Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Calls For Killing Republicans

Pulitzer Prize Winning Detroit Free Press Journalist, Stephen Henderson 

[From article]
The editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press, the largest newspaper in Michigan and the largest city newspaper owned by Gannett, has called for the murder of Michigan GOP state legislators for the “crime” of voting to fund charter schools. Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist has the shocking details:
[Monday] Michigan’s Republican legislators voted to bail out Detroit’s abysmally run schools with $617 million in taxpayer funding. The same bill also fought efforts to constrain charter school choices in Detroit. Prior to the vote, Stephen Henderson wrote on his editorial page:
We really ought to round up the lawmakers who took money to protect and perpetuate the failing charter-school experiment in Detroit, sew them into burlap sacks with rabid animals, and toss them into the Straits of Mackinac.
After noting that charter school advocates support charter schools, he doubled down on the violent rhetoric:
[From Henderson's twitter feed]
It is every bit deserving of an old-school retributive response.

A sack. An animal. A lake.

No lover of actual democracy could weep at that outcome.
If there were any doubt about his call for life-ending violence, he tweeted out the editorial with these comments:
[. . .]
In my opinion, Henderson has crossed a serious line. Gannett should fire him immediately. Pulitzer never acknowledges its errors and so can’t be expected to revoke his prize. After all, they awarded a Pulitzer to Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow correspondent who collaborated with the Stalinist regime in covering up the deliberately induced famine in Ukraine and other crimes.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/pulitzer_prizewinning_editorial_page_editor_calls_for_murder_of_gop_legislators.html

June 8, 2016
Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor calls for murder of GOP legislators
By Thomas Lifson

Plagiarism of Pulitzer Prize Winner Exposed

[From article]
The trouble began when Ross passed the piece along to the fact-checker assigned to the story. As Ross and the fact-checker began working through the material, they discovered that sections of Hedges’s draft appeared to have been lifted directly from the work of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter named Matt Katz, who in 2009 had published a four-part series on social and political dysfunction in Camden.
Given Hedges’s institutional pedigree, this discovery shocked the editors at Harper’s. Hedges had been a star foreign correspondent at the Times, where he reported from war zones and was part of the team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for covering global terrorism. In 2002, he had received the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He is a fellow at the Nation Institute. He has taught at Princeton University and Columbia University. He writes a weekly column published in the widely read progressive website Truthdig and frequently republished on the Truthout website. He is the author of twelve books, including the best-selling American Fascists.
[. . .]
“Plutarch said that little details reveal the character of the man. If Hedges was found in a small matter to have further compounded his dishonesty, it makes you wonder about more important matters.” 

The reaction is like the O.J. Simpson syndrome. He's so prominent he can't be found guilty of a crime.   

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118114/chris-hedges-pulitzer-winner-lefty-hero-plagiarist

The Troubling Case of Chris Hedges
Pulitzer winner. Lefty hero. Plagiarist.
By Christopher Ketcham
June 12, 2014

Elite Refuse to Recognize Excellence

"The Enquirer did more than scoop the planet. It shielded the populace from a blow-dried cretin and his enabling, cancer-stricken wife. The journalistic establishment now has a chance to reward the Enquirer with its loftiest prize. It won't."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/robs_from_not_poor_rich_and_gives_3VbdC55x2MqceXv3ZhkadI/1

Enquiring minds are cheated out of Pulitzer

Robs from not-so-rich and gives to not-so-poor

New York Post

Last Updated: 7:14 AM, January 28, 2010

Posted: 3:06 AM, January 28, 2010

Paying New York's extortionate rent -- a preoccupation bordering on obsession for millions of city dwellers -- just got crazier.<p> </p><br> And for that, you can thank a loony lefty activist in a black robe. Let's give a big hand to meddling Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman (right). She's a lady who's bent on ensuring that the savviest and best-connected New Yorkers continue to enjoy insanely cheap rents, while you and I get screwed.<p> </p><br> Rent regulation has long chipped away at the city's quality of life. It has ensured that millionaire Rep. Charles Rangel enjoyed four -- yes, four -- reduced-price luxury apartments that are the envy of Harlem. That is, until he was forced to give up just one.<p> </p><br> To explain the turmoil inflicted by Justice Goodman, I need only look back at my first rental in this city, an exercise in acute urban frustration. Then, I paid $900 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. My upstairs neighbor paid $300.<p> </p><br> "Rent control!" my landlord muttered. With those two words, he told me that my rent was destined to climb at a dizzying pace, while my neighbor, a lawyer with a grown daughter who couldn't be removed from her mother's place without a crowbar, would pay the monthly equivalent of dinner for four.<p> </p><br> On Monday, Justice Goodman tried to make sure that these maddening inequities continue well into the future. She declared that some 300,000 New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized apartments were paying too much.<p> </p><br> She ordered rent reductions. And hundreds of millions in rebates for these lucky folks.<p> </p><br> How did this happen?<p> </p><br> It's no surprise that the ruling was made by Justice Goodman. What's surprising is how -- or why -- she keeps her job.<p> </p><br> Back in 1999, the judge changed from a jurist to a crusader for the downtrodden. She awarded tens of thousands of dollars to homeless AIDS sufferers. Why? Because the city was unprepared to meet their housing needs for a single night.<p> </p><br> But in 2008, she sent a bizarre missive to The New York Times:<p> </p><br> "After a career in public service, I regretfully say, I would not do it again," wrote the judge.<p> </p><br> "Philosophy and point of view led me to doing good instead of doing well, so I never expected to become rich. But now that I'm in my 10th year of a frozen judicial salary -- less than summer students are being paid at law firms -- I have concluded that whatever I may have accomplished for the public, I have wasted 25 years of my life by serving on the bench."<p> </p><br> She's still there.<p> </p><br> Her disastrous rent ruling concerns a 2008 decision by the Rent Guidelines Board. It said the majority of rent-stabilized tenants would see rent hikes of 4.5 percent. But those who paid less than $1,000 a month and have lived in those spaces at least six years were asked to pay $45 more. These rents were so low, $45 represented more than a 4.5 percent increase, if you can believe it.<p> </p><br> Goodman hit the roof.<p> </p><br> But the rent hikes were merely an attempt "to have some catch up. Lower-paying tenants were asked to pay a more proportionate share of maintenance of their building," the city argued. Sounds fair.<p> </p><br> Legal Aid lawyers sued. Which is what they do.<p> </p><br> In the end, Justice Goodman ruled that the increase on low-paying tenants must be rolled back.<p> </p><br> "She ruled the way the plaintiffs asked her to," said Gabriel Taussig, a lawyer with the city's Corporation Counsel. "We are very disappointed with the decision." The city plans to appeal.<p> </p><br> Rent regulation artificially drives up costs for those who can't maneuver their way into cheap apartments. They ensure that landlords can't meet spiraling expenses.<p> </p><br> But this judge has brought mass confusion and losses for landlords just trying to make a living.<p> </p><br> She's also seen to it that this city will remain a place where the haves thumb their noses at the have-nots.<p> </p><br> I'd suggest a career change for this Woman of the People.<p> </p><br> Enquiring minds are cheated out of Pulitzer<p> </p><br><p> </p><br> Old Joseph Pulitzer is doing flip-flops in his grave. The National Enquirer, which practices provocative journalism -- just like old Joe did -- is about to be mugged.<p> </p><br> Investigative reporters toiling for the supermarket tabloid have pulled off a coup of epic proportions, saving this nation from the scoundrel who is John Edwards, and spurring an investigation that could land him in jail. But will the Enquirer win the Pulitzer Prize it so richly deserves?<p> </p><br> Not in my lifetime.<p> </p><br> During the last election, as reporters from The New York Times and Washington Post were busy patting their own rounded posteriors, the Enquirer proved beyond doubt that John Edwards fathered a love baby.<p> </p><br> The bombshell should have won praise, prizes and the best possible restaurant tables for Enquirer types. Instead, the story was met with utter silence from the "mainstream" media. Until last week, when Edwards 'fessed up.<p> </p><br> The Enquirer did more than scoop the planet. It shielded the populace from a blow-dried cretin and his enabling, cancer-stricken wife. The journalistic establishment now has a chance to reward the Enquirer with its loftiest prize. It won't.<p> </p><br> The administrator of the Pulitzer board has already nuked the idea -- on a technicality. He pointed out that, on its Web site, the Enquirer is called "the original celebrity entertainment magazine." Magazines, you see, aren't eligible for Pulitzers.<p> </p><br> This is a lame excuse, wrapped in jealousy.<p> </p><br> The National Enquirer deserves accolades, not scorn. The tabloid of record has been breaking major stories since the OJ Simpson trial.<p> </p><br> It deserves a seat next to the snobs.<p> </p><br> Look who's squawking<p> </p><br> Chirp, chirp.<p> </p><br> Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is mighty ticked at maybe-rival Harold Ford Jr. for calling her a "parakeet" who mimics the words of her master, Sen. Chuck Schumer.<p> </p><br> Gillibrand, who's also regularly called Schumer's "sock puppet," must be a glutton for pecking. It seemed to elude her that issuing "tweets" on "Twitter" complaining about Ford's "parakeet" comment was proof positive that she's a regular birdbrain.<p> </p><br> I can't wait for the egg-throwing to begin.<p> </p><br> Never too old for some frisky business<p> </p><br> <p> </p><br>The Tiger Woods sex-addiction fiasco has men of a certain age wondering: How do I get to be like Tiger?<p> </p><br> "What is a person supposed to do if he's in his 80s and he's still active sexually, and, of course, he doesn't have the finances to hire people to do something for him?" a reader asks. "How do you explain it if he has a God-given libido?"<p> </p><br> Consider yourself the luckiest, and busiest, man in the retirement home. Go get 'em, Tiger<p> </p><br>

Andrea Peyser