The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Wow. This Almost Never Happens.

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 6 Comments

Betsy Rothstein writes something I agree with:

Were these so-called practices ever thought out or spelled out in the first place? Was Riley ever told what she could or couldn’t write? Or was the outcry of online observers — and there are a lot of them these days with loud, shrill, threatening voices — so great that McMillen collapsed under her own lack of direction and standards that were never conveyed to Riley in the first place?

This is probably a sign that the Apocalypse is upon us. On the other hand, it could be that writers who frequently piss people off have a common perspective that transcends politics. That is to say, we expect our editors to be on our side in any conflict, even if it’s a conflict the editor might have preferred to avoid.

The way Liz McMillen threw Naomi Schaefer Riley to the wolves is one of those acts of craven spinelessness that make you shudder. Having been called on the carpet and read the Riot Act a few times in my career, I’m OK with getting chewed out if I screw up.

“Watch your step” or “Don’t ever let this happen again.” — that kind of warning might be appropriate. But to just suddenly dump a writer, the first time they piss somebody off? No, uh-uh.

This was my problem with the way Rich Lowry handled the situation with John Derbyshire, who for years had been allowed to write inflammatory stuff for other outlets until one day — bam! — suddenly it was a problem and Derb got fired. Was there no point in the preceding years where Lowry could have sat down with Derbyshire and had a little chat? “Hey, Derb, about this race stuff you’ve been writing . . .”

Anyway, last time I checked, Betsy Rothstein was still an Evil Left-Wing Bitch From Hell, but she’s absolutely right about this:

In most newsrooms editors fiercely protect their reporters. Most editors don’t let strangers in the door and watch as the reporter gets bloodied. Maybe McMillen could be a real editor, hold strong and “improve” their ways instead of essentially letting a wild flash mob determine Riley’s fate.

So either Rothstein’s evil is diminishing, or I’m getting soft in my old age, or else the ancient Mayans were right about 2012 being The End.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll has been aggregating like a mofo on this story while filling in for Instapundit today, and links this item by Jonathan Tobin at Commentary:

McMillen’s note is doubly offensive because its characterization of Riley’s post is incorrect, and because she also chose to grovel to the mob by apologizing for a previous editor’s note in which she invited readers to debate the author’s opinion. Though she now says her previous note was wrong to “elevate Riley’s post to the level of informed opinion,” the only thing that is clear from reading her obsequious apology is that in allowing Riley’s critics to dictate editorial policy, she has debased the Chronicle and herself to a point where neither can be taken seriously.

Feeding the tiger, hoping to be eaten last. Elsewhere, the ubiquitous Driscoll calls our attention to James Taranto’s take at the WSJ: “A lesson from an editor in how not to do journalism.” Still further — again, following Driscoll — we have reactions from Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard, Victor Davis Hanson at National Review and Ron Radosh at PJM.

Category: Journalism

Gaffe-Tastic!

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 12 Comments

Joe Biden continues to demonstrate his gravitas:

“When we took office, let me remind you, there was virtually no international pressure on Iran. We were the problem,” Biden said. “We were diplomatically isolated in the world, in the region, in Europe.”
Biden continued, “We were neither fully respected by our friends nor feared by our opponents. Today is it starkly, starkly different.”

And Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be vice-president?

Category: Iran, Joe Biden

Commissars Sacrifice Naomi Schaefer Riley to the ‘New Gods of Diversity’

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 31 Comments

You might think that being a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard, an accomplished journalist and published author, would be the kind of impeccable credentials that would offer some protection against the occasional eruptions of intellectual cannibalism on campus.

Alas, no. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a former Wall Street Journal editor, the author of God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America (2006) and The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For (2011). Until this week, Riley had also been a contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education‘s “Brainstorm” blog.

On Monday, April 30, Riley took notice of a Chronicle feature article about “A New Generation of Black-Studies Ph.D.’s.” Riley examined the doctoral dissertations produced by these scholars and pronounced them “a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap”:

The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them. . . .
[T]opping the list in terms of sheer political partisanship and liberal hackery is La TaSha B. Levy. According to the Chronicle, “Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’” The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?

Well, these are the sort of obvious truths that no one in American academic life can ever be permitted to speak aloud, and by publishing them under the aegis of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Riley had broken the silent taboo. Everybody knows that black studies, like women’s studies, is an academic ghetto. These programs owe their existence to political considerations, including the need to provide lucrative sinecures to radical faculty members who might otherwise be unemployable. Anyone who expects intellectual rigor from these programs is a fool.

These are facts universally known, but at the same time, no one within the academic community is permitted to call attention to this phenomenon. Riley is a professional journalist, and was under the impression that the Chronicle of Higher Education was a journalistic enterprise devoted to, y’know, facts and stuff like that.

Instead, as Riley discovered too late, the Chronicle is like 21st-century academia, devoted to rigid ideological dogma which must be fiercely protected against critical scrutiny. You can probably predict what happened next:

In reaction to Riley’s criticism, liberals “flipped out” and “lost their ever-living minds,” as Riley’s friend Mollie Hemingway says.
Her editor at the Chronicle “asked me to respond to the criticisms,” Riley told me. Evidently her response provoked even greater outrage and, Riley says, she got a call from an editor Monday informing her that her contributions to the Chronicle were “no longer welcome.” In an editor’s note, Liz McMillen informed readers of the Chronicle that Riley’s contributions “did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.” Washington Free Beacon managing editor Sonny Bunch remarked on Twitter: “The liberal mob has spoken. The expiation has occurred. The new gods of diversity are satisfied. The sun will rise tomorrow.”
What have we learned from this incident? “The ivory tower is an inflated bubble and they don’t take criticism very well,” Riley told me.

Read the rest. Fortunately, Riley said, this wasn’t her full-time job, just a gig where she collected a “nominal amount” for two blog posts a week. But the principle of the thing — firing a blogger for offending “the new gods of diversity” — is worth fighting about, and I predict you’ll hear a lot more about this in the near future.

UPDATE: More at Memeorandum with commentary by New York Post, National Review, American Thinker and Legal Insurrection.

UPDATE II: Nick Gillespie at Reason magazine calls “the Chronicle’s response absolutely breath-taking and craven in its censoriousness. . . . This is plainly a politically correct response to a thug’s veto and should be owned up to as such.”

American universities have for so long operated on the principle of compulsory consensus that most academics now consider criticism of the consensus to be an illegitimate expression of “hate.”

UPDATE III: Oh. My. God.

Riley’s article is just the latest in an increasing wave of open bigotry from (occasionally conservative) White female political and cultural commentators.  Many of these women have come down with an acute case of Privileged White Woman’s Rage, or PWRR for short. The disease has been around for years, but there has been a steady rise of cases since Obama beat Hillary in the primaries four years ago.

The person who wrote that is a Ph.D. professor at an Ohio college.

 

Category: Education, Intellectuals, Racism

Gunny Ermey Unavailable, Yale Students Stuck With General McChrystal

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

Ivy League jackwagons hoping for a clue will have to click this image to get at Gunny Ermey’s soundboard app, where they might find one: 

Get calibrated, maggot!
Students at Yale will also have the option of taking a course from General Stanley McChrystal.

“There is almost no antimilitary bias among students,” said John Lewis Gaddis, a Yale history professor and the recipient of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for biography, who has welcomed General McChrystal to Yale. “I wouldn’t say it’s true among the faculty.”

It’s kind of hard to be among the ilk of those who’d claim 1/32nd Cherokee heritage for a prime spot in academia, and then stand next to a full-on badass like McChrystal, who knows 14 ways to hospitalize you using only his ring finger.

On the other hand, MrChrystal, like most of academia, is an Obama voter. Oh, to be a fly on the wall if Gunny Ermey infiltrates the classroom and asks  McChrystal how the bus tires felt when the General went under them after the Rolling Stone interview, while the cretinous Eric Holder still rides tall in the saddle.

Category: Education

Rick James Has What Wisconsin Democrats Need: Unity

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

Insta-Althouse reports big trouble in Troglo-reich, as in what perhaps is a Dick Lugar shout-out, the Dems can’t seem to get their junk together and consolidate their opposition to the common-sense leadership of Scott Walker:

Unity:
Brother, sister,
There’s got to be,
Uuuuuuniiiiiity.
Yeeeeeeahhh.
Unity.
Unity’s what missing in our
Liiiiiiiiiives.
Can’t you see?
Wee need looooooove.
A little word of confidence.
Every now and then.
A little hoooonesty,
And trust among us.
A little love and harmony,
And there’ll surely be,
Some unity,
Unity,
Unity.
(Unity)

The last time I trotted this one out was for the Delaware GOP in 2010. Heh.

Category: Wisconsin

Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Time to Quit Whining and Get to Work

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 144 Comments

This will be brief, but expect additions to follow in updates. Rick Santorum is now urging his supporters to get behind Mitt Romney:

Rick Santorum has officially endorsed Mitt Romney, and notified his supporters in an email sent Monday night.
In the email, the former presidential candidate cited his Friday meeting with Romney in his hometown of Pittsburgh as a reason he finally got behind the presumptive GOP nominee.
“On Friday, Governor Romney came to Pittsburgh for an over-hour long one-on-one meeting,” Santorum said in the email. “The conversation was candid, collegial and focused on the issues that you helped me give voice to during our campaign; because I believe they are essential ingredients to not only winning this fall, but turning our country around.” . . .
In the lengthy email, Santorum encouraged Romney to “add more conservative leaders as an integral part of his team.”
“And you can be sure that I will work with the governor to help him in this task to ensure he has a strong team that will support him in his conservative policy initiatives,” Santorum said. . . .
“Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated,” the letter read. “The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.”

More at Memeorandum. As I say, this initial memo will be brief. If you supported Santorum, you must now respect his judgment that getting on board with the Romney campaign — “all hands on deck,” as Santorum says — is a vital obligation for all conservatives.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Santorum is scheduled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this evening, and ABC’s Shushannah Walshe says that Santorum was expected to make a commitment at that time.  Santorum apparently decided to announce the endorsement as soon as he made the decision.  That may take a little of the drama out of tonight’s appearance, but it also may draw more interest as people tune in to hear Santorum’s explanation of the endorsement.

Here’s the thing I want to get across to our readers: Whenever Republicans lose a presidential election, the first thing the GOP Establishment does is to focus blame on conservatives. This is why Sarah Palin was scapegoated for the 2008 defeat, because treacherous swine like Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, who get paid to win elections, don’t want to accept responsibility for their own failures.

It is therefore an urgent necessity — however painfully ironic — that hard-core grassroots conservatives give their maximum effort to help Romney defeat Barack Obama, because if Team Mitt loses this election, you will be blamed. Your honor as a conservative, to say nothing of the future of our Republic, thus requires from you even greater labors than you would have made if Rick Santorum had won the nomination.

Like I said, “painfully ironic.”

UPDATE II: In case you don’t understand how the GOP Establishment’s blame-shifting apparatus works, Tony Lee explains it at Big Journalism. Here’s the thing: When Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace backstabbed Palin and threw her under their RINO careerism bus, they thought their vicious treachery would never be discovered, because they’re so much smarter than everybody in the conservative grassroots.

UPDATE III: As I say, however, this isn’t the time to be nursing old grudges. We’ve got find a way to win, or else expect to be blamed for the defeat. Bridget Johnson at PJM notes that Santorum’s e-mail “stressed his differences with Mitt Romney and therefore gave the need to beat President Obama as the key reason to vote for the former Massachusetts governor.” Well, of course that’s what Santorum did.

If he hadn’t been honest about the differences, his endorsement wouldn’t have persuaded anyone. Here’s the crucial word from Lisa Graas:

Since May [2011], I have been 100% behind Rick Santorum because I trust him to do what is right for America. If Rick Santorum believes that Mitt Romney will defend life and marriage, then that is good enough for me. I also now endorse Mitt Romney for President and look forward to being a part of Rick Santorum’s grassroots volunteer team to continue the fight for conservatism in America.

One of the key topics at the Mitt/Rick meeting? Vanuatu.

UPDATE IV: Readers will recall that yesterday I said it is important to let Team Mitt do their job. That is to say, we shouldn’t be disgruntled, sitting around second-guessing them and bitch, bitch, bitching for the next six months. That ain’t gonna beat Obama, OK?

Our confidence in Team Mitt should prevent us from being distracted by certain people (not on the campaign) whining because they didn’t think Santorum’s endorsement was sufficiently sycophantic.

Hey, whiners: Kissing ass is your job, not Rick’s.

UPDATE V: Robert Costa at National Review talks about Team Mitt’s new hires, including former Santorum campaign director, Mike Biundo.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been biting my tongue about this, which got linked here, and to which I obliquely replied Sunday night. Because we are now in what Ace likes to call “game faces” mode, some insults must be ignored and some injuries suffered in silence.

Our personal interests or narrow ambitions should never be confused with “the conservative movement,” which is larger than any one person. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and owe an obligation to those who suffered and sacrificed to build this movement, and who are no longer here to aid us in our struggle. Humble service is our duty, and the scrupulous fulfillment of that duty is a matter of honor.

Note, please, that this mild acknowledgement has been included in the fifth update, three hours after the original post went online. That is to say, I’ve put it where it will attract little public notice, merely so that it may be known to friends that I am fully aware.

 


Category: Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption, Election 2012, Fear. Loathing., Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Vanuatu

Question To Bush: How Does It Feel To Be Anti-Christ And Savior?

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

See if I’ve got this sorted correctly:

  1. Obama blames Bush for the crappy economy.
  2. Bush = Anti-Christ.
  3. ManBearPig says a crappy economy is needed to trim atmospheric CO2 levels.
  4. Bush = Savior?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but two or more wrongs often seem to comprise a day’s work for the Democrats.

Category: Democrats, Global Warming, ManBearPig

So Funny, When Feminism Thinks The Unborn Should Die

Posted on | May 8, 2012 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

Funny or Die dives deep into the grave here:

What a creepy, sick, Orwellian world these feminists live in. Remind me again why any mature, masculine male would want to be in the same room as these abattoir-vaginas, much less offering them any essence to destroy? I guess I should say “choose to destroy”.

The sickness of the government-worship implied in this clip is only exceeded by the crypto-incest of talking about their dads and their vaginas at the end, if you can make it that far.

“Ye are the sodium chloride of the Earth,” to paraphrase the Sage. He did not follow up: “And if the chlorine hath lost its mind, and formeth not the good salt of a family with the sodium, then it shall have lost its savor to feminism, and be fit for going under the wheeled conveyance* of history, with the rest of a godless culture.” And why was such an addendum unnecessary? Because a couple thousand years ago, people weren’t post-Modern crack-addled Feminist nitwits, that’s why.

The good news is that these twisted females are unlikely to achieve any reproduction under the sun. Thus, there isn’t much danger of the World’s Youngest Blogger encountering this sort of dementia when he’s old enough to date. I hope these women find sense and these perverted ideas die, die, die.

via Breitbart

Update: linked at WyBlog, who offers more background.

*bus

Category: Abortion, National Offend a Feminist Week
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin