Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 15, 2012

Why The Washington Post Is In Decline

Updated below

The Washington Post has a continuously falling circulation and advertising revenue:

Newspaper revenue was down 7 percent, while print advertising revenue at the Post fell 15 percent. Revenue from the company's online operations, including Washingtonpost.com and Slate, rose 8 percent.
...
Through the first six months of the year, the Post's Sunday circulation is down 6.1 percent. Daily circulation is down 9.3 percent.

One major reason for this decline, next to its warmongering neoconned opinion pages, is a lackluster quality of the Washington Post's reporting. Take for example the opening graph of this piece today in which Karin Brulliard and Joby Warrick and their editors at the Washington Post show their lack of high school level geographical knowledge:

MAFRAQ, Jordan — Hundreds of Syrian refugees slip across the border near here each night with little more than harrowing tales and occasionally grave wounds. For this landlocked and resource-poor kingdom, the newcomers are fueling new economic burdens and worries that the war next door might spread beyond its own frontiers.

Even while (expansively) traveling and writing from a foreign country these reporters are unable to get that country's geography right. They obviously never learned of the Port of Aqaba:

The Port of Aqaba is at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba off the Red Sea in southeast Jordan.
...
Due to its location at the crossroads of trade routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa, the area of Port of Aqaba has been inhabited since at least 4000 BC.
...
In 2008, the Port of Aqaba welcomed over three thousand vessel calls. Of these, 1.8 thousand ships carried passengers, including 103 cruise ships. The remaining 1336 cargo vessels included 362 container vessels and vessels carrying dry bulk (347), liquid bulk (202), roll-on/roll-off cargoes (195), general cargo (93), and miscellaneous cargoes (34). The Port of Aqaba served 1.2 million passengers in 2008. It handled 17 million tons of cargo, including 9.2 million tons of imports and 7.8 million tons of exports.

It is not really astonishing that the Post gets basic geographical and economic facts wrong. Employing journalists like Joby Warrick, who is a basically a stenographer, best known for his know-nothing anti-Iran propaganda and who only probably might one day become a journalist, is a deathtrap for any newspaper.

UDPATE (12:30pm): The Washington Post has now corrected the piece and cut out the "landlocked". But the editors did not have the greatness of leaving a correction remark at the end of it. The piece now says:

MAFRAQ, Jordan — Hundreds of Syrian refugees slip across the border near here each night with little more than harrowing tales and occasionally grave wounds. For this resource-poor kingdom, the newcomers are fueling new economic burdens and worries that the war next door might spread beyond its own frontiers.

In the comments to that piece at the WaPo side at least two readers also called out that "landlocked" mistake. Those commands have not (yet) been deleted. For the record a cut from the screenshot I made of the original piece:

bigger

The full screenshot is available on request.

Posted by b on August 15, 2012 at 04:07 AM | Permalink

Comments
Employing journalists like Joby Warrick, who is a basically a stenographer, best known for his know-nothing anti-Iran propaganda and who only probably might one day become a journalist, is a deathtrap for any newspaper.

Yesterday I watched German (ZDF Huete Journal), Austrian (ZIB 2), France 24 what nonsense is being spread by these channels, what has Syria/Iran ever done to these countries! The ZDF channel was so blatant anti Syrian/Iranian was unbelievable. So it is not only WAPO but most European channels. The exception I think is TeleSur besides being Pro Chavez has a balanced non hysterical approach to news.

Posted by: hans | Aug 15, 2012 5:51:03 AM | 1

well
at least the wapo didnt censor my comments....most of the time.

unlike those *progressive* media such as the guardian, common dreams, alternet , huffpost n *alternate* media like atimes etc. :-(

Posted by: denk | Aug 15, 2012 6:09:13 AM | 2

Yeah the days of the Washington Post breaking the Watergate Scandel are most definately over. Now they cannot even succeed at journalism not to mention investigative journalism. Speaking of failures in journalism:

Mark Thompson, outgoing director general of the BBC, has been named the new president and chief executive of the New York Times. Thompson, who has been director general of the BBC since 2004 said in March that he intended to depart the public broadcaster after the London Olympics. The Guardian revealed in June that he was in talks to join the New York Times.

Soure: The Guardian

Mark Thompson was brought into the BBC in 2004 after Greg Dyke was removed for committing an act of journalism by breaking the Dr David Kelly scandal (David Kelly of course would wind up dead in a forest). In 2005 Mark Thompson met with Ariel Sharon and agreed to make BBC's coverage of Israel more "balanced" in exchange for being allowed to report from Israel again. He called the meeting "building bridges" between Israel and the BBC. Mark Thompson also said the BBC had a "massive leftwing bias".

I'm sure the Zionist hack will find a good home in the New York Times. Hopefully the BBC will be able to appoint someone in possession of two balls and a brain this time around.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 15, 2012 8:09:37 AM | 3

Job vacancy at AlQ. Christians. Shia's need not apply.

Posted by: hans | Aug 15, 2012 8:20:21 AM | 4

An off topic FYI. It seems Paul Woodward of warincontext.org is now censoring comments. I had left a comment on this post two days ago and a follow up comment yesterday asking if it was censored. So far no response. Don't have my original comment anymore.

I'm not trying to knock the man and I understand he doesn't have time to debate every commenter, but still. This is an unfortunate thing to happen to a once strong anti-war website.

Posted by: Lysander | Aug 15, 2012 9:58:35 AM | 5

Encourage folks to take screen prints before posting comments that might be censored.

Posted by: erichwwk | Aug 15, 2012 11:39:14 AM | 6

"Lysander" is the text-book definition of a troll. He posted this comment two hours after I had sent him a long email explaining why I don't post his comments. My email to him began:

A few days ago I wrote a post that I left up for many hours, so I expect you saw it. But as I predicted, the people I was addressing these remarks to were likely to ignore them. I see from your latest comment that you are concerned about avoiding wasting your time writing future comments. It's my time that you've been wasting. Why a number of people have made it their mission to repeatedly say that they find War in Context biased or an unreliable source of information beats me. There are lots of sites that I don't find useful. Having concluded that I don't find a site useful, what do I do? I stop using it!

Posted by: Paul Woodward | Aug 15, 2012 11:47:11 AM | 7

The Washington Post has a long history of cooperation with the CIA, going all the way back to Operation Mockingbird collaborator Philip Graham.

If the Washington Post helped to topple President Nixon, that's because Nixon knew the truth about the JFK assassination and was disliked by the CIA. Why do you think CIA veterans E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and the Cubans made such a sloppy job of the Watergate break-in?

Posted by: lysias | Aug 15, 2012 12:27:50 PM | 8

@Lysander - This is an unfortunate thing to happen to a once strong anti-war website.

When was "war in context" a strong anti-war website? It has, in my view, always been a wilsonian interventionist outlet. Just a mirror image of the neocons. Woodward mainly copy-pastes from various sources without any intellectual work other then selecting them.

Posted by: b | Aug 15, 2012 12:53:24 PM | 9

Lysander and Denk,

Yes, many of the putative "anti-war" sites are simply controlled opposition. I have had a similar experience with the names Denk drops in #2.

Simply look at the way antiwar is 'reporting' on Syria. It has actually helped spread propaganda against the Syrian "regime" and has hidden the facts about the fake videos and psychological operations. One can only assume this group is compromised.

In fact, there are almost no liberal or progressive anti war groups covering Syria this way. All the big names use the same propaganda: they claim the "regime" is evil hide the evidence of Western media propaganda. Even Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, Angry Arab, Josh Landis, antiwar, alternet, Democracy Now, the Guardian, etc., etc.

There is almost no one I trust in the blog or media world.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Aug 15, 2012 12:58:17 PM | 10

Well Paul,

I for one find it useful to hear reports of fake 'anti war' sites. This is a prevailing pattern now; many putative antiwar sites are nothing but controlled opposition.

Erasing comments is an indication someone is hiding something. You wasted a lot more time trying to hide it and defend yourself on this blog than if you would have simply allowed an honest debate.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Aug 15, 2012 1:02:35 PM | 11

The Post's finances are as insignificant as its reportorial credibility. It is today just a small part of the fraud-riddled for-profit "education" behemoth, Kaplan University:

Should The Washington Post Company Be Called The Kaplan University Company?

The Washington Post Company (WPO), as the name suggests, is more than just a newspaper. Most people, understandably so, probably assume that the majority of the company's revenue comes from the newspaper division. It's called the Washington Post Company for crying out loud. However, given that 58% of 'The Washington Post Company's' revenue comes from Kaplan University, perhaps this company should be renamed "The Kaplan University Company."

Posted by: Frank | Aug 15, 2012 2:17:31 PM | 12

@lysias #8,

Good comment.

I too think Watergate was staged. Although I tend to think that Nixon was in on the plot rather than a victim of it. Just listen to the comedy routine, I mean "discussion," when Nixon discusses the criminal plots on the White House recording system. Sounds staged. And as you point out, how could they bungle the break in so badly? A security guard found tape on a door keeping it open and the burglars simply replace the tape and continue with the mission rather than aborting it? So they all got caught? And G. Gordon Liddy was stupid enough to write a check from the official check book?

Nah, fake.

And what did the Pentagon Papers reveal? Not much. Fake event too, imho.

The WaPo ties to intelligence operations goes way back as you note. Check out this new book on the death of of Mary Pinchot Meyer. http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Conspiracy-Kennedy-Pinchot/dp/1616087080 She was married to Cord Meyer who was instrumental in Project Mockingbird. Her sister was married to Ben Bradlee of the WaPo. They were close friends with the Kennedys. Then Mary evidently had an affair with Kennedy and Ben Bradlee and James Angleton of the CIA evidently took Mary Meyer's diary and destroyed it. Tim Leary revealed in a ~1980 book that Mary came to him for LSD and to learn how to turn on powerful men in D.C.

Anyway, to tie all this back together, I believe Nixon, LBJ, and even Kennedy himself were complicit in the "death" of JFK. In fact, I don't believe he died it was most likely a staged mock assassination. A hoax. http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127.html (the best evidence is the blood evidence, or lack of it, imho). JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and maybe even Carter were all probably complicit. Maybe none of them were allowed to serve a full two terms as a condition of being president.

So I think the JFK assassination, Watergate, and the Pentagon Papers were all likely staged events.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Aug 15, 2012 2:44:35 PM | 13

@walter "The Hungry Arab" is a wimpy PC. blowhard but has at least called a spade a spade when it comes to FSA atrocity and western meddling. This is more than I can say for the fully loathsome Lenin's Tomb who will retroactively delete comments that have a high like number and arent jargon filled dialectic exchanges that dilute what could be said concisely. Also he's a dick.

Posted by: demize! | Aug 15, 2012 2:46:36 PM | 14

Another Intel Scoop by Richard Silverstein...Bibi’s Secret War Plan...

Posted by: CTuttle | Aug 15, 2012 6:26:52 PM | 15

Walter....

Antiwar.com, however, clearly has a non-interventionist message for the U.S.-- so unless someone shows me wrong,which would involve demonstrating an equivocal stance on same, as regards Syria for example, i.e. publishing a balance of material which would create even a slight attitude of conditional pro-intervention, the harm is minimal.

This is not to suggest that antiwar.com should not balance its Syrian reporting with pieces which,
for example, outline the Amer-israel seeming strategy of weakening the Iranian-Syrian
rejectionist front. If they do not, it is certainly worthy of criticism in this regard.

Posted by: amspirnational | Aug 15, 2012 6:35:00 PM | 16

I stopped reading and posting at War in Context, since he does not publish my comments either.

It is a waste of time.

Posted by: Susan | Aug 15, 2012 6:37:08 PM | 17

I see that the BeeB were quick to slander the messenger...! 8-(

Leaked Israel memo: propaganda or Iran war plan?

Posted by: CTuttle | Aug 15, 2012 6:53:29 PM | 18

@ Walt Wit Man

You are making me seriously doubt that you have even read some of the sites you claim to be Western propaganda on Syria. I mean really, you think The Angry Arab is "Western propaganda on Syria"? I have gotten more information on the FSA's crimes from the Angry Arab blog than ANY news site hands down. Glenn Greenwald hasn't written anything really on Syria but is one of the most honest journalists in America and has solidly stood against US militarism and manipulations.

I read Anti-War.com every day as well I found that they have generally been taking no sides. They have reported on Jihadist groups in Syria from the beginning and don't shy away from FSA crimes and opposing US plans and also rightly highlight any of Assad's crimes as well. Also on the Guardian, Yes it is editorially biased and has performed really bad on Syria. But some reporting from Journalists there has been good Johnathan Steele for instance and Tariq Ali from the Comment is Free section. The Guardian doesn't speak with one voice even though the editors voice is loudest.

@ War In Context/Paul Woodward

I've decided to take Paul Woodward's advice in his previous email to me. I've stopped using it and won't be mentioning it again. In his last comment he asked "Why a number of people have made it their mission to repeatedly say that they find War in Context biased or an unreliable source of information beats me." Speaking for myself, its because I found it to be a great resource over many years, a resource worth fighting for.

On that note, George Galloway talked about how the Syria crisis has divided many in the Anti-War/Revolutionary/Leftist camp. His 45 minute talk on Syria is below and gives an almost identical view of the situation to mine.

Source: Youtube

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 15, 2012 7:58:19 PM | 19

@Colm Im far to lazy to find the links for you but there are super mega threads over at Maidic O'Caithil's Passionate Attachment regarding Antiwar's duplicitous reportage re Syria and Libya. It echoed some of the back and forth here as well with the same representitive; a self affirmed "Zionist". It really began with Sibel Edmond asking that she be removed from their masthead or whatever if they would not correct some consistent inaccuracies, mainly by Jason Ditz. There is a pattern or template here.

Posted by: demize! | Aug 15, 2012 8:23:01 PM | 20

I agree with many of the "anti-war" comments here, and find Paul W's site not biased, frankly it's too broad in scope to be called that. But, his support of Libya was the last straw for me. I think I agree with Colm most. My question is about "Comment Is Free" I'm a Firefox user, and just going over to the Guardian site locked up FF. Any tips? I "unplugged" Adobe, and it's worked wonders for most sites, but any advice would be appreciated. I love me some Glenn Greenwald, who nobly supported Chik-Fil-A's president's right to speak out. I stopped going to Chik-Fil-A as I'm leery of the Christofascists, being from Dallas, I know them too well. Again, any tips on the Guardian site would be deeply appreciated.

You gotta love you some b. I skeptical anyone is always right, and I've challenged him a bit, but he's got an incredible track record.

Posted by: scottindallas | Aug 15, 2012 8:43:04 PM | 21

@ scott

That's weird that you can't get onto the Guardian without it locking up its not even a flash heavy site. A few suggestions:

- Clear Browser Cache: On Firefox (Click Tools - Down to Options - Click Advanced Tab - Network Tab - Clear Now) if that fails...

- Disable Addons: (Click Tools - Addons - Disable Addons and Try it then) Could be a clash with one addon.

- All else fails try downloading a second brower (Chrome or Safari) should work then.

Otherwise make sure firefox is up to date. Could be a problem with your firewall might try disabling it for a few minutes. I've found sometimes the good old CTRL+ALT+DEL can unlock frozen pages.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 15, 2012 9:11:35 PM | 22

Colm O'Toole thanks for a sensible response to Walter Wit Man. Abu Khalil (Angry Arab) has a perfectly rational response to the the Syrian uprising. He obviously opposes the current regime, supports opposition movements against it but will definitely not endorse the Salafi led militias that lead the opposition. Antiwar.com is totally consistent in its opposition to having the US intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations. There is no chance in hell that antiwar.com would become a partisan backer of the despicable Assad regime. Same with Glen Greenwald.

This criticism reminds me of a number of antiwar campaigns that I have been involved in over the last 3 decades. Usually it comes from the prowar right. Remember the mind numbing argument "Oh, so you oppose going to war against Iraq, that must mean that you support Saddam Hussein" or "You oppose the war against Serbia, that means you must be a Milosovic supporter" or [I could go on, most of you know the story].

Posted by: ToivoS | Aug 15, 2012 10:41:38 PM | 23

C O'toole @ 19: Thanks for the Galloway/you tube video. Well worth hearing, and spot on.

Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2012 1:04:18 AM | 24

@toivos Youre second paragraph contradicts your first one. Are there qoutes missing? Funny because that is exactly the response critics of Antiwar have gotten from their staff. And I dont understand this reflexive lionizing of Glenn Greenwald. He is a left gatekeeper and will eventually "reluctantly endorse" Obama because Romney is just to horrid to contemplate. C'mon this crew is too smart not to see through his bullshit.

Posted by: demize! | Aug 16, 2012 2:56:31 AM | 25

thanks Colm, brand new computer 2 days, brand new FF. I do have do not track, perhaps that's screwing me up, I didn't try disabling add-ons and closing FF, nor clearing the cache.

Posted by: scottindallas | Aug 16, 2012 10:12:17 AM | 26

Good Galloway, thanks.

He expresses that ‘it is a genuine revolution’, right. He doesn’t mention that tolerance for minorities in Syria springs from the fact that the Alawites were, are, themselves, a minority. Not that that is very important, or a fault, but he went overboard a bit about Christians, etc. Imho.

Walter, some things are just what they seem. Ppl are embedded in their jobs, cultural contexts, etc. and the Angry Arab, is just that, Angry with everyone, as for the Arab part, it can be discussed. He is a US U professor, with tenure, which typically affords speech of the outraged type, but not *any kind* of political commitment or even vague stance, not to mention proposals, and specifically never the denial of hyper-memes (Holocaust, 9/11, evil regimes, more, etc.)

His anger is very much in line with US/western values, particularly feminist, which garners him a huge following. Perhaps this is not useful, or boring, or evidences some need for personal hubris, some position on the intertubes (but not world) stage, that might be the bad part. The good part is the info he gives out. I see no reason to presume he is insincere. 


Posted by: Noirette | Aug 16, 2012 1:18:29 PM | 27

I'll not link it, but since we are discussing antiwar sites...for anyone who wants to go there, Pat Lang's turcopolier.typepad.com ran a post on Aug 2 on a story featuring a man Lang correctly calls "the staff intelligence flunky for Rumsfeld in the Pentagon," Steven Cambone's claim that Iraq "would be seen as a triumph of strategy" "realigning the ME" to America's benefit.

Siteowner Pat Lang, who has banned me, nevertheless snidely and accurately pointed out
Iraq's government had just refused to turn over to the US and instead freed a Hezbollah commander who has been accused by the US of playing a role in killing US troops.

But the mystery to me is Lang deleted after letting stand for a day, a comment from an astute
and eloquent commentor blaming Barack Obama for such as Cambone feeling free to express such views. The commentor said it was Obama's "refusal to pronounce on the duplicity, destruction, ethical corruption and sheer obtuseness of what was done in Iraq" which opened the door for Cambone's justifications.

Instead, the commentor said, Obama adopted a "let's all be nice together" attitude and forget about yesterday's "muggings in the schoolyard."

The commentor accused Obama of "irresponsibly continuing pointless wars, national policy driven by hubris."

I wonder if Lang deleted this comment without comment because he objected to the US being portrayed as
committing a mugging (actually the invasion was much worse than a mugging) or if perhaps he believed criticism of Obama on this account played into the hands of supposedly even more dangerous Romney forces.

Nevertheless it is a fact Obama ultimately praised the war to the troops and nation he had supposedly opposed and he neutered the Left which had wanted war crimes trials by Obama's failing to even pressure for what Blair at least got in the UK, which wasn't much.

The commentor correctly portrayed Obama as "denying the public an accounting of Iraq" and
said O was even participating in "courting war with Iran on similarly duplicitous grounds."

Eloquent-and deleted-- by Col. Lang.

Posted by: amspirnational | Aug 16, 2012 2:29:57 PM | 28

Just a PS. there are more subtle and sophisticated methods for a site to play to a meme of intervention without saying "we are reversing our anti-interventionist stance in this one case". You report on the establishment line That "The Assad Regime" are commiting atrocities,so are the FSA. The "Assad Regime" is sectarian,so are the FSA but not so much. You downplay the mercenary nature of the armed cadres. You negate that there is no real popular resistance, and insist that there is. Whatever will play to your particular niche audience. Socialist: FSA are a genuine proletariat reaction to Baathist dictatorship. Libertarian: the regime is anti liberty and free markets or something. Left/Liberal: ZOMG! think of the children, You get my drift?

Posted by: demize! | Aug 16, 2012 5:12:04 PM | 29

"You get my drift?"

No, not really. Try again. Define "you" is this time, please.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Aug 16, 2012 6:45:55 PM | 30

"No, not really. Try again. Define "you" is this time, please." Is English a second language for you? Because by the construction of the above sentence I can see why you wouldn't understand it.

Posted by: demize! | Aug 16, 2012 8:21:28 PM | 31

Maybe you are in earnest, if so I apologize. The "you" would be the nominal anti-interventionist site who has a hidden agenda in propagandizing for the removal of the targeted regime. It would be the corralling of consent to a subsection of the population who might be a deterrent to carrying out that policy. IMO Democracy Now! is a perfect example of this technique.

Posted by: demize! | Aug 16, 2012 8:28:21 PM | 32

Thank you for your clarification, demize. I certainly wasn't happy with your first response because I WAS in earnest.

(The web can be a constricting communicator, can't it?)

BTW, I agree with your assessment of Democracy Now. Wholeheartedly.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Aug 16, 2012 11:22:30 PM | 33

wwm 10

i think im also persona non grata on pcr's site
im tempted to add ich to the list, posting there is like a pain in the ass these days
funny eh, i got many thumps up recommends posting in wapo or bi etc, but cant even post in all these *progressive* media ?

cot 19
*Also on the Guardian, Yes it is editorially biased and has performed really bad on Syria. But some reporting from Journalists there has been good Johnathan Steele for instance and Tariq Ali from the Comment is Free section. The Guardian doesn't speak with one voice even though the editors voice is loudest. *

as if that isnt bad enough
its cardinal sin .....censoring dissenting voice.
my personal experience.

*But some reporting from Journalists there has been good Johnathan Steele for instance*

u could even find good stuff in right wind rags like wnd , freerepublic etc some time
would u call them reliable source then ?
a site should be judged by its s/n ratio, [hubris called it signal to bs ratio]
anything less than 50/50 sucks
any site less than 40/60 is suspect

thus,
wdn, freerepublic etc = 10/90
ich = 80/20
[but it really sucks ever since changing to intensedebate
posts got dissappeared, blocked etc ]
guardian = 25/75 :-(

so they dont call guardian *zio controlled* for nothing !

demize! 25
*C'mon this crew is too smart not to see through his bullshit.*

moa idiolise wiki
s/n = 5/95 :-(
yikes !

Posted by: denk | Aug 16, 2012 11:23:56 PM | 34

Noirette @ 32 (previous thread) says, "The "you" would be the nominal anti-interventionist site who has a hidden agenda in propagandizing for the removal of the targeted regime. It would be the corralling of consent to a subsection of the population who might be a deterrent to carrying out that policy. IMO Democracy Now! is a perfect example of this technique."

I agree with you whole gist in this and your previous longer post; Amy Goodman is the gate-keeper par excellence - of that there is no doubt. But I'm thinkin', hasn't the American polity so degenerated beyond the point of even requiring "the corralling of consent to a subsection of the population who might be a deterrent to carrying out that policy". Not that the manufacturing of consent does not continue to go on unabated; it's just that it has reached such absurd proportions (as in the nicely named "hyper-memes" of your previous post), and millions and even tens of millions see right through it, but it seems that the Borg has taken over so completely, like some resident evil virus, that the situation is just beyond all that. Just thinkin' out loud.

And I think that if there is substance to what I am musing about, there is a clue to the problem in your excellent observation where you make the distinction between an abstract critique and a principled *commitment*: "He [Anger] is a US U professor, with tenure, which typically affords speech of the outraged type, but not *any kind* of political commitment or even vague stance." Excellent.

Whenever I engage in dialogue with my fellow Iranian so-called "Greens", which is not very often, alhamdullah, I whisper in their deaf ears that it is not so much that your candidate simply lost the election and that yours is simply a case of sour grapes, but that "democracy", *participatory* democracy, that is, is about participation, which is about [an ideological i.e. religious (in the broad sense of the word)] *commitment*. We (I whisper) are committed to our cause to the extent that we gather every Friday, without fail, for group worship and prayer, and on Thursday nights too. We gave hundreds of martyrs in the lead up to the triumph of the revolution. What did *you* give? What is your collective commitment, other than to [enter the liberal meme of choice, each of which will be different for each of the multiple personalities of each liberal]? It is not the *number* of votes and voters, when all is said and done, so much as the collective commitment of a group of individuals, I conclude for the benefit of my deaf audience, some of whom are slow of wit as well.

And so, the point of this post, I guess, is to point out to the good people of this site, that there is a group of *committed* individuals (the 1% of the 1%), and unless you can get a level of commitment on a par with their evil (which you will never be able to do absent God), then you are in a similar position to the "Greenies".

As Aristotle would formulate it: Without commitment, all is lost; the Left is incapable of commitment; therefore, the Left is lost.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Aug 17, 2012 12:07:09 AM | 35

What a brilliant analysis. Eid Mubarak!

Posted by: demize! | Aug 17, 2012 1:31:02 AM | 36

The comments to this entry are closed.