97 Comments

1. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

If one believes Bernie Goldberg, the Times defines the news. If it isn’t in the Times, it ain’t news. If it’s a big deal in the Times, it’s big news.

The MSM seems to follow this fairly well, which is why the Times is important. It’s editorial choices largely control the national conversation (or should I say “national monolog”) at any point in time.

Presumably the rest of the MSM follows this out of more than just habit – they agree with the Times and its reactionary perspective.

The MSM just had fun trying to define Fox as an evil empire of some sort – as if Fox, even if run by the RNC (which it is not) could overcome the huge effect of the goose-stepping MSM.

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:14 pm 2. richard mcenroe:

Emblematic of the problem with the NY Times is that it reconciles the dichotomy between upholding the civil rights of gays, women, etc., with opposition to the war on “terror”, i.e., against the very people so profoundly against every human right the Times champions, by making the assumption that there should not be a war on “terror”, and indulging in massively selective editing and the support of every kindred voice to hand, regardless of the facts. Worse, this has been the policy of the paper since the 1930’s with its whitewash of Stalin, and the cost in human misery of the Times’ blinkered vision is beyond calculation.

Was the Times a publication like the British Sun or the New York Post, whos reputations for veracity are transparent as a wet t-shirt in Ft. Lauderdale, this would be all well and good. But the Times has for years set the tone of the debate, it has been the lodestone in every national network newsroom and New York editorial office, and every major city daily that aspired to legitimacy. Its willful denial of plain facts is echoed in these same venues and hung like a smothering blanket over the national perception.

It’s great that you can read the WSJ and Instapundit but not everyone has that option and worse, not everyone under that blanket knows they need that option.

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:19 pm 3. chuck:

Didn’t Bush say he didn’t read the papers? And why should, unless the papers offered worthy alternative views and news otherwise unavailable to the government. Surely, the information available to him on some topics, such as Iraq, is much deeper than that in the paper. I also suspect there are folks in government who read the papers and collect what is worth noting. In many ways, this is how I use bloggers: as folks who do the dirty work of reading for me and pass on links of interest.

I would gladly pay to have this job done for me, and that is what the papers used to do, but no longer. I would also point out that alternatives are not widely available, as most of the papers rely on a few news services for much of the reporting. Only in special cases do the papers send their own correspondents. And then there is the standard article format, a bit of new information followed by repitition of old memes, like the chorus in a song. 90% of the typical article can skipped over, and this is plain inefficient use of my time. Unlike commenting on blogs, of course. In any case, there is a lack of reliable information for the ordinary citizen and I don’t think this is good.

In a sense, I would like to see more freelance reporters whom I could pay to report and research topics. How to set up such an infrastructure escapes me. The current papers are in the best position to do something here, and I hope a few start to move in this direction.

Meanwhile, my papers of choice are the WSJ, FT, and CSM. Oh, and the Telegraph for its book reviews.

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:22 pm 4. Charlie (Colorado):

I don’t know if it’s worth bringing up (again?), but I wonder if we don’t need a word for what Rogert is talking about? I mean, the people who believe in human rights and basic freedoms for everyone?

“Classical liberal” is tempting, but I’m not sure people like Roger want to buy into the economic liberty position that implies. (On the other hand, is it consistent to think about personal liberty without economic liberty? I’m tempted to say not. Certainly there’s darn little evidence that personal and political liberty is consistent wit lack of economic liberty, and China’s current experiment with economic liberty but political repression … well, the jury’s still out, but it doesn’t look very stable to me.)

In any case, I agree in general: what we call “liberal”, now and IMAO quite a while into the past, only really cares about political and personal liberties when it’s a lever for giving Our Side control. It looks to me like the NYT is primarily concerned with maintaining their own hegemony.

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:29 pm 5. chuck:

But Charlie, isn’t neo-liberal the word.

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:53 pm 6. asher813@aol.com:

Spot on, Roger. Basic human rights for everyone – is that so hard to grasp? Charlie, good points about “liberal” – whatever that means nowadays – and the use of liberal ideology as a figleaf for power-grabbing.

The NYT has done a good job of exposing what the term “liberal” really means nowadays: an arrogant, self-satisfied clique who like to amuse themselves with the most cryptic forms of entertainment available (in the fervent hope that the rest of us will find it “shocking”) and who imagine the rest of the world to be dull, literal-minded creationists.

It’s also very helpful that the article enumerates the groups that may be safely treated like “strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide” (yup, actual quote, not satire). Really, this is refreshing candor.

And how in the world do these urban sophisticates imagine that they even know what my “value system” is, let alone understand it?

Jul 25, 2004 - 4:55 pm 7. chuck:

asher@13,

They really have no concept that there *is* a value system outside the NE, let alone what it is. Back in the 60’s I recall my radical classmates at Columbia talking about revolution. Then I tried to imagine my relatives in Kansas and Oklahoma marching in the streets under red banners. Sorry, no way. But those radicals hadn’t a clue that my relatives even existed, and I’m afraid many like them went on to positions of influence.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:03 pm 8. Fresh Air:

The Times can’t really set the agenda anymore, though it does influence greatly what the rest of the MSM covers by creating competition for stories.

A more important issue is the incubator in which the Times staffers live is filled with noxious air. The haughtiness and condescension expressed in their feature stories is breathtaking. I laugh whenever I read a Times story about something out here in the Midwest, which they treat like a foreign country. The South? N.B.R. (Nothing but rednecks.) The West? N.B.G.N. (Nothing but gun nuts–except California of course.)

The problem is the newsroom is filled with elitists from the East Coast who have been told their whole lives they are smarter than everyone else. Their otherworldly self-importance is reinforced by their fellow travelers around town at the New Yorker, New York Review of Books and the Observer.

The worldview they espouse is in lockstep with the 10 or 15 most liberal senators, and it won’t change until Pinch dies and the damn rag is taken over by Lachlan Murdoch.

A further issue is the Times style, which calls for a little throat-clearing after the fifth or sixth graph and “an editorial nudge in the ribs” (as Bill Keller famously admitted). This sort of English editorializing is unacceptable in America, and is the first thing Keller should get rid of.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:04 pm 9. jerry:

Charlie:

Those who hold the position that allows for personal automony but would restrict economic and political freedoms are proponents of so-called third way. I would call it an attempt to create “Socialism with Human Face.” Unfortunately, without economic and the true political liberty all you get is an atomized social order at the mercy of a socialist bureacracy, i.e., Eurosocialism. What proponents of thrird way socialian don’t admit is that socialism results in decline living standards and popular unrest. The socialist class with always end up repressing opponents and creating a police state because socialist economics is not sustainable.

Socialism is merely the religion of the elitist intelliectual. He simply replaces the supreme being external to the system with his own self created godliness.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:07 pm 10. chuck:

I laugh whenever I read a Times story about something out here in the Midwest

I am afraid that this is the universal reaction of anyone who reads an article about something they know. Reporters are strangers to every subject and foreigners in every locale. They can’t possibly know what is going on unless they spend a *lot* of time, and they seldom do. This is perhaps the key to some of the unanimity in the MSM, as knowledgeable folks often differ among themselves and debate. Indeed, it is unavoidable. It is only the uninformed who can agree en masse.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:15 pm 11. PeterUK:

There is a rule of thumb that can be applied to newspapers,how accurate are they in the areas where one has expertise? Usually not very,so how accurate are they in every othere area as well.

It is quite frightening when that rule is applied,the opinion formers are merely offering an opinion without any background knowledge.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:27 pm 12. Catherine:

Left in form, but right in essence.

Thank you!

I never knew that phrase, but now that I do, I will be using it often.

Hah!

HereÔøΩ’s Hitchens on role reversal:

Since American liberalism shows no sign of abandoning its comfortable role as an essentially status quo force, at home and abroad, the right may hope to continue passing Hegel’s test of political vitality–the readiness for a split. I have to say that I was impressed, during the Trent Lott business, by the way that his conservative critics conducted themselves. They wrote and spoke as if this was a matter of principle, not of damage-control, and they were suitably ruthless and unsentimental when it came to phony appeals about “loyalty” and “unity.” They made their opponents look like Clintonoids. I hope I needn’t overdo the contrast.

Some advice for my friends on the right

As for Sandy Berger, itÔøΩs not just John Kerry who was hanging with the guy. When Foreign Affairs commissioned an article on ÔøΩ”Foreign Policy for a Democratic President”ÔøΩ they tapped Berger. When it comes to Democratic foreign policy, he’ÔøΩs The Man, or was.

Foreign Policy for a Democratic President

highlights:

The foreign policy debate in this year’s presidential election is as much about means as it is about ends. Most Democrats agree with President Bush that the fight against terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) must be top global priorities, that the war in Afghanistan was necessary and just, and that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed a threat that needed to be dealt with in one form or another.

Saddam a threat?

You could have fooled me.

Bill Keller

I love the guy.

After reading his defense of Judith Miller I’m on his side for good.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:29 pm 13. Terrye:

To be honest I don’t think the NYT wants to be the paper of the midwest or espouse so called traditonal values. It wears its revolutionary credentials like a badge of honor. Of course this means that it has less and less in common with the rest of us.

Not long ago a young lawyer from the liberal class told me two things that say it all: He was more afraid of Ashcroft than any Islamic terrorist and he had never in his life heard anyone use the “n” word. In other words people such as myself are somehow tainted just because we live in a world where such language is possible. Now that is not only isolated it is fantasy. But it allowed him to maintain a moral superiority he had not earned while at the same time ignoring things far scarier than a Republican who lives in the midwest and owns a gun and has actually heard somebody use that bad word.

To this kind of person someone like Osama might as well be alien from another planet, much better to worry about safe enemies, like Enron.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:48 pm 14. Terrye:

Catherine:

Hello.

I saw Bill Richards today on TV and he talked about the Dems and foreign policy. He said that if Kerry is elected he would get NATO and the UN and all kinds of international support in Iraq. When he was ask how this would come about he said it was easy if the right President asked. In other words they are not running away from the WOT, they are claiming we can get more support with Kerry running the show. How he planned to accomplish this is a little fuzzy.

You know I hate to sound paranoid but sometimes I wonder just who Kerry has been talking to. I remember he pulled some strange things with the Sandanistas and the North Vietnamese and I wonder if he has been talking to foreign leaders and making deals. That would effect whatever support Bush might be able to get.

Does that sound too strange?

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:57 pm 15. richard mcenroe:

Jerry ó What about “Social freedom with economic responsibility?”

The one thing I’ve noticed about socialist economies is that they do not thrive without a free market economy either close at hand generating wealth and markets, or a free-market element within their own culture generating wealth off which the socialist element can basically leech.

On the other hand, an unrestrained free-market economy is destructive, in my opinion, of the personal, family and community values. It’s pretty much beyond question that it’s harder to raise children well when both parents have to work full time jobs, or to form a sense of community spirit when the workers in the household must move regularly to find work in their trade that will pay them a living wage.

I act on this belief by supporting companies that support American communities. This is not a simplistic “Buy American” philosophy; my next motorcycle will be a Harley or a Buell rather than a Honda, if I buy new, and my next truck would preferably be a Nissan built in Tennessee than a Ford or Chevy built in Canada or Mexico. The way I see it, in the latter instance, I’d prefer to support Nissan’s American workers than Ford or GM’s American stockholders who aren’t willing to make the same effort.

Jul 25, 2004 - 5:59 pm 16. OldManRick:

I have always seen three aspects of a political parties politics, Foreign Policy, Fiscal Policy, and Social Policy. The left – right dichotomy in the first two is pretty pronounced.

In foreign policy, the ìrightî believes in strong defense and doing what is in our national interest first. The ìleftî believes more in international institutions, treaties, and restraint. In Fiscal policy, the ìrightî believes more in market forces and government restraint while the left favors the government as the solution to almost every problem and gives it more responsibility for the distribution of resources.

It is in Social policy where all hell breaks loose. If you look at it from a myopic, non-judgmental point of view, both sides want the government to control the other side. From drug legislation, to gay marriage, to removing Christian symbols from the public domain, to controlling the Boy Scouts, both sides try impose their views on the other. Both try to refrain freedom of association in some way. The left does this by cutting off government resources or forcing the right to provide services. The right does it by the same tactics.

(I personally am very libertarian and atheist about social policy but I donít believe either side should be forcing the other side to do anything or to cut off the other side. If a Catholic charity does not want to provide abortion services as part of their healthcare plan, then they should have the option. Their employees know that it is part of the deal. If two gays want to marry, there should be a church that will perform that ceremony. Demand and supply.)

As I see it, the problem the Times has is that its views are based on being on the left on all three of these policies. If the right side of the Foreign and Fiscal policy does a better job of supporting the left side of the Social Policy, they cannot accept it because it means they may be wrong on one of the first two. The fact is that a capitalist democracy will find and fund the most individual freedoms does not fit into their worldview. Thus, no matter what Bush does, no matter his social policy successes, the Times views him as wrong on the foreign and fiscal policy so the results on the Social are unacceptable.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:02 pm 17. Kevin P:

Roger:

I have tried to retire my use of the word liberal when describing leftist thinking and call it just that,leftist. John F, Kennedy was a liberal, Harry Truman was a liberal, And I think you are a liberal in the good sense.I may disagree with you on some social issues but I don’t have to worry about the safety of this country or that while being realistic about the problems that we have in this country you don’t want to tear the basic structure apart.If liberal doesn’t fit then 9-11 democrat , or Scoop Jackson Democrat. I should let you define yourself but this is just the impression that I get.That doesn’t mean I think that I know how you are going to fall on every issue but even when I disagree with you I know I an talking to an adult.

As far as the New York Times goes its not the fact that they have a leftist point of view its that they deny it.They have an agenda and they try to pass it off as objective and neutral.I read the LA Times every day and they are the same way.From the front page, to opinion, to the entertainment section they have a slant that they push and when anyone calls them on it they act as if you are calling into question the honor of their mother.I still read both papers and others too.If they would just lay claim to what they truly are I would have no problem with them.I have a problem with denial.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:09 pm 18. Fresh Air:

Catherine–

Keller was pro-war, but has been strangely quiescent as the A.B.B.ers in the newsroom have been hurling daily shells at the Bush administration over its supposed lack of bonafide causus belli. What happened to his spine?

I had high hopes when Keller replaced Howell “Fly Fishing Through the Mid-Life Crisis” Raines. But I’m now afraid he may have drunk too much of Pinch’s punch to be an effective reformer.

Terrye–

I think all these DNC people all dreaming. We represent all but a small fraction of NATO’s combat firepower, the balance of which is already in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some U.N. nations could be useful, but are oftentimes terribly ineffective in joint combat operations with U.S. forces since their communications systems and technology are outdated and wholly incompatible with ours.

Moreover, Victor Davis Hanson says we don’t need any more troops in Iraq. I trust him over Bill Richards or John Kerry any day.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:16 pm 19. Terrye:

Fresh Air:

I agree with you. I just wonder at the conviction of the claims by the Dems. It is as if it is done deal or something. Does it not occur to them that if they can’t deliver there will be a number of Repulicans ready to say I told you so? Makes me wonder is all.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:31 pm 20. Catherine:

Hi Terrye!

You know I hate to sound paranoid but sometimes I wonder just who Kerry has been talking to. I remember he pulled some strange things with the Sandanistas and the North Vietnamese and I wonder if he has been talking to foreign leaders and making deals.

Given his actions in the 70s I wouldn’t put it past him, but I’d be intensely surprised if the guy has extracted any promises from Chirac or Schroeder or anyone else, for that matter.

A couple of weeks ago a number of op-eds written by high-level American foreign policy Democrats appeared both here and in England, all warning Chirac that the “ball was now in his court”; it was time for him to “step up to the plate,” and so on. They were so harshly worded they could have been written by the Bushies of a year ago. Basically they were ultimatums.

Every one of the pieces said, in essence, “George Bush has now done everything you wanted him to do. If you want the Atlantic alliance to survive, it’s up to you.” Pretty serious language.

Chirac did not get with the program.

I noticed that at least a couple of the authors pointed out that Kerry would be asking Chirac for the same things Bush is asking for, and the whole group of opinioners made it obvious that the Democratic FPE is under no illusions that the “International Community” is going to be any more cooperative with John Kerry than it is with George Bush.

Bill Richardson is blowing smoke & he knows it.

The only foreign publications I read are THE ECONOMIST & FINANCIAL TIMES, but neither of those publications seems remotely fond of Kerry. They both have their problems with Bush–FT more so than THE ECONOMIST–but they’re not plumping for Kerry.

Apart from all the obvious problems with the guy, the FT & THE ECONOMIST take free trade very seriously. Any kind of protectionist talk–any at all–is a red flag. We never hear about it, but Bush is highly multilateral on trade, supports international trade law & treaties, accepts the rulings of the WTO (an even worse institution than the U.N. if Walter Russell Mead is to be believed), etc. . . . For the Brits the kind of unilateralism that would really upset them would be unilateralism on trade. That’s not Bush, but it might be Kerry.

Beyond this, both publications have carried one story after another saying that “America has changed.”

By this they mean that the U.S. is no longer a “status quo power,” but a “revoluationary power.” Those are direct quotes. They believe that any successor to Bush will carry on with transformation of the Middle East.

I find that impossible to believe myself, but that is how a wide swathe of England (and I assume Europe) sees it.

Check out this final paragraph from THE ECONOMIST’s big story on Kerry this week:

It is not, in some ways, a compelling vision, just as Mr Kerry is not a compelling candidate. But this year, Mr Kerry and his message may appeal to voters who want to pause for a realistic and decent reappraisal of what their country stands for, a respite from four years of heroic, hectic and sometimes heedless history-making.

Chirac is nothing if not a tough old nut.

I don’t think he’s going to be doing any favors for a guy the rest of the world sees as “non-heroic.”

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:33 pm 21. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó So what exactly would the Democrats’ selling points for such “deals” be?

“Vote for us because we believe it is important the Europeans approve of our leadership?”

“Vote for us because the Europeans will only give us these deals if we approve their choice of our leader?”

Do you seriously think the American electorate will go for that?

Name me one place east of the Hudson and west of the San Gabriel Mountains where those will be selling points.

Besides, did you see the link I posted about Chirac on the previous thread? Kerry will last two seconds in any horse-trading with him and Schroeder.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:34 pm 22. ordi:

The Follies Berger – Clue No. 305

A new Berger scenario

the thrust of the federal investigation now looking into Mr. Berger’s actions should center not necessarily on what was taken from the archived files but what was placed in them.

SNIP

And adding an entirely new layer of intrigue to the story is word that telephone calls made by Berger during those latter two visits may have been monitored by an unauthorized agency.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:37 pm 23. ordi:

OPPS!

A New Berger scenario

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:38 pm 24. ordi:

Second! OPPS!

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_204906.html

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:39 pm 25. chuck:

ordi,

I noticed the continued repetition of “inadvertent.” I knew that “inadvertent” was simply too good to die. The word is has become famous. What a poor choice by Berger’s lawyers. Ole, “inadvertent.”

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:48 pm 26. Terrye:

Catherine and richard:

Well I can’t imagine that Kerry could offer anything to Chirac that Americans would want him to sell. But I do think this cynical play on the emotions of Americans who hate to be hated is deplorable. Why not just say ‘vote for our guy and they won’t spit on you or burn your flag’…

And I think that Catherine is right about the trade issue. Remember the reaction of our allies to the steel tariffs? Well take that times ten and you would have their reaction to some of Kerrys’ trade policies. But I doubt if he would do half the stuff he promises those factory workers in Ohio and Michigan. Take it from an ex farmer, politicians lie.

Jul 25, 2004 - 6:58 pm 27. Kevin P:

Richard:

Kerry, Richardson and the rest don’t care at this point whether or not the French actually participate or not, they just want the voters to think that Kerry will get them to participate.You and I know that the French won’t contribute uniforms to Iraq let alone bodies to fill them, they just have to sell the public that Kerry’s friendship with Europe will bring in more help.There is a sizable number of voters who are willing to listen to anyone who claims they can relieve some of the burden of the war off of our shoulders and the Dems know it. It doesn’t have to be based in reality.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:05 pm 28. PeterUK:

If the worst came to the worst and Kerry became president,what would change? Chirac would still be president of France and her interests would come first.No amount of nicey,nicey and grovelling is going to change that.

Perhaps France would like a change of US president but only as a way of asserting french influence and to open an opportunity to bilk the new boy.

After all the concessions have been made,the humiliation endured the US will find itself in the same position, or worse, as it is now.They have been doing it to Blair for years.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:08 pm 29. wxjames:

I don’t know how I survive, but I don’t read any newspaper or watch any television. When I’m driving, I listen to talk radio. While I’m online, I read a few blogs. My friends and I send links to must read stories and funny stuff and I get all the rest from the guy on the next seat at the diner. Talk radio covers politics pretty well. There are other things happening in the world, but, in time of war, the radio is pretty fast. Because I listen to radio, I am sure the Clinton administration covered up the TWA 800 incident. Those in the NY area all agree that there were numerous callers who reported seeing a missle streaking up toward that jet. And, then the CIA made afilm outlining the fuel tank problem. Yeah, that happens all the time. I wonder why the 911 commission didn’t go into the TWA 800 investigation ?

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:10 pm 30. richard mcenroe:

KevinP ó Talking about being based in reality:

“John Kerry claims that he goes deer hunting with a “trusty” 12 gauge shotgun:

He was asked in the interview Sunday what kind of hunting he preferred.

“Probably I’d have to say deer. It’s tough, depending on where you are,” said Kerry.

“I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That’s hunting,” said Kerry, whose manner was relaxed as he spoke on the final day of an excursion along the scenic upper Mississippi that he seemed to take some relish in.”

Any other hunters want to take a bite at this before I do?

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:15 pm 31. flenser:

“…the best argument for the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in general — [is]to preserve and extend to the rest of the world those very freedoms (for women, homosexuals and everybody else) that the paper trumpets in its “urban-ness.” ”

I can’t say I agree with you there Roger. Are we really fighting to extend to the rest of the world the “right” to homosexual marriage, or the unlimited “right” to abortion, or the “right” of certain groups never to hear opinions they find disagreeable, or the “right” to government mandated quotas in education and jobs? These are the freedoms the NYT champions.

Those of us who are fighting the war, both literally and figuratively, are quite opposed to these things. So are the American people more broadly, which is why these policies must always be implemented by extra-constitutional measures.

The “why do they hate us” question has some merit here. In large part they hate us because they see us as immoral and hedonistic, consumed with the pleasures of the moment. There is an interesting trend in history where the victors tend to mythologise those they have defeated, and absorb many of their traits. A topic for conversation, perhaps. But one likely outcome of this war is a renewed commitment to moral seriousness on our part. (Once our death toll gets higher)

A lot of people on this board are disillusioned liberals, who cannot believe what the Democratic party has sunk to. I’m very impressed with the quality of thought and expression displayed here, and I’m quite glad you’re all on my side. (More or less) But I sometimes get the impression that some of you feel that liberalism is still a good concept, it’s just that the current Democratic party has abandoned the idea of exporting it abroad.

The same trends on display here in America are evident in all the other liberal democracies around the world, and they all seem to be heading in the same direction at different speeds. The end result seems likely to be the formation of a populace of rootless, aimless people, kept satiated by the ready supply of drugs, sex, and pornography, and ruled by a small overclass interested in nothing but the preservation and extension of their own power. I would not waste my time commenting on it if I did not think this was reversible. But a good beginning to correcting some of our problems would be to take a hard, skeptical look at liberalism, in all of it’s guises

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:15 pm 32. Roberts:

Richard, regarding Kerry’s faux attempts to seem “red state”, isn’t weird that after Clinton the Democrats may have found someone who lies even more often?

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:19 pm 33. PeterUK:

Richard McEnroe,

There was an hilarious picture of Kerry with a shotgun at LGF,the man doesn’t know a shotgun from a shitgun.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:20 pm 34. someone:

Keller just purveys “Rainesism with a human face”.

Not an improvement.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:21 pm 35. flenser:

Catherine

I read that piece in the Economist also. It’s been a long time since I read that magazine, and it really looks like I’m not missing much, so I guess I’ll check back in another five years. It does seem to me that they used to be better than this though. That glowing endorsement of Kerry, thinly disguised as news analysis, was worthy of Newsweek.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:22 pm 36. wxjames:

Kerry crawls around on his stomach, kinda playing the wind ? He must be a worm then. If you make so much as 2 noises spaced so as to suggest a bipedal walking, the deer don’t stop till they’re in the next county. So he’s a worm lying about being a hunter. The only way to hunt with a short range weapon like a shotgun, is to sit in your tree and remain motionless. Deer don’t think to look up. But, they smell and hear better than dogs. Kerry’s full of shit.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:25 pm 37. Catherine:

this is funny

I just came across this Letter to the Editor in THE ECONOMIST:

SIR ÔøΩ Why do you describe John Kerry as ÔøΩdamnably dullÔøΩ and a ÔøΩhaughty BostonianÔøΩ, exemplify his presentation skills as making a ÔøΩfirefight in Vietnam sound like a mathematics textbookÔøΩ, remind us that he went to ÔøΩexpensive private schoolsÔøΩ, picture him ÔøΩlike a portrait of himself by Edvard MunchÔøΩ, allege that he ÔøΩcould put a hummingbird into a comaÔøΩ and state that ÔøΩhe is the political equivalent of ValiumÔøΩ (ÔøΩKerry’s dream ticket?ÔøΩ and ÔøΩGee upÔøΩ, July 10th)?

Should you not ask at the same time whether George Bush (an arrogant Texan?) is sparkling or charismatic? Or, more important, honest and decent? Does he not deliver his speeches with an air of not quite understanding what it is all about, while smirking at all the wrong moments? Did he not go to (pricey) Harvard? Is he not a moving cartoon of himself? Is his record of communicating with voters and allies not a disaster?

Should you not ask at the same time whether George Bush (an arrogant Texan?) is sparkling or charismatic? Or, more important, honest and decent? Does he not deliver his speeches with an air of not quite understanding what it is all about, while smirking at all the wrong moments? Did he not go to (pricey) Harvard? Is he not a moving cartoon of himself? Is his record of communicating with voters and allies not a disaster?

You rightly ask Mr Kerry to articulate why he should be president. He should be given the benefit of the doubt. The present incumbent clearly has not been able to address the question in any meaningful way since 2000.

D.F.Rijkels

Wassenaar, The Netherlands

Here’s another:

SIR ÔøΩ You say that ÔøΩMr Kerry can make a firefight in Vietnam sound like a mathematics textbook.ÔøΩ Surely this level of dispassionate reporting is only achieved by The Economist itself. Would it not be nice if America had a president who was similarly intelligent and articulate?

Andrew Bogan

Seoul

I love THE ECONOMIST.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:25 pm 38. Catherine:

glowing endorsement of Kerry??

glowing?

endorsement?

Actually, I can see how you would get that impression reading the article in isolation.

When you read the magazine every week you start to pick up the “code” (”the difficult pleasures of reading”–Nelson Ascher) and of course you also know what else they’ve had to say on the subject.

This particular article is straining to be objective, respectful and positive, and managing to pull it off for the most part, up until the last paragraph in which Kerry’s entire career is summed up, accurately in my view, as having been about criticizing America.

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:35 pm 39. Erik:

Richard McEnroe,

I really dont know anything about US hunting regulations, and it’s been a while since I hunted myself, but I did go through the hunters exam here, so I thought I should chip in.

As vxjames says, you do not go stalking with a shotgun, stalking is done with a rifle.

There are two reasons for this:

First you will need to get within maybe 30 feet of the deer. That is not easy to do stalking… Second, crawling about with a shotgun is stupid beyond belief, as debris in the barrel will result in the barrel exploding when you fire. (This is actually Weapons Safety 101, if you even try that during the exam here you’re sent hom right away.. Do it on a hunt with people around, and I doubt you’d be welcomed back…)

Not to mention that the safety on all shotguns I know of is not much of a safety, it only locks the triggers, and the gun can still go on if bounced around too much. (Seen that happen myself..)

But of course, Kerry might know something I dont, if he’s that experienced as a hunter…

Jul 25, 2004 - 7:43 pm 40. Knucklehead:

The NYT knows precisely what they are doing. They are fully aware of their bigotries and have no intention of changing anything. The best they will do is attempt, occassionally and for a short duration, to apply their bigotries in a more sophisticated and less obvious fashion. But they never leave their bigotries and they always return to being perfectly open about them. They are not a newspaper, they are the pulbic relations organ of the Democratic party. Krugman and Dowd alone tell you which wing of the Democratic Party.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:02 pm 41. chuck:

I think the proper description of Kerry is “phony.” Obviously so. It will be interesting to see how his campaign compensates for this.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:04 pm 42. richard mcenroe:

Erik ó Trust me. He doesn’t. He’s apparently a mediocre skeet shooter (17 out of 25 at this photo op) but he knows crap about hunting.

1. You can hunt deer with a shotgun (in fact, I think it’s still mandatory in Pennsylvania) but you use solid slugs, not buckshot, which scatters and is too easily deflected by brush. But you don’t use a la-dee-da double, because at least one barrel will be “choked” (constricted to produce a tighter concentration of pellets), which means you can’t fire solid slugs out of it. You use a pump or semi-auto, which means you can also mount sights on it.

2. Crawling around and chasing deer provides hours of innocent amusement ó for the deer. You hunt deer from a stand, or find a trail or watering spot and wait by it. Another good reason for not crawling is that anything crawling around through the brush during hunting season is likely to get shot up by other hunters.

Decoys? Playing the wind? What is this? Duck season?

But the funny part, the really hysterical part, is that he was telling this story to a bunch of shooters, and convincing them in one shot that he was a stone bullshit artist.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:09 pm 43. Rick Ballard:

Erik,

“But of course, Kerry might know something I dont, if he’s that experienced as a hunter…”

No one has ever bagged and mounted a finer pair of heiresses. The man knows how to hunt, he just doesn’t use a firearm.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:11 pm 44. Paul:

“I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That’s hunting,” said Kerry.

It’s almost cartoonish how phony this guy is. It’s beyond belief that he can think he can spew this utter bullshit and think no one will notice. More evidence that the primary currency of leftist thought and behavior is pure deceit delivered in a shameless and cavalier manner.

I can speak with a certain level of expertise that he doesn’t even approach the level rank amateur as a guitarist or cyclist either. Not that such skills are prerequisite for holding public office, but if you’re going to use them as photo-ops and as testament to one’s breadth of accomplishment at least do yourself the favor to not suck horribly at them.

I can’t think of another human being who is as embarrassingly weak in so many ways. It’s quite appropriate that he is the candidate for the party of deception and fantasy ideology, a sham of a man fronting for a party that represents only lust for power and is bankrupt in every other measure.

Den Beste says he will lose badly in the general election and people will wonder how anyone ever thought he could have possibly had a chance. Boy I sure hope so. It would give me a sense that their was still a reasonable quotient of sanity and justice in the world.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:24 pm 45. richard mcenroe:

RickBallard ó Reminds me of Patrick O’Brian’s description of a Royal Navy officer who “married well” : “he cut out a thirty-thousand-pounder with a coach-and-four.”

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:24 pm 46. mrp:

The Okrent piece is fascinating and I’ll comment about it tomorrow.

The Kerry-shotgun stuff is off-topic, but breaking down the code is fun.

1) “Probably I’d have to say deer. It’s tough, depending on where you are,” said Kerry.

J Effin’ Kerry has a problem. The South ain’t risin’ for him, and he needs at least a few states below the Mason-Dixon line to be solidly competitive. One of his weaknesses is that he is properly labeled as strongly pro-gun control. So we get this moonshine on deer hunting.

Deer hunting is tough anywhere you are.

2) “I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach.

This is typical Kerry, threading the needle, spinning crap. No serious deer hunter worthy of his license hunts deer with a 12-gauge double-barrel, especially a billionaire deer hunter who can afford the very best in modern firearms – namely a scoped rifle or a scoped semi-automatic or pump shotgun

So why did he spin this?

a) In liberal Democratic gun-grabbing circles, scoped bolt-action rifles are ’sniper rifles’.

b) Scoped shotguns are barbaric weapons designed to kill animals in large numbers, and in the hands of red-neck yahoos, probably people, too.

c) The elites, when they deign to shoot, use 12-gauge side-by-sides (double-barrel, not the outrageously modern over-unders). Purdey and Holland & Holland are the gentlefolk’s choice for pheasant and grouse shooting.

So because he didn’t want his base to think he’d use repeating firearms (which they want to ban, like, right now!), he, in all likelihood, made up a bunch of crap in order to flim-flam Southern and Western voters.

At least when Slick did his publicity duck shooting, he was smart enough to dress up in camo while carrying (if memory serves) a borrowed Benelli 12-gauge semi-auto shotgun.

Kerry’s hunting faux pas is on the same level as stating that he serves foie gras and a decent Merlot at all of his pig pickin’s.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:33 pm 47. richard mcenroe:

The Wall Street Journal has a feature on the make-up and balance (hah!) of the bloggers invited to the DemCon.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:39 pm 48. Rick Ballard:

richard,

Now that sounds like an Aubrey line. Lord, I love those books.

In re Roger’s post, I am beginning to think of the DNC/NYT consortioum as simply a repository of orthodoxy in much the same manner as the RCC at the time of Luther. A type of faith remains but the organizational rot is bone deep. The time withered cardinals of the MSM/DNC/NAACP scream their sermons denouncing heresy as the work of the Reformation begins. Whether a Counter-reformation can be mounted remains to be seen. Should it occur, it will not issue from the ossified denizens of W. 43rd. Too old, and too lost in an orthodoxy that never had a foundation to begin with.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:44 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

mrp,

“Deer hunting is tough anywhere you are.” Well, if the aim is to fill a freezer, access to a stock pond and a $10 investment in a 25lb. piece of block salt judiciously placed 3 weeks before opening day (and picked up the day before) has been known to minimize the difficulty. Or so I’ve heard.

You’re right on the money about Not a Clue though. Very good points on the gun types. I’d love to see his expression the moment after pulling the trigger on a slug round through the ‘tight’ barrel of a $15,000 Purdy.

Jul 25, 2004 - 8:57 pm 50. flenser:

glowing?

endorsement?

Sorry, being facetious. I was not very clear.

In general I found the coverage in the Economist pretty superficial. The Kerry piece was mostly about his style, or lack of it. Some comments on his lack of consistency. But it did not really dig into his record, and where it did discuss it, it echoed the Democrat line that his record is misleading, and that he is actually a moderate.

The following article, “Still Haunting America”, reads like something written by Josh Marshall. Am I the only one who finds that the 9/11 report which I read bears no relationship whatsoever to the one which reporters keep commenting on?

Again, the emphasis is on how different things can be spun, and to whose advantage. Can Kerry use the information of Al Queda personnel passing through Iran to his advantage and to Bush’s detriment? This kind of reporting is why I stopped reading MSM magazines.

I subscribe to STRATFOR now. If anyone else can recommend other sources for hard news and grown-up analysis, I’d be obliged.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:03 pm 51. chuck:

flenser

I subscribe to STRATFOR now. If anyone else can recommend other sources for hard news and grown-up analysis, I’d be obliged.

Damn, now you’ve got me. I thought Dan Darling at Regnum Crucis was pretty good, but he seems to be busy these days. So this is actually a pretty good question. Solid, with facts and serious analysis. thorough, doesn’t waste my time being cute and making zingers… DAMN, that’s tough. I really can’t think of any.

How is Stratfor? I could never see enough in their free section to convince me it was worth subscribing to. The earth didn’t move, anyway.

Anybody have any recommendations.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:25 pm 52. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó “in-house scold?” Do you not hold with newspaper ombudsmen?

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:27 pm 53. richard mcenroe:

Flenser ó Belmont Club comes well-recommended thru Instapundit.com

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:29 pm 54. Yehudit:

“Any other hunters want to take a bite at this before I do?”

A bunch of folks tore it up on an LGF thread. Since I’m not a hunter it was kind of boring, but even I could tell Kerry was bullshitting.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:30 pm 55. Roger:

Re: “in-house scold.” Well, I was having a little fun, but in truth I have mixed feelings about newspaper ombudsmen. I don’t believe newspapers are impartial in the first place, so it’s hard to say they should have an ombudsman. Correcting factual errors, of course, is necessary. I try to do that here to. (Usually someone’s corrected me within five minutes anyway)

I think, btw, that Okrent is doing a good for what’s he’s doing. I don’t really fault him that way.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:32 pm 56. chuck:

richard mcenroe,

Belmont Club is good, but tends towards style and atmosphere. I like that, mind you, and the guy has experience, but it is not his day job. It is about the only place I see much on the Phillipines, though, which is where much of his experience seems to lie.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:32 pm 57. Rick Ballard:

“Usually someone’s corrected me within five minutes anyway.”

But always with kindness, gentleness and respect – unless you really screwup of course, then it’s frozen flounder to forehead time.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:36 pm 58. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ÔøΩ But we really should hope for the Europeans’ respect …

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:41 pm 59. Rick Ballard:

BTW – although to, two and too are homonyms they are actually different words.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:43 pm 60. chuck:

richard mcenroe –

Well, I saw that, and read it at LGF, and read the Telegraph article too. I don’t know how much spitting and saluting there actually was. That’s a problem, at least two out of three were trying to score points. So, do I really want to nuke Germany tomorrow? The info isn’t there. That’s the problem with biased sources.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:47 pm 61. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I haven’t read all the comments, but there is one thing jumping out at me: this freedom/non-freedom dichotomy.

I’m a social conservative. I suspect that would put me in the non-freedom category. And yet I see only one non-freedom view associated with social conservatism, and that is drug prohibition. Drug prohibition is widely popular and for almost any politician it is political suicide to oppose it.

I oppose it, as does the National Review, which I think is the primary journal of social conservatism.

So, what freedoms do I suppress?

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:52 pm 62. Rick Ballard:

richard,

I have an Italian friend who regularly drives from Northern Italy to Spain. He makes it a point to eat a hearty breakfast and fill up with gas before Genova, stop and have a good lunch in Monaco and then make a brief stop just before entering Spain. He says he always likes to leave a little something in France. They deserve it.

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:52 pm 63. richard mcenroe:

Chuck ó Well, the piece I linked to links to the original Le Monde article, you could take it over to babelfish or worldlingo.com and translate it for the first-generation story. In fact, I think I’ll do it…

Jul 25, 2004 - 9:52 pm 64. richard mcenroe:

Chuck ó Le Monde required registration, so forget that. But according to Tour officials and reporters from Reuters to the NY Post, Armstrong was spat on by either French fans, German fans, or French and German fans. He was also chased down the course by a Frenchman wearing a “Fuck Bush” t-shirt…

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:22 pm 65. Fresh Air:

Flenser–

I get a pass-along of Stratfor’s analysis from a friend once a week. I have to say while I found George Friedman eerily savant-like during the hot war, in the post-war phase he is decidedly less accurate, sometimes even goofy.

His rowbacks on war rationale consistently beg the question. He assumes we went in for X,Y and Z strategic reasons (that naturally only he could divine), and then has to explain why what we are doing explains his rationale.

Friedman has given, since March 2003, at least three different main reasons for going to war. First we were doing it project power in the region. Then it was to lean on Pakistan. Just last month he started claiming we invaded to lean on Saudi Arabia. None of these are necessarily wrong, but I just think he should stand a little closer to Occam’s Razor when he shaves.

mrp–

Kerry’s deer hunting photo op was not in the South or West, but in Iowa. That is a very bad state in which to try to play “hoodwink the local hunters.”

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:32 pm 66. chuck:

richard mcenroe –

And this is worse than soccer hooligans how? Where there dozens or thousands. The Telegraph reports the pro Lance signs and somewhere else comments on pro Lance writing on the road. So maybe the Telegraph is being sunny, I had that impression. But the other’s were being negative. They are all, in their own way, total bullshit, concerned with getting across a point of view, concentrating on the dramatic. There is something there, but I am darned if I know just what. Ask yourself, what would the average spectator see? Probably nothing like any of the reports. That is the usual experience with any media article.

Mind, I would love to believe that the French were all total SOB’s so I could enjoy French jokes without guilt — OK, I do anyway — but I want something far more solid than a newpaper report. Who inflames the Euros? Why do many despise a country they know nothing about. The media totally sucks. That’s one man’s considered opinion, anyway.

So Roger, yes it does matter. And no, bias is not acceptable. Unless you really think The Eternal Jew is just one point of view.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:40 pm 67. Fresh Air:

Richard Mac–

The French fans were actually been rather tolerant of Armstrong, even if they are little weasels who can’t even win their own country’s national race. I understood the spitters were from Germany, not France.

For a comparison see the Giro d’Italia, which is dominated by Italians because foreigners don’t like racing there. Fans have been known to scatter tacks in the roadway and physically attack foreigners who are a threat to the Italian favorite.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:40 pm 68. Charlie (Colorado):

“although to, two and too are homonyms they are actually different words.”

They’re also homophones.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:46 pm 69. Skookumchuk:

Late to the party once again. A minor pedantic correction to what has been said above. Theoretically, it is possible to shoot slugs through a double barrel having the right chokes. On the Remington Slugger box it recommends Full chokes for 12 gauge. So if his Lordshipís double fowler were choked Full and Full it could be done. Though – slug guns have rifle sights. Tough to mount on a double barrel atop the rib and all. But OK, if his Lordshipís double were choked Full and Full and somehow had rifle sights installed, it could be done. Leaving aside the whole slithering around on his belly part, of course.

Thatís what happens when your ideas about middle America came from Liíl Abner comic strips.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:50 pm 70. Kevin P:

Richard:

I don’t hunt myself but for ten years I lived in a semi-rural area that was filled with hunters and outdoorsmen. I didn’t learn anything about hunting but I learned about how the serious hunters treat their guns and the sport of hunting. I used to be very pro-gun control but I learned through them that when I go camping that my rates are lower because of all the money hunters put into the park system.I learned that it wasn’t the guns, it was the idiots handling them that was the problem.I also learned that their is nothing that bothers a serious sportsman more then a poser that talks about guns and has no clue what he is talking about. They would say that they buy the guns but they never use them.I trust your judgement about Kerry’s knowlege about guns and I am sure that the people who would be impressed by his suppossed hunting prowess are now laughing their ass off and will never vote for him.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:52 pm 71. richard mcenroe:

Fresh Air ó

OH, SPIT! ‘IDIOT’ GERMANS HARASS LANCE

BY GERSH KUNTZMAN and BILL SANDERSON

Email Archives

Print Reprint

July 22, 2004 — Asinine German cycling fans harassed five-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong during yesterdayís grueling ride though the French Alps ó two of the ìidiotsî spat on him, and another spectator chased him while wearing a ìF – - – Bushî T-shirt. By the end of the day, of course, the spit on Armstrong was exchanged for a bath of champagne, thanks to the Texan’s time-trial victory.

But the win did not erase what had happened.

“I don’t think it’s safe,” said Armstrong, who is on pace to win an unprecedented sixth tour in a row. He called the German fans “horrible” ó but said that animosity “motivates me more. I think it puts a little fuel on the fire.”

In a TV interview, he complained about the Germans’ “disgusting behavior.”

Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc struck an apologetic tone.

“There were lots of aggressive fans,” he said, calling the two spitters, “idiots.”

Jonathan Vaughters, one of a very small number of Americans who have ridden in France’s signature sporting event, said the crowds aren’t usually intimidating.

“It’s the only sport in the world where you can reach out and touch your hero,” said Vaughters, who rode the last of his four Tours in 2002.

“I’ve never seen them be anything but supportive.”

As for how France, Germany and the rest of Europe views Armstrong, Vaughters said, “It seems that half the world is thinking he’s an incredible hero.”

Most of the stages of the tour are 100 miles or more, meaning that the hundreds of thousands of fans are stretched out over a long distance. In addition, riders typically race by at 25 or 30 mph, far too fast for fans to touch them.

But for yesterday’s tough climb in the French Alps, the fans were not only compressed into 10 miles, but cyclists had slowed to 15 mph.

Contact is almost inevitable. Armstrong fell after a collision with a fan during last year’s race.

Many Europeans are openly contemptuous of the American.

That sentiment was captured in a roadside sign last week that read, “Lance Go Home.”

As a result, Armstrong has bodyguards during the three-week race.

“Nothing against the French, but in France, they’re after us,” Armstrong said.

Jul 25, 2004 - 10:58 pm 72. richard mcenroe:

Skookumchuck ó Really? I will have to look at that Remington Slugger deal, it’s a new one on me.

BTW, there’s almost no truth to the rumor that Kerry thinks you have to wear bib overalls with one strap out and a tattered straw hat over bare feet to go huntin’ fer some food…

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:03 pm 73. Charlie (Colorado):

John, I think the assumption that being a “social conservative” puts you in the “non-freedom” category may be isomorphic to the mistake Roger is talking about, and for just the reason you note: be socially conservative enough and you wrap around to the notion that being left alone is the core value to be desired in one’s interaction with the State.

What I do see among social conservatives, sometimes, is an assumption that they can assume everyone else shares their assumptions. (There’s a sentence for you. You’ve gotta be a pro to write a sentence like that.)

Notable examples to me are the “America is a Christian nation” assumption, the “human life — which begins at conception — is intrinsically special and immediately sacrosanct” assumption, and the “if I think it’s disgusting, it must be morally wrong” assumption. (Cf., Leon Klass on human genetic engineering and cloning, or Stanley Kurtz and John Derbyshire on homosexuality.)

I’m quite socially libertarian, and I find that when I foolishly let myself get into an argument on any of those topics — and several others — it turns out that the underlying issue is the corresponding assumption, taken as axiomatic. Since I’ve read enough Revolutionary War and early Constitutional history to know that the Founders explicitly were making the Constitution inclusive of non-Christians, since as a Buddhist I don’t believe there is an intrinsic difference between human life and other life, and since I don’t find buggery to be inherently revolting, I find that I often have trouble finding anything to talk about with social conservatives.

The pro- or anti-freedom issue comes up when we progress to the question of how willing the social conservative is to use force to compell me to act as if I shared their assumptions.

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:12 pm 74. richard mcenroe:

Skookumchuck ó I confess to being unfamiliar with the Slugger load, and the Remington site isn’t uploading. But from what I gather, that’s one of their “managed recoil” loads, is that correct? With the lower power, it may be designed to take advantage of a Full choke to build up some pressure and muzzle velocity. I wouldn’t want to try that with a full-power load. Again, I’m just extrapolating from the press info on the load here…

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:14 pm 75. chuck:

Richard,

Yep, I read that. Now how much information is there?

Two spits, one chase, picture of a Basque giving the finger(s). OK, the last wasn’t included. A roadside sign. Hundreds of thousands of fans, most of whom I don’t think were in that 10 mile stretch. Some comments by Vaughters and Lance. A blatant assertion of European contempt, for which the writer(s) should be taken out and shot along with a bunch of Reuters guys.

Mind, Eddy Merckx, a Belgian, was punched in the liver during his last tour, and reportedly peed blood. Otherwise he would probably have been the first with six victories. As I said, something is there, but I really have no idea what.

By the way, can somebody tell me how to pronounce Merckx. It’s the trailing x that really throws me.

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:20 pm 76. Fresh Air:

Chuck–

It’s MRRX. I have read several accounts of the punch near the summit of Puy du Dome, but never heard about the peeing blood part. Uck!

But remember nobody ever punched Lemond. He was very popular in France. He rode for a French team and initially supported a French legend (Hinault). They also liked Lemond because, unlike Armstrong, he didn’t come across as aloof or arrogant. Even more important, he learned to speak French like a native. They love that voulez-vous shit.

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:32 pm 77. Paul:

Chuck:

“merks”….

I’d be curious to know the outcome of a head to head matchup between Lance and Eddy Merckx, both in their prime. Merckx so dominated the sport in his day I don’t think even Lance would have been his equal.

On the other hand Lance’s bout with seriously metastasized cancer adds another dimension to his heroism.

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:34 pm 78. Paul:

Fresh Air:

LeMond’s era didn’t see such over-amped rancor between Europe and America as we have today, plus he had a frog surname.

Jul 25, 2004 - 11:38 pm 79. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie (colorado)

What I do see among social conservatives, sometimes, is an assumption that they can assume everyone else shares their assumptions.

I see that on the left, also.

This one – “human life — which begins at conception — is intrinsically special and immediately sacrosanct” assumption is an issue I have discussed before. Some raise it as a freedom issue, but it’s really an issue of protecting one human from another, and as such is consistent with libertarian principles. The time when a fetus acquires legal protections can only be decided arbitrarily, and that means that if we had the freedom to decide, the result would always displease a lot of people.

I would argue that our current system ( allowing the killing of a full term fetus ) is anti-freedom, or more accurately, biased absurdly in the direction of the freedom of one party of interest to the severe detriment of the life of one other party – without life, no freedom. So I do not consider a pro-life (at any level) stance to be anti-freedom. Somebody has to decide by some arbitrary criteria. Right now, that was a supreme court acting way outside of constitutional law.

, and the “if I think it’s disgusting, it must be morally wrong” assumption. (Cf., Leon Klass on human genetic engineering and cloning, or Stanley Kurtz and John Derbyshire on homosexuality.)

I’ve never seen it expressed that way. There are some serious issues to consider on both genetic engineering and cloning, not to mention embryonic stem cells (which is not a freedom issue, but rather a funding one).

Homosexuality is a more interesting issue. In Christianity, it’s a sin. But today social conservatives don’t try to attack homosexuals.

I am against homosexual marriage as a state sanctioned marriage for conservative reasons having nothing to do with “disgust”. But that doesn’t deprive anyone of freedom, but rather of state privilege.

You must have an odd set of social conservatives to talk to. Many can address the issues on the merits, not in a manner that requires axiomatic agreement.

I think you have a subset that is fundamentalist Christian, where one often finds assumptions of shared axioms.

The only force I’m willing to have the state use in these issues is to stop the killing of fetuses. I have no trouble proving that this is a valid use of government power, even argued in a non-religious libertarian sense.

If you look at the axioms involved here, you find: (1) Humans should not be allowed to kill other humans except within special circumstances – even the Catholic Church allows abortion in some circumstances. Most people would agree with this axiom. The area of dispute is when a fetus becomes a human worthy of protection.

(2) Basic conservative concept: don’t change fundamental things without a large amount of understanding of why it is the way it is, and what will happen if that changes. This principle, along with some other reasoning, is why I am against gay marriage, but not against gays (although I have some major beefs with the gay “rights” movement which is virulent and destructive, now that its original need (decriminalize homosexuality) is no longer important.

Jul 26, 2004 - 12:13 am 80. someone:

I’ve found Stratfor consistently off-base (on the gloom-and-doom side) since the very beginning — that is, the Afghan campaign. Better than Debka or whatnot, but still not IMO worth it.

It’s amazing how much open-source war news there is out there, and most of it ends up on Rantburg. You might not like the snarky commentary though.

Jul 26, 2004 - 1:25 am 81. HA:

Roger,

The New York Times may be a publicly traded company, but short of a massive stockholder rebellion, Arthur Jr. is calling the shots.

Its gonna take more than that:

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001921.php

The Times is currently in the midst of a MASSIVE shareholder rebellion with no end in sight. Unfortunately, shareholder rebellions don’t involve huge paper-machet puppets. I wonder how many NY Times employees hold Times stock in their 401k’s? They deserve to own a lot of it. I have no doubt that if the Times was an employee owned-company, its journalism would vastly improve.

The Times is so-far left, that I almost expect them to voluntarily nationalize. If their stock continues on its current southward trajectory, they might as well donate themselves to the IRS.

Jul 26, 2004 - 4:22 am 82. richard mcenroe:

More Respect for Journalism

Jul 26, 2004 - 7:31 am 83. Charlie (Colorado):

John, there’s no doubt that the same “shared assumption assumption” happens on the left as well.

The “disgust argument” guy is Leon Kass, sorry. It’s a work day, so I can’t google for it right now.

W.r.t. abortion, you actually appear to be making the assumption I questioned, that human life is both intrinsically different from other life and intrinsically sacrosanct. I don’t want to hijack the thread with an abortion discussion, really, both out of vestigial respect for the thread and because I think we’ll just come around to those same un-shared assumptions. I’ll just point out that to someone who doesn’t share the assumption, being willing to use force to compell someone to behave according to your assumption may well look anti-freedom.

I don’t recall mentioning gay marriage per se, nor your opinion of it, so I suspect we may have touched a raw spot. I was thinking instead of John Derbyshire — someone I would consider a friend — who can explain to you why homosexuals spread disease, destroy the social order, abuse young boys, and, I don’t know, drink blood and vote Democrat.

After many conversations with him, I’m convinced that what underlies this is his illogical and quite visceral reaction that homosexuality is just icky.

Jul 26, 2004 - 7:32 am 84. richard mcenroe:

Chuck ó The comments reported of the witnesses clearly indicated that the incidents reported were not the only incidents. Everybody interviewed appears to have described the crowd as aggressive… and if your most favorable comparison is to soccer hooligans, that isn’t much of a recommendation. Your argument seems, to me, to partake of the same logic as the “Well, they didn’t find enough sarin shells…” argument.

Jul 26, 2004 - 7:42 am 85. Sissy Willis:

The only problem is, countless small-town papers across the nation — not to mention big-time TV networks — take their cue from all the news the Times sees fit to print — or NOT to print.

All that’s stale is fit to print

Jul 26, 2004 - 7:48 am 86. Goof®:

John Moore

As a self-described social conservative, what are your views concerning what should be taught, if anything, on the subject of Darwinian evolution-creationism-intelligent design, etc. in the public schools.

Also, what should be taught, of anything, regarding human sexuality?

Jul 26, 2004 - 8:34 am 87. Silicon valley Jim:

I agree that the question shouldn’t have been “Is the Times a liberal newspaper?” The proper formulations, however, probably wouldn’t have received an answer. The proper formulations would have been somewhere in the range of “Is the Times a left-wing newspaper?” (funny how conservatives are frequently described as “right-wing” while liberals are almost never described as “left-wing”), or “Is the Times a newspaper whose values, which pervade its reporting, are strongly different from those of most Americans?”, or “Is the Times a newspaper which believes that the opinions and values of Americans not living in the Eastern Time zone north of Richmond or in San Francisco or Los Angeles are worthless?”, or, perhaps, “Is the the Times a newspaper which is reflexively anti-Republican?”

In any event, the problem isn’t, in my opinion, so much the editorial slant as it is the fact that the Times can’t keep its politics out of its news pages the way that, say, the Wall Street Journal does.

Jul 26, 2004 - 10:26 am 88. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie

I disagree with the proposed assumption. I argue that opposing abortion (at some stage of gestation) relies primarily on the arbitrary decision that fetus has reached a stage at which it gains human rights. If you accept laws against murder (which rely on a shared assumption), then you must accept that a human being at some point devlops legal protection against murder. When it comes to abortion, the issue is at what stage of gestation does that protection accrue, with a closely coupled issue of when the protection overcomes the rights of the mother (and with other issues, utterly ignored by the law, of when other stakeholders gain a say – the parents of a pregnant minor, and the father). The majority of Americans put the age at three months for most cases, and incorrectly believe that 3 months is the law. Notice that none of this argument rests on an inherent superiority of humans as a life form – it is orthogonal to that argument. Notice also that depriving people of the freedom to murder othe humans is one of the most important purposes of government, and is operant with fetuses today – starting at the instant of birth. So freedoms are limited, I (and most Americans aware of the state of the law) agree that the age should be pushed back.

Finally, but unrelated to abortion, I believe that human beings are a special life form. You are free to believe otherwise, obviously, but the laws of our land disagree with you.

I raised gay marriage because it is a very current issue, and one of the few places where I favor discrimination against gays (another being working with adolescent males). As to Derb’s derivation of his views, as you characterize them, that is not at all consistent with my reasoning. As to his other assertions, he is right about some of them (based on a lot of reading my wife has done), but I don’t think this is the right place or time to discuss them. Is it possible that your are discounting his observations because you see them as the product of an irrational prejudice rather than as indpendent assertions?

See here for a bit more explanation in one controversy.

Goof

My mother was a public school teacher (after having been a mathematician and engineer). When my daughter was born, my mother said “I have only one demand: I want none of my grandchildren to go to public school.

I am not fond of the public school system. Far more effective is home schooling, but that is too much for many people. My daughter went to Catholic School, and my wife spent a lot of time raising funds to poor kids could do so.

As far as evolution, it is one of the most well established theory in all of science (although not quite as precise as quantum theory). Evolution should be the basis of any biology course. Intelligent design is a pseudo-science – people with real scientific degrees looking for holes in evolution – which they invariably find, since evolution has such a broad scope. It should not be taught – it is a religious, not a scientific doctrine.

There is an area based on evolutionary principles that leads to lots of very interesting analyses o human behavior, but which is largely unscientific in usage: sociobiology – the evolution of behavior. It is a lot of fun to speculate on evolutionary reasons for, say, male promiscuity. But experiments are difficult.

A few years back there was a biology teacher in Lawrence, Kansas who was removed from teaching for his response to a student’s question on intelligent design (or maybe it was creationism). That teacher had been my biology teacher, who taught me enough to quiz out of 9 semester hours of university biology. He was the best teacher I have ever had, and I also went on many field trips with him. I and a huge number of other former students, many of them now scientists high in various biological fields, sent letters in support, to no avail.

As to sex education, ideally it belongs at home. Practically, some is needed in school. I haven’t given it a lot of thought.

Jul 26, 2004 - 10:44 am 89. Sandy P:

flenser, Rantburg is a rough place.

But some of them really know their stuff.

Some are former spooks, some armed forces,but very informative.

Sometimes too much info. I get world overload.

Jul 26, 2004 - 11:14 am 90. WichitaBoy:

It’s an old, old story. One or several generations work hard to build up the capital and then the younger generation squanders it on their own toys and playthings.

In this case we’re talking about the intangible but perfectly real capital of goodwill and trust. The current owners of the NYT have chosen to spend its capital, capital accumulated painstakingly over more than a century. Where once the NYT stood for some sort of objectivity, or at least an attempt in that direction, it is now a crusading left-wing newspaper, little more than a propaganda sheet. It supports The Agenda. The items on The Agenda are familiar to us all: unseat Bush, stay out of foreign wars, promote human rights, gay marriage, etc. That some of these items may contradict others is of no great interest to a True Believer.

There’s nothing wrong with being a crusading left-wing newspaper. But a crusading left-wing newspaper doesn’t deserve a place in the archives of every library in every little town across the land, any more than does the Wall Street Journal or Fox News. It will take time before the transformation from good, gray source of information to propaganda rag has become broadly recognized. It takes time for reality to propagate through the human medium. But eventually this knowledge will be out, and people will no longer take the New York Times seriously. The capital is being spent and when it is all gone it will be gone for good.

Jul 26, 2004 - 11:18 am 91. Catherine:

flenser (if you’re still around)

Can Kerry use the information of Al Queda personnel passing through Iran to his advantage and to Bush’s detriment? This kind of reporting is why I stopped reading MSM magazines.

I’m think I know what you mean there. I’ve dropped my journalism quotient way down, and now subscribe to, and read, FOREIGN AFFAIRS & NATIONAL INTEREST (& THE PUBLIC INTEREST). I’ve also dipped into the JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY, which is pretty great.

I’m finding I love the whole Foreign-Policy-Elite cast of characters & views, but I don’t think most of it would help with the kind of thing one turns to Stratfor for.

(I’ve mentioned on this site before that I’m trying to do catch-up reading in history & economics as well . . . )

I do find THE ECONOMIST & FINANCIAL TIMES terrifically useful, though. Some of it is “emotional.” Reading both, I see that the U.S. has a friend in this world. Whether the writers at either publication are criticizing Bush or any particular policy, the sense of friendship and, yes, alliance is there.

As well, reading these publications I realize the value of a constructive critic, another subject we’ve commented on in these posts from time to time. When THE ECONOMIST or FT takes us to task for something, they really, truly are taking us to task because they want the U.S. and Britain to succeed. I might agree or disagree or have no opinion on any given criticism, but I always feel that I have gotten the foreign policy equivalent of a “second opinion.”

Beyond that, I constantly find “factoids” I haven’t seen here.

I just read an ECONOMIST article that led with the story that Edwards began his political career in direct reaction to his son’s death. When Edwards made his first inquiry about running for Senate he didn’t remember whether he had first registered as a Republican or Democrat.

That must have been reported here somewhere, but I sure didn’t see it.

And I often learn from the different slant FT & ECONOMIST put on the same stories we’re thinking about. I get a sense of the history of our relationship with Britain, as of their history of involvement in the ME . . . I begin to have a sense of all the many years in British and American history that have led to this point.

So while I’ve pretty much had it with the MSM here, I learn from and tremendously enjoy the MSM in Britain.

Jul 26, 2004 - 11:41 am 92. mrp:

Daniel Okrent’s 7/25 “Week In Review” column is a warning message to the NYT establishment.

There has been a steady stream of carping and squabbles dribbling out of W. 43 St. With Okrent out the door for a month-long vacation, I doubt that the internal knife work is at an end.

Salient excerpt #1:

But it’s one thing to make the paper’s pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don’t think it’s intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn’t have to be intentional.

Mr. Okrent is setting up the argument that the tremendous finacial investment made by the NYT, Inc. to become a national paper is severely compromised by a parochial POV held by the publisher and his senior staffers.

Salient excerpt #2:

This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one’s own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times’s readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper’s heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

A newspaper aspiring for a national readership must present at least a patina of objectivity. There is none in today’s NYT. Mr. Okrent appears to have his doubts whether Mr. Sulzberger’s multi-billion dollar gamble can succeed if the house bias continues to dictate reporting and editorial policies.

Jul 26, 2004 - 12:54 pm 93. Charlie (Colorado):

John, I don’t see any way to answer you without hijacking this thread even more than we have. It’s my intention to reorganize and get my own blog (re-)started soon. I promise that as soon as I do so, I’ll let you (and everyone) know and will happily argue it out there.

Jul 26, 2004 - 1:36 pm 94. Skookumchuk:

richard mcenroe -

Speaking of thread hijacking and in answer to your question, Remington Sluggers are smoothbore slugs and can be found in the Shotgun Ammunition section of their website. Sluggers have ridges on the sides that make them spin (supposedly), but they are meant to be fired from a smoothbore gun. Winchester makes a similar product. I use them in a 16 gauge Ithaca 37. Interestingly, and in contrast to their advice for 12 gauge, the recommended choke for 16 is Improved Cylinder. They are fun actually – these are about as close to a musket ball as can be fired from a modern firearm. In contrast, true rifled slugs are encased in a sabot and fired only through shotguns equipped with special rifled slug barrels. To my knowledge, no slugs are ìmanaged recoilî type ammunition. They do kick.

Jul 26, 2004 - 2:08 pm 95. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie, Goof

I have copied the discussion (hopefully correctly) to my own blog here and hence we can discuss with no fear of addition thread hijacking.

See you there… your choice of weapons.

Jul 26, 2004 - 2:15 pm 96. HA:

WichitaBoy,

The capital is being spent and when it is all gone it will be gone for good.

Sulzberger has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder equity in his crusade to defeat Bush. I wonder if the NYT shareholders think it was worth it.

Jul 26, 2004 - 6:07 pm 97. flenser:

CHUCK

“Damn, now you’ve got me. I thought Dan Darling at Regnum Crucis was pretty good, but he seems to be busy these days. So this is actually a pretty good question. Solid, with facts and serious analysis. thorough, doesn’t waste my time being cute and making zingers… DAMN, that’s tough. I really can’t think of any.

How is Stratfor? I could never see enough in their free section to convince me it was worth subscribing to. The earth didn’t move, anyway.”

Isn’t it strange that that we live in a world awash with journalists, with the technology to transmit huge quantities of information instantly, and yet it requires a deliberate effort to get accurate informaton about what is happening in the world. People a hundred years ago don’t know jack about what was happening in Korea, but at least they knew they did not know.

Stratfor is not earth-moving. If you are conditioned to the blogosphere, or even the MSM, where attitude and “edge” are everything, it can seem quite stolid. Ok, boring, even.

A sample;

“The local energy company that distributes natural gas to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi claimed July 22 that Russian state-owned natural gas monopoly Gazprom had reduced deliveries by 45 percent because of non-payment. The claim in the local media sparked immediate accusations that Russia was using economic means to pressure the Georgians into backing away from efforts to reassert control over South Ossetia, a separatist region informally sponsored by Russia.”

Huh?? What does this have to do with domestic US politics? Not a damm thing, really. It’s useful to be reminded sometimes that the world does not revolve around what we are preoccupied with. After reading the ten-thousandth story on the US economy which looks at the issue through the prism of Democratic/Republican politics, I turn to Stratfor for relief. Their war coverage has not been outstanding, although its better than MSM fare.

Jul 26, 2004 - 9:02 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: