D. Watkins has written at Salon.com for about 1-1/2 years.
In his previous columns, he has shown that he fits right in with the "white privilege and oppression of blacks explains everything" crowd. Friday (HT Twitchy), he went into uncharted territory, seriously suggesting that no American should be able to own a gun until they "know the pain of getting hit" (bolds are mine):
Based on a map presented during a recent MSNBC broadcast, I'm left wondring why there's all this hand-wringing over a "two state solution" in the Middle East.
After all, according to that MSNBC map and the host of the program involved, "Palestine" has been around for almost 70 years, existing since 1946 (HT Sooper Mexican at the Right Scoop):
As I noted on Friday, the New York Times has become the de facto head cheerleader for Truth, the movie which purports to tell the story behind CBS News's 60 Minutes report on President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service in the early 1970s aired in September 2004.
The Old Gray Lady has hosted a TimesTalk video in which one of the film's lead actors, Robert Redford as Dan Rather, claims that the movie gives the offending journalists "their day in court." (Trust me, Bob. The last place they want to be is in a real courtroom; Rather found that out the hard way several years ago.)
A week ago (late on a Friday afternoon, naturally), the Obama administration released food stamp enrollment figures for July. Despite millions of Americans finding work during the past several years, the data continued a national trend of little to no meaningful decline in enrollment.
Seasonally adjusted Household Survey employment is now 148.8 million, slightly above its prerecession November 2007 peak of 146.6 million. Meanwhile, current food stamp enrollment, at 45.5 million, is far greater than the 2007 average of 26.2 million. There is a small exception to this disturbing situation. It's in Maine, where enrollment has declined by over 20 percent since 2009. Those wondering why didn't find anything resembling a complete answer in a brief Associated Press report Tuesday (presented in full because of its brevity and for fair use and discussion purposes):
The New York Times has not merely climbed aboard the bandwagon of Truth, which exalts the fraudulent September 2004 CBS 60 Minutes report about President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service. It's now serving as the film's de facto lead apologist.
The most recent example demonstrating how deeply in the tank the Old Gray Lady has gone is Stephen Holden's Thursday film review published in Friday's print edition. Holden's praise comes from an alternative universe where genuine "truth" clearly doesn't matter, and uses a tortured analogy which in reality disproves his attempt at making a point (bolds are mine throughout this post):
The disgraceful determination of Hollywood to rewrite history not favorable to the left, its causes and its personalities has perhaps reached its nadir with the laughably misnamed movie Truth.
The film is about Dan Rather's September 2004 60 Minutes report on President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service during the 1970s. In Rather's words, "The nuanced, not preachy, script makes clear our report was true." The script may say that, but the historical record doesn't. On October 2, John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson's writeup detailing how bogus that report was from top to bottom appeared online at The Weekly Standard. Reading that essay in its entirely is undoubtedly important; but in this case, so is ridicule. Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View supplied that back in July.
Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has insisted that she consulted with all of her vice-chairs before deciding on the number of Democratic presidential primary debates would be held.
John Heilemann of Bloomberg Politics, in what Hot Air's Jazz Shaw described as "a rare moment of" someone in the press actually "doing their job" in fact-checking leftists, reported this morning that "I cannot find a vice-chair who was consulted in advance by Debbie Wasserman Schultz." The rest of the press appears to be completely disinterested in reporting on the DNC chair's obvious and blatant falsehood.
Life is so unfair. "The rich" live in nicer places, have nicer amenities, drive nicer cars, etc., etc.
Here's the last straw: Now they even have better breakfast sandwiches. But never fear: The press's inequality police are on patrol to supply the outrage.
We’ve time and again seen the media receive their messaging orders - and then march off all mouthing the Leftist talking point(s) of the day. Washington, D.C.-based talk radio host Chris Plante quotes a military friend of his describing the media not as a gaggle, but as a centipede. Multitudinous legs in coordinated movement - all headed in the same direction.
Talk radio impresario Rush Limbaugh has long made audio cavalcades of this media mal-practice a routine feature of his show. He strings together “media montages” - innumerable examples of “reporters” magically all arriving at the exact same Leftist term(s) to describe the news of the day.
In an October 8 item at the New York Times ("Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place"), reporter Rick Gladstone pretended that it's an open question as to "whether" the two Jewish temples — one destroyed over 2,500 years ago and the second razed in roughly 60 A.D., ever existed on the 37-acre site known as the Temple Mount. In doing so, Gladstone gave credibility to Palestinians baselessly promoting "doubt that the temples ever existed — at least in that location."
There is no meaningful "doubt" on the subject at all. After what must have been a furious and completely justified backlash, the Times issued a correction on Friday (bold is mine):
Drew Magary is a regular columnist at GQ.com.
Apparently Magary, his editors and the publication's management have forgotten or don't care about what the "G" in GQ is supposed to stand for. Both the headline and the content of the writer's latest column flunk the "gentlemen's" test.
Did you know that the "The Gun Lobby Rewrote the Second Amendment"?
No, really. Even though not a single word contained in that amendment has changed in over 220 years, you should believe it because former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein said so at Bloomberg View on Wednesday.