I wrote earlier about some Super Bowl ads I liked. You’ll notice I didn’t mention this one from the Washington Post.
That’s because my opinion is divided on this one. I agree with the general thrust. There are many good, professional people working in journalism, who often risk their lives to bring us the story. As this ad reminds us, some go to places where they lose their lives (Friday was the 16th anniversary of the execution by beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by terrorists in Pakistan.) These people do perform a vital public service, and they deserve our respect.
On the other hand, the ad is annoyingly self-aggrandizing, particularly given WaPo’s recent track record for inaccuracy and bias. If “Democracy Dies In Darkness,” then journalism sickens when it’s soaked with sanctimonious self-righteousness. I won’t even go into the choice of Ahmad Khashoggi to represent journalists killed in the pursuit of truth and free speech.
But what about the fact that a 30-second Super Bowl ad cost $5.25 million to air, this one ran twice that long, and the very reporters that it was meant to honor are complaining about the Post freezing their pensions and squeezing them on salaries and benefits. In a time when hundreds of online journalism jobs are being slashed, a number of angry reporters complained that for $5.25 million, the Post could’ve hired 10 journalists at $50,000 a year for ten years (or, I assume, for 20 years for the cost of a 60-second Super Bowl ad.)
I apologize to WaPo for bringing up all these unpleasant facts about their ad, but, hey, it’s news. If I don’t tell everyone about it, democracy might die in the dark.
Here are some more interesting reactions to that ad…
Attorneys for the Covington Catholic school students gave everyone who publicly defamed those boys or encouraged violence against them 48 hours to retract or face lawsuits. The 48 hours are up, and here’s the official list of about 50 celebrities and news outlets that may soon be seeing those kids’ red MAGA caps in court.
Since the Governor of Virginia has once again stirred up a debate over wearing blackface makeup – particularly during earlier decades when it wasn’t as verboten as it is now – is there anything about this subject that all people of sound mind and good will can agree on? I’d like to think that we can all agree that a Harvard professor’s claim that “Mary Poppins” is racist because Mary had black soot on her face after dancing with a bunch of chimney sweeps who pop up out of coal dust-filled chimneys is possibly the stupidest thing ever to appear in the New York Times opinion pages, and that would have to supercalifragilisticexpialidociously stupid.
The professor claims he got about a zillion “hate messages” from the alt-right over this. I don’t condone hate messages in any form, but I have to question whether someone who looks at Mary Poppins and seeks a “parody of black menace” has the discernment to tell a “hate message” from a well-deserved raspberry, and the wisdom to realize that you don’t have to be an “alt-right” white supremacist to call something moronic when it’s plainly moronic.
This is a perfect example of George Orwell’s dictum that some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. As proof, note that the only person the linked article quotes who took it seriously is a writer for the New Yorker.
Believe it or not, there is another story in the news relating to a picture with blackface that’s actually soot on the faces of coal workers, and a liberal elitist searching for something to be offended about who took it out of context and wants it censored. I miss the days when stories about intellectual ideas this dumb came no more often than once a week.
Feel-Good Video of the Day: Watch what happens when a “porch pirate” (one of those growing legion of thieves who steal delivery packages left at peoples’ doors) runs afoul of a Utah family’s black lab, Zero, who quickly went from Zero to Hero. Good dog!
This baker’s experience should serve as a reminder to some of our noodle-spined large corporations: just because a handful of leftists on Twitter try to bully you into doing what they say, that doesn’t mean you have to pay attention to them. In fact, standing up to them just might bring you more business than you’d lose. Plus your new conservative customers will actually have jobs, so they can pay you.
Stephen Green at PJ Media looks at the same terrifying poll I wrote about earlier, showing big majorities of Americans have been duped into thinking that 70%-plus tax rates on “the rich” are a peachy idea. Green makes most of the same points I did, but a few others besides. I particularly like his point that socialists fall into two categories: the Elites, who grow rich and powerful through government power and cronyism, and the Dupes, who get just enough free stuff to keep them voting for the Elites while wondering why they can never get ahead.
He also adds the important point that when they talk about how America once prospered with high marginal tax rates (which nobody really paid), they never mention that America at that time was also the only major post-World War II industrial power, so than impediment wasn’t fatal. That started to end in the ‘70s, but the Reagan tax cuts and code simplification saved the US economy. The current gaggle of “Democratic” Socialist know-nothings want to “turn back the clock” to the system that was failing by the ‘70s, only this time in a world with much stronger competitors on all sides. Like voting for any of the announced Democratic Presidential candidates, it’s a recipe for economic disaster.
Conservative comedian Steven Crowder created a meme that summed up last week’s two biggest news stories very well in just two photos.
Yet another reason why we should find better uses of US taxpayer money than supporting the U.N.: It can’t even hold a Holocaust remembrance event without insulting Israel.
A new Politico/Morning Consult poll finds that years of indoctrination into class envy, revisionist history and numbskull economics have had their desired effect: a large majority of Americans are now all on board with the Democrats’ calls for soaking the rich with tax rates of 70% and up.
Of course, all this is predicated on things they haven’t been told. For instance, how such tax rates burden economic growth, kill job creation and drive investment capital overseas and into tax shelters, harming everyone (the argument that we had such rates before and it didn't hurt is specious; we also had different tax rules and nobody paid anywhere near that percentage.) Or the fact that even the “rich” don’t have nearly enough money to pay for all the pie-in-the-sky freebies that liberals are promising even if you taxed them at 100%, so the definition of “rich” will soon expand to include them. It’s always very tempting to take something when someone else is paying for it, but you think a lot harder when you know you’ll be getting the bill yourself.
And while I know there’s no more exciting way to kick off your week than with a brisk discussion of tax law, since so many people seem to be enamored of the “tax the rich” cries of far-left Presidential hopefuls like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, you might be interested in what this professor emeritus of law at Case Western Reserve University has to say about why her “wealth tax” would be nearly impossible to collect and probably unconstitutional.
You might have noticed that I have no qualms about referring to people on the far left, such as Elizabeth Warren and, so far, every announced Democratic Presidential candidate, as "far-left. This is because I have a very non-PC habit of being honest. You might also have noticed that the mainstream media is filled with descriptions of various conservative figures and groups as being "far-right" or "extreme right," while there apparently are no "far-left" or "extreme left" people or organizations. Wearing a MAGA cap makes you a rightwing extremist, but putting on a black Antifa hood and bashing someone whose views you dislike in the head with a bicycle chain means you're just a public-spirited liberal, I guess.
At the link, Robert Stacy McCain of the American Spectator takes a closer look at the media's strange perception problem, in which moderate conservatives appear to be on the "far-right" and far-left extremists appear to be in the center.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!