Liberal New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand sat down for a friendly interview with Daily Show host Jon Stewart on Wednesday night and the two eagerly took turns bashing Republican members of Congress for being “cynical” for disagreeing with liberal policy positions. Gillibrand accused the GOP of lacking “empathy” to which Stewart asked if it was “pathological though? Do you think they have mental problems?”
In his "Talking Points" opening monologue Wednesday night, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly lit into the establishment press for allowing the notion that America is a "white supremacist nation" to go "largely unchallenged." He further accused the press of allowing itself to be "intimidated," leaving Fox as the only channel, in his view, "standing up for the truth."
I have been told that O'Reilly's monologue went about twice as long it usually does, but that's because he had a lot to say, and said it well.
Demography may not always be destiny, but according to Slate’s Jamelle Bouie, the “best bet” is that over the next decade-plus, the Republican party as a whole will move towards the center-right as young, relatively moderate voters join and elderly right-wingers shuffle off this mortal coil.
In a Monday article, Bouie predicted that “eventually, the GOP will find a working national majority, even if the country becomes as brown and liberal as some analysts project.” That said, he added, “the real question” is “whether a future, younger Republican Party will still have a conservative movement.”
Readers who have seen my previous posts on actress Gwyneth Paltrow's recent "failed" attempt to complete the deceptively designed "Food Stamp Challenge" know far more than people who rely on Eonline.com ever will.
Although it's far from encouraging when contemplating our nation's future, what we have here is an object lesson in how the entertainment press airbrushes the truth to polish the image of a celebrity who is either breathtakingly ignorant or in on the scam.
As yours truly noted on April 12, actress Gwyneth Paltrow made a bit of a splash earlier this month when she announced that she would add her name to the list of ignorant politicians, advocates and celebrities taking on the deceptively designed "Food Stamp Challenge."
The idea is to "try to survive" eating for a week on the average benefit a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient receives. The objective is to prove that it really can't be done, thereby "proving" that food stamp benefits are too low. Of course, that's what Paltrow claims occurred, with MSNBC.com hyping how she "succeeded by failing." As was the case with an Indiana journalist several months ago, based on the spending figure Paltrow herself disclosed, she was not failing at all. Based on how the program really works, she would have succeeded had she stuck with it.
On Saturday, MSNBC’s Alex Witt hosted Washington Post reporter Elahe Izadi to blast a new Kansas law that would limit what items welfare recipients could purchase using their taxpayer benefits. Izadi asserted many call the law “mean spirited” and then touted how “some advocates feel like lawmakers are basically saying the poor can't be trusted to manage their own money."
On Saturday, CNN hyped actress and self-appointed "lifestyle guru" Gwyneth Paltrow's participation in the "Food Stamp Challenge." This is the fundamentally dishonest campaign which has been working for at least eight years to convince Americans that benefits provided under the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are inadequate.
As usual, Paltrow has taken up the challenge to get by for a week on a drastically understated amount which does not reflect the program's real provisions. As has almost always been the case with journalists covering politicians, celebrities and others who have taken up the "challenge," CNN's Jareen Imam didn't question the correctness of the weekly amount involved:
The Fiscal Times is a generally strong and informative online publication. That said, it has occasionally exhibits symptoms of what could be seen as either serious leftist bias, quite disappointing ignorance, or both.
One such example arrived in my email box early this morning. It contained the following headline and opening tease for a story about the food stamp program:
As President Barack Obama and Governor Jerry Brown continue to extol the wonders of the alleged economic recovery of nation and the Golden State, respectively, stories of significant growth in homelessness continue to rain on their parades. The latest example comes on the heels of reports on Seattle's burgeoning problem and the city's apparent willingness to allow officially sanctioned outdoor encampments to serve as a "temporary" (yeah, sure) solution.
In a Saturday item in the Los Angeles Times about the expansion of "homeless camps" outside of what had been known as the LA's "skid row," Times reporter Gale Holland apparently learned not to repeat a revealing disclosure she made in a December Times report covering the situation in San Jose. Her coverage was remarkably vague, failing to provide specifics I believe she could have relayed with little effort, especially given that homelessness and poverty is her assigned beat. Excerpts follow the jump.
The idea, in his words, was to "survive for one week on $29.69," because, he says, that is "what the average recipient of SNAP benefits, commonly called food stamps, receives each week in Indiana." By Day 6, he claimed, "faced with the possibility that eating all my remaining food on the final day would net me just 619 calories, I realized I had failed." What he really proved is that he was well on his way to succeeding with room to spare.
Far be it from me to talk a leftist columnist out of an ignorant, self-satisfied position which might, if anything, cause his fellow travelers to hit the accelerator a little less aggressively in future political campaigns.
At the Atlantic on Monday afternoon, Richard Reeves, policy director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, claimed that the left shouldn't be so glum after Tuesday's election results, because "progressive policies are working." His very first graph makes a mockery of his claim: