A couple of questions about Jackie

For those who have been in a media blackout for the last few weeks, Rolling Stone magazine (one of the guiding lights of my adolescence), screwed up and published an unreliable account of a gruesome frat-house rape at the University Of Virginia. 

A young lady named "Jackie" was supposedly gang-raped by seven guys.  For three hours.  During a party.  On a floor covered with shattered glass.  And she refused medical treatment.  And the guy she claims to have gone with might not exist.  And etc., etc., etc.... 

Rolling Stone printed every word of it.  The University prez shut down the entire Greek/Frat system.  No judge, no jury. 

A few media groups are now picking apart the story, but they're concerned about not doing violence to the "larger truth" - that there is a culture of rape in America. 

Horse hockey. 

Considering that Jackie's behavior didn't take place in a vacuum, here are two types of questions that real journalists would be asking:

1)  What classes has "Jackie" been taking?  Victimology 101?  Intro to Grievance Studies?  The Western Canon As A Metaphor For Rape?  Advanced Privilege-Checking?

Has "Jackie" been exposed to classroom instruction that taught her that unless she is oppressed, then she is part of the problem? 

I would love to know.  Considering that a frat house has been vandalized, picketed, shut down and otherwise defamed, and that some guys could've gone to prison, I think we all have a right to know the crap that the University Of Virginia has possibly been pumping into that young lady's head. 

2)  The culture of rape schtick has apparently gone from bug to feature, and I'm wondering what all-female universities do with their evenings (without white straight males to fear, protest against, and warn each other about). 

Does anyone else think that Jackie might have been to one to many of the Rape Culture Seminars?  Did she go to any Take Back The Night marches? 

Did some variety of Victim Envy cause her to do this?  There are no effects without causes, and this fable had some causes. 

***********

It's looking more and more like Jackie made up the entire story.  I'm just curious about why she did it, and I wish that more journalists were. 

 

The Arapahoe High School gunman was a right-wing Tea Party conservative

You've probably heard about the latest school shooting, this time at Arapahoe High in Colorado. A kid that everyone describes as totally normal walked into his school and shot two students. 

The shooter, Karl Pierson was a friendly, average kid who ran track and was on the debate team.  He did have some "extreme" political views (extreme economic conservatism) but no one dreamed he would ever open fire in a high school. 

This kid has done extreme harm to the cause of liberty and freedom. 

Here's the Denver Post:

In one Facebook post, Pierson viciously attacks the philosophies of economist Karl Marx, who through his condemnation of Capitalism pushed the notion that the Capitalist system would eventually implode and be replaced by Socialism.  In another post, Pierson describes his economic philosophy as "Free Market Libertarian."

"I'm wanting to ask all the Democrats and Leftists, why hasn't the Stimulus Package improved the economy?" he wrote. "If Keynesianism works so well, why aren't we seeing increased employment?"

Pierson also appears to mock Democrats on another Facebook post, writing "you Democrats are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Democrat Party: Health Care: Give us money, Climate Change: Give us power, Gun Violence: Give us power, Women's Rights: Give us control, More War: Give us spending. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

And since young Karl Pierson's economic conservatism is against everything that the mainstream media stands for, that's how the Denver Post chose to begin their story. 

WHOOPS! 

Sorry folks.  I screwed up. 

Karl Pierson was a full blown Keynesian tax-and-spend advocate.  Had he been the type of kid that shows up at Tea Party rallies wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt, that's all you would be hearing about today.  I shouldn't be politicizing this tragedy, and he was probably too young to know stimulus from strawberries, but you can bet your ass that the boy's political leanings would be all over the media had he been a right-wing economic conservative. 

Here's the legit Denver Post excerpt.  You have to read most of the article to get to these little nuggets.  

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as "Keynesian."

"I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market correcting itself?" he wrote. "If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to overpower regulations?"

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

We'll never really know what caused the Karl Pierson tragedy.  But had he been on the other side of the political spectrum, you know what they would've blamed.   

Jay Carney Appreciates Your Questions! (Interactive)

From Yahoo! (of all places)

Jay Carney doesn’t have an answer for that. He hasn’t discussed that subject with the president. He will refer you to the Department of [insert agency here]. He refuses to speculate on that. He’ll have to get back to you.

But he appreciates the question.

A Yahoo News analysis of the 444 briefings through June 18 that Carney has held since becoming White House press secretary has identified 13 distinct strains in the way he dodges a reporter's question. Since Carney held his first daily briefing with reporters in the White House Brady Press Briefing Room on Feb. 16, 2011, for example, he’s used some variation of "I don’t have the answer" more than 1,900 times. In 1,383 cases he referred a question to someone else. But will he at least speculate on hypotheticals? No. In fact, he has refused to do so 525 times.

In the following interactive, you can browse all 9,486 of Carney’s most-used responses and verbal crutches.

Video available below the chart.  But really, you gotta play the game.  Good stuff, folks.  Good stuff. 
. .

"Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel" - Let's interview the anti-Koch protesters

Oh Lord help us all.

There are rumors that the evil Koch brothers, Charles and David, might buy the L.A. Times.  Just having one libertarian-ish print rag on the west coast was enough to send The Great Herd Of Independent Minds into a frenzy. 

David Koch ran for Vice-President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980.  The platform he advocated included ending the Drug War (a war which the L.A. Times supports, BTW), recognizing marriage equality, eliminating business kickbacks subsidies, and all the other planks of the Libertarian platform that have been solidly in place since about 1971. 

The evil Koch brothers donated something like $20 million dollars to the ACLU to fight George Bush's Patriot Act.  I have a deep admiration for activist Radley Balko, who is partly funded by the Koch bro's.  Balko spends his days getting wrongly convicted death-row inmates released from Barack's jails, and fighting the Random Conviction Generator that is my home state of Mississippi's "criminal justice" system. 

Remember that.  Now, get up.  Make some popcorn.  Come back.  Hit play.  The folks from :40 through :59 are absolutely priceless. 

And when you're finished, help me promote the idea of the Koch brothers purchasing the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  I promise to re-subscribe. 

On Objective Journalism

“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” - Hunter S. Thompson

Go here for additional proof.  It's pretty funny. 

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram - now the size of a 1970's advertising insert

From The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.    I've put the only words that matter in bold print:

The version of the Star-Telegram published Monday represents months of work and millions of dollars spent to improve the legibility of the paper. In addition to a new design for our pages, we're completing one of the biggest press upgrades in our history.

To make it easier to find your favorite sections, we've color-coded them: The local section is red, Sports is blue, Work & Money is green, and Your Life is orange. We've also used blue on the front page to highlight the Star-Telegram name.

Classified sections are teal and have been completely redesigned with larger type and an easier-to-read format that includes wider columns.

The new typeface we have chosen for articles is the same size as what we've been using, but it prints larger. The typeface, called Quiosco, was specially designed to improve readability on narrower pages.

Our new design will also improve legibility by reducing the practice of putting small type on gray or color backgrounds.

To improve our reproduction, the Star-Telegram is upgrading the presses, replacing much of the equipment that we've used for more than a decade.

We're also switching to a higher grade of newsprint. Although there may be a short breaking-in process, the visual result should be readily apparent to our readers in the next several weeks.

Because the printed page is more compact -- and easier to handle as a result -- we've had to move some comics, daily features and puzzles to maintain their size.

Go here to see what the front page looks like now.  It's kind of a milder USA Today. 

There isn't as much of it, but they're giving it their best shot.  The Tim Madigan/Ron Ennis series on local neurosurgeon Dave Donahue is one of the best I've read in a while. 

Maybe the Star-Telegram will make it.  Hope so.  Sometimes you have to cut back before you can grow. 

Carlos A. Rodriguez on the virtues of The Libertarian Party

The Libertarians got a nice plug from Carlos A. Rodriguez in the Brownsville TX paper a few days ago. Here's an excerpt:

"....most Americans seem to be caught in the middle of the two parties.

Actually, we don't have two parties. We have two factions that take turns running things. Neither faction has much interest in real change.

Many Americans — a majority, it seems — believe they are taxed so much that their standard of living is compromised. They question many of the programs, and the cost, of programs promoted by the Democratic Party. Many are horrified to think that their tax dollars are being used to fund things they consider morally wrong, such as abortion. They might not like union-friendly legislation that impedes workers’ ability to make independent agreements with employers.

Or, they might actually be in favor of any or all of these things, but they think government shouldn't be involved.

While they might want fiscal restraint, however, many Americans have a real problem with institutionalized xenophobia, edicts that mandate the promotion of a specific religion to the detriment of others, or restrictions on media, behavior and expression the Republican Party espouses.

The "fiscal restraint" issue is one place where Mr. Rodriguez goes totally off the rails. Why is that issue still associated with Republicans?
Republican presidents named Reagan and Bush rang up more debt than all other presidents combined. (Present company excluded, of course.) Why do people think that when fiscal conservatives vote for a Libertarian instead of a Republican, the vote is "wasted" ? A vote for a Republican is a vote for someone who spends more than a Democrat. They just spend it on different toys.

The obvious question, then, is, why do Americans, who ostensibly decide who gets elected and what party gains power, allow these political aberrations to run the country? Why don’t we have a strong political party that reflects the majority view? After all, other parties do exist; they just don’t have the strength of the two biggies.
You can pick your answer: Maybe the assumption is wrong, and people really are gathered at either ends of the spectrum. Maybe people prefer a two-party system that precludes the formation of coalitions that would lead to compromise legislation rather than the all-or-nothing battles we have today. Or maybe the incumbent parties have stacked the deck in their favor, and a vote for a minority party might as well be thrown away. People don’t think they have a choice.

Correct.

Actually, they do. Several other political parties exist, although most of them are single-issue groups like the Green Party, America First Party and the U.S. Marijuana Party.
Some, however, do offer comprehensive philosophies that can be applied to all aspects of life and government.
The largest of these is the Libertarian Party. Traditionally most in line with our country’s Jeffersonian founders, it combines the small-government views that conservatives espouse, while defending the social freedoms that many modern political liberals tout.

Heck yes. We're the most in line with our country's Jeffersonian founders. Hit the link at the top to read the whole thing. And thank you, Mr. Carlos A. Rodriguez.

But....It Creates Jobs ! ! !

This is from Lawrence W. Reed, with an outfit called the Foundation For Economic Education:

Adlai Stevenson’s description of the journalist as one who “separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff” was never more apropos than in the Sunday, April 5 edition of the New York Times. Adam Nossiter’s page A-16 article, “Louisiana, a Test Case in Federal Aid” makes lowly chaff seem like nothing less than the cream of the crop.
Imagine a thief who spends an afternoon pick pocketing a sizable crowd. In a few hours, he’s nabbed thousands of dollars in cash and a bag full of credit cards. He then spends a small fortune at some jewelry stores and makes off with the loot as a suspicious citizen who recognizes him cries “Stop!”
If Nossiter were covering this little episode, the story in the Times the next day would read as follows: “A Good Samaritan yesterday gave several gem shops a big boost when he bought more diamonds than the stores usually sell in a month. The benefits of the spending binge were confirmed by no less an authority than the store owners themselves, who promise to hire more employees if the generous customer comes back regularly. An obviously disgruntled passerby attempted to interfere in the matter by shouting as the customer left, but he was told by an angry store manager to leave well enough alone. Meanwhile, economists at the nearby state university are hailing the increase in local GDP.”
Make these substitutions and you have the gist of the actual Nossiter story in the April 5 Times: The Good Samaritan is the federal government, the jewelry store is Louisiana and the passerby who tried to rain on their parade is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl. Oh, I almost forgot: the people in the crowd whose pockets got picked are representative of the taxpayers of America but it doesn’t matter because they’re not mentioned in Nossiter’s story anyway.
The Times story notes that the feds have dumped more than $50 billion in money on Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina. “Indicators suggest,” notes ace reporter Nossiter, that “dumping a large amount of reconstruction money into a confined space . . . has had a positive outcome.” It’s an “experiment” that he says bodes well for the flood of stimulus spending Washington is doling out to alleviate the nation’s financial woes.
Lo and behold, guess what has happened to construction in Louisiana? It’s up! (Apparently, not even government can spend $50 billion on construction without yielding some construction.) Nossiter quotes a professor who says this proves that “stimulus can have an effect.”

You gotta love it. You can read the rest by clicking here.