More whining from the New York Times.

I wasn’t surprised when the administration of George W. Bush sacrificed the environment for corporate profits. But when the same thing happens under a Democratic administration, it’s depressing. With little or no public input, policies that benefit corporations regardless of the consequences continue to be enacted.

This guy’s beat is food, so of course he’s bitching about capitalism and the environment; I guess that comes under ‘all things related’. (What doesn’t? NASA?)

The ‘environment’ in question is, of course, non-gene-mod crops, which are about as ‘natural’ as a Ford Focus; every plant we eat has been tweaked by selective breeding for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And these are the guys who proclaim their devotion to science; God forbid we should use that science to improve our lives.

Read it.

One of my favorite sayings has always been ‘Jews breed for intelligence’. This article is causing me to re-evaluate that notion.

Read it.

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain…

There is a curious argument used to paint the Tea Party movement and conservatives as racist.

The argument goes that since slave owners and segregationists invoked states rights, and since the Tea Party movement and conservatives invoke states rights, therefore the Tea Party movement and conservatives are racist.

Of course, there is no logic to this construct.  Just because one use of the 10th Amendment was for racist purposes does not mean that all other invocations of the 10th Amendment are racist.  Unless of course the 10th Amendment and our federalist structure itself is racist.

Nonetheless, it is a theme the Jesse Jacksons of the world push day in and day out in order to play the race card in favor of Democrats, in this case having a crowd repeat “big government is us by another name.”

By ‘us’, of course, Jesse Jackson (Lawn Jockey of the Crust) means himself and his tax-parasite friends.

John Hinderaker at Power Line takes a look at more Crustian goofiness.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times–that’s roughly like being Captain of the Titanic, but some people pay attention to him anyway–has gotten a lot of notice with a list of questions that he poses to Republican presidential candidates, collectively and individually. There is much to be said about this. For example: Why only the Republican candidates? Has Keller or anyone else asked similar questions of Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or even Barack Obama, whose brushes with religious radicalism are notorious? Does anyone expect Democratic candidates to wax eloquent on religious issues? Not that I am aware of.

Read it.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush denied reports Tuesday that his family had any special grudge against Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

“I’ve never heard anybody in my family say anything but good things about Rick Perry,” Bush stated in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel, saying he was grateful to get the opportunity to set the record straight.

When pressed on the issue, Bush related to Cavuto it was possible that former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove had a problem with Perry, but certainly not anyone in the Bush family.

“Not with my brother, my dad. Not with me at all,” Bush said. “I admire him. And I think Texas has got a great story and he can legitimately talk about that story as a candidate for president.”

Another leftie lie bites the dust.

Slate continues the Crustian dogpile on Perry: (a) Texas didn’t do all that much better, (b) Even if they did, it was because they had all that oil and gas and shit, and (c) even if they did something right, it had nothing to do with Perry.

Boring. You’d think they could come up with something original.

Perry’s chief virtue is that he doesn’t go out of his way to encourage job-destroying policies, something that no Democrat can resist. Sometimes being King Log is praiseworthy when the alternative is King Stork.

Read it.

The New York Times continues its service to the Narrative, and a Voice of the Crust plays ‘good cop’.

He’s got good looks, charisma, experience. So how do you explain his penchant for comments that are, well, a bit out there?

The eternal lefty dilemma. How could such a good-looking, articulate, (dare we say it? ‘clean’) and apparently well-qualified guy not be on the Right Side?

Ben Bernanke’s loose-money policy is “treasonous,” and Texans would “treat him pretty roughly” if he came to their state. Global warming is a hoax. Evolution is just an idea “out there.” Social Security is unconstitutional, and the 16th Amendment, which establishes the grounds for federal income taxes, should be repealed. Are these just the words of a newbie to the national stage? Or the future of the Republican Party?

Questions that only somebody inside the Leftist Urban Bubble could ask. After all, anybody who could pen this sentence…

Remember, this is a state where Ron Paul, who believes that NAFTA is part of a plot to force America into a European Union-style arrangement with Canada and Mexico, is regarded as a statesman.

… is obviously talking out of his ass and the Democrat talking-points book (which may be the same, for all we know). Nobody in Texas, not even Ron Paul supporters, considers him a ‘statesman’; certainly not in the Washington Beltway sense of ‘Republican willing to Play Ball’.

This is what passes for journalism in these degenerate modern times.

Of course, stripped of its yee-haw bluster, Mr. Perry’s comments are not all that different from the sort of positions we’ve heard from Bachmann, Herman Cain or even Mitt Romney.

Hey, Perry’s a Republican! What a surprise!

Indeed, Representative Paul may have the last laugh in more ways than one. As he told a New Hampshire crowd, Rick Perry “makes me sound like a moderate.”

News flash, Clay: The only people who could make Ron Paul sound like a moderate spoke German or Russian, and they’re all dead.

Read it.

The New York Times takes a while to catch up. Bashing the E.P.A. has been a theme in the G.O.P. race since Nixon resigned.

Read it.

The New York Times takes it’s turn doing a hit-piece on Rick Perry. Who’s next? Boston Globe? L.A. Times? MSNBC?

Read it.

Now that Perry is officially a candidate, it’s time for the media hit-pieces to begin. CNN, as befits its seniority as a Voice of the Crust, gets to lead off.

But that doesn’t mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don’t offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.

Perhaps most importantly, Texas can’t create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state’s number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.

Translation: Well, they may have a lot of growth, but it’s still not enough, so there.

Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone.

Translation: Well, they may be in good shape,  but they’re just lucky, it doesn’t have anything to do with Perry, so there.

Uh, guys, having the government keep its hands off is far from ‘nothing’. Both Perry and Obama inherited an economy from George W Bush. Obama put his in the toilet by dicking around with it; Perry left it alone, and it’s leading the nation. ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’

“We have created jobs, but they are not jobs with good wages and benefits,” said F. Scott McCown, executive director, Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income residents.

So it’s not enough to make more jobs, they have to be ‘good’ jobs, according to some ‘progressive’ standard that is never articulated but which Democrats achieve while destroying economic growth but Republicans can’t seem to reach no matter how many people they put to work. I see.

Matt Welch reviews recent expressions of disgust by the Crust.

Jacob Weisberg, Slate:

there’s no point trying to explain complicated matters to the American people.

Read it.

A healthy diet is expensive and could make it difficult for Americans to meet new U.S. nutritional guidelines, according to a study published Thursday that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier.

*sigh* No, eating according to somebody’s bogus definition of a healthy diet is expensive. This is just another transparent ploy to get more government control over everyday life.

“We know more than ever about the science of nutrition, and yet we have not yet been able to move the needle on healthful eating,” he said.

That’s because most of what you ‘know’ ain’t so. Get back to me when ‘scientists’ stop flip-flopping on what foods are good for you and what are bad.

The government should provide help for meeting the nutritional guidelines in an affordable way.

All at taxpayer expense. The government should get out of the business of ‘nutritional guidelines’ and do its job, which is keeping the peace.

UPDATE: David Friedman agrees:

The trick is quite simple. The article pretends to be about what healthy eating costs. It is actually about what people who eat healthily spend. Higher income correlates with better education, so people who spend more also, on average, spend better, nutritionally speaking. That is no evidence that good nutrition costs more—and, as a comparison between the price of spareribs and the price of pork and beans or fruit salad would demonstrate, it often does not. Precisely the same analysis could be used to show that people who spend more on rent eat better too.

Read it.

Yes, we need to get rid of bad teachers. But we can’t demand that teachers be excellent in conditions that preclude excellence.

In other words, we need more money and smaller class sizes. Couldn’t be that we’re expecting teachers to run special-needs day care centers, no indeed.

Read it.

When the richest man in the world either divorces her or dies with her as his sole heir.

This is such a silly article it’s difficult to know where to start. Well, let’s look at the first sentence:

Women may be doing better than men in the broader economy, but they’re still under-represented at the very top.

Anybody who thinks that wealth is somehow a ‘representative’ thing has greater intellectual issues than this one. But it’s a common delusion these days: Anytime a given group of people don’t have the precise mix of sexes and ethnic groups as the population as a whole (and such comparisons invariably look for the largest general population they can get away with), the cry of ‘under-representation’ goes up, as if it had any relevance whatsoever. The only reason that nobody is complaining that men are under-represented among those becoming pregnant is that they can’t figure out how to word it so that it doesn’t sound stupid on its face, although I’m sure that there are some who are willing to give it a shot nevertheless.

David Friedman points out the many ways in which the news business isn’t.

Reading Google News, I am struck by the degree to which dramatic stories crowd out arguably more important material. The top of the page is dominated by the current U.S. debt limit crisis. It is an entertaining example of the game of Chicken as played by politicians but of limited importance otherwise, since both sides are focused not on how to deal with the long term debt problem but on the terms on which they will agree to postpone dealing with it.

Meanwhile there are at least two other stories getting considerably less play but arguably of more real importance.

Read it.

Behaviors can be classified as “modern sexism,” “neosexism,” or “benevolent sexism.” The study explicitly states its intention to reduce endorsement of these and encourage “individuals ‘to see the unseen.’ ” So, they want men and women to accept and apply certain definitions of sexism in their daily lives. That’s a pretty political aim for a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal.

Read it.

To people who see no real difference between people and animals, this makes perfect sense.

Let’s have him for lunch.

Scott Johnson of Powerline draws back the curtain on the Obamanation.

Obama’s speech last night was permeated with the deep dishonesty and poll-tested euphemisms that constitute his contribution to the debt ceiling debate. Here are a few of the euphemisms Obama has contributed: revenue (taxes), shared sacrifice (taxes), asking for something (taxes), millionaires and billionaires (taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year or couples earning more than $250,000 a year), the balanced approach (taxes).

You can tell when Obama is lying — his lips are moving.

Read it.

Are there any lawyers in the House who write laws that benefit lawyers?  Even if the House members aren’t practicing law now, might they be interested in doing so in the future?

I think there may be a couple.  So I guess that’s ok, then.  St. Helena should get rid of its grape-grower Congressman and elect a lawyer.  He will understand the problems of all the lawyers in the district.  I’m sure the folks there will be happier with that.

Read it.

The letter addressed to Clark Moore and postmarked February 1958 arrived at the campus mail room last week. The note ends: “I still miss you as much as ever and love you a thousand times more. Please write me real soon. Vonnie.”

Siddeeq tells the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review he has mixed emotions about it. It turns out he and Vonnie are divorced. She declined to speak to the newspaper.

Read it.

An online campaign has been launched in Russia urging young women to support Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in a presidential vote by taking off their clothes, a lawmaker’s site showed on Sunday.

I am totally certain that there is a Cause out there somewhere that is encouraging people to show their support by picking their noses. It just hasn’t made the Lamestream Media yet. But it will, in time, it will.

Read it.

An excellent example of the sort of drivel that passes for reporting these days. The New York Times appears to be specializing in that sort of thing.

An extraordinary amount of personal income is coming directly from the government.

More accurately, an extraordinary amount of personal income is being re-distributed by the government. The government only has money when it take it from a taxpayer, or borrows it from a bondholder.

Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. In states hit hard by the downturn, like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, residents derived even more of their income from the government.

Of course, this ‘analysis’ doesn’t mention the fact that amounts that the government put into some Americans’ wallets were first taken from other Americans’ wallets. You’d think that the government magically found this money under a rock somewhere.

By the end of this year, however, many of those dollars are going to disappear, with the expiration of extended benefits intended to help people cope with the lingering effects of the recession. Moody’s Analytics estimates $37 billion will be drained from the nation’s pocketbooks this year.

Well, no, they won’t ‘disappear’ — they just won’t be spent by the government, but rather  by the citizens who earned them, instead. (Don’t you just love the phrase ‘drained from the nation’s pocketbooks’? Drained to … where, exactly? And ‘drained’ implies that it was in the ‘nation’s pocketbooks’ in the first place, which if course it wasn’t; the Crustian assumption is that if the government fails to give you a dollar, it therefore has taken that dollar from you.)

People actually get paid money to write this stuff.

Slow news day.

I’m sure that there are at least five people in the world who care one way or another.

I doubt that they know one another, though.

Read it.

Duh … because reporting on it would make Obama look bad. If the President were a Republican, it’d be all over the front page.

Read it.

Mr. Kristof doesn’t explain why labor should be taxed higher than capital — in fact just few paragraphs earlier he was arguing that it was wrong for tycoons to be taxed at a lower rate than personal trainers or chauffeurs. It’s hard enough in this economy to get people to take entrepreneurial risks to create jobs and growth; I don’t see the wisdom in moving to reduce the rewards available to entrepreneurs. I suppose there’s a certain logic to the Reagan-era rates that set capital gains and ordinary income rates at the same levels. Then labor and capital are taxed the same. As for Mr. Kristof’s reference to the “low capital gains rate,” it’s worth remembering that quite a few of America’s international competitors — Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland — have capital gains tax rates of 0%. Compared to that, America’s 15% rate isn’t “low,” it’s high.

Everybody has a bright idea for how much tax — usually more — the Other Fellow ought to pay.

Steve Sailer is not afraid to ask the easy questions.

Exactly how smart is Obama? He is represented, by self and media lickers-and-kissers as “the smartest guy in the room.” Yet as far as I can see, there’s absolutely no documentation for this claim.

The thing is, for the purposes of politics, it doesn’t matter. The Guy On The Left is automatically considered to be the smartest guy in the room, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Consider AlGore — it doesn’t matter that he talks like a retard, and believes absurdities that a six-year-old would turn up his nose at, he’s by definition a Smart Guy because he’s on the Left.

Consider George W. Bush. It doesn’t matter that he graduated from Yale and from Harvard Business School, credentials that most Crustians would give their left nut (if they could find it) for; he’s not on the Left (I’m damned if I say he’s on the Right), so he’s a dumbass.

Consider John Kerry. It doesn’t matter that his GPA at Yale was less than that of George W. Bush, universally accepted as a dumbass; he’s a Smart Guy because he’s on the Left.

And the examples could be multiplied endlessly. It wouldn’t surprise me for some Crustian thumb-sucker to describe Joe Biden as ‘brilliant’, and Joe Biden couldn’t score in a Trivial Pursuit game with a block of tofu.

Read it.

Let’s start with the White House title for the speech:

Remarks by the President on the Critical Role the Manufacturing Sector Plays in the American Economy

The manufacturing does not play a particularly critical role in the US economy. Employment in manufacturing as a percentage of total employment has been falling steadily since the end of World War II. But a lot of people think there is something special about manufacturing so the title strikes a resonant chord for many people even outside manufacturing.

Like ‘family farm’, urban density, mass transit, and ‘high speed rail’, the desperate clinging to manufacturing is one of the superficially plausible but substantially reactionary fetishes of the ‘progressives’.

The Other McCain reminds us of some Inconvenient Truth.

One of the easiest things in the world to do is to tell other people how to raise their children. This is especially easy if you have no children of your own.

Got it in one.

Read it.

And, if we listened to such experts, progress would never happen.

Read it.

Congressman Clyburn is a deep-dyed black Democrat career politician, so we look to him to give us the Party Line; and he does not disappoint:

The fact of the matter is, we have on the table all kinds of revenue raises that they keep calling tax increases. How do you call closing loopholes to oil companies that are making billions of dollars in profits, closing up these loopholes that would generate $40 to $50 billion in revenue, how do you call that a tax hike? That is no tax hike. You only hike taxes when you raise rates. We are not asking anybody to raise anybody’s rates. We want us to have an effective tax collection and close these loopholes, stop giving billions of dollars in breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

‘You only hike taxes when you raise rates.’ Uh, no, Congressman, you hike taxes when the amount of tax you pay after a change is more than what you pay before the change. That’s what ‘hike taxes’ means. (I always knew that black people didn’t always speak the same brand of English as the rest of us, but I never suspected that they didn’t necessarily understand standard English, either. But here’s proof.)

The sad truth that goes unspoken here is that most of those ‘loopholes’ that give ‘billions of dollars in breaks to millionaires and billionaires’ were put in place in the tax code by Democrat Congressmen JUST LIKE YOU for ‘millionaires and billionaires’ who are OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRAT. Warren Buffet. Bill Gates Sr. George Soros. Al Gore. Pick a Kennedy. Pick a Rockefeller. The reason why the Koch brothers are catching such shit from the Left is that they refuse to stay on the Democrats’ Rich People Plantation. (And don’t get me started on what happens to people, like Clarence Thomas, who refuse to stay on the Democrats’ Black People Plantation.)

Read it.

Can Dick Cheney be far behind? Stay tuned.

Read it.

(Actually, the picture tells you everything you need to know. This guy is obviously the Upper Class Twit of the Year’s simple-minded younger brother, given a job on the public payroll because he hasn’t a prayer out in the real world.)

The assumption that who gets what job is somehow a ‘representative’ function in a free-market economy is, of course, unexamined.

This schlub is the Education Secretary in a British government nominally run by the Conservative Party, which I suppose just goes to show how the meaning of the term ‘conservative’ has degenerated since Lady Thatcher was PM.

So it has nothing to do with the talents of the individual pupil, and everything to do with the quality of the school. One could presumably pluck any urchin off the street, send him to Eton or Rugby, and wind up with a productive member of the Ruling Class. This common modern notion has merely to be stated to demonstrate its inherent idiocy. It is, of course, very comforting to the losers in life to embrace the notion that they’re just as good as everybody else, so that the fact that they live on the bottom is not their fault but society’s, in that they were ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘underprivileged’ through no fault of their own. (Another obviously silly notion.)

Unfortunately, these days one cannot even count on children from rich backgrounds having access to a decent education, what with the absurdities of modern educational theories having penetrated even the most famous institutions.

The use of the term ‘deprived’ accurately signals the presumption that this performance is due to the poor tykes having had their otherwise-inalienable right to good exam results ripped from their tender fingers by a nasty and inequitable social system. News Flash: Even the performance of the non-deprived pupils in the U.K. sucks big hairy ones; it’s not the inequity of the system, but the total failure of the system to do what it’s supposed to, that is the problem — a problem that doesn’t look likely to be solved any time soon, with nimrods like this in charge.

Read it.

Sens. John McCain and John Kerry introduced a resolution Tuesday that would give President Barack Obama the green light to continue limited military operations in Libya.

Which tells you everything you need to know about John McCain, the guy who could manage to lose to somebody with no experience, no skills, and no program.

Read it.

The existence of broadly or sloppily written statutes that require courts to fill in the blanks or resolve internal contradictions is hardly news. Indeed, it’s the ordinary business of statutory interpretation. But a Supreme Court decision last week — more precisely, a dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia — shone a spotlight on a more troubling subset of the problem: criminal laws that leave it up to judges to define the crime. It’s hard to imagine a more activist judicial endeavor, but it’s one with which Congress seems surprisingly comfortable.

Odd that Times columnist Linda Greenhouse should complain about this, since most of these flaws are the result of legislative activity by liberals whom she otherwise unflaggingly supports. The Supreme Court case she cites has Justice Kennedy sounding like a butthead and Justice Scalia sounding like a person of good common sense, which strikes me as about right; if she’s siding with Scalia (as it would appear) in calling Congressional laws dysfunctional, it would be the first time in her life she ever got closer to Scalia than a ten-foot pole.

And, of course, the ‘judicial activism’ that she is discussing is not the same thing as the ‘judicial activism’ of which critics of such activism speak: Roe v. Wade, for example, the poster child for ‘judicial activism’, doesn’t involve an unclear law but an imaginary Constitutional right that 5 Justices pulled straight out of their asses. So this would appear to be another attempt to muddy the waters with respect to an issue that liberals know would make them appear stupid if those waters were clear.

The Other McCain sounds the alarm.

This news is perhaps not shocking to regular readers of the New York Times‘ token “conservative” columnist, but if we ever needed smoking-gun proof, his column today is like RINO fingerprints covered with country-club DNA….

…

You can read the whole thing, which I think you will agree constitutes conclusive proof of the utter uselessness of David Brooks.

Not really news, but a useful reminder.

“Me too” is not a winning platform. It never has been and never will be, and all of Brooks’s wishfulness will not convert his policy preferences into an effective politics.

And we really need a serious purge of the Republican Party or this nonsense will condemn us to ever-increasing statism until we wind up like Putin’s Russia.

Read it.

It’s not surprising (in this degenerate modern world where ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ mean ‘something that I don’t like’) to see such hoaxes being embraced by the Usual Suspects, a coalition of the simple-minded and their tendentious masters. After all, it fits their political narrative like a glove; one of those ‘Of course it’s true! It has to be true!’ moments.

The Other McCain has some fun with the Gullible Media.

How many times do people have to make fools out of themselves over these “too good to check” stories before they wise up to the telltale clues of a hoax?

Good question. I guess being a journalism major isn’t the high-IQ thing that it purports to be.

Steve Sailer, of course, is tickled:

White guys … What would the world do without us? We’re the straw that stirs the drink.

Read it.

Whoa. That’ like Vladimir Putin accusing someone of being authoritarian.

(Is it just me, or does Rowan Atkinson Williams look like some homeless guy dressed up as an Archbishop for a play?)

Read it.

And one quickly realizes that not only is the earth full, but Thomas Friedman is also full … of it, and of himself.

This sort of thumb-sucker (to which all columnists resort when they’ve got a hangover and a deadline knocking on the door at the same time) is on a par with the rich people who clamor to have their taxes increased, while surreptitiously nudging  under the carpet the plain and simple thing they could do to help out: Rich people can always give their money to the government (but sadly never do), and people like Thomas Friedman can always remove themselves from the gene pool (but, even more sadly, never do).

One thing of which the world most certainly has an excess is people with really urgent ideas about how you can make your life worse in order to make their lives better.

She said, “somebody has to
Clean all this away.
Somebody, SOMEBODY
Has to, you see.”
Then she picked out two Somebodies.
Sally and me.
— The Cat in the Hat Comes Back

UPDATE: If we run out of living room, perhaps some of us could bunk with ol’ Tom in his 11,400 sq ft in Bethesda.

Read it.

The group, known as Patriotic Millionaires, regards the reductions signed into law by PresidentGeorge W. Bush as “one of the worst decisions that members of both parties have made in the last 50 years,” according to Erica Payne, founder of the Agenda Project, a public-policy group that is helping to organize the effort. “Increasing taxes on millionaires has to be part of the solution to how we get our fiscal house in order.”

All a lie, of course. They don’t want their taxes to increase, they want to increase the taxes of everybody else. Notice how these ‘rich people for more taxes’ groups never have anybody who voluntarily makes payments to the Treasury, which they could easily do; they just make noise about increasing taxes.

Read it. And watch the video.

In the continuing saga, in which Palin is being savaged and mocked, please listen to this NPR interview with Robert Allison, a professor and historian at Suffolk University, in which Allison argues that while Palin may have had some details wrong, she mostly was correct about Paul Revere’s ride, including the ringing of bells and firing of shots as warning to the British….

Just think what would have happened had she talked about visiting the same 57 states that Barack Obama visited before he became President.

Read it.

Yesterday Drudge linked to the New York Times story announcing the appointment of Jill Abramson to succeed Bill Keller as the top dog at the Times. I read the story and was amused by Abramson’s expression of delight: “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

No surprises here.

A funny thing happened on the way to shul, as we say in Yiddish. The Times has scrubbed the quote from the story.

Sadly, no surprises here, either.

Sometimes all the news that’s fit to print goes down the Memory Hole. C’est la vie.

Steve Sailer leans on a famous ‘progressive’ blind spot.

Read it.

Amy Carter – After President Carter’s single term in office, Amy was heavily involved in political activism including various sit-ins. She was arrested during a protest at the University of Massachusetts in 1986. She attended Brown University where she was dismissed for academic reasons and then denied re-entry.

Apparently the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

The article deals with Carters, Reagans, and Bushes. I guess the Clinton and Kennedy kids were just too boring.

Read it.

Read it.

My, what a surprise. Aren’t you surprised? I’m sure surprised.

Read it.

Though most regions of the U.S. saw declines, the Northeast saw an increase in murders (8.3%), forcible rapes (1.4%)  and aggravated assaults (0.7%).  Why that region was affected by crime more than others isn’t clear.  Perhaps it was because of the grinding poverty found in some of the area’s cities and their high cost of living.

Perhaps it’s because they’re all run by Democrats.

Read it.

I can. NPR can’t. They’d vote for him.

Read it.

Because, of course, every flag means what it means to some chick writing for the Guardian.

If you are gay and proud, Afghanistan is quite likely the last place on earth to show it publicly. How, then, are we supposed to make sense of the recent very conspicuous appearance of the rainbow-coloured gay pride symbols all over the streets of Kabul and other urban centres?

Well, perhaps because it’s not inevitable that a rainbow flag means ‘gay pride’?

Note that you didn’t hear a lot of sniggering about the Ukrainian ‘Orange Revolution’ being a bunch of Protestants — because, you know, they’re Europeans and not a Bunch of Ignorant Wogs.

Read it.

But notice how the article, by Elisha Anderson in the Detroit Free Press, is written. It tells us that Thomas wrote a “threatening message” and was charged with “ethnic intimidation.” It doesn’t say that he is a black person who wrote a note intended to sound as if it was written by a white person who was threatening to kill black people. The actual nature of Thomas’s offense is never stated in the article. We are told that he has committed “ethnic intimidation,” not that he has committed a fraud aimed at getting whites in trouble for a non-existent racist threat against blacks.