Still working on coordinating my stiff, unresponsive brain this morning, so I have nothing interesting to say. I mean, my dog is perfect, and that’s always of interest to me, but it makes for very limited blog posts.
Fortunately, as is always the case with the internet, even when my synapses are moving as slowly as maple sap in the winter, there’s other stuff there. For some reason, today’s National Review Online was the one that just riveted me. The site had three posts that I think are worth sharing with you:
Charles C.W. Cooke talks about the fact that Jill Biden, who has a very Lefty type of PhD in education insists on going by the honorific “doctor.” This is kind of peculiar on its face, because people with PhD’s in education usually go by professor, but never mind that. Cooke’s real point is to highlight the American class system the Left has created with its emphasis on doctorates. With all due respect to those who worked hard to earn doctorates (and I hold one myself, in law, as does every other lawyer in this degree inflated world), the doctorate does not make for a better or more knowledgeable person. Indeed, one of the problems with doctorates is that they narrow ones knowledge. We have more and more people who wave around an obscure doctorate in puppetry or a subset of fruit fly cell reproduction and then claim based upon the letters after their names that they have all the answers. That’s just so not true . . . except perhaps in my case. In future, please feel free to call me Dr. B.
John Fund points out that, after its initial bout of navel gazing when Kirsten Powers excoriated the media for ignoring the Gosnell trial, the media is right back to ignoring the Gosnell trial — as well as two other trials in which abortion clinics are accused of putting women’s health and life at serious risk. This adds that little bit of extra irony to the wrap-up to Obama’s speech before Planned Parenthood:
As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. (Emphasis mine.)
Repeat after me: “It’s not about health care. It’s about abortion.” Until we acknowledge that, we will never have an honest debate about abortion — and its limits — in this country.
Congress awarded posthumous Congressional
Medals of Honor Gold Medals to the four little girls who died in a Birmingham, Alabama church in 1963, the victims of a horrific extremist bombing. Looking at that event and comparing it to the Boston bombing, Mona Charen makes an excellent point:
As Americans, we are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white-supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people. (Though some on the left won’t mind if you generalize about white people.)
But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even a friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told the New York Times on the ironic date of September 11, 2001, that “I feel we didn’t do enough. . . . [There’s] a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance.” So says a retired “distinguished professor” at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists.
How’s that for moral clarity?
Andrew Breitbart was right all along about the massive Pigford scandal, one that saw a reparations law turn into a major scam to rip off American taxpayers. To give credit where credit is due, the New York Times has reported the details of this fraud. I’d like to believe there’s a conscious afterlife, simply so that I can also believe that Andrew Breitbart is up there, somewhere, pumping his fist with glee. Perhaps the New York Times will become inspired by this effort and turn to real reporting, rather than spending 90% of its time serving as a propaganda arm for Leftist politicians and activists.
And finally, speaking of newspapers, over at the WaPo, an opinion piece says that the way to destroy the Koch brothers’ proposed LA Times purchase is for all the reporters to walk out! That’ll show them. I had to laugh. First, why would the Koch brothers want to keep a staff that has been responsible for purveying such horrible Leftist claptrap, the paper is seconds away from bankruptcy. Second, this assumes that there are no good conservative writers, which reveals a level of bias so enormous as to be almost incomprehensible. And third, does Steven Pearlstein really think that, in a tight economy, hundreds of reporters are simply going to abandon their jobs?