Lots of stunned grimness on MSNBC. These disinterested reporters of simple fact are deeply disappointed in the poor fools they try so hard to enlighten.
For example, Chris Matthews talks about political reporting being 24/7, and that’s evidently a bad thing. “Robert Gibbs said something, Axelrod said something, some clown on Fox said something….” Apparently no clowns on MSNBC.
CHARLES AUSTIN EMAILS: “Nice win kid, don’t get cocky. Maybe now is a good time to remind everyone that there’s still a large struggle ahead.”
Yep. This is a beginning, not an ending. Party tonight. Get to work tomorrow.
Brown just put himself, and the Republican leadership, under a very bright spotlight. If they go back to the same-old same-old, the Stupid Party will die.
And the next question: What will the press do? Will they start asking hard questions of Democrats? Or will they start trying to savage Brown, to hamstring him? I almost care more about that than the politicians.
One of the few stories paying proper attention to The Evil Empire, and the tearing down of the Wall that was its greatest symbol.
I’m currently in Wisconsin, and tonight on Wisconsin Public Television I watched a show recapping the rise and fall of the Soviet Union Joe McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin. Because one story supports the Narrative, and the other one belongs down the memory hole.
The Green Bay Press-Gazette ran the Berlin Wall story in a few inches at the end of Section A. The top third of the editorial page was devoted to explaining how we must not jump to conclusions as to what motivated the Ft. Hood killer.
The New York Times offers up a fun toy, asking people to submit one word describing their feelings about the Obama presidency, and ranking the responses graphically by the size of the font used to display the ever-changing count.
I want to type in “vindicated”, because he certainly is vindicating my worst fears, but I don’t think that’s the way the word would be taken.
Valerie Jarret, “assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Obama administration”, a so-called “senior advisor”, gets interviewed by CNN’s Campbell Brown, and they start talking about bias in the news:
BROWN: So do you think Fox News is biased?
JARRETT: Well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.
BROWN: Well, then do you also think that MSNBC is biased?
JARRETT: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing. I don’t want to — actually, I don’t want to just generalize all Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is to look at it on a case-by-case basis. And when we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion.
BROWN: But you only see that at Fox News. That’s all, that you’ve only spoken out about Fox News.
JARRETT: That’s actually not true.
Well, yeah, actually, it is — at the very least, Fox is the one getting pretty much singled out.
But BUT, then Jarret delivers this priceless line:
I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power.
The White House.
The Official Residence of the President of the United States of America.
The most Powerful Office in the World.
Is going to Speak Truth to Powah!
As embodied in Fox News.
Excuse me while I giggle myself to death on the pure deliciousness.
I’ve just started going through the archives of A Girl and Her Fed, which is well drawn and looks interesting. It may even deal reasonably with the liberal tendencies of the protagonist, an intern reporter. (Who is told by her editor, “I love journalism schools. They produce the best fiction writers on Earth.”)
I despair, as I often do when discussing SF stories or comics, of explaining the setup for this. The shoulder angel is Ben Franklin, and he’s not exactly a hallucination. He probably has something to do with this. [Update: No. Ben's really a ghost. Probably.]
Anyway, “Ben” delivers the QotD runner-up:
When your choices are “Live Free or Die”, or “No, thanks, it cuts into my free time,” it’s not worth discussing.
I do not have time for this right now. But I will make time for it, believe me.
Otter [a.k.a. K.B. Spangler] I salute you. A comic strip about Civil Rights. I’m looking forward to seeing how you handle the RKBA, but you’re doing a fine job so far.
Hm. May be an Obama fan. Can’t tell yet. But damn, no one’s perfect, and so far this is damn good.
[update: This is good, really really good. Otter sees everything through liberalizing goggles, so George Bush is more evil than, say, Obama, but the underlying principles seem to be there.
[And, seriously? I don't really care. It's a rollicking good story, it's not a tease, and I want to post quotes from about every third strip. Best find in a long, long time. most excellent fun.]
The Nobel Prize Committee has disgraced themselves by awarding the Peace Prize to President Barack Hussein Obama. Disgraced, because nominations closed only ten days after Obama took office, before he had a chance to achieve any of the historic milestones of his term more appropriately celebrated by the Saturday Night Live “Nothing” skit.
That’s not the disgrace, however.
If, as I suspect, the Committee awarded the prize because he is the First Black President, the disgrace is that it’s the American People who voted for him that deserve the prize.
[Too bad so many of those voters were duped by his color, his voice, and a celebratory Press, making this the first Nobel Booby Prize. You gullible fools. ]
Unlike some, I don’t think the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama during his first year in office is all that shocking. For many years the Nobel Peace Prize has been given as much if not more for what the committee hopes recipients will accomplish as for what they’ve already done. Just look at the list of past laureates, and note the years in which particular folks won. The idea is that the prize will enhance the profile and prestige of the recipient, thereby boosting their efforts. So it only makes sense that the Committee would award the prize to a President who has adopted a more conciliatory foreign policy, is seeking to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, is pursuing more aggressive action on climate change, etc. These are policies the committee supports, and awarding the prize to Obama could, in their view, help ensure these policies are adopted and eventually succeed.
The committee is completely wrong, in that Obama’s policies are conciliatory towards thugs and tyrants, not strongly supporting peace, but given their blindness, Adler’s explanation makes perfect sense,
But the thing costing me the most stomach lining at the moment is this video:
[Direct link]
This, folks, is blatant political brainwashing of children. This is the cult of personality. This is worship of the man, not respect for the office. I’m uncomfortable with idolizing Presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. FDR gets far too much credit, and did enormous damage. [Wickard v Filburn. FDR, I spit on your "commerce clause", and I spit on you.] I can only shake my head at the canonization of JFK.
But this kowtowing of children — towards a sitting President who is, frankly, doing everything he can to wreck what remains of Constitutional America — this is appalling and sickening.
Lyrics via Cold Fury, one of the many, many anti-socialist blogs reporting this today. I wonder how many minutes it will get on the evening news. How many inches in tomorrow’s paper.
Anyway, lyrics of deceit, of enslavement, of culthood:
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
segue to
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say “hooray!”
Hooray Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
I weep. “Think of the children”, indeed.
[Of course, the perpetrators of this event, in a public school, must be punished for advertising Obama's middle name, which is only ever done in an attempt to smear him as a Muslim. Right?]
And from Firehand at Irons in the Fire [again, one source among many], this from the public school that performed this despicable act:
Dear Burlington Township Families:
Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.
Sincerely,
Dr. Christopher M. Manno,
Superintendent of Schools
To which Firehand comments:
Notice the recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized line; Translation:”You people weren’t supposed to find out about this.”
Another score for the public school system.
Firehand posted a link, but it’s gone now, along with the entire school website. Overwhelmed? Down the memory hole? Who knows?
[updated and expanded with links for the stuff I'm not covering, but think you should be aware of. Scary stuff, all of it, but at least we're pushing back. ]
This is from memory, while I was driving. Nothing in quotes, therefore, but I think I’m getting the gist.
National Public Radio, talking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy, says that already, a battle is shaping up between two factions: Those who will remember him as a champion of the oppressed, of minorities, of the underprivileged, of the poor; and those who favor his skills as a negotiator, as a compromiser, as a reacher across the aisles.
Nothing, not a word, about remembering the murderer of Mary Jo. Drunkard and a groper. Pal of communist thugs. Destroyer of the Constitution. Enemy of defense. Enemy of self-defense. Nothing about being one of the most hated politicians in America, outside Massachusetts, outside liberal circles, outside the fans of totalitarian statism.
And some say the media is biased. Wow. How short sighted.
Update: Ah, here’s the transcript of the debate between flaming liberal E.J. Dionne and glowing liberal David Brooks:
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:Joining us now, our two political observers: E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times. Welcome back to both of you.
Mr. E. J. DIONNE (Columnist, The Washington Post): Thank you so much.
Mr. DAVID BROOKS (Journalist, The New York Times): Good to be here.
SIEGEL: And we do have some other political developments to talk about. But first, you were both here earlier this week when Senator Kennedy died. You’ve both written about him this week: last thoughts about Ted Kennedy – first E.J.,.
Mr. DIONNE: You know, politics being polarized as it is, people are already arguing about the true meaning of Ted Kennedy’s legacy. On the one side, you have people saying he was an outspoken crusading liberal, a friend of the dispossessed. The other says, he was a warm bipartisan figure who could work with anybody. And of course, he was both of those. He was an empathetic and warm human being who could work with anybody. But he could make deals precisely because he knew what he wanted and where he wanted to move the country. And I think the lesson that Ted Kennedy teaches is that politicians with strong principles are better at compromise than people who don’t know what they really want or what they believe.
SIEGEL: David, you agree with that?
Mr. BROOKS: I do agree with that and he was formed by the constitution. That’s what the constitution wants. We have this, I think since even, since his brother John F. Kennedy, we’ve had the stream of the dominating politician, the charismatic leader who will sweep all before him, and I have to say, I think George Bush and Barack Obama are sort of captured by that image of what a leader is. But if you’re in the Senate in particular you can’t do that. You have to bring people together. It takes a different set of skills, a different set of intelligences.
And it’s a much more team-oriented sport, politics at that level. And I think Kennedy was raised with one style of leadership but emerged to find that he was very talented at the much more team-oriented style of leadership.
Wow, that’s some battle. Fierce. Uncompromising. Takes no prisoners.
Cute little girls in pink PJs have a pillow fight in a pink room.
I believe the Down-Tickling-Her-Button-Nose award goes to E.J., though.
OK, first thing to catch my eye was the title: Since when in the entire history of the human race have families been “simple”?
But OK, I know what the Real Simple folks are trying to doing here: helping to simplify the logistics of caring for your family. As ever, the emotional matters are up to those concerned, and are never as simple as presented on magazine covers.
Then the full impact of the picture hit me, and it is not OK: Yes, to simplify your family, just delete the dad, except possibly his child support and alimony checks.
I know one family “simplified” by the death of husband and father. In that context, the portrayed happiness is little short of obscene.
I know one family “simplified” by divorce, which occurred essentially because the couple involved assumed the dad was, in fact, disposable, save the checks. The man didn’t (and doesn’t) have the slightest idea how to behave as a husband and father.
In neither case do I perceive the lives of those remaining to be noticeably easier for the absence of the father, even an incompetent one.
update:
Incidentally, this picture literally marginalizes boys. Not only does he not have a father, not only is he chopped off below the waist, not only is he wearing the black&white stripped prison shirt, but he’s at the edge of the page. A bit of a nudge, and that pesky, noisy, messy male presence would be gone altogether. On the other hand, of the three, he’s the only one actually doing anything.
[Image is a photo of the front cover of the Annual Family Issue for Fall '09. Apologies for the crappiness; I don't have a functional scanner, so I had to take a picture. I didn't find the cover online, either, not even with TinEye. Attn copyright lawyers: I believe this is fair use for comment and criticism. I don't think anyone will confuse this article as a part of or approved by your magazine, so shove off.]
rickety at name of blog dot com
Please, please let me know if you have problems commenting here. I've put several spam-blockers in place, and I need to know if they are blocking legitimate commenters as well.
Comment Policy
Readers from Poland (.PL domain) please read this post.
See this post for my policy on splogs, blog scraping, and similar automated attacks.
I reserve the right to delete comments or edit them for my evil pleasure. Spammers and trolls beware: by posting here, you consent to being scorned, ridiculed, and libeled.
