October 30th, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Sometimes when I look at the PJ Media home page, when I see Roger L. Simon ripping into the Benghazi story, say, or the mighty Victor Davis Hanson unpacking the Obama record and the thought behind it, when I read Roger Kimball’s Olympian insights or Stephen Green’s stiletto wit, when I kick back with a column by Driscoll, McCarthy, Walsh, Ledeen, any of them, I can’t help but feel a certain sense of smug satisfaction. I can’t help but think, “Man oh man, is it ever fun to be one of the good guys!”
It’s not just the brains and talent these characters pack — though there’s simply nothing like it on the left, there really isn’t — it’s the fact that each and every one of them spends his writing time trying to get at the truth. They may err. They may have a bad day and miss the mark. But none of them — not one — is trying to fool anyone or suppress anything, or trying to get anyone to confuse their opinions with facts. Whether their favored candidate wins or loses on Election Day, they can sleep well, knowing they’ve done their jobs.
So that makes me wonder: what will it be like on November 7th for the journalists who have sacrificed their integrity to their ideology, the people I mean at the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, ABC News, and so on, who convinced themselves that their political point of view was so right, so virtuous, so true that it was somehow okay for them to skew the facts, suppress the stories, and game the numbers as long as the distortions helped their candidate to victory. If their man loses, God help them, they’ve stained their professional honor beyond redemption; they’ve made themselves nothing, and will be left with nothing.
October 29th, 2012 - 12:00 pm
So… I recently made a satirical political video under the auspices of my favorite think tank. I was supposed to release it weeks ago, but the think tank objected to what it saw as my overly harsh and personal attacks on President Obama. I was unwilling to change it so now, with the think tank’s permission, I hereby release the video in conjunction with my pals at Madison McQueen but with the think tank’s name removed. What do you think? Too nasty?
October 26th, 2012 - 8:23 am
Let’s do a mind experiment. Pretend you are yourself. Now pretend your mother comes to you and tells you that, even though she and your father raised you as if you were the product of their union, in fact she was horribly, brutally raped and it was in that rape that you were conceived. Painful as it was for her — and only she and God know how painful it was — she decided to go through with the pregnancy and give you life.
Have you now lost your right to live? Can you be legally exterminated because of the way you were conceived?
My point here is not — not — that there should be laws against abortion in cases of rape. My point is only that the question of abortion is essentially the question of whether a fetus is human. If an unborn child is a human being, the fact that it resides within its mother is no more relevant than the fact of where you reside. If (and a person of good will can honorably make this argument) there is some point at which a fetus is not yet a human being, then it seems to me you can morally abort it because it’s sick or annoying or female or has failed to have blond hair and blue eyes.
Now anyone with a mind and heart can see that there are vexed moral questions here, filled with grey areas. No feminist blather and no ruling from the pope in Rome can turn those areas to black and white. For a rape victim to bring a baby to term would be, to my mind, an act of moral heroism equivalent to running into a burning building to save a child. I’m not convinced that laws should be passed requiring that sort of elevated action from people. And yet I do believe the child conceived in that horror story is a child indeed and that a minister, say, could, in good conscience, counsel the mother to strive toward the heroic, if the minister felt she might be able.
As everyone knows (since the media has covered it more often than Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate put together), Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock recently answered a debate question about abortion and rape: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Mourdock later clarified the comment and apologized for his poor phrasing — as was proper — but come on, we all know what he was trying to say. He doesn’t think rape is intended by God. He thinks a baby conceived by rape remains a baby with a right to life.
October 23rd, 2012 - 8:05 am
First of all, a round of applause for Bob Schieffer. Schieffer is a left-winger who has in the past fallen prey to that poisonous seduction that convinces journalists the virtue of their political opinions trumps the virtue of doing their jobs fairly and well. Last night, Schieffer resisted that temptation. He did an excellent job as moderator, better than Jim Lehrer, who wasn’t half bad, and than Candy “Creepy” Crowley who, in a just world, would now have a job more in keeping with her skills… like, say, selling apples out of a cardboard box in Times Square.
As before, I think all those not totally blinded by partisanship saw pretty much the same debate. Governor Romney brought the strategy, opting not to attack on current issues still in play but to make more general remarks on Obama’s apologetic approach to foreign affairs and on the ways in which our weak economy weakens us abroad. The president was aggressive to the point of seeming snarky and sneering but played the “I AM the commander-in-chief” card effectively. In debate-world, he seemed to win.
But debate-world is a post-modern place where people score points for looking presidential, being aggressive, delivering zippy zingers and throwing one’s opponent off his train of thought. These essentially show-biz considerations are very important to journalists who are essentially in show business. To the voters? I think none of them matters a damn except (and it’s an important exception) when they seem to reveal something true about the candidate or the race. That is to say, I think journalists report on appearances. People vote on the closest thing to the truth they can find.
October 22nd, 2012 - 5:00 am
A brief political commentary pause before tonight’s debate to celebrate, if I may, some terrific pre-publication reviews for my new books. Both reviews are from the top publishing trade journal Publishers Weekly.
If We Survive is a young adult thriller about four teenagers trying to escape from a Communist revolution in a Central American country. PW writes:
“Two-time Edgar Award–winner Klavan (True Crime) works the YA category with a gripping story… Klavan turns up the heat for YA fiction, and this book will be a hot Christmas gift this season.”
You can read the whole review here. And you can pre-order the book here.
A Killer in the Wind isn’t out till January. It’s a thriller for adults that follows an NYPD cop who is drawn into a nightmarish fight for his life when a woman he thought existed only in his dreams turns up in reality. PW gave it a starred review, their highest praise, and called it a “taut, frightening psychological thriller…” The whole review is here. You can pre-order here.
October 18th, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Don’t forget the documentary “Hating Breitbart” opens Friday in very limited release. Here are the places and times. If you can get to it, please do. It needs an audience if it’s going to open wider. And hey, if it opens wide enough, maybe it’ll swallow the Mainstream Media whole!
October 17th, 2012 - 8:38 am
Your Media At Work.
The world hardly needs yet another pundit’s reaction to last night’s debate, but here’s something I’ve noticed that I haven’t seen expressed elsewhere: none of the punditry seems to have the slightest effect on the opinions of voters. When you watch a debate, you come away with an impression after about the first half hour or so, and that impression, which seems to be held pretty generally by a wide variety of people, is the one that is reflected in later polling. Nothing anyone says in the spin room or anywhere else seems to make a damned bit of difference.
October 15th, 2012 - 4:51 pm
When David Bowie did this song, it was an act of pan-sexual, drug-fueled, hallucinogenic, anti-establishment madness. In Steven Crowder’s hands, it becomes… sort of the same thing… except about Obama. Weird. Funny, but weird. Watch:
October 15th, 2012 - 4:05 am
The good folks over at Glenn Beck’s outfit The Blaze have begun posting a series of pre-election videos they call “American Voices.” Here’s one that caught my eye — though I’d like to see this guy’s birth certificate before we accept him as a strictly “American” voice, if you get my meaning.
October 12th, 2012 - 8:46 am
Vice Presidential Debate
Vice President Joe Biden is the blithering shill for a failed philosophy. Congressman Paul Ryan is the intelligent and articulate defender of the most realistic reform agenda currently available. And yet I think the Romney/Ryan campaign dodged a bullet in the vice presidential debate. If it weren’t for the fact that Biden acted like a grinning, belligerent idiot, he would have won on points. As it was, it was pretty much a draw.
How is that possible? I’m glad you asked because I can tell you. The answer, though it will give you pain, is that both Biden and Ryan are professional politicians at the highest level of elective office. If you count the president and vice president, add the 100 senators, the 435 members of the House of Representatives, and the governors of the 57 states, you get 594 active top political professionals minus 7 because Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about, leaving 587.
So 587 active politicians who have reached the approximate level of Biden and Ryan — and that’s being generous because some Congress people are filler material. But the point is, there are fewer pols at the Biden/Ryan level than there are people who play Major League Baseball.
Any idea how good you have to be to play Major League Baseball? Really, really good. We sit in the stands, we boo the players, we call them names, we tell them they stink. But the fact is, during any given at bat, the worst hitter in the majors can take the best pitcher downtown, the worst pitcher can strike out the best hitter — whereas the rest of us couldn’t even stand on the same field with them.
Debating is what these politicians do. On any given day, any one of them can make mincemeat of any other.
So while I think the first presidential debate was a blow-out victory for Mitt Romney — and while I think Obama’s miserable performance actually reflected the true nature of the man — I sincerely hope there is someone standing at Romney’s ear right now and whispering the immortal words of Glenn Reynolds or Han Solo or somebody: “Great, kid. Don’t get cocky.”
A relevant video follows on the next page.