It’s Wednesday, March 1st, 2017…and no, we didn’t watch Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.
But for those, particularly in the world of Conservative pundits and writers, who continue to mistake Progressive provocateurs disrupting the town hall meetings of congressional Republicans for legitimately concerned citizens, this entry from Townhall.com‘s Matt Vespa should cause you to think again:
Having attended a number of Tea Party rallies, they were neverREMOTELY as disorderly and/or unruly as what has become SOP for The Left’s response to The Donald.
Oh,…and if there were ever a poster child for term limits…
…what we hope is the soon-to-be extinct Kentucky Terrapin is IT! ‘Cuz after all, Foggy Bottom’s contributed soooo much to America’s standing and security in an increasingly hostile world.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, writing at the WSJ, Reuven Brenner recalls the prescience of Eric Hoffer,…
““Scratch an intellectual, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk.” Those words might have been written last year, as an explanation for Donald Trump’s rise or a rejoinder to Hillary Clinton’s denunciation of “deplorables.”
In fact they were published in November 1970 and written by Eric Hoffer, the “longshoreman philosopher,” who was best known for his slender 1951 classic, “The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of Mass Movements.” The 1970 essay, under the headline “Whose Country Is America?,” eerily anticipated not only the political events of 2016 but the tone and language of last year’s campaign and the anti-Trump hysteria since Election Day.
Hoffer started his analysis with “the conspicuousness of the young”—that is, the baby boomers. “They have become more flamboyant, more demanding, more violent, more knowledgeable and more experienced,” he wrote. “The general impression is that nowadays the young act like the spoiled children of the rich.”
He attributed those developments to the “ordeal of affluence,” which threatened social stability. Wealth without work “creates a climate of disintegrating values with its fallout of anarchy.” Among the poor this takes the form of street crime; among the affluent, of “insolence on the campus”—both “sick forms of adolescent self-assertion.” As a result, “‘men of words’ and charismatic leaders—people who deal with magic—come into their own,” while “the middle class, lacking magic, is bungling the job” of maintaining social order.
The “phenomenal increase of the student population”—enrollment in colleges and universities would more than triple between 1958 and 1978—created a critical mass: “For the first time in America, there is a chance that alienated intellectuals, who see our way of life as an instrument of debasement and dehumanization, might shape a new generation in their own image.”
The problem for society is “that the alienated intellectual does not want to be left alone,” Hoffer wrote. “He wants to influence affairs, have a hand in making history, and feel important.”The country continued to be plagued by problems “like race relations, violence, drugs.” Common people, however, “know that at present money cannot cure crime, poverty, etc., whereas the social doctors go on prescribing an injection of so many billions for every social ailment.”
No historian, political scientist or journalist of the past 60 years has predicted the current moment with such accuracy. Others should have. Behind Hoffer’s analysis is a view of history that dates to ancient Greece, especially to the historian Polybius. It’s a warning that affluence condemns younger generations to political decline unless institutional checks and balances, combined with education for civic responsibility, are rigorously preserved.
The Founding Fathers were mindful of that danger. The checks and balances they devised were designed to avert long-term decline, not merely short-term abuses of power. John Adams devoted a chapter in “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” to Polybius’ discussion of the theme. During the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton drew on this view too. At one point Benjamin Franklin expressed frustration that the convention had diverted too much into debates about Greek classics.
What finally upset the delicate balance that the Founders had set? Polybius left a place in world affairs to Tyche, the goddess of chance. Not for the first time in history, demographic change played that role. Whether the shock of the Trump election will yield a rebalancing or a further unsettling, time will tell.
In the less stratified America of 1970, the combination of Hoffer’s erudition and his aversion to elitism was not as unusual as it seems today. Even John F. Kennedy had been skeptical of intellectuals. Arthur Schlesinger noted that JFK had “considerable respect for the experience of businessmen,” which “gave them clues to the operations of the American economy which his intellectuals, for all their facile theories, did not possess.”
Hoffer concluded: “We must deflate the pretensions of self-appointed elites. These elites will hate us no matter what we do, and it is legitimate for us to help dump them into the dustbin of history.”Most surprising today may be where this sentiment appeared—in the pages of theNew York Times.
Which just goes to prove you can’t spell “Lying, HypocriticalButtwipe” with an L, I, B, E, R, A and another L!
In a related item, James Freeman, who’s taken over for Jim Taranto at Best of the Web, ponders the ongoing battle between…
Can anyone recall The Times ever publishing a similar piece exposing Hillary’s Clinton Foundation shakedowns?
“Who says Donald Trump is against entitlement reform? While he probably won’t propose changes to Medicare or Social Security in his first budget proposal, the President seems eager to consider whether all members of the media establishment should continue to enjoy privileges not available to the average citizen.
CNN and the New York Times are upset they weren’t included in a Friday press briefing at the White House, even though they still had access to media pool reports filed that day. AlmostallAmericans—and for that matter almost all journalists—were also not invited to the meeting with White House press secretary Sean Spicer.But CNN and the Times seem to feel particularly offended.
…Every politician has significant discretion over how to reach the public and which media outlets to favor. In 2009 President Obama chose in his first prime-time news conference to recognize a Huffington Post writer, bypassing various newspaper reporters. Mr. Obama also used YouTube to order the FCC to prevent telecom companies from charging YouTube and Netflix market rates for carrying their massive Internet traffic.
Last year the Times ran a front-page storysaying that reporters who thought Mr. Trump was a dangerous demagogue “have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer.” More recently CNN happily broadcast repeated references to an accusation-filled “dossier” of negative rumors about Mr. Trump without bothering to confirm they were true.
The President can be forgiven for thinking that CNN and the Times have been trying to build the case for impeachment since Election Night. He has no obligation to help them. Along with refusing to give them an informational edge on their media competitors, this entitlement reform could be paired with an effort to make more government data available to everyone, and to make it more easily understandable and searchable, empowering amateur and professional journalists alike.
The latest NBC/WSJ poll suggests the issue could resonate. A full 86% of respondents agree with the following statement: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” Also, a majority in the survey believe that the “news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump Administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents.”
The survey sample skews Democratic, yet survey respondents have become more optimistic in the Trump era. Now 40% think the country’s headed “in the right direction,” compared to 33% two months ago and just 20% in December of 2015. Mr. Trump’s approval ratings, while still low by presidential standards, are also improving.And perhaps that’s what is most upsetting to CNN and the New York Times.“
As all of us know, the problem with polls isn’t the response, but rather how one poses the question. Were we asked at various times during Bush II whether we approved of the President, we would have answered “Hell NO“. However, were the question whether we supported him, let alone preferred him to Al Gore or John Kerry, our answer would have been an emphatic “HELL yes!!!” The same holds true regarding Donald Trump. Do we wish he’d cease tweeting? You bet! Does his utter lack of class and self-control make us yearn for a second Clinton in the Oval Office? HELLNO!!!
Next, courtesy of NRO, Jonah Goldberg sounds a slightly discordant note on a similar tune…which, as you’ll see from the comments in green, we frankly find somewhat tone deaf:
If “We the People” means anything close to what the Founders intended, Jonah and we must respectfully disagree on what makes a party an “enemy of the people”.
“Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, had an unfortunate turn of phrase the other day. She said it’s the mission of the press to “control exactly what people think.”
My suspicion is that this was less a Freudian slip than a simple slip-up.(We prefer to term it a refreshing moment of unbridled candor!) Brzezinski was referring to her fear that President Trump may be trying to control the way people think by discrediting the media — whom he calls “enemies of the American people” — and she lost her rhetorical footing, stumbling into saying that mind control is “our job.”
But the misstatement resonated with a lot of people, as did Trump’s claim that the press is an enemy of the people.
The first thing that needs to be said is that whenever you hear a politician talk about “the American people,” either they’re over-generalizing to the point of banality, or they’re referring to only one segment of the American public.(True) “The American people love an underdog” is an example of banality. The press “is the enemy of the American people” is a highly subjective declaration. (But nonetheless accurate!)
I don’t blame journalists for taking offense. It was a grossly irresponsible thing for the chief constitutional officer of our government to say. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point or that people are crazy for seeing it.
Which brings me back to Brzezinski’s comment about the media’s controlling how people think. One need not paint with an overly broad brush or accuse the entire press corps of being part of a knowing conspiracy to manipulate the public. Many mainstream journalists sincerely believe they are operating in good faith and doing their job to the best of their abilities.(As did Goebbels, Himmler and Eichmann…to name but a few!) At the same time, it seems patently obvious that the “objective” press is in the business of subjectively shaping attitudes rather than simply reporting facts.
Consider the hot topic of the moment: illegal immigration.The syndicate that distributes the column you are reading follows the AP stylebook, which says that I am not allowed to refer to “illegal immigrants” (i.e., people who migrate illegally), but I can refer to illegal immigration (i.e., the act of migrating illegally). Kathleen Carroll, then the senior vice president and executive editor of the Associated Press, explained that the change was part of the AP’s policy against “labeling people.” Many news outlets followed suit, using such terms as “unauthorized” or “undocumented” to describe immigrants formerly known as illegal.
The move was hailed by left-wing immigration activists as a great leap forward.And for good reason: It is part of their agenda to blur the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, and to make it sound as if objecting to the former is morally equivalent to objecting to the latter. But as a matter of fact and logic, the difference between an “unauthorized immigrant” and an “illegal immigrant” is nonexistent.
The media play these kinds of linguistic games all the time. Economics professor Tim Groseclose walks readers through countless examples in his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. Partial-birth abortion virtually never appears without a “so-called” before it, and the procedure is virtually never described clearly. The word “kill” is almost never used to describe any abortion, despite the fact that this is what happens. Whenever some great sweeping piece of liberal social legislation is passed by Democrats, it’s a “step forward.” Whenever a law is repealed, Republicans are “turning back the clock.”
The language games are part of a larger tendency of journalists to follow certain scripts that conform to how coastal elites see the country. (In other words, lying in pursuit of a “greater good”.)
…In 2015, during the ridiculous hysteria over Indiana’s religious-freedom law (since revised), a news reporter went around a small town asking business owners about the law. The owner of Memories Pizza, Crystal O’Connor, said anyone could eat there, but they’d probably turn down a job to cater a gay wedding. The story was immediately blown up by national news outlets as proof of some prairie fire of anti-gay discrimination, even though no one had been discriminated against. Memories Pizza had to shut down.
My hunch is that O’Connor nodded along when Trump said the press is the enemy of the American people.“
Contrary to Goldberg’s central assertion, the MSM is the enemy. What else can one term an institution dedicated to overturning the Constitution and the Founders’ Republic through the deliberate falsification of the new?!?
Then there’s what passes for “independent, unbiased journalism” from TheDenverChannel.com, a story long on imagery and feelings, but short on factual analysis and logic:
Chris Cline walks down a long corridor and stops at a roll-up metal door. He takes the lock off and pushes up on the door to reveal a windowless metal box he calls “home sweet hell.” The disabled Gulf War vet and his dog have been living in the tiny 70 square-feet storage unit for almost two years. The small space is crammed with all his worldly possessions, including reminders of his proud Navy career strewn across the walls.
Cline has a full-time job, a car and has served our country in war, but in an increasingly expensive city like Denver, this is the best Cline says he can do to find solace. “It isn’t an easy life by any means. It’s not something I would choose,” he said.
…Life wasn’t always this way for Cline and his dog, Anwen. The rental market has simply squeezed them out over the last few years. He used to lease space in someone’s basement in Lakewood, then a room from a man in Parker.But then came bankruptcy, and now Cline says he just cannot comfortably spend what little he has on an actual apartment. Cline is paying $160 a month for his storage unit.
…Cline makes $11.50 an hour as an overnight security guard, a job he’s had for years, and where he can keep his dog close by. After deducting monthly expenses, he’s left with about $600 for anything else life could throw his way, including trying to save.
…“I don’t want a handout,” he said. The Navy veteran says he’d gladly take some help with housing, but the VA and another organization, he says, just haven’t come through yet. He says his family is not much of an option either; they live out of state. So, for now, this is the reality.
“This is not a choice for me. This is survival,” he said…”
First, consider the fact Cline has a car and can move…perhaps somewhere apartment costs don’t eat up such a significant portion of his paycheck…and somewhere closer to his out-of-state family?!? After all, experienced security guards aren’t a niche market peculiar to Denver.
Then, consider the description which followed the article…
Editor’s Note: Cline’s story is the beginning of a series of stories addressing Colorado’s increasingly expensive housing. On Monday, the Denver7 Investigates team will reveal a new measure in the works to reduce rent prices and provide more people assistance in purchasing a home — even if they earn more than the median income.
…and what, as Bill Meisen noted, makes this nothing more than an advance for a follow-on story detailing a Dimocratic effort to further redistribute Colorado taxpayer dollars:
Though we fear a smaller part of the problem is simply sloppy, lazy reporting, as evidenced by this article from FOX News, which is the subject of today’s installment of the Environmental Moment:
Forget about the deliberate misrepresentation of the geography surrounding the mine…
…from the headline, one could safely conclude a majority of the House, meaning a majority of Republicans, has officially urged the EPA to rescind its undeniably extra-legal veto of the Pebble Mine project. The body of the article narrows the number, first reducing it to…
“Some Republican lawmakers and mining executives are hoping that the appointment of Scott Pruitt as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will reverse the agency’s veto of a controversial mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, despite widespread local opposition to the project and a dearth of investors.“
…before offering a precise figure:
“Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, penned a letter last week to Pruitt that urged the new EPA administrator to rescind the 2014 veto of the Pebble Mine project amid claims that the agency overstepped its statutory authority under President Barack Obama.“
Then there’s the relative value of the mine itself; again, hardly a consistent thread, as the article first avers…
“Pebble Mine is believed to contain some of the world’s largest deposits of copper, gold and molybdenum…“
Wow. Given the current price of copper, gold and molybdenum, one could assume the Pebble Mine project was…well,…a potential gold mine. Not so fast, as later in the article, the intrepid reporter writes that…
“Adding to the ubiquitous local opposition in Bristol Bay toward the mine are the financial problems that consistently have plagued the project.Earlier in February, New York-based investment firm Kerrisdale Capital released a damning report on the state of Northern Dynasty – the Pebble deposit’s current owners.
The firm noted that the election of Donald Trump has fueled hopes that a more mining-friendly EPA will allow the project to move forward and that since Election Day, Northern Dynasty’s stock price has increased 326 percent. Nevertheless, it warned that the excitement over Pebble Mine was misguided.
“We believe Northern Dynasty is worthless,” the investment firm stated in its report, citing the departure from the project of many of the mining industry’s major players. “Though the legal and regulatory problems that will continue to plague the Pebble project even under a Trump presidency are enormous, the project’s Achilles’ heel is more fundamental: economics.”
A number of the world’s largest mining corporations have pulled out of the project, including Mitsubishi, Rio Tinto and Anglo American – the last of which had about $500 million in the project.
The Kerrisdale Capital report added: “With no economic value and huge political risks, Northern Dynasty is a zero.”…“Maybe they don’t enough money or maybe they don’t have sufficient partners to go forward,” Reynolds said. “The only company left is this small Canadian company that is running out of money every quarter.”
But we digress. Facts are, Northern Dynasty’s value isn’t what its stock trades at, but rather what the ore in the Pebble Mine’s actually worth.
And rather than advocating for the opening of a single mine, Lamar Smith’s concerns are centered on…
“The issue we’re concerned about is that there is a process that the EPA should follow in granting permits,” a House Science Committee aide who asked to remain anonymous told Fox News. “The chairman is looking to Scott Pruitt to bring back some semblance of regular order to the EPA.”
As they should be. Besides, all of this begs the question, if Environazi concerns are legitimate…
“The project may have the backing of pro-mining lawmakers in Washington who want to see the Obama-era environmental regulations rolled back, but the mine does not enjoy the same among environmentalists, Alaska’s indigenous communities and the state’s large-scale salmon fishing industry.
…the project has been hampered for decades over concerns that toxic residue from the mine could harmthe world’s largest population of sockeye salmon and endanger the 14,000 jobs and $252 million-a-year generated by the local fishing industry.
“My family has been here for generations and we rely on the salmon to feed our families and to have a livelihood,” Kimberly Williams, the executive director of the Bristol Bay nonprofit Nunamta Aulukestai, told Fox News.“Salmon fishing is not just part of my culture and history, but it provides jobs for everyone in the community and helps send people to college.The mine puts all that at risk.”
…what has been the impact of all the other mines already operating in and throughout Alaska?!? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that particular statistic.
All of which is why Washington’s been informed…
…and turnabout…
…is fair play!
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side…
Finally, courtesy of Balls Cotton and Benny Johnson writing at Independent Journal Review, we’ll call it a day with a look…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.