Intellectual Bankruptcy on Display

Tuesday, January 29, AD 2013

One can look at the blatant dishonesty displayed by gun control proponents one of two ways. These people are so dishonest and so loose with the facts that they destroy their credibility with each new fabrication. Alternatively, these individuals are so shameless and brazen that we can only stand aside in wonder as they run full steam ahead.

The latest display of such hubris is from the firestorm over the supposed heckling of Neil Heslin, father of one of the murdered children at Sandy Hook elementary, Jesse Lewis. The problem: he wasn’t heckled.

MSNBC is propping up its story with a blatantly edited video. In fact, Heslin was not heckled. Gun rights advocates in the audience indeed voiced their support for the Second Amendment — after he asked why anyone would need “assault-style weapons or high-capacity clips.” You’d never know based on the MSNBC version, which completely cut out the footage of Heslin’s question.

Fortunately, Twitchy has obtained the full, unedited video, which you can view for yourself below (relevant portion starts at the 15-minute mark):

You can go to the Twitchy link to view the video. Here is Ace’s summary:

At first you might think this is a rhetorical question; the audience in fact takes it as rhetorical, and doesn’t answer. Then he scans around the room, looking for someone to answer, and, as everyone’s silent, concludes, as he’d intended, that no one has a good answer.

At that point, people realize that their respectful silence is being taken for assent, and they begin chiming in “The second amendment.”

He asked a question and was legitimately looking for people to answer. People did, and they were shouted down for actually responding.

Obviously the man is still grieving, and should be afforded respect. At the same time, he is also willingly allowing himself to be placed in a public situation to make an appeal for legislative change to gun laws. No one shouted him down – just the opposite. People assumed he was making a rhetorical point, and when it was obvious that it was more than just a rhetorical question, they replied in kind.

Should people have remained silent even when pressed? Some will argue that a man in Heslin’s state should be given the utmost space to bare his soul. But it seems to me that the people who are disrespecting Heslin are the people who put him on that stand. They used him as a political prop. Well, that’s not entirely fair, because I am sure that Heslin was willing to make this public testimony. Yet those that are so indignant about people actually responding to Heslin when he asked them a question are simply enraged that their political theater was upstaged for a minute. How is it respectful of Heslin to use him as a political prop to bludgeon political opponents over the head with? If anyone is disrepecting Mr. Heslin’s dignity, it is folks like those at Media Matters, David Frum, and others who don’t really see him as a human being, but as a useful political tool. And those people frankly make me sick.







Continue reading...

13 Responses to Intellectual Bankruptcy on Display

  • Gotta love how the outraged tweets care so much about the allegedly heckled father and his personal tragedy that some of them assert he lost a son and others that he lost a daughter (it was in fact his son) in the shooting.

    Really, though, this is symtomatic of the way in which, to the modern left, it is far more important to believe tht the right is wicked than to actually know anything about the issue involved. Thus, none of them know what the heck an assault weapon is, nor why we should be particularly offended by them and not by other weapons, but they’re darn sure that anyone who would defend the right to own such a thing is just a terrible, terrible human being.

  • The first thing any socialist tyrant does is to disarm the population. The guns are not the problem. The moral disintegration is what will destroy our nation. Leaving only the criminals and socialists armed with assault rifles is lunacy.

  • When you ask a question, you must always expect an answer.

  • How ironic and oxymoronic that the left demonizes the right over the right to keep and bear arms ostensibly in the name of protecting children while it is the left that murders unborn children to the tune of 55 million since Roe v Wade. The right may be incompetent in explaining and defending its position, but it is the left which is diabolically evil.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • a better answer to his question would have been:

    “In case the govt tries to move against the people”.

  • The country is in danger of losing its credit rating, the President of the United States is acting like he can’t be broke ‘cuz he still has checks, and Congress, the press, and phonies in Mark Shea’s comboxes are making exhibits of themselves over the dangers of rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loaders. The collection of police departments in a metropolitan center of ordinary size (say, Omaha) will have to investigate one or two homicides a year making use of these weapons, and they tell us it is a pressing national emergency. We are all drowning in humbug.

  • Re: the “blatant dishonesty” of gun control advocates — do you consider the Vatican to be “blatantly dishonest?” I “naturally” lean left but after much examination of conscience am working to accept the church’s authority on issues I find personally difficult (such as civil gay marriage). I don’t understand why those who lean rightward aren’t willing to similarly re-examine their political convictions in light of the Church’s firmly pro-gun-control stance.

  • do you consider the Vatican to be “blatantly dishonest?”

    No, though I do eye with wary suspicion those who claim that the “Vatican” has made such and such a pronouncement, when all that has usually happened is that some bureaucratic lackey has made a pronouncement upon his own authority.

    don’t understand why those who lean rightward aren’t willing to similarly re-examine their political convictions in light of the Church’s firmly pro-gun-control stance.

    Becky, you are welcome to cite the magisterial documents that are evidence of “the Church’s firmly pro-gun control stance.” I suspect, however, that you are not likely to find such a thing. And no, news clippings claiming that the “Vatican said” are not magisterial pronouncements. I’m looking for something in the Catechism, a Council document, an encyclical, etc.

  • Sorry, folks.

    Today, Chuck Hagel lowered the bar on “Intellectual Bankruptcy”, something Obama and the vile, lying media have been doing for, lo, these many years.

    Also, so-called assault rifles, shotguns, etc. annually (with no free will) murder (half as many as hammers in 2010) at least 25,000,000 fewer of God’s children than do abortion and artificial contraception.

Our Contemptible Media

Friday, December 21, AD 2012

One takeaway from the tragedy in Newtown is that if there’s an element in the Bill of Rights that needs revisiting, it’s the first and not the second amendment. The absolute gleeful joy that members of the media have taken in using the tragedy to advance an agenda is exemplified by the likes of Piers Morgan, who at least has the decency to admit as much:

Okay, Piers was being sarcastic, but this is a case where sarcasm revealed some truth. Morgan has been a leading crusader for gun reform in light of the shootings, and he has used his platform to bully gun rights proponents. Here is Morgan embarrassing himself on national television with Larry Pratt a few nights ago. And here he is with John Lott.

When a media personality causes you to yearn for the insight and wisdom of Larry King, you know you have reached the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Now Morgan’s rank opportunism in the wake a tragedy is not even the most disgusting aspect of media behavior in the past week.  Matt Lewis details some of the more egregious behavior.

The media originally reported the wrong name of the alleged shooter. (The suspected killer was Ryan Lanza, they breathlessly reported. Turns out it was actually Ryan’s brother, Adam.) Then, some in the media advertised Ryan’s Facebook and Twitter pages. (This, of course, brings to mind Brian Ross’ irresponsible and premature on-air suggestion over the summer that the Aurora shooter was a Tea Party member.)

As if those cases of egregiously mistaken identity weren’t enough, producers and reporters began trolling Twitter, seeking to proposition friends and relatives of the victims for an interview.

Meanwhile, others staked out the young survivors, and then proceeded to conduct on-air interviews with these young children. This was unseemly and superfluous. As TIME‘s James Poniewozik wrote, “There is no good journalistic reason to put a child at a mass-murder scene on live TV, permission of the parents or not.”

While the media preens about gun control, the fourth estate ignores its own role in potentially prompting these horrific events. A forensic psychologist named Park Dietz thinks the media has blood on their hands.

“Here’s my hypothesis,” he said. “Saturation-level news coverage of mass murder causes, on average, one more mass murder in the next two weeks.” The reason, he says, has something to do with the USA’s size. In a country so large the likelihood of one or two people snapping becomes quite high.

“It’s not that the news coverage made the person paranoid, or armed, or suicidally depressed,” Dietz said. “But you’ve got to imagine this small number of people sitting at home, with guns on their lap and a hit list in their mind. They feel willing to die. When they watch the coverage of a school shooting or a workplace mass murder, it only takes one or two of them to say – ‘that guy is just like me, that’s the solution to my problem, that’s what I’ll do tomorrow’. The point is that the media coverage moves them a little closer to the action.

The 24/7 news cycle may not be the cause of these massacres, but the intense coverage . . . doesn’t help.

What the past few days have shown is that the media’s leftist tilt is not the primary problem. While there are some noble and decent reporters – Jake Tapper comes to mind – overall they are a wretched hive of scum and villainy. All right, maybe they’re not that bad, but one wonders what motivates certain members of the press. One relatively minor incident from the world of sports demonstrates what I mean.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Our Contemptible Media

  • “. . . overall they are a wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

    Hear, hear!; Jacob Sullum re: CNN/Piers Morgan’s rationale for gun control: You’re stupid! You’re mass murder waiting to happen!! “The exchange, during which Pratt remains admirably calm, pretty accurately reflects the general tenor of the current gun control debate, with raw emotionalism and invective pitted against skepticism and an attempt at rational argument. I am not saying that every supporter of gun control is a raving bully on the order of Piers Morgan, . . . But proponents of new gun restrictions are counting on emotional appeals for victory, which is why they insist that action must be taken immediately, before the grief and outrage provoked by Adam Lanza’s crimes starts to fade.”

  • It gets (if you can imagine it) worse.

    Karl Denninger:

    “You see, our government has been running guns. Illegally running guns. Jaime Avila, in just one of many examples, purchased two rifles that were found at the scene of a federal agent shot near the Arizona-Mexico border. Our government knew Mr. Avila was illegally trafficking weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel. Nonetheless, when his purchases were called into the BATFE for clearance, the government intentionally approved the transactions (a felony) despite knowing they were illegal.

    “Two of those hundreds of weapons came back over the border and were used to murder Brian Terry. Hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered with these guns in total — guns that our government illegally, intentionally and maliciously allowed to be delivered to this murderous cartel.

    “Mr. Avila’s sentence? 57 months in prison, or just under 6 years.


    “Two days before the Newtown, Connecticut shootings.”

    Media outrage? Zero

  • John Lott is the last person a gun grabber should ever try to take on in a debate. I mean that’s really asking for it.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • Does anyone wonder if Satan contrived this tragedy to allow a Socialist President to disarm America? Does anyone remember what happened to Germany after it was disarmed? Gun control is the flagship of every socialist philosophy. Only criminals and tyrants would have weapons. What a mockery that would be.

  • The NRA is America’s first, and longest running, civil rights organization. I’m an Endowment NRA member for 40 years.

    I am proud of my friend and our EVP Wayne LaPierre’s for his lecture to that horde of lying, vile scum.

    You know he succceeded. They’ve really got their collectivist bloomers in a bunch: massive wedgie administered!

  • If there was any stupidity on Mr. Pratt’s part, it was thinking he could have a sensible discussion with someone like Piers Morgan on this subject.

  • Speaking of Jake Tapper, saw today that he’s moving to CNN. Looks like they could use him!

  • Watch what happens when Piers tries bullying the Motor City Madman Ted Nugent:

  • The name “Münchausen syndrome by proxy” is derived from Münchausen syndrome, but it is important to distinguish one from the other, as they describe very different (but related) conditions. People with Münchausen syndrome have a profound need to assume the sick role, and will exaggerate complaints, falsify tests, and/or self-inflict illnesses.[5] MSbP perpetrators, by contrast, are willing to fulfill their need for positive attention by hurting their own child, thereby assuming the sick role by proxy. At times, they are also able to assume the hero role and garner still more positive attention, by appearing to care for and ‘save’ their child.[6] from WIKIPEDIA

    “Piers Morgan: “Of course I am, you moron” > RT @coelkhntr I think you are somewhat gleeful that a tragedy happened to help you push your cause”

  • Any person who dismisses our founding principles, that is, our right to Life, Liberty and our pursuit of Happiness dismisses his own citizenship. This is why there is a Supreme Court to decide his innocence or guilt. A guilty person has incriminated his citizenship and may not be free to participate in the community.

  • How do the lying, vile scum get away with it?

    Answer: Public schools consign nearly all Americans to innumeracy: mathematical ignorance/illiteracy. Mass lunacy is a consequence. See John Allen Paulos’ book.

    Case in point: innumeracy/pseudoscience behind assault rifle bans.

    Without a familiarity with the workings of large numbers, people can irrationally react to terrifying incidents, especially when propagandized by evil men.

    An example: fear of flying and terrorism. Airline terrorism deaths have been a media theme. About 85,000,000 body cavity searches later . . .

    Here is the math: in 1985, 17 Americans died in air terror. In that year, 28,000,000 Americans traveled by air. Ergo the chances of being killed by air terror were 1:1,600,000. Compare 1:1,600,000 to 1:5,300 killed by car crashes.

    They cry, “You are all mass murderers waiting to massacre school children!”!

    In 2012, so far (what?) 50 were killed in assault rifle massacres. Your odds are: 50 in 310,000,000 or 1:6,200,000.

    “The NRA Kills School Children!”

    “But, but . . . if it happened to you that would be 1:1.” Here is another symptom of innumeracy: the tendency to personalize (hint: it’s irrational and wrong). The only instances wherein personalization works are death and taxes: you are 1:1 lilely to die, and you can’t avoid taxes, either.

    If I have to talk with such imbeciles, I usually say, “Sudden death is preferable to malignant melanoma. In the long run, we all die.” Then, I hope the headaches aren’t too harsh.

    Innumeracy also shows itself in pseudoscience which includes the gun control superstition.

    Isaac Asimov: “Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!”

    And, liberty!