The Impossible Dream

Like many people, I’ve been amused by Leftists all over the U.S. squealing about how they need to combat “right-wing” podcasters like Joe Rogan by setting up competitive podcasts which express those views of the Left (as though the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune,CNN, CSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC weren’t sufficient outlets for Leftist agitprop  already).

Clifton Duncan has one such take on this silliness:

They can never build “their own Joe Rogan.” The notion is ridiculous–not just because it evinces their tendency toward top-down control, but because their cult renders intellectual, political and philosophical exploration outside of narrow ideological parameters impossible. These people have psychotic meltdowns, blacklist peers, and cut off relatives over politics. They’re incapable of empathizing with anyone outside their congregation. For all their fetishizing of credentials, their masturbatory exaltation of their educations, they’re violently allergic to intellectual curiosity–how on earth COULD they “build” their own Rogan, or a Lex Fridman, whose curiosity and openness are part of their brand?

Well, yes;  all that’s true, and more besides.

But beyond their genetic inability to create a competitive “voice” lies one inescapable truth:  they can create all the podcasts they want, but they’ll only ever generate an audience of a few hundred thousand people (roughly, the equivalent of the NYT subscription base and/or CNN’s viewership).

I remember when Rush Limbaugh died, the Left was ecstatic because, they thought, the field was now open for radio shows like the leftist Pacifica to capture the radio audience for the Left.

Never happened, did it?  Because most Americans don’t buy into their shit.  Want proof?  Of the top dozen or so talk radio shows in the U.S., Sean Hannity alone has just over 14 million weekly listeners, and a huge percentage of the talk show audience listens to the likes of Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dana Loesch, Mike Gallagher, Glen Beck, Brian Kilmeade and Mike Berry at their various time slots during the day and night.  (You can’t combine them because there is considerable overlap in the conservative audience, who might listen to four, five or more shows during any given week.

The sole Left-wing radio host in the top dozen is Tom Hartmann (of Pacifica) whose midday show attracts some 7 million listeners per week, compared to his midday conservative competitors Dana Loesch and Dan Bongino, whose combined audience is more than double that, at nearly 17 million.

And just to be clear on the numbers:  Nielsen/Arbitron admits candidly that their numbers severely understate rural listenership, and always have.

Somehow, I suspect that farmers and country folk (mostly conservative) greatly outnumber any hippie communes out in the sticks.

So yeah, while the Left may have a systemic problem in putting together a non-traditional media voice, the principal reason they’re always going to fail is that Leftism per se  is hugely disliked by and abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans, FJB’s 81 million “voters” notwithstanding.  And the social adjuncts to Leftism (high taxes, gun control, uncontrolled illegal immigration, LGBTOSTFU and Big Government, to name but some) are each individually just as unpopular as Socialist government in toto.

Long may it ever be so.

Pathetic

Lawrence Person asks the important question:

The Secret Service agent that engaged the would-be Trump golf course assassin missed six shots despite being five feet away.

How does that even happen? How can even you even miss from that close?

It’s a really good, and ultimately important question.

I remember that in a long-ago post castigating law enforcement for being terrible shots, one of my Readers commented that while my comments might be true of the average city cop’s shooting skills, it was certainly not true of dedicated officers like those in the Secret Service.

Ha.

Perhaps the answer might lie in this little tidbit, still from Lawrence:

I’m an adequate shot (not a Secret Service agent who presumably visits a shooting range every month), but I don’t think I could miss a human target from that range.

Forget monthly.  How about weekly?  Actually (and I admit to not knowing the truth of this), I might be persuaded to bet that the SS quali sessions are annual, or at best quarterly.

And in my own case, I am no more than an adequate handgun shot (as anyone who has shot with me will attest) but bloody hell, I shoot my carry 1911 about three times a month, and if I can’t put all eight shots from my first mag into a palm-sized group at 15 feet (three times more than the five above), I keep shooting until I get at least four mag loads in a row into that area.  (If I dump the first mag successfully, I might only do a couple more mags, just to be sure.)

Generally speaking, my first magazine’s boolets tend to end up inside a 2″ hole at 15 feet, with a flyer — and this comes as a result of endless, self-critical practice because as I said, I’m only an adequate handgun shot.

Hell, I shoot my 2″ backup S&W Airweight snubby more accurately than that clueless SS agent, and I only practice with it about every other month.  (Which reminds me… I need to shoot it later today — pack a box or two of .38s, Kim, and you might as well do a little with the bedside .357 while you’re there.)

Jeff Cooper would have wanted it that way.

Here’s a thought for whoever’s going to be in charge of the President’s protection detail:  weekly quali sessions, with a very exacting standard for marksmanship (e.g. like mine).  And for anyone who fails to meet that standard, suspension from the detail for a month — said month to be spent on daily range sessions until the marksmanship improves.

This job is too important to be delegated to Barney Fife types — and especially so as Trump has already proven to be a tempting target for assholes.  That hapless agent who missed from five feet should be fired, period.

That I should even have to say all this makes me want to puke.

Speed Bump #784

If you’re trying to fix colleges, you could at least start by using proper grammar in your headlines:

“Student sues South Carolina college after suspended for gun-related social media post”

…OR:

“Student sues South Carolina college after suspension for gun-related social media post”

…OR:

“Student sues South Carolina college after being suspended for gun-related social media post”

…OR:

“Student sues South Carolina college after having been suspended for gun-related social media post”

All those options, and you picked the wrong one.

Speed Bump #856

From Longtime Friend & Reader Weetabix:

This morning on the radio, the host called an idea “far-fletched” before describing the problems with the idea. The guest then said, “You hit it right on the nail.”

1) Is a “far-fletched” idea one that has better fletching so it can fly farther?

2) Did the guest believe the host was trying to hammer his thumb on purpose?

Good questions, both.  In mitigation:  radio is a live medium so people can misspeak while expressing an opinion — but that’s all the more reason to gather one’s thoughts before expressing them.

Layers And Layers

It should have been a speed bump, but there was no grammar involved.  See if you can spot the absolute howler in the caption to the pic below, as it appeared in the Daily Mail:

Hint:  there’s photographic proof of what the guy actually wrote on his armband, you fucking morons, yet you not only misread it, but gave it a completely different meaning.

Where did I put my flamethrower?


I should point out that Breitbart got it right:

English Premier League Star Who Wrote ‘I Love Jesus’ on LGBTQ Armband Breaks Silence

Clearly, they actually looked at the pic before writing the headline… unlike the Mail  idiots.

Design Notes

At some point, Someone In Marketing thought that this design change would be a good idea for Roger Depuis watches:

I leave it to your imagination as to the average cost of a Depuis watch… now double it, and you’ll be closer.

I’m always reminded of the immortal words of another Roger, Roger Moore:  “The point of language is to communicate your thoughts in the shortest possible time and in the clearest possible way.”

Now translate that into telling the time, and apply to wristwatches.