Wednesday, January 21, 2009

President Obama.

It's the day after the Inauguration, and the first fully day of the Obama Presidency. I plan to offer more thoughts on everything later, but I'll just say now that it was a great day. The speech was good. Not hisbest one, but it was good. The real indeliable moments wre in the moments themselves, and the overall theme of the speech, which was the America will prevail, despite the challenges we face, because she always has prevailed by the strength of our values, and her people.

Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer had to be the moment I'll probably remember most. It was an emotional moment, and had more smoother poetry than Elizabeth Alexander's/ I though she was a bit too clunky.

Agaun, more later, but I thought this was worth noting:

"Those who doubted that a black man could be elected to the highest office in the land no longer have a leg to stand on. That can be a force for good, when young blacks can no longer be told that there is no point in their trying to get ahead in this society because 'the man' is going to stop them. In another sense, the Obama presidency may not be nearly as big a change in the country as some might think. Colin Powell could probably have been elected eight years ago. But you don't know it can happen until it happens. No doubt the race-hustling industry will continue, and no doubt their chief victims will be blacks, especially young blacks, who buy the paralyzing picture of victimhood and the counterproductive resentments which sap energies that could be better used to improve their own lives. Now that we have the first black President of the United States, maybe we can move ahead to the time when we can forget about 'the first' whatever to do what. There is too much serious work to do to spend more time on that."

That's from Thomas Sowell, whom as we all know, was no fan of Obama.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

"Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state,"

You know, based on the names these children were given, it's pretty likely these parents have Nazi sympathies, but am I off base if I wonder if removing these children, sans any physical abuse, sets a dangerous precedent? It's pretty horrible to subject young minds to that garbage, but you can the state just up and decide to take your kids away, based on what they're being taught? Slippery slope doesn't quite cut it.

I don't condone what these parents are most likely doing at all, but...

UPDATE: I've been thinking this over, and I cannpt get this out of my head. Assuming these kids are being bombarded with hateful Neo-Nazi doctrines at such a young age, couldn't that count as child abuse? Assuming the case turns out to be what I think it is, these children are in really bad spot. Yet, if we set the precedent here, even for children this young, where do you draw the line?

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

“He’s misguided sometimes, but when you read him, you finish the whole article.”

A pretty spot-on, and unexpected take on Christopher Hitchens. Spot-on, because it's correct and concise. Unexpected, because it comes from Rush Limbaugh.

The piece is an old one, from last July, but it was near the top over at Hitch's website, so I checked it out.

BTW, It's not that I can't believe Limbaugh can get it right at least once in a while, rather it's just that Hitchens doesn't seem like the guy Limbaugh would read. Or Camille Paglia, for that matter.

Bernie, Let It Go

Bush's Presidency ends in less than seven days, and his official potrait has been prepared. Apparently, there's an issue with the inscription on the bottom. Sen. Bernie Sanders has cried foul:

"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."

It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.

Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.

Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.

HT: Althouse

ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.

Monday, January 12, 2009

"I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."

More from PJM's new Israel correspondent, and conservative uber-celebrity. Can someone explain to me again, what is it exactly, that makes certain people take this guy seriously? Are you kidding me?

Look, a lot of us have seen that the MSM has a habit of screwing up the reportage, but it's absurd to make a blanket declaration that all journalists need to go. Is that just the MSM journalists (are only MSM reporters journalists?), or anyone? What the Hell is this guy talking about?

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Joe The Reporter?

You know, I almost didn't want to blog on this, but I just had to share a few thoughts on JTP's new job as foreign policy analyst, with PJTV. I'm getting a negative vibe from this whole outfit, although not enough to lose any sleep over. Look, the professional media has certainly made, and continues to make big mistakes in their Israel-Palestine coverage. That much is clear. I certainly have no objection to bloggers, or anybody exercising their right offer up their perspective. That being said, assuming JTP's coverage is supposed to have some meaningful value, I cannot shake this feeling that this will turn out to be less about covering Israel, than pumping of Joe Wurzelbacher's image. I'll be honest, the guy just rubs me the wrong way, and it's not just his lack of gratitude, or his seemingly inflated sense of self-importance. I mean, there are a lot of solid journalists and bloggers who have proven themselves reliable voices on the region. My favorite Mideast blogger even works for Pajamas Media, BTW. Maybe it's just that I have this feeling that this Israel tour will turn out to be more of an attempt to bash Obama, then an attempt to show the Israeli side of things.

I'm not going to get bent out of shape over this, and qho knows, maybe he'll do a good job, but nonsense like this covers JTP's credibility in something of a dark cloud, or rather, a miasma.

HT: Althouse

ADDED: I was reading the comments over at Althouse's place, I felt compelled to add a bit more. Let me say again that my main beef with JTP is that I think he comes off as an ego-driven, self-important, celebrity hound. It's clear why some many righties like him, because he basically shares the views of the base. Heck, he may yet offer up something meaningful, and you know what, I hope I'm wrong about the guy (although I doubt it). I think in one sense he has perceived the utterly wayward media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that much like the Lebaon war is as compromised as ever. The thing is, his utterly insane support for the idea that Obama means death for Israel totally wounds his perspective.