Showing posts with label So Meta It Hurts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label So Meta It Hurts. Show all posts

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Apparently It's Time For Another Round Of Media Navel-Gazing



The greenest and hirsutiest of all evergreen media hair-shirts is the perennial "Whither media bias?" column.  Because these kids with their iPads and InstaGrams and 4,000 channels of teevee.  Sure you can get Zane Grey Theater and Quincy, but WTF is Pawn Stars or Punchface or The Handjob Jeanette and Doctor Crank McZombie Mysteries of Space Hour?  Oh for the days of Walter Cronkite, when chain-smoking men in suits would play it straight down the middle on one of The Free World's three network news channels.

And because of all these fresh horrors, TheMurricanPeople hate the media.  Or something.

Fickle bunch, TheMurricanPeople.

At any given moment I can flick through those 4,000 channels and find ten different professional pundits with ten different and wildly conflicting, ex cathedra opinions about the true hopes and fears of TheMurricanPeople, but they all agree that their profession sucks and everyone hates them, which is why, with, every new phase of the moon, some newspaper somewhere rolls out another in-depth, soul-searching assay of their own navels.

Today, the short straw was drawn by the New York Times, which neatly divided the problem of media bias into three, equal parts -- 

The Young Black People view:  The media routinely slants the news to slander and endanger black people.
Young Black People See the News Media’s Double Standard

 ...This generation grew up seeing double standards. They saw a young black boy's photo captioned with "looting" in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when a white couple photographed in a similar circumstance wading in the water with bags of supplies described as searching for food. They see Amber Alerts go national with pictures and narratives about white children in peril, but rarely the same attention to deaths of black and Latina/o children. They see journalists asking, with a straight face, if #BlackLivesMatter is a hate group. 
Given these patterns and incidents, why would young black people want to trust the mainstream news media with stories about their lives?

‘Trust’ in the News Media Has Come to Mean Affirmation 
...
But more important, the Internet has changed society's relationship with the news. For one thing, it’s enabled us to construct digital silos, battlements from which, like the French in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, we fire invective on the people below.
...

But there is ample proof that the Internet has also really “leveled the playing field” between the most powerful and the least. Now the marginalized can speedily gather, demand recognition and challenge the prevailing narratives. This happens every day and it’s far better than the alternative.
...
And the Wingnut view:  The terrible Librul Media Conspiracy is even more terrible and Librul than you imagined!
Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect

Timothy P. Carney is the senior political columnist at The Washington Examiner, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

News media bias is real. It reduces the quality of journalism, and it fosters distrust among readers and viewers. This is bad for democracy.

Many prevailing biases exist in the U.S. news media. All news outlets are biased toward an eye-catching narrative. The Washington news media is biased toward Washington-based solutions. And the political press in the U.S. has an overwhelming leftward tilt, mostly on social issues, but also on economic matters.

Conservatives aren’t imagining this bias...
In order of appearance...

...I agree wholeheartedly with the Young Black People view.  Period.

..it is adorable that NPR still clings for dear life to slivers of Both Siderist flotsam in a storm-tossed sea of wingnut crazy (although they get points for at least mentioning the existence of Fox News.)

...and I can only assume that the Times decided to hand over a chunk of its "Whither media bias?" real estate to an AEI shill who works for the Moonie Times because former NYT columnist Bill Kristol was too busy handing out the Bill Kristol's Daddy Award to the "preeminent leader of the free world" at the annual AEI Cult of Moloch Box Social to dash something off for publication.

But as always, what is most fascinating is who the Times did not invited to comment on why TheMurricanPeople hate the media.

They did not invite me, or anyone like me, to contribute a few, well-constructed paragraphs on the subject of how decades of continuous lying and conspiracy mongering by the Right and wingnut-enabling-by-denial by the Beltway press has destroyed any possibility of restoring trust in the media.

Exhibit A:  Any media organization which continues to employ an overtly dishonest Conservative killbot like Mark Fucking Halperin has given up any pretense of having any institutional interest in the craft of honest journalism (h/t Crooks & Liars):




You can build an organization around groveling hacks like Halperin or around honest reporting, but you can't have both.

Friday, February 13, 2015

The Roar of the Greasepaint/ The Smell of the Crowd



Oh the things you see when you're not looking for them.

Like this bit of Oh Be Joyful buried halfway down the column over at PundiFact, where I go on Friday or Saturday because they often have an aggregates a list of all the guests and panelists for the entire upcoming Sunday Mouse Circus, and I can start getting my ennui on early.

This is subject of the column --
Donna Brazile, Jackie Kucinich and Kathleen Parker discussed the state of television news punditry and the fate of NBC's Brian Williams at an event hosted Tuesday by PunditFact at the National Press Club. 
-- so "meh" right?

But, halfway down, this:
...
Speaking to a crowd of about 50, and a larger audience online, the pundits were aware of the roles they play when they are put on air. ... They know the political slot they fill and the need to play to those expectations. While they won’t say something they don’t believe, nor are they fully themselves on air.

"I’m always on the left," Brazile said. "It’s like being an actress. I’ve learned to be an actress being on TV."

"On television, you need to fit into these neatly packaged view," Brazile added later in the conversation.

This was abundantly clear to Parker as well.

"I am called on to be the center-right voice at the table," Parker said. "I’m not going to suddenly start talking out of school. I’m there to make that argument because they (the producers) are looking for a balance."

The group also said they know what sells: Being loud and forceful.
...
What you see at the Gasbag Cavalcade is not an accident.  It's a play, carefully cast for the purposes of achieving the appearance of "balance".  The "truth" never enters into it, and when that truth of a story is so raw and unequivocal that it cannot be hammered into fitting the network's fetish for false equivalence, that story  never gets told.

So what about the fact that over time, if anyone bothers to look, they will notice that the Right lies a lot, and tends to be proven by that unfair, unbalanced, liberally-biased Reality to be overwhelmingly and horribly wrong over and over and over again?

Not a problem, citizen!  That's been factored in:
That is what television producers said, but Parker said she personally doubted that money was the main reason.  "What I really think is what they are assuming, based on ample evidence, is that the American people will forget in about two more seconds," Parker said. "If they just keep quiet about it, the news cycle will change and attentions will shift.
And so, yet again, we peek behind the curtain to find what we already know.

That (to steal from my betters)
The Gasbag talking head is but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard, well, every fucking Sunday until the end of time.
It is a tale told by a very, very, very well-paid idiot.
Full of Both Sides Do It
Signifying nothing.



Sunday, September 07, 2014

Help Wanted, But, Y'know...



The always entertaining Alex Pareene has finished his mission work at Andrew Sullivan's Pot-'n-Popes-'n-Libertarians-'n-Stuff blog and is heading back to his new day job as the executive editor of Matt Taibbi's as-yet-unnamed thingie that he will be doing over at Pierre "Pete" Omidyar's brand-new global media multi-platform content provision thingie.

In his last post at Mr. Sullivan's, Alex helpfully states the obvious fact that:
There is, rather suddenly, a lot of fresh money in journalism (and media in general), but much of that money is going to spread the same rather predictable viewpoints, from the technocratic center-left Beltway wisdom of Vox to Bloomberg’s attempt to launch a high-profile new politics brand built around horse-race enthusiasts Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. (Bloomberg will air a daily show hosted by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, modeled on ESPN shout-fest “Pardon the Interruption,” called “With All Due Respect,” presumably because this FX show already took the name “You’re the Worst.”)
And there is, too.  Lots of money.  Of course almost none of it going where anyone I know thinks it should go, but I suppose that is just one of the crosses that we non-internet billionaires have to bear

Alex also has a cautionary sad going about the fact that, even as our Internet Medicis continue to collect media empires as flies to wanton boys, the gauge of what those media empire are reporting on continues to radically narrow:
That last inescapable fact is the root of my main fear for the future of this industry: Nothing will replace statehouse reporting, because there’s no money in statehouse reporting. Unless you happen to live in the New York tri-state area or near the Beltway, there’s a good chance that hardly anyone is keeping on eye on your state legislature and governor, to say nothing of your city council, mayor, school board, and police department. And no one has come up with a plan to replace the people who used to do this. (Can we get some billionaire to fund a “Teach for America,” but for local journalism?) (I guess I could ask my billionaire.)
Sad indeed.  Because although we are now well into the age of Be Anywhere technology, where you can track your lost iguana via GPS and tweet dick-pics from Mt. McKinley using the wifi in your new Chevy ADHD Distracta ...



...the blessings of such technology have somehow not yet reached the media business where workers are apparently still required to live within walking distance of the pneumatic tube system that delivers editorial copy within the New York/D.C. sprawl.

On the bright side, Alex's corner of Pierre "Pete" Omidyar's brand-new global media multi-platform content provision thingie is hiring!  Velum Stretchers and Book Illuminators and who knows what all kindsa stuff!

And I almost applied for one of those gigs because Alex and Matt are terrific writer and I like money.

Sadly. of the 10 listed openings, 2.5 of them are in San Francisco, and the remaining 7.5 spots in Alex's corner of Pierre "Pete" Omidyar's brand-new global media multi-platform content provision thingie require that I live withing walking distance of the pneumatic tube system that delivers editorial copy within the New York/D.C. sprawl.

Because irony.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Apparently The New York Times Does Occasionally Sack People



From the NYT:
The New York Times Replaces Abramson as Executive Editor
By RAVI SOMAIYAMAY 14, 2014

Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The New York Times, is unexpectedly leaving the position and will be replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the newspaper, the company said on Wednesday.

In announcing the sudden switch to a stunned newsroom, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the paper and the chairman of The New York Times Company, attributed it to “an issue with management in the newsroom.”

Ms. Abramson, 60, a former investigative correspondent and Washington editor who was appointed to lead the newsroom in 2011, was the first woman to serve in the top job...
The New Yorker has the gossipier version here:
...
Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

...
A third issue surfaced, too: Abramson was pushing to hire a deputy managing editor to oversee the digital side of the Times. She believed that she had the support of Sulzberger and Thompson to recruit this deputy, and her supporters say that the plan was for the person in this position to report to Baquet. Baquet is a popular and respected figure in the newsroom, and he had appeared, for the most part, to get along with Abramson. (I was told, however, that, at a recent dinner with Sulzberger, Baquet said he found her hard to work with.)
...
To: Mr. Dean Baquet
Re: Sacking people

Dear Mr. Baquet,
I have a list.
Sincerely,

driftglass

Monday, March 10, 2014

Vox Is Not a Journey



Because every journey ends.

But they go on.

At least that's sorta what I go out of this long blipvert for Ezra Klein's new media venture, where no holds are barred, except looking directly into the camera.

Also the future of online journalism is apparently going to be really good writing astride some kinda monster Harley of technological .  Roaring into the future.

So if you know any really good writers who are gaunt with hunger for work, let them know that the world turns.

And Vox turns with it.

Or something.

Friday, July 08, 2011

Dead Center, Ctd.


Mistah Kurtz' Friday Fart Cloud of Conventional Beltway Wisdom:
Nasty partisan rhetoric on both sides...

After months of savaging each other...

...while feeding red-meat rhetoric to their
ideological bases, President Obama and
the GOP reluctantly embraced the politics
of adulthood behind the scenes


Republicans have loudly proclaimed
they won’t budge on
even minor tax increases...

And while Obama’s party has
spent months accusing the GOP
of trying to gut Medicare...

Politicians have always postured in public...

...as both sides dithered

...even grizzled veterans grew disgusted.

Americans,
beaten down
by a painful recession,
are hungering for leaders
who can rise above
the media frenzies...

a common-sense road to recovery...

Even as each party
stubbornly stuck
to its talking points...

Bill Clinton
and
Newt Gingrich


a bipartisan group of senators
struck a symbolic compromise

Cantor has embraced the
narrow escape hatch in Norquist’s pledge...


...it doesn’t reduce the deficit by a dime,
but
it could give Obama political cover
for the Medicare cuts that his
liberal allies...
are already denouncing.

Obama was “chomping at the bit”
to punch back...

-- two grownups
quietly seeking
common ground.

The Virginian’s [Cantor's]
bold,
on-message approach...

This from the late Steve Gilliard in 2005, nicely summed up and dispensed with the cartoonishly dishonest world view of ubervillager Howard "Howie" Alan Kurtz:

Outlaw journalism and the blogs
...

When Howard Kurtz whines about "fairness", someone needs to tell him the truth. "Mistah Kurtz, we are not fair. We are honest." Bush uses fairness like a Samurai uses a katana, to slice and dice and win. Fairness will no more stop Bush than a bazooka could stop a Tiger tank (couldn't come close). It is honesty which will stop him. People have to tell the truth. Kurtz and his fellows are people to be derided and mocked, not argued with. To accord him respect and seriousness, in the job most journalists disdain like cops hate internal affairs, is to give him power that his peers would never. The next time he whines about fairness, laugh in his face, wave a shrunken head in front of him, show him a picture of King Leopold. Do anything you want to show him the contempt you hold him in. But his words are meaningless to the people who matter, our readers.

[Hunter] Thompson understood the danger of objective journalism, which was a creature of the post-war period, Roosevelt would have laughed at the concept, battered by Father Coughlin and the Chicago Tribune, which is that the dishonest and the disingenious can have their way with the honest and decent. He called for subjective journalism long ago and our temporary experiment of objective journalism is ending, because it only serves the status quo, which is not most of us.

Six years ago, Gilly was characteristically upbeat about the future of the outlaw press (bloggers) and the fight against the Pig People on the Right and the Zombie Villager Media that keeps them alive:
...
It's odd to think of the outsider Thompson having won the day about what we call journalism, but blogging allows for a world of outlaw journalists, working cheap and fast ans supporting each other in ways he couldn't imagine. It's not a bad legacy.

Six years later, Digby is less sanguine and more harshly realistic about the shape of the fight we have on our hands:
...
Not that I disagree about how this has unfolded. I've been calling this debt negotiation a kabuki dance since Cantor first spilled the beans in January. But I'd say that Boehner, Cantor and Obama are about to get a big, sloppy wet kiss from the Village for doing it.

After all these years of blogging I think I'm back at the beginning: nothing can change as long as the Village media exists.

I agree. And as frustrated and just plain fucking sad as I sometimes get over how deeply broken our political system has become, I also believe that system is (and mostly always has been) a pretty fair representation of the American cultural brain-map: one to which we should pay very close attention if we want anything to change in any deep and structural way.

We begin with Our Heroes: that small percentage of politically OCD liberals (Go Team!) that history shown, again and again, are usually right about most things, and often get very, very angry when our rightness is not acknowledged and acted upon exactly as we would like 100% of the time by our elected officials.

From The Nation:
...
What does this mean for liberals? Well, they can complain and attack Obama—they’ve already begun—but criticism from the left has yet to budge the president, and it’s doubtful that this time will be any different. Demonstrations sound great, but they don’t actually carry a high chance for success; if your only option for changing the political calculations of a president is protest, then you’re probably too late to the game. Likewise, a primary campaign against Obama sounds like it might work, but outside of activist circles, there is little appetite for a challenge. The Democratic establishment is satisfied with President Obama, and will work to ensure his reelection.

Indeed, given the importance of presidential elections, Obama will be able to count on organization and support from every member of the Democratic coalition. Moreover, if a deal comes through, it will probably help him with independents, who support modest reductions in entitlement spending.
...
This group favors reason, compassion and fact-based answers, which is why we are routinely shouted down by another small group of the narcissistic sociopath Conservatives who, history shows, are usually horribly, horribly wrong about most things but are simply too emotionally and intellectually cowardly and incompetent to face up to it.

This second group are the People of the Lie, who will pay no-kidding Real Money to virtually anyone who will put on a suit, stand in front of a camera or microphone and reassure them that they are not, in fact, emotionally and intellectually retarded narcissistic sociopaths, but "patriots" who love "Murrica" way, way, waaay more that those faggy, smarty pants America-hating liberals.

If the narcissistic sociopath Conservative group had no money and did not vote, no one in their right minds would pay attention to them. But since they have both economic and electoral clout, they get great big pandering dollops of ersatz love and icky-sweet flattery from Fox News, Hate Radio, the GOP and a variety of American neofascist groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Horrors
COC
and the Koch brothers.

There is a third group -- also small -- called Centrists (who are often deliberately and misleadingly conflated with a Beltway-manufactured category called "Independents" who are, of course, anything but Independent --
...
It’s true that independents are a diverse group. But that’s mostly because the large majority of independents are independents in name only. Research by political scientists on the American electorate has consistently found that the large majority of self-identified independents are “closet partisans” who think and vote much like other partisans. Independent Democrats and independent Republicans have little in common. Moreover, independents with no party preference have a lower rate of turnout than those who lean toward a party and typically make up less than 10% of the electorate. Finally, independents don’t necessarily determine the outcomes of presidential elections; in fact, in all three closely contested presidential elections since 1972, the candidate backed by most independent voters lost.
...
-- but does give our teevee sock puppets one more blob of completely wrong eyewash they can yammer confidently about as they grease up the Centrists for one more round of fuck-‘em-over.)

Centrists are characterized by not really giving a shit who is actually right or wrong about anything; they just want the political voices in their head to Shut Up.

Centrists have been trained like circus seals to automatically favor the everybody-compromise=and-split-the-difference "solution" to any problem -- real or manufactured -- because Centrists are basically lazy and chickenshit and not very bright.

You can spend an entire afternoon explaining that to a Centrist that their "solutions" always favor the extreme Right, because the Right figured out decades ago that, to get everything they wanted, all they needed to do was make their demands 20 times louder and crazier than the last time they went to the well. Then -- knowing that lazy, chickenshit Centrists will always reflexively demand that "both sides need to give stuff up" -- the Left (whose positions usually come pre-compromised) will eventually find itself once again forced to throw even more of society’s weakest and most vulnerable members under the bus to appease the lazy, chickenshit Centrists, while the Right reluctantly "compromises" downward to get 10 times what they wanted in the first place.

I call it the "Half Magic Trick" (from me in 2005) --
...
There was a book I loved when I was a little driftglass called, “Half Magic” by Edgar Eager, about a talisman that granted the user exactly half of what they asked for. Wish to be ten times stronger that Lancelot, you’ll get five. Wish for a million in cash, you get 500K. In the Mainstream Media, the Right Wing of the Republican Party found their Half Magic Charm. And each time you met them halfway, they moved the goalposts another twenty yards again...and you jogged right on along behind them, ten yards at a time.

The “compromise” between the truth and a lie...is a lie. The “compromise” between science and superstition...is superstition. Now, would you care to guess what the compromise between tolerance and bigotry is? Between knowledge and ignorance? Between Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman?
...
-- and if you rinse and repeat it for 40 years you will have a a pretty good thumbnail history of modern American politics.

(For the sake of brevity we will ignore the majority group – that heaving mass of dumb that I believe Harlan Ellison once referred to as the Great Wad, who never pay the slightest attention to any of this at all, preferring instead to lumber through this old world as blissfully ignorant of what they have in store for them any cow on the stun line at the slaughterhouse.)

So, having wasted your afternoon carefully explaining all of this to your Centrist friend in a reasonable, compassionate and fact-based way, your Centrist friend will respond that, of course you would think such a thing, being a Liberal and all, and that they really want to get "both sides" of the story before making up their mind.

They will then wander away to listen to Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly explain why you are stupid and crazy and hate America.

This exercise will reinforce your Centrist friend's already-gargantuan counterfeit sense of moral superiority -- that they are above all of this "petty partisan bickering" -- after which they will take a nice relaxing soak in the eminent Seriousness and Reasonableness of David Gregory or David Brooks of Mistah Kurtz, never noticing that they just proved your reasonable, compassionate and fact-based point to ten significant digits.

Because, as I may have mentioned, they are lazy and chickenshit and not very bright.

To win and hold national power long enough the repair our crippled system, a political party must build a majority-making coalition out of two of these three groups: vain wishes about imaginary third parties that will never be or some magic combination of facts and "messaging" language that will make large numbers of previously oblivious Americans Suddenly!Wake!Up! will not make it otherwise.

To alter the trajectory of our accelerating plunge into right wing corporate feudal pesthole-ism, the behavioral DNA of one of these two groups -- the Conservatives or Centrists --
must be dramatically altered.

In 10-15 years, the glacial inevitability of mortality and demography will have reduced the Right to a regional party of cranky, old White Guys, but right now the Right is a suicide cult who have thrown in their lot with monsters and burned every bridge back the the Real World. And behind many of them are literally centuries of dug-in, ignorant bigoted rage that has been handed down -- generation to generation -- like family heirlooms.

So not so much with the "changing their wicked ways" with them.

Dead loss. Write 'em off.

Now, as to the Centrists...

As the Left represents the best hope for the restoration of a more perfect American union, the brain caste of the Center represents the powerful dead-enders of a dying American Empire -- a weak and gutless group of cynics and hacks with no fixed beliefs about anything, who have demonstrated repeatedly that they can be stampeded this way and that by the proper application of pressure.

Centrist leaders have a lot of fun jawboning about Murrica, but in fact have no use for democracy or the Middle Class or, really, any part of America outside of imperial enclaves of New York, LA and Washington D.C. Centrist leaders do not especially fear the nutjob Right, but rather as an invaluable source of leverage in the "both sides to it" scam that keeps them large and in charge, and as a vital insurance policy against the Left ever gaining power in exactly the same way the Vice Presidencies of the gargoyle-ish Dick Cheney and imbecilic Dan Quayle were insurance policies against anyone taking potshots at Bush the Younger or Bush the Elder.

Instead, like all members of an decadent imperial court, Centrist leaders fear only the loss of face, the loss of status and the loss of income.

As powerful as they are (and they are; they're the Agents of our particular Matrix, guarding all the doors and holding all the keys) consider the fact that as batshit nuts as a shoutycrackers Teabagger in full wingnut rut may be, he or she is also usually willing to get right in your face to do their shrieking, whereas you might have noticed that members of the Centrist Brain Caste virtually never leave their protective bubble (a small example here from 2010 of what happened when Centrist Field Marshal David Brooks was caught in the open.)

The demands and privileges of their protective teevee Vader suits has made them soft and weak and vulnerable when caught out nekkid in ways that the Cult Right simple are not.

Just in case you were wondering why I spend so many hours and pixels making this point and sharpening the argument from every angle I can think of :-)

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Looks Like My Worries That Politico Republico

Joe The Lamer
Wouldn't sufficiently mischaracterize my writing were just silly.

Of course they got it wrong!
Bloggers bop New York Times's David Brooks

...
The liberal blogosphere received the Brooks column with only slightly less anger.

Driftglass writes that Brooks, because he generally has supported Republican candidates and causes, is wholly responsible for the very uncompromising vitriol he now decries.

“The question remains, where were you, Mr. Brooks, when Reagan was instructing them that the government is always wrong, always evil? Where were you when the leaders of your Movement were teaching them that everyone not in the Movement was a Commie? That compromise was treason?” he wrote.
...

Never argued that Bobo is "wholly" anything except craven and mediocre. No, Mr. Brooks is simply one of the drum majors who lead the long, sad freak show of strutting, lying conservative and Fake Centrist frauds, false-equivalencers and civic perverts into disastrous failure.

Over and over again.

And who then cower like children and blame everyone else in the Universe when the time comes to pay the piper.

Over and over again..

But thanks for the dry-hump!

And anyway, why quibble about it when it's just way more fun to strap on the hazmat suit and go for a little stroll through the open wingnut sewer of Republico's comment section where every snarky Liberal observation regarding the pure, unalloyed batshittiness of the Right is helpfully ratified right before your very eyes.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Those Who Do Not Remember History

brooks_david2
Will have long and profitable careers as Neoconservative war pimps.

On the eve of the release of his terrible, terrible book (PZ Myers's lovely review gives the game away, thus saving you from rushing out to your local municipal airport to buy a copy) --
...I learned to loathe Harold and Erica, the two upscale avatars of upper-middle-class values that Brooks marches through life in the story. And then I began to resent the omniscient narrator who narrates this exercise in unthinking consumption and privilege that is, supposedly, the ideal of happiness; it's like watching a creepy middle-aged man fuss over his Barbie and Ken dolls, posing them in their expensive accessories and cars and houses and occasionally wiggling them in simulated carnal relations (have no worries, though: Like Barbie and Ken, no genitals appear anywhere in the book), while periodically pausing to tell his audience how cool it all is, and what is going on inside his dolls' soft plastic heads.
-- David Brooks almost tripped over his own dick by accidentally reminding everyone that he is almost always horribly wrong about everything.

Especially things that involve sending other people's children off to die for one of his pet Neocon foreign adventures.

Fortunately for his future book sales, his genuinely jaw-dropping gaffe happened on an obscure foreign program from an exotic and distant land called "PBS" where 10 of the 11 people watching were doing so because the tepid drone of Jim Lehrer's voice puts their newborns to sleep better than the vibrations from either their washing machine or their idling car.

In my case, however, it was enough to halt me mid-stride -- flamingo-like -- bowl of pasta in one hand and say "Did David Fucking Brooks really just say what I think he said?" aloud to an empty room:
MARK SHIELDS: I think [Libya is] going to play out, Jim, absent a visible, factual evidence of a tragedy of great human dimensions there, I think there will be no entry on the part of the United States militarily.

I mean, Secretary Gates again delivered the sobering news for the administration and to the administration critics, which was a no-fly zone is an act of war. You know, you don't simply say -- it's not like a no-passing zone. We don't put up orange cones. I mean, you have to go in and take out the anti-aircraft capability of the other country.

So, I think that's -- that course, which was being trumpeted and heard rather loudly, became muted. But -- and there's no way we're going to act unilaterally. I think the experiences the United States has had in Iraq and Afghanistan in this first decade of the 21st century have given great cause -- caution and hesitation to the idea of a surgical strike anywhere.

JIM LEHRER: How do you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the experience has given us great caution.

On the other hand, you have got the following logistics sort of playing out. We have imposed sanctions on Gadhafi. We have more or less isolated him and his regime. There is really no escape hatch for them. And the protesters are marching.

And so we have put them in a situation where we -- they say there is no escape. We're not going to be forgiven. We have to fight to the end and just stick this out.

So, we have given them a strong incentive to do everything possible to crush the activists. And, so, if we...

JIM LEHRER: You mean to Gadhafi?

DAVID BROOKS: To Gadhafi.

JIM LEHRER: An incentive to Gadhafi...

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

And, so, I understand why the sanctions -- I supported the sanctions. But if you are going to give the dictator an incentive to kill a lot of people, well, maybe you shouldn't stop there.

And so are we really going to stand by? If his only choice is, I'm going to do whatever it takes, are we really going to do nothing, the whole world? That is a tough thing to do.

JIM LEHRER: But that's the question, isn't it?

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And so I'm -- I understand Mark's cautions, but I don't think we can just -- to the extent that this has happened, and to what we know about Gadhafi, I don't think we can stand there while he massacres people. We should expect the violence is going to get worse, because he has no incentive to not do that.

MARK SHIELDS: The invasion and occupation of Libya, which is what we are talking about...

DAVID BROOKS: Well...

MARK SHIELDS: No, it is.

DAVID BROOKS: ... invading and occupying.

MARK SHIELDS: You don't go in, you don't go in -- you don't send a platoon in. I mean, this is a war, what we're talking about. It's a civil war in the making. And it is real.

We have as little leverage in Libya as we have any place in the world. It's unlike Egypt, where there was an army, an institution that could provide the option of leadership and the reality of leadership. There's no other countries that have any influence over them.

I mean, absent a collective act by many, many countries, you know, I just don't see the United States acting.

JIM LEHRER: What about General Deptula's idea, or not -- it wasn't an idea; it was an option that he said, well, there's that one area in Tripoli that is fortified; that's where Gadhafi and his folks are; take them out?

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, it always sounds great. I mean, it really does.

JIM LEHRER: That's the surgical...

MARK SHIELDS: That's the surgical -- I mean, let's just go in and take him out, and then we're gone.

And we don't have -- I mean, if there is evidence of a massacre, then there will be collective action. You know that. And I am tried -- I'm sorry that people are being hurt. It strikes me that the tide is going in the direction of the anti-Gadhafi forces right now, from all the reports I have had and am privy to.

So, I hope that that happens. But I do not see the United States -- one more land war in the Middle East?

DAVID BROOKS: But, I mean, nobody is talking about sending troops on land. I mean, the activists don't even want them arming us. They don't want them doing a surgical strike. I don't particularly think that is a particularly good idea.

They're asking for a little way to shift the balance of power. And we have had no-fly zones in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. It hasn't meant we have had to take over the country. In Saddam's reign, after the first Desert Storm, we had a no-fly zone. And, so, I'm not sure it is a good idea, but I'm not sure we can walk up this far and then suddenly stand back and say, OK, sorry.

MARK SHIELDS: After we wiped out Saddam's military capacity in the Persian Gulf War.

It was -- the war was stopped after 96 hours because they had been totally decimated and devastated. There was no resistance. He did...

DAVID BROOKS: Saddam had -- was using gunships on Shiites. We don't need to -- on the south, but...

This is what stopped me cold in my living room: the stark revelation that America's Greatest Conservative Public Intellectual had obviously forgotten the entire first Gulf War.

Had just slipped the whole thing down the memory hole.

Had forgotten that Iraq had been carved up by treaty like a roast after the first Gulf War.

Had forgotten that even after his army had been destroyed and his country had been cauterized by no-fly zones, Saddam Hussein had managed to hang onto power.

Had forgotten that it was precisely this fact -- that Saddam Hussein had been contained but not overthrown by the massive and sustained application of American military power -- that provided the impetus for PNAC thugs in media, in think tanks and in the White House

to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie us into the disaster that is George Bush's Iraqi Debacle.

So you'd think that unless David Fucking Brooks is planning on spending the rest of his life going from town to town individually apologizing to the Americans whose lives he ruined and futures he bankrupted by being one of the Dear Leader's eager, blood-soaked, smirking Neocon boosters for his Excellent Iraqi Adventure, simple common decency would suggest that Bobo once-and-for-all shut the fuck up about Iraq already.

But of course he can't.

He can't because it squats out there, bestriding his resume and dwarfing his many, many other journalistic failures. He can't because it is the ragged hole where a massive professional tooth used to be that he just cannot keep his tongue away from.

And what's more, he doesn't have to.

He doesn't have to because we now live in a country where there is no penalty whatsoever for Conservatives who are grotesquely and serially wrong about matters of life and death. And so well-paid buffoons like Brooks have no incentive to learn the lessons of Iraq that other, less-privileged citizens have paid for with their lives. Instead, he and his ilk are left with their lives, fortunes and positions of power in American politics and media blissfully untouched, free to whitewash their failures over and over again, unmolested by the inconvenient realities of the pain and ruin they left in their wake.

From "Foreign Policy":
Whitewashing the failure in Iraq
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
On the eve of President Obama's speech to the nation on Iraq, some of the people who dreamed up this foolish war or helped persuade the nation that it was a good idea are getting out their paintbrushes and whitewash. I refer, of course, to the twin op-eds in today's New York Times by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and neoconservative columnist David Brooks.
Wolfowitz, you will recall, was one of the main architects of the war, having pushed the invasion during the 1990s and as soon as he became Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Bush adminstration. He was the guy who recommended invading Iraq four days after 9/11, even though Osama bin Laden was nowhere near Iraq and there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it. For his part, Brooks was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the war in the months prior to the invasion, and he continued to defend it long after the original rationale had been exposed as a sham.
As for Brooks, his column is a transparent attempt to retroactively justify an unnecessary war. He marshals an array of statistics showing how much things have improved in Iraq, but all his various numbers show is that after you've flattened a country and dismantled its entire political order, you can generate some positive growth rates if you pour billions of dollars back in. He claims this "nation-building" effort cost only $53 billion (hardly a trivial sum), but that figure omits all the other costs of the war (which economist Joseph Stiglitz and budget expert Linda Bilmes estimate to be in excess of $3 trillion). And like Wolfowitz, Brooks is mostly silent about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead and wounded Americans who paid the price for their naĂŻve experiment in social engineering.
...

Of course, what Wolfowitz and Brooks are up to is not hard to discern. They want Americans to keep pouring resources into Iraq for as long as it takes to make their ill-fated scheme look like a success. Equally important, they want to portray Iraq in a somewhat positive light now, so that Obama and the Democrats get blamed when things go south.
...
Sadly, there is, of course, nothing new here. This is all part of a "specific, mutagenic strain of "Wingnut Doublethink"" that I referred to here as Strategic Forgettery --
...the training of an entire generation of Conservatives to mindlessly attack!attack!attack! the "Left" while holding themselves willfully and belligerently ignorant of what their Movement is really doing and who is really running it -- is, in the end, Ronald Reagan's most potent and vile political legacy: Strategic Forgettery.
-- one part of a set of radical blueprints upon which the entire Modern Conservative Movement has been constructed, and which as turned the Right into what is it today: a mob of willfully amnesiac killbots who stay angry, crazy and electorally-compliant only by completely forgetting their origins, founders, history, pedigree and basically everything else that happened before whatever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity upchucked into their skulls yesterday.

And finally, in the most hilariously, multi-dimensional, letter-perfect, public example of "Irony" I have unearthed in many a year, consider that this succinct and damning description of exactly the sort of brutalizing mental and moral devolution upon which the entire Conservative Brain Caste depends --

"Anti-ideology consists of the attempts to shrink men's minds down to the range of the immediate moment, without regard to past or future, without context or memory -- above all, without memory. so that contradictions cannot be detected, and errors or disasters can be blamed on the victim.

"In anti-ideological practice, principles are used implicitly and used to disarm the opposition, but are never acknowledged and are switched at will when it suits the purpose of the moment. Whose purpose? The gang's. This men's moral criterion becomes not "my view of the good -- or of the right -- or of the truth", but "my gang, right or wrong."

"This is what makes today's public issues and discussions so sickeningly false and futile. Most issues rest on so many wrong premises and carry so many contradictions that instead of the question: "Who is right?" one is constantly and tacitly confronted with the question: "Which gang do you support?""
-- was penned by Ayn Rand -- the materfamilias of the whole fucking unholy Movement -- in 1967.

They have become the very monsters they used to write crappy fiction about.

And so it goes.





Thursday, February 24, 2011

Correcting Andrew Sullivan

Vanity_Fair

Andrew Sullivan writes:
The raw partisanship and threats confirm to me that [The Pwning Of Scott Walker] is a classic piece of partisan warfare under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It also confirms every left-wing conspiracy theorist on the power of the Koch brothers. "Bring a baseball bat?"

OK, but "confirms"...to whom?

Watching the Wisconsin Uprising unfold, no one on the Left who has observed the Right over the last 30 years building (often with your enthusiastic assistance) its vast, reprogrammable, killbot Base has needed any confirmation about anything.

And given the billions the Right has spent on cultivating that Base and constantly upgrading its propaganda machine, I have no doubt whatsoever that were Scott Walker to rub shit in his hair, set it on fire and run through the state capitol -- naked and accompanied by bazouki music -- yelling "David Koch cock tastes like Norweigan Jarlsburg!", within 2-3 months (and probably much sooner) the Golem Right would have completely forgotten it ever happened, and would retain only a vague, Fox-flavored aftertaste that Scott Walker is one tough, anti-Socialism sumbitch, and the protesters were all lazy moochers, welfare cheats and outside agitators.

So "confirms"...to whom?

The Right has long stopped being anything but a triumph of marketing fascist and fundamentalist heroin to stone Conservative addicts: sometimes the baggie gets stamped with a crude line-drawing of Reagan's face, sometimes Jesus, and sometimes a flag. For eight years the Kochs and their fellow oligarchs and Christopaths sold their poison with George Bush's smirking grin on the bag. Then, after too many people started puking up blood from their product, they switched packaging and began selling the same filth to the same junkies in red-white-and-blue tea bags.

In one, important way, what is happening in Wisconsin is culturally and politically notable for the same reason that a college student asking Newt Gingrich about his long history of lies and adultery -- a blindingly obvious question that establishmentarian testicle cozies like David Gregory have consistently refused to ask during any of their dozens of opportunity to do so -- has caused a momentary stir. It's not that it exposes some wild new facet of the depravity of the Right that everyone on the Left doesn't already know about. Rather, it exposes yet again the utter cowardice and complicity of the Koch and Gingrich-sized omissions in the mainstream press. Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark in the night, it shows us all once again how deeply committed the Big Money Media is to collectively embargoing any serious reporting on the grotesque reality of what the Right has devolved into.

Not, of course, that we didn't all know that already :-)

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

When You're a Hack


You're a Hack all the way
From your first Richard Cohen
To your last Matthew Bai...

"Salon" has it's list of America's Top 30 Hacks up here.

It is a fine Honor Roll of the Damned which fails on only two, piddling points:

1. It misses being comprehensive by several miles by massively under-representing Fox. This is perhaps due to the fact that the product Fox extrudes can no longer be even nominally defined as a form of "journalism" at which they are spectacularly failing [Hackery] but instead must judged on its own terms: as a purely Republican Pravda-like propaganda delivery and fund-raising machine. A job at which Fox succeeds brilliantly.

2. Seeing David Fucking Brooks bringing up the rear at #30, I can only conclude that someone at Salon has been monkeying the the Excel "sort" function. Less hackish than S.E. Cupp and Pat Caddell? Really? David Brooks is the chief architect and purveyor of the Biggest Conservative Lie Of All: That no matter how fucking depraved the Right becomes, Invisible Liberals are always somehow equally to blame for everything. It is the Big Lie that makes all the hundreds of little Conservative lies possible. He plies his relentlessly dishonest craft from the commanding heights of the most valuable and influential editorial real estate in journalism. This combination easily makes Brooks the most dangerous and duty-derelict hack in America.

But other than a few quibbles, good first effort Salon.

And how sad -- how very, very ,very sad -- that there are absolutely no more good writers or talkers to be found anymore anywhere who could spark just a little light inside the dim, suffocating hack-yurt tree fort of our political discourse.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Sunday Morning Comin’ Down


"Christ, what an imagination I've got!" Edition.

In “Stand on Zanzabar” -- John Brunner’s great, sprawling, sprinting, lunatic of a novel written in 1968 – the author foresees the world of 2010 as a place where:
“…the population of Earth has reached 7 billion. The Soviet Union is defunct as a superpower, but China is rapidly industrializing and increasing in power. Giant corporations have large enough economies to control entire countries.

In-vitro fertilization and genetic mapping are becoming a reality.

A computer the size of a large book is more powerful than the most massive supercomputers of the Sixties.

Personalized digital avatars of yourself feature in everyday entertainment.

Religious denominations are rapidly polarizing on moral issues like abortion.

And ordinary people suddenly snap and go on killing sprees in schools, workplaces, and malls.”
One of the famous through lines of the multi-viewpoint novel is provided by a stoner named Bennie Noakes, who spends most of his time wasted on a drug called Triptine, randomly flipping through the 1000 channels available on the teevee and musing
"Christ, what an imagination I've got!"
because the sheer weirdness of what he is seeing is getting so dense that it has become impossible for him to believe it.

SPOILER ALERT (Although if you haven't read the novel in the 42 years since it was published, I'm not gonna feel too sorry for you if your eyes accidentally fall upon its closing lines.)
+++

The “wham line” that ends the novel comes from “Shalmaneser”, the great supercomputer which controls the media and the economies of much of the planet. And which, having been forced to absorb endless petabytes of data about the totality of the human condition
“SCANALYZER is the one single, the ONLY study of the news in depth that's processed by General Technics' famed computer Shalmaneser, who sees all, hears all, knows all save only that which YOU, Mr, and Mrs. Everywhere, wish to keep to yourselves.”
finally comes to this:
Bathed in his currents of liquid helium, self-contained, immobile, vastly well informed by every mechanical sense: Shalmaneser.

Every now and again there passes through his circuits a pulse which carries the cybernetic equivalent of the phrase, "Christ, what an imagination I've got."
+++
END SPOILER ALERT

And that, my codders and shiggys and applesofmyeye, is the straight true vibe that came roaring off of today’s Mouse Circus. And so in the spirit of "Zanzibar", Chad C. Mulligan and Hipcrime --
“Coincidence: You weren't paying attention to the other half of what was going on.
-- allow me to relate the following in no particular order...

David Axelgrease made little, empty, humming noises all over the teevee that amounted to nothing. We want to compromise. With anyone. About anything. China. South Korea. Jim DeMint. Darryl Issa. The Soup Nazi. The Skoal Rebel. Jefferson Davis. Mr. Spacely.

Anyone.

Except, of course, for snooty Liberals who have been right about everything all along.

Fuck them.

Senator Jim DeMint is still fighting hard for the title of Undisputed Mayor of the Lizard People.

George Will is still an unreconstructed Coolidge-loving, fact-averse twat.

Robert Kagan – the co-founder with William Kristol of the infamous Project for the New American Century and one of the main cheerleaders of Bush’s Iraqi Debacle -- was put in front of a camera to talk about Iraq for some reason.

Mr. Andrea Mitchell -- the architect of the economic philosophy that destroyed America and The Pope of All Capitalism –
Pope Of Capitalism 2
is still alive and mumbling on my teevee for some reason.

John McSame still holds both the record for most appearances on "Meet the Press", and the land-speed record for selling out every single one of his principles to advance his personal political fortunes.
McCain v4.0

He is also clearly still driven by a seething, bilious hatred for Barack Obama.

Establishmentarian Marionette David Gregory

asked “But don’t we have to have an Adult Conversation, with people...?” of a panel composed almost entirely of has-beens, sell-outs and depraved thugs he himself had assembled.

David Fucking Brooks
going_vague3
appeared by proxy via David Gregory:
“David Brooks writes in his column Friday about the politics of this…”
Fucking Oy.

Harold Ford Junior is still a straight-up whore. Guess which one of these is not a direct quote from Harold Ford Junior from today:
“I hope the Left in my Party and the Right in the other Party don’t scream loud enough to scare the Center.”

“Speaker Gingrich is a friend. He has been not only a leader in his -- the Republican Party , he's been a leader in a lot of ways for calling for a new American way , a new American majority.”

“I will suck anyone’s dick for a dollar.”

Hard, isn’t it?

Newt Gingrich said --
“People can disagree without being demagogues.”
-- and David Gregory did not come across the table at him with a fucking machete, which brings us to the central plot of today's Mouse Circus: The Biannual Rehabilitation of Newt “Fundamentally. Profoundly. Basically.” Gingrich by David Gregory.

Since the beginning of recorded time, Newt Gingrich has been a real curve-breaking innovator
NEWTJONGIL
in Republican lying, adultery, hypocrisy, racism and demagogy.

He also hasn't held a single elected office since "Ally McBeal" was on the air.

In case you are just skimming past en route to Alpha Centauri and have no idea about who or what a "Newt Gingrich" is, he is a multiply-humiliated Republican personality who gloms onto whatever wingnut conspiracy theory or demagogic lunacy Fox News is peddling this week and lends it a portion of his ever-diminishing credibility.

He then collects money for rolling in his own shit until the results get too horrifying for even the clowns who run the American news media to ignore.

Then he goes in the Villager enalty box for awhile, until the clowns who run the American news media wear the corners off of their short list of Conservative and "moderate" ass-lickers and apple polishers, and need someone to come on to add a little "fizz" to their stupefyingly turgid and deeply dishonest puppet show.

Then the clowns who run the American news media draw straws to see who gets to let "Nazi" Newt out of the penalty box this time.

And then the Circle of Corporate Media Fake Journalism Life is Complete.

Meanwhile, nobody bothered to trouble their Beautiful Media Minds over the revelation that Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is a monstrous hypocrite who was willing to put American lives at risk to advance his political fortunes, while excoriating Democrats for not insufficiently supporting the Iraq War.

Or that Newt Gingrich’s infamous "Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonial..." and "Muslim=Nazi" comments have now officially been Unremembered.

Or that Eric Cantor -- the next House Majority leader -- is, by his own estimate, an American traitor.

Or that nobody but a comedienne on Twitter is asking about Honeywell CEO David Cote.
“This asshole is on the debt commission. Proposed to charge vets for Healthcare over cutting military contracts.

I watched it all –- what was said, what was not, who was invited into the Golden Cathode Circle, and who was not -- and all I can say is, Christ, what an imagination I've got!


Wednesday, September 08, 2010

In Other World-Shaking News

Earth_Shot
My local NPR station just came Dangerously Close to reporting in unequivocal language that:
  1. Both sides are not equally wrong or biased.

  2. For a disturbingly large number of Americans -- mostly Conservative Americans -- facts just don't fucking matter.

  3. Reflexively saying "both side do it" every time a Conservative gets caught in the alley pistol-whipping the truth is, y'know, a bad thing.

  4. That big-megaphone members of the "media elite" are by far the ones doing the most damage.
In other words, finally, gingerly touching on the Massive Media Fail that Liberals have been screaming about for years.

Man, Da Mare says he's leaving and the whole world comes off its axis.

But then, what can you expect for an organization that is clearly in the pocket of the Kenyan Usurper and his Chicago union goons?

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

One of the most Perfectly Wretched



car-wrecks of words I've read in weeks came was summoned into existence on August 30 by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post:

Time has lost a few big-name contributors as well, including Michael Kinsley, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Kristol. And Stengel, a speechwriter for Bill Bradley's presidential campaign, has no prominent conservative to balance liberal columnist Joe Klein.
Pause for a moment to consider how many dismally dishonest Villager Eternal Verities are enfolded in this single sentence.

Then consider this was merely a loin cut taken out of Howard Kurtz's most recent print-edition bid for "Time/Warner Salesman of the Month" (Motto: "As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.") by diligently oiling the love gun of Time Magazine front-man and fellow Time/Warner employee Rick Stengel in what was essentially (as Glenn Greenwald says here)...
...a gushing love letter to Time Magazine and its executives.
...
What makes this so amazing is that Kurtz himself does not merely sound like an employee of Time Warner; he is one. Time Warner pays him a substantial salary -- and gives him a prominent television platform -- for hosting CNN's Sunday morning show, Reliable Sources. In return, Kurtz then uses his Post column to glorify Time Warner's magazine and its executives. The fact that The Washington Post employs as its media critic an employee of Time Warner, the largest media conglomerate in the world, has to be the most mammoth and inexcusable conflict of interest in American journalism, one that simply cannot be cured even with full disclosure.
...and what turned out to also be a mere prequel to Rick Stengel's appearance on Howard Kurtz's Time/Warner-owned media criticism teevee show -- Reliable Sources -- on Sunday, September 5th, where they basically regurgitated much of Kurt'z column as dialogue instead of monologue:

...
KURTZ: Speaking of a difficult economy, you have had to lay off about roughly a quarter of your staff in the last four years since you've been editor. So, in a way, you're making do with fewer bodies, so of course you're going to do less reporting.

STENGEL: Well, and in fact -- but, you know, everybody has to do more, as you know. I mean, look at how much you do. I mean, everybody has to do everything. They have to report, they have to blog, they -- we know they're carrying video cameras. So, in a way, everybody has to do more with less, and we have done more with less, and we've done it across all -- every different platform -- online, on mobile, as well as on the traditional paper product.

KURTZ: Rick, you've just hired Fareed Zakaria, whose "GPS" program on CNN precedes mine. And you have, of course, Joe Klein, well-known liberal writer and columnist.

Now, with all the hiring that you've done, how have you not managed to find a conservative columnist?

STENGEL: I would love to find one. So I'm talking -- if you're listening and you're a fantastic conservative columnist, and you want to write for "TIME," give me a call.
...

Once you have hosed the many, many layers of incestuous Villager groupthink sploog off of this ass-sniffing contest, the Alert Reader will note this little peanut of fact in the big puddle of poo: For all its power and reach, Time magazine cannot find a single conservative thinker capable of rubbing two adjectives together with sufficient skill to clear even the hideously debased standard set by a clown like

Bill Fucking Kristol.

To be insulted by these fascists
Is so degrading.


Friday, April 30, 2010

Today Is The Day

palin_material2
When the Wasilla Scintilla...


...got to publish her mash notes to Glenn Beck...
clockwork_moron2

...in Time Magazine (The "Top 100" Issue. h/t Sadly, No!)

Glenn Beck

By Sarah Palin Thursday, Apr. 29, 2010

...
Glenn's like the high school government teacher so many wish they'd had, charting and connecting ideas with chalk-dusted fingers — kicking it old school — instead of becoming just another talking-heads show host. Self-taught, he's become America's professor of common sense...

His love of the Founding Fathers inspires others to learn and respect our nation's history. Best of all, Glenn delights in driving the self-proclaimed powers-that-be crazy. (The whole country awaits the red phone ringing!) Even his critics...have to admire his amazing ability to galvanize everyday Americans to better themselves...


Meanwhile in Totally Unrelated News, the Washington Pest Post would totally love it if you would, uh, like, work for free!

From the Maryland Politics Watch:

Why MPW Turned Down the Washington Post

Five weeks ago, I received an unsolicited offer from the Washington Post. They asked if they could post my picture and biography on their website and link to every new blog post appearing here if I agreed to produce regular original content for them at their request. I turned them down. Why?

Because they wanted me to work for them for nothing.

The Post is organizing a “local blogging network” linking to selected blogs from their website and asking bloggers to submit original content, which would be edited by them. The Post’s rights to that content would be enforceable under a written agreement. That agreement was written as follows...

I must go now and find many things to drink.

Many, many things.