Is The Honeymoon Over?

…or is it just a lover’s spat?

…a large element of the Obama-press rift is attributable to disappointment and frustration. The media is not simply covering Obama’s sinking ship of state, they are panicking about it.

But there are other factors at work. For starters, Obama isn’t very nice to the media. It may sound petty, but his obvious and frequent contempt for what they do must be irksome to reporters who fancy themselves to be indispensable elements in the Obama revolution. He spits his disdain for the “24-hour news cycle.” The press is told to buzz off — there is no news to be had on his Martha’s Vineyard vacation (before the eye-popping decision to name a special prosecutor to go after CIA operatives). And for all the promises to be “transparent,” this White House, and Robert Gibbs specifically, seems to be one of the least forthcoming in recent memory.

In short, the Obama team has shown the media little respect — and the press corps has begun to bristle at the high-handed treatment.

I’ll take it seriously when I start seeing some serious questions from the WH press corps (you know, on things like this, or this (who needs Chavez when we have the US State Department?)), and actually doing analysis of the legislation and reporting on the issues, instead of the horse race. Like the Obama White House itself, they too remain in campaign mode.

You Don’t Say

Thomas Lifson:

An unpleasant smell attends the Department of Justice decision to not prosecute New Mexico Governor (and Obama ally) Bill Richardson. Fresh on the heels of the Department declining to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, while appointing a special prosecutor for CIA interrogators, the appearance of a politicized Justice Department is being created.

It’s not like this wasn’t perfectly predictable. Given his history, the Republican Senators that went along with the Holder nomination should be ashamed. They betrayed those who voted for them to prevent such things.

An Edit Feature

Often, people post follow-up comments to fix problems with previous comments (such as here), and often, in doing so, they wish for an edit feature.

In order to have a comment feature that only allowed editing of your own comments (and surely, you wouldn’t want one that allowed anyone to edit anyone’s right…?), I’d have to set up a login of some kind, whether Google, or otherwise. I’ve never done that, and have always maintained a pretty open and freewheeling comments section here, and overall, it’s worked all right. I know that I don’t like to have to log in (or worse, set up an entire account) to comment elsewhere, and when I have to do so, it usually results in my not bothering.

So be careful what you wish for.

[Update late morning]

OK, it’s not exactly an edit feature, but I’ve added live preview.

So Mary Mapes Was A Liar?

I won’t say that Rathergate was a low point for the so-called news media — I think that they perigeed, if not cratered in, in last year’s campaign’s non-stop fellation of the Obama machine, but it was pretty bad. But up until now, it was possible, just barely, to generously assume that Mapes (and Dan Rather) were merely hyperpartisan idiots. Now, however, it seems that they (or at least she — perhaps he remains a mere idiot) were lying:

Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.

But that didn’t fit the narrative, so it had to be tossed out. And of course, they will still be heralded as brave martyrs, in their brave attempts to speak truth to the power of the Evil Rovian Right-Wing propaganda machine, and there will continue to be insufficient curiosity among their former colleagues to exhume the matter any further.

And there is, of course, nothing to logically preclude us from believing that she remains a moron as well as a deceptive slanderer. In fact, the evidence for both is pretty compelling.

Scrub

The horizontal test of the five-segment SRB (Ares I first stage) out in Utah scheduled for today has been scrubbed due to a hydraulic problem. They’re going to attempt to reschedule for sometime in the next few days after they sort out the problem.

A Tale Of Two Communists

in the White House.

I remain astounded by the continuing naivety and self delusion of so many that Barack Obama is a “moderate” and “non-ideological.”

[Early afternoon update]

A Marxist spirit pervades the White House.

Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

It was entirely predictable, to anyone not mesmerized last year by “hope” and “change” and how cool it would be to vote for the black guy.

[Update]

The Obama civilian troops were trained by Bill Ayers:

When I write about Bill Ayers, I am often greeted with the retort that the focus on one kooky professor is a waste of time, that we have bigger problems.

But were it not for the “Destructive Generation” instantiating themselves in our schools, the election of Barack Obama would not have been possible. Had we had a generation who understood history, we would have had voters who understood the vacuity of his rhetoric and the implications of “spreading the wealth.” They would have understood how his writings on Saul Alinsky displayed his propensity for stirring up racial animus, demonizing the opposition, and threatening executives with “pitchfork” mobs (that he would rouse up). We would have seen how his teaching a course on “critical race theory” would naturally lead to a nomination of a Supreme Court justice who sees herself as a “wise Latina woman” who can “empathize.”

They would have seen that Obama’s alliance with Bill Ayers, who has been working on behalf of “education” in Venezuela, would lead to a cozy meeting with Hugo Chavez. While Venezuelans protest against a government takeover of the schools, we allow Bill Ayers to spread his poison to future teachers while paying him an annual salary of $126,000.

Like South American dictators who promise peasants a few hectares through redistribution, Obama promises such things as “free” medical care, education, and new cars to his followers. Like Chavez, he appeals to the peasants — literally the illegal ones streaming into the country, promising rights of citizenship.

The historian Richard Pipes notes that the Russian revolution succeeded in large part because of the uneducated peasants. And in this country, the early communists targeted immigrants who spoke no English and were unacquainted with American values.

Today’s communists, like Bill Ayers, work in our schools aiming to keep American students in the same level of ignorance and tribalism as the peasants of Russia and South America.

As that report famously said almost three decades ago, if a foreign power had imposed this educational system on our nation, we would rightly consider it an act of war. And in a sense, that’s what happened. The Soviet Union collapsed, but its toxin lives on in our society and politics.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!