"I don't believe in journalists having 'responsibility.'"
-Seth Lipsky, October 16, 2003

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll demanded on August 20, 2003, that Washington "finish the war" against "the Arabs."

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll assembled their staff for a Champagne toast to mass death on the commencement of hostilities against Iraq. Stoll called it "my war." CNN maintains a running update here of Americans killed in Ira's war.

On February 6, 2003, Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll wrote, in all seriousness, of a pending anti-war demonstration that the "the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution."

The June 9, 1995 Wall Street Journal quoted an SEC complaint against New York Sun backer Bruce Kovner as saying Kovner had "altered and destroyed" subpoenaed evidence. We wish you'd do the same to the daily print run of your God-awful newspaper, Bruce.

Also, Professor G. Harlan Reynolds alleged on August 27, 2002 - when the Sun was several months in publication - that Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll had not yet paid him for a piece authored for their inaugural issue.

 
 
   
 
Friday, October 10, 2003
 
MIRACLE DRUGS ALL AROUND! I'M BUYING!
The great thing about slavishly praising power and publicly promoting the interest of plutocrats is the rapid career advancement the practices afford. Witness the seeming omnipresence of Christopher Hitchens after his announcement that Wolfowitz and Bush really pitch his tent. Likewise witness witless little Ira.

Though his articles uniformly unreadable as they are written in the same impenetrable Stool pidgin and are based on false premises and obvious misreadings of events, sponsor Seth runs them at page one. From Ira's wildly clueless summation of last night's debate:
He [John F. Kerry] accused the [big drug] companies of engaging in “kickbacks, all kinds of schemes.”
Engaging in kickbacks? That's certainly a novel phrasing. The sort of novelty originating with ESL students, yes, but novel nonetheless.

Then we find Stool maundering thus:
Neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Edwards named specific companies. The other candidates did not join in the attacks, but neither did they say anything in defense of the drug companies, which are defended by their executives and by Republican politicians for generating lifesaving 'miracle drugs' and economic growth.
Damned other candidates! Fortunately Andrew Sullivan's still roid-raging on the topic.

Ira's artless article continues for another 767 words before coming to a merciful conclusion. I think Ira makes an attempt at humor before his long overdue end, though it's so unsuccessful that I cannot be sure. Judge for yourself:
General Clark, who has less political experience than the other candidates and is making his first run for elective office, at one point verbally tripped over his own position. “My position on Iraq has been clear. It was an imminent — it was not an imminent threat,” he said.

In case that wasn’t clear enough, the general went on to say, “It was an unnecessary war. It was an elective war, and it was a huge strategic mistake.”
A man speaking publicly, extemporaneously, and under pressure misspeaks and corrects himself immediately and it's newsworthy. At least for a "man" who could - if he weren't so inadequate to the task - select words with great deliberation to report accurately and engagingly on the day's events but declines to. Oh, and for an editor for whom that's no problem.

Thursday, October 09, 2003
 
A horrible Sun columnist who goes by the swank name of R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. attacks the media today, accusing them of hypocrisy regarding the allegations that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a sexual Predator. According to Auntie Em, the LA Times (you know, Em, the paper that broke the Troopergate story at almost the same time your pathetic little rag did) was out of line reporting on Governor-elect Schwarzenegger (R-Going Down The Toilet) and what Em calls his “frisky sex life,” (Yes, molestation is now “frisky”) while ignoring (wha?) similar stories about Bill Clinton. Em writes, “According to the Times's mostly anonymous sources, Mr. Schwarzenegger groped women - usually on movie sets - much as Bill Clinton groped Kathleen Wiley in the White House. When Ms. Wiley went public with the story, I began calling her assailant "the Groper," as in "Win one for the Groper." Needless to say, the joke did not catch on.”

Just so you know, Em, Kathleen Wiley was later completely discredited. And, you stupid sack of shit, her last name is Willey, W-I-L-L-E-Y.

On a related note, the Sun’s Knickerbocker column has an item on. . . the relaunch party for Em’s American Spectator! How do they land these stories?? Hopefully he’ll do a better job editing his shit-rag than he does his column. (Things are off to a great start; the new issue has an article by John Fund!)

Still, sounds like quite a swanky affair. Gary Shapiro writes that the party “resembled a cross between a British gentlemen's club and the lunchroom at the Hoover Institution.” And what a guest list! Ted Olson! Bob Barr! Richard Viguerie! Plus some guy named Eugene Methvin, who “said Mr. Tyrrell used to have a life-size blacksuited, papier-mâché dummy of H.L. Mencken in his office.”

Best of luck to you, Mr. Tyrrel. Oops, I meant to put in two L's. Like in Willey.
 
"The American tax debate is nastier and more theological than it has been in years," declares Amity Shlaes on today's op-id page. What is she referring to? Grover Norquist's recent statements comparing taxation to the Holocaust?

Heh. No. She's talking about comedian Al Franken.

The Sun has long lacked anything resembling a sense of humor, so it comes as no surprise today that Shlaes (aka Mrs. Seth Lipsky) takes on Franken for his cartoon "Supply-Side Jesus" in his new book (which is, by the way, fucking hilarious). Describing Franken's book as "high on the amazon.com bestseller list" (apparently not interested or ignorant of the fact that it sits atop the New York Times bestseller list), Shlaes goes on to recite the supply-side gospel, falling squarely into Franken's trap.

Among the techniques Franken would approve of: lie with statistics. In this case, "The top half of earners pay 96% of the tax." Though she does not really specify which tax, she is no doubt leaving out payroll taxes that pay for Social Security and Medicare, and which burden the bottom half far more than income taxes while regressively phasing out for the top earners.

Whatever. This is the same old shit. Read Franken's book and you'll find out why this is all bunk. The point here is that Shlaes has seen fit to get all worked up with indignation over a satiristic cartoon rather than confront the actual lie of supply-side economics. Fortunately for us Americans, supply-side economics has about -- how many months until January 2005? -- let's say 15 months of life left.

Curiously enough, SethAndIra claim on the idiotorial page, " For our part, we don’t mind saying that we’re a New York newspaper and are rooting for the home team." This is, as you might expect, part of some lame reaction against something the Times said. Apparently they have not been New Yorkers long enough to understand that half of New York City baseball fans are avowed Yankee-haters, if not straight Red Sox fans.

Assuming that all newspapers work the way the New York Sun does, SethAndIra helpfully point out that "The New York Times Company on February 27, 2002, 'acquired a minority interest in the Boston Red Sox.'" If the New York Sun somehow had enough money to do the same, I have no doubt we would see idiotorials galore suggesting that Steinbrenner is an Islamofascist terrorist with ties to Syria.

But how can we expect SethAndIra to act like New Yorkers when they seem to have no understanding of the City's geography? The City Desk column on page 3 has separate entries for "Harlem" and "Manhattan." Last I checked... oh, nevermind.

Wednesday, October 08, 2003
 
Three home runs??!!?? In one inning??!!???

Anyway, WETS of the day, courtesy of the Mr. Joshua Gerstein, and right on the front page: “While a festive atmosphere prevailed among the actor’s supporters, the Mr. Davis’s aides were glum.”

We are sure the Mr. Stool and the Mr. Shlaes regret the glaring, hard to miss error.
 
Uh-oh. Looks like the New York print media market is about to get a little more crowded.

Fortunately, the Sun isn't taking up too much room. Like packing an extra pair of rancid socks in an enormous dufflebag.

The new daily (which will be free), called amNewYork, claims to be launching at between 28 and 30 pages, an impressive number considering that after a year-and-a-half the Sunnis only crack 24 on occasion.

This is all, of course, according to a press release, so it means little -- for the same reason the Sun, which is an extended reacto press release, means little. The paper "promises to track code violations in New York City's restaurants and to be a consumer watchdog." This already sounds a lot better than the Sun, which likes to track speech code violations in New York City liberals and is a fierce watchdog for its war criminal/war profiteer/war cheerleader/dirty old men investors.

Speaking of the Sun, today's idiotorial column contains this disgusting sentence: "Finally, there’s the resounding sense that the electorate refuses to care about or even believe what the liberal press thinks it should care about and believe — in this case, Mr. Schwarzenegger’s apparently disgusting behavior toward women."

Ha, ha, ha. Silly "liberal press." And its obsession with "women's rights" and "rule of law." A wink and a nod, Arnold: Grope on, so long as you can somehow manage to balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Idiots. (Both the Sun and California voters. They deserve each other.)

Tuesday, October 07, 2003
 
The joys of Ira Stoll on the front page. Bro. Olivier makes short work of Stoolies latest below. More practical questions remain unanswered, as they can only be deciphered by the Sun staffers forced to suffer under his incompetence.

Is it not humiliating for the rest of the folks at the Sun, trying to secure their careers despite the dreadful publication they work for, that Ira's every limp argument graces the front pages?

Does it not irk the Arts editor, Robert Messenger, that simply by performing the unlikely feat of cracking a book Ira's boorish propaganda is treated as lit-crit?

When Stoolie begins his tomfoolery with a paragraph like this:

"Why would the Ivy League university based in the world’s largest Jewish city, a university with a large Jewish student population and a significant number of Jewish donors and trustees,willingly provide a base of operations for a team of virulently anti-Israel professors?"

is there no one at the Sun who can stand up and say, "What is this fucking garbage?" (e.g. is New York a "Jewish city"? I believe the good Rev. Jackson got in quite a bit of trouble once for suggesting so.)

When Fucking Ira tries to set up his "book review" by claiming, "In search of answers to this question..." is there not someone, anyone, who can say, "No, Ira, you already know your answer. You're just trying to sell a book."?

When Ira claims that Columbia University backed the British in the Revolution, backed the South in the Civil War, and was against the Vietnam War, is there not someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of history who can say, "Hey, Ira, you know, New York City as a whole backed the British, disdained the Civil War (ever heard of the Draft Riots?), and opposed Vietnam."? Did anyone tell Ira that anti-Semitism was in vogue for most of American history, and that it was not Columbia alone (even your beloved Harvard, Ira) that excluded Jews?

And then when he uses this pseudo-historical claptrap to prove that "As it turns out, the current war of Islamist terrorists against Israel and America is hardly the first conflict in which Columbia or prominent Columbians were on the side of America’s enemies, or at least neutral," who has the guts to walk into his office and say, "You are as foolish as your arguments are dishonest."? After all, we are to assume from this sentence that "Columbia or prominent Columbians" are on the side of America's enemies, which would be a serious charge if anyone cared what Ira thinks.

No, most of his infantile article seems to be more concerned with treating Columbia as a second-class Ivy League institution. It's just the sort of rah-rah school spirit we would expect to see spit out of one of the Ivy college papers when there's a big game coming up. Although it would be better written.
 
Ira Stoll must be as sterile as his prose. After all, a "man" nominally of letters for whom fatherhood is a possibility knows that on his departure from this vale, to his progeny will fall the trusteeship of his journalistic estate. He would therefore strive to leave his dependents something in good repair which will withstand whatever rigors posterity presents.

Stool, judging by his output is obviously unburdened by such concerns. If the deplorable smear on Edward Said contained within Ira's artless "The Mystery of Columbia" did not embarrass the "man" himself, it would surely provoke feelings of deep shame in Ira's kids on their attainment of a sixth-grade reading level (for that is indeed the level at which Ira writes).

Said's body is not yet one week in the grave. High time then to slander the man! Ira writes that for Said, "Yasser Arafat’s Oslo agreement was a sellout because it accepted, if only in word, the existence of Israel." Oh my.

That Said's opposition to Oslo could have been, say, a repudiation of a fundamentally unjust conclusion to one of the world's longer running outrages is an impossibility. Ira, obsessed by Israel, assumes that everybody else he encounters suffers from the same monomania - albeit of a reversed polarity in Said's case. Yet this patent mental defect does not excuse Ira. It is a certainty that even to someone as preternaturally and unfailingly oblivious to fact as Stool, the preceding is a plainly slanderous mischaracterization of Said's position and a defamation of the man's memory. Which was surely his object in writing it to begin with.

Such is the disgusting claptrap which the heads of Oppenheimer Capital, Spear Leeds & Kellogg, Welsh Carson Anderson & Stowe, and Alliance Capital Management deal in.
 
Yesterday, in an important front page piece, the Sun’s Julie Satow tried to circumnavigate Manhattan on a bicycle. At one point in her “story”, Julie wrote, “The photographer, who had been accompanying me, decided to go to 148th Street and get pictures of some guy who had a lion and a crocodile in his apartment.” Yes, Julie, a lion and a crocodile. Your reporting skills have found a worthy home at the New York Sun.

Monday, October 06, 2003
 
You gotta figure when Israel bombed a compound inside Syria SethAndIra would get all hot. The Israel Defense Forces are the Sunnis' substitute for horny goat weed.

"RAID INTO SYRIA RAISES HOPE FOR WIDER WAR AGAINST TERROR," they declare on their front pages, joining the ranks of freedom loving people everywhere who "hope for wider war."

Actually, make that sick fucks everywhere. Ira, as soon as you enlist...

Benny The Jet Avni brings us today's ballbuster. Though he claims that the Israeli strike "has raised hopes in some quarters for a wider war against terror in the region," he seems unable to get anybody to say so on the record. Go figure.

In fact, the only person The Jet can seem to get to speak with him on the record (per usual) is the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman. Are these guys roommates?

The idioters inserted a teaser in Benny's story, noting that, "a related article appears on page 8." What they meant was a related editorial appears on page 8, but this being the Sun there is no difference anyway.

And on page 8 we learn that the real forces behind the murderous impulses of "the Arabs" is... none other than a handful of frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for president. Huh? Who knew?

Howard Dean has the temerity to say, "I deplore violence of any kind, especially violence perpetrated by terrorists against innocent civilians." Bastard!

Wesley Clark, in a talkingpointsmemo interview which Ira rather comically misreported last week, was so brazenly anti-American that "he suggested that [Syria] was less of a problem than Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan." Which I have no doubt SethAndIra would agree with, if they didn't have such hard-ons.

Then we get this logical headscratcher, courtesy of the idioters:

"Indeed, there are plenty of ties between Syria and Al Qaeda, starting with the fact that an American air force translator was indicted last month for spying for Syria on the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay where the captured Al Qaeda terrorists are being held."

Huh?

SethAndIra throw in this loveliness, about the Arab League's condemnation of the Israeli military action: "The Arab League, recall, now includes a representative of the Iraqi governing council installed at the cost of billions of American dollars and hundreds of American lives."

This kind of hate speech, as all freedom-loving Americans know, is treason.
 
Brad Olson heads the subscriptions and procurement department here at the storied LFLS compound. He sees to that in addition to the more esoteric journals of gentlemen's interest, we receive mainstream publications such as Fortune, the current issue of which has an excellent offering on Lord Blackguard of Drossharbour.

The piece reports Uncle Blackie as denigrating journalists as "ignorant, lazy, opinionated, intellectually dishonest, and inadequately supervised," an obvious reference to SethAndIra, and as saying that "the Jesse Jacksonites...seem to want to turn the U.S. Treasury upside down over the black community of Americans, like a giant piggy bank." Interestingly, the article explores how Black treats his Hollinger International like, well, a piggy bank, pocketing huge management fees for his underwhelming performance and applying company funds toward the payment of his personal bills.

There are a few glaring errors in this otherwise estimable bit of reportage which are topical to this page. As regular readers know, His Lordship funds SethAndIra's imaginations, misapprehensions of fact, and ignorant speculations, having invested a full $2 million in the sickening "newspaper" which the present site charts. This is where Devin Leonard, author of the Fortune piece, runs to inaccuracy. Mr. Leonard describes the Sun as "an earnest conservative broadsheet that is largely ignored." Of course "earnest" would here insinuate that the paper's journalistic mission is prosecuted with professionalism and at least sometime adherence to standards. This is obviously not the case with SethAndIra's Chambers Street chamber pot. Similarly, with war being the health of the state, can the embarrassingly martial shitrag properly be called conservative? Lastly, Mr. Leonard writes that the Sun is "largely ignored." In fact, aside from Ira's aunties and cousins, the paper is wholly ignored.

 

 
   
  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.  

Home  |  Archives  |  E-mail Grady Olivier