Because if they were then a person with the faith of a Mike Pence who spoke at the March for Life wouldn’t cause this reaction:

“For me personally, represents the larger Trump administration,” Imanne Mondane told the Observer, Notre Dame’s student newspaper, adding that “for many people on our campus, it makes them feel unsafe to have someone who openly is offensive but also demeaning of their humanity and of their life and of their identity.”

as a daily mass Catholic I was really insulted over was this.

Williams added to the Observer that Pence as commencement speaker is a violation of the college’s Catholic mission — “something the University likes to broadcast that it stands behind, but it picks and chooses when it wants to stand behind” its mission.

I suspect Williams didn’t have a problem with Barack “We love abortion” Obama when he showed up.

This is the type of thing that happens when a Catholic University spends decades secularizing itself. Ed Morrissey nails it here:

the constant refrain of protesting because opposing political views makes someone “feel unsafe” is laughable on its face, and (to borrow a phrase from protesters in my day) evidence of a crypto-fascist approach to political discourse.

If a speech by Mike Pence truly makes you feel unsafe rather than just annoyed by hearing political opposition to your own positions, then you should really consider a lifetime of crayons rather than pencils, and padded rooms to boot. The obvious solution to that situation is.. don’t attend the speech. If one argues that the public square and political discourse should be limited to each individual’s perception of “safety,” then they’re arguing against all political discourse — and the very protests they are carrying out now.

Apparently, Notre Dame has stopped teaching critical thought. Or preparing students for the real world, where the unsafe feelz are not anyone else’s problem.

Personally I think this what’s going on isn’t so much fear but the anger that Solomon predicted in the book of Wisdom:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.

He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

Exit Question: If you were a hiring manager, would you ever hire such people like these fear ridden students for any position of responsibility?

 

Bob:No no, kamo perolalosi, meredite, nokolapati pob lakino lapa lamakine pukete. PERO NO! Labi bibap, nure barata, papu tabushi,…[laughs]…So… instoo meradante, la pate, yes ki giban, PATUTEE!!!

Minions 2015

Now that hopeful spin for the left for an upset in Kansas were proven baseless,  Democrats having no bench and still smarting from Hillary’s defeat have decided to learn the exact wrong lesson from the election of Donald Trump.

Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus says she has been asked by top Democrats to run for office.

The star of “Veep” responded that it will never happen, according to the Washington Post.

Because nothing says “winning” like reviving the old “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV meme:

In fact the New Republic has been all aboard the celebrity express for a bit:

Democrats would do well to embrace her and fellow Hollywood stars. The party could recruit Streep and others to bait Trump, and perhaps, as Moore suggested, groom some to be presidential candidates. In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Rosie O’Donnell. Some might guffaw at this idea. After all, wouldn’t running a celebrity candidate further associate Democrats with coastal elitism? But Democrats’ main problem last year wasn’t in appealing to anti-elitist voters; it was in getting out the party’s base. A magnetic, attractive movie star would have a far better chance of accomplishing that than just another accomplished, dowdy politician.

Of course Trump one advantage that a lot of celebs did not. He actually had decades of running a business empire before he ever appeared on TV and while his celebrity certainly helped in terms of bypassing the media (something a liberal celeb doesn’t need to do)and establishing a persona (which was no different than his existing reputation) based on the interviews I did during the primaries of voters, it wasn’t his celebrity that put him over the top as much as the combination of his business experience and his willingness to say bluntly things people were afraid to.

Of course a celebrity candidate might energize low information voters on the left and if the Democrats want to run someone who will just be a figurehead for the deep state they’re welcome to do so, but I suspect even with yesterday’s defeat in Kansas in a race against a weak opponent after 90 continuous days of attacks on both the GOP and the President, they haven’t quite reached the point where they go with a King Bob slate.

Even if he does give one hell of a speech.


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

I suspect they won’t show much remorse until the end of the lawsuit:

If every other egregious example of a male student denied due process after being accused of sexual misconduct gets ignored – this one should not be.

A male student who was accused of sexual harassment committed suicide just days after the University of Texas at Arlington ignored its own policies in order to punish him.  The accused student’s father, a lawyer acting as the administrator of his son’s estate, is now suing the school for violating his son’s Title IX rights.

Frankly given that people involved in bullying have been held criminally responsible in the past  I’d like to see these members of the Campus Gestapo held to that same level of criminal responsibility in this student’s death.

This kind of thing is going to continue until the price of it is too high for those making false accusations or for the schools that are throwing due process out the window.

Exit question, how long before we hear members of the left say the dead student got what he deserved?

One of the few seemingly valid arguments on the left concerning Trump’s Syria strike is the claim of a double standard that a congress that asserted it’s authority on Obama and Syria wasn’t that concerned about Trump acting alone.

The hole in that argument is best explained by one of Tip O’Neill’s famous Uncle Denny stories.  Uncle Denny is in a bar drinking on the cuff and the bartender calls the owner to ask if he’s good for the price of a drink and is asked:

“Has he had it?”

“Yes”

“Then he’s good for it.”

It’s a lot harder to object to a fait accompli particularly a popular one, then it is a potential event with all the unknown consequences and Trump understands (as my father did) that it’s better to offer explanations for doing what you’ve already done that to ask permission to do what you want to do.


Has anyone noticed that the language / pronoun police haven’t gotten to shootings yet?  You still see people routinely refer to a “gunman” instead of a “shooter” even though “gunman” not only implies a particular gender and an old fashioned binary gender as well.  I suspect that’s because to our friends in the copy rooms of the left, the implication that men are violent murders by nature is an acceptable prejudice.  It’s the same way with us Sicilians, it will be forever acceptable for the Hollywood left to portray us as a bunch of gangsters and murders to be feared.

Of course we don’t mind all that much, as people generally don’t mess with us because of it, and unlike other groups we don’t give a damn what a bunch of Scranos think of us.  (and no I’m not going to translate that for you).


The weekly standard had an interesting article about the Gorsuch confirmation indicating that the three senators that the left were counting on to stop the nuclear option were Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska and Corker of Tennessee.  The first two were not a surprise to me as they are only marginally republican the third was.  The whole world was convinced it would be McCain and Graham as the potential holdouts, not a lot of people outside of DC had Corker on that list, but it’s a moot point now as Democrats were stupid enough to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter how respected and qualified a nominee is, they would filibuster them as seriously was anyone stupid enough to believe that if Hillary had won and the Democrats had held the Senate the first thing to go would be the Filibuster rule?


One last thing about the Gorsuch nomination, it’s worth noting that while the opposition of him was partisan the support for him was bipartisan.  I didn’t hear the press use that word much if at all during the hearing etc.  It’s funny because as I recall during the Obama years if even a single senator or congressman from the GOP supported something he did the press trotted out the word “bipartisan” as a sign that it was good and worthwhile, but they somehow never used that word when the GOP was passing bills in the house that Harry Reid held up (nor did they note that the opposition to Obamacare in the house was bipartisan).  Apparently the word “bipartisan” is only an acceptable complement when describing support of Democrats or opposition to Republicans.


Don Rickles died this week and tributes have come in from all over.  Of course if you look while his work on the Dean Martin Roasts and on Carson are immortalized on YouTube, they could not be performed by a comic today without being censored by the SJW crowd and the comic being declared a racist, sexist bigot etc etc etc.  I suspect a lot of the comics of today envy folks like Rickles who lived in an era when people , having lived through actually suffering and hardship knew the difference a joke and actual suffering and hardship.

This is likely why there are so nostalgia networks on the tube these days, the jokes from the old shows are funny and didn’t care about the political correctness of today.


I don’t understand the difficulty of some on the right to see why Trump’s hit of Syria was a good thing to so many.  The Pax America while expensive to the US has been one of the better things the world has seen, the loss of it puts a lot of people worldwide in danger.  It’s true a lot of folks like to complain about it just like they do about the police but they come in really handy when you need them.

Boy I miss the world war 2 generation and their values.


Speaking of things the culture needs Heather MacDonald direct challenge to Black Lives Matter about their lack of outrage over black children being murdered is one of the greatest things I’ve seen in years.  That so many in the black community are afraid of confronting these thugs who don’t give a damn if they live and die is one of the great disgraces of the 21st century.  It’s the same dynamic as the confrontation on CNN between Brooke Baldwin and a survivor of a Syrian Gas Attack who asked where all those people who protested against Trump on immigration where when they were being gassed?  Why wasn’t that worth a march?

All these people are playing the roles of useful idiots for the left and if they are more useful dead to the left then they’ll let them die.


One of the hardest things this year has been watching the Red Sox offense sputter this year without David Oritz.  I know it’s still very early  but the lack of fear on the faces of opposing pitchers has been apparent.  Maybe in a few years or maybe even this year Andrew Benintendi will generate that fear, but he hasn’t yet.


I saw an article saying that in addition to shattering every other record that any other Quarterback has held Tom Brady has the chance to break the record for oldest player to start at QB in an NFL game.  He would have to last till 2022 to do so.  While that’s not impossible it’s worth noting that of all the sports out there Football is the one where the end of your career is always only one hit away.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Brady last 2, 3 or even four more years but to be talking seven years is WAY premature.


Finally yesterday was my 29th Anniversary and a funny thing happened this week.  Leaving a funeral mass one day my wife commented on a tucked away flower shop where we got our wedding flowers.  I noted I’d never been there and said it would be unlikely that I’d so as she said she didn’t want flowers anymore as she preferred plants.  She had totally forgotten this and had wondered why I had stopped buying her flowers over the last eight years.

That just goes to show that no matter how long you are married it’s a good idea to keep communications open, because you never actually know if people are saying what they mean, particularly when you are talking wives.

Ok I admit I didn’t see this coming:

Russia recognizes west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated in a surprise announcement on Thursday.

The announcement comes as US President Donald Trump’s administration is agonizing over whether to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that would constitute recognizing west Jerusalem as the country’s capital. No other country in the world recognizes any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Even more importantly…

the Jerusalem Post has learned that Moscow intends for this recognition to go into effect immediately.

Russia’s Ambassador to Israel Alexander Shein intends to meet with Foreign Ministry officials in the coming days to discuss Moscow’s decision and its ramifications. There is currently no intention, however, of moving Russia’s embassy to Jerusalem.

The significance of this can’t be overstated, by doing what they’ve done Russia not only embarasses Donald Trump by getting to Jerusalem before he does so to speak, but it also throws a gauntlet down to every islamic power, every arab oil exporter and to ISIS itself, literally daring them to do something.

By an odd coincidence right after a terror attack in St. Petersberg that has gotten almost no attention internationally Israel did something others did not:

RT noted no landmark was lit in Russia’s national colors although Tel Aviv City Hall did light itself in the colors of Russia’s flag.

It pays to show sympathy doesn’t it?

Citizen at New Orleans Party: But perhaps the general would at least tell us what his plans are?
General Andrew Jackson: Sir if the hair on my head knew my plans I would cut it off!

The Buccaneer 1958

Ian Howe: You know the key to running a convincing bluff? Every once in a while you got to be holding all the cards.

National Treasure 2004

One of the oddest things to me about the entire Syria Strike story is how so many people are so shocked that Donald Trump did what he did.

Anti-interventionists  were caught off guard and upset.  They see it as a neocon plot, leftists (who were blaming him for the gas attack the day before) consider it a distraction from the nefarious plot to steal the election from Hillary by the Russians, and papers like the NYT who were at the start of the week screaming Russian collusion are now worried about how this will affect our relationship with Putin.

Even Don Surber who has been right about Trump more than almost everyone else was caught off guard.

But when it comes down to it, Trump’s hit on Syria makes a lot of sense because it is so him.

First:  in terms of a deal, if Trump wants to make a deal to stop the war on Syria, to stop North Korea or to take the pressure off the Baltic states afraid of a future Russian invasion he needed to demonstrate a willingness to actually strike, not only did he do so, but he did so While the head of China was his guest, meaning he was willing to demonstrate that diplomatic niceties and timing mean nothing to him when he wants to act. That’s very Trump.

Second:  He was willing to do this without any public warning (yes he gave a private warning to the Russians so as not to back them into a corner since a US strike killing Russian soldiers would force Putin’s hand). There was no months of speeches, or weeks of muscle flexing, there was just action, and Trump is a person who believes in action.  It was right out of this scene of the movie the Buccaneer where Trump’s favorite president Andrew Jackson (back in his general days) dealt with all those who were in panic about the British and New Orleans

If you’re a potential enemy of America, from this point on you can’t be sure if crossing us will bring a shower of missiles down on you or not. That’s very Trump too.

Thirdly:   It was consistent with Trump’s sense of discipline, not in the sense that the media sees him, as an undisciplined speaker who acts rashly, but as in:  This is the way things are and you’d better get used to the idea

It was a moment right out of Captain’s Courageous:

Captain Troop, with the good of the ship and the livelihood of the entire crew to worry about, notes he can’t risk months of fishing on a boy’s yarn. When Harvey still rants Troop finally concludes: “I guess there’s nothing left for it.” He rears back and gives Harvey a slap that knocks him flat. Harvey for perhaps for the first time in his life doesn’t know what to say:
You HIT me!
“Now you just sit there and think about it.”

It is here, with the establishment of discipline, that the movie begins to shift.

This was the re-establishment of discipline on an international level, the United States back in the game and everybody at the table had better get used to the idea again. That’s Trump all over.

Fourth: It gave Donald Trump, who doesn’t like or trust, the UN a chance to not only demonstrate US power to it, but to show them the old games they like to play are now over, to wit:

The UN business of being on one side of the fence in public and the other in private isn’t going to be played against the US anymore, and every nation that counts on America to foot the bill allowing their diplomats and NGO’s to live high off the hog there are seeing it. It’s the art of the deal, so Trump.

(on a side note if Nikki Haley decides to run for president, this will play very well).

Fifth: By hitting now when the strike can be small it likely prevents him from having to hit harder later. Trump by his nature is, like many of his isolationist supporters who are now pissed off, a non-interventionist by nature. The problem with such a position is it tells the world that you can push me and push me and I won’t touch you.  Now if your goal is a weak US in retreat, as was the Obama administration’s ,that’s fine, but if your goal is a strong US that doesn’t have to fight everywhere, it’s not.

By making his point early on in his presidency, and on a small scal,e he is likely preventing a larger US involvement, not enabling it.  Think of John Wayne in this exchange in Big Jake as his party rides into town with a red box containing a million dollar ransom in front of everybody.

James McCandles: Isn’t this a bit showy Pa? That big red box and all the guns out?
Jacob McCandles: I hate secrets, never knew one to be kept. They’ve all heard what’s in that chest, they all want it, what we’re doing by this ostentatious display is telling them they can’t have it. Hell, we may be saving some poor miscreant’s own life by doing this, maybe even our own.

Big Jake 1971

Perhaps by this display he will restrain a few bad actors from making moves to provoke the US into a war we don’t want, which incidentally is exactly what his base that wants to stay out of things wants. It’s the Fram oil filter ad all over again, you can pay me now our pay me later. Trump’s a businessman, it’s good business.

Sixth and last: A person who is a pol looks at kids getting gassed as part of the great game of diplomacy and considers every possible angle and tries to minimize any event that brings risk.  A normal person looks at kids getting gassed to death and reacts saying: This will not stand. Why anyone would think that Trump would stand by and let this happen, when he has the power to stop it, or at least make these guys think about it long and hard about doing it again?  It’s completely beyond me that anyone would think a man like Trump who is a man of emotion and reaction would sit still.  Doing something that needs to be done, this is so very Trump.

This strike is completely in keeping Trump’s philosophy of doing things. What I don’t understand is why people don’t see it?


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

This week I attended the funeral mass of a friend of my father’s who served in the French Air Force during WW 2. and that got me thinking about Syria and the missile strikes now taking place.

One of the things about being the son of a World War 2 Vet (Navy, Pacific 1942-45) is I tend to be much more willing to see US intervention than people in my generation who are the grandchildren of that dying next generation That generation was willing to unite pay the price to stop the Axis power, albeit it took the Nazi’s attacking the USSR to get the leftists on board and Pearl Harbor to bring the isolationists on board.

Of course being a largely Christian society and a type of Christianity that actually believed in heaven and hell (what would be called conservative today) such risks and sacrifices were not only considered virtuous but involved one’s eternal reward. Such a culture is capable of going to war in a just cause and was willing to pay the cost in blood and treasure to win it.

Today with a largely secular society and a generation that needs safe spaces for “microagressions” like saying “he” that’s a different story.

Furthermore we have the contrast of a society being willing bear the costs in lives and treasure to keep a large military force in perpetuity in the countries we conquered to change their societies (our military is STILL in Germany , Italy and Japan 72 years later) vs cutting and running like Barack Obama in Iraq for short term political advantage and allowing our enemies to gain power (which is what caused the rise of ISIS in the first place).

So while the gas attacks in Syria are horrific before we consider going to war in Syria we as a country need to answer these questions.

  1. Are we willing to go to war and pay the price in blood and treasure to topple Assad risking American lives in Syria?
  2. Are we willing to fight that war until it’s actually won rather than fight a limited war for the sake of saving face?
  3. Are we willing once Assad is toppled to stay in Syria for the 30 to fifty years to make sure Syria doesn’t become Iraq or Libya and leave it for Islamist to take over?
  4. Are we willing to take responsibility for not only the military but the civilian casualties that will inevitably take place in Syria in such a war?
  5. Are we willing to risk a military confrontation(s) with Russia and Iran in order to do this?

If we as a society are willing to do this, then it’s absolutely a good idea for the US to declare war (yes we should actually declare war) in Syria and support whatever sacrifices it takes to win. I’d like to think that we are a society and a culture strong enough to do what needs to be done to free Syria and stop not only Assad but his Iranian backers.

If the answer to any of those questions are “no” If we balk at the costs, if we are only willing to fight a limited war to save face and or cut and run in the face of Russia and Iran and leave the situation as it is, if we allow the left outrage over every civilian casualty that war brings (and believe me the anti-Trump left will do so) to cause us to blink, if we leave the Syria to become the next failed state dominated by Islamists to breed terror then we are better off not going. We should do it right or not at all.

Frankly given the reality of our self-centered, soft and narcissistic society I think this is the more likely outcome as I can’t see a nation where the very thought of being nice to Trump supporters sends the left into a public frenzy and where police stand by while rioters attack those who support the president capable of uniting under this president to achieve a great cause like this but I’d be delighted to be proved wrong.

Closing thought: Can someone explain to me why the slaughter of the opponents of Assad with chemical weapons is so heinous that it’s considered a causes belli that must be acted upon but if Assad slaughters those same people with bombs, shelling and small arms it’s not?

Closing thought 2: Does anyone seriously believe that the left with the full backing of the media won’t go the full vietnam/Iraq mode with the hope of producing American defeat if Trump does decides to go to war?


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

Mr. Prosser: Has Mr. Dent come to his senses yet?
Ford Prefect: Can we for the moment assume that he hasn’t?
Mr. Prosser: Has Mr. Dent come to his yet?
Ford Prefect: Can we for the moment assume that he hasn’t?
Mr. Prosser: Well?
Ford Prefect: Can we also assume, that he’s going to be staying here all day?
Mr. Prosser: So?
Ford Prefect: So all your men are going to be standing around here all day doing nothing?
Mr. Prosser: Could be, could be
Ford Prefect: Well, if you’re resigned to doing that anyway, you don’t actually need him to lie here all the time do you?
Mr. Prosser: Well, not as such, no, not exactly need
Ford Prefect: Well if you’d like to take it as read that he’s actually there, then he and I could slip off down to the pub for half an hour. How does that sound?

The Hitchhikers of guide to the Galaxy 1981

There has been a scramble of stories concerning the state of the vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court this week.  Several say the Democrats have the votes to filibuster the nomination  but there is a point concerning this story that I don’t think people are clear on, the “filibuster” of today bears little resemblance to the filibusters of old, either in the Senate or in movies.

You don’t see a Jimmy Stewart holding or a Strom Thurmond holding the floor alone as a bunch of other senators wait for him to crack.  Nor do you see teams of senators making long speeches from phone books or the constitution or anything else.

What you see instead is more like the scene quoted above from the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, the side, the majority having failed to get the 60 votes to end debate takes it as read that the other side is holding the floor as given so that can all pop down to the pub if they want.

But what if they didn’t?

What if the GOP decided, you know what?  If you want to have a filibuster you go ahead, have one, but you’re going to have to have a real one, where you Democrats continually hold the floor of the senate without interruption ,where you have to make speeches, fill the record and so forth, furthermore we aren’t going to allow you to revise or extend your remarks.  We will make you stand there and make government come to a standstill and make sure the American people see you do it.

Now the media being the media will of course spin it as either “Brave Democrats continue to hold the floor on principle.”  or “Republicans obstructing business by refusing to pull the Gorsuch nomination from the floor.” but the actual video and audio will not play that way.

Even more importantly, while the far left will find it inspiring , the video of such things will be ready made ad videos for election 2018 and election 2020 against said senators.

Now granted this will slow down the business of the senate but if the left is so keen to do this make them do it for real and milk it for every moment you can.

If they get sick of it, or make a mistake, after all this hasn’t been done for a while, then you’re able to get the Gorsuch and have egg on the faces of the left.

If not, then you can go ahead and launch that Harry Reid nuclear option , but make sure the left plays the Richard Russell option first following in the footsteps of the old anti-civil rights southern caucus and make sure everyone knows that’s what happening.

Anyways that’s what I’d do.


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

For me the most amazing thing about the Susan Rice story isn’t CNN using an Obama staffer as their go to guy on the story,  nor the media’s attempt to spin the story as nothing,  or President Obama playing with the “unmasking” rules to make it all possible, nor the her actions were laudable defense, the Washington Post’s tardy desire for an explanation, the possible involvement of the FBI in this farce, DeGenova’s revelations on “spreadsheets” , the fact that the White house doesn’t do investigations, CNN’s all out effort to first deny and then minimize the while thing,   or even Rice’s denials that the unmasking was improper , that is wasn’t political,

No the real revelation is best highlighted by this from Glenn Reynolds:

I TWEETED MAGGIE HABERMAN LAST NIGHT TO ASK IF IT WAS TRUE THAT SHE WAS SITTING ON THIS STORY, BUT SHE DIDN’T RESPOND

and this video via the American Thinker by Mike Cernovich

partially quoted by zero hedge:

“Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration.”

“Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vindicates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”

“I’m showing you the politics of ‘real journalism’. ‘Real journalism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”

What the revelation?  It’s apparently that the mainstream media, the media that once owned information and its decimation apparently learned nothing from the rise of Matt Drudge.

Twenty years ago Newsweek had the story of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They choose to sit on it and it instead went to Matt Drudge. It made Matt Drudge rich lead to a situation where twenty years later while Newsweek which has been sold several times for the price of a Whopper Jr, despite decades of history and being one of the most recognized names in news in the top 5000 web sites in the world (4910) and top 1700 (1679) according to Alexa in the US vs the drudgereport.com’s at 723 in the world and 156 in the US.

Even worse it’s spawned 100’s of other sites (like this one) that promote stories the MSM would like to bury or fact check the stories the media promoted that were once accepted as gospel. So unless you are talking something like the Khalidi tape of which there is only a single copy held by the LA Times (unless they’ve destroyed it by now) it is very difficult to keep a story away from anyone who has a link to the internet.

One might think that the last twenty years might have taught the media this but apparently it has not. The media hasn’t figured out that just because the liberal narrative isn’t publicly challenged in the newsroom conservatives don’t exist there. And while said conservatives at the NYT, Bloomberg or elsewhere might be silent to remain gainfully employed it doesn’t prevent them from dropping an email to a person when they see something they don’t like. As Don Surber put it:

The media has lost its power, but doesn’t realize it.

Of course there is the possibility that there is a different revelation here, one revealed by this post at Mike Cernovich’s site

Breaking his usual rule of never appearing on edited television, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich went on 60 Minutes to show a record 15 million people the power of real news. The result was 60 Minutes’ highest rated episode in almost a decade.

60 Minutes’ tops ratings for first time since 2008

 

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS’ “60 Minutes” returned this week to a familiar place it hadn’t been accustomed to visiting that much lately: first place in the prime-time television rankings.

 

The venerable newsmagazine hadn’t finished as the most-watched program of the week since November 2008, when newly elected Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down for the first TV interview since their election.

Cernovich’s appearance on 60 Minutes was a matter of great interest, with his many haters around the world expecting him to look bad in front of a record 15 million viewers.

Perhaps a lot of his enemies were watching to boost the numbers but in my mind it’s much more likely that instead of the normal niche market liberals that 60 minutes normally draws from, they instead were able to draw from the entire news consuming public, a public that might have been shocked to see a Network news anchor admit that they believed the word of the Clinton campaign without question.

If that’s the case why would a for profit organization, mired in a situation where their audience is diluted by a plethora of alternative choices , when showed the potential profit of drawing a whole new customer base choose to leave this source of revenue behind?  After all if goal as a news organization is to attract the maximum amount of viewers to generate the greatest possible profit by presenting credible news to the largest audience possible then such a choice is foolhardy and a sign that they have not learned a thing.

BUT if you goal is to advance a narrative favorable to a liberal niche of high power high power donors while be invited to the right parties etc, then it makes perfect sense as Stacy McCain and I explained six years ago…

Furthermore, consider how rich liberals are willing to act as “angels” toward their media pets. I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

As our friend Da Tech Guy points out, “profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown”:

She is part of a club, an elite . . . 
[W]hen people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”
It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great.

Yes, but what Pete overlooks is this: Being a magazine editor gave Brown enormous influence in deciding who belongs to the “in” crowd. And one hand washes the other: Does Mika Brzezinski crave favorable coverage from the Daily Beast? “Oh, let’s invite Tina Brown onto Morning Joe!”

if that the goal than do don’t care if you eschew the profits from a larger potential  audience in fact any smaller profit from liberal viewers or readers who choose to stick with you because you are unwilling to challenge their worldview is a bonus extra.


If you think it’s worthwhile to report stories that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.