Category Archives: Media Criticism

General, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

On Pseudonymity

21 Comments

There’s been a little kerfuffle in the “left-right” blogosphere this weekend over the “outing” of a pseudonymous blogger.

While I sympathize (or is the right word these days “empathize“?) with Ed Whelan’s frustration at being publicly attacked by someone who wants to lead a dual on-line/off-line life (and ignoring the incivil nature of many of the comments over at Obsidian Wings), I think that (former pseudonymous) blogger Jonathan Adler has the better part of the argument.

I would also say that I agree that there is an important distinction between pseudonymous and anonymous blogging. The former establishes an identity and a reputation that must be both established, and upheld. After a while, people will respect, or not, posts or comments from such a person, regardless of whether or not they know the real name/profession/location, etc. An anonymous commenter/blogger, on the other hand, has the potential to be a drive-by arsonist, and many are. In the space Internet world, Tommy Lee Elifritz is perhaps the best example of this, who changes his nom de plume more often than he probably changes his underwear, at places like Space Politics, NASA Watch and Rockets’n’Such. Of course, in his case, the vile style is quite distinctive.

Anyway, from a personal perspective, I’ve always blogged under my real name, for better or worse. In some cases, it’s been for the worse. I won’t name names, but I know for a fact that I have lost consulting work and been blackballed by parts of the industry because of my writing on the net under my own name (the proximate cause was the LA Times debate that I had with Homer Hickam), prominently noted to industry insiders, who might otherwise not have noticed it, by NASA Watch. Thanks, Keith…

Note that this wasn’t over my “right wing” (a phrase that never fails to amuse) politics, but specifically about my space policy blogging. This undoubtedly cost me many thousands of dollars in income since then, and ultimately resulted in a blogging plea for work last summer (one that ultimately resulted in consulting employment that undid at least some of the personal economic damage, so blogging has some value). This isn’t a complaint, but simply a statement of how the world works.

Perhaps, had I been blogging pseudonymously, this wouldn’t have happened. But as others in the most recent discussion have pointed out, one can only maintain pseudonymity for so long, until one is “outed,” because the more one reveals on the blog (and if one is a serious blogger, much is eventually revealed), diligent people can figure it out, and if they think it in their interest, reveal it to others. And of course, had I been a pseudonymous blogger, I wouldn’t have gotten the LA Times gig to begin with. Who wants to read Homer Hickam debating someone who won’t use their own name?

Anyway, when I started this endeavor, my motto was “to thine own self be true.” I’ve always tried to do that on this blog, consequences (apparently) be damned, and I’d like to assure what few readers I have that I’ll continue to do so.

[Monday morning update]

Heh. “I’ve looked at a bunch of the sites that have posted on the Blevins affair, and their anonymous commenters are running heavily against Ed for some reason.”

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Hating Bush

15 Comments

…loving Castro. It’s all good:

He was a courtly State Department intelligence analyst from a prominent family who loved to sail and peruse the London Review of Books. Occasionally, he would voice frustration with U.S. policies, but to his liberal neighbors in Northwest D.C. it was nothing out of the ordinary. “We were all appalled by the Bush years,” one said.

So, who could blame him for spying for a communist dictator?

History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

More History Lessons For The President

2 Comments

From Michael Barone and Frank Tipler.

It makes me all the more curious to see his college transcripts. Did he even take a course in history? And what’s really appalling is that it isn’t just him — there are apparently no fact checkers in the White House itself.

And Victor Davis Hanson says that the president reminds him of himself. A much younger, and more naive himself.

[Update a few minutes later]

Obama’s message of weakness:

The speech…impressed many conservatives, including Rich Lowry, my esteemed editor at National Review, “esteemed editor” being the sort of thing one says before booting the boss in the crotch. Rich thought that the president succeeded in his principal task: “Fundamentally, Obama’s goal was to tell the Muslim world, ‘We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.'” But those terms are too narrow. You don’t have to murder a guy if he preemptively surrenders. And you don’t even have to hate him if you’re too busy despising him. The savvier Muslim potentates have no desire to be sitting in a smelly cave in the Hindu Kush, sharing a latrine with a dozen half-witted goatherds while plotting how to blow up the Empire State Building. Nevertheless, they share key goals with the cave dwellers – including the wish to expand the boundaries of “the Muslim world” and (as in the anti-blasphemy push at the U.N.) to place Islam, globally, beyond criticism. The nonterrorist advance of Islam is a significant challenge to Western notions of liberty and pluralism.

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea and any other psychostate minded to join them.

This reminds me of the old The Simpsons episode about the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way. There’s the Reagan way, the Carter way, and the Obama way. The latter is like the Carter way, but way faster. We’re not even half a year into the presidency.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

Show Us How It Works

31 Comments

Virginia Postrel says do Medicare first:

Think about this for a moment. Medicare is a huge, single-payer, government-run program. It ought to provide the perfect environment for experimentation. If more-efficient government management can slash health-care costs by addressing all these problems, why not start with Medicare? Let’s see what “better management” looks like applied to Medicare before we roll it out to the rest of the country.

This is not a completely cynical suggestion. Medicare is, for instance, a logical place to start to design better electronic records systems and the incentives to use them. But you do have to wonder why a report that claims that Medicare is wasting 30 percent of its spending thinks it’s making a case for making the rest of the health care system more like Medicare.

Because they think we’re rubes. And judging by the voting results last fall, many of us are.

This reminds me of the old Soviet joke (that I’m sure I’ve related at this blog, perhaps more than once, but it remains appropriate). A teacher is lecturing schoolchildren on the brilliance of Karl Marx. A kid raises his hand, and says, “Teacher, was Marx truly a great scientist?” She beams and nods, and declares him the greatest scientist in the history of mankind. “Well,” he went on, “then why didn’t he try this crap on rats first?”

[Saturday afternoon update]

Peter Orszag has responded to Virginia’s question. Hail the blogosphere.

I find this quite telling:

Medicare First–changing Medicare and waiting to see how it works before messing around with the rest of the health care system–won’t work politically.

You don’t say…

Some people might think that cause to rethink. But not these people.

[Bumped]

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The First “Progressive” President

7 Comments

A warning to modern “progressives” to be careful what they wish for:

I’m thinking of an American president who demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state, censored the press, imprisoned dissidents, bullied political opponents, spewed propaganda, often expressed contempt for the Constitution, approved warrantless searches and eavesdropping, and pursued his policies with a blind, religious certainty.

Oh, and I’m not thinking of George W. Bush, but another “W” – actually “WW”: Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who served from 1913 to 1921.

President Wilson is mostly remembered today as the first modern liberal president, the first (and only) POTUS with a PhD, and the only political scientist to occupy the Oval Office. He was the champion of “self determination” and the author of the idealistic but doomed “Fourteen Points” – his vision of peace for Europe and his hope for a League of Nations. But the nature of his presidency has largely been forgotten.

That’s a shame, because Wilson’s two terms in office provide the clearest historical window into the soul of progressivism. Wilson’s racism, his ideological rigidity, and his antipathy toward the Constitution were all products of the progressive worldview. And since “progressivism” is suddenly in vogue – today’s leading Democrats proudly wear the label – it’s worth actually reviewing what progressivism was and what actually happened under the last full-throated progressive president.

The record should give sober pause to anyone who’s mesmerized by the progressive promise.

But they don’t even understand their own intellectual history.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Thoughts On The Economy

5 Comments

Half full, or half empty?

I was surprised that no administration officials were on the business news channels this morning. That is highly unusual for Jobs Day. Maybe they are afraid of the following sequence of questions:

1. Is the economy recovering? (They would like to answer this one, “Tentatively yes. We’re seeing positive signs, but there’s a long way to go.”)
2. If so, is the economy recovering because of the stimulus? How can you claim that it is if only $40-ish billion has gone out the door so far?
3. Or are the green shoots growing just because it’s springtime? Is the less worse economic news primarily a result of financial institutions raising capital and the passage of time?

In addition to being inefficient and wasteful, the stimulus was poorly timed. By deferring to congressional desires to shovel taxpayer funds to slow-spending infrastructure projects, the administration got a stimulus law that isn’t helping GDP growth now, and won’t have a quantitatively significant effect until 2010. The administration is in a tough spot — if the economy is not healing, then at some point the president will take the blame. If instead the economy is healing before the stimulus takes effect, then maybe the stimulus was unnecessary or even counterproductive.

Gee, it’s not like nobody predicted this months ago when the fool bill was passed without anyone having a chance to read it.

History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

More On The “Student Of History”

5 Comments

Michael Ledeen points out more alternate history from the president’s speech:

On the other hand, there were so many errors of history that I was left wondering if there is anyone in the White House that checks facts. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” But the Muslims had been driven out of Spain by the time of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was Catholic, after all. What was he thinking? And even if he was thinking about an earlier epoch, the so-called Golden Age, “tolerance” is hardly the right word. Yes, non-Muslims were permitted to live, provided that they submitted to Muslim rule and paid their rulers. Yes, Jews were better off in Muslim lands than in Christian areas during the Middle Ages. But “toleration” it wasn’t. One of my best professors used to argue that the word, in its contemporary sense, only began to make sense in the seventeenth century.

He credited Muslims for inventions of others, from the magnetic compass to algebra to pens, arches, and even to printing. It’s as if there were no ancient Chinese inventions, and the Romans had to await the Prophet before they could build the Pantheon. And someone really should tell him that printing came from the Orient, was rejected in Muslim domains, and then developed in Europe. It was introduced into the Middle East in the 15th century by Jews, who were not permitted to publish in Arabic. So the first printing press in the region was brought by Jews who then published in Hebrew.

The absolute worst part of the speech was the mush about Iran. He could have talked about the great Persian contributions to Western culture, or credited Cyrus the Great for issuing the first known document dealing with human rights. He didn’t do that (Cyrus wasn’t a Muslim, after all). Instead, he regretted American meddling in Iran in 1953, and then moved on to assure the mullahs that they were fully entitled to have a (peaceful) nuclear program. As if nobody knew (Bushitlercheney had made the same point, let us not forget). Not a word about Iranian killers around the world. Not a word about the dreadful repression of the Iranian people. Not a word about any possible consequences if, as everyone expects, Iran builds atomic bombs.

That’s because he expects there to be none. I suspect that the Israelis have a different idea.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

So What’s It Done For Us Lately?

38 Comments

Obama, in Cairo:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.

So far, so good (though I’ve never seen much evidence that he’s really a “student of history”). But this next seems like a stretch:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Note that he provides no examples of this, and the world abounds with counterexamples to the proposition. For example, I always find it either amusing or appalling that African-Americans who embrace the religion don’t understand that it was Arab traders (Muslims) who sold their ancestors into slavery to the Europeans.

This next bit is even more amazing, though:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

Now, when I see the words “Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” and “Tripoli,” the Treaty of Tripoli is not the first thing that comes to mind. What comes to mind is the Marine Corps anthem, which talks about “the shores of Tripoli.” Because that was the first foreign war in which we engaged after gaining our independence and becoming a constitutional republic — a war against Muslims resulting from their continual piracy and kidnapping of American sailors. And of course, they didn’t restrict their kidnapping to ships at sea — many people (and many women and children) were plucked from the shores of Europe and the British Isles, and sold into slavery. By Muslims. They were equal-opportunity slavers, enslaving both blacks and whites. Perhaps this is what Obama meant by their promotion of “racial equality.”

Anyway, anyone familiar with the actual history of relations between the young United States and the Barbary Pirates would be astonished to read the above paragraph coming from a supposed “student of history.”

Now, I’m not saying that he should have peeled that particular scab off the old wound– just that it’s bizarre to talk about our early relations with Islam without mentioning it. It would have been better to simply avoid discussing that particular period in history at all.

I guess that this must be a result of studying history in the US public school system. Maybe he should have gotten vouchers.

And of course, there is nothing particularly Islamic about wearing a “hijab.” It’s a recent fashion (and part of the religion’s long-time subjugation of women). I hope that he doesn’t plan to have the US government defend the right to cover the face for driver’s license photos, or to not require Muslim nurses to wash their hands before and during surgery, as has occurred in the UK.

What is annoying about this speech (even ignoring the utter whitewashing of the history of Islam), is that he’s once again, or still (though more subtly this time) running against George Bush, with the implication that Bush was at war with Islam, regardless of the painstaking politically correct steps he took to avoid that impression, to the point of having the FBI coordinate and cooperate with the terrorist-sponsoring organization, CAIR. This speech was unnecessary, at least as far as healing our relations with Islam or the world. But it will help reinforce domestically the false history from this “student of history” that the war (when they’re willing to admit that we are at war) is all Bush’s fault.

I’ll probably talk about the section on Israel and the “Palestinians” in another post, when I find time.

[Update a while later]

It’s worth noting, as it is in comments, that the Treaty of Tripoli was one of several, and basically a negotiation of how much tribute should be paid by the US to the Barbary Coast for a guarantee of unhindered passage by American ships through the Mediterranean and near Atlantic, after the loss of protection by first the British and later the French navies. It was basically a formalized extortion racket, which eventually (and it didn’t take long) broke down and resulted in the young US raising a Navy and engaging in the Barbary Wars, to avoid further tribute. Again, it seems a tender issue to raise in a speech addressed to Muslims.

[Update early afternoon]

Andy McCarthy has similar thoughts.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Platitudes and naivete. Robert Spencer dissects. Of course “platitudes and naivete” is a pretty good description of any Obama speech, so it doesn’t really distinguish this one.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Obama Has Nominated A Puerto Rican Nationalist

25 Comments

…to the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a Puerto Rican nationalist per se — I find it a perfectly respectable political position albeit a minority one on the island, and the US would probably be better off without the commonwealth, since it is a net sink for taxpayer dollars. But do we really want someone who couldn’t bring herself to call the US Congress and US Supreme Court the US Congress and US Supreme Court to be an associate justice on the latter? At the very least, this deserves some serious questions at the confirmation hearings.

Media Criticism, Space

“Hate” Speech

38 Comments

Mark Whittington seems to suffer from an almost autistic inability to properly gauge the emotions of others — the same malady as many self-described liberals seem to suffer, when they describe as “hate speech” or “racist” words with which they simply disagree. He often irrationally refers to my posts as “rants,” or “seething,” or “filled with rage,” though in each and every case I was perfectly calm when composing them, and no one else ever sees the supposed anger. And when called on it, he can never justify it, or point to the exact words that he finds so rage filled (and indeed, ignores requests to do so, usually simply repeating the slander).

Here’s an example (not of me, this time, fortunately):

Some interesting words of wisdom from Mike Griffin along with, sadly, words of hate in the comments section.

Well, I read those comments (only two of them at the time of this posting — I can’t speak for what might appear there in the future), and I saw nothing “hateful” about them. They simply pointed out inconsistencies in the former administrator’s words, and between words and deeds. One need not “hate” someone to point out flaws in their arguments. I wonder why Mark views the world in such emotional extremes?

[Thursday morning update]

Amazing. He’s still at it.

Mind, there are a few things about which one can criticize Dr. Griffin’s tenure at NASA, mainly by using 20 20 hindsight. But really, some of the posts I have read makes one wonder if he drinks the blood of virgins and eats the flesh of the young, so filled with rage they are.

Note that (as always) he can’t point to any particular “rage-filled” post or comment, and show us the “hateful” words. Just like his imaginary friends at the “Internet Rocketeers Club,” we are simply supposed to accept that such things exist in reality, and not just in Mark’s mind.

And of course, there, as he did here, he says that I accused him of being a liberal, once again indicating his apparent inability to comprehend written English. And no, Mark, there is nothing “hateful” about pointing out either that, or your apparent inability to properly gauge others’ emotional states. It is purely an unemotional, clinical observation.

[Bumped]