Read it.

Anyone remember the last time CNN wailed about “war crimes” when Palestinian terrorists used Red Cross ambulances to transport weapons, or used schools to hide the launching of rockets into Israel?

Read it.

Read it.

Read it.

Damn if the boy don’t sound like a Republican.

He sure can talk the talk, can’t he?

Read it.

A column in the Sunday New York Times from the newspaper’s public editor Clark Hoyt is essential reading for anyone concerned with modern journalistic practices of taboo avoidance.

Read it.

Read it.

Why the term “dinosaur media” is so appropriate.

Read it.

Well, it isn’t really “justice for gays”, but rather “justice for children who happen to be in a position where they’re used as political footballs”. But one can’t expect the Washington Post to appreciate such rational distinctions.

How could the OLC, which gained notoriety for putting ideology before the rule of law to justify extreme interrogation techniques, come to such a conclusion? By reading the law governing Social Security benefits neutrally and correctly — and by keeping politics out of the analysis.

Note the tententious perspective: When they reach the conclusion we like, they’re “neutral and correct” — but when they reach a conclusion we don’t like, they’re “putting ideology before the rule of law”.

Here’s a thought that will cause the nearest leftoid brain to implode: Perhaps, just perhaps, they were applying the same standard in both cases — what the law requires. But that wouldn’t ever occur to whoever writes editorials for the Washington Post.

Read it.

Let’s hold a pity-party for the shark.

Read it.

The Washington Post continues its long-running series “Defending the Agent of Change against Scurrilous Attacks by Ignorant Right Wingers.”

It’s a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

Read it.

But Mugabe may not be Africa’s worst. That prize arguably goes to Teodoro Obiang, the ruler of Equatorial Guinea whose life seems a parody of the dictator genre. Years of violent apprenticeship in a genocidal regime led by a crazy uncle? Check. Power grab in a coup against the murderous uncle? Check. Execution of now-deposed uncle by firing squad? Check. Proclamation of self as “the liberator” of the nation? Check. Govern for decades in a way that prompts human rights groups to accuse your regime of murder, torture, and corruption? Check, check, and check.

Somebody in Slate criticizing black foreigners. Hell has officially frozen over.

But the agenda here is quite clear. In order to salve their consciences from decades of trumpeting how much better Mugabe was than the previous {insert string of leftoid swearwords here] “white” regime he replaced, it is now necessary to point out that, relatively speaking, he’s not so bad. And they’re all about “relatively speaking”.

Read it.

Note that it didn’t become a problem for the leftoid thumb-suckers at Slate until it started to be used against their Golden Child, Barack Hussein Obama. You will search in vain for criticism from anybody at Slate or their ilk about such tedious phrases as “Bushitler”, for example, or that perennial surrendernik dingleberry “quagmire”. And don’t get me started on the intellectual vapidity of “No blood for oil”.

Read it.

Remember how much fun the future used to be? Everyone trim and twinkle-toed in their one-piece jumpsuits with plenty of robots to do the work then mix the cocktails. And yet, despite the decades of excitement, the promised robot epoch remains mostly out of reach.

One of the key problems with our health care system is rising cost, and a central component of that is the requirement for highly-trained human labor. We haven’t benefited from the cost-cutting effects of significant automation. That may be changing — and it can’t come too soon.

The leftoid thumb-suckers at Slate of course see this as a bad thing.

But the advent of robot surgery signals a shift in the balance of power. Now the nerds, who previously had been content sending rockets to Mars, have seized control of that most sacred prize, the human being. Our future suddenly is in their heartless hands.

All part of the eternal campaign to cancel the Industrial Revolution….

Read it.

The New York Times is shockd, shocked I tell you, that populations are plunging in Europe.

Gee, if they’d read Mark Steyn’s book, they’d know all about it.

But then, of course, they might be hauled into a Canadian kangaroo-court and accused of being Islamophobic.

You can see where they wouldn’t want to take that risk. What would their friends say?

Read it.

The Washington Post, voice of the Overclass, dislikes handguns. Why? Because handguns empower the individual citizen. The Overclass can afford to hire bodyguards, and don’t like individual citizens with the power to resist tyranny.

The right to buy weapons is the right to be free. The Overclass don’t want you to be free. It’s just that simple.

David Broder is an idiot. Proof:

Meanwhile, they have paid much less attention to what may well be a larger problem: the way that district lines are drawn to create safe seats for one party or the other, in effect denying voters any choice of representation.

The point of representation is not choice; the point is representation. “Safe seat” means that voters like the guy currently in place and will vote for him forever. That’s what representation is all about. If the sitter in a safe seat didn’t please the overwhelming majority of the voters, it woudn’t be a safe seat. Drawing lines to create safe seats means that there are fewer losers (people who didn’t get the representative they prefer) in each election than in so-called “competitive” seats. “Gerrymandering” makes democracy work better.

But journalists (and others in the Brahmin class) don’t want democracy to work better, they want exciting election contests that generate news (and, in the case of columnists, provide chin-stroke fodder). And they have the typical Brahmin arrogance that thinks everybody must want the same things they do. (“But how could Nixon win? I don’t know anybody who voted for him!”) They are mentally incapable of realizing that “safe seats” are a feature, not a bug.

Read it.

I’m these road warriors would be a lot happier if there were some indication that Bush even were aware that they exist, much less really gave a shit.

Read it.

There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

So a higher percentage of blacks are racist than whites. But you’ll notice that the focus is all on whites and how they react to Barack Obama. The agenda here is pretty clear.

Read it.

No, they’re not talking about Republians.

No, they’re not talking about Christians, either.

Hint: The author teaches law at Harvard and is a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations.

So which Fashionable Victim Minority is he wringing his hands over. Well, you’ll just have to read it and find out.

Read it.

Don’t know why this comes as such a surprise; naturally the Overclass is going to listen to its own preachers.

Former Vice-President Al Gore took his message to Carnegie Mellon University where he urged graduates to help the U.S. reassume its rightful position as a world leader by confronting the challenges associated with global warming.

Reminds me of the crack Jewish Suicide Squad from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

Read it.

Good luck with that.

Slate writer explores a Democrat’s favorite subject.

One looks in vain for any similar examination of the brains of, say, Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy.

Read it.

This is the sort of thumbsucking “journalism” that pervades the Washington Post.

A pair of psychologists recently evaluated hundreds of employees at a large North American university that was in the grip of painful change. The researchers wanted to find out whether there were factors that explained why some employees successfully weathered the transition and reengaged with their jobs, while others spiraled into cynicism and exhaustion — the classic signs of burnout.

No doubt the latter read and believed all the doom-and-gloom that outlets such as the Washington Post keep pounding them with. And, of course, “a large North American university” is a really representative sample of the population.

Read it.

Ya think?

Read it.

The United States owes a federal shield law not only to American journalists but to journalists around the world.

And it just gets sillier from there.

Read it.

SO over….

Read it.

It’s amazing how leftoids don’t like rules when it’s their ox being gored (no pun intended – I think).

For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Well, duh. It has been the constant position of the Catholic church that abortion is murder. Supporting a politician who advocates freedom of abortion is morally equivalent to supporting a politician who advocates freedom to murder.

Would Cohen feel different if communion were denied to a politician who supported lynching black people? You know he would. Of course, he would whine that the situations weren’t comparable. Perhaps for him they aren’t. But for a Catholic, they are, and always have been.

Murder is murder. If supporting politicians who advocate freedom to murder isn’t “a grave moral evil”, then I don’t know what is.

Read it.

When the nation’s premier newspaper welcomes those who are breaking the law and denigrates those who attempt to uphold the law, then I suggest it is indeed time to panic.

Note what is not said: None of these problems would exist if these people had just stayed home. And the problems would disappear if they would go back where they came from. I have no sympathy for those who create problems for themselves by doing unlawful things — and, according to all the data I’ve seen, a lot of Americans agree.

On the other hand, perhaps this is an encouraging sign that enforcement is working. We can hope.

Read it.

Of course, being the New York Times, he thinks this is a bad thing. Of course, being the New York Times, it doesn’t even cross his radar that continuing state spending at its current levels might be part of the problem.

Most of the “bad” in “bad economy” is because of government spending on top of stupid government energy decisions. But not, of course, to the New York Times.

Read it.

A real moral dilemma for the Church of Gaia.

Pardon me while I snigger…..

Read it.

But the truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system — or even a fraction of these things — in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

In typical dhimmi fashion, Kunstler’s preferred solution is for us to suffer.

First, we’ll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We’ll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We’ll have to restore local economic networks — the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed — made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

We’ll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

Although he would no doubt resent the comparison, how does this differ from listening to Pat Buchannan?

I have an idea: Let’s do whatever it takes to get oil at an affordable price. If that means inconveniencing people who, before civilization intruded on them, measured their wealth in camels and goats, too bad for them.

Read it.

Slate magazine is cementing its position as home of the left-wing intellectual whore.

Why delegitimize sincere excitement that his nomination and potential election would represent a historic civil rights landmark: making an abstract right a reality at last.

Well, to start off with, this isn’t an election for Homecoming Queen, it’s supposed to be choosing the leader of the nation and the free world. There are people who think that merely being black isn’t a sufficient qualification for that. Pardon me if this comes as a shock.

Read it.

And they bitch about the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, even while their every action demonstrates its theme.

Read it.

Remark what it takes to make Slate use “good” and “soldier” in same phrase.

Read it.

[I]n the American media, which is to say American public life, Republicans are a despised group, much like used car salesmen, Congressmen, lawyers, or, in former times, certain ethnic and religious minorities. Anyone who watches NBC, CBS, ABC, MTV, CNN, MSNBC, or almost any other television outlet, or who reads the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or virtually any other daily newspaper, or who reads Time or Newsweek, is exposed to a steady diet of Republican-caricaturing and Republican-bashing. We have had partisan media in this country before, but I don’t believe we have ever experienced such a unanimously one-party media at any time in our history.

Read it.

Why? If it’s just a contest to discover the best athletes, then human rights standards are irrelevant. If it’s more than that, then please explain what the point is, other than a desire to exclude people of whom the Cool Kids disapprove from The In Crowd.

Read it.

Feel free to laugh. I did.

Read it.

Since he was a Republican, of course, his party affiliation was mentioned first thing. Had he been a Democrat, we’d still be playing “Name That Party” with the article.

Read it.

No sign of an apology for the Post’s unwavering support of Marxist rebel Mugabe back in the sixties, seventies, and eighties. That was just so yesterday.

Read it.

Think about this for a bit.

When district boundaries are adjusted so as to include a greater number of people who find a particular legislator satisfactory, this is somehow “undemocratic”. Gee, I thought that the whole point of the process was to give people as much as possible a representative who, you know, represented them.

So we ought to adjust boundaries so that a little less than half of the people in the district disagree with the policies that their representative is going to push — and whose voices are therefore not going to be heard?

This is the silliest method of argumentation that I’ve ever heard of in my life.

If a representative nominally represents X number of people, then a perfectly representative system is one where each candidate signs up exactly X number of people to vote for him, and it ought not to matter where they live. So-called “Gerrymandering” attempts to adjust our territorial system, based on nothing more than history and an implicit assumption that people living in the same place have the same natural interests, to that ideal system. How is this a bad thing?

In electing local government candidates, there may be an argument for people living in the same place having the same natural interests. But for national government candidates, such as Senators and Representatives, that’s absurd. The only impact “natural local interests” have with respect to federal-level legislators is that it encourages pork-barrel earmarks, and how is that a good thing?

Read it.

But you wouldn’t know it from reading this whitewash in the Washington Post.

Note that the authors quote a lot of people who think that Wright is being misunderstood (including Wright, in his TV interview), but don’t look at all at the actual words of the sermons in question. If Wright is being misunderstood or taken out of context, it would seem an obvious thing to cite the actual words in question and point that out. But they don’t. The article boils down to “It’s a black thing. You just wouldn’t understand.”

Read it.

As if you needed one.

Want a gold-standard example of biased pseudo-journalism? Here you go.

Read it.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government has supported environmental certification and carbon-trading programs, and last year offered land concessions throughout the Amazon to private logging companies that promised sustainable timber harvesting.

Apparently this eccentric definition of “capitalism” is what passes for science at the Washington Post.

Read it.

Because, you know, the best way to “twist” someone’s words is to quote them verbatim.

Read it.

EACH YEAR, more than 1,200 women in the United States are killed by their husbands or boyfriends.

That’s … what … 24 per state? And Maryland is a small state, so it’s probably even less than that. Funny that the magnificant Washington Post couldn’t come up with an exact number for Maryland, the subject of the article.

Every year more than 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents. This is 30-35 times more than the “husbands and boyfriends” toll. And yet the Post doesn’t seem all that concerned about it.

Wonder why that is?

Read it.

The Washington Post  thinks that popular mythology trumps the Constitution. In that, they do not differ from regressives across the country.

Of course, if seats in Congress could be bought, Michael Huffington would be a Senator, and his ex-wife wouldn’t be such a pain in the ass. (Hm. Well, maybe she would be.)

Question: Is it that the Washington Post is put out by idiots, or is it that they assume that their readers are idiots?

Tyler Cowan is not impressed by former-Republican-now-liberal-sellout Kevin Phillips’ new book.

Either the current market estimate of inflation is the best estimate available, or you know that it is wrong and you will be a very rich man.  I find the former scenario more plausible.

I have to say I agree with him. Kevin Phillips is the David Brock of the Nixon generation, and his books are bought mostly by Democrats who think that Republicans are on the verge of agreeing with them that America sucks and is headed for the toilet.

Read it. And feel free to laugh.

For some reason the Washington Post seems to specialize in publishing the mumblings of black columnists who no intelligent adult would take seriously. Eugene Robinson is the most egregious of these, but King is not far behind.

Anyone who could write “the New York Senator and her GOP allies” and mean it seriously has a disconnect from reality that one can only marvel at.

I do admire his ability to get paid for that kind of stuff.

Read it.

I wonder whether that strategy would work for the Republican Party? After all, who has been more consistently insulted by CNN?

Oh, right — Christians. But they’re not organized, so it doesn’t count.

Read it.

There’s a hole with no bottom….