Radosh.net

...the shift in power that actually occurred between the election and, what, eight days later when the fake NYT hit, was tremendous. Already, Chicagoans were like, “New York? Why should I care?"

Yeah, Chicagoans started saying that in like 1890.

Here's another thing that bugs me: Writers who think "bemused" is just a classier way to say "amused." It's pretty clear that this writer is in that class, and that Anne Elizabeth Moore is either right there with him or didn't want to call him out on it:

Were you surprised by the Times’ public bemusement to the project? How has their legal/non-official response to the project differed from their public front?

AEM: No, of course they had to go along with the joke

Bemusement has nothing to do with going along with jokes. That's amusement. Bemusment is bewilderment, confusion. If you can't wrangle the relative subtleties of "bemuse," there's a perfectly serviceable word, "amuse," that will suit your purpose.

Twelve years ahead of you, pal.

Also: they had to go along with the joke

But didn't you get the memo: Fake NYT wasn't a joke, it was a call to, um, something. Humor is the opiate of the masses.

I'm sorry, you have this one way wrong. I was at all those interminable meetings at your college, and this would not have been the result. The result would have been some sort of statement about how the election doesn't really change the reality of American imperialism, hegemony, domination of oppressed peoples, etc., etc.

Than again, for some reason we were excited when Clinton was elected....

Lawrence "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that" Summers is a real catch.

Dude, did you mean to use the same link twice? If so, I'm not getting that second one. It's somewhat bemusing, where I had expected amusing.