What the president of Yale should have said.
Note, as is often the case, that opposition to freedom of expression comes from the left.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
A Tell-All Book
…..with nothing to tell:
Wow, you can really see how that pushed Bailey over the brink, coming on top of Palin’s being filmed walking into a hotel. In reality, it is a testament to Governor Palin’s rectitude that a former aide who wants to get rich by writing an expose can’t come up with anything better than this.
Desperation is as desperation does.
Legacy Space Companies
…getting desperate.
I have a response to Loren Thompson’s latest load of bilge, over at the Washington Examiner.
Cantor Versus Obama
Ron Radosh reports on another speech at AIPAC:
To great applause, Cantor said:
It is not okay to vilify Israel. It is not okay to demonize Jews. And it’s time to stop scapegoating Israel.
And to those who equate Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel’s necessary measures it takes to defend itself, the majority leader added:
In order for us to win this great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel.
Undoubtedly, his most well-received moment was when he addressed the president’s own illusions. Cantor first noted that Palestinian culture — which Obama omitted criticizing — is laced with “resentment and hatred.” Cantor then shrewdly rebuked Obama:
[Palestinian culture is] the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the ’67 lines. And until Israel’s enemies come to terms with this reality, a true peace will be impossible … If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state.
I predict that the president is not going to raise as much Jewish money this cycle as he did in 2008, and he’s going to get a lot fewer votes.
Stephen Colbert
…versus campaign finance laws.
What a clown.
Apollo Thoughts From The Economist
There will be many retrospectives this week on the half-century anniversary of Kennedy’s speech. Here’s one from The Economist, that reads like they’ve been reading me for a while:
To many Americans, neglecting human space flight this way looks like a sorry end to the glorious chapter Kennedy opened half a century ago. He set out to make America’s achievements in space an emblem of national greatness, and the project succeeded. Yet it did not escape the notice of critics even at the time that this entailed an irony. The Apollo programme, which was summoned into being in order to demonstrate the superiority of the free-market system, succeeded by mobilising vast public resources within a centralised bureaucracy under government direction. In other words, it mimicked aspects of the very command economy it was designed to repudiate.
Exactly. Well, not exactly. One of the reasons that they did it this way (as I pointed out in my recent debate with Bob Zubrin) was that it wasn’t intended to be a demonstration of the free-market system:
There was a reason that Apollo ended over forty years ago. It had accomplished its mission, which was not to go to the moon, but to demonstrate that democratic socialism was superior to totalitarian communism in terms of technological prowess, which it did when Apollo 8 flew around the moon in 1968, and the Soviets gave up and pretended they had never been racing.
In any event, few people have any conception of how much Apollo warped our perception of how to explore and develop space, because they have no other framework in which to think about it. But that will change over the next few years as private entities start to show how Americans do space in a more traditional American way.
From Climate Alarmist
…to skeptic:
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
Follow the real money.
Cavuto
He just doesn’t seem to understand the new program, and he’s got some false notions about Kennedy and Apollo. I wish that I’d gotten this interview with Cavuto.
Saint Shirley Is Back
Shirley Sherrod is back at the USDA as a contract employee. Lee Stranahan is on the case:
I think you’ll also see that much of the story about Mrs. Sherrod has served to further the cover-up of the Pigford scandal. As you’ll see, there’s evidence that Mrs. Sherrod has been told about the fraud in Pigford by a number of people. I’ve found no indication that she’s done anything about it. I find the fact that she’s now working with the USDA on ‘outreach’ to be ominous and bad news for the legitimate black farmers who were wronged in the Pigford settlement.
Thanks in advance for your participation and comments as I roll this story out over the next few weeks.
He’s already started.
Don’t Know Much About Science
One of the many reasons that John Huntsman should not be the Republican nominee:
Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade proposals because “this isn’t the moment,” but he buys the climate change argument because “90% of the scientists” say it’s happening.
Leave aside that the climate is always changing, I have no idea where he comes up with that number, or why he thinks that science is a democracy. And cap and tax is OK in general, just not now?
Sheesh.