Some thoughts from Robert Zubrin on the environmental movement. They’re not just deniers — many of them are enablers and cheerleaders.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
The Muslim Brotherhood
President Narcissist
Thoughts on Mr. I, Me, Mine:
So what is the problem with a charismatic, narcissistic president? After all, most presidents by definition must be somewhat self-absorbed. Yet the rub is that the world has tuned Obama out. All his prime-time rhetoric from Afghanistan, the cool multicultural accentuation of Pakîstan and the Talîban, the photo-op reminders that it was Obama who ordered the mission that took out bin Laden — all this meant nothing to the Taliban, who will now patiently wait us out, unleash a North Vietnamese–like offensive very soon, and remind us that just because we don’t believe there are still things like victory and defeat in our messy wars, that does not mean there are not.
In other words, I worry that Vladimir Putin, the Iranian theocrats, the North Korean apparat, the Chinese central committee, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the others who detest the United States have sized up Barack Obama. For 40 months they have acknowledged that his postracial image and his youthful charisma, as David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs rightly insisted, threw them for a loop — for a while. And that “for a while” is now ending, replaced with a new belief abroad that the more Obama talks about himself and his team, and the more emphatic he becomes with his “Make no mistake about it” and “Let me be perfectly clear” vacuities, the more he can at first safely be ignored, and then, quite soon, safely be taken advantage of.
Let’s hope it’s not for more than a few more months.
More Republican Space Socialism
I have a rundown on the latest antics on the Hill over at Open Market.
Speaking Truth To The Academic Mob
Naomi Schaefer Riley defends herself in the WSJ:
Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post. A number of the dissertations aren’t even available. Which didn’t seem to stop the Chronicle reporter, though. And 6,500 academics signed a petition online demanding that I be fired.
At first, the Chronicle stood its ground, suggesting that my post was an “invitation to debate.” But that stance lasted for little more than a weekend. In a note that reads like a confession at a re-education camp, the Chronicle’s editor, Liz McMillen announced her decision on Monday to fire me: “We’ve heard you,” she tells my critics. “And we have taken to heart what you said. We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles.”
When I asked Ms. McMillen whether the poem by fellow blogger Ms. Barreca, for instance, lived up to such standards, she said they were “reviewing” the other content on the site. So far, however, that blogger has not been fired. Other ad hominem attacks against me seem to have passed editorial muster as well.
In a sane world, banks would put a high premium on a loan to get a degree in anything “studies.”
For those who haven’t been following this, Nick Gillespie has the whole story.
[Update a few minutes later]
More from Ron Radosh.
#AskMichelle
What could go wrong?
I wonder if the Obama administration is starting to wish that this Twitter thing had never been invented.
Obama’s Fantasy Life
The life of Julia provides insight into it.
Three-Way Race
Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%.
That looks like a pretty big majority for smaller government. Interestingly, it’s very similar to the 1992 result with Perot, except this time, it’s the Democrat who’s hurt by the third candidate. I suspect that this is because Paul picks up a lot of the youth vote that would otherwise go to Obama, with whom they’ve become disenchanted. Maybe the Republicans should urge Paul to run.
The Campaign To End Obesity
Dr. Taubes explains why it keeps failing.
Tea Party Versus OWS
A comparison.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: the Left’s idea of tolerance:
So, in the 1950s, after fighting a war against racist, Nazi monsters, Americans brought fresh vigor to their examination of their own racism and began to purge themselves of racist attitudes and policies that had poisoned our history. Likewise, in the ’70s and ’80s, when birth control and other technology made it easier for women to step beyond the bounds of their traditional roles, Americans began to accept the idea of women in the workforce and in positions of power. Today, the AIDS crisis has given us new sympathy for gays, and science is in the process of giving us a better understanding of the origins of sexual preference. In consequence, we are wrestling with questions of how to broaden our definitions of love and relationship without damaging the social fabric that has brought us so far.
So it is and so, in my opinion, it should be. But it does not in any way follow that we should therefore accept the worst, lowest and most despicable and anti-social behaviors from people simply because they belong to a group that may sometimes feel restricted or excluded.
The Left tells me it’s wrong to be suspicious when a black punk wearing a hood and loose pants slouches into my neighborhood? The Left tells me to listen with respect to the destructive deceptions of con-men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? The Left tells me not to fight back when some shrill, man-hating feminist virago goes on the rampage? They tell me not to be judgmental when I witness a young woman getting herself drunk enough to accept being used like a piece of meat by any young man without the virility to escort her safely home? And now the Left tells me I should not look askance at some gay weasel who abuses the privilege of speaking to young people by unleashing a foul-mouthed display of hatred, prejudice and rage?
Just say no.