Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
— The Toronto Globe and Mail, yesterday.
— The London Telegraph, January 12th, 2013.
(Via Colby Cosh.)
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
— The Toronto Globe and Mail, yesterday.
— The London Telegraph, January 12th, 2013.
(Via Colby Cosh.)
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
It was undoubtedly impolitic for him to single out Las Vegas, rather than, say, Atlantic City, as a particularly wasteful destination. But as an objective matter, his broader point is correct: Americans need to tighten their belts — for quite a while, probably. During the boom, the ratio of household debt to household income reached 128 percent in 2008, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, far more than leading economic competitors such as Germany, Japan or China. This burden was concentrated most heavily on the middle class, McKinsey notes. And the proof that it was not sustainable is all around us, in the form of personal bankruptcy filings and foreclosures.
The more difficult question is whether this is a reality America should merely endure or actively embrace. For generations, we have built our economy on ever-increasing consumption, with the result (among others) that a metropolitan area of two million people has arisen over the last 40 years in the Nevada desert — based essentially on hedonism.
Far more important, perhaps, than his inconsistent observations about Vegas, is the fact that Obama seems to favor the latter option, embracing a less consumption-oriented economic future. In a speech marking the anniversary of his stimulus plan, he observed that “the jobs of the 21st century are in areas like clean energy and technology, advanced manufacturing, new infrastructure. That kind of economy requires us to consume less and produce more; to import less and export more.”
— “Obama’s hard truth: Americans must consume less,” the Washington Post, February 19, 2010.
Parker asked Zakaria if he had faith the American people could handle the fiscal discipline he advocated. Zakaria used the platform as an opportunity to attack Americans and refute the notion “the American people are wonderful.” His solution: Less consumption by the American people.
“No, I think the people are the big problem,” Zakaria said. “I mean, Americans — everybody wants to say the American people are so wonderful. You know, I think that when they come to recognize that they have to make sacrifices too that it’s not just wasteful — they need to have — they need to recognize that some of what’s going to happen here is fewer. They have to consume fewer things. They have to accept slightly higher taxes. And in the long run, you will have a much better economy.”
— “Fareed Zakaria to the American people: You are ‘the big problem,’” as quoted on December 15 2010 in the Daily Caller. Zakaria is a Time, CNN and Washington Post columnist.
The Washington Post Co. on Friday reported bad news for its newspaper division, with revenue totaling $127.3 million for the first quarter of this year — down four percent from 2012 — and an operating loss of $34.5 million.
Overall, the company posted a profit of just $4.7 million, an 85 percent drop in earnings from the net income of $31 million for the first quarter of last year.
In the newspaper division, daily and Sunday circulation at the Post dropped 7.2 and 7.7 percent, respectively, compared to 2012. Average daily circulation totaled 457,100 copies, with Sundays at 659,500. The report also noted that in January of this year, the Post increased the paper’s price for daily home delivery and daily and Sunday single copies. And print advertising revenue at the Post in the first quarter of 2013 dropped 8 percent to $48.6 million, down from $52.7 million in the first quarter of 2012.
— “Washington Post suffers 85% earnings drop,” the Politico today.
Sounds like Americans are taking the Post’s advice; they’re reducing consumption — starting with their consumption of the Washington Post. Add that to the environmental benefits that the Post’s target audience, such as John Kerry and Claire McCaskill say accrues from less consumption, and it sounds like a real win for both the Post and its former readers.
But can the paper top these results in the next quarter? (Survey says: maybe, especially considering the fine product the Post generates these days.)
The Politico quotes a press release from Tina Brown:
“The Daily Beast and Howard Kurtz have parted company. Under the direction of our newly named political director John Avlon we have added new momentum and authority to our Washington bureau with columnists such as Jon Favreau, Joshua Dubois and Stuart Stevens joining our outstanding DC team of Eleanor Clift, Daniel Klaidman, Michael Tomasky, Eli Lake, David Frum and Michelle Cottle – giving us one of the best politics teams in the business which was instrumental in this week’s Webby win for Best News site.”
According to Tina Brown, Newsweek/Daily Beast’s editor in chief, her publication has decided to end their relationship with Howard Kurtz after he mistakenly claimed that NBC center Jason Collins, who recently came out as gay, had failed to disclose that he was previously engaged to be married to a woman.
Kurtz’s “See no liberal bias” liberal mindset can be maddening, but swapping him for John “everyone on the right is a crazy wingnut” Avlon doesn’t exactly seem like a fair trade. Still, for the first time in its long existence, Kurtz’s CNN show will be required viewing this week, to see if he comments on the move.
Update: Now is the time when Twitchy juxtaposes:
Update: Will CNN be next to drop Kurtz? “Don’t be surprised if CNN acts next against Kurtz,” John Nolte of Big Journalism tweets. “His brand as a media analyst is now in shambles.” I don’t know — as with Roger Ailes sweeping up Juan Williams after his run-in with the PC thoughtpolice at NPR, I bet Ailes would hire Kurtz pretty quickly, which may slow or block CNN from issuing an exit visa to Kurtz.
In contrast to the horrific week that was last week, the past couple of days has brought a certain amount of vindication to those whom the left and the media (pardon the repetition) attempted to grind to a thin paste in previous years.
First up, as they say at Canada’s Small Dead Animals blog, now is the time when we juxtapose:
[Katrina] and its New Orleans aftermath at least seemed to solve a big problem for anti-Bush commentators and politicians. Previously, they couldn’t grouse about the Iraq War without seeming defeatist (and anti-liberationist and maybe even selfishly isolationist). Even the Clintons never figured a way out of that trap. But nature has succeded where they failed; it has opened up a way out, at least temporarily. Now Bush opponents can argue, in some cases quite accurately, that without the Iraq deployment aid would have gotten to New Orleans faster. And ‘if we can [tk] in Iraq, why can’t we [tk] in our own South?’ They aren’t being selfish. They are just asserting priorities! In short, Katrina gives them a way to talk about Iraq without talking about Iraq. No wonder Gwen Ifill smiles the “inner smile.”
– Mickey Kaus, Kausfiles, September 5th, 2005.
“DO TELL: Donna Brazile: Bush came through on Katrina. Boy, talk about a narrative-buster.”
– Instapundit, yesterday.
And as PJM’s Bryan Preston wrote in mid-November 2006 at Hot Air, the MSM used the false narrative they constructed over Katrina all the way to Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, paving the way for one party-rule during the first two years of Obama’s first term:
What cost the GOP its majorities in Congress and statehouses? Nancy Pelosi and her wing of the Democrats are running around as though the elections validated their hard left view of the war and the world, but according to James Carville’s Democracy Corps, this election did no such thing.What cost the GOP its power? Iraq? Foley? Look at page 6 of Democracy Corps’ post-election report. The GOP’s fortunes fatally cratered in the Fall of 2005, and were recovering ever since minus a couple of blips this year. What happened in the Fall of ‘05?
Katrina. That storm turned out to be the hurricane that changed history.
In a new article at the Washington Examiner, David Freddoso explores how that’s working out for the left:
In 2006, Democrats built a congressional majority by embracing and convincing pro-gun, pro-life moderates to run in marginal states and districts. They have since lost many of these in the House, and liberals are now in the process of purging them from the Senate.Until Monday, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., had been acting like a man seeking re-election — raising $1.5 million in the first quarter and attempting to distance himself from Obamacare.
But Baucus had just voted against the gun control measures that President Obama had been pushing. And in response, Organizing for Action — the post-campaign version of Obama’s campaign — announced it would be mobilizing activists to shame and pressure Baucus and the three other Democrats who had voted against gun control.
Baucus, already polling badly and facing a tough re-election, needed that like he needed a hole in his head. Who could blame him for hanging it up early?
“Several surveys have shown that the people who bring us political news are to the left of the U.S. mainstream politically, and there are few issues on which they feel more strongly” than gun control, Freddoso adds. “It’s a lot harder to mind or describe the perils of a purge when you’re the one holding the torch.” *
Oh, and remember in early 2011, after Gabrielle Gifords and a judge appointed by Bush Sr. were among those shot by an apolitical loony in Arizona — which of course, didn’t stop the left’s wilding campaign, in search of that allusive Tea Party Terrorist, over which they pummeled Sarah Palin for using target clip art in one of her campaign ads — forgetting of course, that Democrats had early employed the same imagery in theirs? Say, what’s that I see atop the newest Photoshop from the man who plagiarized an AP photo to create the fascistically iconic Obama “Hope” poster:
But let’s get back to GWB for a few minutes. At the Wall Street Journal this week, Peggy Noonan writes:
Mr. Bush could be prickly and irritable and near the end showed arrogance, but he wasn’t vain or conceited, and he still isn’t. When people said recently that they were surprised he could paint, he laughed: “Some people are surprised I can even read.” **
Coverage of the opening of his presidential library Thursday was wall to wall on cable, and a feeling of affection for him was encouraged, or at least enabled, by the Washington press corps, which doesn’t much like Mr. Obama because he’s not all that likable, and remembers Mr. Bush with a kind of reluctant fondness because he was.
But to the point. Mr. Obama was elected because he wasn’t Bush.
Mr. Bush is popular now because he’s not Obama.
The wheel turns, doesn’t it?
Here’s a hunch: The day of the opening of the Bush library was the day Obama fatigue became apparent as a fact of America’s political life.
When Bush left office, his approval rating was down in the 20s to low 30s. Now it’s at 47%, which is what Obama’s is. That is amazing, and not sufficiently appreciated. Yes, we are a 50-50 nation, but Mr. Bush left office in foreign-policy and economic failure, even cataclysm. Yet he is essentially equal in the polls to the supposedly popular president. Which suggests Republicans in general have some latent, unseen potential of which they’re unaware. Right now they’re busy being depressed. Maybe they should be thinking, “If Bush could come back . . .” Actually, forget I said that. Every time Republican political professionals start to think that way, with optimism, they get crude and dumb and think if they press certain levers the mice will run in certain directions.
Though to borrow from another recurring theme in the Blogosphere; this might by a case of two Wall Street Journals in one. Recall what former GWB speech writer Bill McGurn wrote there in January of 2009:
In a few hours, George W. Bush will walk out of the Oval Office for the last time as president. As he leaves, he carries with him the near-universal opprobrium of the permanent class that inhabits our nation’s capital. Yet perhaps the most important reason for this unpopularity is the one least commented on.
Here’s a hint: It’s not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush’s disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it’s easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago — and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn’t he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?
Which is exactly what BHO would do a couple of years later. Hard-fought GOP victories being abandoned by punitive American leftists? Why, that’s never happened before! Except that one time, of course:
Meanwhile, the New York Times finally awakens from its torpor to cover a story that Andrew Breitbart — and PJM’s own Zombietime — were focusing on almost three years ago. “It’s rare to get this kind of vindication,” Ed Morrissey writes today, “so let’s enjoy it in memory of Andrew Breitbart for as long as possible:”
For more than two years, Andrew and Lee Stranahan have investigated the Pigford settlement and the fraudulent claims that not only have cost taxpayers billions, but have left the original black farmers who sued the USDA over discrimination in the lurch. Today the New York Times reports what Andrew and Lee have been saying all along — that the Pigford settlement was a political hack job by Tom Vilsack’s Department of Agriculture, and that it’s a magnet for fraud (via Twitchy):
The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.
From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.
Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.
As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.
Somewhere, Andrew is looking down on the vindication by the sclerotic Gray Lady and laughing:
* Speaking of potential self-immolations, “Obamacare Has Democrats Nervous about Their Political Future,” Walter Russell Mead writes today.
** Not everyone, Dubya. Not everyone.
Unconfirmed reports of two explosions.
Update: Hard to tell for sure from the top pic but it looks to me like the explosion might be coming from inside the building.
Update: John Ekdahl is watching Fox News and says the mic picked up someone at the scene saying, “Oh my God, they’re dead.” And there do appear to have been two explosions, the second one of which was bigger than the first per George Scoville. That’s a terror tactic: Set off a smaller explosion to get a crowd moving into an area where a bigger bomb is waiting for them. But I don’t mean to jump to conclusions. More updates coming.
Update: It’s as bad as you fear.
That last item links to a Tweet from Jackie Bruno of New England Cable News, which states, “I saw people’s legs blown off. Horrific. Two explosions. Runners were coming in and saw unspeakable horror.”
And note this: “Someone on Twitter points out that it’s Patriots’ Day in Boston, when Lexington and Concord are commemorated, in case you needed another reason to suspect this is terrorism.” Not to mention that it’s April 15th: Tax Day.
(Video atop post via the Weekly Standard.)
More photos can be found in this post at the Breitbart.com Conversation group blog by John Sexton.
Ace has numerous updates, tweets and photos, and a link to a live video stream (as of 12:36 PDT) from Bloomberg TV. Plus this:
Boston Fire/Police report “another device” may be in front of Mandarin Hotel on Boylston #BostonMarathon
— ★♥ Harriet Baldwin(@HarrietBaldwin) April 15, 2013
You’re kidding RT @joebrooks: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer just speculated if anti-tax groups were behind the bombing WITH ZERO EVIDENCE
— Herbert Drewver (@FigDrewton) April 15, 2013
“The Boston Globe is reporting that police have intentionally detonated another device in Boston, by the Boston Public Library (about a mile from the original explosion),” Patrick Brennan writes at the NRO Corner. Mike Levine of Fox News tweets, “One source telling me at least 3 people dead in Boston explosions. Scrambling for more info/confirmation. Still unclear if this was accident”. Plus additional video at that last link.
Update (1:15 PDT): At Twitchy, “Horrible: Explosions at Boston Marathon finish line; injuries reported [pics, video]; Update: Possible fatalities.” It’s a lengthy post filled with numerous still photos, videos, and tweets from those on the scene.
NBC is tweeting “2 killed, 23 injured per @Boston_Police,” and that “Small homemade bomb is preliminary cause of explosion at Boston Marathon, law enforcement officials tell NBC News”. AP adds, “Intelligence official: 2 more explosive devices found at Boston Marathon; being dismantled.”
Update (1:25 PM PDT): The New York Times diagrams where the explosions occurred:
Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Nick Kristof wastes no time politicizing the story:
explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-01/wor…
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) April 15, 2013
As does Luke Russert of NBC, attempting to find a Waco connection to the bombings.
Allahpundit adds, “We’re now two hours into this and I’ve yet to see any reports that these were suicide bombers or car bombs. Maybe too early to tell, but if this is AQ, the usual M.O. appears not to have been followed.”
Update: (1:35 PM PDT): There were initial reports of an explosion at the JFK Library in Boston, however, the library itself is tweeting that it was a fire that “appears to have started in the mechanical room of new building. All staff and visitors are accounted for and safe,” adding that “Investigators are investigating. Any tie to Boston Marathon explosions is pure speculation. More information as we receive it.”
The New York Post is claiming that “Authorities have a identified a suspect, who is currently being guarded in a Boston hospital with shrapnel wounds.” And Breaking News Online’s Michael van Poppel tweets, “CBS NEWS: Boston PD has surveillance video of someone bringing multiple backpacks to blast site.”
The Boston Globe probably has the clearest video of the initial blast, shot by one of their sports reporters covering the marathon:
Update (2:15 PM PDT): AP reports that “Police Commissioner Edward Davis says authorities aren’t certain that the explosion at the JFK Library was related to the other blasts, but they’re treating them as if they are.” adding that “there are no injuries stemming from the third explosion.”
And the New York Post claims that “Authorities ID suspect as Saudi national in marathon bombings, under guard at Boston hospital.” I’d really like to see this one collaborated by other sources, given how sketchy the first day’s reporting of 9/11 was.
Update (2:33 PM PDT): “Just a Reminder” from Glenn Reynolds: “Based on past experience, at least half of what you’re hearing about Boston this afternoon will turn out to be wrong by tomorrow. And journalists/pundits: Try not to speculate in the absence of data. You don’t know anything either.”
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Scalia of the Anchoress blog sums up the current phrase of TV coverage of the bombings: “At this point on cable news, it becomes ‘crisis porn’ with no new information, re-views of event, phone-ins without any real info. TV OFF.”
Update (3:00 PM PDT): BuzzFeed tweets:
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) April 15, 2013
Larger version of the photo here.
Update (3:33 PM PDT): “Law enforcement official confirms that one of two people killed in today’s explosions was eight years old,” NBC News tweets. Andrew Phelps of the New York Times adds, “Reporter on @WBUR says most cases at Mass General are leg amputations. These are people who just finished the Boston Marathon,” or “were cheering the runners on,” Phelps continues in a follow-up tweet.
Obama refuses to use the T-word in his speech, but Roger L. Simon tweets, “WH quickly releases statement describing Boston as act of ‘terror’ after criticism Obama may have omitted. Everything is image.”
CBS journalist Alexander Romano tweets, “Frm FBI Asst Director and CBS News Senior Corr @johnmillercbs says a Saudi national is in custody but denies involvement”.
Update (6:18 PM PDT): CNN’s Nick Valencia tweets, “BOLO put out by Boston law enforcement for ‘dark skinned or black male’ who tried to gain restricted access minutes b4 1st explosion,” adding, “The man was seen wearing a black sweatshirt & had a black packback. Possible foreign national based on accent”.
As Ace writes, “I know what you’re all thinking: US tax-code protester.”
CBS reports that the death toll is now three according to Boston authorities.
Update (8:21 PM PDT): Found via BuzzFeed on Twitter, a runner with a flip cam or cell phone video camera captures the first explosion:
Since it’s after 11:00 PM on the east coast, obviously the pace of new information has slowed considerably. However, Mary Katharine Ham is doing live updates at Hot Air, including a report from the Boston Globe that states that the current injury count is at 140.
Reports on Twitter that “WBZ-TV is reporting that just about every federal agency (FBI, ATF, DHS) and bomb squad is serving search warrant in Revere, Mass:”
— NewsBreaker (@NewsBreaker) April 16, 2013
Update (8:40 PM PDT): Fox 25 Boston is reporting, “Large police presence in Revere connected to Boston bombing:”
A law enforcement source tells Fox 25 that a large police presence at a home in Revere is related to the Boston Marathon bombings.
The source said that a suspicious driver was pulled over by Revere police after driving past the State Police barracks a number of times.
The driver reportedly had a “nervous demeanor.”
The driver then led police, as well as the FBI, to a home in the area of Ocean Avenue and Beach Street.
It was not immediately known what police were searching for at the home.
The Boston Police are tweeting a “Media Advisory from the FBI: A press conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 16 @ 9:30am at The Westin Copley Plaza.”
Update (9:37 PM) PDT: Barring any dramatic developments tonight, I think this is the last update to this post. We’ll start fresh with a new post tomorrow. Obviously, the comments are still open below if you’d to explore the topic further here.
Now is the time at Ed Driscoll.com when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals style:
It is one of the touchiest, most inflammatory subjects I know, and if you get into it, you will be accused of McCarthyism, for sure. No problem. I’m talking about American liberals and their relationship with the violent Left. The subject has come up again because of Kathy Boudin: Columbia has hired her as an adjunct professor; NYU has made her a scholar-in-residence.
She is, of course, a Weather Underground terrorist, and largely unrepentant, as far as I can tell. Susan Rosenberg was, and is, unrepentant too.
I wrote about Rosenberg early in 2001, because of what President Clinton did: In the waning hours of his presidency, he granted clemency to both her and Linda Sue Evans. He did not do the same for Kathy Boudin. Maybe he regarded that as a bridge too far? Anyway, my piece is called “Clinton’s Rosenberg Case,” here.
In this period, I thought long and hard about liberals and leftist terror. Bill Clinton, the editors of the New York Times, the English department at Amherst College: They would never kill policemen. They would never blow up young people as they danced at Fort Dix. But they would be tender toward those who do, wouldn’t they? Haven’t they?
Bob Tyrell had a name for certain people he observed in college: “coat-and-tie liberals.” They were not the scruffy radicals, who were naked in their aims. They were respectable, but they were not far off in their thinking from the radicals. Perhaps they considered the radicals purer, in a way?
—“The Weathergal’s a perfessor, &c.,” Jay Nordlinger at NRO today.
“Sigh: George Washington University students attempt to oust priest after discovering he’s Catholic.”
— Mary Katharine at Hot Air, also today, who adds, “Mind you, this is the same university where Anwar al-Awlaki was a chaplain, but sure, Fr. Greg is what causes them to reevaluate their vetting of religious figures.”
One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this case, the two men spoke about college life—especially “diversity”—and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowdoin’s freshman class. That’s where the dispute begins.
In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”
Word of the speech soon got to Mr. Klingenstein. Even though he hadn’t been named in the Mills account, Mr. Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it nonsense: “He didn’t like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow.”
The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was that “I explained my disapproval of ‘diversity’ as it generally has been implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference,” coupled with “not enough celebration of our common American identity.”
For this, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, Bowdoin’s president insinuated that he was a racist. And President Mills did so, moreover, in an address that purported to stress the need for respecting the opinions of others across the political spectrum. “We are, in the main, a place of liberal political persuasion,” he told the students, but “we must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. . . . Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission.” Wrote Mr. Klingenstein: “Would it be uncharitable to suggest that, in a speech calling for more sensitivity to conservative views, he might have shown some?”
After the essay appeared, President Mills stood by his version of events. A few months later, Mr. Klingenstein decided to do something surprising: He commissioned researchers to examine Bowdoin’s commitment to intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity. This week, some 18 months and hundreds of pages of documentation later, the project is complete. Its picture of Bowdoin isn’t pretty.
Read the whole thing.
Related: John Boot on “The 4 Most Outrageous Lies in Robert Redford’s New Pro-Terrorist Movie,” elsewhere at PJM.
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
When Fox News started out, it got a generally skeptical and unfriendly reception from the journalistic establishment. Even reporters, who generally view any news media organization as a good thing (not to mention a potential source of employment), were largely disapproving. But no one greeted Fox News with more pure vitriol than CNN founder Ted Turner.
“I look forward to crushing Rupert Murdoch like a bug,” Turner told the press. He compared Murdoch to Hitler, which would make Roger Ailes a reincarnation of Goebbels, and followed up with an explanation, quoted by the Los Angeles Times [in October of 1996]: “The late Führer, the first thing he did, like all dictators, was take over the press and use it to further his agenda. Basically, that is what Rupert Murdoch does with his media. . . .” The Nazi analogy was too much for the Anti-Defamation League, which rebuked Turner for trivializing the Holocaust. Turner apologized, but that didn’t prevent him from likening Murdoch to “the late Führer” a year later; or, in 2005, comparing the success of Fox News to the rise of Hitler.
— From Roger Ailes: Off Camera, by Zev Chafets.
Republican Teddy Turner, the son of media mogul Ted Turner, made news last month when he blamed his father’s liberalism on actress Jane Fonda.
He made more news Wednesday on NewsMax TV’s Steve Malzberg Show saying that CNN is “pretty much to the left” and that he has such a “hard time watching them” he mostly watches Fox (video follows with transcript and absolutely no need for additional commentary, relevant section begins at 7:40):
— “Ted Turner’s Son: CNN Is So Far Left I Mostly Watch Fox,” Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, yesterday.
If you missed it on Tuesday, click here to listen to my interview with Chafets discussing his new book on Fox impresario Ailes.
Update: “Cable ‘News’ Network: CNN Devotes Multiple Segments to Mockery, Criticism of Conservatives.”
Rebuilding the badly tarnished CNN brand name; you’re doing it wrong.
Back in 2004, blogger Val Prieto coined the phrase “Omnipotent Tourist Syndrome” to describe the love of many on the left to jet into places such as Cuba and scope out the socialist-inflicted ruins, and the ruined lives of its inhabitants, and then jet back a few days later to enjoy all of the benefits of American or European capitalism:
The Omnipotent Tourist Syndrome is a disease common among Americans that is caused by arrogance, egotism and non-chalance. Carriers show a penchant for obliviously overlooking the obvious while delighting themselves at the cost of others. Delerious OTS sufferers refuse to acknowledge their malady and will argue that it is their God given right as an American to travel freely about the world with little or no conscience or consequence. OTS people fequently hide behind their Bill of Rights and Constitution. Unfortunately, there is no cure for OTS nor is there any way to ease it’s symptoms. It is a disease which, no matter how much hard data and facts are introduced into the OTS sufferer, will not ease unless said sufferer finds a compass of morality and humanity.
See also, Dennis Rodman and Ted Turner, just after their visits to the hell of North Korea.
Of course, getting to Cuba or North Korea from America can take a bit of effort. But these days, there’s no need for a leftist with a yen to play omnipotent tourist to ever leave the US, as my fellow PJM columnist Richard Fernandez writes, taking one for the team by spotting an article in the New York Times titled, “How Detroit Became the World Capital of Staring at Abandoned Old Buildings.” Richard sets up his link to this piece by writing:
Mark Binelli of New York Times has managed to portray the collapse of the city as some kind aesthetic triumph. He calls it the “world capital” of beautiful ruined buildings. Where else can you see whole city blocks of skyscrapers in smashed, burned and deserted condition except in movies with titles like “Omega Man” or “I am Legend” or “After Earth”? And in the movies they do it with CGI whereas in Detroit it’s all live action.
Binelli explains a point which may not have been obvious to the reader. It is only plain to the artist: the city is beautiful because it seems ugly.
now much of the attention being showered upon Detroit from the trendiest of quarters comes, in no small measure, thanks to the city’s blight. Detroit’s brand has become authenticity, a key component of which has to do with the way the city looks.
This is not exactly a question of gentrification; when your city has 70,000 abandoned buildings, it will not be gentrified anytime soon. Rather, it’s one of aesthetics. And in Detroit, you can’t talk aesthetics without talking ruin porn, a term that has become increasingly familiar in the city. Detroiters, understandably, can get touchy about the way descriptions and photographs of ruined buildings have become the favorite Midwestern souvenirs of visiting reporters.
Still, for all of the local complaints, outsiders are not alone in their fascination. My friend Phil has staged secret, multicourse gourmet meals, prepared by well-known chefs from local restaurants, in abandoned buildings like the old train station; John and his buddies like to play ice hockey on the frozen floors of decrepit factories. A woman who moved to Detroit from Brooklyn began to take nude photographs of herself in wrecked spaces (thrusting the concept of ruin porn to an even less metaphorical level). And Funky Sour Cream, an arts collective originally from New York, arranged an installation of little cupcake statues in the window of a long-shuttered bakery on Chene Street. A few days later, the bakery burned down. People debated whether or not this was a coincidence.
Perhaps the article is tongue in cheek, but if not then the bakery fire is probably not coincidence. It was probably intentionally set by the last sane man in Detroit.
One black lady managed to point out the downside of living in ruins at a talk the author attended. “During the question-and-answer period, a stylishly dressed African-American woman in her 50s stood up to make a contrarian point: that devotees of ruined buildings should be aware of the ways in which the objects of their affection left ‘retinal scars’ on the children of Detroit, contributing to a ‘significant part of the psychological trauma’ inflicted on them on a daily basis.”
“Retinal scars” — that’s a classic. How’s that related to the scars that have been gouged in the American landscape by the legions of those in search of aesthetics, themselves, their life destiny, in making a statement for passion, caring, understanding and all the other planks of liberal policy that led the city to dusty death?
“Retinal scars” was probably her polite way of telling the members of that refined audience that there was something of a downside to living in a dump. But whether that will dissuade artists whose idea of chic is having yourself photographed nude in a reasonable facsimile of Berlin, 1945 remains to be seen.
Berlin, 1945 you say? We’ll talk more about that right after the page break.
What’s on your menu? Just got off the phone with my health care provider asking them to explain why my premium jumped up. No good answer!
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) February 27, 2013
Oh I don’t know, I can think of at least one…
More: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and today Donna Brazile got a look at the bill.”
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
● “For sale: Boston Globe, storied broadsheet founded 1872. Have a few hundred million bucks and fierce commitment to First Amendment? DM us.”
─ Tweet earlier today by Bryan Bender, journalist at the Boston Globe.
─ December 30th, 2012 headline in the New York Times, the parent company of the Globe.
In April of 2009, Andrew Alexander, then the Washington Post’s ombudsman, published an article titled, “The Post Whittles Down Its Corrections Backlog,” implying that it’s quite a stack of corrections he’s working on there!
Yesterday, the Politico reported that the “Washington Post may cut its ombudsman.” Evidently the strain of finishing off all of those 2008-2009-era corrections got to Patrick Pexton, Alexander’s successor. But we can add a new one to the list: “Washington Post falls for hoax report that Sarah Palin will work for al-Jazeera,” John Hayward writes today at Human Events:
Suzi Parker at the Washington Post wrote on Tuesday morning, “The Sarah Palin Story is a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and celebrity meet.”
There follow several hundred words of rambling non-news about how Palin is “trying to find ways to stay relevant while her 15 minutes faces into the political history books,” after parting ways with Fox News. Parker artfully juxtaposes some factoids about Palin’s popularity in Alaska, and unsupported speculation that she’s been ruined by exposure to reality TV, with an account of Palin’s attendance at the memorial for murdered Navy SEAL Chris Kyle – the implication being that Palin only attended the service to draw attention to herself.
But the marquee element of Parker’s post – the entire reason she wrote the silly, contemptuous piece – was the revelation that Palin would become a contributor for the TV network al-Jazeera bought from al-Gore. Supposedly Palin hoped to use her new perch at al-Jazeera to “reach millions of devoutly religious people.”
It’s a blockbuster revelation that turned out to be based entirely on a hoax… which Parker fell for hook, line, and sinker, apparently making no effort whatsoever to substantiate it, not even through the minimal practice of searching for a single corroborating source online. Parker’s sole source was an obvious parody site, the Daily Currant. She probably didn’t even bother to visit the site, instead building her story around a cut-and-paste of something she received via social media. At the time of this writing, the top story on the Daily Currant is “Catholic Church Considering Jerry Sandusky as Next Pope.”
At Breitbart.com’s Conversation group blog, Iowahawk notes that — of course — the correction at the WaPo was merely an opportunity for more snark:
I guess Suzi’s Pulitzer is on hold for the moment, since the story came from a third-rate satire site. So the Post has now updated the scoop with a new title: “Sarah Palin Tries to Stay Relevant“, with a new lede:
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that Sarah Palin planned to contribute to the Al Jazeera America news network.
Maybe a more accurate correction would have added “because we are psychologically incapable of disbelieving about any story the voices in our head tell us about Sarah Palin.”
But then, it’s not like anyone trusts the Washington Post to be accurate these days. Fake, yes. But accurate?
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of “personal discovery.”
– Gov. Sarah Palin, at the 2008 Republican convention.
Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama’s nominee to head the defense department, said in his confirmation hearing Thursday that he doesn’t “know much” about military programs and technology. “I’ve said I don’t know enough about it,” Hagel said, in a response to Maine senator Angus King. “There are a lot of things I don’t know about. I, if confirmed, intend to know a lot more than I do. I will have to.”
– “Hagel: I Don’t Know Enough About the Defense Department — ‘There are a lot of things I don’t know about,’” the Weekly Standard today.
(Yes, I know I linked to the Hagel post at the Weekly Standard in the previous hour, but I thought it was worth juxtaposing with the warning from Gov. Palin four years ago.)
Related: The MSM, double-standards, and “the Zen of Chuck Hagel.”
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
White House press secretary Jay Carney laid the blame for a surprise* economic contraction squarely at the feet of congressional Republicans Wednesday, saying economic threats during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations had prevented important defense spending.
“Our economy is facing a major headwinds, and that’s Republicans in Congress,” Carney said.
— “White House: GOP responsible for contracting economy,” The Hill, today.
Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) have proposed a new draft for a cap-and-trade bill with exceedingly stringent restrictions on carbon emissions. During a hearing on the bill, Kerry made the astounding statement that the recession has been the environment’s best friend, and he couldn’t be happier about it:
Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent.
What did Kerry just unwittingly admit? He admitted that cap-and-trade advocates and like-minded global warming believers see economic prosperity as a huge source of the supposed problem. That’s why they’re proposing the perfect solution – from their perspective – in the form of a massive tax increase directly on industry.
— “John Kerry: Awesome recession is helping the environment,” the North Star National, October 6th, 2009.
Why is just one reason why “Environmentalists hail newly confirmed Secretary of State Kerry for climate change activism,” as the Daily Caller noted yesterday. No word yet though, if Kerry concurs with Democrat claims that our economy is in the midst of “The Best-Looking Contraction in U.S. GDP You’ll Ever See,” or if he’s merely for-gainst the idea.
Related: “Remember when Obama OWNED the economy? That was SO 2009.”
“CNN Host Confronts Whole Foods CEO John Mackey For Calling ObamaCare ‘Fascism:’”
On CNN this morning, host Carol Costello confronted Whole Foods CEO John Mackey over his recent comments that ObamaCare was tantamount to “fascism” because “the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it.”
“You initially labeled the Health Care Act a form of socialism, and then on NPR you called ObamaCare ‘fascism.’ Why did you decide to change the terminology?” Costello asked at the outset.
Echoing his statement yesterday that he regrets using the word “fascism,” Mackey explained, “That was a bad choice of words, but traditionally socialism means that the means of production are run by the government and in fascism the means of production are still owned by private individuals but they’re controlled by the government. And what’s happening. Our health care system is moving away from free enterprise capitalism towards greater governmental control. That was a poor choice of words due to the baggage and associations that go along with it. So now I’m just calling it ‘government-controlled health care.’”
An unsatisfied Costello then challenged Mackey, saying, “You realize when you say ‘fascism,’ it brings up Nazi Germany and all sorts of things. And we really want that kind language out of our public forum at the moment, don’t we?”
“Apparently you can’t use that word in America any longer, it’s taboo,” Mackey fired back.
As Jonah Goldberg (who’s written a book that’s more than a little germane to the topic) noted in his weekly emailed G-File column today:
None of this surprises me. But it’s still quite amazing. The simple fact is that fascism is a uniquely radioactive political term and the Left has an exclusive license to use it. Liberals are allowed to be as glib and cavalier as they want about the use of the word. But if conservatives use it — entirely accurately — it is an outrage and a sign of ignorance. Yes, technically, it would have been more accurate, and certainly less controversial, if Mackey had said Obamacare is corporatist — the economic structure of fascism — but very few people know what “corporatist” means. [Here's a decent intro -- Ed]
And so you have this carve out for liberals. They get to use the word fascist — incorrectly — all of the time. But if a conservative (or in this case a libertarian) uses it accurately, and not particularly pejoratively either, it’s offensive or stupid.
Immediately after the above exchange, Costello went into concern troll mode with Mackey:
“I think, though, that many of your customers probably wouldn’t agree with you since, I don’t know, you kind of run a store that appeals to the more liberal in America in some ways,” Costello replied.
“I don’t understand what your question or your point is,” Mackey said.
“I’m just saying some people feel Whole Foods is a politically-correct grocery store because you sell organic goods,” Costello explained. “You’re into health, et cetera, et cetera, and some of your customers might be taken aback because of that.”
“They might be,” the CEO replied. “But I mean, Whole Foods is a very diverse company. We have a multiplicity of opinions. Again, we’re the United States. We have freedom of speech. We’re a democracy. We need to have a variety of opinions shared in order for us to remain a vital and prosperous country.”
Moe Lane paraphrases Costello thusly:
The question was Why are you publicly disagreeing with your customers on a political issue? and the point was HERETIC! UNBELIEVER! Which Mackey almost certainly knew, although I’m not sure that Carol Costello did.
Because, as Moe adds, “apparently J-School doesn’t require much reading of actual, real political theory.”
Of course, based on the past history of CNN and the dictators and terrorists their newsreaders, executives, and their founder have championed over the years, one might get the impression that many at CNN are rather comfortable with the idea of fascism. Even if they can’t immediately define the F-word, many there certainly sound pretty cool with the idea of personality cults built upon the worship of seemingly unconstrained political power.
In the 1980s, leftist economists urged America to become more like Japan. Or as Greg Easterbrook wrote in 2010 at Reuters:
The epitome of this thinking was a 1980 book called “Japan As Number One,” by Ezra Vogel of Harvard, which became a bestseller in Japan and sold well in the United States, too. “It is a matter of urgent national interest for Americans to confront Japanese successes,” Vogel warned, before Japan takes control of the global economy. As Meredith Woo of the University of Virginia has written of the early-1980s U.S. mindset reflected by this book, “Japan seemed superior to America in every way.”
You know the rest: the Japanese economy stagnated in the 1990s while the U.S. economy roared, Japan replaced Turkey as the “sick man” of major nations, the Japanese experienced a real-estate crash, low growth, deflation – and MITI was folded in 2001, after compiling a track record of one bad decision after another.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The number of children in California is on the decline, the number of elderly is on the rise and fewer people are moving to the state, according to a new report that argues the state will have to rely on fewer people to prop up its economy in the future.
The numbers aren’t good:
The report, released Tuesday, found that the number of children younger than 10 fell by more than 187,000, or 3.6 percent, from 2000 to 2010, and could drop 100,000 more by 2020.
But what’s the problem? California merely took the Chronicle’s advice from 2008:
Forget the twisty straws, Tootsie rolls and Dora the Explorer plates with matching cups, hats and tablecloth. There are signs that more parents would like to.
Anxious about the economy, global warming and our national image as people who would rent a limo for a kid’s party while a polar bear’s ice floe melts, many are toning down the trappings of that classic annual ritual, the blowout birthday party. They are saying no to plastic toys and water bottles, paper plates, gift wrap and new toys. There is even a modest backlash against the goody bag, the sack of candy and plastic knickknacks usually thrust into each sticky hand at the end of parties.
* * * * * *
“There is nothing more bacchanalian than a kid’s birthday party,” said Sarah Lane, a founder of Washington state’s Progressive Kid, which has a Web site with suggestions on how to raise kids with good values. “You should see what gets thrown away. It’s disgusting.”
San Francisco has long been avoiding those bacchanalian kids’ birthday parties, in favor of, well, other bacchanalian pursuits, which is why, in 2005, even AP noted that “San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city.” It’s the one statistic San Francisco continues to remain atop. So it shouldn’t be all that surprising to its residents if the rest of the state if catching up.
Oh, and speaking of California, now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
Living the Turquoise Dream, baby.
Related: “As new fiscal crises near, Democrats seek more tax increases.” Can you say “Red Queen’s Race?” I knew that you could — even if McClatchy, with its hilarious “truth to power” slogan, can’t.
Update: Linking to this post, Bill Quick of Daily Pundit looks at San Francisco’s dearth of youngsters and writes:
The two reasons for this have nothing to do with culture, per se, but instead are dictated the immense local cost of living, particularly housing costs, and a terrible public school system focused primarily on “educating” illegal aliens and gangster wannabes.
No responsible parents want to raise kids here. To any sane person (without enough money to pay the piper for a decent house, private transportation, and private schooling) trying to do so is akin to child abuse.
Indeed. As I said, it sounds like those conditions are rapidly being exported from San Francisco to the rest of California.
As reported by Katie Pavlich of Townhall:
President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is a member of Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control task force, which was created by President Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Nee’s son, Joseph Nee, was convicted in 2008 for planning to commit mass murder of students and teachers at Marshfield High School in Massachusetts, similar to that of Columbine in 1999. After spending nine months in prison, Nee’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.
Nee told police the plan involved taking ammunition and explosive devices into the school, securing the school’s exit doors with bicycle locks, and shooting students and staff.
Wow. Or as the Professor adds, “Nothing like personal experience.”
So why am I reading this story at Townhall, instead of CNNCBSABCNBC?
Related: Matt Drudge juxtaposes:
Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
I really do wish that international Marxist regimes that have managed to survive this long would just admit that it’s because they’ve largely become monarchist or feudal states. They should give up and embrace the concept of kingship and aristocracy – or, in the case of the Chinese, finding a good, plausible-sounding reason to bring back a Son Of Heaven. Then the PRC can all put jade buttons on their Mao caps and actually run the bureaucracies in a more long-term fashion… sorry, where was I?
– Moe Lane, “Venezuela expected to devolve into chaos after Chavez’s death,” Thursday.
“Of course: Massachusetts governor thinking of appointing Ted Kennedy’s widow to Senate vacancy.”
– Allahpundit, today.
Now is the time when Instapundit juxtaposes:
COINCIDENCE: U.S Government Releases Once-Secret Watergate Files.
Obama Announces Enemies List: “I’ve Been Keeping My Own Naughty And Nice List.”
You mean his latest enemies list, right?
(Concept via SDA.)
Throughout 2011, when western liberal intellectuals were blindly praising the coming “democracy” of the Arab Spring, Kate McMillan of Canada’s Small Dead Animals blog kept spotting signs that perhaps things in the Middle East weren’t going as smoothly as they seemed at first glance. A running theme on her blog, capturing the mood of the people of the Middle East was “What We Really Need Is Democracy. With a totalitarian party to vote for.”
And at that moment, it appears that’s exactly how it’s worked out in yet another nation there, as “President of Egypt grants himself dictatorial powers.”
Unexpectedly! as Bloomberg.com might say. Besides, what could possibly go wrong?
(And speaking of leftist naïveté, ongoing Middle Eastern debacles and recurring leitmotifs at SDA — now is the time when they juxtapose.)
Now is the time at Ed Driscoll.com when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
In Matt’s universe, your business? Your life? You didn’t build that. Your property? You didn’t own that. Ever. Matt’s credibility as a “real journalist”? He didn’t earn that.
Of course, as we mentioned back in 2010, when Yglesias admitted he was OK with lying; there are far more prominent examples “real journalists” who’ve admitted the same thing. On the other hand, I’ll take Matt at his word that he believes what he said today. And as Kate of Small Dead Animals tweets in response today, “Hey, @mattyglesias — where do you live? I’d like to check over your furniture and see if there’s anything I like.”