Month: November 2010

Will Wilkinson excoriates MSNBC:

I know it’s in the interests of big media to pretend money in politics is a huge problem while passing off its own outrageously unequal influence as some kind of noble public service, but who does MSNBC think it’s kidding? Say what you will about Fox News, at least it doesn’t insult our intelligence in this way.

Will will get his wish. Olbermann will be back tomorrow. Doug Mataconis reacts:

The length of the “suspension” leads credence to the theory that the whole thing was a publicity stunt designed to support MSNBC’s assertion that its opinion shows are somehow more pure than the shows on FOX.

It’s never that clever. This was almost certainly a clusterfuck, and an attempt by the boss to exercize public control over a star. The control lasted a few days.

Yep, Discovery Channel has apparently delegated that function to the whackjob from Wasilla (unless that's another odd lie). Then the continued use of children for political and/or propaganda purposes:

The ostensible premise for the show is to allow Palin to act as tour guide for Alaska, but the real product here is of course the 2008 vice presidential candidate turned Fox News pundit herself. Toward that end she and husband Todd use their kids as props, even staging a cute little scene in which teenage daughter Willow tries sneaking a boy upstairs — without, notably, any reference to how that scenario turned out for Bristol.

And the use of the first episode to smear a journalist as a pedophile. Because he just might have a chance of glimpsing the truth behind the propaganda.

The quintessential Politico piece, with this page-view-begging lede:

[Obama]’s isolated himself from virtually every group that matters in American politics.

And core indictments of the Obama presidency like this one:

In June, during an East Room reception for top supporters at Ford’s Theatre, several of the attendees were disappointed that they didn’t get to shake the president’s hand and take a photo, as they had in the past. Instead, Obama greeted a few people down front, reaching over a rope line.

And this lovely defense of lobbyists:

While the lobbying community is usually covered by the media like a crime beat, most lobbyists are policy experts who often provide input on commissions and other advisory boards. So lobbyists argue that the White House shunning has cost the president valuable advice, political intelligence and institutional backup.

Look: there is a critique of Obama's presidency thus far, in terms of losing a core narrative. But this blizzard of petty Village resentments a real story? Josh is right. Blech.

"Liberal Reagan" my ass: Andrew Sprung blows his top.

Garry Wills was right. Obama's default mode is "endless placation." When it doesn't work, he keeps doing it.

A reader writes:

Mitch Daniels is 5'7'', not 5'3'', according to the New York Times (which I'd dare say is a better source than a braindead right-wing commenter).

"Will discuss Fed's quantitative easing plan(print $ out of thin air)tmrrw@ tools trade assn speech;then edit addl "Sarah Palin's AK"episodes," – Sarah Palin, over Twitter.

NORML has updated its cannabis map with 2010 election results (click to enlarge):

Ilya Somin defends his position on pot politics:

Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen emphasize the role of parents in opposing marijuana legalization. It is indeed true that parents are more likely to be against legalization than others. But as Bryan Caplan points out, the impact of parenthood is minor compared to that of other factors such as ideology, gender, and religion. Moreover, parents, like other groups, have become less opposed to legalization over time. Today’s parents are more likely to oppose legalization than today’s childless adults. But they are still more supportive than the parents of 10, 20, or 30 years ago. On balance, therefore, I think the trend towards greater support for marijuana legalization will continue, which cuts against Tyler’s theory that Prop 19 was the “high-water mark” for the legalization cause.

Madhusree Mukerjee's recently published book, Churchill's Secret War, unearths the great war leader's willingness to see millions of Indians die of starvation rather than ship food supplies he wanted elsewhere or stockpiled for the future. Hyperbole?

My indictment is based on what Churchill did, not on what he said. The Ministry of War Transport papers, the Cherwell Papers, and the official histories of British wartime food supply, shipping, and economy are my key sources. They show, for instance, that the War Cabinet scheduled eighteen ships to load with Australian wheat in September and October, 1943. Not one of these ships was destined for famine-stricken India.

Had anyone else been prime minister, he would have striven to relieve India’s plight instead of consigning wheat to stockpiles.

Churchill’s diatribes, as recorded in Amery’s and others’ diaries, are, however, useful in understanding why he acted as he did. Famine had failed to temper his hostility toward Indians. Churchill would tell his secretary that Hindus were a foul race protected by their rapid breeding from “the doom that is their due.” He wished Arthur Harris, the head of British bomber command, could “send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them.”

Dan Ariely vents after Whole Foods passes on his request to experiment:

Companies in general are willing to spend lots of money on consultants, they are willing to spend lots of money on gambling that their intuitions are correct, and sometimes they even spend money on focus groups. But, when it comes to testing things empirically, the typical answer is “interesting, but not for us.”