Category Archives: Media Criticism

Education, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Speaking Truth To The Academic Mob

15 Comments

Naomi Schaefer Riley defends herself in the WSJ:

Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post. A number of the dissertations aren’t even available. Which didn’t seem to stop the Chronicle reporter, though. And 6,500 academics signed a petition online demanding that I be fired.

At first, the Chronicle stood its ground, suggesting that my post was an “invitation to debate.” But that stance lasted for little more than a weekend. In a note that reads like a confession at a re-education camp, the Chronicle’s editor, Liz McMillen announced her decision on Monday to fire me: “We’ve heard you,” she tells my critics. “And we have taken to heart what you said. We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles.”

When I asked Ms. McMillen whether the poem by fellow blogger Ms. Barreca, for instance, lived up to such standards, she said they were “reviewing” the other content on the site. So far, however, that blogger has not been fired. Other ad hominem attacks against me seem to have passed editorial muster as well.

In a sane world, banks would put a high premium on a loan to get a degree in anything “studies.”

For those who haven’t been following this, Nick Gillespie has the whole story.

[Update a few minutes later]

More from Ron Radosh.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Three-Way Race

8 Comments

Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%.

That looks like a pretty big majority for smaller government. Interestingly, it’s very similar to the 1992 result with Perot, except this time, it’s the Democrat who’s hurt by the third candidate. I suspect that this is because Paul picks up a lot of the youth vote that would otherwise go to Obama, with whom they’ve become disenchanted. Maybe the Republicans should urge Paul to run.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Tea Party Versus OWS

9 Comments

A comparison.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related: the Left’s idea of tolerance:

So, in the 1950s, after fighting a war against racist, Nazi monsters, Americans brought fresh vigor to their examination of their own racism and began to purge themselves of racist attitudes and policies that had poisoned our history. Likewise, in the ’70s and ’80s, when birth control and other technology made it easier for women to step beyond the bounds of their traditional roles, Americans began to accept the idea of women in the workforce and in positions of power. Today, the AIDS crisis has given us new sympathy for gays, and science is in the process of giving us a better understanding of the origins of sexual preference. In consequence, we are wrestling with questions of how to broaden our definitions of love and relationship without damaging the social fabric that has brought us so far.

So it is and so, in my opinion, it should be. But it does not in any way follow that we should therefore accept the worst, lowest and most despicable and anti-social behaviors from people simply because they belong to a group that may sometimes feel restricted or excluded.

The Left tells me it’s wrong to be suspicious when a black punk wearing a hood and loose pants slouches into my neighborhood? The Left tells me to listen with respect to the destructive deceptions of con-men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? The Left tells me not to fight back when some shrill, man-hating feminist virago goes on the rampage? They tell me not to be judgmental when I witness a young woman getting herself drunk enough to accept being used like a piece of meat by any young man without the virility to escort her safely home? And now the Left tells me I should not look askance at some gay weasel who abuses the privilege of speaking to young people by unleashing a foul-mouthed display of hatred, prejudice and rage?

Just say no.

Education, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Law School Malpractice

16 Comments

More thoughts on why many lawyers don’t understand the Constitution, from Jen Rubin:

…law schools have given way to the notion that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In a sense this is true insofar as the principle of judicial review has been concretized and the other branches assent to the courts’ decisions. But the idea that the Constitution has objective meaning that can be ascertained, in part by studying works like “The Federalist,” is still resisted by the vast majority of elite law school faculty. Even weirder from faculty members’ vantage point is the idea that you can thereby assess whether the Supreme Court got a case “right” or “wrong.” That sort of assessment, using the Constitution, its text and its meaning as the touchstone for judicial interpretation is not in fashion, and hasn’t been for decades now, at elite law schools. Students study precedent and view newer decisions as either departures from or natural consequences of earlier cases. But assess that a decision, and maybe a great number before that, are just plain wrong because they misunderstood an aspect of the Framers’ intent or the structure of the Constitution? Perish the thought.

This is why so many “progressive” lawyers (including Barack Obama) have made such fools of themselves in front of a Supreme Court that actually does understand, and care about it, and why so many legal analysts in the media have been so shocked that the court actually takes constitutional arguments seriously.