brandondawson.org

I think you can officially lump the Washington Post into the “biased corporate media” category, with this inane anti-fluff piece by Dana Milbank.

Let’s say you’re preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don’t have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?

Here’s how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:

The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. “Now it’s time to buy some food,” she told several hundred people who came to watch. “Let’s shop!”

The piece, which made it to Drudge about five seconds later, makes a big show of pointing out the higher costs one can often find at a farmer’s market: Continue reading…

The term “Czar”, as applied to American politics, lost its meaning a long time ago, but has nonetheless generally represented a common shorthand term for “official appointed to oversee and advise Presidents on particular issues”. Until now, apparently.

Yglesias hits the nail on the head here:

If Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to claim that “A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as ‘czars’” then fine. Maybe she’s ignorant, or maybe she’s a huge liar. Either way, Amanda Terkel points out that this is completely false. There are zero officials in the Obama administration who lack formal titles and are simply known as czars. She’s totally wrong. Completely and utterly. Is she careless? Is she dishonest? Honestly, I don’t care.

On the other hand, I do care. But only insomuch as I’m disturbed that the use of the term “czar” has actually, some-damned-how, become an issue unto itself.

That said, this preposterous “czar” debate serves to illustrate, very effectively, some of the inherent problems with the mainstream media and the politics of the present era, and while I started writing this post as just a quickie, me-too affirmation of Yglesias’ post, I wound up reaching a much different, and much more satisfying conclusion as to what this silly “czar” dust-up actually represents: one more death cry of old media and old politics.

Continue reading…