The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .
Re: Hunting For Derbyshire
“Scattered on the bottom of the sea!” No wonder I haven’t been feeling
This comes via a Corner reader (I was not listening):
Listening to NPR this morning on a story re: the vote to confirm the gay
Episcopalian bishop. Evidently, accusations arose yesterday involving
“homosexual harassment” and “improper touching” by the nominee, which
delayed the confirmation vote. Not only did the NPR reporter not
attempt to shield the alleged victim’s identity, she went out of her way
to mention the accuser’s name — several times.
Although it is not a case of alleged rape, it is certainly alleged
sexual misconduct and an interesting line to draw. Not surprisingly,
she not only mentioned the man’s name, she openly questioned the
“timing” (and thereby the veracity) of his accusation — something
apparently acceptable if a gay bishop or a Democratic president is
accused of sexual misconduct.
Somehow I don’t think Kobe would be supported by the media if he released mash letters written after the alleged assault, but that worked for the Clintonites against Kathleen Willey….Think of how much harder the media’s being on Kobe than on Juanita Broaddrick’s alleged attacker.
Re Benign Neglect
Schulz and Derbyshire are absolutely right on target.
About the only thing I liked from the movie “American President” is a line
Michael Douglas’ character uses when the (caricature) opposition starts
“We don’t respond. They are trying to get us to swing at a pitch in the
This issue is the same – most “regular Americans” don’t want to talk about
it, don’t want to think about it, and resent the fact that is keeps getting
thrown in their face.
The problem with benign neglect is, so the activist line goes, without
vigilent opposition, states like Vermont and Massachusetts will drive the
public agenda. Without vocal opposition, the 3% becomes a way of life for
I didn’t even know Gore still lived in America.
Great. First, Clinton (Bill, that is) speaks at Georgetown (where I went undergrad) to blame September 11th on slavery and now Mr. Lockbox is dissing our president from my graduate school.
Keeping The Accused’s Name Out of The News, Too
A reader writes: “I agree that it is important that we continue to shield women from having their identities in the media. However, in Bermuda (where I currently live) they take it a step further. In sexual abuse cases, including rape, neither the victim or the accused can be named in the media. Only when the suspect is convicted can they release his (or her) name. The victim’s name remains off-limits. I think that is a smart way to go. There are few worse things than being raped. Being falsely accused of rape, however, must also be horrible.”
I suspect there is something about U.S. media culture, especially when celebrities are involved, that would make this untenable, but an interesting, and probably laudable approach nonetheless.
Nick: Absolutely. We are approaching the point where we shall have to
start civil-disobedience campaigning for majority rights. “Why, to put it
bluntly, should the 97 per cent of the population who are not homosexual
permit themselves to be jerked around by three per cent who are?”
(All right, I admit that wasn’t the optimal choice of words….)
We haven’t talked about this much in The Corner yet re the Kobe Bryant case: Should a rape accuser’s name be shielded from the media, thereby granting her an automatic credibility? There’s an unfairness about it, if the woman turns out to be lying, but there is something inherently good about the paternalistic attitude, wanting to protect a woman who has possibly been horribly violated. Maggie Gallagher has a good column, along those lines, on the media policy. Cathy Young approaches it differently, but is absolutely right when it comes to the law, I think. Curious what others think.
A classic from The New Yorker:
There is no real liberal or even just noncon counterpart to the radiocons, as we might as well call them. On (mostly) the FM dial, National Public Radio is an alternative but not an equivalent. NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” like “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” are carried on some six hundred stations, and their audience is roughly the size of El Rushbo’s—somewhere around fifteen million people per week. But these NPR programs are news-feature broadcasts; they adhere to the practices of journalistic professionalism, including the aspirational ideal of objectivity. Their sensibility may fairly be said to be “liberal” in the sense that liberal education is liberal—that is, open-minded and urbane, with a preference for empirical inquiry over dogmatic conclusion-mongering—but what little overt political commentary they offer hovers around the moderate middle. NPR’s local talk-show hosts tend to be more overtly liberal, but they are always polite about it. In contrast, Limbaugh and his scores of national and local imitators aggressively propagandize on behalf of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and the domestic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration, with a stream of faxes and e-mails from conservative think tanks and the Republican National Committee keeping the troops firmly on message. Neither NPR nor anyone else ever performed any such services for the Clinton Administration, and no one is doing so today on behalf of the beleaguered Democratic opposition.
This “Talk of the Town” piece by Hendrik Hertzberg suggests he neither listened to much Rush (“smug, angry, disdainful middle-aged [man]“?) or NPR (“moderate middle”) before writing his piece.
I saw the show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” the other night. Then I read this piece in the American Prospect on the new gay minstrelsy. Yesterday I saw Andrew Sullivan’s piece on they gay subculture known as “da bears”. All this comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision, the debate over the gay Anglican bishop, polls reporting an anti-gay backlash, cover stories on gay marriage in the Weekly Standard as well as major national newsweeklies, President Bush’s comments on gay marriage and, perhaps most notoriously, Rick Santorum’s comments on same-sex sex. And I can’t help but think, are we really talking about a mere 3% of the population? Lots of readers on all sides of this debate will take what I’m about to say the wrong way, but when it comes to gay issues, would we all benefit from — as Pat Moynihan once said — a period of “benign neglect”?
Beware The U.N.
Ralph Peters on Iraq: “HAVING seen the United Nations in action (or inaction), I wouldn’t trust it to run a school safety crossing on a traffic-free day in a roadless town with no children.”
Michael Novak On Pryor
“Confirmed or not confirmed, all should leave their presence with their reputations and their dignity intact.”
The Real Neocon Hawk Conspiracy Revealed: The Jews Want Iraq, Too!
MEMRI translates a July 19, 2003 Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia) article by Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma, a professor at King Faysal University, “The Jewish Agency Scenario Repeats Itself: “… Let the facts speak for themselves. The Jewish rabbis recently issued a Fatwa [sic] stating that ‘Iraq is part of Greater Israel.’ The authors of that Fatwa issued calls to the Jewish troops annexed to the American and British forces, whose number barely exceeds 2,000, to recite a special prayer whenever they begin to erect a tent or build anything on Iraqi soil west of the Euphrates, specifically, because such regions are in their view part of the land of Greater Israel. This clarification was made by Rabbi Nahima Hahuri(3) [sic] and it is incumbent upon these [Jewish] soldiers, when they see Babylon, [to act] according to the ruling of the Jewish religion and say: ‘Blessed are Thou, Oh Lord, King of the Universe, who demolished the evil Babylon.’”
Re: “Mad Mel”
I only caught the tail-end of it, but Paula Fredriksen, the Boston U professor who wrote the New Republic attack on Mel Gibson’s Passion, based on an allegedly stolen copy of the script that was sent to her, was on Good Morning America this morning. She said that she has no intention of wasting her time or money watching the movie. Michael Medved, who has seen the preview of the movie Icon Productions has been showing, and is Jewish, defended it against the anti-Semitic charges, convincingly, from what I saw.