Abu Ghraib “paintings.” Zombietime shares photos from the “American premiere” of Colombian artist Fernando Botero’s “artwork.”
Clay Waters reports on the tale of two NYT reporters who went on PBS’ Charlie Rose show (each on a different occasions) and expressed an opinion about the war in Iraq. The reporter who expressed that he wanted us to win in Iraq was publicly chastised after a complaint from a reader, whereas the reporter who expressed that we were “rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation” received no public rebuke.
Irked with blatantly obvious double standard? Let Byron Calame know what you think: email@example.com
This new periodic feature at Slate is absolutely priceless. Slate’s Tim Noah starts things off by mentioning the latest puff piece on Obama, as written in the LATimes. Larry Gordon, staff writer for the LAT, writes:
In [poli-sci professor Roger] Boesche’s European politics class, [classmate Ken] Sulzer said he was impressed at how few notes Obama took. “Where I had five pages, Barry had probably a paragraph of the pithiest, tightest prose you’d ever see. â€¦ It was very short, very sweet. Obviously somebody almost Clintonesque in being able to sum a whole lot of concepts and place them into a succinct written style.”
Just what you wanted to know about a potential president of this country, eh? The rest of the piece reads like an Obama-informercial. I don’t recommend reading it if your diet calls for you to avoid eating or drinking sugary substances.
Hat tip: Ann Althouse
More: Dave Pierre at Newsbusters points out that this isn’t the first fawning piece the LAT has written about His Honor.
Update: Herman Cain takes on black liberal ‘leaders’ – and the mediots – who are obsessed with Obama’s race.
Any of you gents out there who are unsure of what a woman means when she says it, please read below for clarification
Words Women Use:
1.) FINE: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
2.) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
3.) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in “fine”.
4.) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!
5.) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a nonverbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)
6.) That’s Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
7.) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome.
8.) Whatever: Is a women’s way of saying SCREW YOU!
9.) Don’t worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking “what’s wrong” and for the woman’s response to that, refer to # 3.
Hat tip: Ro
Noel Sheppard has the details on two new books written in an attempt to debunk man-made global warming theories.
Gotta hand it to anyone who goes against the ‘global warming alarmist’ crowd – it’s like walking into a room full of cultists, all chanting the same thing, never going ‘off message.’
Hat tip: Ffffffish
These gentlemen aren’t buying it:
It’s a little over a minute. Make sure to watch it all the way through.
“While I can appreciate the argument that you can support the troops by wanting them home or wanting them properly equipped or any of a number of other reasons, if you don’t support their mission then whatever support you do claim is qualified support. A bit like saying “we want you to look like a soldier, and we love you for being one, but we can’t support you acting like one it this instance”.
To most troops, that makes absolutely no sense … trust me.”
I’ve watched with amusement over the last several days as the media has all but fallen at the feet of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, treating them like they used to treat Senator John McCain, which is to say, they are treating him like a ‘maverick’. Since McCain’s media darling days are over because he’s tried to break bread with the "Christian right" and is on friendly terms with the President over his surge plan, the media has been on the hunt for another Republican war veteran – one who is at odds with the President – who they can bestow their unofficial ‘maverick’ crown. Hagel, it appears, is that man and is now being portrayed as a "rebel" and even in certain conservative circles, a man with "guts", because of his opposition to the surge – and the Iraq war. Micky Kaus at Slate begs to differ on the assessments of Hagel as being ‘courageous’ on this issue:
Why, exactly, is Sen. Chuck Hagel showing "courage" in conspicuously denouncing the Iraq War now that virtually the entire American establishment has reached that same conclusion–now that Hagel is virtually assured of getting hero treatment from Brian Williams and Tim Russert and long favorable profiles in the newsweeklies? .
OK, maybe Hagel’s not so courageous. Maybe he’s just right. Except that he chose, as the moment to make his flamboyant speech, not the vote on the imprudent war itself–he voted for it–but a vote to withdraw support for a last-ditch surge strategy that even the NYT‘s estimable, on-the-scene pessimist Sabrina Tavernese thinks "may have a chance to work." Was this the right time–it certainly wasn’t the courageous time–for a speech like Hagel’s? Was he serving the nation or himself?
Saying "the war was wrong but the surge is worth a try"–that would be courageous. There’s no ready-made constituency eager to cheer a pol who says that.
Bucking your party to actively fight against the war when it would have made a difference–that would have been courageous.**
Hagel hasn’t done either of those things. Instead, he let loose at the precise moment when letting loose was least brave and least timely. Lest the MSM miss the point, his eruption took the form, not of arguing that his Republican colleagues were wrong, but of denouncing them for, in effect, being cowards, unlike you-know-who:
"If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. … Don’t hide anymore; none of us."
Never mind that the anti-surge resolution Hagel has cosponsored is all about hiding. It has no binding effect. But it does provide Senators who supported the war a convenient bit of late-inning skepticism they can point to when trying to save their skins.
Make sure to read it all, because Kaus doesn’t stop digging through the Hagel nonsense there.
Gaius at BCB writes:
And at a time that inflicts the most damage on troop morale, I might add. Chucky is getting lots of love from the left, the HuffnPuff had a whole front page dedicated to him the other day. But they are supporting him only in an effort to fracture the Republicans. So Chucky has a whole new set of friends. But still a less than zero chance of advancing to the presidency. No matter how he postures, no matter what grandstanding he pulls.
To be sure, Hagel’s been an Iraq war skeptic for sometime, now, but he’s ratcheted up the rhetoric big time over the last month or so – at a time when it is politically convenient to do so. He might be winning over ‘moderate’ Americans with his posturing over the Iraq war, but he’s making enemies with the base, which – I think – will virtually guarantee that if he were to run for president, he won’t make it past the primaries.
PM Update: Just visited Real Clear Politics and saw that Jim Pinkerton is on the same wavelength:
It’s official: Chuck Hagel is the new John McCain, getting the glowing treatment from glam publications such as GQ. And John McCain is the new Bob Dole – and we know what kind of press Dole got. Perhaps I should explain.
Once upon a time – say, five years ago – the liberal media were infatuated with McCain. Yes, the Republican senator from Arizona was a hard-line conservative on most matters, but he was sufficiently unorthodox on a few issues (campaign finance, global warming, tax cuts) to be newsworthy. In addition, McCain was enough of a George W. Bush basher to keep reporters interested in what he might say next.
But the Mainstream Media’s affection for the senator has come to an end, for two reasons: First, McCain, now seeking to inherit the Bush political legacy – at least until he nails down the 2008 Republican presidential nomination – is now posing as Bush’s best buddy, and the media aren’t going to buddy up to that. Second, the Iraq War. The media, and most of the country, have reached a negative judgment on the war, and so the McCain campaign plank "If you like Bush’s foreign policy, you’ll love my foreign policy" is understandably playing poorly in Manhattan and Los Angeles.
So say goodbye to the media’s portrayal of "St. John" McCain, the flinty, brave maverick. And say hello, instead, to a new "Bob Dole-ized" McCain. Like the Kansas Republican, who, as a 70-something, was mostly portrayed during the 1996 presidential campaign as a cranky and ranting old man, the 70-year-old Arizonan is being portrayed that way now.
I’d like to say "Toldjah So" but he probably wrote his column before I wrote my post – I just didn’t see it until just now