Boston Globe Condescension

Why do New Englanders read the Globe. Read below to see the elites at the Globe condescend on 60,000 Patriots fans after their opening night game against the Raiders.

And we got remotes of rapper Kanye West and pop rockers Maroon 5 from a generic-looking, red-white-and-blue stage in Los Angeles.

Maroon 5 came off vapidly (doing just one song, ''Harder to Breathe"), while West did one tune, ''Heard 'Em Say." Yet it was DISCONCERTING to hear his name booed loudly by Patriots fans who evidently didn't appreciate his nationally televised comment the other night on a Hurricane Katrina benefit that President Bush ''doesn't care about black people." The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number.

Why couldn’t the Globe just report what happened? Why did they have to editorialize the booing with “DISCONCERTING”?

The answer is because they just can’t help themselves. They are unabashed elitists.

And before anyone claims that that the “disconcerting” jibe was but the work of one journalist (Steve Morse), I want to remind them that this article passed the scrutiny of the editors. “Disconcerting” was a deliberate potshot at the fans, 65% of whom probably voted against President Bush (if they reflect the general population in Massachusetts).

Just imagine what the Globe thinks of the other 35%.

(Also, ABC didn't broadcast any of the booing - don't think that was accidental.)


(click to enlarge this funny looting warning.)

One quick note about Hurricane Katrina, "racism", and President Bush.

You hear this flawed reasoning all of the time, "many African-Americans are poor, so anything that hurts poor people is an act of racism...."

So it was no surprise that the televised images of Katrina in New Orleans brought out all of the race hustlers such as newbie Kanye West and his claim that "Bush doesn't care about black people."

Well Bill O'Reilly slammed that claim in his Talking Points Memo last night.

The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

What would rappers and guys like Evan Thomas say about President Bush if he had actually cut poverty entitlements?

So instead of a dialogue on the effectiveness of entitlement spending, the "alternative" media has to spend its energy debunking fallacious claims, another example of the Ills of a Media Duopoly.

It is also worth noting that the poverty rate is dropping, despite the constant raising of the bar by the poverty industry.

The chasm between reality and what Big Media reports is astounding.