A writer at CBS Sports hates Tim Tebow. I’m shocked, shocked!
Why the written rage? (Hint: it isn’t about football…)
Tebow has agreed to speak at a hateful Baptist preacher’s church, an evangelical cretin named Robert Jeffress…
Pump your brakes there, sports boy: “Hateful” and “cretin” don’t go with “evangelical.”
What follows is the real reason for the writer’s angst: all writing, including sports writing, is autobiographical.
Tebow’s religious views are not mine…
So the real reason for the Tim Tebow hate—the same sort of “hate” sports writer deplores—is this: Tebow will be a speaker at a church where the pastor doesn’t hold the same values the writer.
Since sports writer doesn’t approve of the pastor’s thoughts, by extension, Tim Tebow is worthy of all derision. (And by further extension, were Tebow to appear at a prison, sports writer would think he’s a criminal.)
The left tells us tolerance and diversity based on race and gender is a good thing. However, by their words, we can see tolerance and diversity based on differing religious views is a bad thing (unless one is a member of the religion of peace). Opiates of the masses and all that. The left believes the people only need the welfare state as their true opiate and our “free press” as the opiate delivery system.
I would imagine if Tebow had only picked his engagements and issues in a more politically correct manner, sports writer would by good with it. A more PC manner would include (for example) consorting with a domestic terrorist, condemning waterboarding, hanging with Al Sharpton for some fun with smoke and fire, advocating for gun control, homosexuality, abortions, and pre-marital sex, and/or speaking at a Scientology temple.
This sort of diversity—the rigid and disingenuous “diversity” of the left—would make Tim Tebow OK.
Why? Because it would mean he’s one of their own.
What a drag it is to be a lefty/liberal/progressive and to have to live in the real world. In fact, this conflict of worldview with reality can lead to a massive case of cognitive dissonance, or more likely, denial.
You have David Axelrod, Obama’s handler, who denies the polls.
You have pro forma Obama supporters who put on their brave Barack face while knowing they’re living a lie.
You have typing heads that are begging for the 2008 Obama voters to show up in 2012 because if they fail to do so, the Third Reich is right around the corner. (And if not the Third Reich, then Robert Reich.)
You have an influential mainstream media source that fails to accept economic principles at the elementary-school level.
Things that can’t continue forever—like denying reality—don’t.
Two recurring themes come to mind: 1) George Orwell was a prophet and 2) man remains the only creature capable of lying to himself.
With the President’s epic debate-fail, many from the traditional media are left wondering just went wrong and why. Here are the answers:
Post debate, Chris Matthews asks “Where was Obama tonight?”
Answer: on the stage. You saw him. And so did America.
Post debate, Charles Blows thinks “President Xanax just doesn’t cut it.”
Answer: like a broken clock, Charles is actually correct a couple of times a day. And perhaps Barry did his pre-debate prep with the Choom Gang.
Post debate, Jonathan Chait wonders why “Obama wasted many [opportunities], with “uhs” and long, wonky discursions.”
Answer: Barry lacked a teleprompter.
Post debate, Gail Collins opines “The president thinks these debates are ridiculous, and he may well be right.”
Answer: And along those lines, Barry’s performance was appropriately ridiculous. And non-presidential.
Post debate, Amy Sullivan offers the President didn’t go backwards (with one focus group of 45 undecided voters), so he’ll be OK.
Answer: Her assessment confirms man is the only creature who can lie to himself.
Post debate, Joe Klein asks “Why was his [Obama’s] debate strategy unilateral disarmament?”
Answer: you got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em. What’s Barry going to do, run on his record?
What’s next? The traditional media will double down on their attempts to demonize and deconstruct Mitt Romney, as will the Obama campaign. Why? They hold no other cards and are unwilling to fold ‘em.
In paraphrase from Red State: most media lemmings lean so far left as to be limited to going in small circles.
Yesterday, they were observed in a collective face-plant after stumbling over their group think as they attempted to focus on Mitt Romney and not the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Obama, following attacks on U.S. embassies and the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.
Why would the media perform such a disservice?
They’re the media. It’s a habit.
Right from the get-go, Klein goes full-Obama apologista with the following:
There’s no mystery as to why Congress is not doing more to help the economy: Disagreements between Republicans and Democrats have paralyzed the institution.
The fundamental postulate, that the government can manufacture jobs, is a total fallacy and if you don’t believe me, look it up.
The next idea Klein offers is that the President has been hamstrung by the Congress. None of this is Barry’s fault, even though Obama made himself the face of America’s way ahead in the 2008 campaign.
Who should really be blamed: Bush? Check.
Congress The House? Check. Obstinate Republicans? Check. Typhoons, an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane, and Lenny Bruce is not afraid? Check. Obama’s debt, food stamps, imperial power grabs, disability payments, “you didn’t build that” philosophy, our budget-free Senate, etc.? No way, man!
Ezra, did you ever consider that when voters turned the House over to Republicans in the 2010 elections, it was because they wanted the Democrat Congress paralyzed?
Later, Klein offers an additional Obama gets-off-the-hook apologetic:
But there’s a real mystery as to why the Federal Reserve is not doing more to help the economy. Ben Bernanke, after all, keeps saying the central bank can do more, and if the economy gets worse, it will do more. But the economy keeps getting worse, and the Fed keeps not doing more.
Right. We all forgot the Fed is the keeper of the keys for the economy and the President’s influence is totally limited (except Bush, whose influence was unlimited and who put us in this deep, deep hole). So Bernanke is to blame as well. Bernanke and Bush, that is. And obstinate Republicans. And Congress (except the Senate).
That’s a source of much amusement to me. How can the traditional media blame Bush, who was simultaneously an evil genius, conspiracy king, puppet master, destroyer of economic value, and simpleton while they ignore the “accomplishments” of Barack Obama, he of the trillion dollar deficits, 40-something months of 8 percent-plus unemployment (and closer to 18 percent actual unemployment), and of course, being our most intelligent president ever?
Wow, that was a really long sentence. Sorry.
The sad thing is what’s been discussed so far reflects the most cogent parts of Klein’s article, which contains another message:
…I am convinced that there is something more the Fed can do, and that now is the right time for them to do it. I call it Uncle Ben’s Crazy Housing Sale.
Ezra appears to have found the codeine-laced cough syrup again and just started typing.
Say goodnight, Ezra. Please.
The President’s apologists are in full denial regarding his “you didn’t build that” gaffe.
For a politico, a gaffe can take many forms, but it will normally be either: 1) saying something that’s obviously true but is politically incorrect, or 2) saying something you actually believe (but will be poorly received) with your out loud voice.
Barry Oh!, the greatest orator of all time and our most intelligent president ever, blundered on the second form of gaffe.
This means that post-gaffe, the Obama team is reduced to asking “What are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Tim Cavanaugh destroys the deniers in full at Reason.com.
And while man remains the only creature capable of lying to himself, we’re finally starting to get more insight into what Obama really thinks.
Based on the magnitude of this particular gaffe, Barry is making a run at Joe Biden (who holds a huge quantitative lead) for the title of Administration GaffeMaster Flash.
Some ancient pol is alleged to have said people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
It’s an interesting bumper sticker, but based on the evidence, it’s false. Instead, people are not only entitled to their own opinions, but are similarly entitled to make up their own facts as well.
The “facts” in question: the article Obama spending binge never happened from MarketWatch.
The article’s author: Rex Nutting. No joke.
Man: still the only creature who can lie to himself.
What can the United States learn from China?
We can learn what not to do.
- The rule of law? Vital. We are trending strongly towards legislation via regulation, a dangerous thing.
- Private property? Critical. That’s why the Kelo ruling was such a bummer.
- Freedom (within the rule of law)? Essential.
- Governmental power, interference, favoritism, and cronyism? Deadly,both metaphorically and often, literally.
Lefties holding China in high regard is like their fascination with the Soviet Union in the 1930s, a monster non sequitur that requires some serious thought as to rationale and motives.
The highly cocooned editors at the New York Times are mad at Alabama for their law on illegal immigration.
The Times describe the law in question, H.B. 56, as “cruel, destructive and embarrassing.” The muy cocooned go on to say:
It still seeks to use police as immigration agents, criminalize acts of charity toward undocumented immigrants and nullify contracts the undocumented sign. And it retreats not an inch from its sponsors’ goal of solving Alabama’s problems through mass immigrant expulsion.
Well. If the feds won’t enforce federal immigration laws, is it any wonder that states will take action on their own?
Chances are the editors of the Times haven’t thought any of this through. Do they really approve of the idea of cheating unemployed Americans (some of whom may be minorities, women, the LGBT community, and the poor) by providing the benefits of citizenship to the “undocumented” ? There is a fundamental issue of the law, writ large, and how it impacts U.S. citizens. Even highly-cocooned liberals will many times agree—in principle—that living in a nation with a citizenry of generally law-observing folks is a good thing.
Here’s what Wikipedia offers about H.B. 65:
The Alabama law requires that if police have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an immigrant unlawfully present in the United States, in the midst of any legal stop, detention or arrest, to make a similarly reasonable attempt to determine that person’s legal status. An exemption is provided if such action would hinder an official investigation of some kind.
The law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving any public benefits at either the state or local level. It bars illegal immigrants from attending publicly-owned colleges or universities [currently blocked]. At the high, middle, and elementary public school levels, the law requires that school officials ascertain whether students are illegal immigrants. Attendance is not prohibited for such students; school districts are mandated to submit annual tallies on the suspected number of illegal immigrants when making report to state education officials.
The law prohibits the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants [currently blocked]. It prohibits landlords from renting property to illegal immigrants. It forbids employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants for any job within Alabama. Moreover, it considers as a discriminatory practice any action to refuse to employ or remove a legal resident of the state when an illegal one is already employed [currently blocked]. The law requires large and small businesses to validate the immigration status of employees using the US E-Verify program. The law prohibits illegal immigrants from applying for work.[currently blocked]
The production of false identification documents is considered a crime. Contracts formed in which one party is an illegal immigrant and the other has direct knowledge of that are deemed null and void. The law also requires voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering.
Methinks the phrase of emphasis in the above is this: illegal immigrants. When we have the New Deli Times replace the New York Times en toto, perhaps the editors will bark up a different tree.
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
And now we have the Frank Bruni story Rethinking His Religion. Yes, that Frank Bruni, former bulimic boy turned food critic turned op-ed writer.
While the cement hasn’t dried on Bruni’s Rethinking His Religion column yet, it may be getting close. Ready for Fake but true, Part Deux?
Bruni’s story involves a classmate who was everything Bruni wasn’t: straight, Southern, conservative, and religious. Then, the man became a doctor and abortion-provider and lost his faith, approximately in that order.
He [the doctor] shared a story about one of the loudest abortion foes he ever encountered, a woman who stood year in and year out on a ladder, so that her head would be above other protesters’ as she shouted “murderer” at him and other doctors and “whore” at every woman who walked into the clinic.
One day she was missing. “I thought, ‘I hope she’s O.K.,’ ” he recalled. He walked into an examining room to find her there. She needed an abortion and had come to him because, she explained, he was a familiar face. After the procedure, she assured him she wasn’t like all those other women: loose, unprincipled.
She told him: “I don’t have the money for a baby right now. And my relationship isn’t where it should be.”
“Nothing like life,” he responded, “to teach you a little more.”
A week later, she was back on her ladder.
The veracity of Bruni’s column has been challenged by many for a variety of reasons including the non-availability of the doctor, the non-confirmation of others, and the impossible to believe narrative. Kinda like Nick Nolte tale as Four Leaf Tayback in Tropic Thunder.
Plus, it sounds like a liberal urban legend,
Gawker, a site not known for sympathy with religious conservatives, was perhaps hardest on Bruni. John Cook savaged the anecdote of a pro-life protester’s abortion – citing eight published instances of nearly identical stories, and calling it “a hoary old tale that pops up on the internet with such frequency that – if I didn’t know better – I’d suspect Bruni was laundering a transparently false urban myth.”
Well, that explains it: print the legend.
In Yoda voice: “Strange this George Zimmerman case is.”
How so, Master Yoda?
Well, there’s the whole NBC thing—the doctored tape which misleadingly changed the crux of the Zimmerman 911 call. NBC has apologized and insiders offer this take of the “seasoned producer” who was involved:
The sources described the producer’s actions as a very bad mistake, but not deliberate.
How is it possible to change this, the actual part of the conversation in question
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
without doing it with malice and forethought?
Short answer: you can’t. Still, this journalistic malfeasance has yet to approach the effect of the 2005 Newsweek ‘Koran desecration’ mis-story which resulted in at least 17 dead and over 100 injured.
From the Today Show’s Matt Lauer, a question directed to Sarah Palin (as relayed by Brietbart):
Do you think, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, he should choose someone with more experience on the national battlefield than you had at the time?”
Now consider the Lauer question vis-à-vis some comments from Gaffemaster Flash, AKA Vice President Joe Biden:
On Thursday evening, the prominent politician made some curious comments about not wanting “a real job.”
According to press accounts, while praising Chicago’s former Mayor Richard M. Daley and former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Biden told the audience, ”I never had an interest in being a mayor ’cause that’s a real job. You have to produce. That’s why I was able to be a senator for 36 years.”
The conclusion is simple: experience—certainly as it concerns Joe Biden—is overrated.
And when you have the absence of first-rate intellect, temperament, and experience, the results, as seen in the current Administration’s “accomplishments,” can be devastating.
Finally, as for Mr. Lauer, well he coulda been an actor, but he would up here…