■ More Proverbial oral fixation in Proverbs 15:2
2 The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
Yes, and so what else did you expect? Things to be the other way around?
■ Our local newspaper, Foster's Daily Democrat, printed a story yesterday with the innocuous headline: Library presents dialogue on Jerusalem.
In a mostly civilized and scholarly conversation two men, representing the viewpoint [sic] of the Israeli and the Palestinian people, talked about the current climate, including the politics of of our own current administration, at Portsmouth Library.
We don't get any further illumination of what "mostly civilized and scholarly" refers to. Perhaps an illiterate savage showed up to briefly disrupt things? We'll never know.
The speakers were Alan Elsner (allegedly representing the "Israeli viewpoint") and Robert Azzi (for the Palestinian side).
We've actually discussed Robert Azzi's views previously in a Foster's LTE that analyzed an op-ed he wrote about the 2015 attempt by two wannabe terrorists to shoot up "The First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest" set up by Pamela Geller. His primary, and pretty much only, argument was to blame Geller for being a "provocateur".
Alan Elsner, on the other hand, is "Special Advisor to the President" of "J Street", an organization billing itself as the "Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans". They are stridently leftist; their political action committee has always been a huge financial backer of my current Congresscritter, Carol Shea-Porter.
But does a J-Streeter really "represent" the "Israeli viewpoint"? That's arguable. In fact, you'll get a contrary argument from Alan Dershowitz (at, of all places, the HuffPo): J Street Can No Longer Claim to Be Pro Israel.
And so what sort of "dialogue" did Elsner and Azzi have? The kind that the folks at Foster's and Portsmouth Library like: where everybody hates Trump.
Both men said that Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem was a bad move.
Were any contrary voices heard? Again: we'll never know from reading Foster's.
■ One bit of a good idea from the proposed budget is described by Katherine Mangu-Ward at Reason: Trump Wants to Privatize the International Space Station.
The Trump administration is going to think
about thinking about considering ending federal funding for the
International Space Station (ISS) in 2025. Cue a bunch of people
freaking out about the prospect of space station
Before we get into the nitty girtty—a note: if I had a nickel for every major goal set by an American president for the space program with a time horizon of 6 to 20 years, I'd have enough money to continue funding the ISS well past 2025. Every administration comes up with its own blueprint/roadmap/guidebook to go to the moon/Mars/Alpha Centauri with all of the major deadlines conveniently kicking in long after the relevant president is somewhere on a yacht moored outside his presidential library. These plans rarely come to fruition, and even incremental steps are frequently reversed.
Ms. Mangu-Ward outlines the history and issues pretty well. And notes the opposition of "transpartisan" alliances between Congresscritters with large NASA/aerospace presences in their constituencies.
■ At NRO, David French offers Understanding the Media’s Ugly Weekend. The ugliness being the fawning over North Korea and the dictatorship represented by the sister of Kim Jong Un. Examples are provided ad nauseam (and that nauseam bit is a little too literal in my case).
Among the issues.
We can’t pretend for a second that we’d see the same wave of triumphant headlines if Tim Kaine and not Mike Pence were standing, grim-faced, in front of Kim Yo-jong. Instead there’d likely be a bout of moral clarity. “In Icy Stand-off, Kaine Rebukes North Korean Regime.” Even the cheerleaders wouldn’t be spared. “Defectors Detail the Grim Reality Behind the Cheerful Façade.” Reporters are human, and their near-uniform hatred of the Trump administration makes them uniquely vulnerable to false anti-Trump narratives in much the same way that the near-uniform admiration of Obama made them less critical of his blunders and more willing to accept his arguments.
Even the Wall Street Journal was represented in the dictatorial love-in. Et tu, WSJ?
■ And finally, here's Michael Ramirez on the National Debt
I hope he'll do something clever about curling. Man, that is a stupid sport.