They lie. That is almost all they do anymore. They lie in their reportage and then they rub salt into those wounds by lying about the reasons for their reporting decisions.
They all lie, and all from the same script of the same lies.
They lie to your ... face and then warble about their "integrity" and "professionalism," and how all their "experience" and "schooling" has dictated that only they know which stories are important. (Curiously, a frightening high percentage of "important" stories directly advance the interests of the progressive movement.)
They lie, and they lie, and they lie, and then they demand your respect and appreciation for their lies.
What I have learned in 11 years in the sports business is that the dumbest guys in the room are always the media guys.
What I have learned in 11 years in the sports business is that the dumbest guys in the room are always the media guys.
The effects of incompetence build up. With the Left in power and determined to make the most of their chance they’ve tied down the circuit breakers. All at once. Health Care, Cap and Trade, Disarmament, Withdrawal from the Middle East, Cancellation of Wasteful Space Programs, Cancellation of the War on Terror, Open Borders, Gays in the Military, the Stimulus. They’re like a kid in a candy store whose exploits are silently abetted by people like Journolist. Pig away, comrades. Because nothing bad was ever going to happen, right?
“The terrible ‘ifs’ accumulate”. If the Administration had diddled with only a bit at a time the entire system could regain it’s balance before it was tripped up again by the Hope and Change boys in Washington. But no. They removed every support all at once and watched in astonishment — an astonishment that was itself astonishing — while jobs sank, the economy tanks, North Korea flexed its muscles and while Julian Assange made a monkey of them all. They watched their political support vanish, watched respect evaporate and still they doubled down.
And they’re doubling down again on the weakest of possible grounds and on the most irrelevant of issues. Friggin cap ‘n trade. What distinguishes this administration is the sheer inability to pick and choose priorities. They are policy Flatlanders. There is no terrain in their moral universe but the towering mountain of ego.
Asked what it means that voters in Missouri would vote against the federal mandate, Gibbs said: “Nothing.”
As I wrote last Saturday:…[Obama] ignores the wishes of the American people, something neither FDR nor Clinton would ever do…Obama sees the public as his enemy, a stumbling block that he needs to get around if he is ever to reach his goals. For Obama, the public is an entity to deceive and manipulate if possible, and he regards it contemptuously rather than respectfully. He no longer needs to inspire people. He just needs to exercise power over them.
And the despicable Gibbs is the perfect mouthpiece for that sentiment.
“So when my husband and I came to America, we heard a story about conservatives. We heard that these conservatives are a really really weird lot. Nutjobs, basically. And these conservatives, they’re obsessed with sex. They’re obsessed with sex and they’re obsessed with what you’re doing in your bedroom. It’s all they think about. They’re just constantly worrying about what you’re up to in your bedroom.
But you know something? Since we’ve moved here, we haven’t found that. But what we have found is that liberals, are in every other room in your house. They’re in the fridge. They’re in your car. They’re in your air miles. They’re in your clothes. They’re in your hair. They’re in your cleaning products, and your washing machine and the refrigerator. They’re all over the place! And they’re in your light bulb! And I want to say them .. This is America! Get out of my light bulb!"
In her first season of swim team in the 8 and under group, she has successfully competed in every category offered in her age group: medley relay, free style relay, individual free, fly, breast, and back. Today she completed the individual medley race. Here is a picture of her during that race. She completed 25 meters each in fly, back, breast, and free!
When [NAACP leader] Jealous defends himself [and the NAACP] by claiming to have been "snookered" by Breitbart, it calls to mind the politician caught in a sex scandal who says: "Yeah, I slept with the girl. But you can't believe her, she's a prostitute!" Far from being exculpatory, the accusation against the accuser makes the admission even more incriminating, especially if the accusation is true.
On the surface, Breitbart's attempt to expose the NAACP as corrupt was a spectacular failure. His charge against Shirley Sherrod turned out to be false. The corollary charge against the NAACP was false in this instance.
Yet the NAACP's leaders rushed to the conclusion that it was true. To the extent that they did so because they had faith in Breitbart's credibility, they merely acted stupidly. To the extent that they did so because the charge rang true to them, their behavior suggests that there is truth to the broader accusation of corruption.
The NAACP's actions in this matter have not been what one would expect from an organization that is confident in its own integrity. We surmise that Jealous and his colleagues don't want you to think about that, and that this is why they are so eager to shift the blame to those who "snookered" them.
Journolisters started debating whether the media should report on Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan’s ties to radical Islamist terrorists. When Luke Mitchell of Harper’s argued that reporting on the ties would lead to something “alarmingly dangerous, such as the idea that there is a large conspiracy of Islamists at work in the United States,” Surowiecki reminded Mitchell and others of the entire purpose of journalism, emphasis mine:
“I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that an accurate description of what happened is somehow pointless,” Surowiecki said. “That is, that it’s not useful to offer up an accurate picture of Hasan’s actions because nothing obvious follows from it. We want, as much as possible, to have a clear picture of what’s actually going on in the world. Describing Hasan as a violent Islamist terrorist is much closer to the truth than describing him as a disturbed individual.”
One has to wonder why a journalist from Harper’s — and other publications — would need that reminder....
We have spent the past two years pursuing the policies that failed in the 1970s, such as large government interventions in labor and goods markets and the imposition of massive regulatory regimes intended to manage the economy from the top down. We’re ignoring the policies that succeeded in the 1980s that eventually provided the antidote to the Keynesianism of the Nixon-Ford-Carter years, and that touched off a massive expansion of the American economy.
The semi-annual review shows that the Obama administration still hasn’t learned its lesson. It’s akin to having a money-losing product but trying to convince the bank that you can make up the losses in volume sales. At its heart, Obamanomics holds a central flaw: the idea that government acts as a multiplier to capital rather than a diluter and destructor of capital. The more capital it confiscates for its central-planning economics, the less we have for real growth. Some government oversight is necessary to prevent fraud and theft, but even that doesn’t act as a multiplier for the capital it consumes; it’s merely the rational cost of doing business.
Barack Obama still hasn’t learned that, but the voters have begun to figure it out.
The emerging picture of the Journolist is that it served as a place where like-minded people who had great influence on how the media portrayed events were able to coordinate their story lines for the benefit of the Obama campaign.
We saw the media bias on the surface; the Journolistas helped frame that bias below the surface.
Even among educated liberals, few have more than a single-layered view of conservatism. They may know the conservative argument superficially, and they are armed with their own objections, but they are ignorant of how conservatives would respond to their objections. This is worse than knowing nothing at all, as it gives liberals the false impression that they have addressed and defeated conservatism. Yet they have only conquered a Potemkin village, where the people are thin and false.
[...]
Liberals consistently misinterpret what motivates conservatives because they really cannot see the world from the conservative perspective. Liberals cannot imagine that Tea Partiers are really motivated by concern for their country….
Thus, the Theory of the Missing Motive applies. Unable to see a rational and noble motive at the center of the Tea Party movement, liberals supply a darker and more convenient motive instead. Just as ancient cartographers wrote "there be dragons here" beyond the bounds of the world they knew, so liberals write "there be racism here" because the mind of the Tea Partier is undiscovered country in their map of the world. The Tea Party cannot be rationally and nobly motivated, the liberal believes, because the Tea Partiers are not rational and noble.
In other words, the problem is not that liberals dislike the principles promoted at Tea Party rallies. Most do not understand those principles. The problem is that liberals dislike the kind of people who go to Tea Party rallies.
Long before liberals rejected the placards, they rejected the people holding them.
"I don't think you can be a journalist and carry water for a politician, and that's what they were doing: 'Here's the line on Palin.' . . . These are political hacks, and I think they should stop calling themselves journalists. It discredits the rest of us."
"But there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans -- including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"But there is no escaping the fact that some of the list's liberal literati come off sounding like cagey political operatives."
A large part of Tamara's appeal generates from the balance, happiness, and energy which she derives from her yoga practice. Decent, well adjusted, regular American girls are more appealing than most of the celebrities which our culture celebrates. Tamara is more appealing than most any actress or model we could name (and is equally appealing with the rest!).I was raised in Lebanon where I was taught that the Jews are evil, Israel is the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea...
Palestinians—and for that matter much of the Middle East—are driven to militancy and war not by legitimate complaints against Israel or the West but by an internalized sense of inferiority. If the Palestinians got everything they want—a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon—they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man.
And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity—no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity.
In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem. This must have much to do with why Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's famous Camp David offer of 2000 in which Israel offered more than 90% of what the Palestinians had demanded. To have accepted that offer would have been to forgo hatred as consolation and meaning. Thus it would have plunged the Palestinians—and by implication the broader Muslim world—into a confrontation with their inferiority relative to modernity. Arafat knew that without the Jews to hate an all-defining cohesion would leave the Muslim world. So he said no to peace.
And this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today—whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel—admonish it to behave better—so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there.
It is accepted constitutional law (whether you agree or not, it's accepted) that states cannot pass laws which conflict with federal law in areas of federal jurisdiction.
In this case, however, the Arizona law does not conflict with federal law; it in fact restates it.
[...]
So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?
Can the feds basically argue that it's their policy to ignore the law and then demand that Arizona be instructed by the Supreme Court to follow them in their policy of ignoring the law?
"I hate white people! All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate em.
[...]
You want freedom? You gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of they babies!"
While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites.
[...]
Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. DoJ attorneys openly criticized the Panther case, objecting not to any lack of evidence or to the legal arguments but to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants. In 2005, for example, Coates pursued, filed, and won a case (upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in 2009) of egregious voter discrimination by black officials in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Colleagues criticized Coates for filing the case and refused to work on it.
Liberal civil rights lawyers argue that because “a history of official discrimination” can be one subsidiary factor in voting cases it “wipes out every other factor” and prohibits cases from being brought against blacks. And further, that since “socio-economic” factors can be considered in determining whether voting discrimination has occurred, these cases cannot be brought against black defendants until there is economic parity between blacks and whites. Such attorneys use phrases like “traditional civil rights cases” and “traditional civil rights victims” to signal that only minority victims and white perpetrators concern them. Justice sources tell me that career attorneys have been “assured” that cases against minority defendants won’t be brought.
"Everything has already been said, and well said; but one must always recall it anew." .... -Frithjof Schuon
Posts
All Comments
