I have stumbled upon a “journalist” at Fortune magazine who can give David Brooks a run for his money in the race for most vapid booster of the upper classes. Nina Easton, Senior Editor at Large. And so too is a criminal “at large” until prosecuted for their crimes. The crime in question here, over at Fortune that is, is Ms. Easton’s current article, “Don’t blame the 1% for America’s pay gap,” http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/, which puts forth the novel concept that “everyone” is harping on the rich. For example,
“You might think this was a group people would admire, even emulate, right? Not so. For this is the much-maligned 1%, whose media infamy via the Occupy Wall Street protests, followed by President Obama’s populist reelection message, is now firmly embedded in the American psyche.”
So suddenly the combined efforts of OWS and Obama’s current election efforts are to blame for the negative image of the rich that the media has suddenly decided to present to the public.
There is a good chance that as a modern journalist she doesn’t know what the word means. But if she does I wonder if she has 12 step program by which we might do that..
Of course it can only be envy that makes my cynical.
Is It Moral to Vote for Obama? – Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn’t “precise” or “surgical” as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. … Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama’s kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.
and i’ll add, when the Pres says he is not going to “slash” Social Security while crossing his fingers behind his back and saying to himself “it depends on what the meaning of slash is is.” we are dealing with a liar. more refined than Cheney perhaps, but in the long run maybe just as dangerous.
aren’t you glad you live in a democracy where you have a choice.
And there’s the rub. Damned to do one thing or the other. Obama has a perverse view of the Constitution. For a guy that preaches morality and godliness he’s quick to kill well outside of the prosecutorial process. And then we have Mitt and Paul. Heaven help us all.
Jack, the whole thing is your (generic your) own dang fault. If you had let women in to run things occasionally, things might have gotten cleaned up a bit between mis-adventures.
I have stumbled upon a “journalist” at Fortune magazine who can give David Brooks a run for his money in the race for most vapid booster of the upper classes. Nina Easton, Senior Editor at Large. And so too is a criminal “at large” until prosecuted for their crimes.
The crime in question here, over at Fortune that is, is Ms. Easton’s current article, “Don’t blame the 1% for America’s pay gap,”
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/, which puts forth the novel concept that “everyone” is harping on the rich. For example,
“You might think this was a group people would admire, even emulate, right? Not so. For this is the much-maligned 1%, whose media infamy via the Occupy Wall Street protests, followed by President Obama’s populist reelection message, is now firmly embedded in the American psyche.”
So suddenly the combined efforts of OWS
and Obama’s current election efforts are to blame for the negative image of the rich that the media has suddenly decided to present to the public.
But you see
Ms Easton thinks we should emulate the very rich.
There is a good chance that as a modern journalist she doesn’t know what the word means. But if she does I wonder if she has 12 step program by which we might do that..
Of course it can only be envy that makes my cynical.
a question raised at crooked timber:
Is It Moral to Vote for Obama? –
Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn’t “precise” or “surgical” as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. … Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama’s kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.
rjs
yes.
and i’ll add, when the Pres says he is not going to “slash” Social Security while crossing his fingers behind his back and saying to himself “it depends on what the meaning of slash is is.” we are dealing with a liar. more refined than Cheney perhaps, but in the long run maybe just as dangerous.
aren’t you glad you live in a democracy where you have a choice.
And there’s the rub. Damned to do one thing or the other. Obama has a perverse view of the Constitution. For a guy that preaches morality and godliness he’s quick to kill well outside of the prosecutorial process. And then we have Mitt and Paul. Heaven help us all.
Jack, the whole thing is your (generic your) own dang fault. If you had let women in to run things occasionally, things might have gotten cleaned up a bit between mis-adventures.
Anna
your were thinking of Mad Albright? or Maggie Thatcher, or Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachman, or
…
point is wimmins is equals to mens.
btw, my “yes” to rjs was agreeing with him, not saying it was moral to vote for O.
coberly,
Chuckle! That’s the point. The only thing I agreed with from politco’s this century came from Condi and she’s not even a liberal.
we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?