April 27, 2004 by s.z.

A Concession Okay, Lilleks, while undoubtedly in need of anxiety medication, is right about a few things.  Target is an okay store, as far as stores go.  Gnat, like all children, is precious.  And the MST cast probably WAS the smartest group of comic writers since the days of Keaton, Chaplin, and Lloyd.  Heck, even Prince of Space seems like gold, now that they aren't making any more eps. 10:32:05 PM

A Response to Pitts Today let's hear from one Raymond Green, writing in Intellectual Conservative (and Mich News, and Men's News Daily) about how, despite what Leonard Pitts has been saying, there is no double standard about the way the Jack Kelley case has been reported in comparison to the  Jayson Blair case.  And that's because the cases aren't comparable, in that only one of them involves preferential treatment due to race -- yes, only Kelley was above suspicion due to his race, and so got away with making stuff up at least 13 years, while Blair was caught within months. Okay, that's not what Green actually said.  Here's part of his argument: Part of the criticism leveled was the Times’ promotion of Blair “despite a history of corrections, sloppy reporting and lectures from his editors,” and that from CNN. That is precisely why race is a legitimate issue. What, if not for qualifications, led to Blair’s promotion at the Times? All factors imply race was at least partially responsible for his being promoted despite concerns. Unlike Blair, Kelley wasn’t caught prior to his promotions. Blair had as high as an 18% inaccuracy rate on stories he wrote and less than seven months after receiving disciplinary action from the Times for enormous inaccuracies and blatant lies, he became the lead man covering the sniper shootings in Washington. [...] On the other hand, Kelley started as an intern the same year USA Today was founded in 1982 and had fascinating stories, albeit partially, if not wholly, fictional. Thus, per Green, Blair got promoted due to race (because there's no other reason a reporter who'd been "lectured" by his editors would get assigned to the D.C. sniper case).  However, Kelley never got in any trouble with his editors, so his promotions were strictly due to merit (in that his lies were really interesting, unlike Blair's rather pedestrian efforts).  Of course, in reality, over the years lots of people had reported problems with (or suspicions about) Kelley's work -- and they were all ignored or treated as jealous, nasty back-stabbers, and no investigations of his work were done until 2003.  Would Kelley have gotten the same breaks from management if hadn't been white?  And if he wasn't known to be a fervent Christian?  Probably not.   Then there is the issue of the papers. The Times is not USA Today. They are a stark contrast and what conservative could honestly say they don’t at least partially take pleasure in watching the Times potentially reap the consequences of a policy they vigorously advocate. The Times has aligned itself politically with the left and in doing so, has created a growing distrust going back 70 years to Walter Duranty, the reporter who covered up the crimes of Stalin. Let’s face it; many people simply dislike the Times with a passion, and for good reason.  Another chapter of dishonesty within the Times goes a lot further than it will for the relatively new USA Today So, the cases aren't comparable at all because people hate the NY Times for being liberal -- so they were GLAD when a reporter there got in trouble for lying.  The fact that he was black just made it better, because it could be used to prove that everything that liberals stand for, like diversity, is wrong.  While all the Kelley case proves is that  is nobody is hostile towards USA Today, because everybody, even conservatives, can feel superior to it. And now for the moral of it all: If Blair was promoted because he was qualified and not because he was black, he didn’t need Affirmative Action and the Jesse Jacksons of the world to get him there. Jack Kelley has not been accused of being promoted just because he is white because there is no government or corporate policy advocating preferential treatment to white males. And that is precisely why race baiting tactics encouraging employers and others to promote or hire someone for any other reason than qualifications is wrong. Because nobody would EVER favor whites unless there was a government or corporate policy telling them that they had to. 4:42:56 AM

Quote for the Day Here's Manuel Miranda ("who has become something of a hero among conservatives") talking to the Washington Times about DOJ's appointment of an outsider (an acting U.S. attorney from New York) to look into the Filegate Affair: "No crime was committed. If I thought a crime had been committed, I would go down to the station and turn myself in." And he would no doubt sentence himself to the appropriate time in prison too.  I wonder why society doesn't adopt Miranda's plan and let the criminals decide if they've committed a crime (and if they think they have, rely on them to turn themselves in the authorities).  It would sure make life a lot easier for the police and prosecutors. Oh, and speaking of the Moonie Times, here's an intriguing snippet from a NY Times piece how Hagedorn Communications had been preparing for six months to launch El Sol del Bronx, a Spanish-language weekly for that burough, but at the last minute lost their financial backing.  Reverend Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications, which owns El Sol del Bronx, issued a statement that called its closing a "repositioning of some of its media assets." The company, which owns The Washington Times and U.P.I., says it plans to strengthen a weekly Spanish-language paper, Tiempos del Mundo (World Times), that it publishes in Latin America, Washington and Miami. So, the Moon news empire includes a Spanish paper.  Interesting.  3:20:34 AM

"The feminazis gathered in Washington on Sunday" Speaking of the March for Womens Lives, this is what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it: "[W]e struggle in a battle between the 21st century and the seventh century ... we're in a battle between freedom and religious extremism." Okay, okay, here's the full quote: We are in a life-and-death struggle with terrorism.  Wouldn't women of all stripes, liberal women, conservative women, moderate women, be better served by rallying for our troops and rallying behind the president, as we struggle in a battle between the 21st century and the seventh century? Because that's what we're doing, we're in a battle between freedom and religious extremism, between life and death, and liberals march for a cause that our enemies would not even tolerate. So, Rush is rebuking Karen Hughes, who implied that those who are in favor of freedom of choice are al Queda supporters.  Bush says no, they're even WORSE than al Queda. Anyway, Rush started his remarks by suggesting that the women who THOUGHT they were marching for reproductive rights were really "used as pawns to fill in a weekend" when "60 Minutes" didn't have a Bush-bashing book to feature on the program.  Rush later compares the event with a pro-choice march that took place 12 years ago -- when CLINTON was running for President.  Coincidence? Merely a reaction to the policies of Bush presidencies? You think that's a stretch? Do you think that's a reach? Come on now, my friends, you know me better than this Yes, we do -- and we think that he's back on the drugs.  Here are a few more of his comments: Yesterday, the real creativity was not so much in what these women said, but in some of the placards that they were carrying around. For example, they used placards that lamented that Barbara Bush had not killed her son in the womb. "If only Barbara Bush Had Choice," read one sign, meaning -- does this not suggest that they look at this as murder? Does it not? No, Rush, it does not.  It suggests that they look at it like stopping the possibility of a person -- comperable to going back in time (in a modified DeLorean, perhaps) and convincing Barbara Pierce to become a nun instead of marrying George Sr. and having children. Later, Rush played some soundbites: LAHTI: This administration, they say they want smaller government, and actually they really do want it smaller. Just small enough to fit inside your uterus. . . .Christine Lahti, government small enough to fit in the uterus? Christine, let me tell you something, if that could be made to happen, I mean the size, we'd all be happy here. If the government got so small it could fit in your uterus, bammo, we are in there. No pun intended. And no pun made.   But it does sound a lot like that rather creepy Prince Charles tampon comment.  And speaking of feminazis, here's our friend Doug Giles with a his latest Townhall column -- it's entitled "Day Dreamin' Anti-Dude Dames": What do the anti-dude dames daydream about?  Well … I can think of 10 fantasies right off the top of my unapologetic, heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant, testosterone-fog-loving head.  Ready?  1.   Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche would get back together and adopt a cat.  Lovely! 2.   Rush Limbaugh would choke to death on a plate of Hooter’s hot wings.  3.   Newt Gingrich would actually turn into a newt, relocate to a Madagascar rain forest and be relentlessly chased by the Crocodile Hunter.  4.   Hillary Clinton would run for President in 2004 with Melissa Etheridge as her running mate. Yummy!  5.   Thelma and Louise would experience a cinematic resurrection, which would yield up the theatrical release of “Thelma and Louise Part 2: Revenge of the Bra Burners”.  6.   K.D. Lang would do another album with Tony Bennett, only this time they’ll sing her lesbian ballads. Oh, behave!  7.   Janeane Garafalo would permanently replace Brian Kilmeade on “Fox and Friends”.  8.   The script of “Boys On The Side” would be written into the U.S. Constitution.  9.   George Washington’s face would be removed from the dollar bill to be replaced by a glamour shot of Gloria Alred.  10. The line in the pledge of allegiance would be changed from “One Nation, under God”… to “One Nation, run by Broads.”  This is what the feminists daydream about while they’re shopping for golf shirts, stretch pants and at-home-hair-cut kits.  I'm sure Doug is 100% right about this, because feminists are actually really stupid, clueless, Hollywood-worshipping, lesbians.  Yes, I bet the above ten points are what feminists daydream about, even though it all seems terribly dated.  Which it is, of course -- the Clashpoint archives show that it made a previous appearance in March 2003.  Who knows when it was actually written -- maybe back in 1995, when Boys on the Side was popular. But the feminists say that Doug's opinion is "null and void" because he is "the spawn of all societal sewage." (Not that he actually asked them what they think of him-- he just knows them so well, he can predict this.)  Here are a few more of the many things Doug knows about them: The feminists spit on everything that’s based on Judeo/Christian ethics. The feminists live to walk on our flag and everything for which it stands. The feminists hate anything that is decent. Feminism has now become a synonym for lesbianism. And as a "Christian, conservative, white male," Doug must say these kinds of things, even though he knows "he'll have hell to pay" if he does, to protect not only the "state of our nation," but also the decent women. I’m talking about the women who like being a wife, like having kids, enjoy being treated like a lady, are delighted not to fight in a war, thrive on being feminine and not butch.  They’re the women who, if they choose a career outside the home, are not shamed into it by some uni-brow, chucka-boot wearing she-male with a bad hairdo and camel’s breath. And they're the women who, if they choose a career outside the home, are happy to be shut out of certain professions and get paid less than men for equal work.  You know, because they enjoy being treated like a lady.  But they usually decide that working outside the home isn't worth it, because of the lack of available child care options, and the family-unfriendly work policies.  And the boss who demands that they prove that they are feminine, not butch.  So they just stay at home, being a wife, having kids, delighted not to fight in wars.  Until their husband deserts them and the kids, and they become anti-dude dames in protest, and develop uni-brows and camel's breath.  And they also become lesbians, and finally get some good loving.  I think I read the whole scenario in some book by Erica Jong or Lynne Cheney.  Presumably, Doug did too. 2:10:44 AM

Too Easy The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, in an intro to this piece, gives us one of the best straight lines of all time: Would The Wall Street Journal get its information from Mad magazine? My punch line: Well, they DO feature James Taranto five times a week. Hey, they asked!  1:07:03 AM