House of Eratosthenes

This is a few weeks old by now, almost “blast from the past” stuff. But I didn’t see it when it came out, I’ve not heard of anyone writin’ ‘er up…and it’s way too good to let float on by, any further.

Apologies to you if you’re a fellow blogger who managed to capture it, and I missed it. We’ve all been there.

But I’m gonna collar it now. Life, as they say, imitates The Onion.

Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week’s Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
:
According to political analysts, the Time piece features the most lack-of-depth reporting on Obama ever published, and for the first time reveals a number of inconsequential truths about the candidate, including how he keeps in shape on the campaign trail, and which historical figures the presidential hopeful would choose to have dinner with.

“The sheer breadth of fluff in this story is something to be marveled at,” New York Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet said. “It’s all here. Favorite books, movies, meals, and seasons of the year ranked one through four. Sure, we asked Obama what his favorite ice cream was, but Time did us one better and asked, ‘What’s your favorite ice cream, really?‘”

Time managing editor Rich Stengel said he was proud of the Obama puff piece, and that he hoped it would help to redefine the boundaries of journalistic drivel.

On a related note, parent site Webloggin, in linking to us, noted Obama’s “nice flip flop” on the gas tax rebate. Webloggin also wants to know: When is some effort made to find out what exactly a “windfall profit” is?

The Wall Street Journal agrees with that inquiry.

The “windfall profits” tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s “emergency” plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for “stimulus” checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits.

All of which raises some interesting questions, and the WSJ sets about defining what those questions might be. But that is all they can do, without some further information from The Enlightened One. And who knows, maybe someone from the media will ask him.

But don’t count on it. There are those boundaries of journalistic drivel to be pushed out. To say nothing of ice cream flavors.

Well, now… does this sound familiar? “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

The oil companies are able to generate profits, and I needs me a thousand dollahs, please, sir. Two, if ya can spare it…

Good GRIEF.
- Buck | 08/05/2008 @ 16:55
This would be so harmless if such rhetoric only had an effect on the people who believe in it. Obama would be out there, trolling for twenty-somethings wearing black “Che” tee shirts, he’d recruit ’em all, some 5% to 10% of the country would vote for the Marxist solution…and then in four years they’d try to sell us their crap all over again. They’d be kind of like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

But as things are — people who don’t have much of an interest in politics one way or t’other, and at first might even be a little unsympathetic to the “windfall profits to tax rebates” scheme, only have to catch wind of that Rich Old Oil Guy…that guy lighting cigars, in his corner office, with hundred dollar bills…and they’re all for it.

This is a very old situation in America. This is why the gentleman from the “Monopoly” board game looks a little like a Garfield-ized version of Dagwood Bumstead’s father-in-law. You conjure up this image of an old fart with a bushy white mustache, puffing away at a cigar, and it just does something to people. What was, a moment ago, morally reprehensible, suddenly seems justifiable. Even obligatory.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2008 @ 17:23
Ah, there. You see what poison old age is on a man’s memory? It wasn’t Dagwood’s father-in-law; it was his own father. The cigar-chomping be-whiskered multi-millionaire tycoon. The Emperor Palpatine of 1933.
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2008 @ 17:29
Let me explain what a windfall profits tax is, according to the latest version in New England.

If there’s a particularly bad storm that shreds and fells the trees around your
property, planted as a wind/sun break to keep the temperature, noise from invading
speculative development, and prying eyes at bay, it’s a mess.

AFTER one cleans up the mess and repairs the damage, for which there’s no
expectation of “assistance” by the State or town for the more productive and
industrious home owners, then the trees formerly obstructing “the view before they fell, via the wind, now allow for an improved “View” tax by their absence.
- CaptDMO | 08/06/2008 @ 02:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The Definitive Obama Puff PieceTuesday, August 5th, 2008

The Definitive Obama Puff Piece
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008