The New York Times did its part for the Hillary Clinton campaign (and President Obama’s legacy) in Thursday’s edition, offering happy talk about lost coal jobs in Kentucky, skipping over some inconvenient facts that would cloud the pro-Democratic narrative, while another story bashing Donald Trump’s tax plan passed up a golden opportunity to revive Clinton’s infamous “dead broke” comment.
Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."
One of the things that liberals "know that isn't so" is that conservative talk radio hosts are all crude people who routinely hurl racist, sexist, homophobic and other epithets over the airwaves. This would explain why the layers of fact-checkers and editors at The New Yorker felt no need to verify the accuracy of the following sentence in the opening paragraph of an essay ("HOW ROUSSEAU PREDICTED TRUMP") by Pankaj Mishra: "In India, Hindu supremacists have adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite epithet 'libtard' to channel righteous fury against liberal and secular élites." But blogress and University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse did — and forced a correction.
CNN's Chris Cuomo heralded American fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad as a "global phenomenon" on Tuesday's New Day. Cuomo gave Muhammad the kid glove treatment by failing to ask her about her anti-Israel posts on Twitter and her controversial criticism of the "climate of anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States." Instead, the anchor prompted her to respond to unnamed "critics" who attacked her hijab as "a symbol of extremism." He also wondered, "What do you want people to know about what it is to be American?"
One of the press's favorite current themes is how Donald Trump's presence at the top of the Republican general-election ticket in the fall has the potential to hurt Republican candidates in Senate and congressional races. That may well be, but the Democrats appear to have a more serious and far more intractable problem which those in the establishment press, including Steve Peoples at the Associated Press Tuesday morning, have mostly chosen to ignore. Down-ticket Dems are saddled with presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's low marks from voters on honesty and trustworthiness.
The latest installment of the Associated Press's "Divided America" series on Monday focused on "climate change," aka "global warming."
Not surprisingly, even though there are only 17 percent of Americans (allegedly "the fastest-growing group," which seems doubtful given that getting to that tiny minority level has required at least a quarter-century) who "are alarmed by climate change and want action now," the AP's Seth Borenstein portrayed them most favorably, and burned a great deal of verbiage quoting outsiders trying to explain away climate skeptics as tribalists, conservatives and Tea Party types. He also accepted the supposedly settled climate science, which isn't settled at all, and ignored recent devlopments throwing the entire idea that the temperatures on earth will increase in the future into serious doubt.
The New York Times on Saturday gave Rabbi Mark Sameth a platform to boost his radical interpretation of Hebrew scripture — that the God of Abraham is a "He/She," and that many in the ancient world practiced "gender fluidity." Sameth rehashed his eight-year-old theory that "the God of Israel...was understood by its earliest worshipers to be a dual-gendered deity." He also contended that Adam, Eve, and other biblical figures had "well-expressed gender fluidity."
The Hillary Clinton campaign released the 2015 joint federal income tax return filed by Mrs. Clinton and her ex-President husband Bill this week. Among other things, the Clintons reported total income of over $10.7 million, incurred income and self-employment taxes of over $3.6 million, and deducted $1 million for a charitable contribution to (imagine that) the Clinton Foundation.
According to CNN's Errol Louis and Kate Bolduan, as seen in a discussion Sunday on CNN's Inside Politics, the contents of the Clintons' return make them seem "more middle classy."
Yesterday, CNN's Jim Sciutto, the network's Chief National Security Correspondent, reported, based on a discussion he claims to have had with "an official from the United States Secret Service," that "it has spoken with the Trump campaign regarding those comments."
Reuters says otherwise.
MTV's Ana Marie Cox invoked the Founding Fathers on Wednesday's CNN Newsroom as she argued that the unsavory elements of Donald Trump's presidential campaign were a more serious issue than Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal: "I think that the violence and bigotry of the Trump campaign are more important than the Hillary e-mails....our founders could foresee the kind of controversies...and the kind of corruption that Hillary Clinton's engaging in. Like, that's part of government, you know?"
In a New York Times op-ed with so many holes it wouldn't hold up as swiss cheese, two political science profs, Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, set out to reassure the leftist elites that "The Path to Prosperity Is Blue." This would be pretty funny if it weren't for the fact that many of the Old Gray Lady's smug readers will actually buy this nonsense. The pair's presentation tortures economic and other statistics so badly that they make getting waterboarded look like a walk in Central Park.
Radical feminism in its most odious expressions has become one comprehensive emulation of Animal Farm looming over women's lives from cradle to grave. The original George Orwell masterpiece popularized the saying, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Radical feminists tell us they believe that feminism is all about choice — but some choices are clearly seen as superior to others.
Not that she cares, because she has far better things to do, but U.S. Olympic beach volleyballer Kerri Walsh Jennings is getting pushback from radical feminists for describing her choices in life thusly: "I feel like I was born to have babies and play volleyball."
Last month, yours truly, with the help of commenters (and in a supplemental post found here), shredded the idea proposed in a column at Slate.com that journalists should eliminate the words "terrorist" and, by extension, "terrorism," to describe genuine acts of terrorism committed by terrorists (unless those words are uttered in quoted remarks by interview subjects). Sadly, in the course of covering the topic, I learned that that the Newspeak practitioners pretending to be journalists at Reuters have already done this in association "with specific events."
Now Philip Mudd, who "comments on counterterrorism and security policy for CNN" and is a former “deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center,” wants to travel part of the way down that road. Mudd wants to effectively eliminate the T-words when describing "seemingly random attacks with debatable motivations," while continuing their use for "politically motivated Islamist revolutionaries" such as "Osama bin Laden."