Tuesday Stuff and Nonsense

Hmm, lactic acid abounds from tonight’s workouts.

  1. The President pushes wants to persuade/pressure journalists to moderate their criticism of Islam.
  2. His supporters in the press apparently fear for their safety.
  3. But it would seem one should perhaps instead do something material to discourage this sort of thing and this.
  4. Encourage this and this.
  5. Technology and impressionism.
  6. Biologists and their passions.
  7. That is what I’d expect, although those in the wake of Ferguson expect the reverse.
  8. Two notes on the European response, here and here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton says:

    #1 appears to be one of those click bait stories for right wingers that ends up being devoid of all substance when you chase it down. How, for example, is anything the President said different than your own criticism of the magazine a few days ago?

    It also seems pretty blind to this basic fact. Jihadists love things like the cartoons in question. Their world view is premised on living together in a peaceful world being unworkable. They hate facts like it was a Muslim policeman who was among the first killed in France or it was a Muslim worker in the grocery store who helped save some of the hostages. The extreme anti-Muslim crowd on the right plays right into this agenda by pretending that celebrating a cartoon of the Pope having anal sex with alterboys somehow makes one Winston Churchill.

    #7. If the cameras did this work by lowering false complaints only, then why are there fewer uses of force overall by the police wearing them?


  2. Mark says:

    Re #7, the use of force double. Complaints dropped because false complaints are not longer tenable. Your contention that “fewer uses of force” is what is false. The linked article explictly says uses of force by police doubles. Presumably that’s not what those that press for cameras want.

    Re #1, seems to me ages ago you said a DA or police office cannot say things that a private citizen might say. I can say, for example, “girls should not wear provocative clothing in public.” A law enforcement, DA or judge, cannot say the same (that is I will persuade/pressure girls to not wear provocative clothing is not appropriate for a DA). It is the President’s job to protect his citizens, not to “pressure” or censure them.

  3. Boonton says:

    rereading it, it appears to say that which is odd.

    Ages ago I said public officials cannot make certain types of jokes that private people can. For example, a judge should probably not make jokes about taking bribes even if his reputation is untouched.

    As for ‘pressure’ or ‘censureship’, I’m not clear what you mean? I recall when Kayne West made a fool of himself storming the stage of the Grammies to announce he disagreed with Taylor Swift getting best new artist rather than Beyonce, Obama was quoted as calling him an ass. Was Obama censoring him?

  4. Boonton says:

    Or let me put it another way. Suppose the magazine was attacked by a demented Roman Catholic, presumably upset by the cartoons of the Pope with alterboys.

    I would understand if the Catholic community would be uncomfortable attending a mass march wearing t-shirts of the Pope cartoons, even though they were every bit as shocked and offended by the attack as the rest of France. Likewise there would be nothing wrong with the President or any other world leader saying printing giant cartoons of the Pope raping alterboys would be not be helpful, even though free speech ensures there’s a right to do so.

    As for your invention of a duty of the US President to not criticize speech on the theory that somehow criticism from such a high source might have sometype of spookey chilling effect….how come we didn’t hear from you when Obama said Sony made a mistake to not release the Interview movie? I recall when the first Bush said Rosanne Barr’s screeching of the national anthom was a ‘disgrace’ no one suddenly jumped up and said for the President to utter such a thing would violate his duty to support free speech. I think we should treat novel interpretations of established laws and customs that suddenly spring into your head as very suspect unless you can root them in something more solid than your passing fancies.

  5. Mark says:

    “censure and pressure” was in the piece I read a quote from Obama. “What do I mean” I mean that “pressure” was what he said. What he meant, … dunno. He’s the President saying he’ll pressure the media. Doesn’t sound good to me. Your mileage may vary.

  6. Mark says:


    I recall when the first Bush said Rosanne Barr’s screeching of the national anthem was a ‘disgrace’ no one suddenly jumped up and said for the President to utter such a thing would violate his duty to support free speech.

    Seems to me when Mr Bush censured an actress for portraying a single mother people did in fact say exactly what you said nobody said. Turnabout apparently is not fair play in your eyes.

  7. Boonton says:

    You haven’t really identified anything here to object too.

    Seems to me when Mr Bush censured an actress for portraying a single mother people did in fact say exactly what you said nobody said.

    I think you are thinking of a VP candidate and none of the objections to his statement that I recall had anything to do with Presidential censorship.

  8. Mark says:

    That may be. Nothwithstanding, the President saying he’ll pressure the media. I’m not sure why you approve. Or is it OK to say it, ’cause he hasn’t done anything yet?

  9. Boonton says:

    standing, the President saying he’ll pressure the media. I’m not sure why you approve

    Hmmm, I notice some playing fast and loose here. Your ChicagoBoyz citation (kind of ironic since they are a blog that censors comments) asserts

    Obama White House wants to persuade/encourage/pressure media to drop coverage that might upset jihadis or potential jihadis

    Notice that linguistic spectrum up there. Why not add “/stomp on people’s heads”.

    So what exactly did Obama say? Well actually he didn’t say anything, it’s Josh Earnest who said something. Granted, he is Press Secretary but it’s clear here both of you are spinning this so we have to unspin quite a bit to get to the actual facts…

    Which brings us to a Daily Caller article…

    Which starts out with a really dramatic headline!

    White House: Obama Will Fight Media to Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

    Wow, Obama to fight the media! Except the article doesn’t really live up to its billing (surprise). The Press Secretary was asked about criticism of the 2012 cartoons Charlie Hebdo published and Earnest said:

    “The president…will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform”.

    ‘Expressing a vew’? ‘Try to advocate for…’? Where’s your substance man?

    At this point you’re argument has collapsed but just for the fun of it I said let me go look at the link about what the White House said back in 2012. Maybe your ‘pressure’ might be found there. Well again it wasn’t Obama but the Press Secretary (Jay Carney back then). And again the Caller’s Headline was dramatic:

    White House Slams French Cartoons, Amid Election-Time Threats From Islamists

    Golly wow, ok let’s hear this slam on free speech!

    “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this…we know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory” (However) “…we don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgement behind the decision to publish…”

    so at what point will you continue to tarnish your character carrying water for liars? My prediction, you’re going to go deeper.

  10. Mark says:

    From the White House statement,

    The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

    The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

    “I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

    But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

    As noted, the absence of any notion that the “concern for their physical safety” is something the White House should feel is a problem.

    So. If the President thinks that a news program or blogger or, say, a You Tube video artist is publishing something that “endangers our men and women in uniform” … what do you think he’s going to do? Apparently he will “take steps.” Like, trump charges and thrown whomever he needs to in jail, like he did the last time.

    Look you’re the guy who exactly one day after the President announces an executive order says you can’t talk about whether this is Constitutional or not because there are no court cases. You ask why there are no court cases. Uh, ’cause it’s a day later.

  11. Boonton says:

    That’s a fascinating White House statement. I didn’t know WH Statements not only referred to itself in the 3rd person but actually directly quoted itself as if it was an editorial or news article. And not only does a statement manage to directly quote itself, it directly quotes itself from 3 different events in time that took place rather far apart (the Youtube video, the initial publication of the Charlie cartoons and then in response to a question about the response to the initial publication of the cartoon).

    Good job!