NYT: All the News Unfit for Informed Readers

In one story we see everything wrong with the sheltered, uninformed readership of the New York Times.

Behold.

And in one paragraph within that one story, we see what lies at the heart of everything wrong with the New York Times.

But one day it occurred to me: how would they know? All of these buzzy social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter sort of crept up on us. The government never mailed fliers to every household explaining what it’s all about.

Emphasis mine. As if I really needed to add that.

I mean, just, wow.

Econ 101 Epic Fail

The New York Times has an illustrious history of employing some of the worst columnists ever to put fingers to keyboard. Frank Rich, Tom Friedman, ad nauseum. With every new column they reach new heights of cluelessness. These columnists serve to protect the readership of the New York Times from the real world, and provide talking points for people with little intelligence and less imagination.

Bob Herbert is only remarkable because he’s so forgettable. Everything he writes is mundane, shallow, paint-by-numbers liberalism. He’s the left wing, print version of the Fox & Friends morning hosts.

But today, with a straight face, Herbert serves up a most classic example of how the left is wholly ignorant of economics.

The collapse of the economy in the Great Recession gave us the starkest, most painful evidence imaginable of the failure of laissez-faire economics and the destructive force of the alliance of big business and government against the interests of ordinary Americans.

Full column here.

Bob, it’s not laissez-faire economics if government works in alliance with business. The two things are mutually exclusive.

Um, No, Not Really, Mr. Mayor

Look, let me say first I love downtown Dallas as much as anyone else. I live in the DFW because I love the DFW*.

And then today I read this little platitude from Mayor Leppert.

You all have understood, that so goes downtown, so goes Dallas, and so goes North Texas.

Um, not really. In fact, hard statistics for the past 30 years show otherwise. Despite decades of valiant efforts, downtown Dallas consistently has the worst rate of occupancy for both commercial and residential real estate.

This has been true consistently despite both booms and busts everywhere else in the DFW area. During several periods of massive population, retail, spending and business growth all over DFW, downtown Dallas has still just plodded along well behind the rest of the pack.

Downtown Dallas may be important to our hearts, but what happens to downtown Dallas has almost zero impact on the rest of the Dallas-Fort Worth economy. Downtown is not the core of Dallas-Fort Worth — it’s just one more submarket in a huge metropolitan area that has no center.

* (offer void in Garland)

In Print This Month: A Look at Bill McNutt

On your news stand or in your mailbox, the June issue of D Magazine with my feature on Bill McNutt, the alumnus arrested and now under the spotlight.

Here’s a teaser. Follow the link for the full story.

———–

The details of Bill McNutt’s February arrest—at least the details that have been made public—don’t add up. The prominent SMU alumnus had been banned from campus since November 2008. A university official would later tell the Dallas Morning News that SMU had “heard reports of alleged questionable behavior that caused concern among some students.” McNutt had dinner parties at his house, and he invited students to them. Alcohol was available. So was a masseuse. Several people told the News that the dinners were “creepy,” and girls felt pressured to undress for a private massage in a mirrored back room.

But even if true, none of that was illegal. So why would the university ban a donor and the founding president of the Young Alumni Association from campus? And why, if he was banned, did McNutt continue to receive personal invitations to on-campus functions from members of the administration? The administration was saying one thing; SMU Police Chief Rick Shafer was saying another. He warned McNutt that he was “not welcome on the SMU campus for any reason whatsoever.”

Compelling Profile of Rand Paul in…Salon?

Yep. Surprising, isn’t it? Rand is the physician son of Ron Paul — the old Texas OB libertarian/Republican with some great ideas, uncompromising principles, and two failed presidential runs under his belt. Ron, sadly, is neither the kind who can carry national elections nor is free from the baggage of his past.

Rand, however, is on the rise and he has none of the ancient history problems his father did, but all of his father’s commitment to principle, and a uniting personality to boot.

How Rand Paul became the Tea Party’s Obama

His father’s libertarian army and Rush Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” aren’t natural allies. But Rand Paul has united them

Rand Paul’s success can be understood in the genealogy of the Tea Party movement. Its viral and decentralized traits, the intellectual foundations of its libertarianism, and its fundraising tactics all come from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

The first Tea Party event of the Obama era was arguably a Ron Paul “money bomb” fundraiser; and the story of that event is the primal example of how the medium of the Internet and the power of American mythology have combined to unify a movement of militant individualists.md_horiz

….

The political genius of Paul is his ability to cultivate a narrative that speaks to all strains of the Tea Party movement at once. After all, the libertarian purists who loved Ron Paul’s dissident truth-telling are not natural allies of the Limbaugh Dittoheads who dismissed him as an eccentric. He sings his libertarianism in the key of Glenn Beck – and he is writing a Republican playbook for the tea party era, turning grassroots energy into electoral power. Now, less than a week before the primary, polls show Paul’s lead over Grayson approaching 20 points. He also leads both of his potential Democratic challengers in the general election polling.

Read it all here.

More on Rand here.

h/t Hit n Run

Sweet

hat tip: Vines & Cattle

Reason #312 No One Takes the New York Times Seriously

Just, damn.

In a Q&A with U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, the New York Times interviewer actually nags Paul.

NYT: But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.
Paul: I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

NYT: You shouldn’t trivialize issues of health and safety by calling them nanny issues.
Paul: The question is, do you want to live in a nanny state where the government tells you what you can eat, where you can smoke, where you can live, what you can do, or would you rather have some freedom, and freedom means that things aren’t perfect?

Dallas Tea Party Takes on Whites-Only MSNBC

Awesome.

Medina Repudiates Truthers

Was it a rookie mistake in a big interview, or something worse?

Is her immediate post-interview clarification enough?

I listened to the interview with Debra Medina this morning. When Glenn Beck asked her about the 9/11 truthers, she said some good questions have been asked, but she’s focused on Texas issues, and that she doesn’t have time to give psychological tests to every volunteer and campaign worker.

I didn’t hear it as her endorsing the 9/11 truthers, but it wasn’t a solid condemnation.

Notably, as Bud Kennedy points out — “Remember that Beck’s radio pals include Pat Gray and Rick Perry backer Sen. Dan Patrick”

Listen: You decide

Immediately after the show, Medina’s spokesperson issued a statement — “Debra Medina is not a 9/11 truther.”

Is this sufficient?

UPDATE: Full Medina Statement (h/t JJM)

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it’s Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that’s the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.

Yet Let’s Be Content, and The Times Lament*

Sarah Palin is playing chess while the left is playing with itself Candyland says…the Huffington Post?

And the left needs to stop misunderestimating Palin says…David Broder?

Oh my. The world turned upside down*. (headline explained)