- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
I'm a sucker for reading my hometown newspaper and they print a bunch of crap to appeal to redneck conservative types. I found this nice example today:
Cal Thomas posted:
DUBLIN, Ireland — Observing the start of Lord and Lady Obamaʼs (aka president and Michelle) grand European tour and the fawning press coverage, one might conclude they were imbued with royal blood.
The normally reserved and thoughtful columnist for the London Times, William Rees-Mogg, gushed about the presidentʼs speech before members of Parliament, comparing him to Winston Churchill. Obama is to Winston Churchill as Lady Gaga is to Ella Fitzgerald. Both are singers, but thatʼs where the comparison ends.
In his parliamentary speech, which began with herald trumpets announcing his arrival (appropriate since Obama frequently toots his own horn by overdoing the personal pronouns “I” and “me”) the president spoke favorably of Adam Smith, the patron saint of economic conservatives. Smithʼs philosophy is the antithesis of President Obamaʼs “spread the wealth around” socialist philosophy. Smith is to Obama as Ronald Reagan is to Karl Marx.
Daily Telegraph columnist Bryony Gordon claimed to have had a conversation with an unnamed Secret Service agent. She quoted the agent as saying about Michelle Obama, “She has this glamour that I havenʼt seen before. She isnʼt just a first lady. She is Hollywood.” Gush.
During the Obamasʼ brief visit to Dublin, I lined up with thousands of people waiting to get in to hear the presidentʼs speech in College Green. I was especially interested in what young people think of the president now, since it was American youth who fueled much of the enthusiasm behind his 2008 election.
A girl of high school age said she “loves” Obama and added without prompting, “I hate President Bush.”
“Why?” I asked.
She stumbled, as if entering unexplored cerebral territory. “I hate all American presidents,” she said (but obviously not Obama).
“Even George Washington?” “Yes.”
If this girl represents what is taught here, it would appear the state of Irish education is worse than American public education.
I interviewed a middle-age man, who was only slightly less enthusiastic than the high school girl. “What about his policies?” I asked. “He promised to close Guantanamo and quickly end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
That bothered him, but Obamaʼs image clearly had gotten the best of his political judgment.
It was only after the Obamas had left for the G-8 meeting in France that a few in the British press began to recover from their fainting spell. Writing in The Telegraph, Andrew Gimson said, “Barack Obamaʼs speech (to Parliament) failed to live up to his own high standards.”
There were several factual errors in the presidentʼs speech, including his contention that since the War of 1812, when the British burned down the White House, “itʼs been smooth sailing” between the U.S. and Britain. Not exactly. Gimson cited one example: “Suez did not seem like plain sailing.”
The president claimed, “...young men and women in the streets of Damascus and Cairo still reach for the rights our citizens enjoy.” That is debatable, especially since the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood will be active, perhaps decisive, in the coming Egyptian election. And who knows what government will follow in Syria, should Bashar al-Assad stop killing protesters, or Libya with or without Gadhafi, or anywhere else in the Islamic world?
There were some emotional high points in the presidentʼs address, especially his reference to “the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British Army to stand before you as president of the United States.”
That brought applause, as it should have, but this is biography over which the president has no control, not policy, which he sets.
The Irish and British press put their skepticism on hold during the Obamasʼ visit, much as the American media regularly do with most Democratic presidents. In America, the big media have a political agenda, which is that of the Democratic Party. In Ireland and the United Kingdom, it was style over substance.
Forget Scotty McCreery, winner of TVʼs “American Idol.” As host Ryan Seacrest might put it if he were announcing the arrival of President Obama in Ireland and England: “This is our ʻAmerican Idol.ʼ”
Is Adam Smith really the patron saint of economic Conservatives? Also dropping in Karl Marx and Reagan right after is classy. I also like the fact that Cal Thomas gets to go to Ireland and be an rear end in a top hat to people who like Obama.
They cut down the size of the opinion section on Sundays but we used to have some great, angry local writers.
Melanie Wilson Daniel - probably uses air quotes in real life. Not a very good writer.
Jerry Haas - a local preacher.
I love reading terrible editorials so please share them here.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 07:37
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 05:21
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
quote:Get a job, get off welfare, come here legally or go back to your own country. And for goodness sake, take care of yourself.
This person is mad at everyone but the poor white folk that lost their homes in the midwest. And those folks in the midwest know they live on a flood plain and will get flooded every once in a while. But those stupid morons in New Orleans had no idea that the levees wouldn't hold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 08:33
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
More Cal Thomas!
Cal Thomas posted:
If the big media in 2008 had dedicated the resources they are now squandering on Sarah Palin's emails from when she was governor of Alaska and probed Barack Obama's background and associations, she might now be vice president of the United States and Obama might still be a junior Illinois senator.
Regardless of what you think of Palin, the vultures attacking her 24,000 pages of emails may represent the most flagrant example of bias since, well, since their attacks on any other Republican.
"It could be fun," said Ken Schwenke of the Los Angeles Times about the email probe.
Three TV camera crews and 30 journalists waited for the release of the emails at a state administrative building in Juneau.
What has the public learned so far from this investment of media time and money? We have these great revelations from The Washington Post: "Palin felt passionately about issues of importance to her state, the documents show, and she waged battle with foes large and small"; and she showed "concern about alcohol in Alaska governor's mansion" because of the presence of young children.
This is news?
With so many far more important issues to be covered, why have these media outlets spent time, money and energy examining Palin's emails? What were they expecting to find? A message from Rep. Anthony Weiner? Clearly they are not looking for anything that would reflect positively on Palin.
London's liberal Guardian newspaper promised "live coverage" as the emails were released. The New York Times and Washington Post asked for volunteers to help sort through the documents, offering "credit" to any they used in news stories. How pathetic is that? Since most readers of those newspapers might be considered left of center, does anyone think this exercise in voyeurism will produce anything but their intended goal, which is the political destruction of Sarah Palin?
Yes, I know, some people think she daily commits political suicide.
ABC News, which, in partnership with The Daily Beast website, offered breathless updates of the email dump, lumped Palin in with Donald Trump as a "sideshow." If she's a sideshow, why are they paying her the kind of attention normally reserved for a main attraction?
The answer is that Palin, along with Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., who is considering a presidential run, represent everything the liberal media hate: They are attractive women who are married to the same men they started with. They think big government is the problem, not the solution to our problems. They are pro-life and - gasp - believe in God.
In Palin's case, she and her husband have a Down syndrome child, which she refused to abort. Right there you have enough to offend pro-choice feminists, who treat abortion as a sacrament and appear to have no problem with eliminating the "defective," as was the case with their patron "saint," Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
The big media, rather than being honest brokers in the process of selecting the next president, see themselves as players. Many regard themselves as kingmakers, or in Palin's case, "queen destroyers." Increasing numbers of the public regard their arrogance with disdain. It is a major reason why broadcast news ratings have been falling, along with subscriptions to the Times and Post. Rather than correct their ways, they keep on doing what is harming their publications and pretend the problem lies with the readers and viewers (now non-readers and non-viewers), rather than with themselves.
Sarah Palin's negatives are high enough and her support low enough to recommend against her running for president. But no one deserves this kind of treatment. Let her rise or fall on her ideas (or lack of them) and not on old emails.
Have they no shame? Obviously not.
Michelle Bachmann is attractive?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 06:14
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Stossel loves Canada and Puerto Rico!
John Stossel posted:
America is falling deeper into debt. We're long past the point where drastic action is needed. We're near Greek levels of debt. What's going to happen? Maybe riots - like we've seen in Greece?
We need to make cuts now.
Some governors have shown the way. You know about Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, etc. But you probably don't know about Luis Fortuno.
Fortuno is governor of Puerto Rico. Two years ago, he fired 17,000 government workers. No state governor did anything like that. He cut spending much more than Walker did in Wisconsin. In return, thousands of union members demonstrated against Fortuno for days. They clashed with police. They called him a fascist
Fortuno said he had to make the cuts because Puerto Rico's economy was a mess.
"Not just a mess. We didn't have enough money to meet our first payroll."
Fortuno's predecessors had grown Puerto Rico's government to the point that the state employed one out of every three workers. By the time he was elected, Puerto Rico was broke. So the new conservative majority, the first in Puerto Rico in 40 years, shrank the government.
What was cut?
"Everything. I started with my own salary."
The protesters said he should raise taxes instead of cutting spending.
"Our taxes were as high as they could be, actually much higher than most of the country. So what we've done is the opposite." Fortuno reduced corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent. He reduced individual income taxes. He privatized entire government agencies.
"Bring in the private sector," Fortuno said. "They will do a better job. They will do it cheaper."
Fortuno's advice for leaders who want to shrink the state: "Do what you need to do quickly, swiftly, like when you take off a Band-Aid. Just do it. And move on to better things."
Canada did that years ago.
When I think Canada, I think big government. I'm embarrassed that I didn't know that in the mid-'90s, Canada shrank its government.
It had to. Its debt level was as bad as ours is today, almost 70 percent of the economy. Canada's finance minister said: "We are in debt up to our eyeballs. That can't be sustained."
Economist David Henderson, a Canadian who left Canada for the United States, remembers when The Wall Street Journal called the Canadian dollar "the peso of the north." It was worth just 72 American cents. "Moody's put the Canadian federal debt on a credit watch," Henderson said.
The problem, he added, was that Canada had a government safety net that was more like a hammock.
"When I was growing up in Canada, people who went on unemployment insurance were said to go in the 'pogie.' You could work as little as eight weeks, taking the rest of the year off."
So in 1995, Canadian leaders cut unemployment benefits and other programs. It happened quietly because it was a liberal government, and liberals didn't want to criticize their own. The result was that Canada's debt stopped increasing. As the government ran budget surpluses, the debt went down.
"The economy boomed," Henderson said. "Think about what government does. Government wastes most of what it spends, and so just cutting government and having that money in the hands of people means it's going to be used more valuably."
Canada fired government workers, but unemployment didn't increase. In fact, it fell from 12 percent to 6 percent.
Canadian unemployment is still well below ours. And the Canadian dollar rose from just 72 American cents to $1.02 today.
Canada also raised some taxes. But the spending cuts were much bigger, 6-to-1: agriculture was cut 22 percent; fisheries, 27 percent, natural resources almost 50 percent.
"We should learn from Canada's experience that you can cut government substantially," Henderson said.
"It is so wasteful. There's so much to cut, without causing much real pain - not causing pain, but helping your economy grow, helping people become better off."
Henderson added, "We need to move more quickly than the Canadians did. Unfortunately, we're moving more slowly than the Canadians did."
If we're moving at all.
While Canada thrives, we pour more money down the hole.
Canada thrives because they have a massive amount of natural resources they can sell in a time where the price for those resources is really high. Canada pulls 33% of it's GDP in taxes. Stossel don't like facts he don't agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 07:58
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:
It may be because of where I'm from, but I've never run into an intelligent online newspaper audience. THIS is the talkback section of the Athens Banner-Herald. It's a universe where the letters (which are on the paper's actual website) are more sane than the comments. That stated, in Athens if it isn't associated with directly UGA or directly with the Banner-Herald, there is a 95% chance it's insane.
As far as the printing of letters, it depends on the paper you have, really. Some editors get their jollies with insanity. Some do it for readership, to try to get responses. A few do it to try to say their views are balanced.
Do you post on there? I do as Ned, obviously, and let me tell you that I am so happy I have moved half way across the world from those idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 08:40
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
A survey on a cruise? Cal Thomas is a hard hitting reporter folks!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2011 18:28
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
But I'm an old man with lots of money and I don't have an xbox or iPhone! *hops into a limo for a 5k a plate fundraiser*
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 21:27
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Like Cal Thomas has actually watched an episode of Sons of Anarchy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 14:09
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
redmercer posted:
To be fair, I know a couple living in their car and they have a lil' portable B&W set. They get one channel: the CW.
A car and a TV! Lucky ducks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2011 21:54
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Trains have been replaced by buses for the most part. Trains are a hell of a lot cooler though. You can walk around and go buy things. The views are also much nicer. Even here in Japan where we have trains running all over the place there is still a lot of long distance bus service. I can take a train to Tokyo in 5 hours that costs 22k yen or a bus that takes 15 hours and costs 9k yen.
Poor people take buses these days. Trains rule though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2011 02:59
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Adam Smith posted:A linen shirt … is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct.
This is the part of Adam Smith's writing that people seem to ignore when they talk about poor people owning x-boxes and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 04:18
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 05:21
|
|
- Ned
- May 23, 2002
-
by Hand Knit
|
Hell, they could have their own plane by 1912!
The Titanic, which would have crossed the Atlantic in a week, was an example of 1912 mobility. It's more of a comparison of a middle class person and someone from 2 centuries ago, and even then, the 1812 baron had a better life than their 1912 one.
It bothers me when people have no idea that poverty isn't a static concept. A color TV was a luxury in the 70's but a flat screen TV today is hardly a luxury - it is the only thing on the market. Same thing with smart phones. Just because an old person who doesn't like technology is happy with their land-line doesn't mean poor people should have smart phones. They are pretty much the most useful thing a person can own these days.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 03:51
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 07:37
so I don't bother to read the local paper. I actually met with the folks from the major newspaper company here but they don't want to allow commenting on their website and the system they use is terrible. I grew up reading my hometown paper and the site is actually quite good considering the circulation of the paper.