And now they refuse to read the textbook. Why am I not surprised? All of this prevarication and outright lies from the “liberal” press wouldn’t be quite as annoying if they didn’t do it from an ostensible perch of moral preening and self righteousness.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Reading
…is fundamental:
If they ever read the bill — or admit they do — they’ll find this sort of Yasser Arafat-like equivocation more difficult. Because it will quickly be revealed that their supposedly procedure-only quibbles are in fact objections to the substance — they oppose any methods of controlling immigration that are actually likely to work.
They support only the methods that won’t work — UAVs, “virtual fences,” other technobabble non-solutions — precisely because they won’t work, which is why they have a pass from the Open Borders lobby to support such measures.
Essentially they’re asking the bank robbers what they should do to improve vault security. The bank robbers tell them to leave the vault door open and turn off the alarms and fire the guards, and instead use “smart solutions” to guard the money, like big signs saying “Please don’t take our money.”
Fortunately, polls would indicate that the American people are on to them.
Whodunnit?
Issa isn’t going to let go of the Sestak bribe offer. I’m guessing it was Rahm. I’m also guessing that most of the media isn’t very curious.
Find The Missing Point
Sigh:
Success would be a win for commercial backers, but wouldn’t answer serious questions surrounding the approach.
And while failure would provide opponents with ammunition, it’s common for new rockets to have trouble on maiden flights and become highly reliable mainstays.
Those factors point to why the White House and Congress should select a dual-track strategy that would OK commercial companies to move forward while also allowing NASA to continue testing a system involving the Ares 1 rocket.
Note that there is zero discussion of cost in this editorial. Note also the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Mike Griffin sort of made this argument as well, saying that he was hoping for commercial to succeed but needed to do Ares/Orion as an “insurance policy” against their failure. But this is insane. On my planet, you spend most of your money on what you consider most likely, and pay a much smaller amount for an insurance policy (provided by, you know, an actual insurer who writes lots of policies and is betting that your main strategy will work so he doesn’t have to pay out). This “dual-track” strategy is exactly the opposite. They are spending six billion on the primary option, and plan to spend forty billion on the “insurance.” That’s just crazy.
But OK, let’s play along. If you really want a “dual-track strategy,” how about making commercial (in this case, SpaceX) one track and give a cost-plus contract to ULA for the other? Because they’ve already said that they can get there within the six billion. Of course, that’s not fair to SpaceX (at least theoretically) because they would then have to compete with a government-subsidized competitor (though I’ll bet they could still beat their price). But regardless, it doesn’t justify continuing wasting money on Ares.
Oh, and then there’s this:
…experts say it could take a decade before the companies have rockets and spacecraft that are safe and capable enough to fly astronauts.
You can find “experts” who will say lots of things. This wording implies that there are no experts who would disagree with that statement. Or at least its implications. Sure it could take a decade. It could take two decades. It could also take only three years or so. What’s magic about a decade? Nothing, of course, except it gives them an excuse to say that we have to have a “dual-track” (read, pork for Florida) strategy.
The Contest Winners
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch announce Reason’s selection of the best of yesterday’s pushback against multiculturalism and sharia. And Iowahawk explains why he abstained.
No Rainbows Or Puppies
Thoughts on Barack Obama’s political inverse Midas’ touch.
Thought For The Day
On the pretzel logic of the politically correct moral midgets currently running the country:
We forget that it is the sworn duty of every Political Correct Person to not only get everything wrong, but to get everything exactly backwards.
So they’ve hit on this fine matching set of absurdities: On the one hand they insist that no terrorist is a (real) Muslim. On the other, they insist that the violent puritanism of a minority Sunni sect absolutely represents the deeply held beliefs of all Muslims.
That would seem to match the Attorney General to a tee.
Put Up Or Shut Up
John Nolte has a challenge for the modern Hollywood blacklist deniers.
The Day Has Arrived
Time for solidarity in defense of enlightenment values.
Brendan O’Neill says, though, that we’re missing the real point — that the real cultural enemy isn’t extremist Islam, but the multiculturalists within. But Nick Gillespie explains why it’s important nonetheless. And Mark Steyn has more thoughts.
[Update a few minutes later]
People will see what they want to see.
[Update a while later]
Who decides what is provocative?
The Anti-Cynicism Movement
Walter Shapiro, in a rare (not for him, but for the pundits in general) sensible take on the Tea Partiers on both sides of the aisle.