tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post5958426173298475751..comments2024-03-28T16:08:29.578-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: Vampire of the VanitiesKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-86593629327571434672015-08-29T17:28:35.707-04:002015-08-29T17:28:35.707-04:00Also Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Clinton lapdog,...Also Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Clinton lapdog, who was scowling at the democratic debate when more debates were called for (she was trying to limit it to four) was roundly criticized by several readers for her "leadership" in the Democratic party. I have always disliked her and her right wing approach to the democratic party with her personal attacks on anyone opposing her views.Good to read about her unpopularity among many democrats.Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-11222687945566626612015-08-29T16:04:46.237-04:002015-08-29T16:04:46.237-04:00Also Pearl..... I just read the article you linked...Also Pearl..... I just read the article you linked to –Clinton’s Rivals Critical of Dem Party Politics. Good, with plenty of good comments. (So many comments, so little time!) <br /><br />I saw part of O’Malley’s speech ...was impressed with him. Good points criticizing the Dems re debates---their number and timing. Why aren’t they competing right now with the Gop debates? I don’t get it. <br /><br />Also NYT....Bernie Sanders’ Success in Attracting Small Donors Tests Importance of ‘Super PACs’. Says ...when a Vermont legislator offered to set up a super PAC ... Mr. Sanders told him to “kill it,” ... because did not want to be beholden to “the millionaires and billionaires.”<br /><br />The Times does have a few interesting articles that I missed, been busy and also read mostly the op ed page. Maybe not a good idea, considering the quality.<br />Meredith NYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-88382921705025861362015-08-29T15:22:26.308-04:002015-08-29T15:22:26.308-04:00Thanks Pearl. And some of the replies to my commen...Thanks Pearl. And some of the replies to my comment re PK were very good.....a few lines from different replies:<br /><br />"The NYT has given precious little news about Sanders’ positions while presenting him as a quirky, leftist Don Quixote, good for a laugh but not to be taken seriously, But with daily coverage of Trump reality show. <br /><br />I suspect that Krugman stands to possibly gain extremely high influence in the next Democratic administration - most especially if it is Hillary or some other establishment Democrat. He is, after all, a fairly high ranking part of the establishment of the party and the country.<br /><br /><br />If he makes no mention of Bernie Sanders in the near future, I will begin to suspect that Prof. Krugman, too, has been bought by the monied elites and is playing a very tricky game at their behest."<br /><br /><br />I said this also ----Let’s start doing public street protests demanding the NYT and mainstream media shape up and do right by the public.<br /><br />Meredith NYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-76463855059056770572015-08-29T11:48:05.227-04:002015-08-29T11:48:05.227-04:00"Hillary Clinton’s Rivals Critical of Democra..."Hillary Clinton’s Rivals Critical of Democratic Party Politics http://nyti.ms/1PDi2zX"<br /><br />At last, a decent report of the results of the <br />democratic debate yesterday in the NYtimes, which indicates revolt among some of the Democratic runners for the presidency. And it was printed without disallowing non subscribers to the paper to be cut off from the article.<br /><br />I think we are making headway and the usual excellent comments from readers follow.<br />I think Bernie made some excellent comments that electrified many in the audience.Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-62082240873557700122015-08-28T22:49:00.267-04:002015-08-28T22:49:00.267-04:00Meredith: Two great comments from you in Krugman&#...Meredith: Two great comments from you in Krugman's latest. Bernie could run rings around Krugman on any economic topics by telling the true facts which Krugman doesn't bother to investigate. And readers of the usual anti Bernie columns are still angry about the NYTimes role in downplaying Bernie's role and preventing important information to be broadcast. And elsewhere I find similar criticism about attacks or ignoring Bernie's role in this race to the Presidency, which will hopefully be forced to change before long. <br />You spelled this out in your comments.Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-40986016205301252072015-08-27T12:13:16.139-04:002015-08-27T12:13:16.139-04:00Add environmental writer Bill McKibben to the We L...Add environmental writer Bill McKibben to the We Loath Brooks Club. In a review of the encyclical by Pope Francis on anthropogenic climate change, McKibben admits he is in awe of the document. It's so remarkably different from the usual papal bull.<br /><br />"Instead of a narrow and focused contribution to the climate debate, it turns out to be nothing less than a sweeping, radical, and highly persuasive critique of how we inhabit this planet—an ecological critique, yes, but also a moral, social, economic, and spiritual commentary."<br />http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/pope-and-planet/<br /><br /> Oh-oh. Say the word 'moral' and David Brooks will dutifully pop up to make sure you're on the right path. McKibben is ready, however. He goes way out of his way at least four times to call Brooks one of the great hacks running interference for suicidal idiocy.<br /><br />"Brooks, for instance, makes the centerpiece of his attack on the encyclical the notion that the promising technocratic approach is, fortunately, expanding fracking, because burning natural gas produces less carbon than burning coal. This is scientifically obtuse (as I [previously] explained in these pages, an emerging body of evidence shows that fracking instead liberates vast quantities of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas), but in any event the extent of the damage we’ve already done to the climate means we no longer have room for slightly less damaging fossil fuels…."<br /><br />In closing, McKibben puts Brooks right up there on a high pedestal in the conservative pantheon beside the gods Reagan and Thatcher. <br /><br />"Brooks, Reagan, and Thatcher summon the worst in us and assume that will eventually solve our problems—to repeat Brooks’s sad phrase, we should rely on the 'low motivations of people as they actually are.' ”<br /><br />Speak for yourself, David.Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-29751077563872904382015-08-27T08:43:13.308-04:002015-08-27T08:43:13.308-04:00Thank you Karen for your excellent evisceration of...Thank you Karen for your excellent evisceration of Mr. Brooks. For a long time, my most loathed NYT columnist was Thomas Friedman, but I have moved beyond him. I am sure it was that illuminating little book by Belen Fernandez, "Thomas Friedman: Imperial messenger at Work," that I received for donating 10 bucks to some group.I keep hoping that someone would do the same for David, but alas, i will just have to keep hoping. <br /><br />I too wrote a comment to "The Big Decisions" op-ed and to my complete shock/surprise it was APPROVED by the Coment Police. Here it is: "You are back and obviously refreshed from your two-week vacation. Unlike, as is being reported, most Americans who are too afraid to take a vacation for fear of.....who knows what they are afraid of, but I dare say it is something that has been rampant since the trickle-down economy has been in vogue. And I forgot how much I enjoyed the comments of Larry Eisenberg, Craig Geary, Jack Mahoney and Karen Garica. Hopefully you guys are as reinvigorated as our Mr. Brooks."<br /><br />I should have also included in that list, Matthew Carnicelli of Brooklyn, NY, but his comment appeared later in the day and I can only subject my self to his David's blathering once a day - twice a week.<br /><br />So consider it.Ste-vonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-78470769127660253392015-08-27T02:00:59.880-04:002015-08-27T02:00:59.880-04:00I haven't read Brooks column, and i admire you...I haven't read Brooks column, and i admire your strong stomach to absorb it and construct a good retort--exposing the money path. I confess I didn't read Bruni's column either, only the headline and some comments, and then posted an impulsive negative comment, saying I'm up to here with this crap. <br /><br />Brooks's hypocrisy, so evident to most of his commenters, doesn't bother the Times. It turns Times readers' stomachs. But who have they got that is the true other side of the spectrum, to balance this out? Morally, politically? Progressive readers aren't getting their due. We deserve better. In fact many of the comments are consistently better than many of the columns. Meredith NYCnoreply@blogger.com