LOL Obama, Daily 16 March 2010

What am I saying here?

That Obama is recycling his campaign speeches and pretending that's a smart way to govern?

That it's time to recycle DC, and throw all the bums out?

That I'm learning how to play with layers, and went a bit overboard?

Almost forgot to link a post elsewhere about the NYT photo that this is a play on. Two weeks from now, no one will remember that stupid cross photo, so I'll post a copy below, and a link to the article that was illustrated by it (and is often the case, if something ends up being controversial, it disappears down the memory hole, the article no longer has a photo connected to it at NYT website)

Your Daily Photo (Hope and Change Sold a LOT Better Back Before Obama Had to Actually Govern Edition)

Hope and Change, for sale, but looks like there aren't as many takers as a few months back (and the overexposed nature of the snap is obviously a sly attempt on my part to use a 'mistake' in my photography settings to further comment upon the intrinsic overexposed-ness of President Obama and his disgustingly cosy relationship with legacy media, that or I was shooting with manual settings and forgot to adjust the aperture). Also see some vandals have defaced a few places with the "DISOBEY" stickers below, it seems to be the work of the Stimulator (aka Franklin Lopez) at Submedia.tv, which judging from their rhetoric are your usual group of anarcho-anti-capitalist posers, defacing other folks property is soooo edgy. It seems to also be guerrilla marketing for his HOPIUM tour (darn, just missed his LA appearance)

I used to attend shows like that HOPIUM hokum back in my 20s, not cause I agreed with the politics, or even found the art compelling, generally. Nope, I just used to have a weakness for art school chicks, and events like this tend to draw surprisingly attractive (physically, anyway) chicas.

And if you want to peruse the rest of the Flickr set I shot on Tuesday, it's all here.

If What ABC News Reported Was Actually Factual, Things We Might Expect to See in the Future . . .

According to ABC News "Conservatives are biggest consumers" . . . . . . . ., of porn.

Woohoo!!!

(oh, wait, I guess my reaction should be more along the lines of Newsbusters, that this is bunk, and the research ABC cites doesn't support their claim)

But, if pornographers were to take this news to heart, they'd want to cater to their biggest fans, so what would 'conservative' porn look like.

The old --- delivery man scenario --- out.
The new --- hippie-dippy signature gatherering chick gets invited in while trying to promote some lefty cause, and instead gets the ride of her life while her scene partner vigorously quotes from Hayek and Popper --- in.

The old --- pop culture parodies, like Not the Bradys XXX (link sort of SFW, but not really safe for your eyes given the background and text) --- out.
The new --- Ayn Rand parodies, like Atlas Tugged --- in.

The old --- Fake Sarah Palin (link goes to a NY Daily News article back when the Hustler project was first announced) getting screwed --- out.
The new --- Wait, I guess that one sort of works for conservatives as well, so long as they don't portray her as a buffoon (which judging from what was written about that film, seems she was an object of derision and lust, rather than admiration and lust, so that will have to change) --- in.

Since When Have Stoners Been Able to Shut Their Pieholes About With Whom They've Toked?

This bit, allegedly from a lawyer for Cindy McCain pushing back against NYT stupidity, where the correspondent questions why the wife of a candidate is getting so much more scrutiny and delving into her past when compared to the actual candidate of the other side, reminded me of something that's bothered me about Dreams of My Father.

I haven't read it, but as has been pointed out over and over again, Obama readily admits to having a misspent youth and having run around with druggy friends and got himself involved into that scene as a high school kid in Hawaii and as an undergrad in Los Angeles at Occidental.

I think he's lying. I think he never was that much into that stuff, but he needed to have something that he 'overcame', so he exaggerated his use of drugs so that his story arc could be that of redemption and struggle rather than privilege and ease.

Simply put, druggies love telling stories about who they get high with, and if they got high with someone famous, or would later become famous, despite their blissed out nature and poor short term memory, this is the kind of detail they'd love to endlessly talk about.

The sad truth about Sen. Obama is that he was a square then, he was a square at Harvard, and he's a square now, but he's afraid the notion that he's always been square would be bad for his image, so he constructed this narrative about his past that was based on attending a few parties and he spun this into his own 'struggle' with the demon weed and the Colombian marching powder.

Sorry, but I ain't buying it. If you were a real user, then you've got the scars, stories, and associations real users collect, and there's just no evidence of this.

If you don't believe me, here's what was reported in the NYT back in February:

Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.

In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana.

I have a much bigger problem with someone making up youthful indiscretions, rather than actually having youthful indiscretions. For the former, you are a grown-assed person who should know better than to fabricate an identity for yourself, for the latter, you were young dumb and full of vigor, so as long as you didn't get anyone killed or jailed for more than a decade, no harm done (except to yourself).

It's amazing how often, and in how many different contexts, that the memories and accounts of everyone around Sen. Obama seems to fail them. There always seems to be a discrepancy between his recollection and those of the rest of the universe. Obviously, the universe is wrong, cause The One does not make those kind of mistakes.

That Idiot, Nobody Takes Him Seriously . . . What? Really?, Ummmm, What a Great Choice,

Let the rehabilitation of Sen. Joe Biden begin!

(suddenly, he's a fine elder statesman who speaks truth to power and is a champion of the 'little people')

(I don't know that Biden will be the pick, but I am fascinated by the immediate 180° pivot performed by media types)

(the link above isn't a specific example of bias, but just turn on MSNBC today, or watch any of the network nightly news half hours tomorrow, and watch them scrub clean Sen. Biden's record)

Mr. David Cay Johnston, I Got Yer Response Right HERE!

(read the comments here for the reason behind this post)

1) Some disciplined King-Harbor workers still on the job (the title doesn't match, but it's the same story)
This article focuses on the recent discovery that many health care workers at King-Harbor who had been disciplined, and the folks that run county health services strongly implied that these 'bad apples' would be tossed aside, were still on the job or working elsewhere within the county system. The reporting of the story is mostly straight, but there are a few sins of omission. In my opinion those omissions are reflective of a 'progressive' and 'pro-labor' approach to the problems at King-Harbor.

First, they missed the real story to this story, and the fact that they missed the juicier part of the story, in my opinion, is attributable either to incompetence, or bias. Computer records detailing disciplinary hearings of employees at a troubled facility vanish into thin air making it far harder to track these employees and verify if the promised measures had taken place is a major story, yet that's not the focus of this article. Here's the salient bit

But a Times review of personnel data and disciplinary appeals shows that at least 22 employees with significant disciplinary histories at King either still work at what remains of the facility -- several outpatient clinics -- or have been reassigned to other county hospitals. Exactly how many problem employees from King are on the job remains a mystery.

After receiving an information request from The Times, county officials said they discovered that a computer glitch had destroyed electronic records used to track where disciplined King workers were sent after the hospital's closure.

The loss of the records system is particularly startling in light of the hospital's troubled history. The facility's medical lapses have been blamed, in part, on its failure to keep accurate records on workers' job performance. The result was that some problem employees had personnel files that looked spotless.

Some members of the Board of Supervisors expressed dismay at The Times' findings, saying they showed that the board had failed to make good on its pledge a year ago. "It frankly sticks in my craw that we have not been able to deal with the people who personified the culture that caused King to close," Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. "We have not fulfilled our promise to clean things up."

Seems to me the first question should be, 'Was the loss of this data intentional?' How could you not pose that question? When you analyze something like this, the thought running around your head should be, 'who has something to gain?, who has something to lose?'. Maybe the reporters did attempt a follow up to how the data disappeared, who was ultimately responsible, and who any likely suspects are if it was an intentional act. Maybe the reporters wanted to comment on how suspicious this data loss appears and the editors tore it out of their original draft. If it had been a CEO who had conveniently discarded possibly damning data, would that not have been pursued a bit more vigorously?

Also, when they went to speak with others about these workers, I find it interesting that John F. Schunhoff, the county's interim director of health services, is paraphrased while SEIU local 721 president Annelle Grajeda is quoted directly. That isn't absolute proof of bias one way or another, but it does suggest a better relationship with Grajeda, and they do print her insinuations about management and the Supervisors without challenge.

Sometimes a little muckraking is called for, instead this article is bland, what's happened within the county health services is appalling, yet rather than really attacking this story, the LA Times just sort of nibbles around the edges of it. Conclusion, this story isn't biased so much as useless, I'd prefer biased.

2)Secret tapes of former Orange County sheriff contain racist and coarse language
When a story fits all the paper's favorite stereotypes about law enforcement officials and Orange County residents, then there's no reason to do anything but just report the story straight as can be. No bias, put possibly (probably) some glee in getting to cover this.

3)McCain again shuffles top campaign aides
The LA Times covers changes in McCain's staff hierarchy, nobody was fired, nobody was really even demoted, just a few responsibilities shifted, yet quite a few column inches were created, anyway. First off the record quote,

"There's a lot of unease," said one Republican strategist who is an occasional advisor to the McCain campaign. "There's the age factor, the past-versus-the-future thing. He's conservative by most measures and people generally like him. But when it comes down to getting excited about the candidate, it just isn't there."

If there's one thing I hate, it's unsourced, unnamed quotes. Said one LAT staffer to me, "I hate working here, it's no fun anymore, it's nothing but old timers waiting for a buyout, incompetents hoping nobody notices they can't do their job, and ideologues hoping to sneak in as much crap as possible before the whole ship goes down in flames". What, you question whether or not someone from the LAT said this to me? (yeah, you probably should, and I also question who this unnamed strategist is, or even if they exist)

Next paragraph has an interesting inclusion

The campaign changes were revealed while McCain, 71, was in the middle of a three-day excursion to Colombia and Mexico to highlight his views on free trade, a trip that fed perceptions that the senator is operating as his own campaign chief, to his detriment

What's McCain's age doing in this sentence? Might it be part of some larger effort to paint McCain as old and out of touch at every opportunity? Also, the sentence itself doesn't follow from the previous sentence, doesn't contribute much of anything, and draws a conclusion that isn't supported by any facts. How does this trip 'feed perceptions' that the Senator is operating as his own campaign chief? I'd like to know, I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something.

Another questionable sentence follows a bit down in the article

Many in the party feel that having a former lobbyist in the campaign's top spot undermines McCain's reformer image and message that he is the best candidate to change Washington.

Funny, I really don't recall too many within the GOP speaking ill of lobbyist and lobbying (our Governator being a notable exception). "Many in the party" is another one of those phrases like, "one Republican strategist" that raises all sorts of alarm bells, especially when the assertion being made doesn't really match with where most of the party is. Lobbying gets a bad name, they're an easy target, but it's mostly been the DEMs squawking about undue influence. Conclusion, another case where there are some odd choices, but mostly fair reporting, and lots of bad writing. As I said in my original post, it's not the bias that's so bad (but it's still there), it's the fact that what they serve is such thin gruel, to go along with the predictable framing and mindset.

That article is in sharp contrast to the July 5th article on Sen. Obama's decision to wrap himself up in Old Glory and offer up a more "nuanced" definition of patriotism (Obama doesn't use the word, but the article does, and that in of itself says plenty, doesn't it?). No unnamed sources, no 'Democratic strategist', instead many quotes directly from Sen. Obama, along with some framing quotes like this one

Ann Shea, 47, an attorney who lives in Butte, said the nation faces hardships that trump patriotism.

"The issue is, we're paying almost five bucks a gallon in gas, we're in a war we shouldn't be in, and the current administration, which is the one McCain will carry on, is just lying to the American people to get what they want," she said. "Obama's not about that."

So in an article on McCain, nothing really about Obama, but in an article about Obama, let's not forget to take a jab at McCain, sounds like a plan.

Here's the concluding few paragraphs of the piece

This week, Obama visited North Dakota, Montana, Colorado and Missouri, emphasizing family values and patriotism. His campaign understands that he needs to look reassuring and familiar -- like a patriot.

Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, said in an interview Friday that Obama struggled in his early life in ways that Montanans can appreciate. Schweitzer said it was unfair to paint Obama, with his Harvard Law degree and Ivy League pedigree, as elite.

He "grew up being raised by a single mother and grandparents when she didn't have enough resources," the governor said. "This is what happens in politics. You cannot in any way measure Barack Obama's life and call him elite."

Obama likes to say that words matter. But he knows that pictures matter too.

On this Fourth of July, Obama was not merely talking like a patriot. As he watched the parade -- and as a battery of cameras recorded his reactions -- he clutched in his hand a tiny American flag.

Yeah, no bias at all, nope none to be seen. First, get the folksy Democratic Governor of Montana to remind folks that Obama is just folks, but top it off with the reporter somehow knowing in his heart of hearts that The Obama is "not merely talking like a patriot". The reporter could mean that Obama now realizes that he must play the stupid flag waving game and 'look' the part as well as 'talk' the part, or he could mean that deep down Obama really appreciates the 'tiny American flag' he clutches (but not clings, please, no clinging) in his hand and has been as much of a patriot as anyone, he just has trouble expressing it.

In my opinion, the McCain article seems much more accusatory and questioning of the information given, while the Obama article reads like a press release from the Obama campaign (although the campaign might not have dared to release a press release that was quite so glowing and fawning as the actual 'news' article that escaped onto the pages of the LAT).

I'm getting bored of this now, mainly because the LAT A & B sections are very boring to read (not that C & D are all that much better written, but at least they're shorter, usually).

As far as picking three more articles, no way Jose, I concede, I'm wrong, you're right Mr. Johnston, since I couldn't prove that EVERY article contains hints of bias and agenda journalism I guess that proves what?

That I have a habit of overstatement, even if my original point generally remains perfectly valid (nope that's probably not what you were looking for).

That those layers of editors at the LAT suck the life out of every article (nope, that's probably not where you wanted me to go, either).

That neither of us proved anything to the other with this exercise, you'll still think that the LAT, NYT, WaPo and the like are beyond reproach, and that bloggers are just nuts with keyboards, while I'll continue to think that there are way too many fuzzy headed liberals running around these institutions who regurgitate a whole host of outmoded received wisdom and that, along with an outmoded business plan will lead to the near total demise, as its currently configured, of the print news industry within the next decade.

You've made your point Mr. Johnston, I was wrong, you were right to question the absolute nature of my statement (have I mentioned I have a tendency towards overstatement?), but just because you disproved (with my willing participation) that there is an absolute tendency for bias to infect every aspect of every article doesn't mean that my larger point about bias infecting the decision making process, the tone, the writing style, and even who they hire and fire has also been refuted (bias doesn't have to be manifest in every case to be ever present, it's there, it's not always expressed, but it's always there, and it would take some radical changes in staffing and philosophy for things to be different at Spring St.).

It's not like Im the only one who's had thoughts along these lines based on the latest round of firings and buyouts at various papers, Glenn Reynolds has a go at the LAT here, and Ed Driscoll kicks them while they're down as well. On top of that, a few weeks ago Matt Welch commented on other proglems at the LAT, and while he doesn't speak about bias, he does speak about a company with a sickly corporate culture.

Well, in the NYT's Defense, "Iraqi Veterans Half as Violent as Their Statistical Cohort" Wouldn't Make Nearly as Sexy a Headline

(via Instapundit, via Abu Muqawama who envokes Rambo) Phil Carter eviscerates the NYT regarding their absurd 'All Vets are Soulless Killing Machines Just One Bad Beat Away From a Killing Spree' article.

There will be many people who see that article as the gospel truth, but their truth is purely 'faith based'. Let just an ounce of reality infect their thinking, and they'd see the lies before their eyes, but that would inconvenience their narrative, so the illusion will persist.

Hopefully, the internet helps prevent these false 'truths' from becoming the accepted truth, the way it was regarding Vietnam vets.

Three Things . . .

. . . to note about this incident as reported by Defamer.

First, the local TV news, and the local newsrag with its heavily declining readership, are decidedly pro-union and anti-producers, which is unsurprising, given that media is a heavily unionized industry in of itself (plus they hate their corporate paymasters, sort of like rebellious teenagers, sulking around spending their parent's money).

Second, don't mess with Element drivers, we don't take crap from nobody.

Third, it's funny because it's true:

BY CATHERINETRAMMELL AT 02:29 PM
I drove past that lot this morning and what's sad is there were only eight writers picketing at that gate at 9:30.
I assume the writers for Heroes are still in hiding.

(Heroes has been awful, yet I haven't given up on it yet, hope springs eternal...)

I hope the person hit wasn't seriously injured, and I hope the person doing the hitting didn't do it on purpose as one of the eyewitnesses is proclaiming loudly to anybody with a camera and a microphone. Picketers who block access to workplaces are assuming a risk, and should act accordingly, doesn't mean they have a right to be assaulted, but they also don't have the right to prevent people from exercising their right to ignore their work action.

My World Has Been Turned Upside Down . . .

. . . Drudge has posted an earth-shattering thing on his site just now, a photo (above) of a young Hillary Clinton, presumably from her Wellesley days, where she looks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . kinda hot, not even kinda hot, really, really hot.

(I'm thrown for a loop)

The photo is to illustrate one of those 'breaking story' blurbs he does from time to time in anticipation of an article that doesn't have a link yet. In this case, the blurb is, "NYT PLANS YET ANOTHER HILLARY 1968 FLASHBACK; NOTES FROM WELLESLEY... DEVELOPING... ".

Don't know yet if it's a hit piece to prop up Sen. Obama's flagging campaign, or a coronational piece designed to rally 'progressives' around their presumed standard-bearer against the eeevil Republicans. We'll find out later tonight, I guess.

What?!?

Los Angeles residents were urged on Wednesday to take shorter showers, reduce lawn sprinklers and stop throwing trash in toilets in a bid to cut water usage by 10 percent in the driest year on record.

OK, first off, who does this? Second of all, there's enough people who do this that they feel compelled to remind people not to do this for conservation purposes? Third of all, what's wrong with you people?

(at least they didn't break out with the mantra I remember way back when from the 70s vintage Southern Californian drought, "if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down")

And before you go off half-cocked with a "global warming" thesis regarding this "worst drought since records began", that may be true on an annual basis, but there's no such thing as an average year for rainfall in Los Angeles. We are either very wet, somewhat dry, or bone dry, rarely in between. This has been the pattern for longer than they've been keeping records, as evidenced by tree rings from the Sierra Nevadas that suggest there have been periods of little rainfall that have lasted centuries in Southern and Central California over the past 3000 years.

A useful chart to see this pattern for yourself is over at LA Almanac which has monthly rainfall totals since they've been keeping records. There are plenty of stretches with three and four year periods under 8 inches of rainfall, and we've survived, and even thrived. The past ten years have actually been fairly wet if you were to average them (we can assume it won't rain again this season, it almost never rains in June, so we'll call 2006-7 as having produced 3.21 inches). The average since they've been keeping records is 14.93 inches, the average the past ten years (assuming no more rain falls this month) is 15.40 inches. So nothing unusual is happening locally, just the usual extremes that we've lived with since well before they've been keeping records.

The real problem lies in the fact that the excess water from wet years runs straight into the ocean and not into an aquifer, so there's no reserve for a year or two period of less precipitation. Over the past ten years we've had two 30+ inch seasons, including a near record 37.96 inches in 2004-5.

If we had a river instead of a concrete ditch, that might help, but then you'd have to allow for flood plains near the river as when it rains here it really rains. The area around the Los Angeles river is heavily industrialized through most of its journey to the Pacific, so I don't see any serious 'rewilding' of the river happening, a more wild river in a desert climate that is a trickle most of the time and a raging river with flows greater than any other river in the word at other times, would present a daunting logistical challenge, so instead we have a concrete ditch that serves as an outdoor movie studio most of the time.

But my main point is that a few bad months shouldn't mean instant drought, the wet years should be managed better, and we've had enough wet years recently that this past few months of 'historic drought' shouldn't be causing the problems it will likely cause.

Also, the reporter for Reuters doesn't know what he's talking about, the reporter states, "Below average rainfall for the past few years has also turned the traditional summer southern California fire season into an all-round event.", if you look at the chart I linked you'll see last season was a close to average 13.19" and the previous year was the near record 37.96", so no matter how you slice it, there has not been "below average rainfall for the past few years".

And the unusual fire season this winter had to due with unusually low humidity coupled with lack of rain from November to February when usually those are our wet months. And almost all the fires were started by humans (either by accident, or on purpose), so if folks would be sensible around brush, we'd do better as well. Little throwaway lines like that one which are either ignorant of the facts or purposefully distort the facts to lead to a conclusion that the data doesn't suggests really riles me, especially in a 'neutral' just the facts wire story.

I just feel it in my bones that the writer of the piece quoted above wanted to launch into a diatribe about advanced human caused global warming and this historic drought was all a sign that we should bow down before the Goracle and do all he asks of us, but pulled back at the last second (it is a short word count wire piece, after all), hoping that the 'facts' as presented would do that job without being too obvious.

That Was Then, This Is Now . . .

Lileks, in his bleatings, posted the above photograph. He focused on the mysterious hatted gentleman standing on the building's roof.

I'm focused on the big fat 600,000 SUNDAY CIRCULATION sign.

Out of curiousity I checked wikipedia, and they show current Sunday circulation for the Minneapolis Star Tribune (as reported in this PDF) of 574,406.

Ouch.

But, then the population for the city of Minneapolis was over 500,000, and it's less than 400,000 now.

The suburbs surrounding Minneapolis have grown quite a bit, so all those folks haven't fled for better climate, and the area the paper serves targets more people, so as a percentage of the demographic the paper's penetration looks pretty meek compared to what it was 60 years ago.

That's the case for most every daily that was around back then as well, I would guess.

Word of the Day (You Call This Journalism? Edition)

Gobsmacking

The AFP, being unbiased purveyors of the truth . . . ,



or not.



(no by-line, but I wouldn't be surprised if The Goracle himself had written it)

He's Too Busy Saving the Planet to Be Bothered WIth a Piddling Little Job Like "President"

"Gore was the US negotiator for the international Kyoto Protocol that set global goals on emission of so-called greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. The protocol was agreed in 1997 and took effect in February 2005, but Bush refused to ratify it, citing its high economic cost and the fact that China and India, the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases after the United States were, as developing nations, not bound by it. "

Hey, folks, hate to tell y'all, but it wasn't Bush who "refused to ratify it", it never came to a vote in the Senate for ratification (who's constitutional responsibility is treaty ratification, with the addition of a presidential signature). While Vice-President Gore was negotiating our economic surrender, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution refusing to participate in any scheme that doesn't include developing nations. Was the vote close? Was it just those nasty Republicans holding out? If you don't know the answers to those questions, then you've been believing everything you read (95-0 against Kyoto was the result, in case you don't remember).

Also, since 1997, the United States has done much better than Western Europe at reducing the rate of increase in carbon emissions, even while having a more robust economy. The only way the EU can claim meeting Kyoto as a whole is by pushing the origination dates for measurement back to 1990 and incorporating their formerly Eastern Bloc members in the calculations. Given the past polluting habits of Warsaw Pact nations, it was natural for those nations to see vast improvements over short time periods.

Not only is Kyoto dubious in its likely effect (given that any 'carbon' savings in the developed world would be dwarved by 'carbon' increases in China and India as they prosper), but the game was rigged from the very start to punish the United States and institute a new global bureaucracy (led by the Europeans, naturally) of 'carbon police' who would go about punishing anybody not meeting their rather arbitrary standards.

The United States has acted better on the environment than the various scolds hating on us. Furthermore, excluding the 2.4 billion folks in India and China who are playing catch-up in terms of energy consumption (again Canada and India have roughly energy use parity, while China's per capita access to kWh is miniscule).

Pres. Clinton did the right thing in ignoring this idiotic, ineffective, and hypocritical new push by Eurocrats to impose a new set of penalties on countries that don't jump through their hoops. Vice-President Gore did an awful job at pushing for a workable agreement and framework that would recognize the realities of the situation. His 'signature' on the Protocol is just an empty gesture from an empty headed politician (how many other Vice-Presidents went around signing Protocols/Treaties?).

Grrrrr, Arrgggggh.

This crap makes me pre-verbal. The wiki on this is surprisingly fair-minded, I guess the Kyoto Protocol is so ridiculous that they can't help but expose it's hypocrisy.

But, mainly I'm a little sick of wire services like the Agence France Press not only pushing their agenda through a purported 'hard news' story, but getting their facts wrong in the process.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

If this was the greatest, most dire threat to mankind since we first rubbed sticks together and harnessed fire, you'd think that candidate Gore would have made it central to his 2000 presidential campaign. Instead he ran away from his self-created image of "Al Gore, Savior of the Planet, Great Gleaner of All That's Green, and Portentious Potentate of Pollution Preventing Policy".

At least the AFP admitted in the article that he was defeated in the 2000 election, that's progress.

"In 1989, Reagan resigned and Vice President George Bush took his place"

American history, BBC style.

(not exactly how I remembered it, but it's how his bio reads on the BBC website, so I guess Nixon isn't the only President to have resigned)

Capitalism is Hazardous for Your Health

Or so the LA Times would have you believe (via Drudge)

First, the Nigerian oil fields are managed primarily by the Nigerian government. If they granted foreign companies better access and more autonomy, those oil fields would be much better neighbors.

Instead corrupt kleptocrats line their pockets with the oil wealth and mismanage the resources they have. Foreign companies do supply equipment and some expertise, but the 'on the ground' management of infrastructure and pollution controls is local.

These corrupt oil states, which Nigeria is just one example (Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, even Russia fall under that category), are the problem, not the multinational corporations that are just trying to turn a profit and provide a service.

To suggest that the Gates Foundation should divest from oil, big pharma and chemical concerns is ludicrous and would lead to the kind of stupid politically motivated decisions towards large fund management that has lead to CALPERS to grossly under perform compared to other funds. The investment side of the Gates Foundation only responsibility is to grow their assets, by any legal means. Anything less than that would be malpractice.

Read the whole article if you dare, it's so naked in its hatred of capitalism and biased in its perception what 'good practices' would mean, that the term 'yellow journalism' doesn't even come close.

I guess the best way to summarize the article would be, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Anyone with their head outside of anyplace other than their own rectum know how well that philosophy works in the real world.

Remember Riding on the Disneyland Railroad and Watching the Audio-Animatronic Death Throes of the Dinosaurs . . .

. . . yeah, it's kind of like that.

From tomorrow's Variety, Peter Bart comes out for California secession. His reasons?

California is too vital and free-thinking to be dragged down by the U.S. any longer. As you well know, Governor, all Texans want to do is declare war on obscure countries, and we haven't won one of those in 60 years. The evangelicals own the South, and California isn't ready for their social agenda. The mandarins of New York and Boston have lost their political muscle -- all they can bring to us is more Clintons and John Kerry.

A liberated California would be an instant global force, Governor, and would provide you with a messianic platform. Trade would soar, incomes would rise and the government could lavish its resources on infrastructure and education rather than foreign wars. Who needs Washington's pathetic "entitlements" when we could create our own?

There are risks, to be sure; the Bushies would threaten Civil War, but they don't have any soldiers left to fight one. Some smarmy Justice Dept. bureaucrat would cite Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which terms rebellion a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, but South Carolina was getting away with its secession in 1861 until a few loser states like Mississippi and Alabama horned in on its act.

Besides, that was all about slavery, and we're talking higher precepts now. A sovereign California would be liberated from a profligate, warrior national government whose interests are inconsistent with those of California. As you know better than anyone, Governor, all California wants is to be rich and flakey. In what other part of the world could a Hollywood, a Burlingame and a Cucamonga peacefully co-exist?

What a wonderful liberal wonderland California would be if we weren't saddled with all that dead weight provided by the rest of the nation. Brilliant.




While over at the LA Times, Joel Stein does what Joel Stein often does, write poorly, and like an ass about how he doesn't care what you think.

Here's what my Internet-fearing editors have failed to understand: I don't want to talk to you; I want to talk at you. A column is not my attempt to engage in a conversation with you. I have more than enough people to converse with. And I don't listen to them either. That sound on the phone, Mom, is me typing.

Some newspapers even list the phone numbers of their reporters at the end of their articles. That's a smart use of their employees' time. Why not just save a step and have them set up a folding table at a senior citizen center with a sign asking for complaints?

I'm just guessing here, but I doubt any of his classes at Stanford included reading this book. Then there's this bit of patheticness, 'ha-ha', 'look at me', 'I'm having my people at the LA Times post this blog post for you losers to vent your loser spleens about my comic brilliance'. This comment, if real is far more disturbing than the stupid OpEd Joel Stein wrote

As a journalist I agree with Joel, our job is not to appreciate or reiterate the opinions of the undereducated American populous who thinks because they watch their local FOX affilliaite as they put on their Carhart shirt and Timberland boots every morning they are an expert. Our job is to tell you the story from our point of view, and your job is to know we are smarter than you, and we are right.

Kudos for speaking your mind.

Posted by: Ryan Fishman | January 02, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I don't know that 'Ryan Fishman' is really a journalist, but if he is, the attitude expressed is one of disdain for 'regular folks' and a desire to lead them to the conclusions he wants them to have rather than be an objective seeker of the truth.

I don't expect journalist to be free of bias in their personal life, but statements like those above make naked the desire and intent to report the facts only in a manner that supports a predetermined set of ideas.

For all I know that commenter is a right of center troll claiming to be a journalist, or a left of center commenter pretending to be an outrageously biased reporter to get the usual journalist haters to say outrageous things.

But there's plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that there are lots of folks in lots of newsrooms that think like 'Ryan Fishman', even if they are smart enough not to ever talk like that in mixed company.

Speaking of the Disneyland Railroad, the Wiki.

More on the imagineering wonders of Audio-Animatronics.

UPDATE:

What? Now I have to spell things correctly as well? This blogging thing is getting to be too much work. Changed 'throws' in the title to the correct term 'throes'. I thank Mr. Cottage for pointing that out to me. I'll get around to the big playoff post tomorrow (and recap of the previous week).

They Make It Far Too Easy Some Times

The AP article on the death of Saddam closes with a doozy of a paragraph.

While he wielded a heavy hand to maintain control, Saddam also sought to win public support with a personality cult that pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports and shops and on Iraq's currency.

The line, "sought to win public support" is what really gets me. All those dictators with their attempts at producing cults of personality around themselves are really just trying to 'unite' the many people under their control. By plastering his image across the land, he was just doing a public service. Saddam wasn't a brutal, murderous, foul, filthy, megalomaniacal dictator, instead he was merely a person who, "wielded a heavy hand to maintain control".

Normally You Have to Read at Least the Entire First Sentence to Detect the Bias

(hat tip Instapundit)

So the NYT does a piece about the job that Tony Snow is doing as White House Press Secretary.

Good for them, he's been excellent, he deserves attention.

But when you have a "journalist" and "editors" who feel it's OK to start a piece with this sentence fragment

"The White House, like any castle"

Someone who doesn't hate Pres. Bush, who doesn't think he's King George II, The Selected, would even contemplate referring to the White House as a "castle".

To even think of that phrase to start your piece suggests that you are a DailyKos addict and find the forums at MyDD to be reasonable.

For a paper that has trouble referring to terrorists as terrorists, they find it amazingly easy to refer to the Bush Administration as an Imperial Presidency (a phrase that seemed not to exist before President George W. Bush took office).

The White House is America's home where the democratically elected leader of all the folks of the United States resides. To use the term "castle" which suggests an entire constellation of undemocratic meanings, is to suggest that the President is undemocratic.

It's the people's house, show the White House, the Presidency, and the current President the respect the office deserves.

Or don't, but if you don't, don't expect anyone other than American-hating crazies to listen to what you have to say.

I Was Going to Get Around to It, But Now I Don't Have To

Hitchens rips into the Lancet report.

Also, even the Iraq War hating Iraq body count rips into the Lancet report (via Instapundit).

Using the same methodologies I bet you could easily show a massive 'excess death rate' in post apartheid South Africa. Crime rates (they trail only Colombia for murders per capita) in South Africa are exceedingly high, standards of living have dropped. South Africa continues to struggle towards an equitable prosperity and a properly functioning government. There has yet to be a truly successful post apartheid government. Nelson Mandela made a great figurehead and rallied the country through a difficult transition, but as administrators, he and his successors have been failures.

Would these so-called 'excess deaths' and 'excess crimes' argue against the ending of apartheid?

(do I really have to answer that?)

Democracy is hard, democracy is messy, and democracy easily beats all the alternatives.

(or course this fella says it better)

Sure, She Can Use That Line . . .

And yes, to answer one of those lost Zawahiri lines, that grey beard does make you look gay

Tammy Bruce writing about Ayman al-Zawahiri latest release (at least latest video release, his latest release most likely is still inside some poor abused she-goat's vagina (those caves are lonely places, and she-goats are easier to come by than human females))

I couldn't get away with that line. If I said that I might be accused of being a homophobe by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.

Some folks aren't disturbed by the shockingly similar rhetoric spewing from the mouths of Al Qaeda spokesgoats and Democratic Party stalwarts.

But, many folks are (follow the Tammy link for many other voices joining the chorus). Callimachus also gets stirred up by the disgustingly symbiotic relationship between our declinist and defeatist media and those that wish for our decline and our defeat.

al-Zawahiri is the real Jackass#2. That movie, currently in theatres, don't got nothing on him.