Crime, smog, traffic, graffiti and all they have to show for it is their crappy newspaper

.

One in a series that takes a look at what's going on up at the L.A. Times.


The paper of record for Southern California continues to beclown itself: first it was an endorsement of California's high-speed rail program based upon the Egyptian pyramids and now a caricature of Michelle Obama is deemed racist.


The following image appeared on the conservative blog Gateway Pundit last week:

Here's the Times "Culture Monster", Christopher Knight breaking it all down for you in case you didn't notice the obvious racism:

A baldly racist depiction of First Lady Michelle Obama that appeared Tuesday on a right-wing website is based on a 1775 portrait of Marie Antoinette by Jean-Baptiste André Gautier-Dagoty (1740-1786). The full-length painting hangs outside Paris in the Palace of Versailles.

The Internet image grafts Obama's face onto Gautier-Dagoty's lavish depiction of the French queen, dressed in full regalia. It also replaces the draped left arm of the young monarch, then barely 20, with a muscular black arm and shifts the position of the right hand to place it in front of a world globe.

The caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an "uppity Negro," which emerged among slave masters in an earlier American era. Obama, born into a working-class Chicago family whose roots are traced to the pre-Civil War South, graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, prior to holding several high-level positions in the academic and private sectors.

Thanks for the mini-bio, Chris. We suppose that was given to someway and somehow prop up your ridiculous racism charge.

Fairly or not and rightly or wrongly, the First Lady has aquired an image of an imperious and priviledged individual. It's no stretch then to caricaturize her as a modern day Marie Antoinette. That's racist? No. It's not.

So, boiling things down to its most elemental, what Knight apparently thinks is racist, then is that a black American woman is caricaturized as a.. black American woman.




Commenter to the article, Isaac Bishop Junior, makes great points regarding projection, intellectual bankruptcy and the identity politics that absolutely consume the liberal-left:

An absolutely ignorant, irresponsible, uninformed piece of yellow journalism, and an example to the rest of the leftist media. Knight, you've outdone yourself, and you stand as an example of why the newspaper is rightfully destined to die out as a media outlet. As both an American that happens to be black, and a Conservative, I find nothing racist about this image. However, I do find plenty of racism in you. Like all leftists, you hide behind skin color as a shield. You make ethnicity and sexual orientation the center of all political conversation, showing that if anyone has an obsession with it, its the left (i.e.: people like you). This hit piece you've scrawled is nothing more than another clear indicator that the liberal tank is on "E", and you've no intellectual ammunition left to fight with, so, as opposed to debating issues, you argue nonsensical BS, like this. I remember the last time this happened, in regards to the "jokerized" Obama picture. The left touted this as an example of 'right-wing hatred' and 'racism', only to have it found out that a leftist "Palestinian" did it. Where were you, then? Hiding under your desks, plotting another outrage to manufacture. It is no wonder California is the cesspool it is, today; with your writings enabling it, they'll never climb out of the sewer they've voluntarily walked themselves into.

.

The kitchen is no place for this woman

Continuing in the grand tradition of pet causes, the wife of the Smoker-in-Chief, Michelle Obama, has chosen childhood obesity and healthy eating as her particular cause.

A few days ago she addressed the National Restaurant Association regarding the virtues of offering healthy alternatives on the menu and disclosure with respect to providing calorie data for individual menu items.

Look, we've really no problem with the First Lady using her bully pulpit to "encourage" restaurants to offer more healthy options but as can be expected from members of the regime, even those not technically on the payroll, they go seamlessly from simple and harmless nagging to codifying menu changes by fiat.

After playing nice for the first three-quarters of her speech employing words as "asking", "challenge" and "encourage" implying voluntary cooperation, she gets down to brass knuckles.

That’s why we’re committed to helping increase that demand and making it easier for you to do what’s right. And we’ve started by requiring chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menus and menu boards. And I am grateful for the support we’ve received from the NRA to get this done. And I want to encourage restaurants that aren’t providing calorie counts to join us in this effort.

How much awfulness can be packed into one paragraph?

Translation:

Americans are too damn stupid to make these decisions on their own so we'll "help" by forcing you to do what we think is right and we've begun this dictatorial process, thank you, by telling you what is required to be on your menus, menu boards and any thing else bearing the name of your establishment. And we're grateful that you've pretty much allowed us to steamroll you on this (not that you had any choice in the matter) and let's just say we know who all those other restaurants are out there that escaped our clutches and which we will be strong-arming into compliance at a later date.

These people are simply drunk with power.

We had almost forgot about this whole menu thing. We believe the cut off for compliance with this ridiculous regulation is 20 or more restaurants. So, imagine if you own 21 or 22 restaurants: you will be faced with making a decision to comply with a needless and expensive regulation (how exactly does one go about getting a calorie count for every single item on their menu and however it is done, do you think the going rate for CalCount Inc.'s services just went up a tad as a result of this regulatory capture?) or cutting back on your restaurant locations and putting a few dozen more people out on the street. And conversely, factor in yet another reason to not expand and not add more jobs in the private sector for that restaurant owner of 18 or 19 locations.

This probably is no big deal for massive chains like Denny's or McDonald's who have the resources to comply but as we've seen with ObamaCare and how it hoses the smaller insurance providers, these menu regs will be another unwanted expense on the small and medium-sized chains.

How to fight back? Patronize these Mom and Pop shops or medium-sized chains that may be on the cusp of this regulation. We're open to other suggestion and, as always...

America's Vacation!

... and the quote of the day:

In January, President Obama insisted that "everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game."

Sometime back in the early 80s, we recall a particular cartoon from the formerly witty, insightful and uproariously funny strip Doonesbury. In it, a reporter was chiding President Reagan's press secretary regarding all the vacations the President seemed to take and what sort of message it was sending taking them during a recession. The press secretary responded in effect: "Hey, the way we look at it is the President's vacations are America's vacations. Every one's invited along!".

With that spirit in mind, book a flight over to Left Coast Rebel where CG has some commentary and some dazzling pictures of this year's America's vacation in Costa del Sol in the south of Spain.



Exit question: Anyone else here think it odd that the President celebrated his 49th birthday without his family? Like this trip to Spain could not have waited a few days?

Exit question #2: Still trying to figure out whether this administration is completely tone deaf or if they just don't give a rat's ass.

The Saturday Evening Post

... which will definetely not be a regular feature.

Death, taxes and… USC dropping an in-conference game to a double-digit underdog.

As much as we cannot stand Mike Lupica, he made a highly controversial point on ESPN’s Sports Reporters show last Sunday (after their win at Columbus against Ohio State, no less) that the program has underachieved and it is a point to which we cannot necessarily disagree because we said the same damn thing 2 years ago after SC’s loss to Stanford, a 41 point dog.

This now represents the 4th straight year USC has lost to conference team it had no business losing to and which also scuttled any BCS title hopes. We believe this speaks to the strength of the Pac-10 overall but also to a blind spot in the program. We welcome opines to the otherwise.

But hey, check this out…

Dana Milbank of the WaPo gets a little snarky regarding the First Lady’s high-profile, high-carbon footprint shopping spree/infomercial at a D.C. organic farmer’s market.

B-Daddy has the details regarding this and much more, here.

It's Time for some Campaignin'

If its election time, its time for some JibJab. These guys came up with some great pieces 4 years ago and we know you'll enjoy this one. We’ll be back tomorrow unless we decide not to go to the Track.

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

He Wouldn't Dare

Now that Obama has clinched the nomination, he needs to start thinking about a running mate and of all the possible directions he could go, we’re pretty confident that he won’t go in the direction that has many Democratic hearts aflutter.

Of all the reasons that Obama won’t pick Hillary for Veep thus completing the “Dream Ticket”, the one we have not yet seen or heard yet is... Obama’s wife. Now, think about that one for a moment. We could be completely wrong but knowing what we know about Michelle Obama, we figure she desires for herself what she would perceive as a very active role in policy-making and policy-implementation in the same vein that Hillary carved out for herself during Bill Clinton's two terms.

Two Vice Presidents…?

Think of those two working in the same (White) House together for four years. And think of President Obama having to deal with those two for 4 years. Throw in the yawning black hole that is the narcissism and self-absorption of Billy Jeff that swallows people, careers and campaigns whole as a backround(?) player and we see Hillary as Veep a complete non-starter.

Now lest you think we’re trying to get some cheap laughs at the expense of any of the aforementioned, we’ll accept it but we're dead serious when we say Obama would be a fool to name Hillary to his ticket. Obama may be an empty suit but we don’t think he’s stupid.

Besides, in reading transcript of Hillary’s speech from last night, she was not expressing the sentiment and emotion of an individual who would deign to accept an invitation to second fiddle.

We fully understand the strategery of first order of business: win the election but precisely because it is Hillary, Obama needs to think a little more long term about his VP choice so the more we ponder the possibility, the less likely we see it becoming reality.

Whiner-in-Chief?

Its official: In addition to being just an empty suit who will cozy-up to anyone for political credibility lets add big crybaby to the description of presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

On Good Morning America, today Obama said that attacks on his wife were “unacceptable”, “detestable” and “low class” and that the GOP ought to “lay off my wife”. (Video clip here)

This was in response to the Tennessee GOP running ads that featured the Michelle Obama “for the first time in my adult life, I’m proud to be an American” comment.

Well, cry us a river, Senator. Just ask Hillary Clinton. If your spouse is out on the campaign trail and making speeches on your behalf then that spouse and what that spouse says is fair game. You don’t think Obama benefited from the “attacks” on Bill Clinton and Clinton’s Obama/Jesse Jackson comparison and then the claims of being victimized by an Obama-adoring press during the South Carolina primaries.

And how exactly is being “critical” of Michelle Obama’s remarks an “attack”?

A trend we’ve seen develop and we hope it doesn’t have too many legs is one which McCain appears to be too willing to let Obama dictate the terms of engagement in this campaign thus far. All this talk of clean campaigning and keeping things above board is all fine and dandy on one hand for Obama while on the other he’s making not-so-thinly veiled swipes at McCain’s age.

The Messiah needs to get over himself. Its politics… and for a man who cut his teeth on the mean streets of Chicago, he should know better. We certainly feel he does, so just chalk up his performance on GMA and his defense of his wife to calculated and contrived political theater... the type of politics he really knows.

Just the Facts, Ma'am.

Good article here regarding Michelle Obama’s “for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country" comment. Author does a good job of breaking things down the middle and we really liked her analogy of a hypothetical adult conservative circa 1980 saying something similar when after nearly two decades of receding influence of American institutions, social upheaval, the Vietnam War, Watergate, Jimmy Carter and of course, hippies… Ronald Reagan was elected President.

A friend of ours emailed yesterday and in referencing this incident called her an “Anti-American, ‘blame America first’ socialist, limousine liberal.” We responded by saying, "...at worst, she is who you say she is and at best it was a very poor choice of words for which she should clarify/apologize for in person and not through her flaks". Apparently, she has.

Though our red meat-eating brethren are really worked up about this, we can’t find the energy to get too excited about it. We chalk up this particular malaise to what we will coin the “Jane Fonda syndrome”

In years previous, we would get these forwarded emails that would detail Jane Fonda’s visit to a POW camp in North Vietnam and how during this visit she ratted out the American prisoners there who tried to pass her messages so that family back in the States would know they were still alive. We don’t know if those stories were true and we didn’t care because, frankly, it didn’t matter. Jane Fonda was/is(?) a traitor and a despicable human being for the things we know to be true. No amount of uncorroborated emails is going to make us think any less of her.

We know Obama has secured a deathgrip on the ranking as the most left-leaning/liberal Senator on the Hill based upon his public legislative record. This is fact. No amount of platitudes from him or verbal gaffes from his wife is going to make us think any different.

.

Because what we’re concerned with is how the Senator intends for this country to pay for his Global Poverty Act?

.

And what we really want to know is why is he sending on his behalf that personification of a foreign policy grease fire, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Syria for talks with Assad?

.

And for all his talk about compassion for the less fortunate, how does he square that with the fact that as an Illinois state senator he actively campaigned against and voted against a law that would’ve protected the survivors of unsuccessful abortions (aka infants)?

These are the facts and these are the issues. So let the woman alone so we can deal with her old man who has a few things to answer for himself.

H/T: Instapundit