House of Eratosthenes

No transcripts or other remarks, I’ll just embed the two clips. And then echo what Noel Sheppard asked at Newsbusters: “This is what passes for journalism today?”

Modern western civilization is represented poorly by exhibits such as these; they are almost slanderous. If I were a caveman thawed from a block of ice, or an alien visiting our planet for the first time…or perhaps an angel or deity walking on Creation trying to get a feel for the human condition…I would be abysmally unimpressed with our intellect, and our willingness to feed it. I would find our curiosity underwhelming; damnably so. My take-away would be “they fill a big room, pretend to learn things, and make a big show out of attacking others they want to attack, while learning nothing. And then they cherry-pick sound bites out of the experience, broadcast it and call it ‘news.'”

In short, my one-line summary would be that we look for an emotional high out of every little experience, like a druggie feeding his habit. We learn nothing, we know we learn nothing, and we don’t care. It’s all for the high.

Conservative…liberal…whatever. It’s past high time we all got embarrassed about this. Maybe we watch too much reality-teevee.

Hat tip to Rick.

And CNN ratings tank. Again. Not as frothingly insane as MSNBC, and nowhere near enough to reality ot actually be useful. So they are only on in airports, health clubs, and other places where ‘viewers’ are unable to change the channel.

It’s too bad, really. They used to be a respected news organization, but IMHO, they lost all credibility when it was found out that they agreed to Iraq’s censorship of their feeds under the Saddam Hussien (humph, had to qualify that to avoid confusion with 0bama) regime.

Now they are only good for filling a open cable slot. Wonder if local service providers will start droppong them for Food Channel 2 or The Seinfeld Channel. More viewers for either of them, dont’cha know, and it’s all about happy customers where the rubber meets the road. Really, does anyone actually want to listen to yet another Larry King softball interview, or commentary straight form the Huffington Post or Daily Koz?
- HoundOfDoom | 03/31/2010 @ 09:22
Remember, it’s fine to be anti-Christian, but not anti-AnyOtherReligion.

I note that the CNN dude doesn’t seem phased that there are laws in a modern western country that would subject a person to criminal prosecution for stating her opinion publicly (or maybe even privately, who knows?).

Here’s a woman who, in trying to make a few points, used some pretty blunt language, to be sure, and some hyperbole to underscore it. She underscores that we don’t force-convert anyone, but we send teachers over to convert the willing and it works pretty well. Plus we haven’t been attacked by Japan since.

When asked about what mode of transportation she should use since, as a Muslim Anne’s hyperbolic rhetoric (meant to provoke serious thought, not to set policy) said that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed on airplanes, Anne responded to the question in the spirit in which it was asked. “Take a camel” meant “I don’t care. You need to get your people under control.” Agree or disagree, love what she said or hate it — she’s not threatening to kill anyone here.

Why the hell should anyone in a modern western country be seriously talking about throwing her in jail?

The answer to speech you don’t like is more speech. Not jail.
- philmon | 03/31/2010 @ 11:52
I note that the CNN dude doesn’t seem phased that there are laws in a modern western country that would subject a person to criminal prosecution for stating her opinion publicly (or maybe even privately, who knows?).

I wrote a post aimed at KC a few days ago, when Morgan opened his first comment thread about Ann’s speech in Canada that was called off. Setting aside my remarks about what a pathetic, irrelevant, socialist (but naturally beautiful) country our neighbors to the north are…the sentence I quoted above was pretty much the thrust of my argument.

For the life of me, I can’t understand –

A) why any nation that isn’t a dictatorship, would logically permit speech controls of any kind whatsoever;
B) why any thinking resident of such a country isn’t alarmed and outraged by the mere suggestion of such laws.

Seriously. This strikes me as the kind of thing that is (or should be) intuitive – automatic, reflexive, instinctive – to anyone residing in any country that thinks of itself as a member of Western civilization, democratic, or otherwise “evolved” or “enlightened.” Don’t such countries prize freedom among all else – and isn’t truly free speech the most basic and essential freedom of all?

The very idea that anyone ought to be shouted down – either by unruly mobs or by the authorities – seems so anathema to all that’s good and decent…well, I just can’t find words to express my disgust.
- cylarz | 03/31/2010 @ 23:11

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Defending Ann CoulterWednesday, March 31st, 2010

Defending Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010