(KC Johnson link) The Times is never wrong. Sometimes, however, facts and reality fail in their obligations to live up to the Times' high standards.

In yesterday’s Times, public editor Byron Calame reviewed the paper’s lacrosse coverage in an article that reminded a Liestoppers commenter “of the women’s sleepwear you see advertised in Victoria’s Secret catalogs. It covers everything, but you can see right through it. One wonders why he even bothered to write it.”

Calame’s scarcely credible thesis: “I found that the past year’s articles generally reported both sides, and that most flaws flowed from journalistic lapses rather than ideological bias.”

Who does Calame think heÂ’s fooling? Imagine the following scenario: three African-American college students are charged with a crime for which almost no evidence exists. One has an air-tight, public, unimpeachable alibi. Their accuser is a white woman with a criminal record and major psychological problems. They are prosecuted by a race-baiting district attorney who violates myriad procedures while seizing upon the case amidst an election campaign in a racially divided county.

Does anyone believe that the Times would have covered the story outlined above with articles that bent over backwards to give the district attorney the benefit of the doubt, played down questions about his motivations, and regularly concluded with “shout-outs” regarding the accuser’s willingness to hang tough—coupled with sports columnists who compared the accused students to gangsters and drug dealers?

Calame, in short, appears unable or unwilling to consider how the Times’ failure in the lacrosse case—and having the thesis of a paper’s major article publicly dismissed as untrue surely constitutes a failure—was attributable to reporters and editors allowing their worldviews to distort the facts.

I suppose that's the most quotable part of the piece, but not the most important. After all, all that is obvious, but an elephant in the room the media-political complex cannot acknowlege.

More interesting is is point-by-point refutation of Calame's weak and dishonest defense, but you'll have to go to the link for that. Here's one example, though:

5. Calame's Selective Standards.

In yesterday’s column, Calame maintained, “As public editor, I have sought to avoid evaluating opinion articles because I haven’t found a universally acceptable yardstick for measuring what is good opinion and what is bad. So my review excluded Times columnists—including the sports commentators critical of Duke—who may have held forth on the case.”

In his April 23, 2006 column on the Duke case, however, Calame adhered to a quite different standard. In that article, he stated that while he had a “nit” to “pick” with her March 31, 2006 column, “Selena Roberts, a Times sports columnist, had ample reason for her recent concern about a ‘code of silence.’” In fact, we know now that Roberts’ claim was wrong.

But the important point is that Calame was perfectly willing to address a Selena Roberts column -- when he was defending her from criticism.

Now, however, he claims he has attempted to avoid a critique of columnists, considering them different (and apparently non-correctable).

...

Since Calame had no problem defending sports columnists in 2006, why does he now consider them out of bounds for his critique? Could it be that even he canÂ’t defend RobertsÂ’ most recent effort?

The paper of record, indeed.

Rats Fleeing The Sinking Ship: a lot of Nifong's deputies are movin' on to different offices and different jobs.

But [Mark] Edwards speculated that a heavy turnover on Nifong's staff might indicate an undercurrent of lacrosse-related stress.

At least six staffers have resigned in recent months, although all said they were leaving for personal reasons unrelated to the Duke case.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 632 words, total size 5 kb.

...at least according to Cornell's president:

“We are here for all of those who are gone, for all 33. We are here for the 32 who have passed from the immediate to another place, not by their own choice. We are also here for the one who has also passed.”

They are consistent -- I'll give them that. There have been previous mentions by the left of the 19 9/11 terrorists as among the dead who must be remembered.

Reagan got rightly rapped for suggesting SS soldiers at Bitburg were among Hitler's victims. (Later spin -- true or false, I don't know -- offered the explanation that Reagan didn't know that SS Nazi true believers were buried at that cemetery, and was only attempting to note that many millions of Germans, including typical soldiers and seamen -- were victims of Hitler's madness as well.)

I'd like to ask, though. Shall we begin naming Adolf Hitler as victim number 30,000,001 of Naziism?

Why not? It seems all the rage. He did, after all, shoot himself in the bunker. Isn't he a victim of his own pathologies as well?

Perhaps the Holocaust Museum can celebrate him as a victim to be honored as well. That may be a tricky one, but since we're now obliterating all distinctions between murderer and victim, why not?

Now Imgaine He's A Muslim: So whines this "cleric," complaining about the fact that media does not make much of an issue of Psy-Cho's Korean heritage.

Mabye here's the difference: No Koreans are celebrating Cho's murder. No Korean leaders are excusing it, citing a lack of economic opportunities or "grievances" about American troops in South Korea. No Koreans are justifying the attacks based upon "Korean culture" or religious rites.

And no prominent spokesmen for "Korean-American interests" have come forward to re-issue old Korean foreign policy demands in the aftermath of the shooting, with the implicit warning/threat "Do as we wish or we will keep on doing this."

As red speck points out, Cho's own grandfather stated that Cho deserved to die and the entire family is ashamed of him.

As far as I know, no members of Cho's family are celebrating him as a "martyr" to some cause, and no Korean groups are paying the family $50,000 as a martyrdom benefit.

So indeed let's imagine if Cho had been a Muslim. Would any of the foregoing have been true?

For Whom The Bell Does Not Toll: At VaTech, they don't seem to have Cornell's confusion about what "victims" are:

Today, the bell tolled 32 - not 33, times on the VTech campus. Thank God! Our whole culture has taken to worshipping murders. Look at movies, books, etc. Look all the fan clubs for death row inmates. It's disgusting.

If VaTech can recognize a psychotic, evil murderer, and Cornell can't -- shoudn't their rankings be swapped?

Thanks to daveG.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

Enviro-hypocrisy: Those with the most green talk the green talk but won't walk the green walk.

Jet-setting eco-villain Laurie David:

Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

And eco-socialites plan to save the world by switching to fluorescent bulbs. But only in the utility closet.

This isn't merely hypocrisy of the standard sort, i.e., the tribute vice pays to virtue. Whenever someone announces any standard -- even one as uncontroversial as "Be Honest" -- he's going to fall short of living up to his standard. But what is the alternative? Non-hypocritical nihilism, selfishness, and amorality?

But this is the moral sin form of hypocrisy, advocating a standard and seeking to impose it on others -- against their will -- when one flagrantly ignores that standard oneself, without even making a pretense of attempting to comply with it.

Fact: Richer countries consume far more energy than poorer ones. Because they're richer.

Fact: The rich in rich countries consume far more energy than their poorer fellow citizens.

Fact: Laurie David is not merely a rich woman in a rich country, but a super-rich woman in the most prosperous nation on earth.

Fact: Laurie David could easily reduce her own "carbon footprint" more than anyone but the top 10,000 richest people on earth simply by scaling back her lavish "lifestyle choices." She could do far more to reduce "greenhouse warming" by merely living as a member of the lower upper class rather than the upper upper class.

Fact: Laurie David refuses, outright, to do so.

Fact: And yet Laurie David demands all of us reduce our standards of living by a few rungs down the class ladder.

If Laurie David cannot even manage to reduce her consumption levels from "stinking rich" to merely "filthy rich," how exactly can this harpy demand that the middle class begin living like the working poor, and the working poor like the destitute?

Sheryl Crow, she of the One World To Live In, One Square To Wipe Your Ass With philosophy, has an oddly energy-intensive lifestyle as well. The riders to her touring contract don't seem very green:

Additionally, when the global warming warrior hits the road, her touring entourage (and equipment) travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars.

Perhaps Ms. Crow can give up touring -- where musicians make the great bulk of their money -- in favor of relying on the less-lucrative (but less energy-greedy) revenue source of music sales.

Or perhaps she can "teleconcert" -- people can pay a few bucks to watch her perform, not in person, but live on a computer monitor or pay-per-view cable special.

A lot less money for her, of course. Is she willing to actually sacrifice to save the earth?

Well, she is willing to give up paper napkins in favor of "dining sleeves," which allow you to just wipe your face on your sleeve.

Wow. What a martyr for the cause.

Posted by: Ace at 08:21 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

They go on a little long, but pretty funny. Lots of cursing, some flagrant gay stereotypes, and David Blaine looking all weird into the camera.

Thanks to Boston Irish.

Bonus: It didn't seem like too many people thought Operation Kitten Calender was as funny as I did, but for those of you who liked it, here's the gripping finale.

Thanks to herbert.

Another Wrap-Up: The last episode of Hellholes, that short comedy-horror amateur film (well, semi-pro) I linked a while back. If you haven't watched the three previous (three-minute) episodes, they're available in the viewer's sidebar.

Yet Another Sequel: The funniest of all. Hillary! talkin' all Southern. But she's not in the south, she's in NYC, so she's just "talkin' black."

She sounds like the woman who speaks jive in Airplane, only not as convincing.

Posted by: Ace at 06:52 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 143 words, total size 2 kb.

Or words to that effect.

I'm impressed by the Student Government's actions here. They are sick and tired of the media's presence on their campus, and they are publicly calling for all the reporters to get the hell out of town by 9:00 tomorrow.

A spokeswoman for the student government says the campus appreciates the reporting on the story, but that students are ready to move forward.

Liz Hart says "The best way to know how to do that is get the campus back to normal."

She says students need to be able to get back to class and back into a "normal routine as much as possible" without any reminders of what a "difficult road" it will be.

Now, clearly, the SGA has no intrinsic power or authority to force their removal from campus. But by making their desires known publicly, they effectively put these media jackals on notice. It takes a lot of gall to stay somewhere after your welcome has been worn out, after all.

(And no smart ass comments about why I still post here, despite my having worn out my welcome months ago. In my case I have no where else to go.)

I just wish the SGA had gone one step further with regard to the media and put NBC and it's affiliates on a "campus blacklist". If I were a student at Virginia Tech, I wouldn't talk to NBC. And I would hope that my campus representatives would act similarly.

Posted by: Jack M. at 04:52 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

On YouTube, of course.

Some pathetic shits are such vile losers they're venerating him for getting some payback.

If the video doesn't disgust you enough, read the comments:

32 killed with 2 9mm handguns, impressive

He doesn't look like a murderer. He wasn't meant to be a murderer, due to all the hate in the world this boy was taunted and beaten to the breaking point. I get bullied at school, fortunately for me I have a strong family and a lot of good friends to stick up for me. I wish people would just realise, he wasn't an angry child, and probably wasn't born with theese issues he had. Poor kid. Wonderful Tribute, thank you.

cho didnt cause the murders crule ppl did n u prolly bullshitting about being bullied u dunno how it feels

Bullying is evil you dumbass. No one shouldhave to put up with it. How many more shootings will it take before the authorities take bullying seriously

Rest In Peace
Cho Seung-hui
18th Jan 1984 - 16th April 2007

You will be forever remembered!

"Some day we will meet and when that day comes we will show the world what they did was not acceptable! More and more of us will arrive and we will laugh out how pathetic they are and punish those that treated us like that!"

May you Rest In Peace with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Let your actions be remembered forever!

hey,all you v-tech jock fuckers who tormented this guy...bet you aint laughing at him now,cunts.

I've been kind of ambivalent about NBC broadcasting this shit. For a bit I thought maybe there was some value in alerting people to the fact that there are psychos out there, and they should be taken seriously. And perhaps showing the tapes would wake people up and dramatize the warning signs.

But now we have what we feared -- a cult of murder pushed by disgusting losers who, if they are being bullied, quite frankly deserve all that and more to judge by their hateful, murder-applauding hearts.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 03:40 PM | Comments (99)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a free speech issue, of course, and it goes to the heart of the spirit of unshackled and sometimes unpopluar inquiry that is supposedly at the heart of the our academic system.

Nevertheless, considering how raw the feelings still are at VTech, I can understand VTech firing one of its professors for reenacting the shootings on the school grounds, so soon after the actual murders.

What? Huh? This professor didn't teach at VTech, but rather Emmanuel College in not-quite-neighboring Boston?

Ah. Well that changes things a bit.

A reenactment of the Virginia Tech massacre has caused some serious problems at a Boston school. According to a local paper, an Emmanuel College adjunct professor was fired after replaying the incident to prove his pro-gun view.

According to the college, the incident, which happened on Wednesday, left many people upset. "An adjunct faculty member made statements regarding the shootings at Virginia Tech University which prompted students and parents to contact the administration with complaints."

...

Winset tells the paper the college's decision to fire him was pathetic and will affect the discussion of controversial issues at schools. Emmanuel College argues that "the well-being of our student body is a primary concern, and the action taken, which was to dismiss the adjunct faculty member, reflects this belief."

I see... the spirit of free academic inquiry is stronger than ever, except if the inquiry opposes the dominant quasi-clerical orthodoxy, and except if it "upsets" some people.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 01:54 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

The Religion of Peace offers up more of that Ghandiesque devotion nonviolence it's rightly famous for.

After trying to shut down a Hirsi Ali speaking date without success, they went to the natural plan B: Have her exectued.

Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi AliÂ’s appearance.

“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976. ...

Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.

“If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment,” he said. “It’s a very merciful religion if you try to understand it.”

Truer words were never spoken.

I appreciate the cover-your-ass avoidance of a solicitation to murder charge ("Oh dear, I'm not talking about gunning her down on the street, I merely mean that if she ever visits an Islamic country, she should be lawfully beheaded"), but, given the unlikelihood of Hirsi Ali moving to Algeria, forgive me if I think some of the less peaceful adherents of the Religion of Peace get it in their head they should take the more expedient route of assassinating her.

Unbelievable.

Can you imagine if non-adherents of the Religion of Peace began advocating openly in a similar manner for the deaths of Islamist "clerics"?

I'm pretty sure you'd be arrested, or at least subject to a roto-rooter investigation.

But adherents of the de facto state religion are permitted a bit more latitude on such matters.

Posted by: Ace at 01:47 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

I had wondered if Russia's mandating that 50% of all broadcast news be "positive" towards the government, and that the news should portray America as an enemy, heralded anything about the Litvenenko murders.

Not sure if it they're related, but it does seem that Russia has gone towards the point of no return in a new Cold War.

Scotland Yard detectives are to issue arrest warrants against three former KGB officers suspected of poisoning ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Police have told sources close to Mr Litvinenko's widow Marina that they intend to lay charges of murder and poisoning against the men, who met the victim three weeks before his death in London.

The move will damage the already strained relationship between Downing Street and the Kremlin, which is almost certain to block any request for the men's arrest and extradition.
Warrants are expected to be issued against Andrei Lugovoy, Dmitri Kovtun and Vyacheslav Sokolenko within the next few weeks.

All three former agents have vehemently protested their innocence of any involvement in the murder plot. They all claim that they, too, were contaminated with the deadly radioactive material polonium-210 which poisoned Mr Litvinenko, a strong critic of President Vladimir Putin's regime.

Mr Putin's government is already furious with Tony Blair for granting political asylum to billionaire dissident Boris Berezovsky, who has continued to demand the overthrow of the Russian leader from his UK base.

Tensions increased further on Friday when EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson warned that relations with Moscow contained 'a level of misunderstanding, or even mistrust, we have not seen since the end of the Cold War'.
...

Britain has no extradition treaty with Russia, meaning that any trial would most probably have to be held in Moscow with the co-operation of the authorities there.

The Russians want Mr Berezovsky to face trial for calling last week for a revolution to overthrow President Putin and have twice demanded his extradition from Britain.

Posted by: Ace at 05:56 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

The Goracle laid down the law: to even include dissenting voices on "global warming" itself constituted "bias" -- "balance as bias."

Result? 97% of morning show reports contained no dissent whatsoever. 3% did, but even those segments were wildly stacked in the Goracle's favor.

Meanwhile, the nets fret that calling a "partial birth abortion" by its name is "biased."

And a climate scientist calls those who hype absurd "models" of future climate change outright "malevolent" in their deliberate distortion of science.

Posted by: Ace at 11:19 AM | Comments (276)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.