Wednesday link-fest

I don’t have any essay-length thoughts today.  All day long I’ve been assembling articles that I found interesting, but none have led me to write a post.  Instead, I’ll simply share those articles with you.  The Wall Street Journal articles might be behind a pay wall.  Because I subscribe, I can’t tell without signing out first, and I’m too lazy to do that.

I like John Podhoretz’s analysis of Obama’s leadership style, which boils down to “I’m in charge here, except to those policies I don’t like, which are someone else’s fault and over which I — despite my vast executive powers — have no control.”

Obama unilaterally declared America’s inchoate “War on Terrorism” (a tactic, not an enemy) over.  Jonah Goldberg explains as only he can why one person or country can’t unilaterally end a war.

Jack Dunphy explains what could have happened in Boston to prevent a terrorism attack — and then explains why, in Obama’s America, it never will happen that way.

The media lies to advance its Leftist agenda.  That’s just a fact.

I hated The Color Purple.  I don’t remember at this distance in time why, but I do recall finding it badly written, maudlin, misanthropic, and generally distasteful.  That’s why I’m not surprised to learn that Alice Walker is a hard-core antisemite.

The Wall Street Journal hasn’t lost sight of the fact that the Obama administration didn’t just go after conservative groups.  It also went after pro-Israel groups.  Rick Richman thinks he might know how that started . . . and it’s not pretty.

Daniel Henninger looks at Obama’s muddled, down-hearted, defeatist war rhetoric.  You cannot win a war with this type of commander, and that’s true no matter how good your troops and equipment.  If your leader wants to lose, you lose.

Victor Davis Hanson uses Syria as a fascinating starting point for a look at the wars that become inhumanely savage, as opposed to limiting themselves to ordinary killing.

Zombie makes an unusual, but fascinating, argument claiming that Karl Marx advanced a doctrine that can be used to support Tea Party goals.

Obama lied:  you will lose your health insurance.  We knew that would happen, but there are going to be a lot of surprised Americans out there this fall.

Mitch McConnell has a very good advertisement:

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Gringo says

    Sadie, you beat me to it, except that I was going to use Wiki as the source. Which somehow reminds me that in the 1930s the CPUSA was in support of a separate black nation carved out of the South. Reminds me of the partitioning of Palestine. I wonder if her ex husband was a red diaper baby.

  2. SADIE says

    Speaking of Palestine…Gringo.
     
    In an essay which Walker wrote in 2009, she described giving a gift to a Palestinian woman:
    “I gave her a gift I had brought, and she thanked me. Looking into my eyes she said: May God Protect You From the Jews. When the young Palestinian interpreter told me what she’d said, I responded: It’s too late, I already married one.” [emphasis added]

  3. says

    The Zombie argument about Marx and the Tea Party is interesting. True that both Marx and the Tea Party want the productive segments of society (as they each define “productive”) to enjoy the fruits of their labors. But there are also big differences, of course, including the Marxist obsession with economic equality (which would suggest that the semi-skilled worker, the highly-skilled toolmaker, and the product design engineer should all get paid the same (varied only by their “needs”), irrespective of their greatly differing contributions to the overall production)…also the Marxist obsession with collectives rather than individuals…and the implicit reliance in Marxism on top-down planning, although I don’t think Marx ever really specified how that would actually work given the “withering away” of the State.

  4. lee says

    RE: WaPo Photo
    I read an article in a French photography magazine about thirty years ago (pre-Photoshop) about the editorializing involved in cropping choices, and the choice of which photo to print. It was very interesting. It showed the photos as they were published, and either the photo uncropped, or other photos from the same roll.
    I remember one photo that looked like a soldier was holding a gun to a prisoner’s head. The reality was the guy was not a prisoner, and the soldier wasn’t even near him, nor was he aiming his rifle anywhere specific. The lens choice compressed the field so it looked like the soldier and guy squatting on the ground where in about the same plane of focus.
    It wasn’t a “how-to”; it didn’t suggest the practice was a good idea, but it didn’t condemn it either. I think a lot of photojournalists think of it as a how-to. 

  5. says

    Marx is obsolete. He wanted someone to provide for himself, since he considered himself a “productive member of society”. history would differ.
     
    There are far better Leftists and communist theory crafters on insurgency and taking down governments than him. And we’ll be needing those guys more to fight the Left. Marx’s head is already taken. But many Leftists still have theirs.

  6. says

    Even Marx said there was a Lumpen Proletariat.  A class which identified its political interests with the Proletariat but did not have the mentality of a useful member of society.  If Marx got that wrong how do you explain an Occupy Protest?

Leave a Reply