Bill Clinton is going to head up an Institute on Civil Discourse.
No, really.
[Update a few minutes later]
Per comments over there, I’m not the only person appalled that this “Institute” is being based on the false narrative that what happened to Gabby Giffords had anything whatsoever to do with civility in discourse.
…and the ongoing policy insanity of completely ignoring the issue. A good essay by Stewart Money.
[Cross-posted at Competitive Space]
Joel Kotkin follows up on Robert Samuelson. When will these religious fanatics understand that this makes no economic sense? Well, if this Congress doesn’t pull the plug on this lunacy, the next one (in even more dire financial straits) surely will.
I agree. That absurd name elevates Buchanan, Pierce, the fascist dictator Wilson and the hapless Jimmy Carter (not to mention the present inhabitant of the White House) to the same supposed national esteem as George Washington. It’s absurd.
The mask is off — the leftists in academia intrinsically hate the military. I wonder what excuse they’ll come up with to continue to violate the law and keep ROTC off campuses now?
It was pretty obvious to me and many at the time, but it’s becoming more and more clear that soldiers were murdered at Fort Hood out of political correctness and an insane multi-culturalism, in the one institution in which we can least afford it.
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that while I have a generally low opinion of Senator Collins, she deserves kudos, along with Senator Lieberman, for continuing to prevent this from being swept under the carpet.
The latest Carnival of Space is up.
For anyone interested, I’ve never participated in this, primarily because in my experience, they’re not really carnivals of space — they’re carnivals of space science, a subject in which I have little more interest in than other kinds, except to the degree that it provides knowledge of how to develop and settle it. This is a specific instance of a more general irk — when many people learn that I’m an expert on space policy and technology, or I do a radio interview, they assume that I’m both an expert on and interested in space science and astronomy and (even more annoyingly) UFOs. It’s the same kind of general public level of (lack of) knowledge that leads to phrases such as “rocket scientist.”
…and the politics of Minnesota:
Like Palin, she paints with broad strokes, which makes her opponents deeply concerned about the level of rhetoric in this troubled land. Rep. Alan Grayson can say Republicans want Americans to die, and Howard Dean can say the GOP doesn’t care whether kids go to bed hungry at night — these are regarded as piquant phrasings of an essential truth. Bachmann calls scooping up the health-care system into the arms of the government “socialism,” and she’s a shrieking know-nothing. For some, Bachmann is regarded as Palin’s Mini-Me, minus the high-powered weaponry. She’s one of those inauthentic women who has not realized that the possession of ovaries requires one to fight for social justice and greater regulation of everything except the Department of Regulations.
Go read the whole thing, from the best writer in Minnesota, if not the country.
…returns this morning, over at Pajamas Media — what is the right analogy for the battle of Madison?
Note that I’ve added in the comments here that slipped in to the other post before I unpublished it yesterday.
[Afternoon update]
Yes, I got the sequence of Jutland and Lusitania confused. Mea culpa.
Glenn has pictures and links. And this comment from Jim Treacher:
Joe the Plumber was the canary in the coal mine, wasn’t he? That whole mess was the first sign that Obama was willing to roll over average people to get what he wants. If only he had as much contempt for America’s enemies as he does for Americans who stand in his way.
Which reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to post for a few days. When I had the press conference in DC a couple weeks ago, Keith Cowing asked me a question that was a non sequitur. It was something to the effect that since I had stated on my blog that the president was a liar, how could I support his space policy. Ignoring the illogic, Bill O’Reilly actually did catch the president out in a lie in his pre-Superbowl interview, though he didn’t pick up on it or challenge him, Bill O’Reilly not generally being that quick on the uptake:
O’REILLY: Here’s what the Wall Street Journal said, I want you to react to this. Mr. Obama is a determined man of the left whose goal is to redistribute much larger levels of income across society. He may give tactical ground when he has to, as he did on taxes to avoid a middle class tax increase, but he will resist to his last day any major changes to Obamacare and the other load-bearing walls of the entitlement state.
This is The Wall Street Journal you know painting you as pretty left-wing guy. Are you going to go along?
OBAMA: Well, the Wall Street Journal probably would paint you as a left-wing guy. I mean, if you’re talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page…
O’REILLY: I’ve got to tell you, that’s what this is.
OBAMA: You know, that’s like quoting the New York Times editorial…
O’REILLY: Do you deny the assessment? Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: You deny that?
OBAMA: Absolutely. I didn’t raise taxes once, I lowered taxes over the last two years.
Note, I left the entire final response in so no one will accuse me of removing context, even though it’s a complete non sequitur, since the question wasn’t about taxes, it was about his desire to redistribute wealth. Note the contrast with what he told Joe the Plumber when he accidentally let the mask slip during the campaign:
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Now, compare that to “I absolutely deny that I’m a man who wants to redistribute wealth,” to only slightly paraphrase what he told O’Reilly.
So here are the possibilities.
a) He doesn’t think that “spreading the wealth around” is semantically equivalent to redistributing it.
b) He thinks that “it’s good for everybody”, but he has no actual desire to do it (certainly an unprecedented mode of thought for him — is there any other instance where he has not had a desire to do something that he thinks is good for everybody, do-gooder that he flatters himself to be?).
c) He changed his political philosophy between the time he talked to Joe the Plumber and Bill O’Reilly.
d) He lied to Joe the Plumber or…
e) He lied to Bill O’Reilly.
My money’s on (e). So make what you will of that, Keith. I still think we should have competition for NASA’s crew services.
[Update a few minutes later]
Glenn has more pics and links.