Tag Archives: street-journal

Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

With the media elite once again reminding the unsophisticated rubes in flyover country of their intellectual and cultural inferiority as it pertains to sensitivities regarding Islam, it seems a good time to review the recent movements of one of the most condescending liberal elitists of the contemporary commentariat: Thomas Frank. The columnist recently left the Wall Street Journal for Harper’s Magazine. Frank, you may remember, penned the 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” which explored the baffling (for Frank) tendencies of rural populations between the two coasts to vote Republican. By Frank’s account, their political views ran directly against the grain of their own interests. (Never mind that a very similar book could easily be written about wealthy professionals who, against their own interests, vote for Democrats seeking to raise their taxes and increase regulations on their employers.) Always teeming with a patronizing sense of moral superiority, Frank has characterized conservatism as “institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school.” Charles Krauthammer once said that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil. Well Thomas Frank thinks the conservative elites are evil, and the conservative masses are stupid. Frank has dubbed ” demented logic ” the notion that Barack Obama – not George W. Bush – is responsible for the state of the economy, and has bemoaned the fact that, in his words “half our political system is dedicated to the destruction of the government.” That’s right. He fails to meaningfully distinguish between constitutional constraints on federal power and “the destruction of the government.” Frank’s seemingly willful ignorance on the intricacies of conservatism have irked a number of commentators, who note that he simply makes no effort to offer a nuanced argument. His ham-handed approach came under a good deal of fire after he released his book “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule”. Reason’s Jesse Walker wrote of the book: Frank, formerly the editor of the radical journal The Baffler and currently the token lefty on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, doesn’t just fail to distinguish between crony capitalism and free markets. He actively refuses to recognize the difference. “Laissez-faire,” he admits, “has never described political reality all that well, since conservative governments have intervened in the economy with some regularity.” Yet that doesn’t prevent him from declaring a little later that “what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of government; it is the capture of government by business interests.” If you relied on Frank for your information, you would never dream that the idea of laissez faire initially emerged not as a defense against left-wing regulators, who were scarce in the 18th century, but as a critique of subsidies, government-imposed monopolies, and what Adam Smith called the “mean and malignant expedients of the mercantile system.” In other words, the “free-market paradise” was supposed to be an alternative to “the capture of government by business interests.” In other words, for all his pontificating on the horrors of the absence of government intervention in the economy, Frank seems to be quite confused about what exactly constitutes a free market. This is a fairly representative sample of the intellectual caliber of his arguments. Given all this blather and his consistently derisive – if often erroneous – criticisms of conservatives, it should not have been surprising when the Huffington Post penned a short piece on Frank’s move to Harper’s devoid of any ideological labels. That fact should also tell you pretty much all you need to know.

Visit link:
Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

Al Gore Complains about Global Warming Media Coverage; Blasts The Wall Street Journal on ClimateGate

No matter what happens, even surrounding his personal life or his pet cause global warming, former Vice President Al Gore just isn’t going away. During an Aug. 10 conference call , Gore launched into a critique of the media’s recent coverage of ClimateGate, specifically blogs, talk radio and “biased right-wing media.” “Well I believe Mark Twain often gets the credit for the saying … that a lie runs around the world before the truth gets its boots on,” Gore said. “Now I’m not sure that’s the real reason for it, but there is a sad but undeniable truth that those who wanted to try sewing confusion used an echo chamber from blogs and talk show hosts and biased right-wing media to promulgate the distortions of the paid skeptics and professional deniers who tried to undermine the evidence.” Gore, who earlier during the call said he all but given up on cap-and-trade legislation being passed this Congress ( audio here ), alluded to a handful of “formal inquiries” that he argued cleared the science of any doubt that may have been caused by the leaked e-mails from ClimateGate, despite the questionable circumstances surrounding these inquiries . “There have been of course multiple, formal inquiries, all of which have dispelled the falsehoods that go under the title of ‘ClimateGate,'” Gore continued. “The three separate inquiries conducted not only cleared the scientists and the organizations involved, but strongly reaffirmed the basic assertions that they have been making.” But this time the former vice president named names. He went after The Wall Street Journal for its coverage of ClimateGate, even though the daily newspaper was one of the few outlets covering the scandal with much vigor. “I’ll give you one example – The Wall Street Journal wrote upwards of 30 editorials and news stories during the time about the story of the University of East Anglia broke and not a single one of them presented the side of the science. There are many other examples as you know.” In recent months, Gore has had his own public relations problem with media coverage surrounding his personal life, including a divorce and allegations sexual misconduct , which he was later cleared of by Portland, Ore. authorities. But to combat the media, which he alleges has been working against him on global warming, he urged his supporters to send letters to the editor, demand equal time and write op-eds. “It is our responsibility to demand that reporters, editors and all journalists report the truth,” he said. “It is only through consistent and constant pressure from us demanding equal time in local and national media that we will get the truth out. And that is why it’s so critical to write letters to the editor, to post comments online, to draft and write op-eds that share your point of view and use the facts and spread them far and wide. Only when the media hear from enough of us will they change their habits and print the truth about these scientific facts.” A 2008 Business & Media Institute study disputes the idea that Gore’s cause of climate change alarmism has faced an uphill battle as far public relations goes. Over the years, it showed the alarmists have outnumbered the skeptics in airtime, a trend that has been occurring over the years.

Read the original here:
Al Gore Complains about Global Warming Media Coverage; Blasts The Wall Street Journal on ClimateGate

LAT Writer Declines to Give Details on Huge Defeat of ObamaCare by Missouri ‘Republican Voters’

Wouldn’t you say that an important part of any election story would be the numbers involved, especially in the case of landslides? Perhaps someone should give a heads up on this to Los Angeles Times writer Noam N. Levey of the Times’ Tribune Washington bureau. Although he does report that Missouri voters, whom he labels as “Republican voters,” voted to approve Proposition C yesterday which challenged ObamaCare’s requirement that Americans must purchase health insurance, the all important margin of the lopsided victory was noticeable by its absence. Reading Levey’s article you wouldn’t know if Proposition C was approved by 51 or 52 percent of Missouri voters or was the actual figure so much higher that Levey found it painful to relay that information? Reporting from Washington — Striking a largely symbolic blow at President Obama’s healthcare overhaul, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure Tuesday challenging the new law’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014. The proposition, which sought to deny the federal government the authority to penalize people for not getting insurance, is expected to have little practical effect on implementation of the healthcare law. But the Missouri measure represented the first electoral test for the landmark legislation that Obama signed in March. And it underscored continued hostility to the law from Republican voters. So what was the actual size of the number of “Republican voters” who approved of Proposition C in Missouri? Since Levey won’t provide that detail, let us turn to the Wall Street Journal for that information: With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C , establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage. Twenty-nine percent voted against the proposition. So an overwhelming 71% of Missouri voters supported proposition C and they were “Republican voters” according to Levey. No wonder he was embarrassed to reveal the actual number. 71% would mean a lot of voters other than “Republican voters” cast their ballots in favor of proposition C.  Despite this obvious fact, Levey continues with his Republican obsession: Opposition to the law has remained particularly intense among Republicans, with nearly 8 in 10 in a recent national USA Today/Gallup survey saying it was a “bad thing.” So it’s all the fault of “Republican voters” who must make up 71% of the Missouri electorate according to Levey’s premise. Of course, the absurdity of that premise is probably the reason why he declined to report on the actual details of the Proposition C landslide yesterday.

Read the rest here:
LAT Writer Declines to Give Details on Huge Defeat of ObamaCare by Missouri ‘Republican Voters’

Teresa Giudice Really Might Go to Jail

Teresa Giudice should send a muffin basket to Danielle Staub . Granted, these two Real Housewives of New Jersey despise each other and went at it angrily enough for the police to be called on them last week – but Staub’s antics have distracted viewers from focusing on Giudice’s significant problems, which boil down to this: She might be going to jail. A couple months ago, Teresa and her husband filed for bankruptcy. But a new report in The Wall Street Journal states the couple allegedly concealed key documents about their finances and business transactions. The pair is also accused, by According to Chapter 7 trustee John Sywilok, of “making false statements under oath about their assets, income and expenses.” We’ll keep readers apprised of this development, along with more troubling news for the Giudices: On August 22, there will be a public auction of the contents inside the couple’s mansion.

See the original post:
Teresa Giudice Really Might Go to Jail

Tesla Roadster Featured in Popular XKCD Comic

Image: Randall Monroe, XKCD, Creative Commons license. Non-Geeks Can Skip This One Geek-favorite XKCD has a new strip that features the Tesla Roadster electric car. It’s about the ” Green Flash ” phenomenon, as described by the evil Hat Guy (you can see him use eBay here and nerd sniping here ). Of course, this isn’t as good for Tesla business-wise as a New York Times or Wall Street Journal piece, but it’s still cool to see an electric car featured on a comic r… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read this article:
Tesla Roadster Featured in Popular XKCD Comic

Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

For those who think Larry King is the sweet saint of the sensible center, we can always draw up from our Notable Quotables archives some of King’s conservative-bashing venom from the Clinton impeachment period for a rebuttal. Take a look at these: “Shouldn’t someone tell President Clinton that one of his archenemies, Rush Limbaugh, actually said the following last week, speaking in defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft? `It’s OK to lie, everybody lies in business, especially in a civil case.’ Apparently to Rush, lying is OK about business but not about sex.” — CNN’s Larry King in his October 26, 1998 USA Today column, failing to recognize Limbaugh’s parody of how liberals excuse Clinton’s lies but want Gates pursued. “If he had to testify, do you think Thomas Jefferson would have been impeached? No chance, there was no talk radio.” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, November 16, 1998. “What-if department…What if President Clinton announced a cure for cancer developed by the National Institutes of Health? What would critics say? Would Bob Barr want him impeached for failing to tell us the study was going on? Would Rush Limbaugh decry the President taking credit while admitting getting rid of cancer wasn’t a bad thing? Would Pat Buchanan insist that no nation other than America be given it? Would The Wall Street Journal worry about its effect on pharmaceutical stock prices? And so it goes….” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, February 15, 1999. ” The term wacko right-winger is redundant. For example, they’re the only people who don’t like being called compassionate. Someone remarked that many now defend the tobacco industry because its products kill people early, saving us dollars in having to care for aged people.” — “Larry King’s People” item in USA Today, March 8, 1999. “I can’t figure out how religious leaders can support the National Rifle Association. One would think that guns and God don’t mix.” — CNN host Larry King in his USA Today column, May 17, 1999.

Link:
Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

Calls to ‘Rein in the Federal Government’ Are ‘Not Very Rational,’ Al Hunt Declares on ABC

“The side that talks about the need to rein in the federal government” is “not very rational,” yet “is winning” the debate over whether to pass another “stimulus” bill, Al Hunt regretted on Sunday’s This Week on ABC. The former Washington Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal, who’s Washington Editor for Bloomberg where he hosts Bloomberg TV’s Political Capital show, fretted over how “right now, that argument – that we have to rein in because the stimulus didn’t work — well, I think most economists would say the stimulus did work in the sense it would have been a lot worse if there hadn’t been one.” Hunt’s assessment came in reaction to an outnumbered Dan Senor, the lone voice on the panel against additional government spending to spur the economy and who warned of a Greece in our future. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman charged the 2009 stimulus bill wasn’t big enough and proposed that in the face of a likely $20 trillion debt in ten years, “whether we borrow another $500 billion now” is “really trivial,” Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution yearned for a new “robust stimulus” and Jorge Ramos of Univision declared: “We need more government intervention.” Hunt ( columns ), however, took aim at the rationality of anyone opposed to massive additional government spending, as he expounded on the July 4 This Week: AL HUNT: I think the fundamental problem here, Jake [Tapper], and Dan [Senor] I think what you’re talking about is five, seven, ten years out, not right now. We can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. We ought to be dealing with long-term deficits in the long-term, and short-term stimulus, which this incredibly sluggish economy needs right now. The politics just are lousy, though Jake. I don’t know if it’s Republicans, if it’s conservative Democrats, but the side that talks about the need to rein in the federal government – this is not very rational, has really, is winning that debate. And when you talk to people about the stimulus, Paul [Krugman] may be right there should have been a bigger stimulus. Barack Obama thinks there should have been a bigger stimulus. The reason there wasn’t is you couldn’t get it through even a year ago. I mean, meet Ben Nelson, but- JAKE TAPPER: Or Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. HUNT: But right now, that argument – that we have to rein in because the stimulus didn’t work — well, I think most economists would say the stimulus did work in the sense it would have been a lot worse if there hadn’t been one. But when people talk about the stimulus, they associate it with bank bailouts and auto bailouts which had nothing to do with this. From April: “ Bloomberg Editor Al Hunt Attacks Tea Partiers: ‘That’s Not America ‘”

Visit link:
Calls to ‘Rein in the Federal Government’ Are ‘Not Very Rational,’ Al Hunt Declares on ABC

January Jones as a Redhead: Hot or Not?

January Jones is featured in a new new photo shoot for celebrity hairdresser Mark Townsend. The Mad Men star, who was involved in an unusual hit-and-run accident last month, has traded in her flowing blonde locks for a short, red style. Says Townsend of the look: “You always see January as this ’50s, sort of Grace Kelly character. I wanted to really show off the power of hair and makeup with a bit of a ’20s influence.” Catch Jones as Betty Draper when Mad Men premieres its fourth season on July 25 – and sound off below on this change… With this look, the actress is…

Follow this link:
January Jones as a Redhead: Hot or Not?

Hopeydopeyontheropey: Confidence Waning in Obama

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that American voters sure are looking for change – from Obama: Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure. Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. …Some 30% in the poll said they ‘do not really relate’ to Mr. Obama. Only 8% said that at the beginning of his presidency. Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is ‘honest and straightforward.'’ And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has ‘strong leadership qualities,'’ down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January. Just 40% rate him positively on his ‘ability to handle a crisis,’ an 11-point drop since January. Half disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the oil spill, including one in four Democrats. …'The results show ‘a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate,’ said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. 'The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats.' Yup, it’s that hopeychangey thingy, I guess. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6102139/hopeydopeyontheropey.thtml added by: crystalman

NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing

On Wednesday’s Today show, NBC’s Chuck Todd touted President Obama’s “swiftness” in dealing with the controversy surrounding General Stanley McChrystal comments in Rolling Stone magazine as a ” commander-in-chief moment ,” and hinted that it was a blessing in disguise, given the executive’s tanking approval ratings. Todd led the 7 am Eastern hour with his report on the President appointing General David Petraeus to replace General McChrystal, who was relieved of command following the Rolling Stone interview. The NBC White House correspondent remarked that with the Petraeus appointment, “the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated.” After playing a clip of Mr. Obama stating that he “won’t tolerate division,” he continued that “the President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan.” Later in the report, Todd used his “swiftness” term as he emphasized the apparent good timing of the controversy and detailed the public’s decreasing confidence in the President, according to NBC’s own poll: TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability . According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45 percent approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63 percent 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49 percent, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. An on-screen graphic further described that President Obama’s disapproval rating was at 48%, though the correspondent didn’t specifically mention this statistic. Almost a day earlier, Todd lauded the chief executive just as the Petraeus appointment was being made: “Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.” The full transcript of Chuck Todd’s report from Thursday’s Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: Let us begin with the change in command in Afghanistan. Chuck Todd is NBC’s chief White House correspondent. Good morning, Chuck. CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Meredith. Well, after a rare swift set of personnel moves by this White House, the President is now back focused on trying to make his complicated Afghanistan strategy work, rather than fixated on who’s going to implement it. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. TODD (voice-over): With General Petraeus by his side, and General McChrystal headed out a side door, the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated. OBAMA: I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. TODD: The President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan. SENATOR CARL LEVIN: I admire him and others that respond to that kind of a call from the President. I don’t think he even had a chance to talk to his wife. SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: Dave Petraeus is our best hope. If things don’t change, nobody can pull it out in Afghanistan. TODD: But the hearings are expected to re-ignite the very divisive debate among the two parties about the question of a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, scheduled to begin next July. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Whether that is, quote- etched in stone, as the President’s spokesperson, Mr. Gibbs, stated, or whether it will be conditions-based. TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45% approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63% 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49%, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. RETIRED GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY: It does give the President cover and a strategy, and it does buy him time. He’s putting a leader out there that will not be questioned. TODD (live) Today, the focus stays on foreign affairs, as the President meets with the president of another country who’s familiar with a quagmire-like situation in Afghanistan. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits the White House today. The two will hold a joint press conference, and Afghanistan is likely to come up, Matt. MATT LAUER: All right. Chuck Todd at the White House this morning. Chuck, thank you very much.

Read more here:
NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing