Supposedly the news cycle ebbs over the weekend. Not this weekend. And there wasn’t even football.
Here are some stories I wanted to share:
SNL had a hilarious skit, for once, about Scott Brown’s effect on the Dems.
This is a must-read story from the WaPo of all places, about the way the Obama Administration is going wrong over terrorism. Speaking of those sweet, innocent terrorists: read this first-hand account of their actions.
And for just sheer viewing pleasure, watch Roger Ailes take down Arianna Huffington and watch for Paul Krugman flinching and rolling his eyes at Arianna. Hilarious. Personally, I flinch any time any of these no-minds speak.
How ribald can you be? Newsweek will show you:
The CBN’s David Brody says:
You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let’s face it. This isn’t JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where’s the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
We see Obama with halos hovering over his head. We see Sarah in running shoes. The whole purpose is to diminish, denigrate and destroy a woman who differs politically.
As if fair-minded Americans needed more evidence of press bias.
Sarah Palin responds to the cover from Facebook:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.
– Sarah Palin
After this post got fed to Twitter, I got into an argument with a leftist feminist there about this cover. She brought up Hillary Clinton. She believes that Sarah Palin did this to herself by posing for Runners World. What serious politician or man would pose for that sort of cover?
What serious newsweekly would put a degrading picture, say of Obama frolicking in the surf or Bil and Hill dancing in the sand for the camera, on the cover of a magazine? Only conservative politicians need worry about being portrayed as trivial and sexy (Sarah), mean and old (McCain), mean (Cheney), mean and stupid (GWB). A Democrat gets gravitas-portraying treatment.
And that’s why conservatives view the press as biased. They don’t even attempt, even feebly, to hide it anymore.
Well, I knew this story had legs. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Anyway the feminists are coming out against Newsweek. It’s about damn time. It is heartening to see them facing this bias. Women should be evaluated on their content, beliefs and actions. When Sarah Palin is reduced to her legs, the men don’t have to evaluate her on her merit.
Julie Millican of Media Matters [!] says:
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek’s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”
When will the media stop this degrading nonsense? I think it’s when those within the ranks start holding them accountable. That’s happening, thankfully, at long last.
Glynnis MacNicol of Mediate notes the New York Time’s editor Bill Keller sudden fascination with all the news that’s fit to print–not just the part of the news that helps Democrats feel good about themselves. Well, this will be a real education:
Which is a major problem. You may not like Glenn Beck, you may think he is a nut job. You may think what he does is not journalism, you may think that in a perfect world of objective, reasoned, researched news reporting he should not have a place. But you ignore him at your own peril. Actually, there is the argument to be made that the Times ignores him at everyone’s peril — it is their job, after all, to watch and report on things the rest of us may not have the stomach for or any interest in. They are supposed to be watching Fox News so that other people don’t have to, not the other way around.
According to Hoyt the Times has recognized this and assigned an editor to watch Fox(!) along with a bunch of other sites they don’t normally like to sully themselves with “to brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.” Ha! They should just read Mediaite more. Alas, managing editor Bill Keller “declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.” Good luck with that.
So, the New York Times is assigning someone to watch Fox. Heavens to Betsy! What radical thing will the Time’s do next?
The irritating thing, of course, is that they’ll watch Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and think nothing because they agree with them. These yapping fools make sense to the NYT editors, but the the number of people watching MSNBC would indicate that their views are hardly representative of mainstream American views. Meanwhile, Beck and Fox in general, make huge numbers and the network even has a slight liberal tilt (don’t all news organizations?). And still, the New York Times has ignored them.
We’ll see how this endeavor goes. The NYT’s should be ashamed by the stories they’ve missed and the bias that causes them to ignore a whole segment of the reading public.
Ann Althouse is hilarious while excoriating the Time’s. She calls bullshit:
So you’re assigning somebody to get the clues you’ve been too lame to pick up, and yet you don’t want people to be able to send him clues because — you’ve got to be kidding! — he’d get too much email. Who with any level of connectedness has not learned to deal with a ton of email?! Come on. I want to just yell “bullshit!,” but I’ll spell it out. I get 100s of email messages every day, and it’s not even my job to pick up clues. I deal with it, and it’s not even that hard. You have an email address that is different from the one you use with people you know and trust, and you scan the first lines as they appear in the inbox. From that alone, you can see what’s going on, and you can choose to click through to whatever you want and spend as little as half a second reading it if you are any good. Damn, if your clue-getter isn’t able to do that, you might as well give up and write more stories about what middle-aged moms in Park Slope are saying about popsicles and iPhones.
And as for the desire to avoid excoriation in the blogosphere… have a nice day.
Surprise! New York Time’s Kidnapped Journalist A Moron Who Cost A Soldier And Friend Their Lives–UPDATEDThursday, September 10th, 2009
The paper of record will probably not report the flaming ignorance of their own reporter, Stephen Farrell, but the British press is less inclined to cover for him. Remember the NYT reporter who got abducted and subsequently rescued? Remember how good the NYT was with keeping that secret, you know a secret that mattered when lives were at stake?
A soldier lost his life to save this, what’s the Van Jones word?, that’s right, a**hole. Here’s what happened:
Afghan police and intelligence officers repeatedly warned journalists including Mr Farrell that it was too dangerous to go to the site. Kunduz is a notorious Taliban northern stronghold and was one of the last holdouts of the regime when it was toppled in 2001.
While Mr Farrell, who was kidnapped in iraq five years ago, and Mr Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing an elderly man warned them to leave as the Taliban were on their way.
But they stayed and shortly afterwards gunshots rang out and they were taken into captivity. Mr Munadi was working as a freelance during a break from his university studies in Germany.
The dramatic rescue operation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a troop of Special Boat Service commandos supported by a company from the Special Forces Support Group left an American base in US helicopters. But the young British soldier died in the battle to the distress of his commanders.
One senior Army source said: “When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life. In the future special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”
Another military source said: “This reporter went to this area against the advice of the Afghan police. So thanks very much Stephen Farrell, your irresponsible act has led to the death of one of our boys.”
Was his life saving? No. He knew the risks in his job. No doubt, his friends and family members are relieved to have him back in one piece. But there are other people, a British soldier, his interpreter, a woman and a child now dead because he ignored the advice of those who knew better.
And the New York Times? The paper couldn’t be bother with Van Jones or John Edwards, or, most of all, their own idiot reporter.
The reporter a Brit, tells his story. He concludes:
It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life.
There were some celebrations among the mainly British soldiers on the aircraft home, which soon fell silent. It later emerged that one of the rescue party was also dead, mortally wounded during the raid. His blood-soaked helmet was in front of me throughout the flight. I thanked everyone who was still alive to thank. It wasn’t, and never will be, enough.
The soldier’s name. What is his name? At this point, the reporter’s “ordeal” means little. The man who died for him does.
If NYT … WSJ, CNN, Fox, assorted freelancers, the lot of them … stopped taking risks, we would have very little information about what happens in bad places. I don’t believe that most of them do it lightly, though I’ve known a few who do it irresponsibly and have been lucky they didn’t end up in this situation. A lot of them now have considerable time incountry, experience with these issues, and receive professional training and advice. A lot of them have also died, been injured, or spent time in captivity. It often comes down to judgment calls about what level of risk to take. Here’s an easy call to make in the aftermath: It looks like Farrell made a bad one. Harder to say about the military, which also had the option of standing off and exercised its own judgment in the moment.
I guess what makes me so angry is the way the newspapers so easily trash the very same who would save their sorry hides. The military is treated with contempt by the Western media. As a citizen (recognizing that all parties involved were British), I don’t feel inclined using vast resources and potentially putting solider in harms way for a risk-taking fool who works for an organization working in opposition to their own country’s interests.
The newspapers have no trouble putting soldiers in harms way with irresponsible reporting–remember the flushed Koran? How many false stories have put American and allied soldiers at risk? And now, a soldier’s family must live with the idea that their son, brother, father died for an agent who often indirectly colluded with the enemy.
I’m upset at the gross injustice in this. Over at Jawa, the reporter is described as a “self-indulgent asshole”. That’s being kind.
As a way into liberal prominence goes, nothing quite beats screwing literally, or metaphorically, a conservative to achieve fame. Levi Johnson has done both. He is, literally, a fame whore.
Vanity Fair will be giving him valuable pages in the next edition. I have not given him any space because he is a complete knob.
However, because he now has been given the national stage, his statements from the national stage need to be examined. I am not going to do it, but I suggest you go over to Conservatives4Palin.com to see Levi’s lies debunked. Here’s one such debunking:
For example, here’s some of the things Levi was saying about the Palins earlier this year:
“They’re good people,” he said. “They don’t push me, you know. They kind of — they don’t really tell us what to do, they don’t tell us, you know, they’re good people. So I like ’em.”
“They always treated me like a son. I mean they were — they were real nice to me. And I thought of her as like my second mother. You know, Todd was always, you know, a great guy and helped me out with a lot of things. So I mean they welcomed me.”
Quite a difference from what he’s saying now. After Rex and Tank convinced Levi that the truth doesn’t sell, they’ve resorted to complete fabrications intending to create scandals that they can profit from. The more outrageous the stories they come up with are, the more publicity opportunities they all get. In the latest example, they’ve concocted a story that is so laughable, it’s difficult to imagine anyone reading it can keep a straight face:
” Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.”
Go read the whole thing. At first, I kinda felt sorry for this kid being dragged into the limelight. Now, it’s patently obvious that he knows that making money will only come by milking his five minutes of fame. As long as he provides Palin-damaging fodder for the press, he’ll have a platform.
Levi Johnson should just go away, but he won’t. He has too much to gain by staying in the spotlight. But more than that, the press so hates Sarah Palin that they’ll use this boy up in service to their political desires.
Sarah Palin remains the biggest threat to liberals which is why guys like Levi Johnson remain in the press.
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Well, it doesn’t look like the Pentagon was telling journalists what to write, they just did ops research on the journalists to chart and graph what they write and predict future favorable/unfavorable behavior.
I’ve had mixed feelings about embedding reporters. However, with Al Qaeda and the Taliban as enemies, getting reporting would be nigh to impossible because they like killing reporters [Daniel Pearl]. So, it seemed like a possible necessity.
Anyway, the White House has “profiled reporters” too, I’d guess. No one more masterfully manipulates them individually and collectively than Barack Obama. So, he’s either got an internal computer deciding who to call on when, or he’s got an Axelrod with a bulging file filled with research on individual reporters–who to use for which story, when to allow a certain person to ask a question, etc. Nothing is left to chance with these people.
Only Helen Thomas has had the sense thus far to see how she’s been managed and manipulated, but she has a very long history to draw upon.
As to the Pentagon. It would seem to me, that doing background checks on reporters would seem wise. And then, one thing leads to another. As long as reporters weren’t told, at gunpoint, what to write, it seems like no big deal. Besides, reporters are independent-minded and above these sorts of head games, right? These are the people, who with straight faces, claim to be objective. So any sort of influence by the military would be negligible, right?
I mean, they’re not influenced by President Obama.
Inglourious Bastards might be Quentin Tarantino’s best movie so far. As expected, it’s full of gruesome violence, gratuitous splattering blood, and revenge fantasies. For the subject, it’s all to the good: Nazis die.
Tarantino has some messages for everyone though and they aren’t politically correct. First the trailer. Here are some of the lessons from the movie:
1. Enhanced Interrogation works: The reason William Wallace from Braveheart fame was so remarkable was because he didn’t break. Nearly everyone, eventually breaks. When one gets a bad guy to spill the beans, good guys get saved. It ain’t pretty. But sleep deprivation, psychological discomfort, and in Tarantino’s case, a public head bashing are very effective means of extracting information.
2. There are bad guys. Now, in this politically correct world, only the Nazis may be used as bad guys. Don’t mention the barbary of Native Americans or current slave traders, or Hugo Chavez. Hell, don’t mention the barbaric acts of actual barbarians–the Barbary pirates. These days, the only acceptable bad guy is of German extraction. Anyone who is labeled “bad” is labeled Hitlerian. For fun though, when you go see the movie, just put an Islamist in the place of the Nazi. Every time. Just imagine a freedom hating terrorist biting it hard. It’s profoundly satisfying. If Tarantino were really that edgy, he’d have chosen a more relevant bad guy, but in these times, naming evil is passé.
The movie wins points artistically. The dialogue amusing. Among the blood, guts and nonsense, the story pushes forward with anxiety-producing anticipation.
What made me love the movie most, though, didn’t occur on the screen. The packed theater that made my vengeance-loving heart glad.
So, Americans still hate villains. Americans still want evil doers to pay. After years of mushy, morally ambivalent tripe like Crash, a movie comes out that’s pure good and evil. Well, not so pure. Because war isn’t pure. It’s messy, bad things happen, good people die and sometimes the best soldiers are just this side of normal. Righteous vengeance though, is satisfying. People want evil, innocent-killing psychos to pay–preferably with their lives.
Primal? Uncivilized? It’s pretty to think so. More like, normal people recognize that tolerating evil encourages evil. You know, like the Iranians who repeatedly raped a young boy who defied the Iranian leadership during the protests. That evil.
So, while I’m still waiting for Quentin Tarantino to show some real courage and portray the monstrosity that is Islamofascism–the psychotic Muslim element who carry around Mein Kempf for moral encouragement–I’ll take what I can get. And right now, a movie where the bad guys get incinerated is profoundly satisfying.
It’s nice to see the good guys win. It’s nice to see the bad guys suffer and die. I’m hoping that Inglourious Bastards starts a trend. Now, to choose a more timely enemy.
P.S. Brad Pitt is hot. And the way he says “Nazis” makes me smile. I’m saying it that way from now on. Nat-zees.
P.P.S. This is why I feel no shame about vengeance fantasies. There is no death painful enough to balance the inhumanity of what some evil bastards will do in the name of their despicable cause.
The moral equivalence crowd can shove their sanctimony up their collective ass. There are people right now who loved seeing Americans die in the World Trade Center. They relished it and still do. The Lockerbie bomber, Al Qaeda, the Taliban all glory in their death cult. No reasoning, no gentleness will change their black souls. Just as Nazis felt justified in their abject cruelty, so do the Islamofascists who carry out their modern mission of freedom killing violence.
The only solution? Kill the killers.
After reading Rachel’s post, I’m going to screw up my courage and go visit the site of the Twin Towers. Even though just typing this post makes me angry enough to cry at the injustice, I will see it. And when I go to Germany, I’ll do that heinous visit, too.
There is a reason America continues to fight this pesky foe. It’s us or them. Let it be them.
Actual, real live Inglourious Basterds courtesy Winston Churchill. I love him even more:
Some were in the Brigade – a unit set up by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1944, made up of more than 6,000 volunteers. He said: “It seems to me indeed appropriate that a special unit of the race which has suffered indescribable treatment from the Nazis should be represented in a distinct formation among the forces gathered for their final overthrow”.
The following year, the Brigade was in the front line for the Allies’ final push against the Nazi menace and worked with the rest of the British Army in the immediate aftermath of the war.
Official orders dictated that any Nazis captured should be interrogated, not executed. But the revenge squads within Brigade ranks had other ideas.
Go read the whole thing to get an idea of how the Nazi hunters exacted justice.
By the way, to the liberals out there: Was World War II a revenge fantasy? Because technically, the European theater wasn’t “our” war. I mean Germans didn’t attack us. And that war cost a lot of money. And hell, we still have troops stationed in Europe. I mean, it’s like totally a waste, ya know?
I do not regret that America took the war to the terrorist murderers. A sense of moral outrage should determine foreign policy. Barack Obama’s bland indifference to the people of Iran is telling. Should we go to war there? That can be disputed. But what cannot be disputed is that Iran is a totalitarian, fascist regime that wants to exterminate a whole race of people. IT IS EVIL. To not be affronted by their disgusting philosophy and actions is to show indifference to innocent, freedom-loving people.
The left resisted efforts to get involved in WWII. They didn’t want to see the atrocities of Japan, Germany and Italy, especially, because it didn’t fit their never ending selfish narrative.
Either freedom or tyranny is on the march. It is never static. And freedom must be bought or lost.
The U.S. declared war on Japan December 8, 1941 in direct response to being attacked. Revenge? The next day, Germany declared war on the U.S. FDR offered monetary support to the British, stepping away from neutrality before this. However, one could argue that going to Europe was taking the fight to the enemy. Perhaps America should have simply played defense. It was not as though Germans were storming Manhattan en masse.
Also, for the “brown people” straw man argument: By defending the Iranian people against their psycho tyrant, I’m suggesting defending “brown people”. What did the war in Iraq become, if not a defense of brown people against Saddam Hussein and his sons and minions? What was the war against Iraq to begin with but a defense of the brown people in Kuwait?
Good grief. There’s evil people of every color. That racism card, though, that trumps everything.
In praise of the Bear Jew:
An old friend just attended the wedding of Eli Lake’s younger brother. I wrote my friend:
Do me a favor, really. Shake Eli’s hand and say thanks to the “Bear Jew” from another Brooklyn Jew, me. He did it Brooklyn style, the way I grew up. Some may have f**ked with me, but none came away unhurt, and never did again.
My old friend sent me this email:
I read your email to Eli and his parents- they all loved it and
that led to the handshake pictured here.
Also, I wrote a follow-up review of Inglourious Basterds here.
Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, Townhall, and Newsbusters joined me to discuss the media’s bias–both covert and overt–and how it shapes public opinion. It does work. The media does shape opinion, even though most news organizations have moved to a British model of journalism. The difference is that a Brit journalist will admit his bias, whereas an American journalist likes to view himself as objective. His delusion makes him more dangerous.
Below, you’ll see some links to some other podcasts. I’d like to draw your attention to Steve Schippert of National Review Online Threat’s Watch. His show is a must for anyone wanting to stay informed about world events. He lays out what is happening strategically with North Korea. I highly recommend listening to his show.
Melissa’s show can also be found on RFC Radio every Monday and Wednesday night at 10:00 pm Eastern.
— Also, don’t forget to check out our other shows on Take That! —
Wow, Washington, D.C. is filled with preening, sanctimonious a-holes. Drunk on their own intellectualism and stunned into self-reflective absorption, the only thing that matters to this collective Narcissus is vainglory. This assessment includes conservatives and Republicans, by the way.
I read Andy McCarthy’s dissent from the National Review Online editorial about Sarah Palin and “death panels” and thought: they still don’t get it. “They” being the Conservative Intelligentsia which includes Think Tank leaders, Congressmen and Senators, etc. First, here’s what Andy concluded:
I think Palin was right to argue her point aggressively. Largely because she did, a horrible provision is now out of this still horrible Obamacare proposal. To the contrary, if the argument had been made the way the editors counsel this morning, “end-of-life counseling” would still be in the bill. We might have impressed the Beltway with the high tone of our discourse and the suppleness of our reasoning, but we’d have lost the public. I respectfully dissent.
Well, Andy is being far more respectful than I feel at this point.
You know, you can be intelligent, possess intellectual subtlety and a Webster-esque vocabulary, and still be ignorant and unwise. Conversely, just because a person speaks plainly and uses common language does not mean the person is stupid.
The smartest guy I have ever met attended Chiropractic college with me. He was a genius. He has a photographic and audio memory, but more than that, he can integrate the information in a meaningful way. And most impressive, he could teach what he knew simply without ever making the student feel stupid. He was my peer and a friend and he’d tutor a group of us (he was a semester ahead) from time to time. He was patient, never condescending and spoke plainly.
Who likes being treated like an idiot? No one. And yet, the Left and Liberals in general, speak to the American people like they’re morons. The absolute worst is Al Gore. The most insulting thing is the guy ain’t that smart and he comes across as a doltish buffoon and still has the nerve to lecture stupid Americans. It’s annoying.
And so, rather than engage Sarah Palin on the merits, even the editors at the National Review get lost in what they consider hyperbole. Elites hate hyperbole (except when they’re employing it to chastise the masses into using fluorescent lighting). The form-police ignore the substance because the messenger doesn’t have an air of hauteur and the Ivy league parchment required to engage in the “conversation”.
Intellectualism is not on trial here. Pseudo-intellectuals who discredit valid opinions because they find the form bothersome is on trial. Also, the inability to write or talk plainly is on trial here.
Chief Justice John Roberts possesses a few admirable traits: He has a towering intellect. He has humility. He has grace. His opinions are straight-forward and written plainly. He makes his opinions understandable. This all demonstrates his intelligence rather than diminishing it. It also demonstrates empathy. He could, easily, write using complex language and arcane vocabulary, but that would serve only to aggrandize himself at the expense of the understanding of those with whom he communicates.
Too many in Washington, D.C. desire to sound smart over being smart. So laws and bills are convoluted, pages long, and complex. Editorials are snark-filled, eviscerating vanity [hello Maureen Dowd].
And through this wordy haze, the substance is lost.
The American people are not stupid rubes who need to be guided to enlightenment by their betters. The American people do recognize that there are experts in diverse fields in the government and media. They want those experts to speak plainly and argue the substance understandably. This is not too much to ask.
I hear D.C. insiders sniff about populist impulses. Their fears are laughable. These very same insiders condescend to those whom they ostensibly serve, treating them like no more than dull-witted peasants. This is a Republic not a constitutional monarchy. The representatives actually are supposed to represent people not command them. If there are populist embers burning, the insiders should spend some more time doing what they love: looking in the mirror. Any populist impulses are a reaction to obnoxious elites, not the other way around.
So, Congressmen and the press react in horror at American outrage. Why is everyone so angry? Well, this question just demonstrates dull-wittedness. How long would you, Mr. Smartypants Inside-the-Beltway person like someone to call you stupid overtly or imply it through your arts (Hollywood’s dystopian representation of American culture), your opinions and your laws? Yeah, you’d be pissed off, too, to use the common vernacular.
Enough, already. Americans deserve better than this from their leaders. By being too smart by half, the insiders end up sounding all stupid. Perhaps a return to more straight-forward actions, simpler language and respect for the voter will mend the relationship that is broken. It’s going to take a while, though. And it’s probably going to take new leaders who aren’t so far removed from those whom they serve.
Is there such thing as a skeptical liberal? It seems not. Or they’re as rare as white tigers which is why the get displayed like exotic zoo animals.
That Camille Paglia is always so noteworthy simply reveals how the Left marches in ideological lock-step. There should be lots of thinking people on the Left pointing out shortcomings here and there, but no. So the always interesting Ms. Paglia says:
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
Pardon me, but that’s rather obvious criticism and the only place we’re hearing it is on the Right. Why?
Do thinkers on the left have no intellectual integrity? Are they incapable of criticizing their own ideas? Have they no compunction to question?
That’s what is really interesting about Camille Paglia. She seems to be a rare breed of cat. That’s too bad.