Bash the Messenger

Nov 202009
 

Here it comes. First they go abstract on us and generalize the Fort Hood killing to blame it on extremism. Not extreme views about one’s religion justifying violence, but extremism in general. Then after they’ve expanded the definition, they’ll contract it and say the way to stop future Fort Hood instances is to clamp down on extreme rightwingers who don’t believe the government should control the population through health care, or who oppose abortion, or who value the 2nd Amendment protections.

Expand, then contract. Repeat as needed. I call it the blowfish technique.

Or maybe it’ll be more innocuous. Maybe they will stop future Fort Hood killers the way they protect us from terrorism by frisking white-haired grannies trying to make their way through airports with walkers and canes.

Nov 092009
 

This sounds like an interesting book:

“The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt” (2009) by T.J. Stiles.

It’s about one of my favorite decades, the 1830s. And I’ve been wanting to read more about the rise of industrial corporations. I’m especially interested in the adjustments that people had to make in their lives and outlooks in order to become cogs in the industrial machinery. But a book about one of the industrial tycoons could be interesting, too.

I learned about the book from an article in the weekend Wall Street Journal by the same author: “Men of Steel: Billionaires, like little boys, have long liked to play with trains. With his latest purchase, Warren Buffett is on track to be today’s Cornelius Vanderbilt.”

But one statement in the article almost convinced me not to waste my time. It’s this:

With the meltdown of 008, the public’s attitude [toward Wall Street] switched from love to hate overnight…

This of course is nonsense. Certain newspaper people have been trying to peddle this line, but I don’t know why they’d expect anyone to believe it. Hatred and detestation of corporate America has been part of the air we breath for as long as anyone can remember. What happened in 2008 probably reinforced a lot of peoples’ opinions. It may even have changed a few, though I don’t personally know of anyone in real life or on the internet whose view of Wall Street and business corporations underwent any fundamental change because of the 2008 meltdown. Politicians and their media flunkies like to exploit a crisis, of course, but one has to allow for the fact that they have an agenda.

Oh, well. I’m hoping the book is better than that one statement.

Oct 242009
 

The Leviathan Ankle-Biter award to billionaire Mo Ibrahim reminded me that the last recipient was a hillbilly Amishman that Ira Wagler had met. Which reminded me that I haven’t checked his blog lately.

I now see there’s a new article in which he tells about being interviewed by CNN:

They smiled and smiled while filming me, but villainy lurked in their hearts.

Oct 022009
 

But? But??

The WSJ has that word in an article comparing the cities that wanted to get the Olympics. (It was published before the Obamas’ bid was turned down.)

The article is titled, “Is Chicago the World’s Top Sports Town? All Olympic Cities Have Home Teams, but Chicagoans Live and Die by Theirs; 8 Million Tickets.”

After telling about the sports wonders to be found in the Obamas’ home town, it goes on to disrespect the competing cities:

It’s hard to find another Olympic city that compares. Beijing? The city has virtually no professional sports infrastructure. Athens? Yes, its people like soccer and play some decent basketball, but sports is anything but the pulse of the city. Barcelona—like Munich, Rome and Mexico City—has a fervent allegiance to soccer, but not much else on the sports front. Seoul? Montreal? Paris? Moscow? None can make a serious claim to the sports throne.

Sydney and Melbourne may be the most sports-oriented of host cities—their residents go mad for professional Aussie Rules Football, rugby, cricket and soccer teams. But [emphasis added] the towns may be better known for their participation in recreational sports than for their obsession with the various gridirons and pitches.

Huh? A place with lots of participation in recreational sports is somehow not the kind of sports town for the Olympics?

Oh, never mind. I must be living in the past. The days are long gone when professional participation in sports (like that of Jim Thorpe) disqualified one for the Olympics.

Sep 202009
 

Politicians say the darndest things. And that goes for their messengers, too, like Christopher S. Rugaber of the AP. The following paragraph contains two of those things:

The report shows jobs remain scarce even as most analysts believe the economy is pulling out of the worst recession since the 1930s. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said earlier this week that the recovery isn’t likely to be rapid enough to reduce unemployment for some time.

Most analysts? Who are these mysterious people called analysts. On their IRS 1040 form do they report their occupation as “analyst?” Are they Mr. Rugaber’s beer drinking buddies? Are they the people who write partisan opinion articles for the newspaper when they’re supposed to be giving us news, and cover themselves by putting the word “Analysis” in the headline? We deserve to know. And what is “most”? 51 percent?

The second point is the one about needing a rapid recovery to reduce unemployment. I wouldn’t be surprised if a rapid recovery reduces unemployment at a fast rate while a slow recovery reduces it at a slow rate. I could even see that there would be a hysteresis effect. But here we’re being told that unless the recovery isn’t rapid, it won’t reduce unemployment at all. Weird. I wonder what makes that.

Sep 182009
 

Way to go ABC news! It’s good to obsess over whether President Obama is overexposing himself with his media blitz. Because otherwise people might be tempted to talk about whether he has come up with any good arguments for his health reform program, yet. When you don’t want to talk about the substance, the style is always a safe topic.

Jake Tapper on Obama’s Media Blitz

Sep 152009
 

It looks like the news media are now in the levitation business. Two items on the same Google News page:

  1. Questions of race hang over House vote to rebuke Wilson. MiamiHerald.com
  2. Fallout From ACORN Scandal May Hovers [sic] Over Other Community Groups. FOXNews

Sorry, no URL for the first item. If you click on the link you get a different article on the topic.

Wikipedia describes what’s happening here:

Levitation (from Latin levitas “lightness”)[1] is the process by which an object is suspended against gravity, in a stable position, without physical contact.

It is also a conjuring trick, apparently raising a human being (or other object) without any physical aid. The illusion can be produced by clever mechanics, lighting arrangements and other means.

I presume it also covers of the case of smearing someone without making actual fact-based accusations.

Without physical aid or physical contact, Wikipedia says. And to think that until now I thought it was done with slime.

Sep 142009
 

The headline on Eric Greene’s Sunday article in the Battle Creek Enquirer says, “Outburst shows lunacy of reform opposition.” That is not true. If anything, Greene’s article and its headline show the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of mainstream journalism, as well as its professional incompetence.

Joe Wilson was guilty of bad manners. But even worse than bad manners is the failure to speak out against our President’s disinformation campaign.

Greene doesn’t use the word “unprecedented” to refer to Wilson’s heckling, which is good, because it isn’t unprecedented despite what the White House says. An investigative reporter (or anyone else) can go to YouTube to watch a replay of the loud heckling and booing that President Bush received during his 2005 State of the Union address. And I recall that back in the days when I used to watch these speeches myself, there was Tip O’Neill at the SOTU making fun of President Reagan behind his back while he spoke.

But Greene insinuates that this kind of opposition is something new when he says America’s discourse “has veered into the surreal these past few months” and “It’s time to shove this insanity back into the dark recesses where it belongs.” Greene doesn’t mention the celebrity lunatics who were hinting broadly that Bush should be assassinated, or the members of Congress such as Nancy Pelosi who encouraged disruptive dissent when it was directed against Bush.

And just because the Bush-hating left were out of their minds doesn’t mean every one of their criticisms of Bush’s war policies was wrong.

One can be suspicious that it isn’t really Wilson’s bad manners or the methods of public discourse that Greene is criticizing. It’s not just the headline writer who has a bigger agenda. Greene gives himself away when he writes:

Although Wilson quickly apologized for his outburst, I’m not convinced of his sincerity since he was ordered to do so by his Republican bosses and since he continued to call the president a liar afterward.

Nor do I think Wilson’s emotions erupted in a vacuum. Some Republicans throughout the speech made it obvious they were more interested in their cell phones or in the theatrics of holding up paper copies of GOP legislation. Many also defended Wilson’s charge while wagging their finger at his method of delivery.

In other words, not only is it bad manners for Wilson to interrupt the President, but it’s bad even to disagree with his statement.

Greene writes, “Journalists and researchers widely agree that Obama spoke truthfully in his speech.” But journalists are hardly objective observers. These are the same people who throw Obama the softest of softball questions during his press conferences. Their abdication of their professional duties is what makes it necessary for people like Joe Wilson to do something to draw attention to what they have ignored.

Since Wednesday night Senators Kent Conrad and Max Baucus have decided that the provisions about illegal immigration should be tightened up a bit anyway. In other words, there was a point that needed to be addressed, one which the media had failed to tell us about.

Not that it’s anything new for something like this to happen. We are used to political partisanship on the part of the mainstream media. But Greene is taking it to new extremes, using authoritarian language of a type that Russian thug Vladimir Putin uses to tell the opposition to shut up and get out of the way:

Some viewed these carnivals of cacophony as freedom of speech in healthy action. Others saw them the same way they do street performers: entertaining for a time, but ultimately just an obstacle on the sidewalk.

and

losing one’s cool in front of the guy who’ll ultimately sign the law that may change everything about health care is quite another.

In Russia one may need to write that way to avoid becoming one of the many journalists who have been gunned down or pushed out of an upper story window. But that kind of talk is not appropriate for a journalist in a democratic republic.

Sep 062009
 

You gotta love that word “amid.”

Obama adviser Van Jones resigns amid controversy

It’s the headline on an AP article by Will Lester.

I wondered if this was a special locution for Van Jones, in which case I was going to snark about it, or if others had resigned amid controversy as well. So I googled for the phrase, “resigns amid controversy” (with the quotation marks).

It turns out that Van Jones is only the latest of a long line that includes football coaches, politicians, presidents of non-profit organizations, and many more who have also “resigned amid controversy.” But not all resignations come “amid controversy”. Some people resign “in controversy” and some resign “over controversy.” There are also those who resign for personal reasons.

But resigning amid controversy is a big one.