A roundup of a few interesting things from the internet this week.
Great pieces by establishment conservatives George Will and Charles Krauthammer pointing out the increasingly wide gap between Obama’s rhetoric of post-partisanship and his narrowly partisan agenda.
A scathing editorial by Robert Samuelson on Obama’s phony economics agenda.
A nice tribute to one of my favorite writers, Steve Sailer, by John Derbyshire.
An interesting power point from Natick Labs that shows the Army’s dubious universal pattern was actually a poor performer in tests. The best performer looked a lot like old Rhodesian camouflage and, like the earth around us, was comprised of greens, tans, and browns. It is a minor scandal that the Army has made its soldiers appear worse in garrison and endangered them in the field with its new Army Combat Uniform. Since so many soldiers are now slogging it out like their fathers and grandfathers on Afghan hills, it’s a decision worthy of revisiting by the DoD.
South of the border, things seem to be really melting down. It’s kind of pathetic that Obama thinks we can have an unsecured border with Mexico and is considering sending in the military to stop narco-terrorists only, as if a border without controls can easily separate illegal aliens seeking work at car washes and restaurants and illegal aliens seeking work as pimps and drug dealers. Without a secure border, the un-uniformed, un-named, disorganized, and visually indistinguishable criminal element from Mexico will continue to flow into the US.
I was never terribly impressed with the GOP since Bush took the helm. Michael Steele is not helping things. More of the same is a recipe for disaster: both politically and, if we somehow manage electoral success, on policy. The gap between concerns of the rank and file–the economy, culture, immigration, national security, and moral decline–and the guilt-ridden, beltway rhetoric of the leadership is quite remarkable.
Dick Cheney said this morning that Obama’s policies make America less safe. I, of course, said Bush’s border policies made America less safe, though Obama may even be worse on this score. But so what if Cheney said this? Isn’t this what criticism of another person’s national security policy always is saying implicitly? One of the most dangerous developments in the media’s tone under Obama has been the idea that criticizing his policies–i.e., hoping they fail or saying they make us less safe–is out of bounds and unpatriotic. If we can’t criticize Obama without being called racist, and we can’t criticize his policies without being unpatriotic, what is left other than blind submission?
Read Full Post »