Skip to main content

Crikey. There's a snake in the grass somewhere.


Bindi Irwin- daughter of the late Steve Irwin- is now a lovely and smart 14 year old.

She was asked to write a 1,000 word essay for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-journal. She did.

But what appeared was so heavily edited that it bore no relationship to what Bindi had written. And Bindi- understandably- is upset.


HT: Drudge

Comments

Jeff D said…
It looks to me like she was asked to write a 1000 word essay with the theme of "Go Wild - Coming Together for Conservation" and instead wrote a 1000 word screed on human overpopulation. An embarrassingly simplistic screed by the sounds of it, if she was comparing overpopulation to having too many guests show up to a party.

It was for her own good. She'll thank them later.
Looks to me like you're turning into the Clinton partisan that lurks within the heart of every Paulista.

If what you say is true, they should have run something by somebody else and not fraudulently used Bindi's byline. But of course, that's only if what you- and Hillary's people- say is true.
BTW, "It's for your own good; you'll thank me later" is pretty close to Hillary's personal motto, isn't it?
Jeff D said…
Yes, maybe they should have just not used her essay at all, if it didn't fit with the theme. I was being overly dramatic and maybe had a poor choice of words, but if her essay was off-topic and awkward, then I don't think it would be inappropriate for adults to step in instead of letting the trainwreck happen. If that is what happened.

News flash: you don't have to be a Clinton partisan to say that maybe something she did isn't as bad as it is being portrayed. I'm not a Clinton partisan, but I have to admit, I kind of miss the Bill Clinton years. They weren't too bad, relatively speaking.

I wonder why you don't like the Clintons. Bill was pretty moderate. You seem quite liberal on many things. Is it just because they are on the blue team?
I repeat: if they weren't going to run her essay, they shouldn't have used her byline.

Clinton succeeded in portraying an image of moderation largely with the help of the same media which claims that Obama is moderate. And yes, Clinton's position on some issues like welfare reform was moderate. On social issues he was a disaster. The damage he did with his Supreme Court appointments alone is the difference between a Court that actually considers itself bound by the Counstitution (as it's written, not as Ron Paul imagines it)and the status quo. He managed to balance the budget only after a Republican Congress forced him to. And Clinton's positions on abortion and allied issues alone would have been enough to have guaranteed my opposition.

Unlike some, Jeff, I'm not an ideologue. I don't march in step with a certain political philosophy; I call them as I see them. If it weren't for Roe, same-sex "marriage" (with which Ron Paul had no problem) and allied issues, I would probably still be a member of the "blue team" myself.

You seem quite liberal on a great many more things. Which is understandable, since you're a Paulista.
Jeff D said…
I don't have a liberal bone in my body.
On the contrary. Libertarianism is, as the late Robert Bork said so truly, a "strange hybrid" of liberalism and conservatism. It amazes me that you can be as deluded about your own political makeup as you are about most other things.
Jeff D said…
For the record, I am not libertarian. I don't think government should be libertarian. I would not vote for libertarian candidates on the state and local level.

I am, however, a big fan of American federalism. Ideally, the federal government would be libertarian by default simply because it should be busying itself with issues on the Federal level like providing a common defense, regulating foreign and interstate commerce, punishing pirates, and the like.
Odd, then, that you're such a big fan of Crazy Ron. There were lots of other "federalist" candidates in the race who were beter qualified and whose programs were much more rational.

Odd, too, that you should be so quick to take Hillary's word- not Bill's- side in an argument with a delightful, bright and altogether inoffensive 14- year old girl. Personally, until I see the essay, I'm not going to pass judgment on its quality.

But she still shouldn't have used Bindi's byline if she wasn't going to use Bindi's article. That's unethical any way you look at it.

BTW, I'm glad you are not a libertarian. It's a political philosophy for which I have absolutely no use.

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…