Three Links That Richly Deserve Your Attention
Just as this issue of TLB was being wrapped up, some very interesting reports were discovered on the internet.
The first is a direct assault on Obama, dealing with his career before he ran for public office. The charges will infuriate the White House, and both sides in the dispute will be screaming bloody murder.
Yes, Obama has been unusually secretive about his life; that was a strategic mistake that set many folks on the trail of his problematic dirty laundry. It certainly does not mean that if the truth were known it would hurt him. He seems to believe a president does not owe the electorate even a modest amount of candor, a view TLB does not endorse (this newsletter told him to lay the facts bare and silence his loony critics, as Bush did with his alcoholism). That does not make the man a Manchurian candidate — it makes him an egotistical twit who hates to admit to sloppy judgment. Wait and see how things develop.
Second is a white flag from one of the most prominent global warmers, a fellow who coordinated much of the hoax. Jones has decided he cannot refute the hard evidence, and rather than be utterly disgraced by stubbornly insisting that the impossible is true, he is making an effort to depart with some measure of dignity. In TLB’s view, he should face criminal charges for attempting to avoid his responsibilities under Britain’s freedom of information legislation. But this admission of the truth may just get him off.
Finally there is this: a long-overdue clarification by the IPCC that it is not and never was a scientific body.
The Washington Post Publishes A Relatively Successful Attempt At The Partial Rehabilitation Of Barack Obama. It Is, However, A Bit Narrow, So The Lynx Bulletin Tries To Expand The Field Of Vision
The WaPo, with a little help from often-reliable AP, puts an interesting spin on the Obama policy of war: in an article that most folks would call news, it manages to make sense about three-quarters of the time. That’s not bad for the authoritarian-collectivist newspaper. It certainly is true that, as the paper suggests but does not explicitly admit, Obama has caused tremendous grief for Islam’s unholy warriors by employing mature versions of policies and technology pioneered by the Bush administration.
To come closer to the truth, begin by reading the article at the link. Then consider the major points, and decide whether one should add topics that the authors of this analysis-and-opinion-as-news piece left out. Finally, some speculation as to why so much was omitted might be in order.
1. Relations with Pakistan, as indicated by more cooperation in passing along useful intelligence, have improved. Pakistanis can be among the most vexing humans on earth, so even a little success in helping them see reason is welcome. What has produced the administration’s laudable accomplishments? It’s probably a bit too subtle, and maybe too secret, to talk about. But score two big points for the Obama administration.
2. Emphasis on Afghanistan is essential, so Obama’s correct. But it was essential long before Obama took office, as readers of this newsletter know. Spotting the conflict and talking about it was hardly a stroke of genius. True, Bush delayed too long in countering the Taliban, but that was due in part to knowledge that his critics would hysterically oppose a greater effort in Afghanistan before Iraq was essentially settled down. A half-point, therefore, for Obama, simply because he did not pull a “fifty-seven states in the USA” blunder, and another half-point for facing the military situation in Afghanistan without whining about “a willing suspension of disbelief.”
3. Toning down the rhetoric. Well, some credit. But really now, who in the Muslim world is listening closely to Obama’s newly nuanced teleprompter and checking for missing cusswords? A few thousand decision-makers, maybe, and nearly none of those folks are about to change their minds about The Great Satan. As TLB has noted, Obama’s words matter most to the “Palestinians,” who are always looking for a slip of the tongue or yawn or shrug they can exploit. So when Obama changed the tone of US pronouncements, the “Palestinians” rejoiced at the new weakness and hardened their line. Journalists noticed, as well, and that started a round of stereotypically overheated analysis and speculation.
Regarding which, do you remember the “Arab street” that was going to explode if Bush invaded Iraq? That was a journalist’s opium dream, and the world should have learned something from its exposure. If that did not prove that public opinion is a very unreliable factor in Islam (the god described in the Koran has absolutely no use for it, after all), nothing ever will.
Whatever advantages Obama’s speeches have given the USA are very hard to attribute to the exquisite sensitivity of a well-educated, open-minded, cosmopolitan and rational Islamic ruling class. Nobody much is deconstructing Obama’s speeches in the souks. What the WaPo is peddling is guesswork, nothing more. One-tenth of a point to Obama, and just because his show of bogus contrition and apologetic softness probably was a partial hit with a few people who don’t have any real influence with jihadis.
4. Hooray for military technology, and Obama’s willingness to use it without advertising the fact. He’s let slip the dogs of war, and most in the USA don’t realize it. A half-point, again because The One did not drop the ball. The real credit goes to the engineers.
Readers of the WaPo piece may conclude that since it undertook to deal only with a single segment of Obama’s performance, it is unfair to introduce other topics in a critique of the article. That’s a cogent point. When the NY Times reviewed Liberal Fascism, it damned the book as having omitted right-wing fascism (even though the subject was referred to and comparisons were made to German National Socialism in particular). The author dryly responded that the reviewer should have noted the title of the book.
So expanding the discussion to include anything other than the military effort in Afghanistan would be unfair. Granted. Yet a president is not just a military leader, or a tactical politician, or a manager of government spending and law enforcement; he should be evaluated comprehensively because the office is comprehensive. So what’s out of bounds?
Perhaps the issue can be settled this way: when defending or attacking a politician’s record, all his actions and attitudes are to be included. After all, Hitler did some very good things, but he can’t be rehabilitated. And when it comes to books on physics, it’s not fair to attack them as deceitful and dishonest because they do not mention alchemy.
That means that when one observer prattles on about depleted uranium killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, his opponent in the debate is entitled to introduce the genius of G. W. Bush’s surge.
If you disagree, and do not want to consider a broader spectrum of Obama’s record, you can stop reading now. No problem, as the kids say. Who could blame you for not wanting to talk or even think about it?
5. Deduct two points because Obama has made such a hash of the USA’s relationship with Israel. He actually decided that a neighborhood in Jerusalem that has been inhabited by both Jews and Arabs for more years than anyone has been alive should now be forbidden to Jews.
One more meddlesome, imperious gaffe like that, and this newsletter will be calling Obama “The Apartheid Kid.”
Had you noticed that Jimmy Carter bitterly criticized Israel for “apartheid” — namely building fences and supposedly segregating the population? Now, thanks to Obama’s embarrassing plans for a neighborhood, it’s clear that if you don’t like Israel, or are maybe a secret Jew-hater, you can say whatever you want and get away with it: you can safely come down on Side A or on its total opposite, Side Anti-A. You are just as free to damn Israel for racism, in other words, as you are to promote segregation. Both views are taken as valid criticism. Why is that? Could it be because the contradictory positions both condemn Israel?
Yes. As long as you dispute Israeli policy, your opinion is correct — even if you are a segregationist or a mental midget. It’s not the quality of your argument that matters, but the noxious nature of the nation of Israel that validates your view.
And isn’t it odd to see a black politician trying to impose ethnic cleansing on an integrated neighborhood? Didn’t Jim Crow teach Obama anything?
Candor requires that TLB confess to a nauseating anxiety that some day, somewhere, a tired and frustrated Obama will deliver himself of a slur against Jews. The waking nightmare just won’t go away. Maybe that nutty “spiritual advisor” in Chicago has something to do with it.
7. Score a huge zero for the overall impression the world has of Obama. Lots of folks wonder what’s going on in the USA, and how Obama is going to control his feisty peasants. Astute observers look at Obama’s legislative program and see a monstrosity produced not by Obama, but by a Congress that is off the leash. That’s executive leadership? As in the train wreck of anthropogenic global warming policy, which is shattering against hard facts? As in the cleverness of US diplomacy toward Great Britain? Or as in Hillary’s insulting tour of the shrine of Guadalupe in Mexico? As in the colossal travesty of US policy on Honduras, where Obama sided with his nation’s blood enemies and displayed appalling ethics? As in rational fiscal policy? As in trying to bring that bloated, obsolete Olympic monstrosity to Chicago?
This newsletter has also fretted about Obama’s appointments to high office, Holder and Napolitano in particular. Others, exposed, have resigned. Rahm Emanuel remains a chillingly cynical familiar. Associate Justice Sotomayor is a huge mistake.
Conclusion: TLB likes Obama for his willingness to use US military might where it is needed. Pressed, this newsletter admits that this is of overwhelming importance, and the other embarrassments and inanities and immoral nonsense will simply have to be coped with (by the Tea Party movement?). The total picture is not great, but then this is earth, not heaven.
Yes, It’s Just A Little Radiation, But These Damned Things Really Are Dangerous
April, almost six years ago: this bulletin quoted a source that the mobile phone (which is not a telephone) was “…the largest biomedical experiment in history.” It was a worry back then, a potential problem. Millions of ignorant volunteers embraced the technology, and some scientists were taking notes. Now we know more…and the question is, will that knowledge do us any good?
Children must use ear buds and a separate microphone. Adults, most of whom are uninformed or unbelieving, will have to cope with theconsequences of their choice.
Ask yourself: will Obamacare provide optimum treatment? Will your self-induced brain cancer be curable, or even treatable?
The information is in, and the risk is quite well known — it exists, that much is certain, and all that remains is for the medical establishment to agree on a statistical measure of the danger.
So it’s up to you to answer the biggest questions of all: why in the world do you need to press that radio transmitter against your head? Why are you so stubbornly reckless?
There Is A Reason Those Newspapers Don’t Sell Well
From this website:
This is, as much as anything else, yet another “mainstream media misses the boat” story. First they ignored and ridiculed the tea party activists. Now the media misrepresent them to the point of deliberate distortion. The media’s distorted characterization is not simply a matter of getting the details wrong, I think. This is, just as surely as that Big Labor slush fund, an effort to kill the movement in its crib and discredit it among average Americans. Treating them as rubes, extremists, religious nuts, and racists seems to be a bit of Saul Allinsky-type strategy. (“Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It,” was Alinsky’s mantra.) But the media is less and less credible and the tea-party activists are doing a good job of getting their own message out.
Yes. Click on the link and read it all for some additional insights into the culture war — about which it can be said that those who deny the conflict’s very existence are well aware of its seismic potential. And they are smugly confident of victory.
How do global warmers get their facts? Mark Steyn explains.
Related: memo to Mike — they found out, and they are not amused. Time to retire to The Seychelles?
The Russians just sent another Al Qaeda leader to hell.
“Come in,” said the spider to the fly.
Reform can be a wonderful thing, and the Clintons promoted some fine work that cleaned things up. But what do you call it when that helpful reform is systematically dismantled? Hopeandchange?
What paper is this in? The WaPo? No! Pigs have taken wing!
A NASA scholar characterized the IPCC report as “beyond redemption,” and was curtly rebuffed. That’s not science. It’s pure ideological dictatorship, and people are getting tired of the alarmist propaganda that is so often used to prop it up. More: the end of the IPCC as a political entity; in case you were in doubt, read this. Yes, the tide turned some time ago, and the die-hards are writhing in agony.
Paul Krugman, one of the Big Guns of the New York Times (and yet another Nobeloid), is celebrated for his principled consistency, as displayed here.
Legislative skill is admirable — but will the electorate endorse the most creative measures, or damn them as devious and undemocratic? Pelosi and Co. may have to reckon with a backlash to which their zeal blinds them.
Now this is simply unbelievable. The Aussies can be such boobs! The story seems fake…but judge for yourself.
Related: it seems the Canadian Disease is loose in Australia. Shame! TLB never expected Oz would be so PC, but then voting is mandatory there.
More on the continuing culture war: the peasant revolt of 2010.
Related: the Tea Party movement is not a trivial development, which is why it draws obscene remarks from the bicoastal elite. Read moreon this weblog, and then in The Economist, a British magazine that turned left some years ago.
Assess this commentary on Holder’s federal department of justice not on the basis of the fact that the newspaper from which it comes is owned and operated by a fraud, ex-convict and rascal, but on the basis of how truthful and rational it is about Holder, the facts of the New Black Panther Party case, and your own common sense.
Are the Democrats worried about the Congressional election this year? Well, both parties are always concerned but not necessarilyworried, and each usually claims the other is scared silly. Some would say you can tell who’s anxious and upset by watching what’s going on, too.
Fighting in Afghanistan: did you hear about this, see it reported, or read about it in any of the major news media? TLB is willing to bet this story comes as a surprise to you. Now ponder whether you should have been made aware of it, and ask yourself how well-served you are by journalists. Remember, they always have the option of reporting the things you will learn about only on the internet (after having been tipped off, of course). After all, news is news, isn’t it? But some people try to make it secret. Why do you suppose they do that?
As everybody knows, the Chinese invented just about everything except French Fries. Well, now they have invented bacteria that causeillnesses that can’t be cured.
The world has in it good people and bad people. If you are a national leader of good people, you want the bad people in the world to fear you. Yes, even if — especially if — you are a saint. Thereby hangs a sad, sad tale….
According to Michael Barone, power does not just corrupt, it renders stupid those who wield it: Team Obama “failed to realize that vastly expanding government goes deeply against the American grain — and against the basic appeal of their successful campaign.” That’s just one of many insights in Barone’s commentary. Read it all here.
Related: if you were ever in any doubt whatsoever as to the principled genius of the Obama administration, read this, Pilgrims. — And there’s more: this video will hurt. A lot. And, “The Middle East is a problem that has plagued the region for centuries.” Honest Injun, that’sa real quote from The One. It’s mixed in with other delights, so click on the link and enjoy the “Believe-It-Or-Not” style of the show.
Pardon TLB’s angry skepticism: there is a new technology for the development of anti-cancer drugs, and if you read this press release, you can be forgiven for expecting a cure in 2012. If — and that’s a huge if — this research pays off at all, it will take at least a decade before there is any therapeutic impact. This report, in fact, is best understood as yet another reminder that the advertising department always develops the breakthroughs and innovations years before the engineering department gets around to them. There ought to be a strict law against the promotion of false hope. The public has no need whatsoever for the information reported at the link, and will in fact be harmed by it.
Ethics, individualism, collectivism and other fun stuff are discussed in this interesting post.
“When successful, stand things on their heads” seems to be a popular but unadmitted credo that infests the history of governance. It produces the “Oh, no! Where did they come from?” response, and slouches in the background of every drama of collapsed power and privilege. As you will see in this commentary on British cultural suicide. They had it all…and now it’s all having its way with them. It did not have to end like this.
Maybe Argentina believes Great Britain cannot fight in both the South Atlantic and Afghanistan. Or maybe Buenos Aires has looked at Gordon Brown and his probable successors and decided they believe Great Britain cannot fight in both the South Atlantic and Afghanistan. Are you sick and tired of this story yet? TLB certainly is….
When Iraqis stopped protecting the Bad Guys, peace began to return. The same thing has to happen in Afghanistan, as the linked article makes clear.
Those with some experience in Asian cultures sometimes remark on what they perceive as a “closed, even secretive” nature that puts no value on unnecessary candor. The Toyota recall seems to be an example of that, but then US automakers have never been compulsive about admitting their faults, either.