Posts with the tag National Review

National Review: ‘Death Panel,’ Pelosi, May Kill Your Family!

Erin Rosa — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:58:47 EST

At least, that’s according to the top story this morning on the right-leaning National Review’s website (with a very unflattering picture of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi):

Of course, deliberate misinformation about health care is nothing new. End of life planning was 86’d from reform after many on the far Right distorted facts and called the planning “death panels,” in an effort to scare middle America into thinking the government wanted to kill the elderly.

But even weirder, is the fact that the actual story the magazine linked to with the headline doesn’t even remotely address the issue of end-of-life care. Instead, it’s just a short blurb from an ABC interview with Pelosi on health care.

So why the need to mention a ‘death panel?’

The only answer one can really discern is that the magazine, which bill's itself as having "writing of unsurpassed quality," went really, really, far out of its way to try and tarnish efforts to pass health care reform. Wonder what late magazine founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., would think of all of this?

Going Timesless

Justin Elliott — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:31:52 EST

Struggling with the egregiousness of Bill Kristol's appointment as a Times colulmnist, I turned in desperation to National Review, where a few years back editor Jay Nordlinger wrote up a serviceable little guide to "going Timesless." It's written from a right perspective, naturally, but makes some good points: the paper can be pompous and dull and pretentious; and why must Maureen Dowd or (the now deceased) R.W. Apple direct the day's conversation? We can add to that list the fact that, as Jesse pointed out, the paper is ridiculously elitist (my favorite recent headline in that regard:"Not Down and Out in Moscow"). Nordlinger writes:

The proliferation of media has lessened the importance of the Times; so have the newspaper's mistakes (which include too great a kinship with the Democratic National Committee). To be sure, there are some unmissable individuals in the paper, such as John F. Burns in Iraq. But, seemingly every day, journalists and others are discovering that they don't have to consume the whole deal.

Nordlinger also cites the good counsel--now freshly relevant--of George Seldes, the great investigative reporter of the last century. One of Seldes' books had a chapter titled "How to Read the Editorial Pages." There was just one word: "Don't."

The NIE Story: Crackpots Respond In Force

Jesse Singal — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:02:05 EST

As the fallout from yesterday's blockbuster National Intelligence Estimate story continues, it's been interesting to watch the right-wing response, given how wedded prominent conservatives are to the military option in Iran, and how shamelessly they've repeated the fear mongering that led us to invade Iraq.

I've been keeping an eye on the National Review Online, which has provided much entertainment so far. The tone of the subheds on two of the lead stories pretty much sums up everything; a visibly hurt Victor Davis Hanson wonders, "Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes?" Michael Ledeen, displaying the thoughtful skepticism that has long been the hallmark of right-wing hawks, says, "If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply."

NRO Education Week 2k7, Day Two!

Justin Elliott — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:13:20 EDT

Today, a special 9/11 edition: the specter of your campus Muslim Students Association. In a long article under the heading “Campus Jihad” and the headline “Terror On Campus,” Candace de Russy goes after the MSA, approvingly linking to a description of the student group as “a hate group and part of the Islamo-Fascist movement.” She directly quotes one Stephen Schwartz, executive director of something called the Center for Islamic Pluralism, calling MSA an “‘octopus-like’ web of groups [that] is a key lobbying organization for Saudi Wahhabism.” First of all, let’s pause and consider the reaction if someone described an analogous nationwide campus religious group — say, Hillel — as “octopus-like.” It’s a smear, and it shouldn’t fly.

de Russy goes on to sample liberally from a new NYPD intelligence unit report, “Radicalization in the West” (pdf):

Could you water that truth down a little bit, please?

Ben Regenspan — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:00:32 EDT

Mona Charen, writing on National Review's blog, complains about the directness of a Washington Post headline this morning:

The Post’s headline on its Cheney series this morning (in the print, not online edition) is stunning: “The Unseen Path to Cruelty.” I admit that I haven’t read the entire article (life is too busy and too short to spend valuable time reading 200,000 word Post articles) but I’ve read enough to understand that today’s installment concerns the treatment of detainees. “Cruelty?” That is much too freighted a word to appear in a news headline.

Or is it? There are some limits to engaging in media criticism based solely on headlines.

We have the high score in Iraq

Ben Regenspan — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:00:49 EDT

It's a day of the week, which means that over at National Review's blog, Michael Ledeen has just uncovered a new fact that completely redeems the war in Iraq and proves the liberal media has been engaging in a massive cover-up:

Actual Data on Iraq Deaths on Both Sides [Michael Ledeen]
From the great Jules Crittenden . (via Istapundit [sic], without whom modern life is hardly worth it) Bottom Line is that we're killing terrorists at a ten-to-one rate...

NRO: John Derbyshire wishes hostages had been tortured

jr — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:26:44 EDT

We've known for some time that John Derbyshire is among the stupidest of the stupid over at National Review Online. Until now, I thought that his sadistic desire to witness suffering in his fellow humans was restricted to brown people.

Turns out, he thinks the hostage crisis in Iran would have been a little more worthwhile with some flagrant brutality inflicted against his fellow Brits:

Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.
The only coherent response I get to these sentiments is: "How do you know what they've been through? How would YOU stand up?" To which the obvious reply is the one Dr. Johnson gave in some similar case: "I may criticize a carpenter who makes me a bad table, though I cannot make a table myself. It is not my job to make tables."
...I nurse a quiet hope that if put to the test, I would stand up as well as any Marine. Whether or not I would, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to.
And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.
As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll answer for themselves."
...
It should be assumed that everything the Iranians say is a lie. If they say: "Do this, and we won't harm your mates," and you do it, they will harm your mates anyway. Of course, this kind of truth is much harder to get across to young people who have been brainwashed from elementary school to believe that their own culture is corrupt, evil, and false, while the cultures of Third World barbarians are morally superior...

Ignoring Derbyshire's completely moronic beliefs on withstanding torture (didn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed earn respect from interrogators for lasting a little over two minutes during waterboarding?), how should this petulant rant from a career chickenhawk be described by a reasonable observer? He's clearly wishing harm would befall his former countrymen (Derbyshire loved England so much he emigrated to the US and took American citizenship) who have only today been released from captivity. He seems to think that they didn't earn their release, sort of like you don't earn being a year older until someone gives you your birthday spankings (with one to grow on!).

And we've known for some time that Derbyshire doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground where torture is concerned.

But maybe Derbyshire has a point. He never served his country in uniform, he doesn't put his life on the line to protect the homeland, he knows nothing of combat or captivity, and he's so completely full of shit his high school nickname was "The Walking Lower Intestine," but I'm sure that if he were to be captured and imprisoned by a less-than-friendly power, brave and noble as he is, he'd make them shove red-hot pokers up his arse, wedge spikes under his fingernails, and kill all of his companions before he'd dishonor Mother England by wearing a headscarf.

Is it wrong for me to hope he someday gets the chance to prove himself?

More NRO Idiocy

jr — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:28:42 EDT

In addition to BenAdler's thoughts on the hucksterism behind "Planet Gore," I'd like to add to The Editors' thoughts on Jonah "I'm Really Worth Listening To, Really!" Goldberg's new whiny tirade about the Left today.

Goldberg is feeling pissy because he thinks the Left, that massive and always-unified bloc of fifth columnists and diletantes, doesn't spend enough time trying to discredit left-wing extremist footnotes like Ward Churchill.

Conveniently, this highlights an interesting phenomenon I've noticed a number of right-wing commentators perpetuating. There seems to be this school of thought that argues it's better to wildly promote and give countless hours of free exposure to radicals who in no way represent responsible thought or any widely-followed political ideology, than to simply marginalize and ignore them.