» The Memory Hole

Ed Driscoll

The Memory Hole

“UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming — Scientists say eight years left to avoid worst effects,” screamed a London Guardian headline on May 4th, 2007. The article’s lede is equally classic boilerplate “Grauniad:”

Governments are running out of time to address climate change and to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures, an influential UN panel warned yesterday.

Greater energy efficiency, renewable electricity sources and new technology to dump carbon dioxide underground can all help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the experts said. But there could be as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.

The warning came in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published yesterday in Bangkok. It says most of the technology needed to stop climate change in its tracks already exists, but that governments must act quickly to force through changes across all sectors of society. Delays will make the problem more difficult, and more expensive.

As Power Line’s Steve Hayward quips, “Those eight years run out tomorrow.  So I assume that climatistas will shut up tomorrow night.”

Oh, of course — just like they did after being embarrassed by NASA’s James Hansen claiming in January of 2009 that Obama had only four years to save the planet,  Al Gore declaring in December of 2008 that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years,” (and Gore later selling out to Big Oil) and the classic March 2000 headline from the London Independent quoted above.

Those of us who grew up in the 1970s recall an era when the media was awash in doomsday, paranormal crankery and conspiracy theories — Bigfoot, looming global cooling, mass starvation and lurking UFOs. Regarding that last example from the fever swamps, a decade ago at Tech Central Station,Internet Killed the Alien Star,” Douglas Kern wrote:

Yet in recent years, interest in the UFO phenomenon has withered. Oh, the websites are still up, the odd UFO picture is still taken, and the usual hardcore UFO advocates make the same tired arguments about the same tired cases, but the thrill is gone. What happened? Why did the saucers crash?

The Internet showed this particular emperor to be lacking in clothes. If UFOs and alien visitations were genuine, tangible, objective realities, the Internet would be an unstoppable force for detecting them. How long could the vast government conspiracy last, when intrepid UFO investigators could post their prized pictures on the Internet seconds after taking them? How could the Men in Black shut down every website devoted to scans of secret government UFO documents? How could marauding alien kidnappers remain hidden in a nation with millions of webcams?

Just as our technology for finding and understanding UFOs improved dramatically, the manifestations of UFOs dwindled away. Despite forty-plus years of alleged alien abductions, not one scrap of physical evidence supports the claim that mysterious visitors are conducting unholy experiments on hapless victims. The technology for sophisticated photograph analysis can be found in every PC in America, and yet, oddly, recent UFO pictures are rare. Cell phones and instant messaging could summon throngs of people to witness a paranormal event, and yet such paranormal events don’t seem to happen very often these days. For an allegedly real phenomenon, UFOs sure do a good job of acting like the imaginary friend of the true believers. How strange, that they should disappear just as we develop the ability to see them clearly. Or perhaps it isn’t so strange.

The Internet taught the public many tricks of the UFO trade. For years, hucksters and mental cases played upon the credulity of UFO investigators. Bad science, shabby investigation, and dubious tales from unlikely witnesses characterized far too many UFO cases. But the rise of the Internet taught the world to be more skeptical of unverified information — and careful skepticism is the bane of the UFO phenomenon. It took UFO experts over a decade to determine that the “Majestic-12″ documents of the eighties were a hoax, rather than actual government documents proving the reality of UFOs. Contrast that decade to the mere days in which the blogosphere disproved the Mary Mapes Memogate documents. Similarly, in the nineties, UFO enthusiasts were stunned when they learned that a leading investigator of the Roswell incident had fabricated much of his research, as well as his credentials. Today, a Google search and a few e-mails would expose such shenanigans in minutes.

Global cooling / warming / climate change / climate chaos was kept alive by old media from the first Earth Day in 1970 (which really taught the value of composting…) until the rise of the World Wide Web in the 1990s. Any scientist seeking plentiful government funding and/or any politician wishing to reduce his constituents’ freedoms could appear on the nightly news and mutter, all but wearing a sandwich board that “we only have five years/ten years/eight years” to save the earth, and no sympathetic media figure would ever refute such a statement with earlier expired final countdowns — perhaps the scientist or politician’s own. Today, as with UFOs and Nessie, it’s far easier to illustrate a multitude of failed predictions of doomsday. Speaking of which, for our (by no means complete) collection of some of the previous not-so-final countdowns from the eco-crank left, start here and keep scrolling.

Related: My colleague Bill Whittle dubs it all “Loch Ness Socialism:”

This is CNN:

Gee, really, Wolf — did you forget all of this? I know things go down the memory hole quickly at CNN, but that’s ridiculous, even for the Clown-car News Network. Meanwhile, the single smartest thing the mayor of Baltimore has done over the past three days:

CNN certainly got their full quota of riot porn tonight, and we’ll try to cover some of the “highlights,” by mashing together some of our short earlier posts tonight. But first, talk radio’s Larry Elder and John Nolte of Big Journalism explain how old media’s Mobius loop works:


A CNN camera crew discovers firsthand that their network’s Mobius loop has a nasty slingshot effect: Shot:


Still waiting to see the omelet, but those eggs won’t break themselves, right, Sally? A similar incident happened in Ferguson back in August, when MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was pelted with rocks, after Al Sharpton arrived early on what Andrea Mitchell Orwellianly described as “a peace mission.” While CNN is now largely in the business of running documentaries, aside from occasional interruptions for plane crashes and riot porn, we shouldn’t exempt Time-Warner-CNN-HBO’s original entertainment division from our coverage of Baltimore. Shot:


Lawrence Meyers at the wonderful Breitbart site Big Hollywood had an excellent takedown of David Simon last week. Simon, author of the brilliant book Homicide and creator of the excellent television show The Wire, is also, according to the book Difficult Men, a self-obsessed and bullying leftist. Recently, he attacked conservatives and, indeed, the U.S. Constitution they are trying to defend. Simon says:

If original intent included the sadism and degradation of human slavery, then original intent is a legal and moral standard that can be consigned to the ash heap of human history. Hardcore conservatives and libertarians who continue to parse the origins of the Constitutions under the guise of returning to a more perfect American union are on a fool’s journey to decay and dishonor.

I leave it to Meyers’s strong piece to take down this nonsense, as indeed he does.

But here’s what bugs me. The Wire (which is, to some extent, based on the year Simon spent with the Baltimore Homicide Squad while researching Homicide) takes place in a city without conservatives, even without Republicans. There has not been a Republican mayor of Baltimore since 1967. And much of the show’s genius lies in its depiction of the brutalized life of black people in the city’s ghetto.

So we have a writer who has seen for himself, and who has shown us, the effects of Democrat governance on a city, the dehumanization of the poor that is the direct result of leftism and the corruption that inevitably springs from it. And yet Simon blames conservatives!

“The Unbearable Blindness of David Simon,” Andrew Klavan, November 10, 2013.

Related: Meanwhile, back at the other entertainment/propaganda division of Time-Warner-CNN-HBO:



Elsewhere within the hermetically sealed cocoon of old media, as the left continues to devour itself, an NBC spokesman implies Baltimore’s mayor is racist. Shot:


So is the NBC spokesman saying that the Baltimore mayor is another “Lying Ass Bitch,” as he’s wont to imply in his personal war on women?

Fortunately, Baltimore’s mayor is calling on another NBC employee to ease tensions in her beleaguered city. Ease them? I meant wildly inflame them of course, by calling in the prince of peace himself, Al Sharpton. This will end well:

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake gave an emotionally charged press conference on Monday night, calling the people looting the city “thugs” trying to tear the city apart.

“I am at a loss for words,” she said. “It is idiotic to think that by destroying your city you’re going to make life better for anybody.”

The massive protests came the same day as the funeral of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died a week after sustaining mysterious injuries while in police custody.

Rawlings-Blake instituted a 10 p.m. curfew for the entire city*. She said people who want peace should come to quell the unrest, mentioning Al Sharpton specifically.

Gee, what could go wrong?

And note this: “Anderson Cooper catches B’more mayor in a contradiction: Blames press for broadcasting negative images, will use them to track down rioters.”

* Starting tomorrow. “Hear that, looters and rioters? The mayor is really going to start cracking down starting 10 pm tomorrow night!”, As Jim Geraghty tweets. Using the failed Democrat mayor’s own Oberlin-approved rhetoric, another Twitter user adds, “Tonight there is a safe space for those who want destruction.” And speaking of safe spaces to riot and burn down the city, Maryland’s governor wonders why Rawlings-Blake waited so long to call in the National Guard.

And finally, at the PJ Tatler, Robert Wargas looks at the blue-on-blue violence of war-torn Baltimore and asks, “How Long Does America Have?”

Late Update: Mary Katharine Ham of Hot Air spots “one Baltimore mom (or other relative) [who] delivered the symbolic slap pretty much everyone wanted to deliver unto punk looters and rioters.” Our blogging software is balking at the Instagram code, so click over to watch. As MKH writes, “Nicely done, Mom. The world was uncharacteristically united on Twitter in applauding her…forcefulness.”

The left continues to devour itself. Shot:



So is the NBC spokesman saying that the Baltimore mayor is another “Lying Ass Bitch,” as he’s wont to imply in his personal war on women?

Bill’s message will very likely go unheeded by those who need it the most, which is too bad — after four or more years of being coddled in socialist academia, the class of 2015 could certainly use the wake-up call.

Of course, if today’s kids really are book burners, it’s because they learned it from their professors, such as these two members of San Jose State University’s Meteorology Department. They proudly snapped a photo increasing their carbon footprint by planning to burn a book skeptical of today’s global warming mania, before realizing that posing as proud book burners has a distinctly Teutonic “partying like it’s 1939″ look to it, and deleted the shot. Fortunately, not before it was caught by Anthony Watts in 2013:

Of course for digital information, Soviet-style airbrushes often work better than Nazi-style book burnings: “Georgetown demands edits to Christina Hoff Sommers video.” As Laurel Conrad of the Legal Insurrection blog asks, “I wonder if Georgetown ever heard of the Streisand Effect?”

In sharp contradiction to the book burners and video censors above, one college professor though has had enough:

A Texas A&M, Galveston, professor decided to fail his entire class after he claimed that they cheated in class and were disruptive and rude.

In a letter he sent to his strategic management students, Professor Irwin Horwitz claimed that he had seen cheating, heard false rumors about himself and other students and had been called a ‘f****** moron’ to his face.

Horwitz’s email said that every single student in the approximately 30-person class would fail because of the behavior he had witnessed during the semester.

The university has said that the failing grades Horwitz’s wishes to give out will not hold.

No, of course not. The parents have paid too much money for their kids not to sail through.

Related: “Pray This Woman Never Teaches Your Children.”

When 2+2 = 5

April 25th, 2015 - 2:08 pm

Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:

In all of these places, my experience has been that when it suits the ends of power, ideology can be invoked to prove that 2+2 = 5, or 3, or any other number that suits the state, and to demand that all embrace the madness. It is a truly frightening thing to interview a top-ranked nuclear scientist, or a distinguished brain surgeon, or a concert pianist, as I did in China under the sway of Mao, and to hear them, as ideological outcasts, justify with utter conviction the brutalities inflicted on them by their ideology-crazed persecutors — crushed fingers, smashed heads, broken marriages, vilification by their own families.

Elsewhere, the lunacy was of an order that invited a response of laughing mockery, if that were not potentially fatal to the system’s loyalists, or those pretending to be so. In North Korea, while Kim Il-sung was still alive, there was a brand new, high-tech hospital built in his name in Pyongyang, floor after floor laden with tens of millions of dollars in the latest American, Swiss and German equipment, but no patients to be seen. And why not? “As we have explained,” the most senior comrade-physician responded, “the Korean people’s great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung has taken such care for the health of his beloved people that none of his people gets sick.”

Not ever? “No, never,” was the reply.

“The Things I Carried Back,” John F. Burns, the New York Times, April 11th, 2015.

The Columbia University student being called a rapist by members of the media and a woman who has been carrying her mattress around for performance art is suing.

Paul Nungesser was accused by fellow Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz of brutally beating and raping her during a sexual encounter he insists was consensual. Despite a police investigation that failed to charge Nungesser and the university finding him “not responsible,” Sulkowicz and her enablers — including Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, have continued to harass Nungesser by calling him a “rapist.”

Now, Nungesser is suing his university, its president and trustees and the visual arts professor that allowed the mattress project to go forward.

“Columbia student defamed by mattress girl is suing,”Ashe Schow, the Washington Examiner, yesterday.

Left-leaning student activists at Oberlin College hung posters at the Christina Hoff Sommers event earlier this week that identified the students involved in bringing the individualist-feminist and AEI scholar to campus.

Each poster gave the name of a specific student-member of the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians and accused that person of perpetuating rape culture.

Images of the posters were sent to Reason via a source who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. The last names of the students identified by the posters were blurred before Reason received them.

According to the source, a group of approximately 10 student-activists were behind the posters.

They have the right to denounce their fellow students as perpetuators of rape culture, I suppose, though the fact that some students would smear others with this charge for merely bringing a speaker to campus is disappointing. Do students no longer recognize that the entire point of challenge is to grapple with new and different ways of thinking about the world?

“Oberlin Activists Posted Creepy Messages Accusing Specific Students of Perpetuating Rape Culture: Their crime? Bringing Christina Hoff Sommers to campus,” Robby Soave, Reason, April 23rd.

Like my RedState colleague Bryan Pruitt, I feel sorry for these guys: “The gay New York City hoteliers who recently played host to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have their own controversy to deal with: Activists are calling for the boycott of their properties, including a gay hotel and establishments on Fire Island.”  Essentially, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass had a reception where they had Ted Cruz speak to a group on foreign policy, Israel (particularly noting its attitudes on gay rights) – and, shockingly, how Ted Cruz doesn’t think Barack Obama is doing well on either.  Oh, mustn’t forget: Ted Cruz will still love his kids if they turn out to be gay.

And so… for allowing this man to speak to their friends, Mr. Reisner and Mr. Weiderpass must of course be chastised.  In fact, they should consider themselves fortunate that their own side is not calling them to be burned at the stake for heresy. Yet.  The day is still young, after all.

“More on Ted Cruz and the Activist Left’s ‘SHUT UP!’ principle in action,” Moe Lane, yesterday.

After decades of left-wing intellectuals churning out treatises on the evils of “moral panics” and “shame culture,” the same crowd is now using these very tactics for their ends, utterly oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

That they are doing so should be very worrisome to conservatives, because enforcing orthodoxy against heretics is what the winners do to the losers. That is precisely why this phenomena is most powerful on college campuses — because that is where the secular orthodox are at their most powerful.

On campus and off, today’s losers — social conservatives, climate “deniers,” rape-panic skeptics, even supporters of free speech qua free speech — are being told that they must bend to the shaming of the mob. In the long run I don’t think it will work. But there’s no immutable law — of nature, democracy, modernity, morality whatever — that I can point to back up that conviction.

—The “We’re All Shamers” subsection of Jonah Goldberg’s weekly G-File column, online today.

“Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors,” says a Reuters headline today. Errors?

Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims “absurd conspiracy theories.”

Damn those crazy right-wing conspiracy-obsessed nutjobs at the New York Times!

In a Fox News preview of “The Tangled Clinton Web,” a New York Times reporter accused the Clinton Foundation of lying to her about a meeting Bill Clinton had with Kazatomprom officials regarding the sale of uranium to Russia.

“Frank Giustra arranged for officials to go to Bill Clinton’s house in Chappaqua,” reporter Jo Becker said.

“When I first contacted the Clinton Foundation, they denied any such meeting ever took place. And when we told them we have already talked to the head, who not only told us all about the meeting but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home, that he proudly displays on his office wall, they then acknowledge the meeting had taken place.”

Becker’s scathing report based off of allegations in the book Clinton Cash found that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in return for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approving the transaction of American uranium into Russian hands.

And now back to the Reuters article, already in progress:

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off* from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

And of course, Politico’s Glenn Thrush is eager to provide the dopey pro-Hillary spin:

Badass! Meanwhile, at the New York Post, John Podhoretz spots the return of a golden oldie from the 1990s. Right on cue, “The ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ is back,” courtesy of Team Hillary:

That was the phrase Hillary Clinton herself used to describe the villainous puppet masters behind the Monica Lewinsky scandal back in 1998. And now, her camp has decided to reanimate this ludicrous bogeyman from the days when pets.com was the talk of Wall Street to combat new allegations of Clintonian malfeasance — allegations the substance of which she and we don’t even yet know.

The material dug up by the conservative writer Peter Schweizer for his new book, “Clinton Cash,” is credible enough to have led several news organizations not normally friendly to the right (The New York Times and The Washington Post) to strike deals with Schweizer and his publisher to share and independently substantiate some of its charges.

This a novel arrangement — and the imprimatur of news organizations that liberals like — has clearly frightened the Clintonians in a way past negative books did not.

Naturally, ’90s-era archliberal Vermont governor turned would 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean was happy to play along with the meme on MSNBC, but received pushback from a curious source:

Even Mika Brzezinski appeared unconvinced by Dean’s line of argumentation when he refused to say that the optics of this scandal should have led Bill Clinton to cancel a speech in Moscow for which he was compensated to the tune of half a million dollars. The old slur centering on the notion that a vast conspiracy was afoot to discredit the Clintons no longer has legs. Perhaps that is because the Clintons have done so much in the intervening decades to demonstrate that they don’t need help from a shadowy cabal in order to disgrace themselves. Whatever the reason, the press seems disinclined to help Hillary Clinton cast herself as a victim as more and more allegations involving her improper conduct as secretary of state dominate the headlines.

Exit quote:

And it’s a test of how badly the MSM want to continue posing as Hillary’s palace guard, as well.

* A dramatic fall-off? Um, try again Reuters:

For the left, “Virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things,” as spotted by David Thompson:

James Bartholomew on signalling one’s virtue:

It’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others,’ your vanity and self-aggrandisement would be obvious. Anger and outrage disguise your boastfulness.

Which may help explain why some signallers of piety make a point of telling us how they “long for the pure, uncomplicated political anger” felt by their younger selves. An odd thing to long for, given the possibilities. Our old friend Laurie Penny is forever romanticising anger and saying, with a hint of pride, that she’s written something that’s “angry,” as if anger were the important thing, the marker of status, as opposed to, say, being coherent or truthful. “It’s getting harder to stay angry,” wrote Laurie, in one of many posts about her fascinating self. “That terrifies me more than anything.” One of Ms Penny’s fans subsequently asked, “Why do you feel it important to be angry all the time?” Sadly, no answer was forthcoming. But it’s interesting to reverse the sequence of ideas. After all, pretending to be angry makes some people feel important all the time. And if anger is hard to muster, there’s always everyday obnoxiousness. That can be a credential too.

It isn’t all that surprising that “Virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things,” for the left, actually. As talk radio host Michael Graham told NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez in 2002 when he was discussing his then-new book, Redneck Nation,To be a Republican, you have to believe something” — God, tradition, the country and its defense, and/or the family, etc. In contrast, as Roger L. Simon noted yesterday, to be a Democrat, you simply have to hate something:

None of my liberal friends like to talk politics anymore.  They have nothing to say and it’s obvious why. Liberalism…  or progressivism — people who wish to make the distinction can go ahead, but I find it trivial — they’re just different degrees of a self-serving lie…. liberalism, in the immortal words of Preston Sturges, “is not only dead, it’s decomposed.” (Sturges was referring to chivalry.)  Not only is there no there there (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland),  there’s no there there there there to the tenth power.  I asked a liberal the other day what liberalism was, what exactly it was he supported, and he was stunned that I asked, and then he was just stunned.  He didn’t know how to answer because he didn’t have one.  It was just a habit.  (Oh, I forgot.  He said he didn’t like Republicans, which of course is no defense of liberalism, just contempt… with a soupçon of habit.)

Regarding anger, Thompson writes that it’s “the important thing, the marker of status, as opposed to, say, being coherent or truthful.” Coherent? That’s for squares who don’t understand nuance (and don’t need “trigger warnings” when confronted by a contrary thought.) Truthful? How bourgeois and reactionary!

Right JuiceVoxers?


Right Dan?

Right Toure?

Right Barry?

Right, former Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski?

Right Jonathan Gruber? “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Oh, that Liberal Fascism: “The entire family was herded into one room, and there they watched as the police carried off their personal possessions, including items that had nothing to do with the subject of the search warrant — even her daughter’s computer,” David French writes on “Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’” in the new issue of National Review. As French writes, “It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers,” intent on stealing computers, cell phones, and other devices with personal information on them:

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform.

Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights.

The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.

But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.”

Read the whole thing — and recall that last September we quoted from posts and articles on a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel whose reporter was accused of harassing one of the “John Doe” whistleblowers, a disabled police officer, living up fully to Glenn Reynolds’ description of old media as “Democrat operatives with bylines.”

If California, New York, and other “Progressive” states slowly inching towards the fiscal abyss are to have genuine reform, these scenes could very well be repeated along the way.

Hillary: Bill’s After-Party Cleanup Woman

April 19th, 2015 - 12:39 pm

“Watching Hillary Clinton reach out and touch ordinary Americans is excruciating. In working a crowd of regular folks, Hillary is fingernails on the blackboard in a pantsuit,” Deborah C. Tyler writes at the American Thinker, in an effort to understand why Hillary seems like the human version* of the “uncanny valley” principle that posits the more lifelike the robot, the creepier it seems:

Bill Clinton is a famously gifted retail campaigner. A friend of mine who met President Clinton and spoke with him for a few minutes says he made her feel like the only person in the room. His brash presentfulness is a skill especially valued in a leader. But President Clinton’s ability to connect to and take in the people around him is a double-edged rapier, with a predatory blade. His natural ability to connect allows him to select those who will benefit him but also cull the vulnerable from the herd for his nefarious purposes. We know he consumes and abuses women around him, offenses of impulsive domination and aggression. Hillary has her own history of ethical, legal and financial scandal. But the scandals that have stuck to her are the stuff of malfeasant calculation, monies and memos appearing and disappearing in wrongful ways. Hillary’s scandals are the machinations that leave a paper trail (or a no e-mail trail), not the wreckages of foolhardy moments.

In driving the Clinton franchise to the highest levels of power on earth, Hillary has wretchedly compensated for her husband’s porous boundaries by constructing impenetrable walls around herself. As he became more reckless, she must have become more wary. Many years ago Hillary accepted the job of being Bills’ after-party cleanup crew. In the service of their upward march, she had no choice. Many people think Hillary Clinton is a psychopath without a conscience who cares nothing about her husband’s betrayals on a personal level. That formulation does not seem supported by what has leaked out about the Clinton’s relationship. It is more likely that she is a wellspring of anger hiding behind a smile you can hang laundry on.

What is certain is she spent years mopping up and deodorizing Bill’s messes. Bill’s affairs with and attacks on women have been more destructive to Hillary’s psychological integrity and self-worth than some miraculous hundred grand showing up in the Clinton cookie jar have been to him. His sexist violence strikes at the heart of who she claims to be, and continues to damage her basic sense of security and candidacy. For forty years, a room full of strangers is where the party starts for Bill, and where the messes are made for Hillary. For forty years every time Hillary entered a room full of strangers she had her bucket and mop. A bimbo splatter might be found anywhere. For forty years a room full of strangers, interacting in an unscripted moment, has been Hillary’s worst nightmare.

And needless to say, Hillary is tied to Bill because of his administration’s policies — “Hillary Clinton in 2002: Yes to Taking Out Saddam Hussein, No to Gay Marriage.” I wonder if any on the left remember back as far as 1998?

Related: And speaking of full circle, “Bill Clinton wipes tears from his eyes and hails Oklahoma as ‘an example for the world’ on 20th anniversary of Oklahoma City bombing.” But in order to position herself for 2016, Hillary cheerfully went to work for a president whose entry into politics began in the living room of the man who bombed the Pentagon.

* Of course, that depends on how extensive the exo-skeletal network is; for the sake of argument, I’m willing to assume there’s a least a human brain connected to all the titanium gears and circuitry.

Trigger Warning

April 19th, 2015 - 10:59 am

“Granny Get Your Gun,” shouts Maureen Dowd in her latest column — two guesses as to the identity of the granny she’s referring to.

I await the condemnations from CNN, the National Journal and MSNBC for the violent eliminationist rhetoric contained within MoDo’s headline.

And I can’t wait to read Paul Krugman rail against such language appearing in his own newspaper.

(Oh right — for Democrats, the party motto is always, “it’s different when we do it.”)

Related: Speaking of flashbacks to the left’s McCarthy-meets-Orwell wilding phase in early 2011, “Will there be a National Conversation after environmentalist shoots energy worker?”


Jackie Robinson, Republican

April 15th, 2015 - 6:49 pm

“On Jackie Robinson Day, Let’s Remember When He Was Fired From the New York Post for Being Too Republican,” Matt Welch writes at Reason. As Kate McMillan likes to say at her Small Dead Animals blog, “I felt a great disturbance in the narrative:”

Today is the 68th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking Major League Baseball’s notorious de facto ban against players having skin tone a shade or two darker than pure Castilian soap. As is the annual tradition, all MLB players today are wearing Robinson’s #42 in homage.

As I (and plenty of others) have long argued, Jackie’s awe-inspiring legend has, if anything, given short shrift to what a colossally competitive, accomplished, and complicated man he really was. He has as good a claim as anyone else at being the best all-around athlete of the 20th century (he was also a national champion long jumper, league champion collegiate basketball scorer, and All-American halfback at UCLA). He was a prolific if underappreciated author. A passionate and righteously angry civil rights activist. A banker/entrepreneur, active Rockefeller Republican, and the first black columnist for a major non-black newspaper, The New York Post. Which fired him for being too pro-Nixon.* [16 years before Rupert Murdoch bought the paper and it was still left-leaning -- Ed]

Wait, what?

Read the whole thing.

* Oh sure. Next you’re going to tell me that Nixon campaigned for civil rights for all in 1960, reminding voters that “the whole world is watching us,” going on to earn “more of the black vote — 32% in his 1960 loss to John F. Kennedy — than any GOP nominee of the past half-century,” and that once elected president eight years later, the first black guest to sleep in the White House was during his administration.

My, what big airbrushes the left has.

Exit quote, from Robinson himself:

No one will ever convince me that the Post acted in an honest manner. I believe the simple truth is that they became somewhat alarmed when they realized that I really meant to write what I believed. There is a peculiar parallel between some of our great Northern “liberals” and some of our outstanding Southern liberals.

Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: “We know the Negro and what is best for him.”

Some things never change.

Günter Grass and the Dark Night of Fascism

April 15th, 2015 - 4:29 pm

“Günter Grass Dies, Press Mourns Ex-SS Member,” Ben Shapiro writes at Big Journalism:

On Monday, German novelist, Nobel Prize winner, and former Waffen-SS Nazi, Günter Grass died in Lubeck, Germany, at the age of 87. The press mourned his passing.

The New York Times tried to make excuses for the fact that Grass hid his involvement with the Waffen-SS for some six decades before finally revealing that fact:

Mr. Grass was hardly the only member of his generation who obscured the facts of his wartime life. But because he was a pre-eminent public intellectual who had pushed Germans to confront the ugly aspects of their history, his confession that he had falsified his own biography shocked readers and led some to view his life’s work in a different light.

Actually, his confession only shocked those who considered him a moral authority in the first place—and they still didn’t find his confession shocking enough to stop seeing him as a moral authority. In 2012, Grass published a poem called “What Must Be Said,” which reads like a screed against the Jews who wanted to strike the Iranian nuclear program:

It’s a disgusting poem, in which Grass backhandedly argues for Iran to finish the job he and his cohorts started. As Shapiro notes:

Grass won the Nobel Prize in 1999, with the Prize Committee explaining that he had fully fulfilled “the enormous task of reviewing contemporary history by recalling the disavowed and the forgotten: the victims, losers and lies that people wanted to forget because they had once believed in them.”

He waited another seven years to explain that he had been a full-fledged Nazi. After lecturing people for decades about how Nazism could only have been prevented by the death of capitalism and nationalism, it turns out that the great human rights activist had fought alongside the most brutal elements of the Nazi regime. But the Times writes:

Mr. Grass’s defenders argued that his social and political influence had forced Germany to face its Nazi past and atone for it. He might not have been able to play that role, they said, if he had been forthright about his background.

Shapiro sums up the opportunistic arc of Grass’s life:

When Nazism was popular, Grass was with it. When it lost, he transmuted that loss into a career lecturing people about the threats of Nazism, while fighting on behalf of anti-Western powers. Finally, he entered the realm of moral relativism, where he likened the Nazis to the Jews. Grass was no moral hero. He was merely a convenient object of worship for the post-Nazi left.

Grass plays a small role in Tom Wolfe’s 1976 essay, “The Intelligent Coed’s Guide To America,” reprinted in his 1982 anthology The Purple Decades, available on the Kindle and an essential introduction to both Wolfe’s early nonfiction, and life in America in the crazed ’60s and ’70s, which today often reads stranger than fiction. Wolfe uses a statement from Grass as a springboard for the saying he helped enter into widespread distribution: “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” The two men shared the stage at a ruckus 1965 panel at Princeton University, dominated both on the panel and in the audience by paranoid lefties convinced that fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the new fascistic boogieman*, including Allen Ginsberg and Merry Prankster Paul Krassner, about whom Wolfe notes:

The next thing I knew, the discussion was onto the subject of fascism in America. Everybody was talking about police repression and the anxiety and paranoia as good folks waited for the knock on the door and the descent of the knout on the nape of the neck. I couldn’t make any sense out of it. I had just made a tour of the country to write a series called “The New Life Out There” for New York magazine. This was the mid-1960’s. The post-World War II boom had by now pumped money into every level of the population on a scale unparalleled in any nation in history. Not only that, the folks were running wilder and freer than any people in history. For that matter, Krassner himself, in one of the strokes of exuberance for which he was well known, was soon to publish a slight hoax: an account of how Lyndon Johnson was so overjoyed about becoming President that he had buggered a wound in the neck of John F. Kennedy on Air Force One as Kennedy’s body was being flown back from Dallas. Krassner presented this as a suppressed chapter from William Manchester’s book Death of a President. Johnson, of course, was still President when it came out. Yet the merciless gestapo dragnet missed Krassner, who cleverly hid out onstage at Princeton on Saturday nights.

Suddenly I heard myself blurting out over my microphone: “My God, what are you talking about? We’re in the middle of a … Happiness Explosion!”

That merely sounded idiotic. The kid up in the balcony did the crying baby. The kid down below did the raccoon … Krakatoa, East of Java … I disappeared in a tidal wave of rude sounds … Back to the goon squads, search-and-seize and roust-a-daddy …

Support came from a quarter I hadn’t counted on. It was Grass, speaking in English.

“For the past hour I have my eyes fixed on the doors here,” he said. “You talk about fascism and police repression. In Germany when I was a student, they come through those doors long ago. Here they must be very slow.”

Grass was enjoying himself for the first time all evening. He was not simply saying, “You really don’t have so much to worry about.” He was indulging his sense of the absurd. He was saying: “You American intellectuals—you want so desperately to feel besieged and persecuted!”

He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.

That quote from Grass takes on new meaning when you ponder that as a former SS man, literally or figuratively, he was one of those kicking down the doors long ago.

* Johnson’s strangely exotic accent and manners were likely all that was needed to throw these early pioneers of tolerance and multiculturalism into fits of cognitive dissonance.


The cultural gap between those who vote in the Republican presidential primaries and those who cover the candidates in those primaries is now a chasm.

One by one, the media covering the Republican presidential candidates attach some quickly assembled defining flaw to each candidate: “Rand Paul has a temper problem with the media”; “Ted Cruz is an unelectable extremist”; “Scott Walker’s lack of a completed college degree is likely to be a major problem.”

All of these flaws are in the eye of the media beholder. Ordinary Americans don’t particularly care if Rand Paul is brusque with interviewers; they have a low opinion of journalists already. Ted Cruz’s ideas are much less “extreme” outside of newsrooms. And only about one-third of Americans have a bachelor’s degree, making Scott Walker closer to the “average American” than everyone else in the field.

A lot of members of the media who are covering the GOP presidential candidates have exceptionally little in common with the voters who will select the Republican nominee. Thus, when the Republican candidates make their pitch to grassroots conservatives, the hot-take instant analysis from the big media voices usually concludes that the pitch was a belly flop. But the GOP candidates aren’t trying to win votes in the New York and D.C. newsrooms, and in a spectacular failure of empathy and understanding, a lot of reporters simply can’t grasp the hopes, fears, and priorities of GOP-leaning voters in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina . . . and Tennessee. [Site of last week's NRA convention in Nashville, which Geraghty attended -- Ed]

“The Skewed View of America Inside the Progressive Bubble,” Jim Geraghty, National Review Online, Monday.


I’ve been saying for years that people “should read the newspaper upside down” — that is, if they want to know the untold story, they should read the comments beneath online newspaper pieces.

The contrast between the elite liberal worldview of the paper, and that of the everyman reader below, is hilariously revealing. Occasionally, commenters provide both eye witness accounts, clarifications, contrary statistics — and a healthy dose of “ohferchrissakes” irritation at the latest pieties.

Now, do I think turning these comments into Important News Stories is lazy, agenda-driven and comical? Yes, but so is most of what “newspapers” do anyhow, and always have.

Those comments — and the tweets on “Black Twitter” and the crazy conversations over at World Star Hiphop or the smart ones at Reddit, mean _something_.

—Regular PJM contributor Kathy Shaidle, at her Five Feet of Fury blog, today.

Hangover: Last year, Michelle Fields interviewed young MSM-cocooned low-information Hillary supporters for PJTV. As the Internet cliche goes, “you won’t believe!!!” what one student says is Hillary’s biggest accomplishment:

Ambassador Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.

Today on MSNBC-DNC, “President Barack Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, went around the table and kissed reporters before an interview this morning on MNSBC’s Morning Joe. The moment was briefly captured on live television before the network cut away to a commercial break,” Daniel Halper writes at the Weekly Standard:

Jarrett’s first step is toward the BBC’s Katty Kay. “Hi, there,” Jarrett’s heard whispering as she leans in for a hug and kiss. Kay is “Anchor for BBC World News America in Washington.”

Then the senior White House adviser just as warmly greets Cokie Roberts, a National Public Radio contirbutor.

As the segment heads toward a commercial break, host Joe Scarborough can be heard saying, “Valerie, come give me a hug.”

As the Obama administration enters into its twilight phase (and yes, it feels so good to type those words), it’s nice to see their relationship with their close-circuit talking points distribution system ending the same way it began. Recall that during the administration’s first year when Morning Joe — which holds itself out as being co-hosted by MSNBC’s token Republican — read a memo on air “correcting” a segment immediately after it had been emailed to the show by the Obama White House. Who knows — perhaps by Valerie herself?

Back in 2009, Fox News’ revelations led to disgraced Obama “Green” “Czar” Van Jose given his walking papers by the White House for harboring, as Brit Hume said at the time, “views that were out there where the buses don’t run.” Hume responded to the administration’s boilerplate attacks on Fox by asking, “One wonders how our colleagues at CNN and elsewhere like being patted on the head and given the seal of approval by the White House.”

Forward! We’ve progressed in the last six years from head pats to pecks on the cheek. But it’s not like we weren’t warned in 2008 that Democrats with and without bylines shared a mutual lovefest:

And the love goes on as we’ve seen, with DNC stenographers lapping up Hillary’s prefabricated “Scooby Do” tour of mid-priced Mexican-themed chain restaurants in the American midwest:

They could kiss themselves over how good.

Ed Driscoll.com Regrets the Error

April 14th, 2015 - 1:22 pm

A year ago, in a post titled “Why Democrats Call Americans Racist,” we speculated:

As in the 2010 midterms, expect the madness from the left to ramp up exponentially between now and November. They’re just getting started.

(And then presumably some time between mid-November and the start of the new year, the left will begin declaring half of America sexist. Unexpectedly.)

We apologize for getting the timing wrong; ABC’s Cokie Roberts waited until yesterday to declare half of her network’s viewers to be sexist:

According to ABC’s Cokie Roberts, hints that Hillary Clinton may be unlikable can be traced back to sexism. The veteran journalist appeared on Good Morning America, Tuesday, to promote her new book, but the conversation veered into a discussion of 2016. Citing an unnamed poll, Roberts referenced “research that shows that a woman who is strong and powerful is seen as not friendly and empathetic.”

The journalist added, “Here we are in 2015…and we still have to deal with that.” She lamented, “[Clinton] is running against herself.” Roberts marveled, “She’s trying to figure out how to show people how she’s a warm and friendly person.”

Astonishingly, even NBC’s Andrea Mitchell can see what’s going on with with the media and Hillary, when asked by Luke Russert, who only has his NBC gig due to his father’s last name why the MSM is fawning over a woman who is only running for the presidency because she has her husband’s last name:

“What do you make of this rollout, the Scooby-Doo van going from New York to Iowa, just stopping at it seems random gas stations along the way?”

“This is their attempt to show her as the average person, relating to average everyday people as did her video, trying to show she can cross the country,” Mitchell responded, referring to Clinton’s 2016 announcement video.

“It’s a deliberate, very well-orchestrated attempt,” she continued. “Everybody in the media are being used in this regard.”

C’mon, for once, tell the truth DNC-MSM: Sure it feels dirty — but it’s that good, sexy warm kind of dirty, isn’t it, MSM?

Oh, and speaking of sexism — I don’t recall the MSM losing too much sleep over this in 2008:


Besides not knowing the difference between flags and maps, I wonder how many young journalists (read: DNC operatives with bylines, such as this cub reporter on the make) working at Time-Warner-CNN-HBO and the recently spun-off Time magazine (a) absolutely loathe Rubio’s slogan and (b) have absolutely no idea that it’s based on the most memorable article the founder of their namesake companies ever wrote?

My work in the Time-Life Book Division was not exactly onerous, since the manuscript was in good shape and whenever one of the researchers asked me, “What is your authority for this statement,” I would look at her firmly and reply, “I am.” So while Man and Space progressed fairly smoothly thirty-two floors above the Avenue of the Americas, I had ample energy for moonlighting with Stanley Kubrick.

—Arthur C. Clarke on his visit to New York in 1964, which led to his co-writing a little super-8 home movie four years later called 2001: A Space Odyssey, as described in Clarke’s 1972 book, Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations.

But unless you actually invented the communications satellite and co-wrote a epoch-shattering movie with Stanley Kubrick, citing yourself as your own source of authority can lead to trouble if you hold yourself out as an objective journalist. At the Federalist today, Matthew Schmitz describes what can go wrong “When [the] Critics A Reporter Cites Are The Reporter:”

When it comes to reporting on contentious issues, perhaps no journalistic shortcut is more prone to misuse than the phrase “critics say.” Used well, it usually precedes a quotation from one of those critics that allows the reader to judge them in their own words. Used poorly, it becomes an opportunity for the writer to put words in the mouths of people he doesn’t like in order to discredit their position or insert his own view into the story. All of a sudden, “critics say” just what the reporter happens to think.

Usually, reporters are careful enough there’s no way to prove this has happened. Occasionally, they’re sloppy enough that we can see the editorializing at play

When the Critic Is the Reporter

Take a recent story written for Religion News Service by David Gibson on a donation from the Koch brothers to the Catholic University of America. Gibson gives ample space to the view of certain “critics”:

Critics of the CUA gift say it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights.

Curiously, he does not name any critics or offer any examples of that kind of argument. Why not? If critics said something, there should be critics to name and statements to quote. Did Gibson just make them up?

Well, no, as it happens. There is a critic who has made this exact point about CUA and Gibson has heard him do so. The week before he published his story on the Koch gift, Gibson participated in a debate where one critic had this to say:

For years, conservative Catholics have been arguing the very same thing: that CCHD, Catholic Charities, and Catholic social groups cannot take a dime from somebody who has even the remotest connection to the gay rights agenda or Planned Parenthood. This is like Planned Parenthood funding a Catholic bioethics center.

This is exactly the criticism that Gibson was referring to. It came in a public forum on a radio show that aired the day before his story was published. So why not quote the statement and name the critic?

Perhaps it is because the criticism was offered by Gibson himself. The unnamed and unquoted people in the story weren’t made up—they were the reporter himself. He is the critic who had something to say.

Some say this is a bad journalistic practice. And regarding the similar “some say” tic, a decade ago, Elizabeth Scalia dubbed it the journalistic cliche of the year:

My personal choice: “some say…” Used continually by Katie Couric, David Gregory and oh, basically anyone in the press who wanted to advance their own personal opinion or the general concensus of the fourth estate: “Some say President Bush is trying to undermine our civil liberties,” “Some say Iraq is a quagmire,” “Some say America is a world-bully,” “Some say if only the Kyoto treaty had been recognised…”

Just once, I would like to hear a politician come back with, “WHO says? WHO exactly SAYS, Katie, David, Tim, etc”

They’d never spill the true answer, though, “why, WE say, WE in the press!”

There’s a great clip of Margaret Thatcher pushing back against the “some say” cliche in 1980. I’d like to see more conservative politicians employ this when faced with a critique from a strawman named Mr. Somesay:

Related: “News media’s sloppy week,” Glenn Reynolds on their spectacular cluster-fark last week, though the headline could be recycled 52 times a year. It’s a Scooby Do Mystery Machine-size quandary as to why this keeps happening to the DNC-MSM!

Hillary’s Scooby Do Deja Vu

April 13th, 2015 - 12:57 pm



Hangover/Exit Question:

Incidentally, there’s little doubt that Chuck Todd and NBC are more than ready for Hillary. Alternate headline: Thin-skinned NBC anchor/Democrat operative blocks editor of conservative Website from reading his tweets:

Update: Rut-roh, Chuck!

John Dickerson, replacing Bob Schieffer as the new host of Face the Nation, will continue the same level of objectivity that CBS has brought to viewers for half a century. In 1964, when CBS was one third of all television news, Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr repeatedly smeared Barry Goldwater as a crypto-Nazi. His successor, Dan Rather, blew himself up in spectacular fashion with RatherGate in 2004, as dissected by all those bloggers in their Pajamas, to coin a Website name. In 2007, Rather’s successor, Scott Pelley, violating 32 flavors of Godwin’s Law in the same fashion as Cronkite, “was asked why he refused to include global warming skeptics in his reporting. He responded, ‘If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’”, as NewsBusters noted.

All of which is why, as John Nolte wrote in 2013 at Big Journalism, “Reading the Left’s fevered desires over at Slate isn’t anything new:”

Not even articles breathlessly titled and subtitled:

Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

Not even articles that read:

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

Slate is what it is and some bloodthirsty Slate writer orgasmic over the prospect of Obama permanently pulverizing and destroying the GOP is as noteworthy as green on grass.

Oh, except after someone like Brit Hume connects the dots.

The author of this outrageous left-wing fever dream is John Dickerson, whom Slate describes as “Slate’s chief political correspondent”. What Slate leaves out of its little bio, though, is that Dickerson is also the political director at CBS News.

Dickerson is merely being Dickerson, and  there’s no doubt he speaks for legions upon legions of those in the media today.

And just in time for the 2016 election, Dickerson will be the host of Face the Nation. What could go wrong?

“Russian Paper Removes Article About Soldier Wounded In Ukraine,” Radio Free Europe reports. Did the Russians use Photoshop, or go old school, Stalin-style, and breakout the airbrushes? No — they used a far cruder technique: scissors. On 50,000 newspapers:

Journalists at a Siberian newspaper say they spent three days using scissors to cut an article about a Russian soldier who was wounded fighting alongside pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine out of 50,000 copies of the publication.

Tank crewman Dorzhi Batonmukuyev’s accounts of fighting in eastern Ukraine have added to what Kyiv and NATO say are incontrovertible evidence of direct Russian military support for the rebels in a conflict with government forces that has killed more than 6,000 people since April 2014.

Russia denies it has sent troops or weapons into Ukraine.

The chief editor of Novaya Buryatia (New Buryatia), Timur Dugarzhapov, told RFE/RL on April 7 that staffers in recent days cut an article about Batonmukuyev out of the newspaper’s entire April 3 print run by hand and deleted it from the website.

No word yet if Dorzhi Batonmukuyev will be replaced in later editions of New Buryatia will replace crewman Batonmukuyev with Pvt. Ogilvy, or if the choice of names will vary for the Eastasia and Eurasia editions of the newspaper.