool — another conservative musician besides Ted Nugent.” (I was wise enough not to say so aloud, though.)

      • It doesn’t matter to them whether you do or not – they’re just looking for a way to disregard your opinion – because it’s WRONG.

        Sigh. Yes, they really are that stupid and arrogant.

  3. Too often we keep our mouths closed to be polite, not recalling that the other side has no such impetus. They WILL be out spoken, in-your-face with their opinions and narratives. And all we really need to do is dissent.
    “Prove it! Give me numbers.”
    “That idea was busted years ago – you still preaching it?”
    Why don’t you quiet down and let people make up their own minds.”
    Or simply, “I disagree.”
    We don’t even have to call them lying sacks of stinking cow diarrhea most times. But it feels real good when we do, and three quarters of the room inhabitants clap and cheer.

  4. The thing about darkness, is it cannot hold against even the tiniest light. And when many of such tiny lights start coming together the darkness MUST yield before them. It is defined by them.

  5. 1) My recollections of Carter are limited, at best. But from what I do recall, I think he really was sincere in his wanting to help people. He may have been completely wrong about how to best help them, and totally ineffective as a leader, but I think he was sincere.

    2) The media’s narrative has become so divorced from reality, and the internet has become so ubiquitous, that it’s actually become fairly simple to counter their obvious lies.

    The Planned Parenthood shooter is only the latest. But either this guy is the absolute worst antiabortion terrorist in the history of forever, or the story the media, DNC and PP have been pushing is so much bullshit that they could fertilize the entire American breadbasket and still have a bunch left over for Europe. How exactly does a guy so upset about abortion that he drives half way across the country to attack a PP clinic, shoot three people outside it, barricade himself inside with numerous people for several hours and not harm a single one?

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Consider also Black Lives Matter. PP out does the police in murdering blacks by a fairly substantial number. Yet BLM has helped incite several ‘retaliation’ murders of cops, and not even one of an abortion provider. (I’ve heard that Colorado man didn’t have electricity, so I figure he wasn’t on twitter.)

    • Being older than dirt, I recall Carter well. And IMO he was as you say, genuinely wished to help, but was clueless on how to achieve that.

      Someone pointed out on Twitter (so take it for what it’s worth) that the PParenthood shooting had nothing to do with PP; rather, it was an attempted robbery of the adjacent Chase bank that went seriously wrong. Considering how confused The Event’s Narrative has been so far, this at least has the virtue of being a plausible explanation.

      • Echo my reply to kamas, here.

        Carter was a fraud and a crook, period. Still is, as a matter of fact. Nobody who makes as big a deal of being pious and virtuous in public, and who makes a point of being seen while doing so is likely to be trustworthy in any sense. As with most frauds and confidence men, they are doing all that as a part of their act, intending to pull the wool over your eyes. That you are so easily taken in does not speak well to your judgment of others character. I would guess that you’ve probably been the victim of a fair many swindles in your life, so far, and likely will face more of the same in the future.

        Carter. Well-meaning. Honest. Decent human being…

        If I didn’t half-suspect you guys were serious, hard as that is to believe, I’d be rolling with laughter, here. As is, I’m more than a little horrified.

        • I remember the very long gas lines, and the very slow traffic.
          For some reason, my motto during the Carter era was; “I should have been born black.” Neither Clinton nor Osama Obama evoked that same sentiment.
          I think Clinton I was more ‘I should have been born Canadian’, but I never actually verbalized that.

      • If I recall the timeline, there were tweets about him being in the lobby of the bank before he entered the PP office.

      • Yeah, No. I can give you one word to nail down President Carter’s term in office: Iran. We are still paying that butchers bill.

        Just imagine where the world would be now if there had been no money stream from the Mullahs to pick up the slack when the Soviet Union fell and the funding dried up for all those Soviet-funded terrorist organizations.

        Carter’s “well meaning” “sincere” acts in office will likely end up being a root cause for a third world war.

        And they made fun of Gerald Ford.

        • They weren’t well meaning at all. Carter PERSONALLY hated the Shah of Iran, from some previous event (maybe his mom slept with him or something? They were friends after all).
          But everyone with any ME experience KNEW that when Carter got in, that he was going to do whatever it took, to get rid of the Shah. Carter is the one who PERSONALLY had Khomeni flown into Iran, and warned the Shah PERSONALLY not to do anything to him.

          Carter created Iran, because he’s a mean SOB who didn’t care if he killed millions and destroyed the world, so he could settle a petty grievance.
          That’s evil.

          • He also shoots cats. OTHER PEOPLE’S CATS.

          • Carter was almost certainly on the take from the Saudis, with the funding for saving his family farm coming through BCCI, and which also coincidentally donated a bunch of money to his campaign for president.

            If you look at the timing, and what he did as soon as he got into office, you can do a fairly accurate “connect the dots” exercise to infer that someone probably helped put him into office in order to deal with a long-standing Saudi bugaboo, the Iranian issue. The Gulf Arabs were scared shitless of the Shah, and his army/air force/navy, and what I think basically went down was that good ol’ Jimmah Cahtah was the front man for their effort to destabilize Iran. Once he got into office, the US policy shifted on a dime, and any Iranian who was high up in the government over there at the time will tell you that they had no idea where all this “human rights” crap was coming from, other than the office of the President.

            The other leg of the failure chair that was there was one Jacques Chirac, who at the time was the primary government arms salesman for France. He’s the one who inked the deal for Iraq’s nuclear power plant, the one the Israelis had to blow up. The French very badly wanted to break into the Iranian arms business, but the Shah had at least one virtue: He was loyal to the US, and wouldn’t do business with them. Fat lot of good that did him, and every Iranian loyal to him.

            At the time, Khomeini was living in exile in France, protected from Iranian assassins by the French government.

            Connect the dots: The French wanted into the Iranian arms market, the Saudis wanted the Iranians weakened, and… Well, you tell me. I think our boy Jimmy was on the take before he went into office, because anyone I’ve talked to that was working Iranian issues, whether military or intelligence back in those days, all describe the same thing happening as soon as he took office: A complete change in US policy towards Iran, originating at the highest levels of government, namely the Oval Office.

            Looking back, you can see the signs of something akin to Jornolist going on. Too many stories about Iranian “human rights abuse” coming out at the same time from all the usual suspects, and the same themes being sounded. Truth to be told, the Shah killed fewer Iranians in the entirety of his reign than the mullahs did in the first few years of their rule. Savak was brutal, but they didn’t do the crap that the Revolutionary Guards did, nor did the Shah support international terrorists.

            All in all, I think that Carter was bought and paid for, and while I suspect that the destruction of the Shah was not the primary focus of his presidency, I believe that he probably looked at it as a means to an end. Someone offered him the means to become president, if he only did “…this one little thing…”. The only problem was, that means created such massive dislocation and destruction that I honestly believe that when they look back at this era, the deaths of millions are going to be laid at his feet, if not billions. Never forget that the final implications of making Mr. Carter president have yet to play out, and the nuclear destruction of much of the Middle East and potentially Europe will probably stem from his decision to destroy a loyal American client and ally. I can just about guarantee that when the Iranians nuke Israel, the Israeli “Samson Option” is going to include taking out about everybody they deem responsible for the destruction of their people and state. Said list probably includes the capitals of every state that provided the Arabs and Iranians with weapons of mass destruction technology, and of every major Islamic city. They may leave Indonesia and Bangladesh alone, but I sorta suspect that everybody else is going to have a brilliant flash as their last memory.

            If you think I’m nuts, take a look at where the money for the Carter Center comes from, and who paid the majority of the construction costs for his library. They weren’t Americans, except by way of laundering the money coming in from the Arabs.

            Carter deserves every minute of agony he’s going through for his cancer treatment. God knows there are millions of young men who died for his folly, in the Iran-Iraq War, and God alone knows how many others ought to be apportioned to him, as well. The Afghani nightmare might never have happened, had the Shah been in power still. With his intact army and air force, the Soviets might never have taken the risk of sticking their noses into Afghanistan, or felt the need to do so. Without the specter of Islamic Revolution at their borders, they might well have simply written the Afghan regime off. How many dead would that make? Who knows? For one damn thing, a certain crazy Saudi scion of a construction family wouldn’t have been radicalized by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and we might not be dealing with al Qaeda these days.

            A huge chunk of current problems in the Middle East can be traced back to that one little bitty decision made by an American president, where he chose to cut the feet out from under a loyal American client of long standing. May Jimmy Carter suffer at least as much as those hundreds of thousands of Iranian kids who were given cardboard keys to Paradise, before being shuffled off in human wave attacks against entrenched Iraqis…

            In the final analysis, it was all so unnecessary. And, such massive folly… How many human rights offenses have the mullahs racked up, by now? Compared to the Shah, what are the numbers at? Probably millions to one, by the end of all this.

            • That would explain why Carter declared war in energy and the first thing that he did was, as Jerry Pournelle put it, “disband the armored divisions” IE he killed any program that might actually produce energy and subsidized any looney thing that was essentially useless. That’s how wind and solar energy got their big starts and why the nuclear industry just about died. That was also the days of wearing sweater and turning down the thermostats.

            • Heh. Carter didn’t need outside money for the “farm.” The “farm” was – and maybe still is – a largish business beyond farming. It was – and maybe still is – a major chunk of Plains. The image of a businessman isn’t as homey as a peanut farmer, and so it was the peanut farmer angle that was played up politically.

              What you’re probably thinking about are the Libyans. Billy got involved with them as a foreign agent. There was a scandal about that.

              BTW, there was already trade ties between France and Iran. That’s why there were several Iranians in my French classes. One told me he needed to learn French for his father’s business. Then another classmate made a remark about used camel salesmen, and I never found out what business his family was in.

    • Carter? Sincere? Honest?

      Friend, if you believe that, and came to that conclusion all on your own, you really shouldn’t be allowed out in public without a responsible adult to protect your interests. You are dangerously naive, assuming you’ve taken Carter’s small-mouthed public face of earnest piety at face value. Based on that, if I were sitting on a jury, I’d invalidate any contract you entered into, and probably ask the court to appoint a guardian to look out for your interests.

      For fuck’s sake, this is the asshole who validated the elections in Venezuela for Chavez, and described Kim Jong Il as a trustworthy negotiation partner. Wonder where the hell we’d be if the asshole had managed to pull us out of Korea back in the 70’s, the way he wanted to…

      Carter is going to go down in history as one of the two worst and most corrupt presidents in modern American history. Ninety-nine percent of his malfeasance isn’t even known, and may never come out while he is alive. But, it will.

      • Yeah, Carter was always a lying dirtbag. The man is a leftist AND an SJW, and as we all know, they always lie.

        • I read his biography. HE MIGHT be History’s Greatest Monster and he has the blood of half of Africa on his hands.

          • He can’t be worse than Stalin.

          • For those of us born after his time we see him working with Habitat and he comes across as ‘Useful Idiot’. Also totally bubble-wrapped, but what US President isn’t? About as responsible as the kindergartener he sounds like–and needs to have his hand held to cross the road.

            The problem is like C.S. Lewis said about do-gooders–I think it was C.S. Lewis, anyway. That thing about preferring a corrupt dictator to a do-gooder dictator, because the one can be predicted and avoided or bribed, and the other will torture you to save you from yourself. Anyway, that’s where us young’uns come from in seeing Carter. Road to hell . . . good intentions . . . that’s his road. A True Believer in his own line.

            Maybe he’s got us all fooled. But I think that you’re overestimating the man’s competence.

            • “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

              I think that was the line you meant.

            • Aye. I was kid during the Carter administration and (mind my young age then) he came across as a well-meaning bumbler. I’d seen it later said that his one term was from his ‘success’ at the job he was elected to do: be NOT-Nixon. The job was done.

              After that, his Habitat building made him seem quite the decent fellow. And had he stuck to that and forgot about politics, and simply said that the Egypt-Israel deal was enough for him, and there was plenty of work for others.. I might have continued to believe that he was a decent fellow, in over his head as President.

              But he stayed mixed up in politics and managed to make statements and side with things that made no sense to anyone with open eyes and a brain with any semblance of function. And now, well, I have little regard for James Earl Carter.

              • It should probably be acknowledged that Carter “gave” us the Department of Education, that long-festering social disease which no therapy seems able to clear up.

                Frankly, I am afraid to Google the cumulative budgetary consumption of that department, and that would only be the beginning of tallying its cost.

              • I was also a kid when he took office, and the biggest thing I remember during the run up to the elections was a country station in GA playing a fake interview where all the answers were song clips. The one I remember? “What will you tell Mr Reagan if he wins?”

                Cue “Take this job and shove it…”

                • I have this peculiar recollection of J. Carter driving an old fashion open touring car (or similar), viewed head-on and smiling (as only he could then, it seemed) and saying, “Well…. Hell…….. Well….. Hell. Well Hell.” and that was about it. I am unsure if this was a strange dream I had way back when, or if it was part of some Saturday Night Live bit from way back when.

            • Reality Observer

              Listen to your elders, dear… No, I don’t mean that in a nasty way, really. But we lived through his regime – and have had some interest in what he’s been up to since.

              What you perceive as incompetence was the same as perceiving Obama’s “incompetence.” Yes, neither of them have been able to bring all of their plans to fruition. That is only thanks to resistance then and now.

              Obama has the soapbox right now, and (most of) his machinations are reported on somewhere. Carter is doing just as much as he can – and the media is giving him the same protection. Every once in a while the somewhat more honest media will pay attention, in the time they have between Obama’s scandals. He is (and always has been) great friends with the PLO, Hamas, Castro, the Kim dynasty, and Chavez (now Maduro) in Venezuela. Anything he can do to undermine the United States, he is busy doing – he just has less power to do it now.

              I might note that he was of some use to me, personally. Like most idiot high-school age kids at the time, I was drifting slowly towards the Left, away from my fairly Conservative parents. The years 1977 through 1981 certainly fixed that! (Although they are also why I never considered military service, alas. Being spat on (figuratively) by my Commander in Chief was not at all appealing – nor was being hung out to dry when he needed to “do something” for political points.)

              • Being spat on (figuratively) by my Commander in Chief was not at all appealing …

                I was in the Navy during the Carter years. I remember one Chief on my sub who got out with 18 years of service – he wasn’t willing to put up with what Carter was doing for the two more years it would take to qualify for retirement. I also remember that in my next assignment, I was only able to keep my rifle qualifications because I was a member of the base small arms team – apart from the MPs, we were the only ones permitted to use ammunition.

                • That was due to Carter’s military budgets. I was stuck at Wurtsmith AfB for 3 and a half years due to budget cuts.

                  • As for gutting the military budget, Carter did nothing his party wasn’t eager to have done. The only use the Dems had for the military budget was bacon for the folk back home, such as selling the Army trucks they didn’t want (see: the “Let’s get Les Aspin re-elected in Beloit Amendment”).

              • I was on active-duty (Air Force) during Carter’s administration. He struck me then as being a mealy-mouthed, two-faced hypocrite, and stunningly incompetent, as well. The Iran hostage-taking was entirely on his watch, and his absolute frecking fecklessness was just painful for military people to watch.
                And as for the one act of his which aroused rather bitter resentment at the base I was assigned to? (Misawa AB, in the very north of Japan.) Back in the day, the base high school was housed in three ancient buildings which had been Imperial Japanese Army cavalry stables. (The base was THAT old, that the original oldest buildings pre-dated WWII.) They were ramshackle, and on hot summer days still smelled faintly of horse-piss. The high school kids had to utilize the base gymnasium for their gym classes … and round about the late 1970’s, there was a small item in the DOD budget for building a new high school on Misawa AB.
                And Carter refused to sign off on it. There was, as I recall, much bitter commentary among the senior military — whose children were of high school age — that Amy Carter certainly didn’t have to go to classes in sixty or seventy-year old shacks that smelled of horse-sh*t.

                • Well, in fairness, Amy Carter had to deal with plenty of horse-sh*t in her home … although she was probably accustomed to the stench of that kind.

              • Carter was also the president who pardoned all the draft dodgers who ran to Canada, and likely made John Kerry’s political career possible.

          • I always liked the way Jonah Goldberg put it: Carter might not have been history’s greatest monster himself, but if he had the opportunity to shake the hand of history’s greatest monster, he would have leaped at the chance.

            • Catticus Finch

              That’s about how I view Carter (keeping in mind that I missed the Carter administration by a couple of years). Sometimes, I think it speaks worse for him. It’s as though he doesn’t have the huevos to be the monster, but he’s missing just enough spine to ingratiate himself to the monster. The monster at least knows what its doing, the lapdog only knows it must do what the monster wants.

              • Catticus Finch

                “it’s” not “its”

                I should know better.

              • Oh, he’s got the balls to be the monster. It’s just that nobody has ever made it plain to the public just what this sonuvabitch did, ever. During most of his presidency, the media was complicit with a.) putting him in office, and b.) then not telling the truth about what he was doing, or the effect of his policies. When Iran blew up in his face, nobody wanted to talk about he’d been the one to start demonizing the Shah almost as soon as he got into office, and with the full collusion of the news media. If you look back on those days, and paid attention, it can’t have been anything else. There were too many stories coming out supporting the “party line” at the same time, with the same talking points, and the same general thrust. Someone orchestrated all that, and it had to have been done with Carter’s aid and/or knowledge. My bet is on the Saudis, and it’s hysterically funny seeing just how their paranoia over the Iranian Shah has played out for them. How many billions were spent propping up and arming Saddam, to protect them against the Islamic Revolution they helped put into power in Iran? Yeah. Probably one of the worst foreign policy decisions ever made by anyone anywhere, right up there with Crassus stirring up trouble with the Persians. And, it played out about as well, too.

                Carter should be acknowledged as the monster he is. None of that folly happened by accident–The fingerprints are all over it, and he had to have been involved or at least had knowledge of it all. If there is any justice, the true history of those years will come out, and he’ll be remembered for precisely what he is: A pretentious, falsely-pious fraudulent crook.

                • Media put him in office? Please. Not intentionally. People looked at Carter and saw John Boy. The media looked at Carter and saw cracker. And the media tried to play up the “hick” angle. They made fun of his flannel shirts. They made fun of his blue jeans. They made fun of his being a farmer. They made fun of him being a Born Again Christian. They made fun of his Playboy interview. They made fun of his smile. They made fun of his teeth.

                  Except that this all played up the John Boy image people wanted right then. People ate it up.

                  Then along came Reagan, who wore flannel shirts and blue jeans, and the media didn’t say a word about it. That’s because Reagan was from Hollywood and the hick angle wouldn’t work. Instead, the big angle against Reagan was cowboy actor. Except Americans saw cowboys as heroes and looked forward to playing Cowboys and Persians if Reagan won, so the people ate up that attempt to demean a candidate, too.

                  • During the Reagan administration, a European acquaintance tried to tweak me by saying “And now you have an actor for a President.”

                    My reply was, “Yes. He acts just like a President…”

                    One of his high points was when a Navy ship was attacked off North Africa. A frantic staffer called him at his home at oh-dark-thirty in California where he was on vacation. Reagan told him the Navy knew what to do about it and he’d look at the reports in the morning.

                    The media put their spin on it, but every active or ex-military person I knew viewed it as a vote of confidence. The last thing an officer in the field wants is the CIC breathing down his neck in a tight situation; if he wants guidance, he’ll get on the radio and ask for it.

                    Contrast that to the current incumbent’s micro-management of operations he has no business interfering in…

                  • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                    I laugh when I remember how the Media dismissed Reagan as “just an actor” but the Media loves actors who support causes that the Media likes. [Evil Grin]

          • What was the name of the biography? I wouldn’t mind giving it a look to compare notes. I never met the man, but did meet his mother, and knew people who did know the Carters, none of them tied to politics. And if the biographer discussed the 1970 gubernatorial campaign and not tell how Carter was tried, and convicted in the 1970 Dodge County Centennial Kangaroo Court on the charge of not having a beard, he didn’t try hard enough.*

            What some have seemed to missed is that’s it’s possible to do all sorts of things with the best of intentions, which accounts for most liberals/SJW. I voted for Reagan in 1980, but never heaped scorn on the man because I disagreed with his policies. Is Carter naive? Yes. A total politician? Yes. A terrible person? No.

            *The Dodge County Centennial Kangaroo Court was a big to-do at the time, with the proceedings carried live over a radio station. We picked it up while traveling. Whoever it was on trial at that moment was sentenced to selling toilet paper while wearing a dress. It was that sort of thing. Years later I saw pictures of it. The “trials” were held on a stage or flatbed truck. IIRC, a clean shaven Jimmy Carter wore overalls for the event.

          • …he has the blood of half of Africa on his hands.

            I’m fairly sure I’ve missed something important here. What do I need to look up to fill this strange gap?

            • The implosion of the Portuguese colonies, for one. Carter more or less gave carte blanche to the soviets to make it THEIR colonies, with Cuban mercenaries killing and maiming and raping at will. Read some of Peter Grant’s stuff from that time, over at his blog. Sure, Portugal might have “transitioned” the colonies to independence earlier. Maybe should have. (I’m divided on giving colonies independence. With few obvious exceptions it tends to result in madness) but it happened over Carter’s watch and I can tell you horror stories, someday.
              I don’t remember if this is when Rhodesia went nuts, too, but I think so.

              • I remember that time all to well, the Cuban’s had the third (maybe second) biggest army in the world at that time, only the soviets was known to be bigger, and the Russians were sending them EVERYWHERE.
                And as usual, Carter sided with them. I don’t think he ever once stood up to the Soviets on -anything-.
                Hell, he even lost the Panama Canal!

                But dozens of countries fell to communism, many of which were in Africa, and a few in Central America and South America. But hey, the cocaine parties in the white house during his tenure were pretty famous.

                • I think many in the Carter Administration thought that their role in foreign policy was to turn as much of the world over to the Soviets as possible. Because that would make a better world or something.

                  • This was the time of “communism is morally superior.”

                    • Oh, yes. I remember. I also read Reader’s Digest, which strangely enough was one of the FEW Conservative, more or less media sources out here. One of the others was Jerry Pounelle’s A step Farther Out which took a LOT of the feel good, because the end of the world nonsense to task. Remember that the Carter years were the heyday of the Progressive doomsayers in which nuclear power meltdowns, pesticide and everything else poisoning, black clouds of doom and people living wrong was going to DOOM, DOOM us all!!! I think that they got that one wrong.

                    • Both Kissinger and Nixon had the idea that the Soviets had essentially won. The US had bought into the idea of the “Soviet Superman,” at least in the ROTC posters I remember in college, and the Soviets were overestimated on several points.

                      I defer to those who served in the military at that time about conditions there. I do recall giving a ride early in the Reagan Administration to a couple of friends who had just got out of the Army. Their reason? They didn’t trust who had their back should they have to crawl up the hill. There was tremendous turn-around during the Reagan years.

                      Then the USSR imploded and we had the talk about “peace dividend.”

                • Not true. Carter did the boycott thing over Afghanistan, and the canal transfer was ratified by the senate – the vote was televised, and this was in the days of network TV.

                  Remember this was immediately after Vietnam, and even if the military hadn’t been gutted in the postwar years, there was little stomach for sending US forces anywhere.

                  If you want something to gripe about, Carter shelved the neutron bomb and the breeder reactor program. The first was fears of ticking off the Soviets, and the second was fears over producing plutonium.

                  • Don’t forget his executive order shutting down nuclear reprocessing.

                    • That was window dressing. Both GE and Westinghouse had built reprocessing plants and were ready to start re-processing used fuel, but then the price of uranium went into free-fall in 1976 and drastically increased the federal subsidies that would be necessary to make reprocessed fuel competitive with new fuel. Congress refused to up the subsidies, and both companies were planning to shutter the facilities. Carter merely burnished his anti-nuclear bona fides by signing the EO. I also think Ford refused to support the subsidy increases.

                    • However, shutting down reprocessing also meant that all nuclear waste had to continue being dealt with as high-level waste. In simplistic terms, the more radioactive it is, the less time it’s radioactive. Without reprocessing, you have the worst of both worlds: you have to protect all the waste as if it were high-level, and you have to make sure the protection lasts a long time.

                  • Oh yeah the ‘boycott’! that wasn’t much of a success was it? All it did was deny a bunch of American Men and Women the chance to go to the Olympics and perform, to beat the communist countries.

                    That worked out well, the only people he screwed where us.

                    As for being ratified in the senate, well the Senate had been democrat controlled for over 40 years, of course they ratified it. They gave him everything he wanted.

                  • The shelving of breeder reactors is so very irksome, and though I was rather young at the time, I did understand that that would be a Thing, Not Good for us for electrical supply, at the least.

                    If Carter shelved the neutron bomb, he did after he (or someone in his administration) brought it up and mentioned European deployment. I do recall the worried claims of it making use less unappealing – never mind that the thing is still a nuclear device and “leave the buildings alone” is utter fiction.

                    In the 1980s, during Reagan administration with the Left all proclaiming WWIII had all but started and it was simply a matter of when Reagan would ‘press the button’… I encountered a fascinating bit of magnetic tape, that was alas completely unlabeled. There were several songs, by some Canadian comic-singer it seems. Amongst the subjects of the tunes were: A prince’s visit for an education, the issue of metrification, chemical pollution across Canada, and the neutron bomb. I can recall bits of it, but do not have the lyrics exactly transcribed, nor do I have a recording handy, alas.

                    Let’s have a nice, clean holocaust,
                    With a nice clean neutron bomb!
                    Buildings won’t be damaged at all,
                    But the number of survivors will be very very small.

                    He’s J. C. President Carter…
                    He’s the Lord of Love, the Prince of Peace,
                    Spearhead of the anti-war machine.
                    He’s determined if we’re to have a nuclear war,
                    America will fight it clean!

                    [There was considerably more, this is just the little bit I can recall just now.]

                    And finding this gem, about Carter and the neutron bomb, during the early years of the Reagan presidency was a real mood-lifter for me.
                    Alas, I’ve never heard of anyone else who had encountered any of these tunes, nor have I found out who performed them. I had been hoping for some time that there might be other works I’ve yet to enjoy.

                    • Shelving Clinch River was a wise decision. ALL the breeders of that design used sodium as a coolant and ALL of them suffered from continuous sodium leaks into the water side of the steam generators. Look up the operating histories of Phenix, Super Phenix, the Russian breeder, and the Japanese breeders.

                      Clinch River would have been another addition to that long list of operational failures and a complete waste of money.

                    • Joe: Sodium cooling scared me the instant I knew anything at all about it. Sure, sodium might have some desirable thermal properties, but it has so many undesirable chemical properties that it falls into either the category of “We must NEVER do that.” or at least, “We don’t know nearly enough to do that. Try again in a century. Meanwhile, if you want to work on the problem – do it over there, far away from anything anyone cares about, and with nothing radioactive. See you.”

                    • Materials technology still ahs not advanced enough to resist sodium corrosion attack and also be able to take the temperatures/pressures and neutron dosage of a nuclear breeder reactor. Stainless Steel is still the material of choice and sodium still attacks it easily. IT’s the same reason the solar thermal plants don’t operate for very long either.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Might be DDT.

              • No DDT was banned during the Nixon administration. Rachael Carlson’s ‘The Silent Spring’ was the prototype of progressive science… use what you want, discard anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.

          • Catching up … Thanks for your blog!
            Africa? How so?

        • I know comparatively little about Carter. But what little I do know backs what y’all say. That smarmy little b*stard’s a con man. He managed to fool a lot of people, but what’s now history and out in public is already damning enough. Beyond enough.

          Which is why it scares me when the guys I work with, who remember Carter better than I, say the current occupant of the White House is going to end up worse when history tells the tale.

          • Catticus Finch

            “Which is why it scares me when the guys I work with, who remember Carter better than I, say the current occupant of the White House is going to end up worse when history tells the tale.”

            This has long been my consolation, actually. History will eventually see through the charade which we must endure. For all those people cheering that they’re on “the right side of history”, I have to say, “Children, there is no ‘right side of history’.” That is a lie told by people who do not understand history. It is a lie told by people who can only see the world in terms of their own short-lived lives (as we are all short-lived in comparison to the long march of human events). History is often at the mercy at the times in which it’s studied and the methodologies by which it is analyzed. Not all times will be like today and one day, the events of today will be read with fascinated wonder in much the way we read about Caligula and Nero.

          • I have read credible arguments — long enough back that I can’t recall the source — that Carter’s main (only) presidential achievement, the Camp David Accords, came about in spite of his efforts, not because of them.

            • That was how the news reported it.
              The editorial cartoon that got the most play showed the Egyptian and Israeli leaders playing together (I forget their names at the moment) while ‘daddy’ Carter was trying to build a swing set and obviously failing.

            • Actually, the story goes that Sadat and Begin were at loggerheads, and Carter moved discussions to Camp David. The two had little else to do but to talk to each other. And the rest is history.

              The announcement of the Camp David Accords happened on a Sunday night. NBC was running the remake of King Kong, and right where Kong wades across the Hudson, NBC cut to a special bulletin. Sadat, Carter, and Begin made the announcement to reporters. And when Carter said the discussions had been difficult, Begin gave a distinct nod or two.

          • Carter is now a forlorn best case scenario.

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          The sad thing is that he was closer to sanity when he was President.

          Tom Kratman may have “tagged” him correctly when Carter’s counter-part in Tom’s Terra Nova novels was described as never forgiving the voters for rejecting him.

          Carter may have gone off the deep end when it became obvious that neither side of American politics respected him.

          • Carter went off teh deep end long before he became President.
            He always sided with evil. He was incompetent as incompetent could be, and he allowed his personal petty issues to influence everything he did.
            I don’t think there is a single noteworthy accomplishment from his entire tenure that was good. But there were a lot of bad ones.

            • Carter must have awful to work for in the Navy.

              • You’ll have to pose that question to the men who went into that nuclear reactor with him. A partial meltdown, and they could only work 90 seconds at a time. And Carter went in there, too.

                That went through my mind when he announced he has cancer.

                • I’ve heard that was like Hillary being under fire.

                  • The man got an unhealthy dose of radiation, as did the others. You don’t get that from the sidelines. If the biography you read claimed he didn’t, you might want to re-evaluate its veracity.

                    • The Chalk River accident was an unholy mess, I wouldn’t be surprised if people got significant dose just from walking onto the site.

                      Later studies put the combined dose of the ~300 outside workers – military and contractors – at around 600 rem. The average dose of 2 rem – and an officer like Carter would have received a below-average dose even if he were actively helping with the cleanup simply due to the administrative demands of his position – is nowhere near what would be considered unhealthy. The US occupational limit for rad workers is 5 rem a year every year.

                    • Not the biography, but people here, the last time it was discussed. Apparently the dates make as much sense as Kerry’s with Cambodia.

                    • Think what you wish. I’ve heard otherwise.

          • Tom Kratman may have “tagged” him correctly when Carter’s counter-part in Tom’s Terra Nova novels was described as never forgiving the voters for rejecting him.

            Sure that’s not Al Gore?

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              The individual in Tom’s book was a one-term President who never met a dictator he didn’t like. [Wink]

          • IIRC, according to a Popular Mechanics cover story, Carter was so depressed after losing the election that Roslyn was concerned. Remembering how he liked woodworking, she and the staff took up a collection and had a furnished workshop waiting for him when he returned to private life. It was a surprise, and Carter took to it. One of the things in the PM story was a photo of a wood steamer Carter had built to bend wood.

            Habitat for Humanity may have come out of that. Don’t know. But I do remember when Carter was interviewed about Habitat for Humanity that the reporter made some comment that he wished he could help, and Carter put him on the spot and told him to come on out. FWIW, the news that night showed the reporter did show up and work.

    • An anonymous source with the police has leaked that the guy made a statement about “no more baby parts” during his interrogation. But the same source also stated that the guy said so many things during his interrogation, that even with that statement the police weren’t able to figure out a motive from that interview.

      • Sounds a bit like the ploy from the movie “Airheads” where the incompetent hostage takers tack on all kinds of random demands to set up an insanity defense.

        Or the guy could have a few crossed wires.

    • According to a member of the WeaselNation (Weaselzippers commentariat) who was following the mess on the police scanner, the shooter may have started at the bank, then took shots at people on the street, then ducked into the PP building (one suspects because the door had not been locked yet). Some of the background I’ve read on the guy (from public record and neighbor comments) suggests that he’s bug-nuts crazy. That makes far more sense than the media narrative of him being Colorado’s most incompetent anti-abortion activist.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        The American Thinker is calling him pro-choice. I’m told the look in his eyes is suggestive of Schizo.

        • Shucks, nobody looks good in those photos. Search out the mug shots of Randy Quaid and Nick Nolte and you’ll appreciate the work of Hollywood’s make-up, lighting and cinematographers far more.

          • Reality Observer

            Don’t even need a mug shot, RES. If all you ever saw of me was my D/L photo, you’d shoot me when I got within 100 yards of any of your kids…

      • I learned long ago that the media narrative and the facts had something in common only by accident.

        For myself, I look at Colorado and see a state which has multiple shooting incidents in recent years (Columbine, Aurora …) and wonder whether there is something in the pot.

        Daughtorial unit recently sent me a Guardian report on a study determining that “skunk” causes deterioration in the corpus callosum, which would a) seem to increase occurrence of schizophrenia and b) afflict men more than women. I am confident we will see an extensive discussion of this should the shooter prove to have been a smoker. (Right after the MSM does a financial audit on the monies spent on Obamacare exchanges.)

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Was that the CAT scan study?

          I know I’ve seen incidental mention of pot use in at least one, maybe at least two, of the big news spree killings.

          A third mentioned recreational Xanax.

          I could easily believe that all of them had smoked weed at some point. The general trend is mental issues exacerbated by personal habits that are horrible at mitigating mental health problems.

      • What I heard locally (I live in CoS, about seven miles from the shooting) is that the incident started at the bank, then moved out to the street, and a man Dear shot on the street limped over to the PP offices and went inside looking for medical help. Dear followed him in.

        Definitely a psycho.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Did he get any medical help at the PP offices?

          • No; once Dear entered the PP offices, he shot the man, Ke’Arre Stewart, several times. Stewart is one of the three fatalities in the shooting. Some reports say he wanted medical help; others say he just wanted to warn those inside.

          • Feather Blade

            I’d be surprised if the doctors there remember how to help someone injured.

        • That’s what I heard too.

        • That accords with my reading of the timelines. There were tweets about a gunman in the bank well before the entry into the PP office

          • Isn’t it funny that we can no longer count on the news media to report news? That no one knows what really happened, because the news media can’t be bothered to report on anything that doesn’t further their propaganda efforts in support of the ruling elite.

            • I perceive you suffer from the illusion that “news” is the same thing to the producer as to the consumer. This is very similar to the confusion many make regarding “the public’s right to know” as understood by the public and by those about whom the public desires to know.

            • THIS. I’ve been saying this for 8 years. Though I submit it’s only because now we can check and see when they lie.

    • Carter was a half-bright scold, the first of our finger-wagging Presidents.

    • I personally try to forget Carter. BTW the Policeman killed in the PP standoff was Pro-Life.

    • I don’t know about how sincere the man was in wanting to help folks. He was certainly most sincere in his beliefs that he knew better than any ordinary American what was good for us. Wasn’t it Carter about whom Reagan quipped that the scariest words you’ll ever here are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.

      He also screwed over the armed forces by the numbers, probably because he was a failure as a Naval Officer

  6. BobtheRegisterredFool

    I have had family tell me that I was the first coherent anti-communist intellectual they’ve ever met, and that I have helped them see the world in a new way.

    Just recently I pointed out that the difference between the WWII pacifists and the Vietnam pacifists was that the communists were not identifying as such in the former period.

  7. See, here’s the thing: I hear people all the time that say “Fox News is a right-wing biased news source…”, but I honestly can’t see that. They present much the same stories, echo many of the same talking points as the other “news” sources, but they barely manage to give more than a pretense of telling those stories from a conservative perspective or sensibility. So… Maybe they could honestly be described as being somewhat less liberal than other sources.

    As with most of this stuff, the real point of the whole bias in media lies more in what they don’t report, rather than how they report what they do talk about.

    My take on Fox is that they are essentially just like the rest of the media, only with a veneer of conservatism to serve the purpose of market differentiation in order to make money for Rupert Murdoch. They’re no more a voice for conservatism than Thomas Paine was a monarchist voice for the Crown.

    • That’s my take on Fox too. It’s not voicing an ideology; it’s filling a market niche.

      • My fav is when they say ‘oh, you watch Faux News’ like they’re making some clever commentary and I respond ‘You know ‘faux’ is pronounced ‘pho’? Pho news sounds pretty dumb.’

        Needless to say, seeing a lot less of that these days.

        • Pho News is to alert of new ethnic restaurants, isn’t it?

          • Yup. New iPhone app. You can also get BBQ News and Polenta News (Italian food). For Cajun or French, try The Rue Review. 😉

            • Reality Observer

              Make sure you type that last correctly into the search engine.

              You might be somewhat shocked at the “Ru Review.”

            • Anonymous Coward

              Rue Review is for street maps. Roux Review is the restaurant guide.

              • Point. I can spell correctly in Latin, German, Spanish, and Hungarian (if you overlook the missing long umlauts and unusual accents that Word won’t let me find/buy). English and French are a carpshoot. 😉

                • Reality Observer

                  I’ll buy a long umlaut, Pat…

                  I have (at last count) some 700 fonts on this machine, of which at least fifty are “symbol” sets.

                  Still can’t find something I need half the time.

    • Most people who say something like “Fox News is a right-wing biased news source…” don’t know what they are talking about. They engage in multiple errors.

      First, they probably don’t watch Fox and thus are arguing out of ignorance.

      Second, they typically conflate news commentary with news reporting. This is especially so when they attempt to discuss Hannity or O’Reilly. Offering such “magazine” content no more makes FNC a right-wing biased news source than selling Fifty Shades and Playboy make Barnes & Noble a smut shop. Even such ‘stacked deck”: shows Fox offers (e.g., The Five) are merely replicating formats purveyed on Mainstream television, albeit with the deck stacked in the opposite direction. But each participant (unlike in the Mainstream) is honest about their tilt.

      Third, Fox typically offers “balanced” presentations, with one Right-aligned talking head and one Left-aligned. The fact that the MSM usually only offers the one talking head or lets the host go all O’Reilly doesn’t make them more objective. MSM panels are typically “balanced” from Far-left to Center-left, sometimes with one part conservative to three parts liberal.

      Fourth, most such critics are so woefully ignorant of the disparate viewpoints on the Right that they actually believe Bill O’Reilly is conservative. Thus their analysis of bias is fundamentally invalid.

      Fifth, all independent surveys of news content find very little bias in Fox News’ reporting (as opposed to their commentary.) Fox does differ from its competition by asking the occasional question from the Right as opposed to uniformly adopting Leftish views as their default.

      Sixth, Fox will pursue stories which the Left would rather have dropped down the memory hole. This might reflect network bias, but more reasonably reflects news judgement in lieu of deference to The Narrative. Examples include the Kermit Gosnell trial, the Planned Parenthood exposes, the Hillary Contradictions and more. Time again, when the MSM has said “These are not the droids you’re looking for” FNC has said “Which droids are these, then?”

      • Ah, but Jon Stewart says they’re rightest and biased! For the typical left leaning hipster pseudo-intellectual, that’s as good as gospel.

        • Stewart is a comedian — nothing he says can be taken seriously.

          N.B., this item from National Review Online:

          Obama Ignores Time-Limit Chimes, Continues Speaking at Paris Conference
          By Tom S. Elliott — December 1, 2015

          Despite going several minutes past his allotted time at the Paris Climate Conference Monday, President Obama ignored repeated requests he wrap up his remarks.

          Organizers used a chime sound effect to notify speakers when they reached the end of their allotted time. Obama spoke for at least six minutes after the first chime, ignoring at least 14 chimes overall — which became more frequent as his remarks continued.

          Obama, who initially looked confused by the chime, quickly opted to stick with his scripted comments and ignore the organizer’s pleas altogether.

          At a subsequent press conference, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, defended Obama speaking well past his given time. “There is always a unique interest” in what the president says, Rhodes argued.

          — Tom S. Elliott is the founder and editor of Grabien.

          Emphasis added

          • I gave up listening to him at least a year ago. I simply do not care, whatever the subject. And on some, he is simply batsh*t crazy. Terrorism and Global Warming are linked…. Munich Olympics? PanAm Flight 103? We were either back in the Ice Age or Acid Rain crises then.
            Now, I will admit that terrorism and AGW are linked in the minds of progressives that will use either ‘crisis’ as a way to totalitarian rule. Beyond that, nope.

            • You lasted that long?

              I quit listening to major presidentialspeechess during the Bush years. Never bother with Barry.

              • once, when I was quite small, Nixon interrupted something I wanted to see. I exclaimed “He’s gonna be on all the channels too” (we had 3, NBC, CBS, and PBS) and I pretty much ignored presidential speeches from then on.
                Even a President I agree with is usually just wasting breath up there anyhow. If it really important, it is usually known before, or if not, I’ll get the in-depth afterwards.

              • Actually, the last State of the Union I watched was Clinton. In some ways, I was in awe. He stood there and talked and talked. While you were listening, it even made sense. When he was done, I thought back and realized ‘null content’. Nothing of meaning had been discussed.
                I was actually fond of listening to Bush the younger. I realized early that he spoke what he meant. It was always fun to listen, and then watch the talking heads try to spin it, because to their minds, no one could mean what they said, so there had to be a deep hidden meaning.

          • Stewart ALWAYS means to be taken seriously by his acolytes. It’s only when he’s called on his lies that he goes for the goofy shrug and “hey, I’m just a comedian here” shtick.

            • Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows,
              Such are those who deceive their neighbor, and then say, “I was only joking.”

          • Reality Observer

            IIRC, that happened during the Romney debates too, didn’t it?

            (May have with McCain, too, I dunno. Can’t watch things where I’m hoping someone left the gas on in the building somewhere…)

          • Stewart pretends to be a comedian. He’s actually a dishonest hack.

            With a double helping of dishonest.

            • If he is going to pretend to be a comedian there’s no reason I should pretend he isn’t. His inability to amuse me doesn’t make him serious.

    • It’s perhaps worth noting that I wrote off NPR when their election night coverage in 2000 was a Gore pep rally. In 2004, it was NBC that first called the election for Bush. Fox held off until after an NBC News interview with the Ohio Secretary of State, who explained the number of uncounted absentee ballots were less than the margin of Bush victory. At that point Fox projected Bush the winner.

      Not so CNN, who dragged on until Kerry conceded sometime the next day. It got to be a local joke: Has CNN said Bush won yet? And I haven’t had use for CNN since.

  8. It is better to shout “The king’s knees are knobbly” than “The emperor has no clothes” because the former includes a factual assertion which creates a lasting image.

    Just so, observe how Carly Fiorina handled a question about the Planned Parenthood shooter:

    “What I would say to anyone who would try to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or the sale of body parts, is this is typical, left-wing tactics,” she added.

    Fiorina said demonstrators should be courteous regardless of what they are protesting.

    “Any protesters should always be peaceful, whether it’s Black Lives Matter or pro-life protesters,” she said. “Protesters should always be peaceful and respectful.”

    Further, when a claim such as “hateful talk incited this attack” we should ask

    a) where is their evidence this guy listened to such talk

    b) ask whether the inflammatory rhetoric of Hillary, Bernie, campus protesters (“We need some muscle over here”) and BLM (“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”) might not be contributing to this atmosphere.

  9. I remember back in the 90’s when the internet was starting to come of age. I was living in the PNW and there was a bunch of stuff going on there, that when I talked to my friends and family back east, they all accused me of making up, because it wasn’t on the news!

    And I get the point on self-censoring, I worry all the time about saying something that will drive even more people to Amazon to downgrade my books, and vote up the few bad reviews that I have.

    Further I live in a less than conventional lifestyle, and I’ve found that those on the left (who tend to dominate management out here in the left coast in hi-tech) will harass and/or fire you if they discover these things about your personal life. So keeping one’s personal life, as well as one’s political beliefs, a secret at work, is paramount to keeping your job.

    People accuse the right of being racist and bigots all the time, yet it’s the left that practices these things with rigor. But too many people listen to words, rather than look at actions.

    • Try rephrasing that as a “more than conventional lifestyle.”

    • … when I talked to my friends and family back east, they all accused me of making up, because it wasn’t on the news!

      My girlfriend, who is a life-long Democrat and very liberal, used to accuse me of the same thing. When I started pulling up web references, she accused me of getting them from “blogs” until I showed her the stories in foreign news media.

      • It is sad when the British news is carrying a story that our own MSM seems unwilling to touch.

        • You know what is beyond sad? When the National Effing Enquirer is carrying a genuine news story our own MSM refused to touch.

          • Yes, I think “There is the National Enquirer, an honest news source” whenever I see them in the tabloid rack at check-out.

            • And I’ve been known to say “oh, look, America’s paper of record.”

              • The Other Sean

                Its no more divorced from reality than much of what the rest of the media reports.

                • That is because the NY Times still drives the MSM.

                  In newsrooms across the nation, executive producers read the NY Times and then demand of their associate producers “Why aren’t we covering this – it’s on the front page of the Times!” So associate producers learn how to cover their rears: if it is in the Times, you better cover the story or have a heck of a good reason for not doing so.

                  I recall Brit Hume talking about having one of his stories overwhelmed, back when he was a reporter, and being told by his editor, “You’ve been Timesed.”

                  • Similarly, I recommend the article “There are 00 trees in Russia” (available in PDF at link) which explains the tricks used by (most notably) Time Magazine to give their reporting a high gloss veneer of substance. The writer composes the story using 00 wherever it would look good to have a detail, leaving it to fact checkers and researchers to fill in the 0s. This creates a barrage of facts which obscure the one salient fact: the story is a load of crap.

                    Very well researched crap, with 00 tons of the kind of detail that makes readers think the writer authoritative, but it is all illusion.

          • …and I’m seeing The Guardian and the Daily Mail quoted a lot lately, too.

            Pretty soon even Pravda will start looking pretty good, and someone will bring back the Weekly World News.

            Frankly, I get most of my news fix from The Onion, which at least makes coherent sense, unlike CNN or Reuters…

        • In all fairness, that appears to be a universal issue. You get better news coverage outside of a country than in it quite often. I think the distance blunts some of the allegences driving local coverage.

          • I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘better’, just a different slant. They typically have their own political agenda they are presenting, so what gets reported may or may not resemble reality.

      • “I bet you got that form an angry right-wing blog”

        No – the NY Times.

        • I finally gave up on the NY Times as a news source back in 1992 when I realized its editors didn’t read their own paper’s business section. The front page of the business section reported the economy in recovery a month before the election, but the editorial pages kept complaining about Bush’s handling of the economy.

          After that, I read the paper only for sports, movie & theatre coverage, and Bill Safire’s columns.

    • Further I live in a less than conventional lifestyle, and I’ve found that those on the left (who tend to dominate management out here in the left coast in hi-tech) will harass and/or fire you if they discover these things about your personal life.

      The worst display of attempting to use homosexuality to discredit someone was by Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen against Andrew Tobias (a gay financial writer, author of, among other things The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need as well as its sequal and revisions) because he opposed them on an auto-insurance initiative in California.

      Up to and including accusing him of seeing the insurance industry as his big, gay, daddy (he devotes a chapter to the overall campaign in My Vast Fortune which discusses this abuse briefly).

      • Reality Observer

        Of course. Any deviation from the “line of progress” is immediately punished, and quite severely.

      • Not really surprising. We see conservative blacks labeled ‘Uncle Tom’ constantly. Of course if a gay does not tote the liberal line, he has to be some kind of ‘deviant gay’. Their love of diversity does not allow their people to leave the plantation.

        • Their love of diversity does not allow their people to leave the plantation.

          That would be inauthentic.

  10. Family used to watch 60 Minutes every week. This is where I learned to loathe football’s concept of time. But after moving out, the ritual faded… and eventually I watched it… and found I couldn’t stand it. The bias had me biased right into cutoff.

    Comparing various news sources might have been limited pre- (or early) internet, but it was possible. TV was pretty monoculture, but newspapers varied some, and a shortwave set opened up the world – even if there was much that was biased. That was itself useful, actually. I watched Olbermann (I think) exactly once, for one particular story that involved $HOUSEMATE getting some coverage. And I didn’t bother again. It screamed old Radio Moscow to me. Might not have been actual lies, but what truth there was was very carefully mis-presented. The bit $HOUSEMATE was involved was rather apolitical, but the rest had me fuming more than nitric acid.

  11. Reminds me of my senior year at law school, when the local Federalist society decided not to have any events because the leadership didn’t want the headache.

  12. If you can, if there’s any way you can join us, maybe all you’ll do is make someone else feel less alone, less crazy.

    The tremendous power unleashed by the realization that you’re not the only one is the principal reason why the Left is so avid for government control of the Internet. They don’t want us to learn that we’re actually a majority of Americans. They’ll do anything, from lies through character assassination, threats, all the way to violence, to keep us from joining hands.

    • Preference Cascade. Instapundit has been hoping for one for years. In some respects, I hope it has already happened, but the people who are involved are quiet and biding their time.

      • We’re waiting for someone to take the role of the Pres of Oklahoma Wesleyan University and say something like, “No. You are wrong and behaving badly. I will not stop the world because you believe X. That is wrong, your facts are wrong, and enough is enough. Now leave my office and do your work, or be fired. Come back with your lawyers, please. I have documentation.” And when he or she (or the company) wins, the rest of us will feel safe enough to do likewise with far less fear of being sacked/banned from our professions/black-listed/ down-reviewed/threatened with SWATing/ what have you.

        • This is a test. If it succeeds, an actual comment will be posted.

        • A reminder of an era when “trigger-warnings” (like not reading Hoyt comments with your mouth full) were deemed superfluous:

          Notice, he kept the dime.

          This completes the test. WP thrice said this comment could not be posted. Thrice denied is not enough to deter this thing.

          • Kingsfield would have eaten those Yale wussies for lunch. Of course in those day professors had authority. And Paper Chase was one of the Best movies of the 1970’s.

  13. The tide is turning, ever so slowly but still turning. Recently on Reddit I’ve been seeing people (SJWs) complain about how the news subreddit (a major “default” subreddit) is horribly racist for not immediately believing the Minnesota Black Lives Matter protesters version of the shootings at their protest. Yet the people on r/news do not believe, and the SJWs are downvoted. And I’ve seen incredulity from SJWs that certain threads on the KotakuInAction (#GamerGate) subreddit become incredibly popular; they’re convinced it’s some sort of chicanery. The SJW-promoted and media-maintained idea that the SJWs views are the mainstream and the rest of us are merely fossils holding on to obsolete and discredited views is completely threadbare by now. Either that or the world is being invaded by velociraptors, but I think that’s an acceptable alternative.

  14. Jimmah Carter was America’s rebound relationship after Nixon.
    And like most hasty hookups, it is soon regretted.

    • That sad thing is that Nixon didn’t do anything that his predecessors hadn’t done — but he didn’t understand that only Dems are allowed to tape Oval Office conversations, use the IRS to target political enemies (which is why the IRS never did for him what it had done for LBJ & JFK) nor the myriad other things for which they went after him.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        I remember hearing that one of Ike’s sons was asked if his father had taped Oval Office conversations and was told that Ike had.

        The reporter dropped the subject very fast. [Wink]

        • Haldeman, in his book about his time serving in the administration, had an amusing anecdote about LBJ’s recording system. iirc, the story was that LBJ was talking to RFK, and the latter was saying all sorts of juicy things that LBJ could have used if he’d had a record of them. But RFK knew about the recording system, and brought a white noise emitter with him that fouled up the microphones. The entire conversation was apparently just a troll by RFK.

      • I sometimes wonder if destroying the wrong people isn’t why they pushed for an income tax in the first place. Strangely, I’ve never seen the political debate before the bill was passed.

      • Taping was known and went back at least as far as the Truman administration. The issue was what was on the tapes. Evidence indicating Nixon had ordered the Watergate break-in? When it came to a part that looked revealing, all of a sudden there was a gap of several minutes in the tape.

        Transcripts of the tapes were published in newspapers – which is where I picked up the term [expletive deleted].

        BTW, consider a couple of things:

        1. The break-in happened with George McGovern as the Democrat candidate. Maybe two states went for McGovern. And Nixon feared losing to him.

        2. The conversations took place where they were taped.

        • There is ample reason to believe the break-in was not authorized by the Nixon Campaign, that it was done by John Dean using the Nixon Campaign as cover. This argument often speculates that Dean was seeking to erase evidence of his wife, Maureen’s, work as a prostitute. This has been the basis of several legal actions between Dean and G. Gordon Liddy, all of which have been inconclusive in large part because of Dean’s refusal to actually pursue his claims and allow Liddy to engage in discovery.

          There is also a strong argument

          that Federal District Judge John Sirica conducted the trials of the original six Watergate defendants and subsequent cover-up conspirators in a highly biased and injudicious manner; that the co-conspirators should have been granted a change of venue outside the media hothouse of Washington, D.C.; that Sirica conducted ex parte meetings about Watergate with journalists, the chief counsel of the Senate Watergate committee, and the special prosecutors; and that some of the evidence of wrongdoing was either trumped up or woefully misunderstood in the media frenzy.

          according to a book from Nixon White House aide Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal.

          Review here:

          No, it makes no sense that Nixon was concerned about a possible McGovern victory. So what would have been the reason?

        • Bullshit.

          The gaps in the tape came three days after the break-in. What do you suppose happened, he used a time-tunnel to give the orders to conduct the break-in, and that’s what they were covering up?

          You write like you think you know history. What you know are left-wing talking points, and are parroting them perfectly.

          I don’t know what Nixon’s involvement was in the whole break-in fiasco, but I highly doubt he was the one who gave the order to do it. Cover it up, and do damage control? Certainly. Ordered it done? Why? He was winning, remember? Given the out-of-control nature of a lot of the other things that Haldeman and company were up to, and which Nixon should have been held responsible for, given that he’d given them the power to do that crap, I rather suspect that the actual responsibility for the break-in order was lower down in the food chain. And, since the responsible parties aren’t very likely to tell the truth, even at this late date, I don’t think we’re ever going to know the full story.

          • What you call history was current events for myself and some others here. You may want to consider that. Or not. It’s entirely up to you.

            • So, you want to contend that the missing time on the tape covers some sort of retroactive order to conduct the break-in, from three days in the future, as well?

              That is actually a bit more of a scandal, really: To believe you two, Nixon was actually covering up for our obviously developed time-travel capability. How many lives could we have saved, if only he hadn’t nefariously kept tha for his own trvial use, to order the Watergate break-in that doomed his presidency from three days in the future!

              Oh, wait… That makes no fucking sense, whatsoever, does it? Why wouldn’t he have warned them they’d get caught, instead?

              Here’s a bit of a news flash for you: This stuff was contemporary events, for me, as well. Difference being that I paid attention the first time round, and didn’t just scan the headlines and listen to the news bites to find out what was going on. Even at the time, there were enough holes and inconsistencies in the narrative being developed that an intelligent child could look at it and go “Wait… What the hell? How is this supposed to have happened, now…?”.

              Nothing that has come out since, especially the identity of “Deep Throat” has surprised me. It was obvious then that Nixon was the victim of what amounted to a coup from within the “Deep State”, and the facts which have come out since only go to demonstrate the accuracy of that appraisal. Nixon didn’t promote the right guy to run the FBI, bringing in an outsider, and the FBI put him out of office because of it. That was the real story, the real scandal: Unelected bureaucrats toppling an elected President, over crap they had happily expedited for all of his predecessors. Kinda like what certain factions in the intelligence community did to Bush, isn’t it? And, it’s even funnier to hear those same hacks now stabbing the current president in the back, as the fruits of their disloyalty finally ripen. Obama never would have gotten into office, had the intel jackoffs simply done their jobs professionaly during the Bush administration, but they didn’t like working for him, so they undercut him at every opportunity. Obama’s term was result, and it’s only now that reality has become impossible to deny that they are starting to make noise again. Suprising, isn’t it, that all these highly ethical people are only now starting to tell the rest of us how they were pressured to distort intel products after the resultant disasters became brutally apparent? Where were the resignations, the leaks, when it was happening?

              Just like with Watergate, the real story is in the how and why that these unelected apparatchiks have done in the shadows, not what has been on the nightly news.

      • Not to mention that the bureaucrats would turn him in, which they wouldn’t for their own party. Ironically, Obama has committed every offense that got Nixon impeached; he just has absolute cover from the Disloyal Opposition.

      • Roosevelt and Truman taped a handful of important meetings, presumably along with the usual stenographers. Eisenhower did rather more. Kennedy installed the first permanent recording system; the same hardware was in the Oval Office during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

        Source: “The White House Years” by RM Nixon

        btw, has mp3s of some of the pre-Kennedy tapes

  15. There have been numerous articles lately about major web sites eliminating their comments sections. The excuse is always “incivility”–but I have another suspicion, based on increasingly frequent postings in the comments of sites I read at least occasionally: calm, rational, citation-based refutation.

    I first saw it in regard to global warming: Predictable alarmist posts of this disaster or that to come in fifty years (used to be ten, until the ten-year-old predictions began to expire, embarrassingly) provoked comments with calm explanation of how and why the science said otherwise, complete with lots of links. The psychology here is interesting. I doubt most people who read those comments followed their links, but if the explanation was calm, the links provided credibility *even if they were not followed.* Basically, an emotional pitch to panic over carbon dioxide compares poorly to a completely calm, emotion-free fisking, with citations. So the authors and sites began losing credibility to…to…evil conservative deniers wielding science!

    No wonder they want to get rid of comment sections. Otherwise sane and useful sites like Ars Technica began selectively deleting comments on global warming even if they were polite and made rational arguments supported by citations. (I believe they now have a policy against making any skeptical comments at all.) Ars has a peculiar terror of the climate debate, and have long lost any credibility with me, even on unrelated issues. Like Sauron, they’ve poured so much of their life-force into that one issue that if global warming is discredited, they will be too.

    But this, I’m pretty sure, is the best way to fight the left, at least online: Fisk the hell out of their propaganda with calm, rational, citation-rich comments. The site’s tribalists will likely as not hurl obscenities at you, which makes you look even better to the occasional undecided visitor. Remember, you won’t persuade the tribalists. You’re going for the undecideds, where calm confidence and rational argument can win the day.

    • If you do that, be sure to save your comments for easy copy/pasting (or for reposting if deleted).

    • Certainly incivility has nothing to do with it. Popular Science was early in this trend, and they were as I recall reasonably honest about it: they didn’t want to allow their comments section to be used as a platform for “denialists”.

      If you watch the remaining comment sections, you see another odd phenomenon… the first few comments will be reasonable disagreement, and then in will come a bunch of people saying how awful the first commenters are (without addressing the comments at all). It’s like a bunch of teenaged girls pointing and saying “ewwwww”.

      • Worse: It’s tribalists flinging crap at The Evil Other; that is, anyone who does not belong to the tribe or contradicts its narratives. The good news is that independents find that sort of behavior repellent. I also think that the first few posts are the only ones that most people (particular those with only a casual interest in the blog or the topic) will read.

        • > Worse: It’s tribalists flinging crap at The Evil Other;

          Sometimes it’s just flinging crap, period.

          YouTube comments are a prime example. Or usenet, back in the day. Unless a newsgroup was rigidly moderated, the crazies would latch onto any topic that looked active and start spewing.

    • > *even if they were not followed.*

      I spent a lot of time in a relatively small engineering field. There being relatively little in print on the subject at the time, I began tracking down references from the footnotes of modern texts. In the pre-internet days, that involved tedious tracking down of reference libraries and writing letters.
      Eventually I managed to get all the way to some of the original papers in the field.

      Most of the modern collegiate texts shotgunned references all over the place. But when I went back to those references, they often not only didn’t support what was being said, they sometimes said the exact opposite.

      While some of this was probably due to searching out sites by subject and randomly pasting them in to make their work look more authoritative, I began to suspect that belief in the Tooth Fairy was alive and well in engineering.

      Given a choice, I go with the old data from the guys who actually tested to destruction, and I pay almost no attention to any reference that uses “modeling.”

  16. BobtheRegisterredFool

    My interpretation is different. First, I think he scorns the size of the Hugo voting block. I think he sees it as trivial and worthless compared to his paying customers in China. Secondly, I think that much of what he says is politically necessary for his survival in the PRC.

    • Yes, much of what he says is necessary.

    • The slam at the size of the traditional Hugo voting numbers was pretty funny, and of course he had to say something blah blah for the Party (especially after Sarah’s comments about it being an anti-Communist novel). But one assumes he might have also heard Ken Liu’s version of our Puppy saga, which was probably less accurate than even a Party newspaper version.

      Of course, it may all be made up, for that matter. I believe made-up interviews are traditional for UK newspapers in the entertainment sections, and some of us still recall the Cate Blanchett “interview” that featured Queen Beruthiel, courtesy of the Tolkien Lies webpage.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        If it was fabricated by western media, I wouldn’t expect them to be aware of the size of the Chinese language market for fiction.

  17. c4c?

  18. Sigh.

    This has been playing in the background of mah haid für zwei Tage jetz*.

    *Phrase pounded ineradicably into my brain in Duestchspreche 101