“Clinton Haters”

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

Golden State Donkey Implosion

They’ve apparently never learned the old adage, when in a hole, quit digging.

Members of the Assembly Democrats’ progressive caucus were heard making candid, if not intemperate, statements such as one by Los Angeles Assemblyman Fabian Nunez that they may want to “precipitate a crisis” over the budget this year. That might persuade voters to lower the two-thirds vote threshold needed to pass a spending plan, he reasoned.

“It seems to me if there’s going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year,” Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said during the meeting. “What you do is you show people that you can’t get to this without a 55 percent vote.”

The unintentional broadcast was interrupted when someone informed the group that a microphone was on. “Oh s–,” Goldberg said as the sound was cut.

Heh…

The Republicans are going to make golden hay out of this–the Dems just blew a major part of their demogogic message.

Wings Versus Capsules

Kind of like Mothra versus Rodan, we have another round of this ongoing theological discussion in progress. Now, “Publius Rex” takes issue with the piece a few days ago by Jeffrey Bell that shredded many of the arguments for a winged Orbital Space Plane.

I discussed the issue then, but my main point remains that, while these are interesting technical arguments, they’re ultimately irrelevant to our future in space, because given its current philosophy and the politics of the situation, NASA is unlikely to come up with anything that reduces costs or significantly improves safety. That will come only when we stop looking to NASA for our space transportation needs, and increase funding to the private entities to whom those things actually matter.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!