Monday, March 05, 2018

Da Tech Guy Interviews the Black Female Democrat Who Shouldn't Exist

Da Tech Guy calls his Vük interview the most telling and important interview that he has done among the 60 videos he has shot since hitting CPAC, and Peter Ingemi is absolutely right.

the MSM has been telling [us] that a young woman of color like [Lea] has nothing but disdain for conservatives in general and Donald Trump in particular.

If you believe them she shouldn’t exist but there she is and if there is one Lea in a county of 300+ million there are likely hundreds of thousands of others out there not wedded to the MSM narrative of doom and gloom.
 … She gave the President mixed marks, complemented him on keeping campaign promises that he made to his people, noted that as a Democrat she’d like to see some more moderate moves. Her answers had none of the rancor or the division that the media has pushed on us for the year or that I’ve seen from angry activists. They were completely reasonable answers that would not have been out of place several decades ago in a saner time when I remembered people could disagree and get along. In other words they reflected who she is, a normal American trying to get by whose primary focus is real life instead of manufactured outrage.
This told me two things that are vital to understanding election 2018 and 2020. …/…
Read/View the whole thing.™

Towards 5:30, Lea mentions which essential oils company she works for, which is doTerra, but I can't quite understand the letters after the "/" (N or M? A or N?).

Among other people interviewed at CPAC by Peter Ingemi is Myra Adams.

Related: The Comedy Central comedians might take a couple of lessons in journalism from Peter Ingemi… Giving a Stellar Example of Dishonesty, Daily Show Uses Deceptive Editing of CPAC Conservatives to Brand Them as Mindless Buffoons (Video)

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Giving a Stellar Example of Dishonesty, Daily Show Uses Deceptive Editing of CPAC Conservatives to Brand Them as Mindless Buffoons (Video)

And you wonder why Donald Trump calls it Fake News?!

I think we should all be eternally grateful to the Daily Show for sending The Opposition w/ Jordan Klepper to CPAC (tak til TFP), as Kobi Libii, Tim Baltz, and Jordan Klepper give a stellar example of dishonesty in the mainstream media or, certainly, in the comedians that the MSM is always celebrating (video here).

What it also shows is, as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds continuously points out, that you should always record an MSM interview with your own hand-held device. (In our defense, everybody was being interviewed right and left, and we had no idea that this group was composed of independent (sic) satirists from Comedy Central.) Update: Speaking of which, thanks to Stephen Green for the link.

In one instance — at least — each and every single line of an "exchange" comes from totally different points in the "interview" (sic).
CPAC 2018: More Shootings Call for More Guns 
The Opposition with Jordan Klepper CPAC 2018:
Jordan, Kobi Libii and Tim Baltz visit CPAC to learn about Republicans' heroic unwillingness to solve America's mass shooting problem.
In the experience of the No Pasarán blogger in the Stars and Stripes shirt, at least, the interview lasted 20 times the amount of time in which he appears that included a lot of give-and-take as well as intelligent or at least reasoned arguments.

First remark: A lot of what appears in the entire episode seems to be no more than simple fluff talk ("yeah", "right", "absolutely", etc) strategically and dishonestly moved to appear as mindless agreement with satirical comments (for an example of this, go no further than the two "Right, exactly" comments of the very first interviewee). A similar technique was described by Kevin Williamson in the following words:
This technique is known as “the Jon Stewart.” What you do is take a few seconds (or, in [the case of Katie Couric], a few minutes) of reaction shots (the footage they shoot of people’s faces while other people are talking) and then insert that non-talking footage after a question is asked: Voilà, the opposition is literally speechless.
1) the 400 mass shootings a year remark (0:44)

At 0:44, the conversation with the No Pasarán blogger is shown going like this:

•  Liberals keep saying, there are like 400 mass shootings a year in America…
• "Move on, liberals!"
• That's right!

Needless to say, that is an outrageously dishonest cut that deliberately ignores the point that was being made.

First of all, notice the cuts: as it happens, each and every single one of those three lines comes from totally different points in the interview.

That the argument is cut may not come as a surprise, but even the "That's right!" does not come immediately after "Move on, liberals!" It's a bit of fluff talk from elsewhere expressly moved to make the interviewee appear mindless.

Back to the argument being made. From memory, it went like this:
Liberals keep saying, there are, like, 400 mass shootings a year in America [DAILY SHOW CUT]. But why is it that nobody, no conservative, no liberal, no pro-gun activist, no anti-gun activist, can mention those 400 shootings a year? Why, in other words, aren't/weren't 99% of them reported? Why can most people, whatever their point of view, not quote more than three or four shootings a year? Well, first of all, the number of dead in the definition of mass shootings has been reduced to appear meaningless. Just as important, most of the mass shootings are not reported for the simple reason that they involve criminals shooting one another.
Are these facts irrelevant?

Should they be ignored in the debate?

Yes, if you are a liberal trying to demonize your opponents.
Related: the BBC's statistics behind gun violence —
Mass shootings in the U.S. have fallen so much in the past century
that the political left has had to redefine what a mass shooting is

Everytown for Gun Safety's list was compiled to give the public an exaggerated impression of how many school shootings have taken place. Notes Glenn Reynolds:
At this point of my Jordan Klepper interview, regarding the 400 mass shootings a year, I made a joke that we've been using here at No Pasarán for the past 10 years:

• Do you know why statistics are like a bikini?
• Because they reveal a lot, but… they hide the essential.

That's a great line (if I may say so myself), whoever is making it, and you would think that that one-liner would make the cut of a TV show and/or a comedy show, but it makes conservatives look less than humorless and clueless clods, so it ended up on the cutting floor.

The follow-up can be incuded in point 2 below:

2) ridiculous asides (3:21 et al):

Here is another point in their technique, which you can see at 3:21:

The blogger at No Pasarán is making a (more or less intelligent and/or reasoned) argument — one which you never get to hear — and Jordan Klepper starts bringing in, goading us with, irrelevant comments ("the cashier at Gadzooks, or the hot topic person piercing ears, they should have an AR").

At this point the person interviewed agrees, he or she fluffs, for the simple reason that it is (kind of) irrelevant and he or she want to get back to the point they are making, but all that is deliberately sent to the cutting floor.

The argument in this case that Kobi Libii, Tim Baltz, and Jordan Klepper failed to keep were as follows: liberals want America to be more like Europe, more say like Scandinavia, but in 2011 Anders Breivik killed more people in Norway than were ever shot in any school in the United States or even during the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. Do you think the teen-agers at Utøya island would have approved of somebody present with guns?

This comes from another (reasoned) argument from my in-depth examination of the gun control issue, a version of which was published in the New York Times two years ago:
It is easy for leftists, American as well as foreign, to tout the success of the gun control laws in the rest of the western world and to say that "this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” when you ignore:
• the 1996 massacre of 16 children at a Scottish primary school;
• the 2000 killing of eight kids in Japan;
• the 2002 deaths of eight people in Nanterre, France;
• the 2002 killing of 16 kids in Erfurt, Germany;
• the 2007 fatal shootings of eight people in Tuusula, Finland;
• the killing of 10 people at a Finnish university less than a year later;
• the 2009 killing of 15 people in Winnenden, Germany;
• and, needless to say, Anders Breivik's 2011 mass murder of 77 Norwegians, most of them teenagers;
• not to mention the various terrorist attacks of the last few years, such as the 2015 mass shootings inside the Bataclan nightclub which killed 90 Paris revelers.
Is it unrealistic — or uncouth — to wonder whether the tolls would have been lesser had a few of the adults in each place carried a weapon and tried to shoot back at the respective killers?
3) The Forrest Gump remark (1:52)
The Forrest Gump remark is deliberately misleading too — natch — because Jordan Klepper turns the issue into the basic innocence in Tom Hanks's fictional character in a sweet comedy, whereas the real issue is the very tendency among liberals to regularly portray mental cases as harmless messiah-like beings who turn out to be (far) more loving than us regular people, superior souls who touch everybody they meet.

In this perspective, Jordan Klepper comes with other deliberately ridiculous asides ("you're drawing a line between Forrest Gump and school shootings" CUT "and that's a line people are afraid to draw" CUT "shooting with an AR-15 — Forrest Gump") that the interviewee seems to agree with ("that's it"), for the simple reason that he wants to get back on message.

What really happened during the interview, indeed, is that I specifically countered the assertion, pointing out that the point is not Forrest Gump himself, or even the vast majority of mental cases, most of whom probably are harmless, but the tendency to see all mental cases as basically harmless, and thus failing to intervene when the handful of dangerous ones need to be put under some form of control. Straight to the cutting floor.

The Forrest Gump quote comes from  What Is to Blame for Mass Shootings? Does the Blame Lie with the Right to Bear Arms Or Can It Be Found Elsewhere?

Here is the relevant excerpt from the lengthy and in-depth post that I consider one of my best in 14 years of blogging:
I wonder what happened, or started to happen, in the 1960s and 1970s…

Oh — that's right: the left's youth revolution with the "victory" of more and more of the "modern" ideas of the progressives…

Now let's see — what did, and what do, these entail?

Well, among other things, the triumph of the ideas of compassion, of tolerance, of understanding…

Of empathy for all kinds of groups, not least the mentally ill — who turn out to be nothing more than merely misunderstood and who therefore deserve freedom from straitjackets

And the ensuing political correctness demanded the dismantling of mental institutions or the limiting of their use and refraining from confining mental cases (who of course turn out not to be mental cases) thereto. ("Guffaw! You want to keep insane asylums open?! How can you be so reactionary, so backwards?! It's everybody else who should be in a nuthouse! Snort!")

We should not judge these people, we can not judge these people; with some compassion and understanding, if only we are willing to make an effort, we can allow such people to live amongst us.

Rather than the judgments we pass on them, which show our cluelessness and — our hatred… (Maybe we — us "normal" people — are the mental cases! And maybe we need to be institutionalized!)

Mental cases are even given hero status in the left's narratives (winning several Oscars from Hollywood in the process) — as indeed are all the usual members of the left's victimhood brigade (women, gays, blacks, Indians, primitive peoples living close to nature, etc etc etc).

From Forrest Gump to John Coffey via Raymond Babbitt, these messiah-like beings turn out to be (far) more loving than us regular people, superior souls who touch everybody they meet, leading to miracles by helping "normal" (blinded) people to become better human beings and fulfill their destinies, if these saints do not healing said mortals outright, physically or otherwise.

In other words, what artists, and leftists, are basically helping to "prove", over and over again, is that the average American, the average citizen, the average human being (who is unlike themselves) is a clueless and/or bigoted "deplorable" (someone obviously in need of some sort of betterment treatment).

As with everything else the Left touches, slowly, one brick at a time, common sense is overturned, and normal, regular law-abiding, citizens are demonized and made to be those who obviously ought to be the true outcasts of society (among other things, these bigoted oafs obviously ought to be without weapons or the rights thereto).
N Joe, who used to blog for No Pasarán many years ago, says that whereas half a million people were institutionalized half a century ago — when the U.S. population was far lower — in our day and age, the number of people committed to asylums is, thanks to leftist "compassion" policies, as low as 5,000.

But again, back to the relevant issue here, which is:

We should all be eternally grateful to the Daily Show for sending The Opposition w/ Jordan Klepper to CPAC (tak til TFP), as Kobi Libii, Tim Baltz, and Jordan Klepper give a stellar example of dishonesty in the mainstream media or, certainly, in the comedians that the MSM is always celebrating.

Update — from the archives: This problem of people not knowing satire from reality is likely a phenomenon of the Daily Show Generation by Benny Huang:
In a piece titled Liberals Can’t Tell the Difference Between Satire and News, and GOP Presidential Campaigns Are Paying the Price, [Jim] Geraghty noted examples of fake quotes, attributed to Republicans, that were nonetheless perceived as genuine by people already inclined to hate their supposed speakers.
  … This problem of people not knowing satire from reality is likely a phenomenon of the Daily Show Generation. I consider myself part of that generation, though not a fan myself. Regardless of whether I actually watch the program, many people my age (I’m thirty-four) and many members of the generational cohort fifteen years my junior, consider the Daily Show to be a real source of news, along with The Colbert Report, The Onion, Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, and Saturday Night Live. For some, it’s the only news they get.

And they brag about this. No, seriously. They snicker at the Left’s latest object of scorn while clapping like trained seals at all of Jon Stewart’s jokes, even the unfunny ones, which happens to be most of them. They love to tell you how savvy they are about current affairs. When I was in college, students actually wrote columns in the campus paper arguing that people who got their news from the Daily Show were actually smarter than the average bear.

 … These people remind me of grown adults who still think that professional wrestling is real, except WWE fans aren’t nearly as smug. 
"See you at #CPAC2019"


Global Warming: Severe Arctic Blast Brings the UK to a Virtual Standstill

Scotland remains on red alert
writes The Times of London,
after a severe Arctic blast brought the country to a virtual standstill. 
Indeed, the British Army [has been] called in to rescue drivers trapped in cars as forecasters warn of more snow and howling winds.

Or, as Instapundit likes to quote, tongue-in-cheek, an immortal eight-year-old MSM headline warning of global warming of climate change, Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past.

Related: Unexpected! The Puzzling Reason Why So Many People Remain Skeptical of Global Warming and Climate Change
I'm so old, I can remember when, year after year after year, Britain's winters have proved to be among the coldest in a century.

With Troop Cut Proposals Leading Britain to Its Smallest Army Since Before the Napoleonic era, UK General Warns of Defeat in Future Conflict

Britain must spend more on the armed forces or risk defeat in a future confrontation
writes as The Times features a rare intervention by a serving military chief.
General Sir Gordon Messenger, vice-chief of the defence staff, said the country must be prepared for a “deterioration in the international arena” within 10 to 15 years. The Royal Marines officer said that extra investment was needed to counter the growing range of weapons and technologies being developed by states including Russia.

General Messenger is among the frontrunners to take over as head of the military … this summer. …
Indeed, as The Times reported a month and a half ago, The UK's Troop Cut Proposals Would Leave the Smallest British Army Since Before the Napoleonic Wars.  
The Times:
Becoming the first senior military figure in a generation to explicitly call for more funding, [General Messenger, 55,] told The Times: “Defence affordability is not something we should shy away from . . . We should be making the case for a bigger defence budget in order to respond to those types of threats that are changing all of the time.”

  … The shortfall in the armed forces budget is thought to be £20 billion to £30 billion over the next decade. Some of this gap must be filled by the MoD making more efficiency savings.

General Sir Nick Carter, the head of the army, has warned about Britain’s vulnerability to a Russian attack. Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary who is pushing for more funds from the Treasury, said last month that Moscow could cause “thousands and thousands and thousands” of deaths. Asked why the public should support new money for defence, General Messenger signalled that people needed to understand that their security was not guaranteed. “There are capabilities being produced by those states that don’t see the world in the way that we do, that could do us harm,” he said.