Friday, March 14, 2003
Round one: Shafer
kicks the Sun’s ass
Round two: Ira swings back
Round three: Shafer
fires back, slaps Ira
silly; then Richard Byrne
around some, too, and then Greg Mitchell
takes a swipe at the Sun as well! (All on Romenesko
: sadly, our Romany fellow Illinoisan doesn’t provide links. Damned gypsy.)
All in all, a big smackdown for the Sun and its esteemed managing editor
HELP WANTED: Two ordinary, semi-intelligent guys
seek New York-based correspondent for a one-off freelance engagement. It seems those liberal scumbags of the Nation Institute are convening a panel to debate the obvious
. Judging by the mail
we get from our lovely readers, it seems as if most are based in and around New York. If any happen to witness our favorite racist
Eagle Scout suffer the inevitable trouncing, please file a report with the LFLS offices. Payment can be taken out in trade
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Today’s SmarterTimes is as sad as a sad painting
of a sad clown
. It criticizes a Times profile of The Weekly Standard
, in which that rag’s influence on the White House is duly noted, firstly on the grounds that the piece’s author didn’t speak with anyone in the White House. But the real reason for SmarterTimes’ pique becomes quickly evident. “The article also fails to acknowledge other magazines and journals that are influential with the Bush administration,” Ira
whines, and proceeds to list The Manhattan Institute’s City Journal
and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page
among those publications. Say. . . aren’t most of the Sun’s contributors are from the Manhattan Institute or the Wall Street Journal? Actually no; sometimes the Sun reprints articles whole from those sources. Poor, sad little Ira
, desperately crying out for someone, anyone, to pay attention
to his miserable little effort
. (Anyone aside from Messrs. Olivier
, that is.)
Leafing through the print edition, I see that Adam Daifallah is reporting that Richard Perle is threatening to sue New Yorker
reporter Seymour Hersh in a U.K. court (where the bar to prove libel is far lower) over a recent piece suggesting war profiteering on Perle's part. Daifallah admirably identifies Perle as a chairman of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, which backs the Sun
. He fails however to elaborate on Perle defender Laurent Murawiec, identified only as a "senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was the architect of a briefing to Mr. Perle’s Defense Policy Board on Saudi Arabia last summer." Hersh, like Jack Shafer
, noted that Murawiec is a former Lyndon LaRouche associate, serving as a sub-editor to LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review
. Could Seth and Ira have axed this crucial datum in edit because when they speak of strategic circles outside of Washington in which plans are being readied for divorcing the Saudi royals from their oilfields they're essentially using a longhand for Mr. Murawiec personally.
And while we're on the topic of war profiteering, we wonder how much exactly commodities speculator Bruce Kovner, whose mouthpiece hollers for a war that will move oil markets dramatically, has made in the run-up to the nearing conflict. And how much he'll reap when the MOABs start falling.
In addition to an Ira Stoll advertorial
touting Howard Dean, the Sun
's website today features a customarily poor SethandIratorial. "September 11 and Iraq
" After calling Jimmy Carter and The New York Times
(indulge your fixation fully, Ira, and call it the Raines Times
like your buddies are doing) "disingenuous," SethandIra avow that "The question...is the nature of the relationship between Iraq and Mr. bin Laden."
Amazingly for a piece that purports to examine the nature of that relationship, the words "bin Laden" do not appear in the 523 words which follow.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
SmarterTimes: “If Stalin doesn’t qualify as unalloyed evil, it’s hard to imagine who does
Meanwhile, the editorial page has an odd little work on two police officers killed last night. “Details were sketchy. . . [but] when the killer or killers of these officers are caught, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows—-including the death penalty, if it applies.” An “editorial” just over a hundred words long, calling for the prosecution of cop killers, and calling for “the death penalty, if it applies,” suggests to us
that perhaps today’s “editorials” came up a few inches short and somebody
had to quickly cover for their own incompetence
Monday, March 10, 2003
Exhausting times here, folks, as Brad Olson and I have spent the past few days tackling the ambitiously titled "Weekend Edition" of the Sun
(length: 18 mighty pages) in the prescribed time. Who would have thought that reading at the rate of .25 pages per hour would be so tiring, though I'm sure it had more to do with the dreadful contents than the less-than-furious pace. The numerous grammatical errors in Adam Daifallah's headlining piece slowed us down, as did the dreariness of Ira Stoll's formulaic and facile swipe at the Times
. Most dispiriting, as per his usual, was the irritating bloviator Wallace Matthews, though the spectacle of Matthews summoning sufficient gall to call anyone
a "pseudo-tough guy" merited staying awake throughout his dreadful treatment of David Wells. Matthews labors under the same delusion as Seth Lipsky that he's some sort of old-fashioned grizzled New Yorker, and the larger chip on his shoulder and crappy suits make him more annoying than the Lesser Man from Great Barrington. And he's more of a hypocrite, writing one day celebrating an athlete and the next attacking him, with variation in public opinion determining what the day's take will be. As with Oscar De La Hoya, Matthews has revised his opinion of Wells. Back when he wrote for the Post
Matthews would blather at length about Wells the heir to Babe Ruth, the "Imperfect Man who pitched the perfect game," and would breathlessly catalogue Wells' perceived faults - with vigor and without the disgust with which he does now - before writing shit such as:
David Wells would have fit in just fine on any of them, because while his look may not be fashionable, his attitude has never gone out of style.
He wants the ball. He wants the excitement.
He wants the chance to win it or lose it, on his own.
I thrive on this stuff, He said. This is crunch time.
And he ain't talking about the kind of crunches you do in Spandex with a personal trainer looking over your shoulder.
That is not David Wells' style.
His style is winning.
Uhm, sure, Wally.
comes close to being worse. Ira's SmarterTimes charges the cross-town paper that Ira wishes he could rival, which apparently ran a fashion piece on Che Guevera t-shirts, with running the item out of crypto-Stalinism or some such shit.