…about the Koch brothers. These people are truly deranged.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Charlie Sheen
…the New Yorker cartoon series.
Hey, someone had to do it.
[Update a while later]
The similarities between Charlie Sheen and Colonel Whathisname are somewhat frightening.
Myths Of George Bush
Elizabeth Bumiller shocks her interviewer:
DU: What are some of the biggest misconceptions about President George W. Bush, and which stereotypes are actually true?
EB: Bush is actually not stupid at all. But he was rigid in a lot of things. He was not as intellectually curious as other presidents; not especially reflective — I think that’s obvious in his recent book. He was different in Washington than he was in Texas as governor. In Texas he was known for reaching across the aisle, and working with adversaries, and that just never happened in Washington. He also got socked with 9/11, and that changed everything. I don’t think you could ever write enough on how much that completely stunned and shell-shocked him and his administration. That accounts for some of the rigidness. One on one, he was extremely personable, very easy to approach, very casual. He demanded utter loyalty from his staff, and his staff by and large was exceptionally loyal, and that was something that always stunned people.
Emphasis mine. Who knew?
The thing that I find weird is the logic in her other criticism, though: “He was different in Washington than he was in Texas as governor. In Texas he was known for reaching across the aisle, and working with adversaries, and that just never happened in Washington.”
Hmmmmmm…Bush in Austin, one thing happened. Bush in Washington, a different thing happened.
Which is it that’s more likely, that Bush magically changed when he went from Austin to Washington, or that there was something different about Austin than Washington? Like maybe the Democrats in the latter weren’t willing to be reached to across the aisle?
Besides, the charge itself is nonsense. What do you call the deal to vastly increase government involvement in education by working with Teddy Kennedy, or dramatically expanding Medicare with Democrats, if not “working across the aisle”? So she’s wrong on both the history and the logic.
Dog Bites Man
Wow, are these predictable space-policy recommendations, considering the recommenders, or what? Ben Bova thinks we should build a demo power satellite, and Bob Zubrin wants more Mars missions? Who would have guessed?
Union Versus Business Contributions
It’s not quite the way Jon Chait imagines:
…the list reads:
Democratic/Union Goon proxy: $51 million
Death Star, Inc.: $46 million
Union Goons (public sector): $43 million
The Committee to Re-Inflate the Bubble by Electing Democrats: $38 million
The Bankers Who Elected Barack Obama: $33 million
Democratic trial lawyers: $33 million
Union Goons: $33 million
Union Goons (public sector): $32 million
Union Goons: $30 million
Union Goons: $30 million
Oops.
Another Reason To Outlaw Public-Employee Unions
If union protesters turn violent — as they increasingly have — can you trust pro-union police to intervene?
As he says, always bring a camera. Actually, you should follow many of the Marine rules for a gun fight at events like this when it comes to cameras:
1. Bring a camera. Preferably, bring at least two cameras. Bring all of your friends who have cameras.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Memory is cheap. Your reputation is expensive.
3. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
4. Move away from your subject. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
5. If you can choose what to bring to a demonstration, bring a long lens and a friend with a long lens.
6. In ten years nobody will remember the details of megapixels, stance, or tactics. They will only remember whose picture was taken.
7. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
8. Accuracy is relative: most demonstration shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the camera.
9. Use a camera that works EVERY TIME.
10. Have a plan.
11. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
12. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
13. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
14. Don’t drop your guard.
15. Watch their hands. Hands hit cameras. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
16. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to take a picture of everyone you meet.
Be careful out there.
To Each His Own
I think that this website is fraudulent myself. It’s hard to imagine there aren’t better pictures on the Internet.
Useful Idiots
Then and now. Unfortunately, the supply seems to be endless.
Having It Both Ways
I think that the administration’s position on DOMA is craven (so what else is new…?).
If they really believe that the law is unconstitutional (a position with which I don’t necessarily disagree), it’s nonsensical, and in fact a violation of the president’s oath of office to uphold the Constitution (which is the highest law in the land), to enforce it. I thought that George Bush should have been impeached not for signing McCain-Feingold, but for doing so while explicitly stating that he believed it to be unconstitutional. This was a blatant violation of his oath of office, though he obviously didn’t realize it. In both cases — this and the Obama DOMA position — it is trivializing the oath for the sake of pandering. In Bush’s case it was to the so-called “moderates” (i.e., mindless, or at least principleless) and in the current president’s case, to his base. It is not up to the other two branches to defer their judgment of constitutionality on untested law to the Supreme Court — they must follow it once such a judgment is rendered, but unless and until it is, they are obligated by their oath of office to follow their own. If the president really believes that DOMA is not only unconstitutional, but that there are really no reasonable arguments on the other side, then he is bound to not enforce it, and to get such a ruling as soon as possible (an eventuality that would be hastened by his inaction in enforcement).
And as is often the case, this is another example of the difficulty of many, even those who should know better, to distinguish between the concept of “constitutional” and “law I agree with.” Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty, regardless of one’s views on abortion, and we should demand consistency from the administration regardless of our views on gay marriage. The president is bound by his oath to enforce, and even defend, bad laws, but not unconstitutional ones.
Which brings us back to Elena Kagan’s confusion on this issue, and why she was a frightening appointment to SCOTUS. She has it exactly backwards. It would actually be good law to force people to purchase and eat their vegetables, at least in terms of the public health, but it would be a law both totalitarian and tyrannical. And unconstitutional.
More thoughts from Jonah Goldberg (here and here), Shannen Coffen (here and here), and David Bernstein.
[Update a few minutes later]
More at Cato.
Impaired Vision
Paul Spudis doesn’t think much of NASA’s newest vision statement. Neither do I, but I’m unmoved by his replacement: “To explore the universe with people and machines.”
He’s thinking too much like a scientist. Exploration is a means, not an end. I’d say “To flower the universe with sapient life.”