On 11 September, 2001, two airplanes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The airplanes did not take aim at the buildings. Evil men, backed up by teams of other evils men, piloted them into the targets. You’d think that a newspaper in New York City could keep those facts straight, but …
UPDATE—Tough, but fair …
UPDATE 2—Well, that didn’t last long, did it?
A pro-abortion candidate for the Democrat’s presidential nomination tweeted this—Of course, dead babies can no longer be mistreated, but still …
BTW, when Harris was a prosecutor in California, she did nothing to change that state’s legal procedures which separate the children of detained parents from those parents.
The New York Times continues to misrepresent historical facts. Its recent tenth anniversary retrospective of the Tea Party movement is yet another example of woke revisionism. The Times portrays the Tea Party as raaaaacist, and David Harsanyi has a post over at The Federalist taking them to task for their shoddy reporting.
In the first draft of this piece, I joked that The New York Times might add a line about Tea Party “racism” before the day was over to placate the Twitter mob. They did it before I could even publish. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no evidence that a “good deal”—or any substantial deal, for that matter—of the Tea Party’s popularity was propelled by racism.
Read the whole thing.
Seen on the Twitterz—I concur with my podcasting partner—
UPDATE—Sarah Hoyt has a history lesson for Ms. Sorrenti on the origins of Communism and its relationship with National Socialism.
In other words, since fascists vanished, the left has slowly converged with them in theory as well as in practice. I mean, if you think the crony capitalism of China isn’t, in everything but name, the most successful fascist regime on Earth (And it’s not that successful. As Dave Freer told me more than a decade ago, it’s a beautiful lacquered vase. The lacquer hides the cracks.)
Why would this happen?
Well, because the campaign used to sell each regime was never the truth. The truth is that they’re both reactions of shocked cultures to the dual stress of a generational war and rapid change in means of production/ways of life.
They’re the result of the hysterical reaction of normal people to look for the man on the white horse, and of the powerful or power hungry to gather more power.
There is no functional difference between them. Neither was ever “Scientific”. They are and always were screams of panic of entire cultures, and lashing out of those who felt helpless in the maw of history.
Read the whole thing.
… the New York Times is to quote the New York Times.
The NYT has a story up about a “loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House” that has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at prominent news organizations. The Times complains that
… using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
OK, it’s the Babylon Bee, but they’re becoming our national paper of record.