Tuesday, April 07, 2009

How Green is thy Envy?, Part LXVII 

posted by Joe @ 22:23

The left wing idiots at Marianne, in a desperate bid to define everything foreign in the same way the worst of French society always have (instead of letting others define themselves) has their moment of cynicism after the O-gasm. Except for the fact that they’re at heart a bunch of ignorant and insensitive boors pretending that their hyperventilating somehow hakes them look smart.



The comments about the cartoon are even more amusing. The readers take the various moments of anti-social destruction and marauding in France as some sort of natural outcome of the US election, or more to the point, the fact that they though about the subject. Among the delusional as well as the likes of the readers of Marianne2, thinking about a subject give rise to events in meatspace, I suppose.


|



We are helpless, please help 

posted by Georges @ 18:18

Acting out should never be encouraged in children:

Almost half of French people believe it is acceptable for workers facing layoffs to lock up their bosses, according to an opinion poll published on Tuesday.

Staff at French plants run by Sony, 3M and Caterpillar have held managers inside the factories overnight, in three separate incidents, to demand better layoff terms -- a new form of labor action dubbed "bossnapping" by the media.

A poll by the CSA institute for Le Parisien newspaper found 50 percent of French people surveyed disapproved of such acts, but 45 percent thought they were acceptable.

|



No Longer Is It the Case, Thanks to You-Know-Who, That Foreign Allies of Bush's America Have to Fear… Looking at Themselves in the Mirror (!!) 

posted by Erik @ 14:28

I think that it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now President and George Bush is no longer President, al Qaeda is still a threat
Good thing to know, Mr. President (thanks for the info)…

Prior to his visit to Prague and to Ankara, the Apologizer-in-Chief had passed through Strasbourg, where his handlers (does he actually have any?!) couldn't even get the translation of "good afternoon" right (if Bon après-midi ever existed, it went out of fashion, oh, about a couple of centuries ago) and where — uh, oh, America — he said that he was jealous about [government-funded] high-speed rail and the nice trains here.
Devant les étudiants de Strasbourg, il a parlé d'Abou Ghraib, l'ancienne prison américaine en Irak, un nom qui ne revient pas souvent dans le discours public américain, en essayant de les convaincre qu'ils peuvent désormais se joindre aux Etats-Unis sans avoir peur de "se regarder dans la glace".
Thanks to Barack Obama, says… Barack Obama (in Strasbourg, as recounted by Corine Lesnes and in other Le Monde articles), foreigners such as Europeans need no longer be afraid to… look at themselves in the mirror.


|



Control makes you free 

posted by Georges @ 14:22

No doubt readers of this blog are aware of the never-sated thirst of governmentalists and statists to control evermore the choices and decisions of the individual. Fortunately there sometimes (note, sometimes) are gems to report:

The local pub in Groningen has moved its bar and serving staff to a small storeroom, designating what was its main bar area as the smoking zone.

Following other countries in Europe that had banned smoking in bars and restaurants, last summer the government prohibited smoking in such establishment, citing the protection of employees from the dangers of passive smoking as one of the main motives. Cafes are allowed to create a sealed of smoking area, as long it is seperated from the bar, and staff works in a smoke free area.

Cafe De Balk has taken the anti-smoking law literally, seperating the staff from the smokers rather than the other way around. Klink said there is nothing in the law to prevent this.
That really is the problem for the controlling-class of governmentalists and statists. No matter how hard they work to help the masses there is always some horrid individual out there who sticks it back up them.

How dare they!

|



Monday, April 06, 2009

The Queen Glared at Michelle Obama With a Black Look 

posted by Erik @ 16:32

America's mainstream media would have the Obama/Queen meeting occur in good humor and friendship and fun, with highly exaggerated acounts of a touch that, au contraire, was emblematic of the leaders' friendship.

Not if you believe the French mainstream media (usually as leftish, if not more, than their American cousins)… Corine Lesnes and Marc Roche write in Le Monde that
à la stupéfaction du protocole, Michelle a eu l'audace de lui poser la main sur le dos. Elle a eu droit à un regard assassin de la reine.
Only out of a desire for indulgence, the Queen blamed the faux pas on jet lag… (Meanwhile, Le Monde's readers were busy forgiving the faux pas, finding it cute — oui, vous comprenez, ce n'est pas George W Bush — and even testifying that they had already watched a totally uncontroversial video of the meeting three times…)

|



Pronunciation lesson 

posted by Georges @ 05:55

Given the silence from the Tax Justice Network regarding this topic:

Whistleblowing MPs lifted the lid last night on how Commons expenses have been fiddled, allowing them to obtain thousands of pounds without submitting a single receipt.

They revealed how MPs could claim up to £250 a month for cleaning and repairs to second homes, up to £400 a month for food and up to 350 miles a month in "constituency mileage" – regardless of the size of the constituency.

One MP told The Mail on Sunday: "Everyone knows that people have been making money simply by making up claims on a 'no questions asked' basis. You can put the money straight in your pocket."
It is rather obvious that when pronouncing the Tax Justice Network acronym ("T-J-N") the "J" is silent. Surely the poor dears have someone in the network who can perform research regarding the abuse of real tax monies by government officials.

Silence is thy name.

|



Sunday, April 05, 2009

A clue 

posted by Georges @ 01:34

While this particular set of circumstances is playing out in the United States the theory applies to any country anywhere in which the government has/is injecting itself into the private sector under the guise of assistance.

Stuart Varney reports:

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
So what is happening here? Mr. Varney provides a partial answer:

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
This is indeed true. But what else? An educated guess informs that those in control will want to make those banks holding TARP funds as absolutely uncomfortable as possible in a bid to get the very same banks to agree to any terms in order to disgorge the TARP funds. Mr. Varney rightly suggests these may come in the form of compensation caps, changed lending practices, etc. True, but this brings us back to our largely unanswered question from the other day:

What happens to the TARP funds once repaid by the banks to the government?
One can easily imagine a scenario under which the banks get the screws put to them so tightly that they will not only subscribe to the terms above but also the creation of some new, and permanent, set of governmental programmes which dole out the repaid TARP funds, or a big enough portion of them, for all kinds of social re-engineering programmes. The governmentalist mindset will think, "We created this new money, why waste it by simply closing out the TARP programme?"

The banks of course will line up squealing with praise for these new programmes and the need to use these repaid TARP funds for the "better social good". And why wouldn't they line up to do so, they will have repaid the TARP funds and removed the government substantially off their backs. The fact that some new social re-engineering programmes have been created and foisted onto the tax-payer in perpetuity makes no difference to the banks, they got rid of their problem. The same rationale goes for healthcare "reform" as well. Businesses with large healthcare costs will equally praise any governmentally run programme (paid for, of course, by the tax-payer) which removes a huge cost off their books. When you hear some phrase such as "social betterment" you should smell money.

So, asked again:

As financial institutions (and non) in the US begin to pay their TARP funds back, where will those funds go? These funds were conjured last year and injected into these firms, to be paid back with interest. Will the repaid funds merely zero out the conjured funds leaving only the interest bit to go into the general funding of the US government?

Or, will these repaid funds (in toto, principal and interest) become "real" and permanent funds going into the general funding of the US government and doled out forever?
Mr. Varney has graciously provided another clue. As a side note, shed no tears for the big business/banking community. For years that class has hedged their bets and only given lip-service to offering resistance to more and more government and higher and higher taxes. Perhaps now they are learning their lesson as to what happens when you do not stand up for free markets and capitalism in a legitimate and strong fashion.

|



Saturday, April 04, 2009

We Are Red, We Are White, We Are Danish Dynamite! 

posted by Erik @ 14:59

Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen becomes the next head of NATO, writes Berlingske Tidende (nearly all links in Danish). If finance minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen replaces the George W Bush ally (this [English-language] link seems to be proof that all (?) Bush administration photos seem to have disappeared from Obama's White House web site) as prime minister, as planned, he will be the third Rasmussen in a row (after Fogh and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen) to be prime minister of Denmark (Danish PMs have tended to be known by their middle names, recently — Nyrup, Fogh, Løkke)… In any case, you gotta love a guy who (for whatever reason) cancels a meeting with Barack Obama




|



Can't Say the California Dude Ain't Got a Point: The Constitution's Right to Show One's Perfectly Toned Upper Limbs Shall Not Be Infringed 

posted by Erik @ 13:40

Lexington … mentioned that the White House has engaged in a debate with the media about whether Mrs Obama should show her “perfectly toned” upper limbs in public
writes Skip Kilmartin of El Sobrante, California, as he points out to The Economist (a typical lay-off-the-Obamas-or-you're-nothing-but-a-sorehead article, alas) that there is one area in which criticism of Michelle Obama is off-bounds (thanks to the Bill of Writes).
Being familiar with constitutional law, perhaps Barack Obama could put this particular fashion controversy surrounding his wife to rest by referring to the second amendment’s right to bare arms.

|



All you need is a brush-up and a bit of water on the back of the neck, all better 

posted by Georges @ 12:12

As mentioned previously, the dog-whistle portion of the recently concluded G20 meetings included laying the groundwork and pre-financing for the UK's inevitable crawl to the IMF pay window. This update brings the situation into clearer focus. While the writing is yet to be on the wall, rest assured the paint is indeed being prepared:

The G20 agreed this week to establish a new scheme, controlled by the IMF, which countries of all backgrounds can go to if they are experiencing financial problems.

That coincided with a concerted push by British ministers to argue that there would no longer be any stigma attached to asking for cash.

The previous Labour Government's bail-out by the IMF in 1976 was seen as a national humiliation and helped sweep the party from power for 18 years.

A senior Cabinet minister said, however, that the new fund would not be like the 1970s version and should not be seen as such. He said there would be nothing wrong if America or Britain used the facility.

He said: "Previously a country would only go if they were in a very bad state. It was a bit like going to accident and emergency to get urgent help.

"This new facility will not be like that. It is a bit more like getting wellbeing care or even like going to a spa to recuperate."
One difference of course is a visit to the spa usually does not end in tears and misery. As to the shame of the forthcoming situation, the indefatigable Tim Worstall delivers the prescient verdict with trademark élan.

|



There has been "arrogance" and élites have "been dismissive, even derisive"? Sounds like a description of US history lessons taught by leftists… 

posted by Erik @ 07:26

"There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive": The Apologizer-in-Chief's words actually sound like a description of the American history courses taught be leftists around the world today (both inside and outside the United States)…

During their meeting in Strasbourg, Nicolas Sarkozy refuses to send more men to Afghanistan — notice the difference in (what turns out to be) the rewritten title (Les sujets abordés par Nicolas Sarkozy et Barack Obama) and the initial one (shall we call the more descriptive title the "cruder" one, which more diplomatic editors toned down?), still visible in the article's URL (sarkozy-confirme-a-obama-son-refus-d-envoyer-des-troupes-supplementaires-en-afghanistan) — and there ain't much Barack Obama can do about it, now that the Apologizer-in-Chief been so busy raving on and on about America's arrogance and how his administration is a step in the direction of multilateralism and now that he has been so busy showing he is "eine Guttermensch" by reason of… his incessant smile.

(But, hey, what can he say; maybe Carla didn't appreciate the iPod or the 25 Zone 1 DVDs… In any event, the Daily Mail has a number of photos…)

Meanwhile, Investor's Business Daily tries to give the Apologizer- and Charmer-in-Chief a basic history lesson.
News reports quoted French men and women hailing the first African-American president of the United States as a hopeful sign for global racial reconciliation.

But is there another reason they're so smitten? Might they be imagining the decline of America and the rise of a Eurocentric multilateralism?

Barack Obama's words to the thousands of squealing young French and German fans at the Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg certainly seem in harmony with such hopes.

"In America," the president claimed, "there's a failure to appreciate
Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

President Obama promised that "America is changing" and that there would now be "unprecedented coordination" in our policies.

He lamented that "we got sidetracked by Iraq"; he extolled the "social safety net that exists in almost all of Europe that doesn't exist in the United States."

And he described the G-20 summit he just attended in London last week as "a success of nations coming together, working out their differences, and moving boldly forward."

But is multilateralism really the great hope for the future that the president and his French and German devotees are convinced it is?

"We just emerged from an era marked by irresponsibility," the president claimed in reference to the global financial crisis.

But when he flaunts his "excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia" to begin the reduction of U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles with the claim that working with Moscow will "give us greater moral authority to say to Iran, 'don't develop a nuclear weapon,' to say to North Korea, 'don't proliferate nuclear weapons,' " isn't he actually embarking on a new era of naive foreign policy irresponsibility?

The Russia and Communist China the president wants to "partner" with are directly responsible for giving Iran and North Korea the nuclear expertise and equipment that have empowered those two oppressive terror states to pursue the ability to incinerate a city.

And does the president really believe that Kim Jong-il or the Ayatollah Khomenei respond, as he put it, to "moral authority" the way civilized leaders do?

It's Europe that has things to learn from America, not vice versa.

Europe can learn that with an injection of U.S.-style market competition, French patients need not wait month-upon-month for heart bypass surgery. They can learn that Iran is a clear and present danger requiring force from a united free world, not talk.

While they're at it, they might also learn to express some gratitude for the $13 billion American taxpayers shelled out during the post-war years (over $100 billion in current dollars) to rebuild their countries — after the U.S. came to their rescue during the war itself, spilling the blood of hundreds of thousands to defeat Hitler.

The United States of America is the world's lone superpower — unless and until we choose to relinquish that responsibility.

The last thing our sometime friends and allies across the pond need is a U.S. president bemoaning America's role in the world and serving as an echo chamber to those in Europe who would like to see us weakened or irrelevant.


|



Money-grubbing swine try to bust union... 

posted by Georges @ 01:03

...with a twist of course:

The New York Times Co has threatened to shut The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions agree to $20 million in concessions, the Globe reported on Friday, quoting union leaders.

The union officials said executives from Globe and the Times, which owns the Boston newspaper, made the demands on Thursday morning in a meeting with leaders of the newspaper's 13 unions, the Globe reported.

"Management told union leaders Thursday that the Globe will lose $85 million in 2009, unless serious cutbacks are made, according to a Globe employee briefed on the discussions," the Globe report said. That compares with an estimated $50 million loss last year, the newspaper quoted the employee as saying.
Heartless capitalistic bastards. The next anti-Wal Mart screed on the opinion pages of the NYT will no doubt be carefully crafted with a healthy dose of nuance.

With the Guardian using tax havens and the New York Times now attempting to bust unions, who knows what is next for our betters in the client media.

|



Friday, April 03, 2009

The baying mob could not be reached for comment 

posted by Georges @ 16:35

Just a few weeks after retention bonuses at American International Group became a national scandal, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage-financing giants that the government rescued last fall, have outlined plans to pay an additional $159 million in bonuses to retain employees in 2009 and 2010, on top of the nearly $51 million already paid out last year.

|



Anything Wrong in These Pictures?… 

posted by Erik @ 13:44



There's no inconsistency whatsoever here, of course (and aren't you silly to think so?!)…

Michelle Obama will not curtsy to the Queen of Great Britain (listen to French journalist Agnès Poirier at 1:00) and otherwise bow to protocol, but her husband will bow to the King of Saudi Arabia…


|



Thursday, April 02, 2009

Those in the know aren't talking 

posted by Georges @ 19:37

Viewed another way, Gordon Brown may just be making sure the funding will be there when the UK comes rattling the tin cup. If so, a coup for the PM ...... the financing has already been pre-arranged:

The most concrete measures relate to support for the International Monetary Fund, which has emerged as a "first responder" in this global crisis, making emergency loans to dozens of countries.

The Group of 20 pledged to triple the resources of the Fund to $750 billion — through a mix of $500 billion in loans from countries, and a one-time issuance of $250 billion in Special Drawing Rights, the synthetic currency of the Fund, which will be parceled out to all its 185 members.

The countries, in turn, could lend that money to troubled neighbors. The I.M.F.'s members also agreed to lend the proceeds from sales of the fund’s gold reserves to the poorest countries.
Update: Closer to the truth than we imagined it seems.

|



Just curious 

posted by Georges @ 18:52

A legit set of queries for those smarter than we. As financial institutions (and non) in the US begin to pay their TARP funds back, where will those funds go? These funds were conjured last year and injected into these firms, to be paid back with interest. Will the repaid funds merely zero out the conjured funds leaving only the interest bit to go into the general funding of the US government?

Or, will these repaid funds (in toto, principal and interest) become "real" and permanent funds going into the general funding of the US government and doled out forever?

|



Wajda's "Katyn" Is Criticized for Having the Audacity to Juxtapose the Nazis and the Soviets 

posted by Erik @ 14:37

Le Monde criticizes — in a weaselly manner ("Il faut savoir toutefois que, évoquant des sujets sensibles, Katyn encourt deux types de critiques") — Andrzej Wajda's Katyn for — for what? For the Polish movie's back-to-back justaposition of the Nazis and the Soviets as predators of the national territory!

Russians assassinate 12,000 people with a bullet in the neck — not to speak of their (innumerable) other crimes, inside as well as outside Russia — and one does not have the right to compare the Soviets to the Nazis?! A filmmaker does not have the right to conceive (what Piotr Smolar calls) "an anti-Soviet bomb" ?! Are they joking, or what?! The Yanks have been castigated — and how many times?! — for far less than that!

It would seen that Stéphane Courtois wrote his book for nothing.
Ce film peut aussi jouer son rôle sur la question de la mémoire, qui divise l'Europe : à l'Ouest, on garde une image positive du communisme pendant la guerre ; à l'Est, on a le sentiment d'avoir été abandonné et enfermé pendant quarante-cinq ans ; et dans une Russie hypernationaliste, le communisme redevient une période glorieuse.
Update: Adam Michnik a été "fortement surpris de lire la critique [que Le Monde] a faite de Katyn, le dernier film d'Andrzej Wajda" et de la "troublante ignorance" qu'on trouve dans ladite critique…

|



French Kids Are Improving Their English — Even Their English (or American) Intonation — But Not Thanks to the Government and Its Schools… 

posted by Erik @ 08:30

…les ados qui sont accros aux séries à succès telles que "Skins", "Gossip Girl", "True Blood" ou "Desperate Housewives" n'attendent pas qu'elles arrivent en version française sur le petit écran. C'est en version originale qu'ils les dévorent, au rythme de plusieurs épisodes à la file, emmagasinant ainsi une somme de dialogues qui, s'ils ne relèvent pas toujours d'un lexique raffiné, ancrent dans leur mémoire les expressions et intonations anglo-saxonnes.
Thus writes Sylvie Kerviel in Le Monde about teens — "ado(lescent)s" — who cannot wait for their favorite Hollywood shows to come (dubbed) to French TV and prefer watching them (in English) on the web.
"On observe un intérêt différent des élèves par rapport à l'anglais, très probablement lié aux séries qu'ils téléchargent ou visionnent en streaming sur Internet, observe Isabelle, qui enseigne dans un lycée de Sartrouville (Yvelines). A l'oral, ces élèves se révèlent bien meilleurs, l'accent et les intonations sont plus justes, les syllabes sont accentuées convenablement. La musicalité de la langue est maîtrisée plus spontanément."
Anne Eaunîmes testifies:
J'ai un score de 274/300 au TOEFL, et j'avoue que le fait de savoir par coeurs quelques saisons de Friends y a un peu contribué…
Meanwhile, the French are up in arms over the (English) change in name of Lyon's aéroport Saint-Exupéry (price for the change: only 200,000 euros — thanks to [pardon, merci à] RV); and, writes Pascale Santi, France's schools have been invaded by political correctness, where one must no longer say cantine (cafeteria) but restaurant scolaire (school restaurant)… Leading one reader to recall the term that he and his friends had for that institution (while pointing out the obvious reason behind kids' delight with Mickey D's):
La "novlangue" [Newspeak] fait fureur. Dans mon lycée, bien meilleur pour son enseignement que pour sa gastronomie, on ne disait pas la cantine, mais "le goulag". Le chef ne réussissait que le pain et la moutarde. Il ne faut pas s'étonner que les gamins préfèrent les MacDo.

|



Oh Mo..... 

posted by Georges @ 08:08

As President Obama renegotiates the terms of American leadership this week in Europe, those of us left at home struggle to get over our affluenza.

The last memo I received on the subject was all about how affluenza was a modern day scourge which would be the undoing of mankind. Struggle? Maureen my dear, per the left we should be absolutely celebrating it's demise.

|



Wednesday, April 01, 2009

An Innocent Man in the Land of Lucid Critics of Those Clueless Americans' Wild West Tactics Is the Victim of a Lynch Mob 

posted by Erik @ 20:35

"C'est un malheureux concours de circonstances", estime un commerçant témoin de la scène. "Le type n'a pas eu de chance, il avait le même visage que le violeur. N'importe quel père aurait fait pareil." Selon lui, l'incident était inévitable : "Un pédophile était en cavale depuis un an et la police ne réagissait pas. La loi de la rue a dû prendre le relais."
A man resembling a pedophile known as the "stadium rapist" was almost killed by a lynch mob, writes Aurélie Collas in a Le Monde story that includes charges of police not doing their work. (A week after the aggression, the real suspect was arrested.)
Ce sinistre incident s'est achevé à l'hôpital en réanimation : la victime, totalement défigurée, souffre de multiples fractures et contusions au visage, à l'abdomen et aux jambes.

|



Pay for "performance"? 

posted by Georges @ 19:17

Politicians and governmentalists continue to make the case for tax havens without even noticing:

While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.

Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.
The troughs are full, all is well, send more money.

|



April Fool 

posted by Georges @ 11:30

Rationality, logic, nuance, oh so much smarter than you:

With motifs of climate-friendly transport woven into the fabric of the building, the Tricycle Cinema in north London was the ideal location to premiere Franny Armstrong's new film, The Age of Stupid. One story in the film concerns the conflict between a wind energy entrepreneur and his rather self-satisfied and uptight posh local opponents who dislike the idea of any change to the landscape. The posh people win.

Afterwards, in the cinema bar, a slightly intense woman came up to me and asked, "Why don't they make the wind turbines out of glass, then no one would be able to see them?"
92 months and counting before the end of the world funding cycle.

|



Hey Yanks! 

posted by Georges @ 02:22

With your 15 April tax day fast approaching we must ask, are you going to be one of the suckers that actually pay?

Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors" — the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee. The Kansas governor explained the changes to senators in a letter dated Tuesday that the administration released. She said they involved charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
One rule for the proles, one for the masters. Don't worry, you aren't alone, plenty of piggly-wiggly types in Europe snouting it up too. Remind me again why tax havens are such a idée terrible?

|



The editors at The New York Times wanted NYT reporter Stephanie Strom to kill the ACORN-Obama story because “it was a game changer.” 

posted by Erik @ 00:16

The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis … wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”
It could mean nothing, I guess, but… Is it me, or is there anything strange — or should I say telling? — that in a story about the 2008 campaign prior to election day, the New York Times would think nothing of referring to stories about the Democrats' candidate as stories about "President Obama"?

|

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. // AVIS : En vertu de l'article L. 122-5 du Code de Propriété Intellectuelle, ce site Internet peut contenir des citations dont l'usage n'aura pas reçu l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur. La présentation de ces citations se fait dans le but de faciliter la découverte de divers sujets politiques, économiques, scientifiques, sociaux, artistiques, médiatiques ou encore culturels. L'article L. 122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle dispose et autorise « les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ». A contrario, les emprunts qui excéderont les dispositions du « droit de citation », devront obtenir l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur.