Hillary Clinton: Dukakis in a Pantsuit?
Yes, I confess, this is mainly an excuse to use this really scary photo of Hillary. We already know what Mrs. Clinton looks like in a pantsuit. But how many of us know what it’s like to be that close to one of her eyeballs? Highlights from Jonah Goldberg’s weekly G-File. It includes a bonus excerpt from Jonah’s review of Piketty’s Marxist book (there’s no other thing to call it) and since it’s a book that even dedicated neo-Marxists only pretend they read all of, I imagine even some of them are taking Jonah’s word for it. See that full review, in Commentary, here.
For the article excerpted below, see the full text here. (I suggest you read all of it, otherwise you’ll miss the joke about spoon-banging on a high chair). Anything else? Yes! Order Jonah’s book here.
…I have no doubt that Clinton likes data. When she was working on Hillarycare in the early 1990s she assembled hundreds of wonks collecting literally millions of pieces of data, filling filing cabinets like the warehouse in Indiana Jones. When a journalist asked her if she needed anything else, Clinton replied something like “just a little more data.” As if her entire Rube Goldberg machine would click into place and hum with perfection if she just got a few more columns of numbers on heart-bypass rates in Missoula.
But just because Clinton likes data doesn’t mean this isn’t a crock. Oh, it’s savvy. But if her husband taught us anything, it’s that bullsh*tters can be savvy. First, all of this data talk is a brilliant way to exploit the “Big Data” fad in elite circles these days and subtly play lip-service to the liberal conceit that “facts have a liberal bias.” If she were running in the late 19th century she’d be talking about canals on Mars.
If she were running in the 1920s, she’d be saying “Engineering, Engineering, Engineering.” In the 1960s, she’d be saying “Plastics, Plastics, Plastics.” If she were running in 50,000 B.C. she’d be going around saying “Fire, Fire, Fire.” I talked about this a bit in my review of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century:
Marx tapped into the language and concepts of Darwinian evolution and the Industrial Revolution to give his idea of dialectical materialism a plausibility it didn’t deserve. Similarly, Croly drew from the turn-of-the-century vogue for (heavily German-influenced) social science and the cult of the expert (in Croly’s day “social engineer” wasn’t a pejorative term, but an exciting career). In much the same way, Piketty’s argument taps into the current cultural and intellectual fad for “big data.” The idea that all the answers to all our problems can be solved with enough data is deeply seductive and wildly popular among journalists and intellectuals. (Just consider the popularity of the Freakonomics franchise or the cult-like popularity of the self-taught statistician Nate Silver.) Indeed, Piketty himself insists that what sets his work apart from that of Marx, Ricardo, Keynes, and others is that he has the data to settle questions previous generations of economists could only guess at. Data is the Way and the Light to the eternal verities long entombed in cant ideology and darkness. (This reminds me of the philosopher Eric Voegelin’s quip that, under Marxism, “Christ the Redeemer is replaced by the steam engine as the promise of the realm to come.”)
But the more important point is that Clinton’s messaging gambit is an entirely obvious indictment of Barack Obama. The need for “evidence-based optimism” isn’t a shot at Republicans. It’s a shot at the guy who beat her out for the nomination in 2008 by running as the Pope of Hope. Read the rest of this entry »
Gavin McInnes on Fact Rape: ‘I’ve personally been through this false narrative meat grinder a million times’Posted: June 27, 2014
For Takis Magazine, Gavin McInnes writes: Ever notice that when you read an article on something you know a lot about, they’ve got 50% of the facts wrong? Whether it’s a story about your hometown or your favorite band, it’s always shocking how half-assed the journalists are. Apparently, lots of people have noticed this. Last week, we learned of a Gallup poll that said confidence in the media had plummeted to 22%. In 1979 it was 51%. This is because we’ve gone from investigators hitting the pavement to ideologues pounding their keyboards. A reporter used to go where the story led him. Now he starts with the story and crams in facts until it fits.
“It’s easy to assume everyone is a racist, sexist homophobe when you only talk to other liberal journalists.”
This may be because the demand for news outpaces the supply, so they blurt out, “Uh, the guy who hit Tracy Morgan was up for 24 hours because Walmart,” since it sounds good. It may be because print ads are dead and income is increasingly based on the number of clicks a web article gets—hence the term “click bait.” Another far more sinister possibility is the vast majority of reporters are basically Marxist liberals and they use the news as a propaganda tool for the “greater good.”
“A reporter used to go where the story led him. Now he starts with the story and crams in facts until it fits.”
I suspect it’s the latter. There are too many fake stories that fit the liberal narrative for it to be an accident. It seems like every time we see evidence of the left’s hateful worldview, we learn it’s a hoax. Remember when KFC demanded a disfigured girl leave their restaurant because she scared the customers? That never happened either. How many times have we found “Faggot” and “Nigger” scrawled on a wall only to discover later it was done by the same non-hetero-normative person of color who claimed to be a victim? Is there anyone in the country who isn’t convinced every journalist outside of Fox is in the tank for Obama?
“…Another far more sinister possibility is the vast majority of reporters are basically Marxist liberals and they use the news as a propaganda tool for the ‘greater good.’ I suspect it’s the latter.”
I often wonder … wait; “wondering” is a hate crime. When Cliven Bundy dared to wonder if some blacks were better off during slavery he was vilified.Fuck it. I’m going to wonder. I often wonder why these journalists want America to be a hellhole full of prejudice. I think it’s because their academic years consisted of far-left professors telling them the entire country is a Klan rally and they had better devote their careers to untangling this mess.
When they get a job at MSNBC, Media Matters, Raw Story, or Daily Kos, they look around and see a bunch of totally reasonable white males saying “Hello, how do you do?” Their war on hate quickly becomes a war on a vacuum, so they start randomly grabbing detritus to fill the hole. Read the rest of this entry »