WORLD ENDS: Weigel agrees with Ann Coulter
For once, the idiot drum-major of our movement gets something completely right, and says it in a reasonable way. Hence:
The Supreme Court’s abandonment of legal reasoning has taken the public by storm! Now everyone treats constitutional law as if it is an ongoing referendum about various public policy issues. Pundits simply assume state colleges are allowed to create a racial stew. It’s just a question of whether this or that system is desirable as a public policy matter. We hear about stigmas, legacies, SAT scores, athletes ï¿½ all of which have nothing to do with the Constitution.
Ding ding ding! You don’t file amici briefs by using “code words” to appeal to racists – unless “Constitution” is a code word.
I’m expecting a gender studies major will rebut me on that point.
Rick at North Georgia Dogma posts the hyberbolic reactions of leading left-wing bloggers to Time’s “Bush honors Jefferson Davis” story (now cleansed from the mag’s site) – and their non-reactions to its retraction. The best is a clip from “MediaWhoresOnline” (or as Atrios refers to it, HorseHorseHorseHorse). Verbatim:
BUSH PAYS HOMAGE TO JEFF DAVIS, CONFEDERACY
Reinstates Policy Abandoned By Poppy
Their Hypocrisy and Fakery Know No Bounds
Pay-Back for SC Neo-Confeds Lands Dubya In New Hot Water
I’m perturbed that the favorite “e-zine” of the center-left reads like a page from Our Dumb Century.
Why I’d make a lousy pundit
Scott Ritter says that he’s being “silenced” by stories about his possible pedophilia. Some pundits could make a column about this. My response is brief:
Scott, being silenced would entail you getting shot, jailed or publicly banned for voicing “dissent.” I use the scare quotes because the term is so cliched. What you’re being is ridiculed, which impinges on your rights in no way.
Journalism, standards … whatever
Why the hell is this news? Is the media so desperate to cover any radical, groundless claim by a fringe group?
If that’s the case, I hereby invite the media to tomorrow’s grand unveiling of nature’s first four-assed monkey – developed in secret by a crack team of dutch lesbians, and tentatively named “Lilith.” For press passes, contact me.
Server’s fixed. Fever’s gone. I have returned.
But that has stopped not the universe from going back in time.
I’m more or less ecastic about the president’s speech against racial preferences, and the joy has only multiplied as I’ve read liberal “rebuttals.” Typical was this whinge from Joe Conason:
Now there is no movement among conservatives to require that legacy applicants (or athletes) display the same level of merit as anyone else admitted to an elite school. To the right diversity isn’t an important value — but traditions of family privilege must be preserved.
Does Conason know any conservatives? Honestly! This was the sixth or seventh “Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well, huh!” response to the speech that I read, the sixth or seventh that offered no response save for Bush’s personal history as a legacy admission. When we fight a civil war over parent-child relationships, I’m sure it will become a bigger issue. For now, we have racial preferences – and liberals have never displayed the intellectual heft to make a real argument for them.
“If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, assassinate the character of the witness.” The witness is all they have left to attack.
Memo to leftists:
This is what “repressing dissent” looks like.
A fun debate on MSNBC’s Donohue included this exchange between Bernie Goldberg and Mario Cuomo.
MARIO CUOMO, FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: The fact is, I think…
DONAHUE: Governor Cuomo.
CUOMO: I think, Bernie, that 16 of the last 18 presidential elections, those newspapers went overwhelmingly for the Republican.
DONAHUE: Yes, they did, 60/40, about, for Bush.
CUOMO: And thatï¿½s always the case.
DONAHUE: This is the liberal media, 60/40 for Bush.
GOLDBERG: Not the papers I mentioned. Well, the last time ï¿½The New York Timesï¿½ endorsed anybody even vaguely considered conservative was Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
CUOMO: Theyï¿½re in the 39 percent.
Itï¿½s 61 to 39 percent for the Republicans. And you talk about the editorial policy and you talk about these newspapers.
More newspapers endorsed Bush. And more counties went for him in the general election. But as liberals point out, rightly, the Bush counties, on average, had smaller populations than the Gore counties. That’s how Gore won the popular vote.
Bush wins the small towns and counties, and gets the nod from their 10,000 circulation newspapers. Gore wins the cities and gets the nod from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune – which also happen to sell columns and news to the smaller papers.
Statistics, Mario. Statistics. Please try to understand them. And Phil … ah, never mind.
Instant memory loss
One would think my profession would have hardened my memory, but today … today would have been less detrimental to my net worth if I had huddled inside. To wit: When I woke up I gathered a (borrowed) AP Stylebook and a copy of Reason magazine and took them to my first class. After the first class, the magazine was gone. After the second class, when I checked my bag at 8 p.m., the book was missing. Now I have to replace both – it’s the borrowed tome that bothers me most.