Archive for January 14th, 2008


How dare you sully the New York Times with the words of someone with which I disagree!

Ask for it by nameThe “Public Editor” of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, isn’t happy that the paper hired Bill Kristol as a columnist, but he’ll live with the choice.  In his column today, Hoyt lays it out in the headline, “He May Be Unwelcome, but We’ll Survive.”

Thank God the Times will survive!  We were worried there for a second.  But what of those poor Timesemployees who have to work at a paper knowing Bill Kristol writes for them once a week?  How will they ever manage to survive? 

Actually, aside from his title and his personal objection to Kristol because he called for an investigation of the Times for printing leaked classified information.  Hoyt says, “This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.”  Think a lot of themselves at the Times, don’t they?  By elite he must mean liberal…

What stands out more is Hoyt’s seeming cluelessness to the hatred of his own party for those who dare think differently.  Has he never spoken with any of the columnists at the Times?  Has he never read any of their pap?

What shocked him was the tone of the responses he got from readers:

Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol’s selection was announced – more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times – exactly one praised the choice.

Rosenthal’s mail has been particularly rough. “That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment.”

Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?

Come to?  Your side has been there since the days of Reagan, only now every left-wing fascist with a PC can spread their bile for the world to see.  Take a look at the comment section of Huffington Post, Daily Kosor any other “liberal” blog and just see the “tolerance.”

Could there have been a better choice than Bill Kristol?  Probably, but there’s always someone better out there (they can’t all be George Will).  But to cause such hatred for someone who comes to a paper with an admitted bias on their op-ed pages (I agree with their effort to address an Op-Ed lineup that, until Kristol came aboard, was at least six liberals against one conservative who isn’t always all that conservative) doesn’t show an exception to the rule of the Left, it is the rule of the Left.  Clark Hoyt needs to acquaint himself with the Internet so he knows what he’s talking about in the future.


When the Environment Attacks …

Twenty-two bald eagles died when they dove into an uncovered truck full of fish guts in Anchorage, Alaska. The truck was owned by Ocean Beauty Seafoods. The Associated Press reportsthat workers from the seafood plant and the Fish and Wildlife Service washed 30 or so surviving birds in dishwashing soap and let the eagles dry overnight in a warehouse. The eagles are expected to recover.

The Bald Eagle, of course, is a protected species, so the Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating whether the seafood plant is in anyway culpable for the attack-or rather for being attacked.

We have lots of laws protecting nature, but nature isn’t always benign. Sometimes nature is the aggressor. If the bald eagle mobbing had endangered human beings, what would the law have allowed them to do to protect themselves and their property?

FWS spokesmen have indicated they think there is no violation of the law, since the seafood company didn’t intend to hurt the birds. Still, nature attacked and the truck owners have to satisfy bureaucrats that the victims aren’t to blame.


Chelsea Clinton, hedge fund worker, speaks…sort of.

Chelsea shows exactly how much integrity her mother has.One of the targets of Democrats this year is the evil HEDGE FUND, Democrats hate hedge funds, or anything else that moves people away from becoming wards of the state.  Well, it turned out John Edwards made a bunch of money working for a hedge fund.  No big deal to rational humans, but political observers thought it odd, or stupid, that he would demonize an industry where he’d made some cash himself.  That story has since faded because Edwards has faded, but there’s someone else out there working for a hedge fund on the Democrats side that you don’t hear too much about; Chelsea Clinton.

Yes, Chelsea is getting rich off the industry Democrats want to destroy, and no one seems to notice.

Speaking, yes, speaking at Stanford University to a small group of Sororities (apparently she can’t be bothered to speak with people who might not be able to afford to join groups, or even 9 year olds) about why her mother would be the bestest President ever, totally! 

“We are just trying to make my mom’s campaign more accessible to people,” she said. “We want to make sure that young people feel like the campaign is talking about issues that you care about and is delivering its plans and ideas in a way that resonates with you.

In other words, we have no idea how to talk to young people, so they’re throwing me out there to get some ideas.  We don’t care if we actually address the problems really facing young people, like the coming crush of Social Security and Medicare, we just want you to feel like we’re addressing things you care about.

Then there is this tidbit.

Chelsea Clinton is taking time off from her job with Avenue Capital Group, a New York hedge fund, to promote the campaign of her mother, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Must be nice to be able to take time off work to travel the country campaigning with a parent.  Especially when you can afford to do it, since Chelsea makes a pretty good salary. 

But that’s not the point, she should make as much as she can, it’s her life.  But the intellectual dishonesty involved here, the double standard, is exactly why people do not trust her mother. 

If the Clinton campaign is going to use Chelsea as anything more than prop they need to treat her as more than prop.  They should also explain how they can attack what she does for a living but have no problem with the fact that she does it.  hedge funds are either an evil that need to be punished or they’re not.  They can’t be the problem but ok to make a lot of personal wealth from for family members. 

And the media only deem it worthy of a passing note.  Check out the whole post, but this last line is worthly of mention:

Why do I suspect that if the child of a prominent Republican candidate worked at a hedge fund, the Times might have played things more prominently, and less sympathetically?

January 2008
« Dec   Feb »