Interesting essay from Mark Steyn:
Dependence Day by Mark Steyn
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Loathing Lieberman - or why Emily Bazelon is responsible for the "climate of hate."
Joe Lieberman's retirement announcement: Why I loathe him. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine
On the heels of the Tucson shooting we as a nation have come to realize how important rhetoric and tone is in our national conversations. As countless pundits have pointed out recently, we must temper our speech lest we influence others into committing violence. But here, almost a week after Tucson, we find that there has existed in Connecticut, for decades no less, a "Connecticut liberal cocktail party game" called "I hated Joe Lieberman before you hated Joe Lieberman" of which Emily is a longtime player. Not only does she not recant of her previous, no doubt, violence inducing behavior but the news of Lieberman's retirement in 2012 has sent her into a new tizzy of vile, reprehensible loathing. She laments that now she won't even have the opportunity to vote against him and "throw the bum out." And we know what that means, don't we?
Have you no shame, Emily? At long last, ma'am, have you no decency?
It is time for us to hold accountable those who are responsible for stirring up hate and bring civility back.
On the heels of the Tucson shooting we as a nation have come to realize how important rhetoric and tone is in our national conversations. As countless pundits have pointed out recently, we must temper our speech lest we influence others into committing violence. But here, almost a week after Tucson, we find that there has existed in Connecticut, for decades no less, a "Connecticut liberal cocktail party game" called "I hated Joe Lieberman before you hated Joe Lieberman" of which Emily is a longtime player. Not only does she not recant of her previous, no doubt, violence inducing behavior but the news of Lieberman's retirement in 2012 has sent her into a new tizzy of vile, reprehensible loathing. She laments that now she won't even have the opportunity to vote against him and "throw the bum out." And we know what that means, don't we?
Have you no shame, Emily? At long last, ma'am, have you no decency?
It is time for us to hold accountable those who are responsible for stirring up hate and bring civility back.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Cute
Google Earth reveals Star of David on roof of Iran Air HQ.
It seems difficult to believe that any Iranian organization, even ones around when this particular structure was built, would sanction putting the star of David on the roof - making this quite possibly the best prank in all of history.
It seems difficult to believe that any Iranian organization, even ones around when this particular structure was built, would sanction putting the star of David on the roof - making this quite possibly the best prank in all of history.
How long until Ann Althouse has a TV show?
I predict instant stardom. I'm sure many, many networks could find spots in their lineups for her. CNN are you listening? Well, are you? She can have Reynolds on regularly in a sort of quid pro quo.
This is completely unrelated to the post below. I think.
This is completely unrelated to the post below. I think.
Smart Women
I admit I have a bit of a thing for smart women. I did not come to this realization about myself suddenly but rather over time have come to acknowledge that I tend to perk up and listen when I hear a smart woman analyze a particular topic - more so than when I hear a man do so. I have never analyzed it very much and the reason is not the point of this post. I'm sure many politically correct types could find something to be offended by in the implications of my appreciation of some women's reasoning but that's not the point of this post either. Others might say that we should look at all ideas as unbiased as possible; it's not the messenger that matters, rather the message. I'd like to think that I do that and unfortunately that hope about myself leads me to the possibility that perhaps I only think I pay more attention when I hear a smart woman talking because she is unique in an otherwise sea of male voices and the (comparatively) smaller pond of bland feminine ones - and so I just remember her after the fact. A mystery it is.
Regardless, Instapunk has linked a video of Melanie Phillips recently that I thought was interesting. It caught my eye because he calls her the "smartest woman in the world." High praise indeed. It is an interesting speech, but not because of anything specific that she talks about but instead because of the manner in which she reasons. I think I am safe in saying that she occupies a fairly narrow slice of the so-called political spectrum. I point this out not to dismiss her views or otherwise partition her but rather in the hopes that you will listen to what she says without dismissing her out of hand simply because you disagree with her on some issue or another. As she might say: The point is not to align yourself with or against this or that interest but rather to have the debate. So, it is the process, perhaps, that is paramount, not the messenger or even the message. Instapunk encourages you to stick with it through 16 mins but I thought much of it was interesting. For instance, the bit beginning at the 12:30 mark about virtue and "progressivism" mirrors points that Sowell has also made quite often. Her points about certain discussions being "beyond the pale" also remind me of Sowell's recounting of his time working on minimum wage laws in Puerto Rico. (Full version of Sowell on Charlie Rose here) Her prepared remarks go through about the 30 min mark and then she takes questions.
For extra credit compare and contrast the Janice Rogers Brown video linked above to Powerline's inspection of Obama's views on "American exceptionalism."
Regardless, Instapunk has linked a video of Melanie Phillips recently that I thought was interesting. It caught my eye because he calls her the "smartest woman in the world." High praise indeed. It is an interesting speech, but not because of anything specific that she talks about but instead because of the manner in which she reasons. I think I am safe in saying that she occupies a fairly narrow slice of the so-called political spectrum. I point this out not to dismiss her views or otherwise partition her but rather in the hopes that you will listen to what she says without dismissing her out of hand simply because you disagree with her on some issue or another. As she might say: The point is not to align yourself with or against this or that interest but rather to have the debate. So, it is the process, perhaps, that is paramount, not the messenger or even the message. Instapunk encourages you to stick with it through 16 mins but I thought much of it was interesting. For instance, the bit beginning at the 12:30 mark about virtue and "progressivism" mirrors points that Sowell has also made quite often. Her points about certain discussions being "beyond the pale" also remind me of Sowell's recounting of his time working on minimum wage laws in Puerto Rico. (Full version of Sowell on Charlie Rose here) Her prepared remarks go through about the 30 min mark and then she takes questions.
For extra credit compare and contrast the Janice Rogers Brown video linked above to Powerline's inspection of Obama's views on "American exceptionalism."
Monday, November 29, 2010
All smoke and no fire?
Democratic Congress makes one last push for DREAM Act - San Jose Mercury News.
Nothing, of course, will prevent the lame-duck Congress from voting on the Dream Act - or any other act for that matter. It smells awfully pander-ish to me though. Just sayin'.
On a semi-related note, shouldn't we really do something about that lame-duck session? Democratic it seems not.
Nothing, of course, will prevent the lame-duck Congress from voting on the Dream Act - or any other act for that matter. It smells awfully pander-ish to me though. Just sayin'.
On a semi-related note, shouldn't we really do something about that lame-duck session? Democratic it seems not.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Christie gets it
| Christie speaks in Washington DC, calling Newark schools 'absolutely disgraceful' |
Ace has a link of more of the same speech:
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Schwarzenegger proposes huge budget cuts
Drastic cuts that would bring state spending down to... err... 2008 levels.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
How much would you pay for Newsweek?
Washington Post Co. to Sell Newsweek
When the iPad was released various talking heads and industry watchers wondered if it could save the newspapers and magazines which have steadily seen their circulations plummet due to internet competition and outdated... "business models". See here: Weekend Video: Can iPad Save Newspapers Magazines? Here: Can the Apple iPad Save Magazines? and on and on we go...
But Wired asks the $64,000 question: Can the iPad Save Newsweek?
Well, today Newsweek answered, in a Web Exclusive of all things:
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
Well, C'est la vie I suppose.
The world has plainly lost its mind explains Daniel Lyons:
So there it is. Technology has rotted our brains to the point where Palin and Beck are considered serious people.
But this is the media's take on you, the public: It's not us. It's you. You have devolved. You don't, maybe can't, appreciate the insight that a magazine like Newsweek provides; you'd rather play Farmville and watch Fox. Simpletons.
"Chairman Donald E. Graham cites multi-year losses. 'We are exploring all options to fix that problem,' he said."
When the iPad was released various talking heads and industry watchers wondered if it could save the newspapers and magazines which have steadily seen their circulations plummet due to internet competition and outdated... "business models". See here: Weekend Video: Can iPad Save Newspapers Magazines? Here: Can the Apple iPad Save Magazines? and on and on we go...
But Wired asks the $64,000 question: Can the iPad Save Newsweek?
Well, today Newsweek answered, in a Web Exclusive of all things:
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
Well, C'est la vie I suppose.
The world has plainly lost its mind explains Daniel Lyons:
Meanwhile, in the midst of all this, Glenn Beck has become an influential television commentator, and Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for president in 2012. You think this is a coincidence?
No way. What's happening is this: we are being so overwhelmed by the noise and junk zooming past us that we're becoming immune to it. We've become a nation of Internet-powered imbeciles, with an ever-lower threshold for inanity.
Beck and Palin are the inevitable outcome of that devolution. They are what we deserve. They are, in fact, what we've created.
So there it is. Technology has rotted our brains to the point where Palin and Beck are considered serious people.
But this is the media's take on you, the public: It's not us. It's you. You have devolved. You don't, maybe can't, appreciate the insight that a magazine like Newsweek provides; you'd rather play Farmville and watch Fox. Simpletons.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
