I didn't read any of these books, nor did I see the movie referenced in TFA.
But I do conclude from reading the article is that Obama, Ayers et al are a symptom of a generation generally not grounded in rigorous thinking, but rather taught in sloppy thinking.
They hate what they do not understand because frankly they are incompetent, and Obama, his Obamettes and any number of followers are exemplars of incompetence of their generation.
From TFA:
By contorting every fact that did not naturally fit their template, the Weathermen and their allies concluded, in Ayers' words, that America's "intentions were evil and her justifications dissembling, her explanations dishonest, her every move false." This was the "knowledge," uniquely intuited by the hard left, that Rudd and his colleagues found "too big" to handle.
In Weather Underground not one of the seven or eight Weathermen interviewed in 2002 questions this assumption about America and the Vietnam War. Neither do their liberal critics in the film, nor do the filmmakers for that matter. All that anyone questions are the futile ends to which the Weathermen applied their superior insights.
#2
the intellectual landfill upon which the American left has built its worldview
The problem is that their view never really was a worldview--it was a myopic, narrow, and selfish view.. They never really understood that withdrawing from Viet Nam had significant far-reaching ramifications beyond their limited cause. And likewise the mindset of a community organizer tends to be narrow, limited, and self-aggrandizing.
According to Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, the target of Saturday's explosion in Kabul was not the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan but the American embassy. This careful clarification reveals the insurgents' strategic logic.
For weeks analysts have been puzzled by the apparent lack of a effort to disrupt the polls. The Taliban have, after all, made assaults on relatively poorly protected Afghan government officials a key element of their strategy. Yet other than a couple of raids and a few bombings nothing on the scale of the operations that the Taliban could launch if they wanted has been seen. The next few days may see this change but all the activities associated with the election have passed off with little interference.
Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, has not made any confirmed public declarations about the election and the insurgents have limited themselves to a statement posted on their internet site which calls on Afghans to boycott the polls. There are some reports of local intimidation and some leaflets in mosques dissuading potential voters but little else. It is as if the Taliban high command has decided to make their presence felt but not fully engage.
There are several reasons for this.
First, the insurgents have learned only to fight at a time and place of their choosing. Even a few days spent on the ground with western forces shows how the main problem for Nato troops is finding and engaging the insurgents. For the Taliban to go into battle now, at a time when their enemy has massive resources, would be to accept a fight that has been offered, not chosen.
Second, the Taliban have shown themselves sensitive to public opinion. A booklet was recently circulated among Taliban commanders designed to win "hearts and minds".
Since 2007, the more drastic of the movement's earlier "social edicts" has been left to the discretion of local commanders. The Taliban high command may have decided that, as most Afghans seem keen to vote, to oppose the poll would be counterproductive.
Third, the probable outcome of the election will be the re-election of Hamid Karzai and the induction into government of many of the very warlords whose venality and violence led to rise of the Taliban in the first place.
Fourth, the Taliban are not working with the same worldview as the west. The elections are not, to them, a potential turning point nor a litmus test of the success of the Afghanistan project. Nor is something as short-term as a single poll of great significance given the length of time they have allowed for their strategy to succeed. That strategy is two-fold: establish a parallel administration in enough of Afghanistan for the central administration to be fatally weakened and to progressively destroy all support for the presence of western troops in Afghanistan in the USA and Europe.
Finally there is the question of outside influence. In the 2004 elections the Taliban also remained relatively quiet. This was subsequently attributed, in part at least, to the influence of Pakistan. Pakistani policy is to manipulate the insurgents so as to be in a better position to counter regional rivals' influence when international troops leave.
Also, the Taliban do not get most of their money from narcotics, as is often said, but they receive a significant amount from private donors in the Gulf or elsewhere in the Islamic world who are much less keen to pay for violence directed at voting Afghans than strikes on western troops or their "stooges".
So it makes sense that the Taliban, or in this case probably the allied insurgent group led by hardline cleric and warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani, have preferred to launch the first genuinely spectacular strike since the beginning of the election campaign against a diplomatic western target.
As their spokesman explained, rather than hit the military, the Taliban would have preferred dead diplomats. Though a bomb outside the Isaf headquarters would show the insurgents' ability to strike anywhere, their key target is international public opinion. Given the number of journalists and TV crews in the Afghan capital to cover the elections, a spectacular suicide bombing was always going to be an easy way of getting the media coverage that they need.
Jason Burke is the author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
I dont believe that pirates have seized the Arctic Seam and I am leaning more towards the idea that whoever is in control of the Russian cargo ship, he is either a Russian organized crime figure or somebody other than a high seas pirate. Come on think about it, the ship is carrying timber for crying out loud; at least thats what the Russkies are telling us.
Im kind of thinking that it is the cargo that is being ransomed off, if in fact a ransom demand had been made, and that whoever has taken control of the ship hijacked it specifically for what he could get in exchange for that cargo. Nobody, not even the dumbest of pirates, could possibly believe that a load of timber would be worth that much, right?
Pirates or whoever putting their lives at risk for wooden planks. Yeah-right buddy!
Ransoming off wood, are you f**king kidding me? There something more than just wood on that ship, but the Russians arent going to say anything about it. They will keep their cards close to their chest, if only because whatever is onboard that ship, the rest of the world wouldnt be too happy about it. I still think it is weapons, perhaps even missiles, destined for a country that is on an international arms embargo list.
There is no way a pirates hijacked the Arctic Sea for a cargo of timber, not unless there was something special about that particular timber, and for anybody to suggest that pirates or anybody else would put their life on the life for a load of wood is a crock of you know what.
But according to the Finns, there has been a ransom demand for the ship and its crew, and who is anybody to argue with Finns as to the veracity of their claim. Im thinking the Finns are full of shit myself, but its there ship, and if they say they received a ransom demand for a ship that has apparently disappeared off the face of the planet, then so be it.
I dont think the French are buying into the Finns claim of a ransom demand either, but only because they didnt believe the Finns when they said they had picked up signals from the missing freighter somewhere in the Bay of Biscay, just off the coast of France.
I think the whole pirate thing is bogus, that the disappearance of the ship has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with the real reasons it was headed to Algeria. Im thinking that the Finns and the Russians were up to no good together, that the deal they made with somebody in Algeria for something other than timber went terribly wrong and now the Finns and the Russians are in some sort of damage control mode. Hey, rampant speculation, but heck what's not fun about that?
#1
It makes a certain kind of sense, except for the Finnish involvement. A stunt like that, if it got out, would bring down Tarja Halonen's government. I just don't see it.
#2
yeah, it i'd tend to believe that a wood shipment making it's way to the ME via Algeria and maybe the Mossad thought of creating an artificial reef.
#5
'Tis hard to argue wid the logic > although technically pirates may capture and hold for ransom anything, AFAIK "WOOD/LUMBER? PER SE IS NOT ON THEIR $$$ PRIORITY LISTS???
#6
And the russians have TWO nuclear subs and a few destroyers out looking for it? terrorism 3.0 and the russians don't want the fallout to have the russian signature!
I'm going to have a shot at it, but I'm sure y'all can better my efforts. Take your mark, get set, go!
I'm not sure the man who popped off ...
... that's the first problem MoDo has, a man popping off ...
... and tweeted that Sonia Sotomayor was a "Latina woman racist" is the best Henry Higgins for the Eliza Doolittle of Alaska.
Because being governor of Alaska is no different than selling violets on the streets of London during the Edwardian period.
But Newt Gingrich was a professor. And he does know something about pulling yourself up by dragging down others and imploding when you take center stage -- both Palin specialties.
Center stage is for MoDo, all the time, her and her select friends, none of whom are in relationships ...
Besides, he agrees with Sarah -- who fretted that her parents and son Trig might be in danger from Obama "death panels" -- that we should be very wary about trusting government with end-of-life decisions.
Ms. Dowd has no children, as I recall, so needn't worry about the government being untrustworthy. Besides, she goes to dinner parties with those people, who will take care of her because of her charm and insight.
So how's Michael these days, MoDo? Oh right, he ran off with that woman who gave him kids so as to keep him home at night. Perhaps you can get her kids in front of a death panel?
So Newt took it upon himself to become Palin's Pygmalion.
I thought he was Henry Higgens? All these identity thefts are making me quite dizzy.
He told Politico that the out-of-work pol should write a book; take a commentator gig on TV; get a condo in D.C. or New York to use as an East Coast base; and prepare three types of speeches -- one "to make money," another to "project her brand" before universities and interest groups, and a vivid campaign stump speech to use for Republican candidates in 2010.
A fair bit of that advice is classic Reagan, who wrote a book, wrote newspaper columns, got out on the rubber-chicken circuit, and did ads for GE. Look where it got him ...
Most important, he advised, the dizzy Palin has to be "clear in her own head what she wants to do."
As opposed to sitting in a small office all afternoon trying to think of something to write ...
At the moment, what she wants to do is tap into her visceral talent for aerial-shooting her favorite human prey: cerebral Ivy League Democrats.
No doubt that could be twisted into a death threat if only MoDo were a Pub ...
Just as she was able to stir up the mob against Barack Obama on the trail, now she is fanning the flames against another Harvard smarty-pants -- Dr. Zeke Emanuel, a White House health care adviser and the older brother of Rahmbo.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know where Governor Howard Dean took his degrees? Of course, he's not a Friend of Barry, so it's not as critical.
Howie did Yale. Zeke is no smarter, and he's practiced medicine only slightly longer than Howie ...
Now, now, Dr. Steve -- you're sounding like an elitist. Just because they went to the wrong schools and don't have enough experience to know what they're talking about doesn't mean the two physicians don't know what they're talking about. America is all about what we make of ourselves, not where we came from, after all.
She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking,
Ms. Dowd is behind another curve, poor dear. All the grandparents I know got on Facebook/MySpace to keep up with their grandkids, and then discovered their high school classmates. Even Mr. Wife joined up today, and already found one classmate, a cousin, and made his mother happy with an uploaded photo.
and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.
Well gosh, it sounds like Governor Palin is pretty good at being a politician. How very odd for someone whose career is politics.
If that's all it takes then it says something about Bambi's health plan -- or lack of one -- in the first place, eh MoDo?
Sarahcuda knows, from her brush with Barry on the campaign trail, that he is vulnerable on matters that demand a visceral and muscular response rather than a logical and book-learned one.
He is vulnerable on the logic and book-learnt response side, too, so long as the listener is not already in the throws of passion. But, although entirely too common, psych0sexual perversion is a topic we shall not address here.
It's a strange defense: our guy can't be visceral, he can only be logical. Who did we elect as president, Spock?
Mr. Obama was charming and informed at his town hall in Montana on Friday, ...
... well, he was charming ...
... but he's going to need some sustained passion, a clear plan and a narrative as gripping as Palin's I-see-dead-people scenario.
All areas where our president sadly lacks talent, as his predecessor was so ineffective at public speaking.
He sure didn't polish those skills in the Illinois Senate ...
She has successfully caricatured the White House health care effort, making it sound like the plot of the 1976 sci-fi movie "Logan's Run," about a post-apocalyptic society with limited resources where you can live only until age 30, when you must take part in an extermination ceremony called "Carousel" or flee the city.
Except Downs' babies wouldn't be given until age 30, they'd only get to the middle of the second trimester ...
Painting the Giacometti-esque Emanuel as a creepy Dr. Death, ...
... which seems to be about right given what Zeke advocates ...
... Palin attacked him on her Facebook page a week ago, complaining that his "Orwellian thinking" could lead to a "death panel" with bureaucrats deciding whether to pull the plug on less hardy Americans.
Which is about what Section 1233 endorses, reading only slightly between the lines. Imagine you're old and seriously ill. You get admitted to the hospital and first thing that happens, a gummint agent reads you your end-of-life rights. And you thought the hospital was where you'd get better, huh?
Never mind that Palin herself had endorsed some of the same end-of-life counseling she now depicts as putting Grandma down.
Except that in Alaska it was voluntary and patient-initiated, a subtle distinction that our Mid-Town Nag misses ...
As the Democratic National Committee pointed out, ...
... which MoDo is happy to channel ...
... Palin put out a 2008 proclamation for Healthcare Decisions Day "to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care ... and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions."
Again, patient initiated, and done to ensure that people understood their rights, as opposed to putting Granny out on an ice floe to save some money ...
Consistency was long ago sent to a death panel in Palin world.
Please, O Editors of the New York Times, help Ms. Dowd. You are her only hope!
Sensing traction, she took more shots against Dr. Emanuel, quoting the bioethicist's past writing that some medical services might not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. ... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Which is spot-on for Sarah. The demented -- and such a wide range of diagnoses with obvious potential for political chicanery -- are usually one of the first classes of people to be deemed "less worthy" when it's time to triage who lives and who dies.
"Dr. Emanuel," she wrote ominously, "has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which 'produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.' "
Which is what he wrote.
She crowed that she had him on the run, and the White House felt that the doctor, who was being portrayed as a proponent of euthanasia, needed to get out there and explain his opposition to euthanasia.
Which is going to be a neat trick since a fair bit of what he writes is at the very least sympathetic to the idea.
So he interrupted his hiking vacation in the Italian Alps to give a raft of phone interviews saying he was taken out of context and calling Palin's charges "completely off the wall."
But, much to Sarah's delight, he also conceded to The Washington Times that his "thinking has evolved" on the "very vexing" issue of deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't.
So even MoDo has to concede that Sarah has Zeke pegged ...
"When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care," he told the paper, adding that he now feels that if we get rid of expensive "unnecessary care" that "we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases."
Of course, defining 'unnecessary care' sounds a lot like saying, "you demented folks? And you cripples? And you elderly farts with the arthritic hips? Your care isn't necessary."
A few cases? Sounds like another Facebook entry for Sara
#1
"But Newt Gingrich was a professor. And he does know something about pulling yourself up by dragging down others and imploding when you take center stage both Palin specialties".
A bit of transference, Ms. Dowd? Your reason(s) for offering opinions about Mrs. Palin appear to be unrelenting animus and ad hominem attacks about someone who scares the bejesus out of you.
#2
Wow! Does the NYTs still allow her to expose herself to the public outside of the registration attic? I thought they had packed her away her like a crazy spinster aunt.
#3
Dowd is in a moronic class only shared with with that ass from MSNBC and crabs. She reminds me of an old Asian saying, well at least its old to me, called the Crab rule. Certain people, Ms Dowd to be sure, live life like a crab that is in a bucket. The crab knows it is caught, it knows it is going to die, yet when one crab starts to crawl out all the crabs grab it and drag it back into the bucket. Ms Dowd's bantor is quippy full of east coast elitism and probably entertaining to the New York crowd that feels the end of the earth is at the Manhatten tunnel. She knows a rising star when she sees one, and there is no doubt Sarah's star is still rising. So Dowd atacks as only she knows how, trying to drag Sarah into the bucket of slime that New Yorkers call home. New Yorkers as a whole love to see one of their own drag someone down, they revel in losers. They love to see someone brought down to their level. Why else would New Yorks largest paper hire such a sleaze, why would New Yorkers embrace such a paper and writer if they were not the losers in the bottom of the bucket not wanting to see anyone get ahead?
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/16/2009 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Triage systems in war medicine require prioritizing which of the wounded gets served. The UK does have similar mechanisms, and law suits based on choices that caused death, are too numerous to count. There is no such thing as licensing political rhetoric. If Sarah Palin wants to refer to triage based systems as "Death Care," and bureaucratic administration of same as "Death Panels," that's her business. Over-sensitivity to political hardball is no worse than what Sarah did.
#6
"Ms. Dowd has no children, as I recall, so needn't worry about the government being untrustworthy. Besides, she goes to dinner parties with those people, who will take care of her because of her charm and insight."
But woe unto the day she ever disagrees with them...and MoDo knows it. Makes you wonder how many liberal reporters and writers keep chugging the Kool Aid out of fear of what would happen to them professionally and socially if they ever stopped.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/16/2009 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
New York Dowd types need to be bypassed like Truk and Rabaul were in WW2, and be allowed to wither on the vine.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/16/2009 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Ms. Dowd has no children, as I recall, so needn't worry about the government being untrustworthy.
#9
Ms. Dowd should read Charles Lane's recent article in the WP. Lane looked at the various bills, saw that there wouldn't be death panels, but saw that doctors would have financial incentives to steer the elderly to palliative care.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
08/16/2009 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Sarge, be civil; even though Ms Dowd isn't. Her foolishness will come home to roost.
Warning: long rant follows
Evidence in support of Palin's assertions re: Downs' Syndrome kids like Trig: something like 85% of fetuses who test positive for Downs' Syndrome are being aborted. I have 3 kids with Aspergers Syndrome (out of 5 kids) and you would not believe the idiot comments I've gotten over the years: "Is there a prenatal test for that?", with the ensuing comments implying that somehow my kids are less than other people's. Never mind that my eldest is working, the next Aspie kid has a job and is starting community college, and the youngest may be engineering school material; and all 3 are interesting, intelligent people, although seriously immature in some areas.
#12
I'd have to be crazy to try to outsnark such a wonderful array of comments, but I will point out that by rough count this is MoDo's 2,456th column about Palin. This is turning into one of those creepy B-grade stalker movies.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/16/2009 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Once again, Maureen Dowd demonstrates that she is strongly in need of some powerful medications and quiet time - lots of it. Her column is just too irrational to respond to directly.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/16/2009 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Shock poll result among progressive online activists Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin proved to be extremely unpopular with conference attendees: Just 1 percent rated Palin favorably, compared to 88 percent who rated her unfavorably. Thirty-six percent rated Palin as the easiest Republican presidential nominee to defeat in 2012, followed by former Sen. Rick Santorum, who was rated easiest to beat by 20 percent, and Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was the choice of 12 percent.
The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, in conjunction with Democracy Corps and Campaign for Americas Future.
#16
Just why does Sarah have to run for office? She is so moronic that when she posts "jump" on Fbook politicians immediately respond "How high?" I'm betting Obama wonders why he cannot be that stupid.
So how expensive would it to run your whole campaign on MySpace?
#17
Ms. Dowd seriously needs some counseling or something. She seriously needs to talk to someone or get laid or something because this is really beginning to creep people out. Does ever a week (or a day) goes by where she doesn't have a column about Sarah? Sounds like a serious obsession - hope Sarah's careful when she visits NYC.
#18
So how expensive would it to run your whole campaign on MySpace?
You reckon that's what MoDo is up to? Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion thinks she is trying to hook up.
To hear the White House and its Democratic congressional allies tell it, Americans who have vigorously questioned their representatives about Obamacare are nothing more than paid protesters organized by right-wing extremists and evil corporations determined to stop health care reform in its tracks. Earlier this week in a USA Today op-ed, for example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD, described the protestors as "un-American." Over on the Senate side, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the dissenters "fear-mongers," and Reid's deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, told CNN the protests were "being orchestrated." And a new Democratic National Committee (DNC) video claims the protests are being staged by "desperate Republicans and their well funded allies [who are] organizing angry mobs -- just like they did during the election."
But the reality is that when it comes to organizing angry mobs, the real professionals work at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This union has organizing resources and experience that ordinary citizens can only dream about. Their goon squads have heckled, harassed and even assaulted concerned citizens who favor less-costly private options to government-run health care.
Just ask Kenneth Gladney, the victim of an assault outside of a town hall meeting in St. Louis last week by a group of thugs wearing purple t-shirts emblazoned with the SEIU logo. Similarly clad union operatives also blocked critics of the Obama health care plan from attending other meetings, notably in Florida. Former Oklahoma Rep. Ernest Istook notes that in January SEIU announced a plan "to hire more than 1,000 activists to work in 35 states on behalf of the Obama agenda, committing 30% of the union's total resources to the effort. You've seen SEIU's purple-shirted members in videos of town hall altercations." He calls them the "Purpose People Beaters."
SEIU has a long history of partnering to generate angry mobs. The union helped fund the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) Muscle for Money program that was set up to pressure corporations in shakedown campaigns, including demonstrations at the homes of corporate executives. Labor Department disclosure forms show more than $600,000 has changed hands between SEIU locals and ACORN affiliates under the Muscle for Money initiative. It is not an exercise in subtlety. How's that for coordination?
Posted by: Fred ||
08/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But, we MUST remember, these thuggish tactics are being orchestrated without the knowledge and approval of the Anointed One.
Sarcasm off :-(
#2
I'd like the SEIU to run into a squad of guys just back from Iraq, in jeans and t-shirts, with .45s. Just once. That will be all it'll take. Then I'd like to see 7-800 locals descend on an ACORN office with pitchforks, axes, and lots of tar and feathers. I would be happy to see these leftist loons on the receiving end, just once. Listen to the cries and lamentations when it happens.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/16/2009 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't imagine the squad would need much more than boots and hands, Old Patriot. Just sayin'...
By David Warren
Just three weeks ago, I was writing in this space against niceness. I have pursued the theme recently with praise (sometimes backhanded) not only for the politics, but for the tone, of such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin in the United States. They are by no means the only practitioners of what we'll call the "not nice" style in contemporary politics. Newt Gingrich is usually mentioned in such dispatches; and I could list a selection of Barack Obama's "policy czars" with demonstrated shoot-from-the-lip propensities. But I would like to preserve a "nice" (in the logical sense) distinction between candour and thuggery.
Candour is when you tell a truth that is disturbing, in language so unambiguous that persons in polite company will not want to hear you. It is a way to lose the respect of the genteel -- of those who are "respectable" in the shallowest sense. Rude language is quite unnecessary to this end: the hard truth itself, spoken plainly and publicly, will give sufficient offence.
Thuggery is unrelated to this. It consists not of candid argument but of naked intimidation. It may be done crassly -- for instance, by the union thugs who have begun to appear at U.S. townhall meetings, to confront opponents of the Democrats' health-care agenda. Or it may be done smoothly, with the politically correct gesture, that conveys the threat of later reprisal against anyone who utters the contrary, "incorrect" thought. A good example would be the "flag@whitehouse.gov" e-mail address that was set up on the official White House website, to which Obama supporters across the country were invited to report "fishy" opposition to that health-care agenda.
And "niceness" is something else again, usually allied with hypocrisy. For one can be very selectively nice -- outraged, scandalized, breathtaken with surprise, when Richard Nixon was caught compiling an "enemies list." Yet perfectly indifferent when Barack Obama advertises for input to compile his.
And "niceness" is something else again, usually allied with hypocrisy. For one can be very selectively nice -- outraged, scandalized, breathtaken with surprise, when Richard Nixon was caught compiling an "enemies list." Yet perfectly indifferent when Barack Obama advertises for input to compile his.
How many "nice" people I know, who casually asserted that a certain George W. Bush was mentally retarded, resembled a monkey, and was guilty of war crimes. Suddenly the same people have "had it up to here" with squalid personal attacks on his successor.
Tell you the candid truth, I don't like "nice" people. Conversely, I have a sneaking regard for real political enemies who are prepared to state candidly what they are about. Which is why I mentioned Obama's long list of policy czars, above -- people like John Holdren (1970s advocate of forced abortions and mass sterilization) the new science czar, Van Jones (declared Communist) the new green jobs czar, Vivek Kundra (convicted shoplifter) the new infotech czar, Adolfo Carrion (pay-for-play scandals) the new urban subsidies czar, Nancy DePerle (lobbyist-to-regulator) the new health czar, Cass Sunstein (behaviourist and animal rights wacko) the new regulatory czar, and so on.
There are dozens of these, altogether. They are Obama's "shadow cabinet," with the advantage over his more presentable official cabinet that they can avoid congressional scrutiny in almost everything they do. They didn't need to face the Senate confirmation revelations that lost Obama so many of his earliest cabinet appointments. A mere Internet search for quotes reveals that many of them are capable of great candour, at least in the radical leftist environments from which most of them came.
The mainstream media focus is nevertheless not on them -- rich and easy pickings had they been Republican appointments -- but instead on Sarah Palin's appalling characterization of Obama's health-care agenda as not merely "socialist" but "evil"; and on her use of the term "death panels" to describe proposed bureaucratic arrangements for deciding who should be entitled to medical treatment, and how to advise the old, seriously handicapped, and ill on euthanasia options.
Needless to say the proposals themselves had been couched in "feelgood" language, with public relations campaigns at the ready in case someone like Palin called a spade a spade. She did so in full knowledge of how that publicity machine would respond.
It is assumed she will be running for president on the redneck ticket. But as we saw last week, she does not need any office to get results. For after many nice legislators had condemned her for her "unreasonable" criticisms, the U.S. Senate finance committee this week dropped a key provision to which she had referred, from the House health-care bill before them. According to the ranking Republican member, it was dropped "because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly."
That's a very nice way of saying that Sarah Palin had a point. And it is a point that would have passed unnoticed, had she confined herself to "nice" language.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the U.S. Senate finance committee this week dropped a key provision to which she had referred
Anybody tried to channel Old Hickory since February, 1964?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
