Thoughts on “No Labels,” “independents,” “moderates,” “centrists,” and DMZs.
[Update late morning]
More thoughts from Yuval Levin. Edmund Burke is involved.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Honesty From Gene Simmons
He wants his Obama vote back, and admits that he voted for him because he was black. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the same boat, and they won’t make the same mistake twice. They expiated their racial guilt in 2008.
[Update a while later]
This seems right to me:
…ask yourself this question: How many people do you know who voted for Obama in 2008 but now express regret about the vote or reservations about his leadership?
Probably plenty.
Now ask yourself this: How many people do you know who voted against Obama in 2008 but have since been won over?
Probably not a single one.
The buyers’ remorse is strong in this One.
Dwindling
Sixty-nine years later, there aren’t many survivors of Pearl Harbor left. The war itself is passing out of living memory. And sadly, many of the lessons learned from it will probably have to be relearned, at the cost of how knows how many more innocent lives.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bing remembers. But it’s just another day to Google. You’d think it a significant date even to a “citizen of the world.”
[Update a while later]
When Japan attacked.
Speech Policeman
Like Stanley Kurtz, I am getting really, really tired of David Frum:
All Galston and Frum have done is to make explicit — and reinforce — the mainstream press’s existing determination to ignore and silence critics of Obama’s radicalism. Once No Labels gets going, public resentment at these silencing techniques is bound to increase. Contrary to Galston and Frum, the way to reduce polarization is not to suppress disagreement but to invite reasoned debate on the issues that actually divide us. Since a substantial portion of the public views the president as a covert radical, let the topic be debated in the widest and most respectable forums. If the president’s accusers offer mere bluster, or his defenders are living in denial, we shall see it all then. A true public debate on this issue in the pages of the mainstream press would rivet the public’s attention and immediately raise the level of discussion. By further suppressing this debate, on the other hand, Galston and Frum promote distrust and enmity between Left and Right.
Suppressing debate is what the left is all about, because they never come off very well in a real one.
Calling Out Hollywood On Their Lying Crocumentary
I expected to see this kind of fact-checking on the latest leftist propaganda piece, but not from the Washington Post editorial board:
“It’s accurate,” Ms. Plame told The Post. Said Mr. Wilson: “For people who have short memories or don’t read, this is the only way they will remember that period.”
We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, “Fair Game,” based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions – not to mention outright inventions.
Both the books and the movie should be filed in the “fiction” section, but people will continue to repeat the lies.
High-Speed Rail
Should China rethink it? Only if they’re smart. Tom Friedman will be very disappointed.
Of course, the more important question is whether or not Congress will cancel the boondoggle before we waste much more money on it.
More Hoplophobia From The Media
Good Advice To The Democrats
Good for Republicans, that is. I hope they take it.
Don’t Hold Your Breath
It’s nice to see the New Scientist holding the Obama administration’s feet to the fire on its war on science:
“The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions,” Obama stated. Scientific information used by the federal government in making policy should be published, he added, and political officials should not suppress or alter scientific findings. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was given 120 days to draft a new policy on scientific integrity in government.
We’re still waiting for that policy to see the light of day. The precise reasons for the lengthy delay remain unclear – the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has even sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to obtain documents that may explain the impasse. But it seems likely that the sticking point has been resistance from government officials who just don’t like the accountability that the new policy is supposed to usher in.
It’s less thrilling to see them perpetuate the myth that the Bush administration was worse:
Obama may be a friend of science, but many of the functionaries in his administration are rather less friendly. And if he fails to institute a sea change on the crucial issue of scientific integrity in government, there will be little to prevent a future President who sees little value in science from taking us back to the bad old days.
First, I’m unaware of any evidence that Barack Obama is a “friend of science,” except when the “science” fits his political agenda (e.g., AGW). And assuming that the “bad old days” is a reference to his predecessor, you’d think they might at least make the case that he was worse, but apparently they either can’t, or just think that we should accept it as an obvious given. I think that Obama’s record is much worse than George Bush’s, who, as far as I can tell, seemed to have acquired his “anti-science” creds based on little more than his policy to not provide government funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a decision that seems to have resulted in a flourishing of much more effective research in adult stem cells.
Will Sarah Run?
She already is.
And Joe Katzman says that she’s “country dumb.” And at this point, any “conservative” who would prefer Barack Obama to her has to be an idiot in full blither.