Dowload Full Content – Printable Pickings
We always knew the NY Times was biased. Now we learn it is corrupt. Gail Heriot at The Right Coast comments on a front page ad for Macy’s masquerading as news.
I find this scary. I know that many conservatives worry about the New York Times’ liberal bias. And they should worry. But geez louise I don’t expect the New York Times to turn over its front page news section to what is most likely its biggest advertiser–and to distort the facts to boot. That’s either craven, rock stupid or both.
Why would the New York Times refer to Terry Lundgren, Macy’s embattled CEO, as “one of the brightest stars in American retailing” in a front page story? This is utter fantasy, and the New York Times presents no evidence of its truth. In the last few months, Macy’s stock has declined 40%. Profits are down a whopping 77%. Sales have slumped. The only important marketing decision that Terry Lundgren has ever made in his life was to gamble on the Macy-fication of American retailing–terminating successful regional department stores across the country and turning their locations into Macy’s. That gamble has turned distinctly sour. Lundgren’s not a bright star; he’s a supernova, and Macy’s seems well on its way to becoming the black hole of American retailing. …
The Captain with a lengthy detailed post on WaPo whitewash of Anita Hill.
… Besides, Marcus leaves out some testimony herself. For instance, J.C. Alvarez flew back to Washington to testify a second time in front of the panel, because she could not believe her eyes and ears when Hill testified. Alvarez, who worked in the same office at the same time, had a few choice words for the panel:
No, Senators, I cannot stand by and watch a group of thugs beat up and rob a man of his money any more than I could have stayed in Chicago and stood by and watched you beat up an innocent man and rob him blind. Not of his money. That would have been too easy. You could pay that back. No, you have robbed a man of his name, his character, and his reputation.
And what is amazing to me is that you didn’t do it in a dark alley and you didn’t do it in the dark of night. You did it in broad daylight, in front of all America, on television, for the whole world
to see. Yes, Senators, I am witnessing a crime in progress and I cannot just look the other way.Alvarez had more to say about her recollection of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas:
On Friday, she played the role of a meek, innocent, shy Baptist girl from the South who was a victim of this big, bad man.
I don’t know who she was trying to kid. Because the Anita Hill that I knew and worked with was nothing like that. She was a very hard, tough woman. She was opinionated. She was arrogant. She was a relentless debater. And she was the kind of woman who always made you feel like she was not going to be messed with, like she was not going to take anything from anyone. …
And he posts on the phony soldier stuff.
… this is a story. It’s a story of intellectual dishonesty, partisan gunslinging, and distraction tactics designed to protect a major Democratic Party fundraiser. That’s the real story behind this latest absurdity. …
Power Line posts with a great answer to ‘phony soldiers’ with “Phony Democrats.”
Ilya Somin in Volokh illustrates one of the reasons for Russia’s backwardness, the Russian Orthodox Church.
Alexy II, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church recently made a speech before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe denouncing homosexuality as “an illness” and a “distortion of the human personality, like kleptomania.” He also claimed that homosexuality is part of “a new generation of rights that contradict morality, and [an example of] how human rights are used to justify immoral behavior.”
Such homophobia is hardly unique to Alexy and his Church. However, they are in a particularly poor position to lecture the Europeans on human rights in light of the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is hand in glove with Vladimir Putin’s repressive regime, endorsing that government’s authoritarian policies and even using the power of the state to harrass other religious groups and suppress art they disapprove of. …
Charles Krauthammer celebrates the great changes in French foreign policy.
… This French about-face creates a crucial shift in the balance of forces within Europe. The East Europeans are naturally pro-American for reasons of history (fresh memories of America’s role in defeating their Soviet occupiers) and geography (physical proximity to a newly revived and aggressive Russia). Western Europe is intrinsically wary of American power and culturally anti-American by reflex. France’s change from Chirac to Sarkozy, from foreign minister Dominique de Villepin (who actively lobbied Third World countries to oppose America on Iraq) to Kouchner (who supported the U.S. invasion on humanitarian grounds) represents an enormous shift in Old Europe’s relationship to the United States.
Britain is a natural ally. Germany, given its history, is more follower than leader. France can define European policy, and Sarkozy intends to.
The French flip is only one part of the changing landscape that has given new life to Bush’s Iran and Iraq policies in the waning months of his administration. The mood in Congress also has significantly shifted. …
Hugh Hewitt reminds us Hillary is a radical.
Senator Clinton can be pleasant, is certainly intelligent and is absolutely the front-runner for the Democratic nomination and perhaps even the favorite right now to succeed George W. Bush in the Oval Office.
But as the past three weeks have made abundantly clear, Hillary is no “liberal,” or even a “progressive.” She is a radical, and one far outside the mainstream of American politics. In the growing recognition of the true nature of her political ideology is the obvious strategy for whoever the GOP nominee is: Throw the light on what she believes and proposes and keep it there. …
Max Boot posts a couple of times on Blackwater.
LA Times Op-Ed says Ahmadinejad walked away with a win thanks to the folks at Columbia who have yet to meet a fascist they don’t like.
One of the world’s truly dangerous men, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left New York a clear winner this week, and he can thank the arrogance of the American academy and most of the U.S. news media’s studied indifference for his victory.
If the blood-drenched history of the century just past had taught American academics one thing, it should have been that the totalitarian impulse knows no accommodation with reason. You cannot change the totalitarian mind through dialogue or conversation, because totalitarianism — however ingenious the superstructure of faux ideas with which it surrounds itself — is a creature of the will and not the mind. That’s a large lesson, but what should have made Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University this week a wholly avoidable debacle was the school’s knowledge of its own, very specific history.
In the 1930s, Columbia was run by Nicholas Murray Butler, to whose name a special sort of infamy attaches. Butler was an outspoken admirer of Italian fascism and of its leader, Benito Mussolini. The Columbia president, who also was in the forefront of Ivy League efforts to restrict Jewish enrollment, worked tirelessly to build ties between his school and Italian universities, as well as with the powerful fascist student organizations. At one point, a visiting delegation of 350 ardent young Black Shirts serenaded Butler with the fascist anthem. …
Jonathan Turley, card carrying liberal, thinks maybe the NRA gets something right about the second amendment.
… Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.