Category Archives: Political Commentary

History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

If You Can’t Stand The Heat

18 Comments

A history lesson for modern pampered lily-livered politicians.

[Update a while later]

Sarah Palin responds to the vicious calumny. And no, she doesn’t “apologize.” Good for her.

[Another update]

Want to see a violent political culture? Go back to the sixties:

In a very real way the media were the secret sharers of the radical left. As a young media member and novelist, I knew this well. The most radical of us were acting out our hidden dreams for the rest. We condemned them occasionally and ritually, but rarely vehemently. The Weather Underground and even later the execrable Symbionese Liberation Army were never treated in the press with quite the opprobrium they now reserve for the tea party movement. As Baudelaire put it, “Mon semblable, mon frère.” The worst of the radical left were just like the rest of us, but with a little extra edge.

They weren’t anti-war — they were just on the other side.

And so many were disappointed, including Jackie Kennedy, when the assassin was determined to be a communist sympathizer. So much so, in fact, that many of them remain in denial about it today, as evidenced by all the conspiracy theories.

[Update a while later]

Good point: “If you really believed political rhetoric caused Jared Loughner’s killing spree, you wouldn’t dare to say it.”

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Another Wellstone “Memorial”

10 Comments

…in the offing? I’m not going to bother to listen.

[Update a few minutes later]

Enough is enough, Sheriff Dupnik. These people have no sense of how crazy they sound. What a hack.

[Update a couple minutes later]

A guide for the journalistically challenged:

Media Guide

[Update a while later]

Thoughts on the confusion of the “feminist” narrative.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Paul Krugman, buffoon:

My guess is that Krugman has no idea when Michele referred to being “armed and dangerous,” or why, or what the rest of the sentence was. Krugman’s biggest problem isn’t that he is stupid. His biggest problem is that he is lazy. He is incapable of doing even the most rudimentary research, which is why his columns rarely contain many facts, and when they do, his “facts” are often wrong.

As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with Brian Ward and me, on our radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans.

The interview illustrates quite well the difference between Michele Bachmann and Paul Krugman. Krugman is a vicious hater. He rarely argues any issue on the merits, but prefers to smear those who disagree with him. Bachmann is infinitely better informed than Krugman. All she wants to do is debate her opponents on the facts. Unlike Krugman, she doesn’t hate anyone; her irrepressible good humor is considered a marvel by everyone who knows her.

Not like that’s news, of course. I would note that he wasn’t on the panel on This Week on Sunday. I wonder if the suits at ABC decided to head off his jackassery at the pass on that particular day?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Not just a buffoon, but a hypocritical one. No news there, either.

Political Commentary, Space

Have We Seen The Last Shuttle Launch Already?

15 Comments

Maybe. I’d like to call in on the phone bridge to today’s press conference with Gerstenmaier and Shannon, but I don’t have a center press credential. I’m hoping that someone, perhaps Oberg, will ask what should be the obvious question today — what are the program consequences of shutting the system down now? It seems to me that the only reason that they wanted three more flights is to preserve the jobs as long as possible, and the only real lost capability will be AMS, which they could perhaps put up on something else (e.g., Falcon 9, if a Dragon were in place to tug it to ISS). Of course, as I noted over at Space Politics, Nelson et al don’t really care whether the Shuttle actually flies or not, as long as they keep spending the money. But it’s gong to look like a ripe place to cut.