TW: This news story is a couple of weeks old but the point remains. We have made these points frequently, we all to a certain extent are bouncing around our own echo chambers to the point significant news events can pass almost unnoticed within a particular chamber. Part of the reason the echo chambers become so distant is the political implication of nearly any news.
Successes be they economic, military or even fighting terrorists help the incumbent and vice versa. It is no wonder adherents of either side can become increasingly stratified to the point where compromise becomes nearly impossible.
That said it is the obligation of all to burn through the partisan noise. Merely assuming both sides are equivalently biased, ignorant or ill-informed is laziness and leads to the most ignorant, biased and poorly informed gaining disproportionate political power.
From Economist:
"OFTEN when news breaks, I look around a few blogs I know well to take the temperature of how it's playing. The National Review has long been my temperature gauge for mainstream conservativism—it's about as orthodox as Republican outlets get. The writers at the Corner blog seem to get up early: there are already 16 posts up today. As of this typing (10:02 am), there is a post laughing at the Obama administration's efforts to "ban" the phrase "war on terrorism" (of course nothing is being banned: the administration has just decided, sensibly, to stop using the phrase.)...
Curiously unmentioned on the blog is that the CIA has killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The actual war on terrorism (if you must) is, apparently, of no interest to modern conservatives. Playing lame word-games to show that the administration is not serious about terror is more important than noting, in any form whatsoever, the killing of the man believed to be behind Benazir Bhutto's assassination and countless terror attacks. It's the biggest one-man death since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed. And at National Review, crickets, tumbleweed and, for Pete's sake, two posts already today on Trotsky.
Maybe that is indicative. During the struggle against communism, William F. Buckley's magazine cared deeply about the outcome. It was a necessary publication in a scary world...
Update: The story was posted to the Corner, without comment, at 11:11, the 24th post of the day.
Update II: One commenter says that killing one leader of the bad guys is not significant. This is partly true, partly not. New leaders step forth, but they are inexperienced, and less trusted by the rank-and-file. Anyway, the point here is about American partisanship. How significant did the Corner find Zarqawi's death? 45 posts that day. Admittedly, Zarqawi was far more famous than Mehsud. 45 times as famous or important? Was Zarqawi killed 45 times deader?
That said, I've looked around more blogs and found far less commentary than I'd have expected. The Daily Kos homepage also features nothing about this killing. (At least they're consistent; they pooh-poohed the killing of Zarqawi. For what it's worth, The Economist thought that deserved a cover, though it happened on a Thursday, the day we go to press.) So let me update my rant: Americans are so uninterested in foreign policy that the left cannot shunt healthcare aside for one moment to talk about this, and the right only cares if it's good for Republicans. Sigh."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/nothing_to_say_and_so_many_wor.cfm
Showing posts with label National Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Review. Show all posts
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Michelle Obama: "Intellectual Lightweight" Are You Serious?
TW: I could make a blog focused solely on annoying right-wing comments, which would get tedious and repetitive very quickly, but this one I could not let pass. Michelle Obama is likely not perfect although every thing I have ever read, seen in person or on TV indicates she is highly impressive to the point of awe inspiring. Yet the National Review, a mainstream conservative publication, puts this type of stuff on their site. What does a person of color have to do to impress and move beyond cheap pathetic stereotypes.
From National Review Corner Blog via Pour Me Coffee:
"Now, let me be blunt: Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjQ2MjAzYzRkOTI3OTdlYjljZDNkMjdiNGY2YTQyMTE=
From Pour Me Coffee on the above quote:
"The stuff thrown at Palin stuck because it was true. This won't because it's not. Just that simple, really. Sarah Palin was running for the second highest office in the land and doing so in a provocative, highly aggressive style. Michelle Obama is the First Lady. Ugly stuff.
Update. Remember, this is the same crowd that said race was the only reason Justice Sotomayor got into and succeeded at Princeton. As for Bush at Yale, pure intellectual horsepower no doubt."
From National Review Corner Blog via Pour Me Coffee:
"Now, let me be blunt: Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjQ2MjAzYzRkOTI3OTdlYjljZDNkMjdiNGY2YTQyMTE=
From Pour Me Coffee on the above quote:
"The stuff thrown at Palin stuck because it was true. This won't because it's not. Just that simple, really. Sarah Palin was running for the second highest office in the land and doing so in a provocative, highly aggressive style. Michelle Obama is the First Lady. Ugly stuff.
Update. Remember, this is the same crowd that said race was the only reason Justice Sotomayor got into and succeeded at Princeton. As for Bush at Yale, pure intellectual horsepower no doubt."
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Extremism In Defense Of Security Is a Vice
TW: Some highlights from National Review and Weekly Standard on their reactions to today's speeches. These are the mainline conservative magazines, I could not force myself to go to the real hard core sites like Red State.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Bellicosity Is Neither Patriotic Nor Effective
TW: Backseat driving is not unusual from political opponents. But Republicans almost never pass up the chance to impugn the intelligence, integrity and patriotism of progressives relative to national security. The audacity of arrogance personified by Gingrich and Hanson below is the sort that drives me crazy. Why anyone, whose knee jerk response is to shoot and ask questions later at any and all perceived affronts to the U.S., feels they credibility befuddles me. Obama has taken guff for not waltzing through Europe as some form of emperor afraid to acknowledge any complicity on the part of the U.S. in the world's problems. Don't conservative understand the concepts of:
1) walking softly and carrying a big stick (as opposed to the too much hat and not enough cattle approach of a W. Bush)
2) aiming before firing (unlike our due diligence prior to the Iraq War)
3) those who can acknowledge their own faults strengthen their own credibility
We are the greatest nation in the world, the largest economy by a factor of at least two, the largest military by a factor of three. When you have the power, why flaunt it like an adolescent jock? Think scalpels instead of dull sabers. We can keep bludgeoning our way to fiscal and moral national suicide or we can exhibit some maturity.
Too often bellicosity has been confused for patriotism. We elected Obama to get away from the frat house approach of his predecessor and cronies. Patriotism takes many forms. Here is to hoping intelligence, integrity and judgment can become more respected than bellicosity and testosterone.
From Economist:
"FORTY-EIGHT hours ago, the pressure was building on Barack Obama to do something about the pirate hostage stand-off near the coast of Somalia. The attitude was best summed up by Newt Gingrich, the bellicose former speaker of the House and new media obsessive, who tweeted that "the right solution is for [Navy S]eals to go in during the night and stop the pirates while saving the hostage." Later: "The navy has plenty of resolve. It is the White House that is confused." Later: "As a historian I know that weakness encourages predators and aggressors and strength convinces them to quit."
Well, the crisis is over, with the endgame playing out just as Mr Gingrich would've liked. Captain Richard Phillips is now a free man; three pirates are dead by way of three Navy Seal bullets. What was becoming a political problem for the president is a 24-hour story about a minor military victory. In brute political terms, this is exactly what Republicans didn't need: while they'll never admit it now, they wondered if this would become an example of Mr Obama's weakness, like Jimmy Carter's botched Iranian hostage rescue in Operation Eagle Claw. Instead, Mr Phillips becomes a hero and Mr Obama gets a sudden injection of political goodwill, days before Republicans take to the streets to protest his spending plans."
From Victor Hanson at National Review:
"1) Piracy may or may not be a matter of American national security, but the American people will not for long stand the notion that a captive brave American ship captain risks his life to escape, while formidable American naval power either cannot or will not punish the miscreants;
2) Pompey's victories over the Cilician pirates, the Venetian clean-up of the Mediterranean sea-lanes, and the British success in stopping Caribarrean piracy were all predicated on going ashore, destroying the docks, headquarters, and homes of the pirates. To end Somali piracy, disproportionate measures against the shore should be taken—for every one pirate assault, a lethal air assault should immediately follow.[TW: BOMB, BOMB, BOMB...Bomb them all too hell!!! Victor et al. would have started WWIII in 1962 in Cuba without a doubt, but then they would have started on ten other occasions as well probably]
3) In academic circles the last two decades, pirates have been romanticized in a variety of contexts—as in pirates being contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists, rather than as murderous criminals. Who knows, maybe such esoteric theorizing has filtered down to the U.S. State Department.[TW: what does Johnny Depp have to do with this...]
4) The Obamists better be careful in their serial apologetics, "Bush did it" throat-clearing, and caving to European, Russia, Turkish, etc. agendas. Slowly, but clearly we are establishing a new atmosphere in which the old unpredictability, military preparedness, and deterrence will be lost, replaced by a touchy-feely sort of seminar discussion, laced with atonement, reaction. And then the two-bit pirates who boast "We are not afraid of the Americans" will be the least of our problems."
1) walking softly and carrying a big stick (as opposed to the too much hat and not enough cattle approach of a W. Bush)
2) aiming before firing (unlike our due diligence prior to the Iraq War)
3) those who can acknowledge their own faults strengthen their own credibility
We are the greatest nation in the world, the largest economy by a factor of at least two, the largest military by a factor of three. When you have the power, why flaunt it like an adolescent jock? Think scalpels instead of dull sabers. We can keep bludgeoning our way to fiscal and moral national suicide or we can exhibit some maturity.
Too often bellicosity has been confused for patriotism. We elected Obama to get away from the frat house approach of his predecessor and cronies. Patriotism takes many forms. Here is to hoping intelligence, integrity and judgment can become more respected than bellicosity and testosterone.
From Economist:
"FORTY-EIGHT hours ago, the pressure was building on Barack Obama to do something about the pirate hostage stand-off near the coast of Somalia. The attitude was best summed up by Newt Gingrich, the bellicose former speaker of the House and new media obsessive, who tweeted that "the right solution is for [Navy S]eals to go in during the night and stop the pirates while saving the hostage." Later: "The navy has plenty of resolve. It is the White House that is confused." Later: "As a historian I know that weakness encourages predators and aggressors and strength convinces them to quit."
Well, the crisis is over, with the endgame playing out just as Mr Gingrich would've liked. Captain Richard Phillips is now a free man; three pirates are dead by way of three Navy Seal bullets. What was becoming a political problem for the president is a 24-hour story about a minor military victory. In brute political terms, this is exactly what Republicans didn't need: while they'll never admit it now, they wondered if this would become an example of Mr Obama's weakness, like Jimmy Carter's botched Iranian hostage rescue in Operation Eagle Claw. Instead, Mr Phillips becomes a hero and Mr Obama gets a sudden injection of political goodwill, days before Republicans take to the streets to protest his spending plans."
From Victor Hanson at National Review:
"1) Piracy may or may not be a matter of American national security, but the American people will not for long stand the notion that a captive brave American ship captain risks his life to escape, while formidable American naval power either cannot or will not punish the miscreants;
2) Pompey's victories over the Cilician pirates, the Venetian clean-up of the Mediterranean sea-lanes, and the British success in stopping Caribarrean piracy were all predicated on going ashore, destroying the docks, headquarters, and homes of the pirates. To end Somali piracy, disproportionate measures against the shore should be taken—for every one pirate assault, a lethal air assault should immediately follow.[TW: BOMB, BOMB, BOMB...Bomb them all too hell!!! Victor et al. would have started WWIII in 1962 in Cuba without a doubt, but then they would have started on ten other occasions as well probably]
3) In academic circles the last two decades, pirates have been romanticized in a variety of contexts—as in pirates being contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists, rather than as murderous criminals. Who knows, maybe such esoteric theorizing has filtered down to the U.S. State Department.[TW: what does Johnny Depp have to do with this...]
4) The Obamists better be careful in their serial apologetics, "Bush did it" throat-clearing, and caving to European, Russia, Turkish, etc. agendas. Slowly, but clearly we are establishing a new atmosphere in which the old unpredictability, military preparedness, and deterrence will be lost, replaced by a touchy-feely sort of seminar discussion, laced with atonement, reaction. And then the two-bit pirates who boast "We are not afraid of the Americans" will be the least of our problems."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
An Alternative Universe- The National Review
TW: Perhaps this column from the National Review is meant with pure sarcasm, but somehow I think not. Despite the election of Barack Obama being greeted with worldwide acclaim and his entry into actual office regarded as one of the very few potential hopes to lift our nation (and perhaps the world) out of a extremely serious funk (and oh by the way first person of color etc.), this columist makes the case for Sarah Palin as Time's person of the year. The columnist even fantasizes about what a straight up Palin v. Obama election would have been like. To me it just shows once again the alternate universe into which many on the right have let themselves descend.
From Lopez at National Review:
"I suspect that when Time magazine chooses their Person of the Year for 2008, there will be little internal debate. They’ve probably long picked The One — Barack Obama. After all, more than half the country went and elected him the next president of the United States [TW ummm not a trivial fact heh?]...
But Time...shouldn’t ignore the people who were energized by the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket...Here at National Review’s post-election cruise, a group gathered for a weeklong post-mortem on the high seas has Palin on the brain. Palin’s not on ship, but neither her absence nor the McCain loss has dampened enthusiasm for her here...
Some will to this day compare her to Ronald Reagan. Why is this? It’s about her simple and clear patriotism, and, frankly, her forthright belief system compared to a now president-elect who was comfortable being friends with a domestic terrorist....
Palin offered something different. For some it was an anti-Washington feel. Many consider her a refreshing citizen-politician in the old mold, one that Thomas Jefferson would be proud to meet. Does that make her just like Obama? I do wonder what the campaign would have been like had they both been at the helm: He wouldn’t have had a monopoly on change, and she would have had her own staff and freedom to follow her instincts, and perhaps better advice than she was given as she ran for vice president. We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest ...Time would make a mistake if it ignored the Palin phenom this year just because the ticket didn’t win in the end"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTNkNmFjNWFiZDNhZDQxNmM1MWQ3OWU3ZGM1YTg2YmQ=
From Lopez at National Review:
"I suspect that when Time magazine chooses their Person of the Year for 2008, there will be little internal debate. They’ve probably long picked The One — Barack Obama. After all, more than half the country went and elected him the next president of the United States [TW ummm not a trivial fact heh?]...
But Time...shouldn’t ignore the people who were energized by the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket...Here at National Review’s post-election cruise, a group gathered for a weeklong post-mortem on the high seas has Palin on the brain. Palin’s not on ship, but neither her absence nor the McCain loss has dampened enthusiasm for her here...
Some will to this day compare her to Ronald Reagan. Why is this? It’s about her simple and clear patriotism, and, frankly, her forthright belief system compared to a now president-elect who was comfortable being friends with a domestic terrorist....
Palin offered something different. For some it was an anti-Washington feel. Many consider her a refreshing citizen-politician in the old mold, one that Thomas Jefferson would be proud to meet. Does that make her just like Obama? I do wonder what the campaign would have been like had they both been at the helm: He wouldn’t have had a monopoly on change, and she would have had her own staff and freedom to follow her instincts, and perhaps better advice than she was given as she ran for vice president. We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest ...Time would make a mistake if it ignored the Palin phenom this year just because the ticket didn’t win in the end"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTNkNmFjNWFiZDNhZDQxNmM1MWQ3OWU3ZGM1YTg2YmQ=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)