Liberals Loving Murderous Dictators--A Short History

With the long overdue death of Fidel Castro, we finally get a chance to peek inside the minds of liberals and see how they tick. Generally, what we are seeing is well hidden and dressed up to look like what it is not, lipstick on a pig essentially. But when an event of this magnitude occurs, they really can't control themselves.

The latest version seems shocking because it's been a long time since we saw the behavior. It started when Canadian PM Justin Trudeau eulogized Castro thusly:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President. 

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. 

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”. 

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba. 

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

That is what you call instant revisionist history. There is nothing in that press release that is remotely true except that he was larger than life and a good orator. But note the line about education and healthcare. That will be a recurring theme. 

It continues on with Obama, Kerry, Carter and the head of the UN Ban ki-moon.

It's embarrassing actually but the left always loved Castro for several reasons, which I'll get into in a second. 

Let's go back and look at the history of liberals supporting communist dictators. We can start with the overthrow of the Russian Czar and the first really true experiment where communism was instilled on a massive scale. From the beginning liberals trumpeted the successes of Soviet communism. From Lenin through Stalin and finally with Gorbachev, they would do anything they had to do to put a pretty face on the ideology. 

The most famous example was NY Times writer Walter Duranty. He was the Times' man in Moscow and he was an unabashed communist. Stalin didn't need to sell propaganda, all he had to do was direct Duranty and a few days later glowing reports would show up in the Times. Meanwhile, Stalin was exiling normal Russians to the gulags in Siberia or allowing millions to starve in Ukraine. Wrote Mark Herring:

After these stories, Duranty got an interview with Lucifer incarnate, Stalin himself. In the interview, Duranty praised Stalin's progressive ideals, his firm control of a wild country, and his brilliant political instincts. Stalin came out of the subsequent story a world figure on the order of Roosevelt or Churchill. 

Duranty had accomplished the impossible: he had taken a mere thug whose bloodshed was unparalleled in Europe at the time, and unsurpassed until Mao, and lifted him to the status of world leader, superpower. What Duranty had done for Stalin did not begin to compare with what Stalin did for Duranty. Once the story appeared, Duranty went from well-known reporter to world-class celebrity. 

For the record, Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting that the Times to this day has refused to return. He was just the most notable of what Lenin allegedly called the "useful idiots"--westerners who would parrot his talking points and defend communism.

It continued and in 1959 a revolution was going on 90 miles from the shores of the US. A vile despot named Batista was overthrown by young communist revolutionary who enlisted the help of a murderous doctor named Che Guevara. The media fawned over the new Cuban leader and then they started hiding his atrocities. This continued through the early sixties when several ill-fated attempts by the US to take him out eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Throughout the 1970's, Castro continued his iron grip and Cubans continued to float to the US. Liberal writers wrote loving stories of how cute it is that Cubans all drive 1950's cars and have excellent healthcare and education. They reported on the nightlife in Havana and exulted Castro while ignoring his atrocities and the overall drab existence and utter despair of the people the system was supposed to protect. 

Meanwhile, communism was destroying nations and killing millions of people. From Vietnam to Cambodia, from North Korea to South America the hateful ideology brought only death and misery. But the liberal media didn't cover it that way. Not until the real terror of the Cambodian killing fields were exposed were they forced to report the truth and then they blamed the man--Pol Pot--but defended the ideology. 

Which brings us to the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. 

While the world rejoiced when the Berlin Wall came down and Poland was freed, liberals were upset.  They blamed Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. They said that Soviet Communism didn't prove the failure of the ideology but indeed proved that it was put into practice wrong. It would work if implemented correctly they argued then and still do. 

So here we are today, we have liberals and the media (but I'm redundant) already revising the the dictatorship of a murderous thug who raped, killed and destroyed. You will start seeing more and more of these stories eventually leading to t-shirts with an iconic picture of Castro being worn by uneducated college kids. 

The NY Times Say They Treated Trump Fair

I know it's bullshit and you know it's bullshit because the NY Times says this every single time they end up looking like complete idiots. The Times tries to tell people that they missed out on what was happening in America but then say they feel they were fair. No they were not and that is what makes them irrelevant. Where they were once the main purveyor of what you were fed by the networks when it comes to news, people now are turning to alternate sources. The NY Observer, Drudge, Breitbart and others are reporting what the Times (and Washington Post) does not and once people realized they didn't have to rely on the MSM they decided they would ignore them.

Hilarious right? The Times swears they played fair and will play it straight with President Trump but they didn't play fair at all. Negative coverage of Trump was ten times the positive and the exact opposite was true of Hillary. If the Times asked what people really thought about Benghazi or the email scandal, they may not have been caught so flat-footed. 

Perhaps if the Times actually sent reporters out past the Hudson River or farther south than DC, they would've gotten an idea what the American people really think. Their pre-conceived notions jibed exactly with Hillary's; the basket of deplorables really exists and they are not as smart, equated nor cool as we are because we are the elites. 

Why do you think everyone on the left thought this was going to a Hillary blowout? Because they got their news from the NY Times. 

The "Most Transparent Administration Ever" Is Pretty Opaque

Let's go into the way back machine and travel back to when Obama said this:

That, of course was an enormous lie but one that only right-leaning media called him out on. The mainstream media just nodded their heads like the good lapdogs they are even thought they should be the most concerned.

From Benghazi to Obama transcripts to the Osama bin-Laden raid and a zillion other instances, this administration has repeatedly stone walled everyone. It's taken numerous lawsuits by numerous sources to get anything released and then they violate the law by not releasing everything they should. FOIA requests are laughed at and important info is redacted.

Now we see another instance in which Honduran citizens were killed in a drug raid by the DEA:

WASHINGTON — Justice Department watchdogs ran into an unexpected roadblock last year when they began examining the role of federal drug agents in the fatal shootings of unarmed civilians during raids in Honduras.
The Drug Enforcement Administration balked at turning over emails from senior officials tied to the raids, according to the department’s inspector general. It took nearly a year of wrangling before the D.E.A. was willing to turn over all its records in a case that the inspector general said raised “serious questions” about agents’ use of deadly force.
The continuing Honduran inquiry is one of at least 20 investigations across the government that have been slowed, stymied or sometimes closed because of a long-simmering dispute between the Obama administration and its own watchdogs over the shrinking access of inspectors general to confidential records, according to records and interviews.

This is from the NY Times who finally is fighting back because A) They've done their job and helped Obama get two terms and B) Can now use this to say they are fair and balanced. Imagine if they had put the same amount of energy into investigating Obama back in 2008...

Aside from that, this is a huge issue for the nation. Without the accountability of our elected "leaders" we have no democracy. The only way we can have accountability is by knowing the facts. The only way we can learn the facts is if they are released to the public as the laws stipulate. Yes, I understand redacting sensitive information but using that tactic to cover up non-sensitive information that may be an issue is anti-American.

The Hillary e-mail scandal is a big deal exactly because of this. Government workers are required to use government computer networks because it makes them accountable. Hillary knew this and bypassed the system to hide information and then deleted 30,000 emails that she--not the American people--determined were not of any interest to the citizenry.

Here's the only question I have for those who defend Obama and Hillary on their breaking the law and hiding information from us: How would you feel if a President Trump or Cruz did the same exact thing?

NY Times & Obama Conduct Investigations; Find Selves Innocent

Now I feel better:

According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. 

Writing for the periodical Politics and Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?” I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.

Shocker, the Times actually conducted a study to determine they were nicer to The One than Bush or Reagan. I guess even those who work for the Times don't read the Times. Anyway, I'm guessing the investigation I emphasized above went something like this:

Investigator: Do you consider yourself an unbiased writer and do you consider what you write for the Times to be unbiased?

Reporter or Editor (wearing an Obama 2012 button): Yes.

Investigator: Thanks for your time. Glad we cleared that up.

But it gets better. The Obama staff conducted their own internal investigation into whether or not anyone on said staff was involved in the hooker fiasco in Cartagena Colombia:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that White House legal counsel has concluded no White House staff engaged in any "misconduct" in Cartagena. 

"The decision to conduct a review here, internally, was simply done out of due diligence," Carney said. "There is no indication of any misconduct by any member of the White House advance team or staff." 

He added that "there have been no specific, credible allegations of misconduct by anyone on the White House advance team or White House staff." Carney refused to give any details on the investigation, such as whether the investigation included checking hotel records in Colombia or interviewing the White House advance team that went to Cartagena. 

"There's no point in getting into the details of this internal review except to say that it was conducted," he said.

In summation, Carney said "we investigated ourselves and found ourselves to have been completely innocent of any charges". Well thanks for that, Jay. Case closed, nothing to see here.

And so we have the Obama years in a nutshell; his Justice Department have been involved in a major operation where guns were allowed to be sold to drug dealers and taken into Mexico and then ended up killing a federal agent. His Energy Department allowed tax dollars to be distributed to companies that had extremely questionable business plans and billions were lost. Add to that myriad other irregularities that would have dogged Bush and Reagan for years and you can see that story one about the Times bias is a bag full of bullshit because if they even remotely dug into story two or the others I've listed (not to belabor this point but one included the death of a federal agent by a US gun sold with the consent of Obama's top cop), we'd be looking at Obama climbing up out of the lowest approval numbers for any incumbent, ever. Er, never mind.

Pinch Sulzberger: The Ultimate One Percenter

To be clear, us on the right enjoy the schadenfreude of the NY Times staffers suffering.

Today we have the latest example of the Times treating their employees exactly like liberals accuse people like Mitt Romney of treating his employees.

Let's start with this little tidbit:

The letter calls attention to several grievances. Last week, Times brass notified foreign citizens employed in the paper's overseas bureaus that their pensions would be frozen. In the letter, Times staffers dismayed by this decision point out to Sulzberger that some of these foreign employees, working alongside Times reporters in war zones, have "risked their lives so that we can do our jobs."

The open letter may have been prompted by this and other recent decisions, but it brought to the surface long-simmering tensions. In the past several years, staffers have faced temporary pay cuts, layoffs, and buyouts. They have worked since March without a new contract. Regarding ongoing negotiations, the letter notes that Sulzberger's "negotiators have demanded a freeze of our pension plan and an end to our independent health insurance." O'Meara said staffers did not receive a raise this year.

Hmmm, Sudden freezing of pensions, no raises, not negotiating with unions...sounds suspiciously like something the Times would write a scathing piece on if it were a corporation doing the same thing. Shall we continue?

The letter also mentions that a member of "senior management" is now leaving with "a very generous severance and retirement package, including full pension benefits." Indeed, outgoing CEO Janet Robinson -- the unnamed executive-- will reportedly take home a $15 million exit package, according to Reuters. Times staffers with stock options have seen the share price drop from over $35 at the beginning of Robinson's tenure in 2003 to less than $8 at opening on Tuesday

Wow, a woman helped run the company into the ground and still landed softly thanks to her "golden parachute" at the expense of the--dare I say it--99%? $15-million is definitely in 1% territory I'm guessing.

Yet, nothing will come of this because liberals are, well, liberals. This from the beginning of the article:

New York Times staffers unhappy with management are letting publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. know it. In recent days, more than 270 current and former Times employees have signed an open letter expressing their "profound dismay" with recent company decisions.

Bill O'Meara, president of the New York Newspaper Guild, said some staffers had considered even "more dramatic" actions.

What dramatic actions could they undertake? You know none of the staffers will sleep in a park or protest on Pinch's lawn so what options were available? They could have not made a pot of coffee after taking the last cup or not laughed at a classic Pinch joke. Or they could have followed the UN and Obama's lead and wrote another Strongly Worded Letter showing their utter disgust.

No, they almost staged a protest and stormed Pinch's office and, and, and...do nothing. Instead they almost opted to (gasp) walk out:

"There were people who wanted to storm Arthur Sulzberger's office," O'Meara told The Huffington Post. "There were people who wanted to stage a walkout."

For now, Times staffers opted for the letter, which was composed in the newsroom and posted online by the guild at saveourtimes.com. Since last week, hundreds of current staffers -- from metro reporters to foreign correspondents, arts critics to web producers -- and several Times alumni have continued adding their names.

Yeah, nothing says I'm mad as hell and not going to take it like posting a letter on an obscure website and having people add their names.

Thank God our freedom doesn't depend on these pussies.

The Difference Between "Allies" and "allies"

What is the difference between these two:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed numerous resolutions over the course of more than ten years that were not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Or:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed one resolution that was not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Answer? Nothing really except the former was a description of the Iraq War in 2003 and was labeled a "rush to war" by the media. It was also described continuously as a "unilateral" action which included 46-49 countries depending on the who counted.

The latter was a description of events that occurred just this week and is being described as a multinational operation that included less than 25% of those in the Iraq forces. These are described in the MSM as attacks by "allies". Here's the Philly Inquirer front page:
Also, note that there's a propaganda effect from the MSM reporting and they actually are touting the speed in which we got this action together.

Just so you understand exactly where the liberal media stand, taking your case to the UN to oust a tyrant over the course of months and laying out each individual piece of evidence and showing numerous instances of flouting previous resolutions while building a coalition of nearly 50 nations is considered a "rush to war". Cobbling together four or five nations and rushing a resolution through the Security Council then bombing within 24-hours of its passage is a thoughtful process that met all the requirements for world opinion to be considered.

Allow me to quote the vaunted NY Times in October of 2002--four months before the coalition invaded Iraq:

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ''is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Or this at the beginning of hostilities:

The United States cannot defeat Al Qaeda without the help of dozens of other nations. The same principle applies to Iraq. President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.

Note that this was with a coalition of nearly 50 nations. BTW, Where is the plan from Senator Kerry to "win the peace" before starting military actions?

One imagines there will not be a 61% discount granted to anti-war groups to protest Obama's flagrant disregard of the world community as there was when President bush was in office.

It's all farce. I support our troops and wish them all God speed but the media has once again failed the standard they supposedly live up to.

I leave you with the NY Times blatant propaganda in support of the Obama administration. In Iraq, the US led the invasion to oust that particular brutal dictator and the word "allies" never appeared. Obama voted "present" on this issue and joined only because to do so would have made America seem even more irrelevant in the eyes of the world and we have this headline:

U.S. and Allies Strike Libya

Obama Knows Not to Alienate a Huge Part of the Electorate

The NY Times saying that Obama developed a strategy of meshing the Tea Party with the GOP. Now, while that may be abhorrent to the GOP establishment, to most Americans that would be an asset, not a liability.

Obama quickly back-tracked and slammed the Times for the report (even though everyone knows his administration floated the balloon out there and got unwelcome feedback). He knew that he had to choose between pissing off the Times and giving the GOP ammunition. He knows the Times will stay with him like the proverbial abused spouse whose husband swears he'll never hit her again and believes him...until the next time he ties one on and comes home with a little rage from his job.

The strategy would be an epic failure and someone with an iota of brains--a rarity in this administration--thought better of it and decided to hang the Times out to dry.

Be ready for much more of these trial balloons.

Gutless NYT Hack Slams the Bravest Woman Alive

Nicholas Kristof has always been a solipsistic little prick. His writing always trended to the grandiose and was aimed at elitist's who would tell their friends in Manhattan what a genius he is. That pretty much describes the entire staff of the opinion section in the Times but I digress. The fact that the Wall Street Journal is destroying the Times and pretty much no one actually pays attention to the op-ed section except for laughs is beside the point.

Most times he's one of those guys real thinking people ignore except in that rare instance he actually writes something intelligent but this time he needs to be focused on like a laser. This time he went after a woman who exhibits more guts on a daily basis than the douchebag Kristof has in his entire petty existence.

The beautiful and brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been marked for death for leaving Islam and was directly named as the next target when radical Islamist savages murdered film producer Theo van Gogh. She suffered through genital mutilation at age five and escaped an arranged marriage set up by her own father. She's had to live in fear everyday while the impish Kristof was eating at Elaine's and bravely impugning Bush twice a week. The most danger he's faced was getting in front of fellow columnist Frank Rich at the Christmas party buffet.

Andrew Roberts takes down the dickhead in what is the must-read of the day.

Here's a Pamela Geller post from a few years ago that describes just how much liberals can't come to grips with Ali.

Saturday Morning News & Notes

Off to Pace, Florida for the USSSA Baseball World Series with my boy. Exciting times for a 13-year old.

Here's what's new.

-Comparing the cowboy code to the left code. I'll take the cowboy code every single time.

-The Russians aren't too happy about the South Park portrayal of Vlad Putin. Lighten up, Vladimir.

-NY Times writer David Brooks says a GOP senator had "his hand on my inner thigh" during a "whole" dinner party. Er, David, why would you let him leave it there unless of course you liked it, which would make the question moot.

-We are if desperate of another Reagan while the Brits could surely use another Thatcher. Unfortunately, on the US side of the pond we are in short supply of Conservatives save Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.

-DHS sneaking toward open borders. Amnesty and decreased regulatory authority are on the way.

-Obama set to give the "rich" a good soaking. Socialism lives in the US.

-Government Motors making life miserable for private, non-government-owned entities. The administration is seeking to destroy all industry in one way or another.

-Update: It seems as though I'm sensing more buyers remorse than previously. Kilroy seems to be experiencing it but more importantly, he joins the numerous Obama supporters who are realizing the stimulus was a bad idea the way it was constructed.

More On Maureen Biden Dowd

I thought for sure we see some entrepeneurial blogger find another incidence of MoDo stealing from blogs but then it hit me: no self-respecting blogger would be caught dead writing anything she'd want to steal or would fit her style...except Josh Marshall that is.

Maureen Dowd Plagiarizes Blogger

The end of the NY Times op/ed page is upon us. I say this with great glee and in full enjoyment of the schadenfreude. See here where it clearly shows Dowd straight up stole the words of TPM's Josh Marshall. TPM lays it out in all its glory:

Now, I'm all for cutting & pasting. As a blogger I do it all the time, but I always give credit.

So, if this isn't outright plagiarism by a top NY Times Editorialist, than I'm a happily married, straight man with 4 kids, 2 dogs, a lovely 2nd wife of 15 years with a girl half my age on the side.

Which I assure you all, I am not.

Dowd, of course, gives a weak response to the charge:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in an email to Huffington Post, admits that a paragraph in her Sunday column was lifted from Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall's blog last Thursday.

Dowd claims that she never read his blog last week but was told the line by a friend of hers. In a follow-up email, she forwarded her desire to apologize to Marshall, writing that had she known, she would have gladly credited Marshall.

Dowd notes that the Times is fixing her column online to give proper credit to Marshall and that a correction will run tomorrow...

She heard the line and remembered it nearly verbatim and used it in a column? Uh, okay MoDo.

Note in the TPM link she was all over Biden for stealing the words of Neil Kinnock so the hypocrisy level is somewhere close to an eleven.

I've always been a huge believer that Dowd has mailed it in. Now I'm sure. Much better writers have been fired for less than this.

Old media gets done in by new media again.

Update: What he said.

Selena Roberts is Smearing A-Rod

Now I'm no Yankee fan--in fact, where I grew up most kids first words were "mama" or "dada", mine were "Giants suck". I hate NY sports teams with a passion that may be borderline insane. You have to live here to understand it.

That said, I still must stand up for A-Rod as he's facing the worst smear job of his career. Yes, he shamed the game by using steroids but the latest allegations are a different story and the person making those allegations is the same one who tried and convicted the Duke lacrosse players before they even were able to speak before a judge. Once they were exonerated, she never once wrote a word retracting her slurs or apologizing to the players. She ruined the lives of three young men because they were rich, white and, well, men.

That person is former NY Times reporter Selena Roberts. She's the first to write anything bad involving a male athlete because she's a typical hypocritical women's libber.

Here's a great quote from the excellent piece by Jason Whitlock in the Kansas City Star:

Instead, she moved on to Sports Illustrated, a seat on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters” and a new target, baseball slugger Alex Rodriguez.

Last week, the New York Daily News and The New York Times acquired “leaked” copies of Roberts’ soon-to-be-released biography, “A-Rod.” In it, according to the two New York newspapers, Roberts paints a highly unflattering picture of Rodriguez as a human being and, among other things, speculates that Rodriguez used steroids in high school.

Roberts’ speculative opinions are deemed as so credible by ESPN and others that the Worldwide Leader ran all-day updates stating that Selena Roberts believes that it’s “irrefutable” that Rodriguez used performance-enhancing drugs while a teenager.

At no point did ESPN’s TV anchors or radio broadcasters mention that Roberts was the same person who led the media charge against the Duke lacrosse players. I listened to Roberts’ interview on Dan Patrick’s radio show. Patrick never asked her about Duke lacrosse or why we should trust her reporting.

In its news story about her book, The New York Times failed to allude to her position on the Duke lacrosse case:

“Some of the accusations in the book are based on anonymous sources, and others are simply presented as knowledge the author has without an explanation of how the information was obtained.”

And that is essentially the Times M.O. for all stories critical of men, the Masters, Republicans and anyone else that is not a terrorist, abortionist or Democrat.

I think I hate Selena Roberts more now than ever because she made me defend a scumbag like A-Rod. Plus, she seems a bit creepy and bizarre.

Wednesday Evening News & Notes

Busy so I'll just throw headlines at ya.

-Earth Day Philly Style.

-The NY Times: All the news that fits to print online (where fewer people will see it).

-I shudder to think what could make a successful 41-year old exec at Freddie Mac, with a five-year old daughter commit suicide. That little girl will be scarred for life by the selfish actions of the man.

-The Yankees are having some serious attendance problems. The highest priced seat in San Diego is $69. The Yankees is well over $2,000.

-The dreadful result of higher taxes. Obama should pay heed but won't because, well, he's The One.

-Mealy-mouthed on torture.

-Those damn misogynistic and racist high school exit exams. Have they no shame?

-Terri's take on Earth Day is worth a read. Hey Terri, it's getting to be bathing suit weather. I expect more pix this year.

Monday Night News & Notes

A cold spring thus far with temps in the low fifties and a lot of rain lately. i wish it would just get warm and stay warm.

Anyway, waiting for the next episode of 24 and catching up on the daily news of the day. Also, my son bought a bearded dragon like the one pictured at right yesterday. It's a prety cool lizard unless you're a cricket, which he devours with gusto.

Here's what I found interesting today:

-Sweetness and Light takes the NY Times to task for their latest instance of shoddy reporting. Thank God they have good fact-checkers, eh?

-The environmentalists forced the military to stop using lead ammo during practice because of the hazards of lead in the soil. They were required to use a "green" bullet that was made of supposedly less-hazardous constituents. It turns out they are carcinogenic and may cause even more harm to the environment and people. Classic environmental insanity, y'all. I hope i get the contract to clean these sites up.

-Anyone with an iota of sense could have told you that corn-based ethanol was a horrid idea. It's expensive, causes spikes in food prices and doesn't do a damn thing to combat supposed global warming. Congress included it in the last energy bill as a sop to the agriculture industry. Plus it does major damage to engines.

-Spinning the vast increase in ice in the Antarctic. These people will never go away, will they?

-A curse-filled "fisking". I like curse-filled fiskings a lot; especially when it includes sentiments such as : "Well the best part of you trickled down your mothers leg after the fleet left town."

-Hundred of thousands turn out for the Tea Parties and the media says nothing. Less than fifty turn out supporting gun control and it's big news. I feel bad for those who died at Columbine ten years ago but the two killers would have found a way to kill even if they didn't have access to guns.

Bill Keller Puts Things in Perspective

Let's see: a genocide where women are routinely raped, people are randomly murdered and a group of people are suffering a holocaust not seen in decades versus saving a left-wing rag. Yeah, they seem comparable:

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, the failure of the NY Times would be the equivalent of the Janjaweed committing state-sponsored terrorism. I see where Keller's coming from...or not.

What's next, the bankruptcy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer compared to the Rwandan genocide? You know, the bankruptcy of the Philly Inquirer immediately brought to mind the release of chemical weapons on Halabja by Saddam.

Is Bill Keller even real? If the Times fails, the only people who would give a damn are liberals in DC, the upper West Side of Manhattan and San Francisco. Does Keller have an iota of conscience that would make him realize just how insensitive and stupid that statement is? Evidently not.

Pretty fucking shameful but about what I expect from the Times editorial staff.

So, let's look at the scorecard comparing the rescue of the NY Times and the situation in Darfur, shall we?



Versus:

I would say saving the jobs of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bill Keller far outweigh the saving of human lives in Darfur, wouldn't you?

Saturday Morning News & Notes

Happy spring.

Here's what's new:

-Another Obama insider is implicated in some shady business practices. Say it with me: The. Most. Ethical. Administration. Ever.

-Obama and Pelosi have essentially given the finger to Colombian President Uribe who was seeking a trade agreement with us and that Bush was trying to forge. Now they are turning their eyes elsewhere to our detriment.

-The NY Times is outraged, outraged I tell you, that conservative governors would turn down money that will destroy their long-term economies. I can't wait for the Times to fail.

-I was golden after day one of the tourney but got absolutely pummeled yesterday where upsets reigned. Currently 25 of 32 but have my final four still intact with Pitt, UNC, Louisville and Memphis. I have Memphis to win it all.

-Update: Only ten gaffes by Biden and Obama? I can think of about twenty more.

Is Rupert Murdoch Making a Move on NY Times?

He had a down year overall but Rupert Murdoch is flush with money from other sources and may be ogling the NY Times again:

NEW YORK -- Rupert Murdoch's counterintuitive quest to invest in print media helped drive away longtime lieutenant Peter Chernin.

And now that Chernin can't intercede, does Murdoch want to follow News Corp.'s $5 billion buyout of Dow Jones by gobbling up the struggling New York Times Co.?

The answer appears to be yes, as impossible as present economic conditions make it for most deals of any kind to get done.

What's more, incredulous News Corp. insiders say Murdoch's love of print media is so fervent that he's also been talking about a play for the Los Angeles Times, which could make easier prey for several reasons.

The NY Times and LA Times? Sweet. Perhaps each of them will once again be the papers they were--excellent examples of what a daily can be.

Chances are slim as outlined in the story as the Sulzberger's have ultimate control but the times has been bleeding money over the last several years and it doesn't appear as though they can stop it save applying a tourniquet and allowing other portions of the corporation to develop gangrene and die.

Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal has made that paper better and he could do wonders with the Times resources. He could assign an editor who would bring some balance to the opinion pages and remake the International Herald Tribune into the leading paper of the world.

It may be a dream but it sure would be nice to see Murdoch make a move after sorting through the legal hurdles--hurdles that will be utilized by Democrats at every turn.

Tuesday Night News and Notes

It's snowing nicely in South Jersey, not sticking to the roads but lying on the lawns.

Thngs I found pretty funny today:

I find it funny that liberals are the only ones that care what the NY Times Editorial Board writes and actually will quit because of those words.

I find it funny that when the aforementioned guy quit, he did so emotionally to Andrea Mitchell who no one has taken seriously for years except liberals.

I find it funny that Katie Couric thought she had the scoop of interviewing hero Captain Sullenberger first and ESPN's Ricky Reilly beat her to it.

I find it funny that Dem tax cheats are falling left and right and we can all sit back and make fun of them in clever ways.

I find it funny that shady Democrat Senators feel the need to tell us that Rush Limbaugh has 1st Amendment rights and can criticize Obama.

I find it funny that Hollywood continues to make anti-Bush movies that crash and burn stupendously.

The Hypocritical Dreamworld of Maureen Dowd

Maureen Dowd has always lived in this kinda dream world where Republicans are always bad, Democrats are always good and she acts and writes like she's perpetually fifteen. Her world is a bubble that includes the entire upper East Side but of course stops well before the Bronx. I tend to not read her stuff anymore because it's kind of embarrassing that a) she actually gets paid to write for the NY Times and b) has received awards for doing so.

Anyway, MoDo brings us these highly intellectual words today:

Now that we’re nationalizing, couldn’t we fire any obtuse bankers and auto executives who cling to perks and bonuses even as the economy is following John Thain down his antique commode?

Perhaps MoDo ought to read something besides the New Yorker and Vanity Fair because the Ivory Tower she writes from is teetering like the Leaning Tower of Pisa:

The New York Times Co. said Wednesday that ad revenue at its news media properties dropped 15.8 percent in December as the recession weighed on what is usually a lucrative holiday season.

December's reduction from a year earlier wasn't as steep as the 17.2 percent drop in October and 21.8 percent in November.

For the quarter, total ad revenue at the company fell 17.6 percent, with an 18.4 percent loss in the news media unit alone.

Or this:

The New York Times Co. said Wednesday that fourth-quarter earnings plunged 48 percent and online sales fell for the first time as the recession depressed spending by advertisers. The results still beat analyst estimates, and its shares rose almost 5 percent.

The Times also announced it has retained investment firm Goldman Sachs to help explore a sale of its 17.8 percent stake in New England Sports Ventures, which owns the Boston Red Sox baseball team, Fenway Park, a portion of a cable sports network and other properties.

It appears that MoDo doesn't even read anything about the precarious state of her employer. Maybe she puts her hands over her ears and says "na na na na" real loud so she doesn't have to listen. I mean, were she paying attention, she might not have written this:

The former masters of the universe don’t seem to fully comprehend that their universe has crumbled and, thanks to them, so has ours. Real people are losing real jobs at Caterpillar, Home Depot and Sprint Nextel; these and other companies announced on Monday that they would cut more than 75,000 jobs in the U.S. and around the world, as consumer confidence and home prices swan-dived.

It would appear that MoDo's boss Pinch is dangerously close to earning the title of "former master of the universe" himself. Without an injection of $250-million from a shady Mexican businessman MoDo may have found herself writing for the Toledo Blade.

I guess Maureen didn't take notice that people have been losing their jobs at the Times as well and in big numbers. Those workers are "real people...losing real jobs"

With today's news, I'm guessing that people who have jobs like assistant to Maureen Dowd will lose their jobs. This might be a good thing because MoDo will have to leave her office to get her own damn latte and may notice that there's only about ten people still actually receiving a paycheck from Pinch.

Exit question: What does it say about the business that the NY Post and WSJ are faring much better in the current environment?

Saturday Afternoon News and Notes

How's everybody doing? here's what's going on:

The NY Post is having too much fun reporting on the NY Times credit rating getting slashed to junk status.

Obama's Little Red Book? Remind you of anything? Alright, these people are just plain creepy right about now.

Liz Sidoti gives Obama a "Lewinsky". These people are shameless.

Things you didn't know you didn't know.

Huh, more misleading data on global warming. They must really be desperate.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: For years liberals have tried to get us to stop driving so much, conserve gas and drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. Surprise, now that we've done so, they need to make the money up somewhere.