Feb
22
2014
2

@Slate, heal thyself.

It’s not that I don’t object to the sentiment (i.e., that we’re starting the 2016 campaign too early and obsessively focusing on things)…

irony-slate

…it’s just that Slate is pretty much an integral part of the problem. Mote, beam, eye, you know the drill. (more…)

Nov
24
2013
2

Quote of the Day, I Guess Slate Thinks That I’m An Extremist, Then edition.

Because while I guess that this is supposed to alarm people about the implications of the filibuster

…picture a federal appellate bench composed of numerous Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases…

…’alarm’ would not be the verb that I would have used.  Try ‘reassure.’ Or even ‘fill with anticipatory glee.’

Via Instapundit.

Moe Lane

PS: Slate, despite its delusions, is not particularly centrist.  If it were it’d be more pro-gun, more pro-life, and arguably more pro-Israel.

Aug
19
2013
1

@slate publishes article by notorious infanticide advocate Peter Singer.

There are those that will call that ‘poisoning the well,’ as Peter Singer was saying stupid things about defunding the coal industry instead of vile things about how parents should be permitted to kill their babies. To which I say: fine. I’m not making a logical argument*. I’m highlighting the fact that Slate published a monster. I’m sure that the website feels that it can easily weather my disapproval of their editorial process.

Moe Lane

PS: link via here. I decline to directly link to monsters if I can help it.

*I know that this will shock some people, but logic is not actually the game-ender that the Internet collectively seems to think that it is.  I know, I know: even to write that out feels more than a little transgressive (I am, after all, an Internet denizen). But it remains true nonetheless.

Dec
22
2012
3

Ah, slightly peeved reviews of the Hobbit. Enjoyable, they are.

I know that this somewhat snarky Slate review of the Hobbit was probably meant to infuriate me:

…a moment when the dwarves, gathered around the fire on the eve of their departure, spontaneously burst into a ballad of longing for their lost homeland. Truth be told, I kind of enjoyed the solemn melancholy of that dwarf ballad, but did it need to contain so many stanzas?

Fortunately, I can chuckle about it.  Largely because Peter Jackson made this movie for me, me, ME! – and it’s already brought in $123M domestic in eight days*; so go chew some cram, haters.  Don’t worry if you don’t know what cram is; Peter will be happy to show you.  And make jokes about it that will have me rolling in the aisle, at least.

Moe Lane

PS: For the record, the poem in question was drastically cut down in length for the film. And, yeah, I was disappointed by that.

*Translation: “He’s going to get away with it.”

Sep
23
2011
--

Slate sanctimoniously savages Suskind’s salacious stories.

(via @jaketapper) The ironies abound in this passage from Jacob Weisberg’s rhetorical roundhouse kick to Ron Suskind’s face:

The most famous thing Suskind wrote about the Bush administration was a passage in an article he published in the New York Times Magazine, quoting an anonymous Bush “aide”:

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’ “

This became one of the most quoted lines about the Bush years, repeated thousands of times as evidence of his administration’s willful dishonestly about everything from Iraq’s WMD to the budget. “Reality-based” turned into a liberal slogan of the era, printed on T-shirts and bumper stickers. How could it not, given the deliciousness of the quote? But did anyone in the Bush administration ever say these words to Ron Suskind? He has never given us any reason to believe that anyone did. And given the unacceptable liberties he takes with quotes from named sources—see below—I have my doubts.

Let’s count them, shall we? (more…)

Jun
08
2011
--

Slate, twitter, and strange questions.

It’s always fascinating to see how non-political people treat Twitter.  There are people out there who don’t use it as a trusted-source to trusted-source communications network that can’t be jammed by one’s enemies*?

Weird.

Via @keder.

Moe Lane

PS: By the way… damn straight it’s not rude to ignore a Tweet sent at you.  Particularly when it’s sent by one of those aforementioned would-be jammers.

*God knows the Online Left keeps trying; unfortunately, they’re critically hampered by their hierarchical, top-down worldview.  In retrospect, the slow gelding of the Left-blogosphere by the Democratic establishment was probably not to benefit of either, if only because it is worse than useless to even try to impose groupthink on what is rapidly becoming a true Cloud.

Oct
01
2010
1

#rsrh Is Slate memory-holing responses it doesn’t like?

A few days ago I was mean to Slate.com by not only suggesting that the answer to their survey question “If you’re a Democratic voter, what do you hear when the president says, “Buck up”?” should be “It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again;” I passively-aggressively suggested that other people should join in.  Judging from comments, a couple of people felt like this was a fine idea – but as Constant Reader Demosthenes notes here, none of those responses seem to have made it through.  Including, I should add, mine (which I had done from memory, and so had not gotten quite right).

Let me be clear: if the number of people who submitted “It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again” broke double digits I’ll be shocked.  But there were some; and I can’t imagine why it wasn’t at least mentioned.  After all, it’s just as true as “f*ck off” (without the asterisk), which was a very popular cross-spectrum choice.

Very odd.  Kind of funny, though.

Moe Lane

PS: This is about the level of caring that I plan to expend on this, by the way.

Written by in: Politics | Tags:
Sep
29
2010
10

#rsrh Being mean to Slate.com.

It would be mean to click this link and answer the survey question “If you’re a Democratic voter, what do you hear when the president says, “Buck up”?” with “It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.”

It would be very, very mean.

On the other hand, if you do that then you get to read John Dickerson being aggrieved and upset that the Democratic party is currently using him and his the way that the bear used the rabbit (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!).  So there’s that.

Moe Lane

Written by in: Politics | Tags: ,
May
19
2010
1

But at least they have Obama!

There’s a lot of interesting stuff in this John Dickerson article on what last night’s results really mean, but this last paragraph is probably the one that needs to be most referenced:

The night showed just how limited Obama’s political power is. He said he’d work all-out for Specter, but he didn’t campaign for the senator in the final days. That may have been a wise reservation of his political capital (he’s already been ineffective in previous races), but it also demonstrated how much has changed since 2008, when Obama was talked about as a force that could remake the political landscape. Critz won by running away from Obama’s signature achievement, and Lincoln, whom he supported, was forced into a runoff. For a president who is still far more popular than the Democratic Congress he aims to help, yet who is unable to translate much of that popularity to do so, this condition may be best described as limbo.

(more…)

Feb
06
2010
1

Jacob Weisberg, Democrat. Dem-o-crat. #rsrh

D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T:

In trying to explain why our political paralysis seems to have gotten so much worse over the past year, analysts have rounded up a plausible collection of reasons including: President Obama’s tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, the blustering idiocracy of the cable-news stations, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation. These are all large factors, to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.

What? No. Jacob Weisberg doesn’t want to move. He just wants all of you to move. And approximately 90% of the population of the United States, apparently.

Moe Lane

PS: If you’re scratching your head about what was so bad about this article, do me a favor?  Tell everybody about it, and mention your political affiliation in the process.  Can you do that? You can?  Great!  Thanks a bunch.

PPS: H/T Hot Air Headlines, by the way.  Sorry: the firstborn suddenly decided to engage in antics.

Apr
07
2009
--

John Dickerson nuances his explanation of Obama’s nuance.

It is all very meta.

He knows that you can’t just say – unlike, say, Jake Tapper – that the President likes to play with straw men, so he’ll sort of sidle up to it:

The Careful Exaggerator… balances his rhetoric… study in nuance… practically grisaille… nuance-free exaggerator… exaggerates to free himself from the demands of the news cycle… hopes to do though this exaggerated description… plays Aunt Sally… doesn’t mischaracterize, exactly, but he exaggerates… intended to make his opponents look foolish… offered another cartoonish view… probably exaggerates no more than a typical politician….

While Dickerson probably could have used the services of an online thesaurus (by the way, I’m not buying that he knew ‘grisaille*’ right off of the bat, unless of course he was an art minor or something), his point can be eventually determined if you step back far enough: the President plays fast and loose with the truth in order to get his way, or just out of trouble. Of course, Dickerson would be absolutely insane to just write that, given that, say, the aforementioned Tapper gets screamed at by every unhinged member of the Online Left whenever he actually does his job: Slate lives or dies with online clicks, ABC News doesn’t. Unfortunately, Dickerson is also stuck with having to deal with the central paradox in all of this:

(more…)

Mar
22
2009
1

Obamateurism* of the Day, 03/22/2009.

This new feature comes from Ed Morrissey, and it’s pretty much in direct response to Slate’s unaccountable decision to not let go of what was never a particularly funny joke in the first place. But if Slate wants to play, hey, we can play too. With more video footage.

You can send in your tip to Ed at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com . He figures that he can make this a daily feature, and so do I. Who knows? There even might be a book or two in it – and now we know why Jacob Weisberg’s so keen to keep this thing going. You get used to income streams, know what I mean?

Moe Lane

*I’m not entirely loving the name, though.

Crossposted at RedState.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com