Liberal Disingenuousness

Yes, yes, conservatives can be disingenuous, too. But hear me out on this.

Here's two example over the past two days, and these are mere examples of a very widespread phenomenon, in which liberals get away with making unchallenged claims about conservatives that simply would not stand if made from the other direction.

The first was Daniel Klaidman, author of the book Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, about drone strikes. The NPR show was about the contradiction that under President Obama drone attacks have increased enormously, even to the point of taking out U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though attacks of that nature were deplored under Bush. Klaidman went on and on about how carefully Obama, and his legal adviser Harold Koh, had thought through the question of drone strikes, whether they were legal, etc. And he admitted that even though Koh had vehemently opposed U.S. military action prior to 2009, his opinion changed when his perspective did.

At no point did the NPR interviewer ask where this perspective was during the Bush years. Did he not imagine that the people making the tough decisions then might have had similar quandaries? If Koh felt so strongly, he should have not taken the appointment, or resigned when he found that Obama would be overriding him constantly. Instead, he "thoughtfully" came down on the side of strikes and defended their use. But doesn't this entirely exonerate the Bush strategy of using them and other targeted methods of going after terrorists?

Not for Klaidman. His parting shot was to mention that he was glad, with all the power drone strikes bring to the table, that the person in the White House making the calls was "so thoughful and deliberative", unlike, it did not need saying, its previous occupant. How convenient. So we are to judge a policy by the thoughtfulness of its executive? To Klaidman, the same policy can be deplored in one case and celebrated in another, because the amount or type of thought behind it came from a different man.

The second case comes from an old standby, Howard Dean. On MSNBC recently he said: "People fundamentally don't trust Mitt Romney; they believe he only cares about people who have great wealth, which is probably true." (My emphasis.) Which is probably true! I'm trying to imagine the titanic backlash that would come from a conservative saying that people believe that Obama only cares about people of color, "which is probably true." We'd never stop hearing about it.

And liberals tell me that their problem is they're too nice. Pshaw.

The Iron Lady

I was briefly super-psyched to see that there will be a major motion picture about Margaret Thatcher in January 2012:

Hmmmm, Meryl Streep as Maggie Thatcher? That's ominous. Then I looked more deeply. From the first reference:

What was it like to work for Margaret Thatcher? What sort of woman was she at the height of her powers? You might think that if you were setting out to make a so-called "biopic" about such a dominant figure on the political stage of the late 20th century, your researchers would have sought out those who were closest to her in those years and asked them.

I do not know whom the makers of the Meryl Streep film talked to. Perhaps Michael Heseltine or Geoffrey Howe, but certainly not me. To judge the film from its trailer, they confined their inquiries to the Daily Mirror and perhaps Tim Bell's public relations firm.

From the second:

"Sir Mark and Carol are appalled at what they have learnt about the film," says a friend of the family. "They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy. They feel strongly about it, but will not speak publicly for fear of giving it more publicity."

Oh, boy. At least the hard Left is also a bit upset:

That's all fine, but that narrative trajectory risks skewing the story. This was not just a time of one woman's assault on a male bastion, but an era of rage about what Thatcher, economy destroyer and warmonger, was doing to Britain.

Here's what Maggie had to say about being an "economy destroyer", by the way:

I guess I'm still psyched. But prepared for a hatchet job.

Hillary Deleted

The Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung edited Hillary Clinton - and Audrey Tomason, the only other woman in the room - out of the iconic photo of the Obama situation room during the bin Laden operation.

In other photo news, Clinton explained her expression, hand over mouth, as probably covering up a cough. Frankly, I don't believe for a second that Hillary was coughing. I also couldn't care less either way. The whole coughing spin strikes me as an overreaction to what she feared would be seen as a womanly "eeeek!" moment. But I don't think many people who know Hillary think she was heading for the fainting couch.

About the editing job, two points: first, the reaction strikes me as slightly misguided. It isn't offensive because women were edited out; it's offensive because it was edited. This way lies madness, and Jews of all people really ought to know better, what with their experiences under Communism, as well as Islamic historical revisionism regarding Jews. Second, imagine if the room had been full of women. Would Der Tzitung have edited them all out, showing just an empty room?

I would think that a Talmudic scholar could easily figure out that the right solution to this dilemma is simply not to print the photo at all. If that leads to fewer photos in the paper, then that's the price you pay for having 12th-century beliefs about the sexes.

In Defense of Keith Olbermann

It's hard to avoid a whiff of schadenfreude when hearing about Keith Olbermann's suspension by MSNBC in the wake of the revelation that he donated to three Democratic candidates in contravention of MSNBC policies. But that would be too easy.

What's so wrong about political donations from opinion journalists, really? Is anyone surprised to find that Olbermann favors Democrats? Does anyone think: Hey, maybe this means Olbermann might be less than fair when talking about politics. It's one thing when supposedly objective journalists are caught donating. (Although is any journalist really objective? Question for another day.) But Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow, Huckabee: they are not objective. They are not hired to be objective, they are hired to give opinions.

Opinion journalists, pretty much by definition, operate in the open. They have to talk in order to do their work. They give their opinions as part of the job. So their opinions are already a matter of public record. There would seem to be nothing whatsoever lost by allowing them to donate or otherwise exercise their freedom of political speech.

Unless, of course, their employers want to maintain the fig leaf that they are actually objective journalists. But surely MSNBC doesn't think anyone believes that about Keith Olbermann. Right? Free Olbermann!

Early Election-Day Observations

Concerning the election today, a few early observations:

1. My polling location was nearly empty. I walked in, gave my name, got my card, and voted. No lines whatsoever. Here in blue-state New Jersey, where the biggest race is Little-Pallone, that's no big surprise. But perhaps is reason to hope for Little, a major underdog whose only hope is that her voters are much more enthusiastic than Pallone's.

2. Pallone has been running attack ads over the past week. This must indicate that he's at least a bit worried. If he was running a 30-point lead, he could safely run soft-focus ads talking about how great he is, and not worry about the tiny gnat buzzing around. But he's been forced to go after Little by name. It's probably not fair to say that he's running scared, but he's hearing footsteps.

3. WNYC (my local NPR affiliate) is talking about Christine O'Donnell and her gaffes this election season. A less relevant discussion it would be hard to imagine. Look, Democrats: she's going to lose, and deservedly so. How about talking about some close races?

An Open Letter to NPR

I just received an e-mail from my local NPR affiliate, WNYC, to "double my pledge". This is the e-mail I sent in response:

To Whom It May Concern:

I will not be "doubling my pledge", or indeed renewing my pledge next year when the anniversary rolls around. The reason for my change of heart is the firing of Juan Williams. This was an inexplicable, execrable move that I simply cannot support. Please make it clear to your own management and on up the chain that there is at least a portion of your listenership that does not believe that what Williams had to say was even close to a firing offense, and that firing him as a result illustrates NPR's disrespect and intolerance for opposing viewpoints.

Sincerely,
--

- James

UPDATE: To their credit, WNYC responded. Some boilerplate aside, here's the important part:

As the local New York broadcaster of NPR programming, we are always interested to hear our listeners' comments about their programming content and their organization. However, it is important to understand that our organization does not have influence in the content of NPR programming, with their staff, or in their personnel decisions. We pay NPR for the programming and news that we broadcast and, as such, are separate independent organizations.

It's not directly WNYC's fault that NPR fired Juan Williams. But they're not exactly independent, either. WNYC is part of the NPR family. I don't give money to NPR; I give to WNYC. And it seems perfectly reasonable to cut off funding to WNYC in this case. I want them upset with NPR.

The logic seems to me stronger than when people boycott a company for advertising on a show they find objectionable. The company isn't directly responsible for the show's content, but they know the basic message and can sever the relationship if it grows too burdensome. I'm putting pressure (a tiny amount in my case, but hopefully my case is but one among thousands) on WNYC so that they will pressure NPR.

NPR Fires Juan Williams

NPR has fired Juan Williams for his remarks about Muslims on The O'Reilly Factor.

Obviously, NPR is within its rights to do so, being a private organization. (Well, sort of. Doesn't NPR receive government funding? The government certainly twists the arms of other organizations that act in ways it doesn't like if they receive funding.) But there is a difference between having a right to do something and something being the right thing to do. You might imagine, from the fact of his termination, that Williams must have said some truly awful things about Muslims. Here's what he said:

But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Many Americans share these views. Any why wouldn't they? Muslims are responsible for most plane hijackings around the world, and four particular ones nine years ago that you might remember. Williams isn't making a policy proposal, for crying out loud. He's airing his personal fears. Surely NPR wouldn't fire someone for giving a personal, mainstream opinion. Maybe it was this (which O'Reilly said, but Williams agreed with):

The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.

That's controversial, surely. You could easily disagree with it. But is it a firing offense?

It's a shame that NPR felt the need to take such an extraordinary step about such ordinary statements.

UPDATE:

Here's video of Juan Williams' side of things:



If Williams said something bigoted here, we should remember this the next time a person of color admits to experiencing a frisson of fear upon seeing a white policeman. Apparently, such an admission can get you fired from NPR.

Funny to the Left of Me, Angry to the Right

Heard on NPR a few minutes ago: A guest on the Leonard Lopate Show said that the left just can't manage to be angry, while the right can't seem to generate humor. Maybe I'm missing something. The right has Chris Buckley, P. J. O'Rourke, Jonah Goldberg, David Kahane, Glenn Beck, and so on. Who does the left have? A bunch of guys and gals who fall over laughing whenever someone mentions Bu$hitler.

And the left doesn't do angry? The only thing the left does better than angry is pompous, condescending self-righteousness. (The anger comes when you put it like that.)

Stupid Koran Tricks

So there's this dimwit (whose name I won't honor by putting in print) in Florida who wants to burn a Koran tomorrow. Stupid.

But what's nearly as stupid is the press coverage of it. Years ago, networks figured out that when some drunken sports fan jumps onto the field to make an ass of himself, the thing to do is not to broadcast his antics to millions of viewers across the nation. You studiously don't film it, talk about something else for a few minutes while security takes care of it, then get back to the game.

I suppose it's harder to do that here. This Florida pastor isn't doing anything illegal, so the police won't be hogtying him and marching him off to the drunk tank. And he can make as much noise as he wants to on the Internet and wherever else he can. But why help him by giving him free publicity? I'll do my part by not providing a name or link, although that's spitting in the wind considering that his name, church, and probably blood type are already in all media outlets.

It's kind of sad when the sports media is wiser than the rest of the media.

JournoList

How ironic that the vast right-wing conspiracy turned out to be a vast left-wing conspiracy. I'm sure we're all very surprised.