Why do Americans hate media elites?

Can't imagine why that would be.  Probably because they see too much "Fake News" that should be censored or something.  Or maybe it's something else....

.@FareedZakaria on Syria strikes: "I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night https://t.co/dLipRu6SZu

— New Day (@NewDay) April 7, 2017

bombing is fun, MSNBC edition  pic.twitter.com/qbtiBrpWLB

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) April 7, 2017

See also Pareene from about a month ago.

Here’s what you have to understand about the sort of people who become anchors, nonpartisan pundits, centrist columnists, and cable news political correspondents: They didn’t sign up to be the resistance. They don’t want Donald Trump to fail. They want him to “pivot” and “act presidential.”

Yeah, there are guys (and it is guys, for the most part) out there who spend their whole careers trying to be Dan Rather staring down Nixon or Cronkite turning on Vietnam—or even just Tim Russert making some elected mediocrity stammer with a patented “tough question”—but mostly these guys want to be witnesses to Great Men Making History. They want to Respect The Office Of The Presidency.

Here’s another thing you should understand about these guys: The only thing the elite Washington press corps likes more than a bipartisan commission on debt reduction is a stack of flag-draped coffins.

Bonus: Why do Americans hate elite establishment Democrats?  Can't imagine why.  

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do." 

He added: "It is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it. I salute the professionalism and skill of our Armed Forces who took action today."

 Also

(CNN)Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country. 

The library part might take a while

Herman Cain: “We need a leader, not a reader.”

It's a motto that makes at least part of this grand plan more difficult to conceptualize.

Cain is apparently already making his post-presidency plans.

“I call it a journey, not just a campaign, because it doesn’t stop,” he said. “We’re in the primary. Then you run for president. You win the presidency, serve four years. (Then you) might have to serve eight at the insistence of the people. Then after that, launch a Cain library,” then a post-presidential speaking tour, he mused.

And along the way, the interns... oooh the interns. It's a sweet ride to be sure.

In fairness, though, theoretical President Cain would be far from the first non-reader to lead us. Ronald Reagan, for example, famously received several intelligence briefings in the form of rather unchallenging videos like this one on the Chernobyl disaster.



And then there's President Obama who reads books by Fareed Zakaria, which really only barely qualifies as reading. In much the same way, Obama's first term in office has only barely qualified as leading.

Anyway, thanks to Cain for pointing out that the fact that those two words rhyme must imply some sort of symmetry between the concepts they represent. We'll keep an eye out to see if we can determine the nature of this relationship.

Wanted to hit him with a "football bat"

I've never been a huge fan of James Carville until recently.



(Video via Dambala)


I've always had a big problem with Fareed Zakaria, anyway.

Not-quite-short-enough-for-Twitter Book Review

The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.

Zakaria marvels at the Chinese government's ability to squelch dissent and level entire neighborhoods to make way for intelligently planned development, laments the untidiness of democracy in India and the United States BUT is really really excited about the way indestructible global capitalism is making life better for everyone in all three of these countries and.... didn't we already read this crap when it was called The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman?

Worth a look for its compilation of interesting facts about China and India but still so full of goofy global-free-market-economy boosterism, one hopes that American policymakers won't be taking it too seriously in the....

Oh crap



Update: Here, the two "Tom Friedmans" explain the difference between a "free market" that exists and one that doesn't.