Actually, he was. Conservatives are missing a great opportunity here, by pointing out that while Lincoln was a genuine liberal (and the first Republican president), the people who aren’t liberals are the leftists who call themselves that today. They stole the label decades ago to try to dress up their politics of envy and redistribution in prettier clothes.
Their troubling view on work:
The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work.
Republicans immediately jumped on the finding as proof that the law is a jobs killer and cited earlier discoveries about its destructive impact. These include Obama’s lie that “you can keep your plan” and the fact that many new insurance plans come with higher premiums and deductibles and fewer doctors.
Pay more, get less will be the experience for tens of millions by the time the law is fully implemented. And don’t forget its assault on religious freedom.
All true and yet, as Carney’s defense showed, something much, much larger is at play. The impacts are symptoms. The disease is that leading Democrats view fewer workers and more dependency as a good thing. That attitude largely explains slow economic growth, record-low labor rates and the explosion of handouts over the last five years.
This anti-job, pro-dependency tilt is the crux of the nation’s polarization. In essence, it pits those who believe in the sanctity of work against those who believe in penalizing wealth and redistributing its fruits.
Not all Democrats agree with that approach, but the party is now controlled by those who do. It is the party that celebrates subsidies and rewards states for getting more people on food stamps. It opens the door wider for disability payments and fights for unemployment benefits like it once fought for jobs. It does these things not because of an emergency but because of a warped ideology.
It’s called Marxism.
Fast time, fast times…
High school is an apt metaphor for the shenanigans inside the Times’ $850 million skyscraper at the corner of Fortieth Street and Eighth Avenue. The Times portrayed in Kurson’s article is not the established, serious, and competent institution of the liberal imagination. It is the Beverly Hills High School in Clueless, a cliquey and catty war of all against all, where the self-importance of the occupants masks deep insecurities. The next time our reporters and producers and anchors and bloggers affect an air of moral or social superiority, the next time they pretend to know the answers to every political and economic and cultural question, remember this: They are basically teenagers.
And yet as I read the story I could not help feeling, despite my better instincts, a twinge of sympathy for Rosenthal and his editorial staff. The “tyranny and pettiness” ascribed to the op-ed editor seems to me to apply equally to the behavior of a gossipy newsroom reeking of self-importance and snarky jibes. Nor are the specific complaints lodged against him any more compelling: Bad bosses are part of the human condition, and as a longtime subscriber I find it less than surprising that it can be difficult to get along with the people who produce the New York Times.
The rest of the case against Rosenthal is unintentionally revealing. “The growing dissatisfaction,” Kurson says, “stems from a commitment to excellence that has lifted the rest of the Times, which is viewed by every staffer The Observer spoke to as rapidly and dramatically improving.” But “commitment to excellence” are not the words I would choose to describe a paper whose coverage is increasingly liberal and silly, devoted to sniffing out racism and sexism and to identifying trends significant only to a select few, a paper that in the last month devoted not one but two articles to the subject of female pubic hair, that loads its news copy with opinion through mealy-mouthed phrases like “some say” and “has long been viewed,” that uses its pages as a Democratic fundraising apparatus, that thinks a $1,700 dollar suit is a sign of mayoral populism, that specializes in publishing articles detrimental to national security, that treats the president as a courtier treats a king, that is so eager to disqualify a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton that it initially misrepresented its latest “scoop.” One source tells Kurson the problem with Rosenthal “really isn’t about politics, because I land more to the left than I do the right.” You don’t say.
[Sunday morning update]
We’re up within 35,000 today, and there are three new (all five-star) reviews.
I think this is the highest ranking the book has ever had on Amazon. Sales must have picked up this week (I hawked it quite a bit while in DC, both at the conference and with a couple think tanks — I’ll probably be doing a ReasonTV interview in the next couple weeks).
Also, it’s once again number one in the category “Aviation and Space Law.” Plus, it’s selling for full retail, which I’d assume means that Amazon thinks there’s sufficient demand for it that they don’t have to discount (not that I’ve given them a lot of room to do so, but they have had it down a buck or so in the past).
[Update a while later]
OK, based on numbers at the printer, it looks like I sold 27 books last week. Compare that to 18 for the entire month of January. Hopefully those will continue to build with more publicity, and good reviews at Amazon (six right now, all five star).
Andrew Klavan makes a good point, I think:
I did not mean the sentence as the expression of a factual duality: either sex is this or that in actuality. I meant it as a response to Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality — a sort of mental argument with Phil, if you will. Robertson talks about homosexuality as a sin, while describing it in purely physical terms. What I should have said is something more like: “If Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin, then he should address its spiritual aspects. If he just doesn’t like the physical nature of it, he’s welcome to express his displeasure but he shouldn’t pretend he’s making a larger spiritual point.” I used blogger shorthand and the meaning got blurred. My bad.
I agree. Whether (male) homosexuality is disgusting (as I find it) is a completely separate issue from whether or not it is sinful (I don’t think it is, but I have problems with the very concept of sin). Phil Roberts muddied the waters by conflating them. One can imagine an (unfortunate) homosexual who believes that his behavior is sinful, but by definition, doesn’t have any other problems with it. As I’ve noted in the past, and even the recent past, I think that many people who think it sinful are in fact bi (and therefore are tempted themselves), but consider themselves morally superior to homosexuals who they believe have a “choice” (as they do).
If it “leads to a disastrous outcome, then the political system is dysfunctional.”
And wherein lies the dysfunction? I’d say that in this case, as in most, it is in our lack of adherence to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, who would never have imagined such a thing as a federal minimum wage.
…applies to guns carried in cars.
Of course it does.
…is by Democrats. Not to mention the NAACP:
I know I’m just a blogger & radio talk show host, but it seems to me that the NAACP actively working to make sure a democrat convicted of assaulting a woman who refused him sex is something that would not only be Immediately be recognized as Newsworthy, but given the “War on Women” meme would elevate this to a national story.
It has been said that the current media are simply Democrat operatives with bylines. If they choose to ignore this story that will be confirmed without a doubt.
Oh and if you claim to be a feminist & aren’t outraged by this, then you’re lying to yourself.
Yup. Just like their defense of Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior.
Am interesting interview over at Forbes.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This bit is interesting:
Her advice is to avoid enterprises that are in long-term decline, such as General Motors starting in the 1970s. In business and public policy, try to learn from well-conducted experiments — but recognize that successful trials can’t always be replicated on a large scale.
I think that also applies to NASA human spaceflight as practiced for the past fifty years.
Marcia Smith has a good description of the highlights, including the discussion on space safety on Tuesday afternoon, at which I felt like the elephant in the room that no one talked about. It was an excellent conference.
Mark Steyn continues his free-speech crusade (and I use that word deliberately):
I don’t care for all this beyond-the-pale stuff, because the pale is already way too shrunk. And, aside from anything else, once you get into the habit of banning and proscribing, your critical thinking goes all to hell. Many of us have seen one or two of those ill-advised shows on al-Arabiya or al-Jazeera in which some fire-breathing imam invites on a despised, Westernized, apostate woman in order to crush her like a bug, only to have her run rings round him. The Syrian émigré Wafa Sultan famously did it to Faisal al-Qassem and Ibrahim al-Khouli. It’s hardly surprising that a culture that puts so much of life beyond discussion renders its inmates literally speechless — to the point where, faced with, say, a school teddy bear innocently named Mohammed, the default opening gambit at the local debating society is to shriek “Allahu Akbar!” and start killing.
We’re not at that point yet. But, raised in the cocoon of conformity that is American academe, the Left is increasingly showing all the critical-thinking skills of your average dimestore mullah. The other day, in between its ongoing complaints about Michael Douglas’s “homophobic” awards acceptance speeches, Salon ran a story by one of its many pajama boys headlined “Ted Nugent Writes Insanely Racist Op-Ed.” Apparently, Ted had written a “vile rant” at “the batshit insane right-wing fever swamp of a site known as WorldNetDaily.” “Even for Ted Nugent,” cautioned Elias Isquith in his opening sentence, “this is bad.” Alas, poor old Ted couldn’t quite live up to his batshit-insane billing: There followed a few unexceptional observations about black crime and broken families maybe a smidgeonette more heated than one might hear from, say, Bill Cosby or Juan Williams. More to the point, the hapless pajama boy didn’t even attempt to explain what was so objectionable about Nugent’s “rant.” As the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle put it, “Salon calls out Ted Nugent’s ‘racist’ MLK Day column — without refuting his points. Must be Friday.” All Mr. Isquith can do is reprise Ted Nugent’s words and then shriek “Batshit insane!” and “Insanely batshit!” over and over, like Lady Bracknell with Tourette’s.
Which brings us to Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate currently suing NATIONAL REVIEW for mocking his global-warming “hockey stick.” Of the recent congressional hearings, Dr. Mann tweeted that it was “#Science” — i.e., the guy who agrees with him — vs. “#AntiScience” — i.e., Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. That’s to say, she is by profession a scientist, but because she has the impertinence to dissent from Dr. Mann’s view she is “#AntiScience.” Mann is the climatological equivalent of those bozo imams on al-Arabiya raging about infidel whores: He can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.
Three ways it could happen through red tape.
…may be the costliest show on earth.
A good review of the “investigations” that have “exonerated” climate scientists.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related thoughts from Mark Steyn on the projection of the True Believers, and devotees to “the cause.”
“A debate where none should exist”. Why shouldn’t it exist? And, if it’s “infected” the national legislature of the global superpower and leading media outlets, what makes it the view of “a fringe minority” other than that you label it as such? Why does Mann’s definition of “anti-science” now embrace not just know-nothing blowhards like yours truly but also scientists such as Judith Curry, Richard Muller, Richard Lindzen, etc? Garth Paltridge was Australia’s chief atmospheric research scientist but because he disagrees with Big Climate alarmism, a man who has devoted his life to science is suddenly “anti-science”? And to enforcers like Dr Mann this is all so obvious that no debate “should exist” – or be permitted to exist.
You should always listen carefully when someone is telling you to shut up – whether it’s the Organization for Islamic Co-Operation demanding an international law against “blasphemy”, or Michael Mann demanding that his own cult can likewise not be questioned.
Every generation has its foolish adherents to Marxism, ignorant of or unable to learn from history. It is, sadly, a seductive idea to the weak of mind and those incapable of critical thinking.
Bob Zimmerman says that the former “hovers over [the latter] like a vulture.”
While there are no doubt many in Congress with that attitude, I was actually encouraged by Chairman Palazzo’s remarks this morning at the Space Transportation Conference, in which he expressed support for an extension of the “moratorium” because it will “stifle innovation” to overregulate at this point. (Note: At the hearing yesterday, he used the phrase “learning period,” as industry does. It’s possible he used the “m” word because he was reading from notes put together by staffer that hadn’t gotten the memo.)
On a plane heading to Reagan Airport, and the Space Transportation Conference. I’ll check in later.
Arrived at my hotel on upper Connecticut Avenue.
From John Walker.
He found a misspelling that I’ve been missing. Guess it will have to remain for the next revision (the first one will be available this week).
Mark the day that Glenn Reynolds agrees with the president. I don’t think he goes far enough here, though:
Right now, too many people go to college by default, even if they don’t usually major in art history. College is a status symbol that many regard as essential to membership in the middle class, but now it’s a status symbol that requires a six-figure investment, often supported by student loans.
There’s nothing wrong with going to college, and there’s nothing wrong with liberal-arts majors, so long as they’re rigorous: The world does not enjoy a surplus of people who can think critically and write clearly, and America is certainly not overloaded with experts in foreign languages. The real problem is with non-rigorous majors, which are common. Those cost just as much, but leave their graduates no better off than when they entered, and often in debt to boot.
If they were only no better off, it wouldn’t be as bad, but many of them come out of the experience notably less educated and malinformed, in the sense that they have been indoctrinated into the nonsense that the faculty provides.
California environmentalists may not be very happy with Jerry Brown and his high-speed train to nowhere.
…in either sense of the word (that is, I’m not even all that familiar with it, other than the first two movies). But those who are may want to read this and comment (here or there).
George Whitesides responds to Tom Bower’s accusations (sort of), and Doug Messier analyzes.
I’ll simply repeat my long-standing belief that hybrids have been dramatically overhyped. If VG is smart, they’ll be trying to migrate away from them as quickly as possible.
His voice will be missed.
[Update a couple minutes later]
More thoughts from Dave Swindle.
[Update a while later]
Roger Simon remembers him as well:
The phrase Tikkun olam – to repair the world — is often used in the Jewish tradition, sometimes by people Barry did not think the best of, and for good reason. But Barry himself embodied that tradition more than anyone I can think of. He indeed was a “repairer of the world,” the conscience of the White City. To say that he will be missed is a cliché not worthy of him.
But he will be.
Photos taken by several local people from a public road in the vicinity of the test site – some of which were provided to L2, while others were posted openly on the internet – provide a glimpse of the landing leg structures that appear to be closely based on the hardware that SpaceX is expected to employ when they actually fly with legs on a Falcon 9.
…limitations at the Texas site result in an AGL (Altitude above Ground Level) ceiling for Grasshopper of 2,500 feet.
Once GH2 arrives in New Mexico, it will be able to fly to much greater altitudes.
Gywnne said at ISPCS in October that they hoped to be flying out of New Mexico by the end of the year, so it looks like they’ve slipped that schedule. I was going to ask her at a meeting I had with her a couple weeks ago, but we were interrupted before I had a chance.
The day that the Lileks family has feared for so long has finally come.
We had to do the same thing with Jessica the cat a year and a half ago. She was eighteen, and hadn’t lost bladder control so much as become senile, and willfully doing it in inappropriate places. We probably waited too long for her, but saying a final goodbye to an old friend is never an easy thing to do. She’s in the back yard now, where she used to play.
Will it finally be lifted?
It was always an economically idiotic policy.
The billionaires are starting to line up behind Hillary.
Of course, it’s not necessarily stupid. There’s no intrinsic reason that plutocrats would give a damn about the country.
Is it slowing down?
Louise Riofrio’s Kickstarter didn’t hit its goal last time, though it came close. She’s taking another shot at it.