Category Archives: Media Criticism

Education, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

George W. Bush

…and the historians’ rush to judgment:

The animus that scholars have directed toward Bush has at times made a mockery of the principle of academic objectivity. At the annual meeting of the American Historical Association in January 2009, a panel on the Bush-Cheney years organized by a group called Historians Against the War featured scholars from Columbia, Yale, Trinity College, New York University and Yeshiva University. They compared the Bush “regime’s” security practices to those of Joseph McCarthy and various “war criminals.” The cover illustration of the roundtable’s report showed Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, seated on a pile of human skulls.

All of this overheated rhetoric and fear-mongering has come from academics who profess to live the life of the mind. In their hasty, partisan-tinged assessments of Bush, far too many scholars breached their professional obligations, engaging in a form of scholarly malpractice, by failing to do what historians are trained to do before pronouncing judgment on a presidency: conduct tedious archival research, undertake oral history interviews, plow through memoirs, interview foreign leaders and wait for the release of classified information.

I was no big fan of George Bush, but he was better than the available alternatives, and the fact that these hacks and mediocrities have such irrational hatred for him only increases my own respect for him. He must have done something right to get their leftist panties in such a twist.

Education, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Two Terrorists

5 Comments

A tale:

As I said, people of a certain age remember this history. For those that don’t, Robert Redford is kindly about to release a movie recounting the Rockland robbery (albeit relocated to Michigan). By all accounts, the film lionizes the Weather Underground terrorists, Boudin and her accomplices.

Perhaps to bring it full circle, Professor Boudin can soon guest-lecture at a film class at Columbia when the Redford movie is screened.

Other than the passage of time, one can find no real distinction between the cowardly actions of last Monday’s Boston murderer and the terror carried out by Boudin and her accomplices. Yet today we live in a country where our leading educational institutions see fit to trust our children’s education to murderers and Hollywood sees fit to celebrate terrorists.

The Web site of Columbia’s School of Social Work sums up Boudin’s past thus: “Dr. Kathy Boudin has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems.”

“Since 1964” — that would include the bombing of my house, it would include the anti-personnel devices intended for Fort Dix and it would include the dead policeman on the side of the Thruway in 1981.

We have a sick culture, particularly in Hollywood and academia.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Miranda

20 Comments

Some people are making silly (dare I say ridiculous?) comments in this thread about how I’ve suddenly become a big-government authoritarian because I don’t think that the Boston bomber should be read his Miranda rights, or necessarily questioned with a lawyer present. I think that this criticism arises largely from ignorance of the law and Constitution (along with a healthy dollop of hysteria). Orin Kerr explains the legal situation:

A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. The police aren’t required to follow Miranda. Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So, contrary to what a lot of people think, it is legal for the government to even intentionally violate Miranda so long as they don’t try to seek admission of the suspect’s statements in court.

Emphasis mine.

It’s just that simple. There is no need to get his testimony in court, because the other evidence against him is overwhelming. What there is a need to do is to find out if there are other co-conspirators, and other bombs, and other plans. And as Orin also points out, there are even ways to get the evidence into trial even under these circumstances, should it be necessary.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The “Right Wing” And The Media

24 Comments

Phil Klein describes what’s infuriating about media coverage of extremist violence:

…the reason why conservatives get irked when “right wing” is used in reference to major acts of violence — often without an iota of evidence to back it up — is that the term “right wing” is broadly applied by the media to the entire conservative movement. I don’t think “right-wing” Jennifer Rubin and Sheldon Adelson get pumped every April for Hilter’s birthday, that “right-wing think tanks” like the Heritage Foundation burst out the champagne on the Columbine anniversary, or that “right-wing rock star” Scott Walker is a big fan of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Even putting aside the bias issue, it’s just lazy and imprecise journalism to use the term “right-wing” so broadly that it could refer to anybody from a libertarian who believes in a small centralized government to somebody who wants to restore the Third Reich.

As a rule of thumb, I think journalists should avoid terms like “right-wing” and “left-wing” in basic news coverage. But given that the idea of a right vs. left dichotomy is so ingrained in our political lexicon, it’s unlikely that shying away from this terminology would make a difference at this point. Instead, I think that if reporters mean to refer to a threat presented by a specific group — neo-Nazis, Islamic radicals, anarchists, white supremacists, or so on — they should do so. If they have broader category in mind, they should use a broader term, such as “domestic extremism.” But throwing around a term like “right wing” whenever violence strikes — which is associated with conservatism in the American political context — is irresponsible.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that there is an asymmetry here. The Left is generally proud to wear the label (when they’re not attempting to mislead by calling themselves “liberal” and “progressive”). I don’t know very many conservatives (maybe none) who refer to themselves as “right wing,” and no libertarians who do so. I certainly don’t accept the label, and never have.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

The Tea Party Bombers

101 Comments

Well, they were white guys, just like the press was fervently hoping. But who knew that the Tea Party was so active in Chechnya?

I’m sure that all that Islam stuff on his web page is just to camouflage his right-wing militia racism.

[Update a while later]

Let’s hope that this isn’t the beginning of a trend:

Yet such freakouts [as the one today in Boston] are nothing compared to what is in store if the the Marathon bombing means that Chechen jihadis has come to U.S. shores. The Chechens mounted one of the most vicious terror campaigns ever against Russia in the 1990s, blowing up apartment buildings, and launching massive attacks on theaters and even schools. They are known as among the most violent and dedicated terrorists in the world. They can be found fighting in Libya, Syria and every other major jihadi campaign. Though usually they have to sneak into the target countries, rather than coming on a visa as the Boston bombers apparently did.)

Russia only succeeded in suppressing the Chechen Islamists with extremely brutal tactics that would never find support in the U.S – essentially leveling the Chechen capital. Yet dealing with such a threat would also be impossible with a politically correct approach to counter-terror that, for example, turns away from talking frankly about the terrorists profiles and motives.

But they’d rather talk about the Tea Party and militias, and “workplace violence” at Fort Hood.

[Update a while later]

What we know about the terrorists. Dan Foster has a roundup.

[Update a few minutes later]

It occurs to me that I’d have been a little nervous knowing someone who was named for Tamerlane:

Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.

He reportedly built pyramids of human skulls of the vanquished. It would be sort of like naming your kid “Stalin” or “Mao.” Or Hitler, though he was actually a piker when it came to murdering humans compared to those two.

[Update a few minutes later]

Three places to know to understand the terrorists.

[Update a few minutes later]

An important point:

Because we know so little, and because the stakes are so high, it is imperative that the remaining suspect — if caught — should not be permitted to “lawyer up.” Were they an isolated pair, merely inspired by foreign terrorism? Did they have links to al-Qaeda? Did they have links to Chechen terror groups? Were they even inspired by jihad or something else entirely? Did they have help? Foreign terrorists with potential links to our deadliest enemies do not have the right to remain silent.

But the fools running Eric Holder’s Justice Department will probably give them one anyway. The smart media would start to ask now if this will be treated as a domestic crime or foreign terrorism, and it’s a decision that should be made before capture, it we’re lucky enough to capture him.

[Update a while later]

Here’s some dark humor — the hijacked car had a “Coexist” sticker on it.

[Bumped]

Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

Life Extension And Entitlements

4 Comments

This is a serious issue about which most people, including most policy makers, are in denial:

Ultimately, the question is this: are Americans entitled to unlimited life expectancy? If so, perhaps we need to say goodbye to the notion of limited government as a greater share of wealth is devoted to the health and income needs of a much longer-lived population. From where I sit, unlimited life expectancy sounds appealing. Unlimited government? Not so much. Mr. Kurzweil’s vision greatly amplifies the urgency of our getting on with the task of fundamental entitlement reforms.

The Founders said that we had a right to the pursuit of happiness, which to me would include the pursuit of an indefinite lifespan, if our pursuit is generally successful, and we’re leading happy lives. But they granted no right to live off the labor of others.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Gabby Giffords

5 Comments

…poisons the well:

If Alter meant it when he said he hoped Giffords would become a “referee” of public discourse–an advocate for reasoned civility–he ought to feel terribly disappointed. She has instead turned out to be a practitioner of incivility and unreason.

That’s a harsh but justified appraisal of her op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip.” It’s a reaction to yesterday’s failure of President Obama’s gun-control proposals in the Democratic Senate. Giffords’s 900-word jeremiad should be included in every textbook of logic and political rhetoric, so rife is it with examples of fallacious reasoning and demagogic appeals. Let’s go through them:

Read all. Of course what happened to her is terrible, and tragic, but it doesn’t give her moral authority to bully and insult us with illogic. And the president has even less standing to do so.

Business, Economics, Health, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Chutzpah Of Max Baucus

2 Comments

Mike Pompeo calls him on it:

If it’s a train wreck, Pompeo said, Baucus has no one to blame but himself.

“No one in the country bears more responsibility for the complexity of this law than you,” Pompeo wrote in a letter to Baucus on Thursday.

Baucus, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was a key architect of the Affordable Care Act. Most of its major provisions were crafted in his committee, and the Finance draft was consistently treated as the primary bill even as other Senate and House committees worked on their own proposals.

“You drafted it, you twisted arms to get it passed, and, until now, you have lauded it as a model for all the world,” Pompeo wrote to Baucus. “Your attempts to pass the buck to President Obama’s team will not work, nor will they absolve you of responsibility for the harm that you have brought via this law.”

Baucus has a competitive reelection fight coming up next year — just months after the biggest pieces of ObamaCare are set to take effect. Republicans have already made clear that they plan to target Baucus over his role in getting the healthcare law passed, and problems with the implementation could make the GOP’s job easier.

My emphasis.

It certainly should make it easier. These people are truly disgusting.