Patterico's Pontifications

Newsweek is so desperate it’ll try anything. A sad end to a once-proud news magazine.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/13/2009 @ 8:52 pm

The fact that the baby is white says it all. They already know the answer, even before they “researched” and wrote the article!

They should ask a Vietnamese if Chinese people are racist.

Heck, they should ask any Swede about any Norwegian. Or vice versa!

No, this is all about fueling this bizarre form of aristocracy we have developed in our country, where one’s parentage is more important than the accomplishments or quality of the person in question

It used to be about money. Now it is about melanin. An ethnocracy.

Stupid thinking, but it serves politicians very well.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 8:54 pm

My kids were certainly racists when they were babies.

They only liked two white people. Well, OK, maybe four, but those four were still white.

I condemn my children.

Racists.

Ag80 (64bef0) — 9/13/2009 @ 8:55 pm

Ditto Brother Bradley’s comment. What in the world can be going through Jon Meacham’s mind? He must have fallen off of sanity’s ledge. I am glad that I quit taking that magazine several years ago.

JVW (d1215a) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:00 pm

Back in 1984, during my spring semester as a HS senior, I took an honors history class called “Current Events” where we were required to subscribe to Time or Newsweek. I chose Newsweek because Time was so obviously in the tank for libturds, even then.

Now, Newsweek is obviously in the tank.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:04 pm

I think that someone should PhotoShop the cover of Newsweek in the above style, with Jon Meacham’s face instead of the baby’s, and the screaming title: “IS NEWS WEEK POLITICALLY BIASED?”

Creative types could make a whole cover page, in the spirit of The Onion.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:14 pm

JVW,
Meacham wants to turn Newsweek into The Economist, or at least convince readers it is.

Meacham, however, talks delusionally about his leftist writers:

“It’s an incredible frustration that I’ve got some of the most decent, hard-working, honest, passionate, straight-shooting, non-ideological people who just want to tell the damn truth, and how to get this past this image that we’re just middlebrow, you know, a magazine that your grandparents get, or something, that’s the challenge.”

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:15 pm

That baby has probably never even seen NASCAR, so how could it be?

Gazzer (22ecdc) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:17 pm

Racist babies?

How do they become racist? Born that way?

Dave Surls (b1282f) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:24 pm

You folks simply don’t understand that the MSM is right wing! Amazing. The left is disappearing up their own orifices.

Mike K (addb13) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:24 pm

Whatever parents allowed their innocent little one to be used as the model on this hideous Newsweek cover are certainly not very good parents. I doubt the money they received is enough to make up for the damage done when the child sees the cover and caption someday and asks, “How could you do it”?

elissa (d3d356) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:29 pm

Unbelievable cover. Shall we eventually expect to see some new innovative sector in science re genetic modifications once the racist gene is isolated? The new gene therapy of the future?

Dana (863a65) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:32 pm

You know, Dana, Robert Heinlein wrote an early SF novel in the 1940s called “Beyond This Horizon.” It’s old, it’s clunky, whatever.

The point is that, in the novel, there is some background that is relevant. Scientists found that there was a particular gene associated with pacifism. They encouraged it, moving people who did not have that “Parmalee-Hitchcock gene complex” (as Heinlein termed it) into reservations.

Guess what happened? The “wolves” left the reservation and conquered the “sheep.”

I have no doubt that our leaders would mess with genes controlling human behavior if they could. And what a profoundly stupid action that would prove to be, I am absolutely certain.

We think we know so much. But none of the “smart ones” understand the lesson behind the the “Tower of Babel” story…

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:43 pm

“No credible count puts the protest in the 100k range…” Oh, so right. But for all the wrong reasons. That’s about as far as I got with that “wash me, mon” link before I trashed it.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:44 pm

Please, EB, you Babylon about a lot of nothingness. It’s really getting to the point where I can’t understand a word you’re saying.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:46 pm

Denounced. Denounced and condemned, RACISTS !!! Especially JW Dhimmi.

JD (d3f3ab) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:48 pm

Okay, I give up.

I cancelled the LA TImes after the election, but thought I would give Newsweek and Time one more chance.

I’m canceling both tomorrow.

Gary Coleman (d55c91) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:56 pm

Gotta hit the hay, but given how inested the Leftists are in identity group politics and the racism industry, the idea that we will ever be a post-racial society is almost laughable. The fact is that the second sign is so true, which is pathetic. Just look at how people like Myron, JW Dhimmi and their ilk trot out race where it has no relevance. It would be laughable, were it not true.

JD (d3f3ab) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:57 pm

Eric Blair, that’s interesting Heinlein it reminds you of Heinlein because when I see these sorts of shocking things (Newsweek cover), I usually think, yep, we’re all on our way to becoming Harrison Bergeron.

Dana (863a65) — 9/13/2009 @ 9:59 pm

Gah. Eric Blair, that’s interesting ~~Heinlein~~ it reminds you of Heinlein because when I see these sorts of shocking things (Newsweek cover), I usually think, yep, we’re all on our way to becoming Harrison Bergeron.

Dana (863a65) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:00 pm

Oh, I know for a fact that RAH would not care for how things are going. But “fiction dreams” are funny things. Vonnegut was quite reflexively liberal, and look how he called things developing around us with “Harrison Bergeron.”

By the way, I assign “Harrison Bergeron” for incoming freshmen ever couple of years—we do this writing and discussion exercise for the new students. I think of the assignment as vaccination against some of the other propagandizing they will receive….

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:03 pm

John H., #16: nicely done!

But on the other hand, I’m not the one with the pacifism gene complex named after me.

(grin).

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:05 pm

“It’s 2009 and we’re all racists now, even babies.”

Sexist too, at least the men and sex traitors, if you believe anything those simpering mounds of hate that call themselves womyn over at places like pandagon and feministe say.

daleyrocks (718861) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:05 pm

JD, have a good night, but…none of these characters shouting racism actually think that racism is going on. It’s just a good club to use against political opponents. Shameful.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:06 pm

Eric – That’s the pomo definition of a racist – anyone who disagrees with a liberal.

daleyrocks (718861) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:10 pm

That is certainly how the definition is changing. Just as “Global Warming” has changed to “Global Climate Change” and “Extracurricular Activities” have become “Co-Curricular Activities.”

Words have power, as despots know.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:12 pm

I can understand “co-curricular actiities” because the self-same libturds vandalized the term “extra-curricular activities” in much the same way they vandalized other previously innocuous terms. They had to rename the sports/music/art/theatre/club section of after-school stuff due to their own mishandling of ~~junk~~ stuff.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:20 pm

And that pacifism gene named after me? That’s so I can hunt them down moar easily. At least that way, I know where they ain’t and I don’t have to go low-crawling through that region.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:22 pm

Actually, John, the “co-curricular” label allows University types to assign actual credit for students attending protest marches and political events on campus.

Or so I have seen. But then, I am pretty old fashioned.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:22 pm

I’ve seen where high schools give actual HS credit for people being involved in anything that could possibly give them a letter on their wool coats. MVHS was not one of them there dummy schools in that aspect, but it was definitely a dummy school — the only one in the county that told the Gideons to take a hike and the last one in the county, by 2 decades, to have an FCA chapter.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:28 pm

(btw, their FCA counsellor got fired on trumped-up lawsuit (as seen in national media))

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:31 pm

Gym is now kinetic wellness.

daleyrocks (718861) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:41 pm

I watched students get credit for reading their lines from a piece of paper, in one performance of “The Vagina Monologues.”

I mean, if a student had been working all quarter long, with sets, lighting, and such, I would be more sympathetic. I think it has to do with political fashion.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:48 pm

Not that I’m all that experienced, but if I ever heard one of them there things talking, I would run, screaming in terror, as if a bunch of crows and seagulls were chasing me.

But I agree, it’s not what you know, it’s whether you follow the political agenda, whether you get college points or college credit.

UoP, a private for-profit univ, is lock, stock, barrel libby-central.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/13/2009 @ 10:52 pm

JD, you’re a racist, baby!

(think about it; it works both with and without the comma)

Icy Texan (259a85) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:15 am

I am sure that none of you have actually read this article before you decided to render an opinion on it. Typical.

withheld upon request (c56c49) — 9/14/2009 @ 3:17 am

Non sequitariat spleened: Typical.

As in “stereotypical”.

Typical.

Icy Texan (259a85) — 9/14/2009 @ 3:32 am

#37:

I am sure that none of you have actually read this article before you decided to render an opinion on it. Typical.

It isn’t an article, its a book.

Typical.

EW1(SG) (116a86) — 9/14/2009 @ 4:52 am

Typical, like in typical white person? How freakin’ racist can you be?! Getting those bedsheets and hoods starched and pressed, I would bet. Typical? Is that some kind of codeword? Why don’t you run back to Sen Grand Kleagle (KKK-Dem) and tell stories about your favorite hobbies, like lynching and slavery. You disgust me.

JD (3bd141) — 9/14/2009 @ 5:09 am

Thou doth protesteth way too much.
I have never read or heard anyone, anywhere, say that all right-wing criticisms are racists. However, I have hear and read right-wingers claiming they’re accused of racism for all their criticisms day after day after day.
I’m sure we can all agree: racists and racism exists in all societies, including the USA. As such, some criticism of Obama is motivated by racism. Not all. Some. Live it with it and stop claiming that your being called a racist all the time when you’re just not.

Unapologetic Mexican (08580c) — 9/14/2009 @ 5:50 am

Setting up the strawpeople and mowing them down. You don’t read much, do you?

JD (3bd141) — 9/14/2009 @ 6:21 am

I have never read or heard anyone, anywhere, say that all right-wing criticisms are racists.

Really. Then either you haven’t been paying attention or you’re in extreme denial. I’d provide links for your enlightment, but I have to teach pigs to dance ballet first.

Chuck Roast (da27e9) — 9/14/2009 @ 6:28 am

When you find yourself fighting with a little child over his cookies because you want to teach him to not eat all his cookies at once. You want to take those cookies from him to save it for later. But he fights to keep it so he can consume it at once. An observer is going to misread your intention, though noble. They may even accuse you of being a bully and an abuser of little children. So what do you do? Let the child have all his cookies and suffer later or ignore what people are saying and discipline the child?

The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:09 am

The gibberish from the Chimperor continues apace. Still waiting for you to answer those simple questions posed of you, lovie.

JD (45da85) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:18 am

Reading material for UM, from a little-known newspaper called the Washington Post:

On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters thronged to the U.S. Capitol to angrily accuse President Obama of taking the country in the wrong direction. A day later, in the shadow of the Washington Monument, many participants at a much smaller gathering — the 24th annual Black Family Reunion — said the level of hostility toward the nation’s first African American president had little to do with policy differences over health care or taxes and everything to do with race.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:26 am

“Gibberish”= Above my level of understanding.

The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:28 am

Chimperor – Did Barcky lie when he told the story of Raddatz?

Did Barcky lie when he said that the govt takeover of healthcare will not add one dime to the deficit?

Oh, and given the sudden changes to the positions taken by Teh One and the Senate Dems, it appears that wilson was right too. Kind of stings, doesn’t it?

Racists

JD (74f504) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:44 am

Question: Would Spewsweek’s cover have “worked” if the baby wasn’t white?

Nope! Because only white babies can be racist, right?

One thing I learned while traveling in Asia as a child is, rural Chinese do not like Africans. Japan has changed recently, but as recently as the late 1980’s it was apparent that the Nipponese feel basically the same way.

Sounds like a gross generalization, I know, but, it’s true. Just look at the statistics for interracial marriage in Shanghai or Beijing or Kobe – if you can find one.

Maybe Newsweek will do a story on real racism one day!

steveaz (cea21a) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:50 am

Hmmm.

“…“Gibberish”= Above my level of understanding….”

When the one fellow is trying to insult another, the first fellow should probably not phrase the above as it was.

LOL.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:53 am

Bradley #47: aren’t you glad to be living in a postracial society?

Just remember: the only reason anyone would ever disagree about anything with TOTUS is because of the melanin levels in his epidermis.

There is racism floating around, but not the way the “Black Family Reunion” folks mean it.

Eric Blair (721b15) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:56 am

Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 9/14/2009 @ 7:26 am
“…tens of thousands…”
Wasn’t that the AP’s lead for the story?
They just couldn’t admit to themselves that there might actually be a crowd in the 6-figure (or greater) range in critical opposition to the annoited one.

AD - RtR/OS! (5c940e) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:11 am

“Gibberish”= Above my level of understanding.

You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
I think your level of understanding is equal to gibberish!

AD - RtR/OS! (5c940e) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:13 am

@49
Did Barcky lie when he told the story of Raddatz?
i>Fortis Insurance Co. deserves all the scorn Obama sent its way on Wednesday. The company canceled Raddatz’s policy when he needed it the most, in chemotherapy for stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer.

But the decision of the company was reversed and the insurer was forced to pay benefits because of the persistent efforts of his sister Peggy Raddatz, a LaGrange attorney. She found her way to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s Health Care Bureau and kept up the pressure. Otto Raddatz fought his insurance company in April 2005 and won. Raddatz did not, as Obama said, die because of delayed treatment in 2005. He died in January.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Obama got “the essence” of the Raddatz story “exactly right,” and “the point the president wanted to make and did make” was that “insurance companies look for excuses to rescind their coverage just when [a person] needs it the most. … And that practice has got to stop.”

Obama went too far, though, when he claimed in his speech that Raddatz died because the coverage was withdrawn. Here’s what Obama said Wednesday:

“One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”

The last sentence of Obama’s can’t be supported. Obama speechwriters, I was told, got their information about Raddatz in a July 27 story in Slate about the health care crisis, which said — incorrectly — that a fight over benefits delayed treatment, “eliminated Raddatz’s chances of recovery, and he died.”

Focusing on whether he lied or was wrong in his facts misses the larger issue here, JD. Yes the man in question did not die as a result of delayed treatment. The President got that wrong. Did he lie? That would be a stretch. There is a big difference between bold-face lying and not getting ones facts right. So I would say, he was wrong. There is a difference. But I don’t expect that you will get it, judging from the intelligence you have been exhibiting recently.

The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:37 am

55, Obama ALWAYS lies. Too bad you are such a kool-aid drinker.

PCD (02f8c1) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:51 am

The Emperor:

That’s the same type of nuance that conservatives try to use in attacking the “Bush Lied!!!” rhetoric on Iraqi WMD.

Newtons.bit (a67c58) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:56 am

I saw that Newsweek cover at a checkout line. In the past year or so, I have been tempted to rip apart a news magazine because of the outrageous bias on its cover. I haven’t because while it would give me momentary satisfaction, I wouldn’t be able to show my face in the store again AND I would have to pay for it anyway.

I just went to the Newsweek.com site and found this from Evan Thomas: “The Case For Killing Granny.”

Not makin’ it up, folks.

L.N. Smithee (32682d) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:00 am

The President got that wrong. Did he lie? That would be a stretch. There is a big difference between bold-face lying and not getting ones facts right.

A stretch??? Really? If that is a stretch, then how can you ever say someone has lied? Perhaps they remember the facts wrong. Or misspoke. Or maybe they meant to say one thing but accidently said something else.

Geez. The speech writers spent hours upon hours writing those words. They should have either written it differently, or left that part out. In the end, the speaker is responsible for the words he/she uses. And what he said was a lie.

Corwin (ea9428) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:01 am

@49
Did Barcky lie when he said that the govt takeover of healthcare will not add one dime to the deficit?
Well put that in your “above my ability to understand” file. Time will tell. And you lie! when you use the term “govt. takeover of health care…” Don’t you think?

The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:04 am

Chimperor – You copied and pasted the same thing JW Dhimmi did, which left out the fact that he got the treatment, after a fight with his insurance compamy, and died 3 years later, which had not one f*cking thing to do with his insurance company. Teh One and his folks are supposed to be the smarterest people EVAH, so it is not reasonable to assume that they got it wrong, given the Congressional record of the events. But he is not demonizing anyone, just claiming insurance companies are killing people. Kudos for trying to answer 1 of the questions posed of you, no matter how mendacious you proved yourself to be.

The rest of you are racists.

JD (61265f) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:12 am

Lovie – You should be able to show us a deficit neutral plan being advanced by Barcky and the Dems in Congress. It should be easy to show that, were it true. Hint, the CBO says the plans will create unsustainable deficits.

JD (61265f) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:15 am

@59
Let me get you right, Corwin, you are saying that the President knowingly stood up and lied about this case? Knowing the truth about it and knowing also people will check it out and prove it to be false? It beats my imagination why he would do that. Obama may be a lot of things, but he ain’t stupid! I put the blame on his speech writers and fact checkers.

The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:16 am

Either answer the question directly or admit that you really don’t belong here anymore – if you ever did in the first place.

I have never read or heard anyone, anywhere, say that all right-wing criticisms are racists

Yes, and I’m sure that all hermits living in underground caves would say the exact same thing. Your moniker is misnamed – it should read unapolegetic ignoramus.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:20 am

I put the blame on his speech writers and fact checkers.

So now it’s still not Teh One’s fault, yet once again someone else must be thrown under the bus, even though that crawlspace numbers in the hundreds at this pooint. Are you now claiming that your king cannot even bother to vet his own SOTU speech? That’s more than a little pathetic, it’s sad beyond belief. You’re outta here.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:24 am

“point.”

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:24 am

That was funny, lovie. Barcky routinely throws everyone else under the back of the bus, now you are doing so for him. That might wash but for the fact he has been using this anecdote for some time now. It would be easier to admit that you are cool with Teh One lying.

JD (61265f) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:25 am

Ditto Brother Bradley’s comment. What in the world can be going through Jon Meacham’s mind? He must have fallen off of sanity’s ledge. I am glad that I quit taking that magazine several years ago.

That article “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage” was a turning point for them.

I just went to the Newsweek.com site and found this from Evan Thomas: “The Case For Killing Granny.”

One could argue the merits of spending $20,000 for a heart transplant for an octogenarian versus vaccinations for twenty thousand children.

I believe that $20,000 is better spent on a heart transplant for an octogenarian than on chemotherapy for sex offenders.

Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:27 am

The insurance-company-as-demon theme is in full flower. I work with insurance companies, doing some UR for them, and I spent 40 years dealing with them as a physician. There are several issues here.

One, insurance is a way to spread the risk of unanticipated events, such as cancer or your house burning down. It was not designed, and does not work well, as a way to prepay routine expenses. That is why we do not buy auto insurance that pays for routine oil changes. For one thing, it is expensive. For another, it creates moral hazard.

There is a way to prepay routine expenses; they call them HMOs. Doctors, especially pediatricians, pushed very hard to make health insurance pay for routine care in the 1970s because they feared competition from HMOs. We are all paying for this stupidity now.

Two, insurance companies do not do exhaustive research on the health history of applicants. It’s too expensive. They do some on life insurance but less on health insurance other than to ask for records to be released from previous physicians. Mostly, they don’t read those records and use the request for “sentinel effect.”

If they later find that an applicant concealed information on an application, they can use recision to deny benefits. This can be abused. That is what lawsuits are for. The government is immune to those sorts of lawsuits so be careful what you wish for. They do not have your best interest at heart either.

Mike K (addb13) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:31 am

NEWSREEK is your typical secular left-wing rag that always manages to show its a total waste why other even buy or subcribing to this worthless mass of waste paper

Krazy Kagu (524740) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:34 am

The insurance-company-as-demon theme is in full flower. I work with insurance companies, doing some UR for them, and I spent 40 years dealing with them as a physician. There are several issues here.

When gas prices rose, Congress went after the oil companies, not the auto insurance companies.

Why is not Congress going after doctors and hospitals instead of health insurance companies? Should they not be dragging in doctors and hospital managers to hearings and ask them to justify their price gouging?

Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:59 am

If they later find that an applicant concealed information on an application, they can use recision to deny benefits.

If I remember correctly, they can only do this during the contestability period.

Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:01 am

No mention of confederate flags at the tea party.
No mention of the use of terms “boy” and “uppity” by members of congress to refer to Obama.
No mention of Wilson being known up to now only for defending the honor of the confederacy and telling Strom Thurmond’s secret mixed race daughter to keep it to herself.
This is racism:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/confederate-1.JPG

And there’s more where that came from.

And you didn’t even read the article in Newsweek, let alone actually link to it.

Goldberg on Twitter today.
“I blame Jerri Ryan and Mike Ditka for all of America’s problems. If she only lightened up, her husband would have beat Obama in ’04.”

Unlike Bill Clinton Jack Ryan tried to coerce his wife into having sex in public.

“The Republican Sex Club
Why does the GOP defend Jack Ryan?”
http://www.slate.com/id/2102857/

I don’t know. Do you?

You people are sick

JW Democrat (213e20) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:22 am

Two, insurance companies do not do exhaustive research on the health history of applicants

…unless you do contract a serious illness within two years of getting your insurance policy, then they attempt to tear your life apart in trying to deny coverage. I’m no hater on insurance companies, and I deplore the public option – I also completely understand their fiduciary duties to guard against fraud and protect their investors from undue costs. But I’d sure like to see some type of change in this scenario, however the devil’s always in the details.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:23 am

You people are sick

No, what’s sick is some a–hole coming on here to actually defend the “outing” of former Senator Ryan’s divorce settlement, which was supposed to be sealed in private. Obama’s henchman Axelrod utilized one of his usual dirty tricks in order to get a serious rival off the ballot for Their Lord and Savior, and like his previous election, got away with it.

Do you even know what the hell you’re talking about here? Both Ryan and his ex- wife wanted the records sealed in order to protect their children, and the courts agreed with that request. Both parties stated that there was no reason to air sexual peccadillos just so some lightweight poseur had a clear path to the Senate, and the courts agreed as well. Yet here you are talking out of your asshole in a lame attempt to score more rhetorically inane points. You’re really the veritable scum of the earth, aren’t you, f-cknuts?

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:31 am

Dmac, you need to be less conciliatory.

AD - RtR/OS! (5c940e) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:40 am

JW Dhimmi approves of ACORN’s attempts to facilitate the international underage sex slave trade and, BTW, you all are racists.

JD (16fd4f) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:46 am

“…Unlike Bill Clinton Jack Ryan tried to coerce his wife into having sex in public….”

You really don’t want to go down this road, given WJC’s background of abuse of women. But you are just a troll, trying to stir people up.

And I still think, Patterico and DRJ, that this bit of toilet film needs to apologize for accusing anyone here of being racist.

But then, he is the descendant of slaveholding rapists, so I guess it’s all good.

Oh, I’m sorry. He described himself as “a mutt.” Which is an insult to every crossbred dog world wide.

Eric Blair (cc9718) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:18 am

Comment by Dmac — 9/14/2009 @ 9:24 am
Have you ever been wrong in your life? Ever made a mistake that you regret? Ever misrepresented a situation and said things that weren’t true mistakenly? I guess not. Seeing what a perfect assh*le you are. Now go back to fornicating with those rodents, Mr perfect!

The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:33 am

I only wish that the Illinois GOP had had the spine to stand up for Ryan and say “so what?” when they outed Ryan’s divorce records. If they had, we might not be living the nightmare of Obama right now.

Rochf (ae9c58) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:37 am

Obama is not your nightmare. Unless because he is different. This nightmare is a result of 8 years of bad and ineffective policies and decisions. Obama is simply doing what he can to clean it up. I blame Obama’s mother. I am sure there were a lot of good white men around then. She should have spared us this nightmare!

The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:54 am

have you ever been wrong in your life?

Sure; but never about asexual mouth – breathers like you, sweetheart.

I only wish that the Illinois GOP had had the spine to stand up for Ryan and say “so what?” when they outed Ryan’s divorce records.

And I only wish that we had an actual Illinois GOP party to begin with – there’s no discernible difference between them and the current dominant party in the state, none. I’ve never seen a so – called “opposition party” so in bed with their breathens in corruption and power.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 12:03 pm

I blame Obama’s mother

So what’s your excuse?

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 12:04 pm

I read not long ago that Newsweek magazine, because it’s competing in the age of the Internet (along with always being redundant in the shadow of Time magazine), now is a more opinion-oriented, commentary-dominated publication. And, of course, the opinions and commentary they favor are primarily of the left.

If there’s one good thing (or one of many good things) to come out of the era of the worldwide web and the current recession, it’s the eventual toppling over of things like Newsweek.

Mark (411533) — 9/14/2009 @ 12:33 pm

Yeah, Obama’s different–is that supposed to be some kind of code word, now, for racism? He’s different in the sense that he’s unequipped for the job (it’s over his pay grade); he’s some kind of egomaniac or narcissist (you can’t get away from his speeches, no matter what you do); his policies are failing and he can’t explain what he wants or how they’ll work (first a public plan is a deal breaker, and now it’s negotiable). Oh, and he’s black. Your point, please.

Rochf (ae9c58) — 9/14/2009 @ 12:39 pm

Wacist!

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:31 pm

“…Obama is simply doing what he can to clean it up…”

Oh, my. Where are the pom-poms on that one? I cannot believe that you could write that with a straight face. It sounds like you don’t want to give the man any responsibility for anything he does, except in opposition to GWB.

The President criticized deficits when he was running and GWB was President.

Now, it’s different!

There is a laundry list of thing that are wrong, but it’s important to remember that the current President is just trying to clean up other people’s messes!

Oh, my. This is one of the very best examples of the cheerleading business I have seen recently.

Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:33 pm

Obama is not your nightmare. Unless because he is different.

UM, this is the sort of thing we were talking about.

Mars vs Hollywood (a49876) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:42 pm

I still wonder about that Ryan divorce case. Maybe the reason she (still being described as an important Republican woman, by the way) wanted those records sealed was that the accusations were BS. There was a high profile divorce case in LA about 15 or 20 years ago in which a city councilman’s ex-wife accused him of molesting their daughter. He was arrested and, I think, tried and acquitted. It was “all’s fair in love and war” stuff. I believe she later admitted the charges were false. It was Art Snyder and the daughter later recanted and lived with him.

Child custody cases can get nasty and I know of other wild accusations being made by temporarily deranged women. Men don’t seem to do that. They are more likely to get physical.

When I was getting divorced, my ex-wife called me at the hospital to accuse me of slashing her tires. I took my two sons aside and asked them if they had done anything foolish as they had no love for her. Later, she played me a recording from her answering machine that, I swear, she had made herself. Weird things happen at times like that. I have no idea if her tires were even slashed. She went to court and got a restraining order. Somewhere, that is probably sitting in a file and would show up if I ever ran for office or something. No basis in fact. I just wonder about that Ryan story.

I should add, though, that he should have told the state GOP about the allegations. He was asked if there were any skeletons and he should have told them.

Mike K (addb13) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:56 pm

I’m still trying to get used to the notion that our President is “different”, whatever that means.

Rochf (ae9c58) — 9/14/2009 @ 1:59 pm

Is he not different from the others? Really? Come on. At least admit that. This anti-obamanism started waaaay before he became President. Way before he even came out with an economic plan (Of his own.). Way before this present health care issue. He is different. Has an exotic sounding, unAmerican name and comes from a Muslim family in Kenya. Of all places!! If you are a racist, any small thing is enough to turn you against the different guy. Even though a lot of us have gotten over racism, still there are those who will mask their true racist feelings in the guise of not liking his policies. The confusion we are facing now is, who is who? Who are those opposing Obama based on policies they don’t like and who are those using those policy disagreement as a guise for their racism? That is the heart of the problem we f ace now. There are those with legitimate reasons to oppose the President on issues that matter to them. But can’t because they don’t want to be categorized as being racist. And for this I blame Obama’s mama!! 🙂

The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/14/2009 @ 2:41 pm

This is one of the very best examples of the cheerleading business

That is the most charitable description of rampant bootlicking that I’ve ever seen.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 2:51 pm

As Mark will tell you, Dmac, Republicans are by nature quite charitable.

Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/14/2009 @ 2:53 pm

He was asked if there were any skeletons and he should have told them.

Agreed. But the Tribune had no reason to pursue the story, if not for the Axelrod flunkies on their payroll. Their incredible excuse for going to court to unseal the files was the hallowed “the public’s right to know.” Right – but as for Obama’s spiritual leader, his association with Ayers, his association with any number of political crooks and backroom dealers – not.one.word.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 2:55 pm

I’m pissed off at JWD for attempting to compare Jeri Ryan with Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. Jeri Ryan is hawt.

daleyrocks (718861) — 9/14/2009 @ 4:17 pm

“…the ‘co-curricular’ label allows University types to assign actual credit for students attending protest marches and political events on campus.”

Come to Chicago and you will regularly see bus-loads of schoool children brought to liberal protests and union rallies. Your oh-so-trustworthy teachers in action.

pst314 (dbf8fd) — 9/14/2009 @ 4:34 pm

No, what’s sick is some a–hole coming on here to actually defend the “outing” of former Senator Ryan’s divorce settlement, which was supposed to be sealed in private. Obama’s henchman Axelrod utilized one of his usual dirty tricks in order to get a serious rival off the ballot for Their Lord and Savior, and like his previous election, got away with it.

This should be stated every single day .

Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/14/2009 @ 5:31 pm

Come to Chicago and you will regularly see bus-loads of schoool children brought to liberal protests and union rallies.

Don’t forget Governor Quinn using a bunch of elderly and disabled people as campaign props for another tax increase. And here I used to have a modicum of respect for the guy – shameful.

Dmac (a93b13) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:21 pm

I read not long ago that Newsweek magazine, because it’s competing in the age of the Internet (along with always being redundant in the shadow of Time magazine), now is a more opinion-oriented, commentary-dominated publication.

That’s precisely right. The trouble is, the opinions are contrived and poorly reasoned, and the commentary is sub-par. Newsweek now reads like the bastard offspring of a tabloid scandal sheet and The Economist.

I gave up hope for Newsweek when I saw its July 31 issue, with the (Meacham must have thought) irresistible title, “Everything You Know About Iran is Wrong.”

It proved to be quite resistible.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/14/2009 @ 7:41 pm

If you are a racist, any small thing is enough to turn you against the different guy.

And if he were a conservative, you wouldn’t give a damn about — or would be much less bothered by, if not even tolerant of — any ill will directed his way.

The superficiality and dishonesty of liberalism (oh, excuse me—of progressivism) is quite a sight to behold.

It proved to be quite resistible.

It will be interesting to see what the MSM, particularly the print portion of it, will look like over the next 10 years. I know some publications, such as various newspapers, that have been in the red or barely in the black for a long time have somehow managed to survive for all these years. I understand Business Week magazine, which was booming as recently as the late 1990s, now is limping along, soon to be sort of auctioned off to the highest bidder.

There is a part of the economy that although it’s not in the non-profit category, nonetheless appears to have a very flexible bottom line. So maybe even if Newsweek eventually has a staff of, say, 20 people and 6 pages of advertising, and is sold off by the Washington Post Co, it will manage to hang around like a bad cold.

Mark (411533) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:23 pm

So maybe even if Newsweek eventually has a staff of, say, 20 people and 6 pages of advertising, and is sold off by the Washington Post Co, it will manage to hang around like a bad cold.

Some print magazines, such as overtly partisan ones, rely on the kindness of wealthy benefactors, be they left or right. Newsweek claims it is nonpartisan — stop laughing! — so it can’t solicit that kind of support.

The ~~Kaplan~~ Washington Post Co. has enough trouble as it is supporting its money-losing namesake paper. Unless a near-miracle happens, Newsweek’s fate will be as grim as that of granny under ObamaCare.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:34 pm

Which political party is racist again? I dare you.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:40 pm

Newsweek could garner a bit of respect if they would just be honest: John Meachem and Newsweek should just be straight up and admit to being a left-leaning journal. They might actually increase readership while having discovered a snippet of integrity by being straightforward.

When they try to make us believe they are all things to all men, middle of the non-biased road, and we read what’s between the covers, we just come back to our original assumption: they’re making fools of themselves in their strident attempts to be not only relevant, but politically neutral. Right.

Dana (863a65) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:45 pm

^ Actually, I believe the article I read about Newsweek becoming more of a purely essay- and opinion-driven publication suggested Meachem wasn’t that concerned about or insistent on it reflecting a tone of neutrality or objectivity. I think his operating philosophy is to welcome controversy, and if the magazine alienates some of its existing readership in the process, so be it.

If Newsweek ends up with the bottom-line characteristics and circulation base of The Nation, I won’t shed a tear.

Mark (411533) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:03 pm

Don’t forget Governor Quinn using a bunch of elderly and disabled people as campaign props for another tax increase. And here I used to have a modicum of respect for the guy – shameful.

In Illinois, a governor that avoids jail would be considered good.

Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/15/2009 @ 10:01 am

Well, Blago has managed to stay out of jail so far, but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time. In Illinois our politicians have sunk so low that Louisiana looks ethical in comparison.

Rochf (ae9c58) — 9/15/2009 @ 10:10 am

JW Democrat aka Readnek/AF/blah has been banned.

DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/15/2009 @ 4:27 pm

9/13/2009

Welcome to Post-Racial America

109 Responses to “Welcome to Post-Racial America”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out