Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Humiliatingly small and eclipsed by the derision of millions.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

The lights are all blinking red.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

Today’s gop: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

“Alexa, change the president.”

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

People are weird.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

You are here: Home / Stranger Than Fiction

Reader Interactions

86Comments

  3. 3.

    max

    The Daily Currant’s front page

    Black or red? I like the red stuff slightly better myself.

    max
    [‘And that stuff is hard to acquire, unlike WaPo screwups.’]

  5. 5.

    patroclus

    I know it says something bad about our failed media experiment, but then again, the actual headline “Sarah Palin nominated for Vice-President” was real as was “Bush starts War based upon Bald-Faced WMD lies.”

  6. 6.

    PeakVT

    I don’t know how I got suckered into reading a TNR article, but nonetheless:

    When you look at the economic recovery’s first two years, the top one percent … captured 121 percent of all pre-tax income gains.

  8. 8.

    Seanly

    It’s getting too easy to troll the stenographer media…

    OT, but Senate passed the expanded violence against women act.

  9. 9.

    Poopyman

    I caught a bit of CNN on the way out to lunch about somebody hacking into a Montana TV station, setting off the emergency broadcast alarm, and informing viewers that zombies were roaming the streets. The reporter seemed a bit lost as to how to approach the story but Suzanne Malveaux was highly amused.

    Kind OT, but in keeping with the satire-as-news topic.

  10. 10.

    Anoniminous

    The high standards of WaPo are again made manifest.

    (By “high” I mean “totally baked on pot.”)

  12. 12.

    Zifnab25

    @PeakVT:

    captured 121 percent of all pre-tax income gains.

    … carry the one… divide by three… take the derivative… nope, that does not make a lick of sense.

  13. 13.

    patroclus

    @PeakVT: Even if it is the in-flight magazine of AF1, it’s a huge mistake to read TNR articles – I finally learned that after reading one-too-many Michael Kelly jeremiads about the tremendously corrupt RON BROWN’S COMMERCE DEPARTMENT!

  14. 14.

    Matthew Reid krell

    @Zifnab25: Sure it does. It means that the bottom 99% had a net loss in pre-tax income over the first two years of the recovery.

    In other words, what we already knew: the recovery is only for those whose wealth comes from wealth. If you work for a living, you get nothing.

  15. 15.

    Anoniminous

    @PeakVT:

    Percentages. How do they f—ing work?

    Jeebus gawd almighty. Is Tuesday becoming national “Take Out the Stupid” day?

  17. 17.

    PeakVT

    @Zifnab25: the 1% drank the same amount of milkshakes as the previous year, plus all of the new milkshakes, plus a bit of the milkshakes that were designated for everybody else.

    ETA: And now I’m hungry and I don’t even have a milkshake. Dammit.

  18. 18.

    David Hunt

    @Zifnab25:

    Unfortunately, it actually does make sense. You have to have 21% negative income gains (i.e. losses) in the other categories outside the 1%.

  19. 19.

    David in NY

    I have seen people on Facebook, and even occasional commenters on blogs like this, unknowingly linking to the Daily Currant. But the WaPo? C’mon!

    People playing the Google sometimes hit The Onion and believe what they see. I heard an interview with a couple of the Onionites recounting an incident in which many people took the headline “Study Shows Sudden Infant Crib Death the Fault of Parents” quite seriously. I must say I thought there was a smidgen of remorse in their account. Or maybe that was just the reflection of how awful I thought that was.

  21. 21.

    mdblanche

    @Poopyman: You betcha.

    @David in NY: You seem to be assuming that a bunch of people who had the same college major as Sarah Palin are smarter and savvier about things on the internet than people on Facebook and commenters on blogs like this. I don’t understand why you would do that.

  26. 26.

    ? Martin

    Ok. The 121% is indeed stupid:

    When you look at the economic recovery’s first two years, the top one percent … captured 121 percent of all pre-tax income gains.

    The word gains describes the income above previous levels. It cannot exceed 100%. Further, the only way that the top 1% could capture 100% of the gains is for not one person in the 99% to have a rise in income.

    You can say that the top one percent captured 90% of the pre-tax income gains, plus an additional 31% in income taken from other workers in the economy. That’s unwieldily, but it also sound redistributive toward the 1%, which it is, but that breaks the narrative, so we can’t say that.

  33. 33.

    jibeaux

    Someone at the WaPo read an article quoting Sarah Palin as saying Al-Jazeera told her they reach millions of devoutly religious people, so she knew they didn’t have a liberal bias, and they RAN with that?
    I understand that news organizations employ “fact checkers”, although I am uncertain at what point in the process they come into it. Washington Post, I hereby announce that am available for contract hire as a Snark Detector. I can provide some excellent and many mediocre references from Balloon Juice.

  34. 34.

    taylormattd

    So basically, the Washington Post is now one of my facebook friends, posting Daily Currant stories.

  40. 40.

    La Caterina (Mrs. Johannes)

    @jeffreyw: What’s that thing around her neck? It looks awfully big for a collar.

    Sorry she has not decided to repatriate herself yet.

  44. 44.

    replicnt6

    @? Martin:

    I can’t agree. Let’s say there was a net gain across all income levels of $1B. And the top 1% had a gain of $1.21B, I think it would be reasonable to say that they captured 121% of the gains. This would not mean that no one in the lower 99% had gains. Just that their gains were offset by losses in the 99% (and then some).

  45. 45.

    geg6

    @Poopyman:

    I swear, it’s The Onion’s world and we’re all just living in it.

    And can I just say once again, FYWP and when is the site relaunch? I’m deathly sick of typing, re-typing, and re-re-typing my name and email.

  46. 46.

    Suffern ACE

    @? Martin: O.K. If We took the current 1% and elimiated them in a revolution, could I expect a 31% raise of some sort. So If I received a $5,000 raise last year, would I recieve an extra 1,550 just by sending the 1% into exile?

  49. 49.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    @mdblanche:

    You seem to be assuming that a bunch of people who had the same college major as Sarah Palin are smarter and savvier about things on the internet than people on Facebook and commenters on blogs like this. I don’t understand why you would do that.

    I think it is about time we dusted off the old Wall Street saying about “If you look around the room and don’t know who the sucker is…” and adapted it for the new media:

    “If you look around on the internet and don’t know who is being trolled, the answer is: it’s you.”

  53. 53.

    jc

    I love that photo of Palin posing with a newspaper and “reading” it with a smug ‘take that, liberals’ look on her mug. “A thimbleful of talent in an ocean of ambition,” as Mick Jagger once said about Madonna.

  54. 54.

    JPL

    @Maude: nbclosangeles.com says a gun fire is occurring now. Donner had tied two in their cabin and one got loose and called 911.

  57. 57.

    Anoniminous

    @Maude:

    According to the LA Times:

    Christopher Dorner was engaged in a shootout with federal authorities in the Big Bear area Tuesday, a law enforcement source told The Times.

    The shooting occurred after Dorner burglarized a home, tied up a couple and stole their car, the source said.

    It is not clear if Dorner is in custody.

  58. 58.

    Trollhattan

    @JPL:

    a. I hope they catch him alive so he has to face the families of those he killed.
    II. I hope he’s caught on video yelling, “You’ll never take me alive, coppers!”

    Never got out of Big Bear–I’m surprised.

  59. 59.

    dmsilev

    Oh my. Go over to TPM and read their live coverage of the Hagel hearing/committee vote. Crazy man Cruz has gone full-out McCarthyite, saying that Hagel might have taken money from ‘radical or extreme groups’. Bill Nelson called Cruz an asshole to his face. Inhofe ups the crazy by saying that Hagel was endorsed by Iran.

    Coming up soon, John McCain hits someone with a chair.

  60. 60.

    Maude

    @JPL:
    Just checked news sites, nothing more is known except for the shoot out. LA Times is silent right now.
    Roads in the area are blocked off.

  63. 63.

    JPL

    @Maude: There’s a live stream and at this point, a lot of speculation. The news media said at least one officer down and possibly two.

  66. 66.

    JPL

    Cruz said Hagel possibly took money from enemies and Nelson called him on it. Nelson said he impugned Hagel’s patriotism and Cruz said I did not… I feel bad for Senator Levin.

  67. 67.

    dmsilev

    @JPL: Cruz is just a weak-ass bully trying to cover up his bullying. From TPM’s coverage, here’s what Cruz said:

    We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups. In my view, given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference, I think, is when they assembled it, there was something in there that they did not want to make public. It may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups or anti-israel groups and accepted financial compensation. We don’t know.

    “Maybe he was paid to give speeches to radical groups. I’m just asking. But heavens forbid you think I’m impugning his patriotism”. Jackass.

  69. 69.

    Trollhattan

    @Maude:

    We definitely don’t nees a new martyr and I’m leery of him becoming just that if he’s not put on trial. Whatever his beef(s) committing premeditated murder puts him in the same cesspool as McVeigh, Jones, et al.

  70. 70.

    Maude

    @dmsilev:
    I don’t recall this ever happening before in a confirmation meeting.
    I wish the Senate would come down hard on Cruz. He is jeopardizing the entire Senate’s credibility.

  71. 71.

    JPL

    @dmsilev: I’m alternating between Cspan and nbclosangeles.. Cruz was insulted by Nelson because he would never question Hagel’s patriotism.. Haha..

    Levin should have asked him whether he knows the meaning of patriotism… I can’t believe Levin let him speak again

  73. 73.

    Full Metal Wingnut

    I dunno, ex-cop or no, cop killing is generally unspoken carte blanche for extreme police brutality, moreso than usual. I hope they take him alive, but beat the piss out of him.

  74. 74.

    Full Metal Wingnut

    I dunno, ex-cop or no, cop killing is generally unspoken carte blanche for extreme police brutality, moreso than usual. I hope they take him alive, but beat the piss out of him.

  76. 76.

    Full Metal Wingnut

    I take that back. I’d just be satisfied if they lock his ass up in San Quentin and throw away the key.

  77. 77.

    Trollhattan

    BTW, anybody in the Southland owning a white (or yellow, gray, light blue, ecru, silver…) pick-em-up should park that sled in the garage until this guy is in the slam or in a box. Nomsayn?

  78. 78.

    JPL

    14 ayes, 11 no… waiting on Vitter for ten minutes… I’m shocked that not one republican voted for Hagel.

  79. 79.

    Maude

    Sheriffs Office say 2 officers shot.
    KNBC is doing a live show on this. It makes an entertainment program. Why don’t they just wait until there is real news?
    This is like the highway chase “news” shows.

  81. 81.

    Full Metal Wingnut

    I’m usually very skeptical and critical of the police, but hats off to those guys and gals who are having to capture this guy. Those guys Dorner just injured in a shootout, mad respect. Someone’s got to try to capture the occasional guy going postal, and I’m sure glad it’s not my Wingnut neighbor.

  82. 82.

    mdblanche

    @JPL: I feel bad for Senator Levin.

    I don’t. Levin took a leading role in torpedoing filibuster reform and gave the Republicans the green light to start attacking Hagel for failing to prove he wasn’t being paid by Iran. Frankly, I’m still not convinced he actually wants Hagel to be confirmed.

  84. 84.

    ? Martin

    @japa21:

    This top 1% has 121% of total income gains.

    You cannot have 121% of a fixed amount. The total income gains was $x. They cannot have more than that amount. Period.

    Now, the income of the top 1% could increase 121% relative to the entire payroll expansion since 2008. That would be fine. That doesn’t mean they took even 100% of those gains though. These are measures of subtly different things.

    Put another way, I come to your house for dinner. There are four pies. I eat two of those pies plus a third pie that I brought with me. I didn’t eat 75% of your pies. I ate 50% of your pies plus 100% of my pies.

    By saying I ate 75% of your pies implies that everyone else at the party only got to eat 1 pie, which isn’t true. They got to eat two of them. If I ate all of the pies, I didn’t eat 125% of the pies. I ate 100% of your pies plus 100% of my pies. You could say I ate 125% as much pie as was provided by the host, which implies I added at least 25% from some other source, or possibly more.

    Part of the point of statistics is to provide the reader with information from which they can infer certain things. We can say that the top 1% made a lot more money than the rest of us from this recovery, but we can’t with any certainty how much. We can be reasonably sure that they didn’t take 100% of the recovery plus 21%. Somewhere below the 1% was another winner group. Somewhere below them was a group that lost a LOT more than 21%. They could have presented this in a way in that allowed us to draw conclusions, but the way they stated it is simply wrong.

  85. 85.

    Bill Murray

    @? Martin:

    You cannot have 121% of a fixed amount. The total income gains was $x. They cannot have more than that amount. Period.

    Of course you can. The sum total of all gains of each individual is the fixed amount. The gain of any individual within the group is not subject to the limit of the total group because gains can be either positive or negative.

    Let’s consider a simple 10 person group made of people having a job that pays $21. Eight of these people keep their job but get no raise, contribution to the total sum is zero. One person loses his job which subtracts $21 from the total. One person gets a new job that pays her $142 for a gain to the total of $121. Thus, the total gain is $100, but the person that changed jobs gained 121% of the total gain.

Comments are closed.