Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

why is it so hard to be white

lol this woman:

I See London . . . [Lisa Schiffren]
In sharing the following I am forced to admit that I still get a hard copy of the New York Times delivered each morning. The editors seem determined to end that lifetime practice of mine by tanking what remains of their credibility.

This is the main, above the fold, four-column color picture the editors saw fit to run this morning. And the thinking was . . . ? "That Afghanistan war sure is a hoot. Look at this weenie soldier fighting off the Taliban in his pink boxers! ha ha ha . . . " Or maybe it is just a picture of a guy with a cute butt, who just happens to be in hills of Kunar province — you know, borrowing from the "cheesecake" tradition of British tabloids. And why is the soldier's name provided?

For the record, the other front page picture is a somber, dignified portrait of Rosie O'Donnell's brother, a gay N.Y. State Assemblyman, who is focused on passing legislation to legalize gay marriage in New York. Clear enough what we should take seriously.

Did we cover the bit where one of their writers freaked out over her daughter living in a co-ed co-op, and the daughter had to go to the NYT blog of all places to defend herself in the comments?

I don't remember that!

Here we are:

Crazy story. A young woman at Stanford who had the misfortune to be the daughter of someone who writes for the National Review lived in a co-ed room in a co-op she had chosen to live in. Predictably, the mother freaked and wrote about it in NRO, because what better way to communicate with your children than by humiliating them in front of thousands of strangers? As you would expect, the article was filled with inaccuracies. The parents also stopped paying for the daughter’s tuition (so the daughter took out a loan in order to graduate).

and the quoted bit from the daughter's post:

7. This conflict has very little to do with Stanford and gender-neutral housing. Is has everything to do with my parents having a hard time adjusting to the fact that I’m out of the house (I’m the oldest), I’m 3000 miles away, and especially that I’m a liberal agnostic while they are conservative Catholics. The NR really should have looked into this situation a little bit before publishing that article.

I can’t believe I’m having to write this in the NYT blog. This is ridiculous.

ha i read shit like that and i get like karen hill's mother in goodfellas, "what kind of PEOPLE are these!!?"

I love my parents, but thank god that they don't have a forum to air whatever crazy thought has popped into their head about me. I don't blame her parents as much as I blame NR for letting them write the thing.

Oh I blame her parents. Why should the National Review give a shit if one of their writers has a dysfunctional relationship with her daughter if it results in page hits?

GOLD, even conceding that I can totally see why a parent would be freaked by this. Get a brain, Morin.

This would rank low on my list of things to be freaked out about when my kids are attending college.

Jerry Taylor vs. the rest of the Corner is really good stuff.

Even better than Frum trashing them while he was still there because he's actually posting on the Corner instead of in his separate world. (I'm surprised Levin hasn't come screeching in yet.)

" if you’re going to take off your top for a camera, be prepared (sooner or later) to have to answer for it" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

A cautionary note to young ladies.

i've got an answer for that one if she ever disrobes for the camera

bigAssCheetos.jpg

Come on KJL, give the public what they want!

http://curlywurlygurly.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cheetos-girl1.jpg

The Cheney Effect [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Rasmussen finds that Americans disagree 51-38 percent with former vice president Cheney's contention that Obama has made the country less safe. (I wonder what the results would have been if people had been asked if Obama's policies had made the country more safe, less safe, or left our safety unchanged.) This finding will probably add fuel to the debate over whether Cheney's outspokenness is hurting the GOP. But before reaching that conclusion people should consider, first, that the numbers would probably be worse than 51-38 for Republicans if Cheney hadn't been talking

lololololol. Yes, if Cheney had not been talking, and they polled whether people agreed with what he was saying, the results probably would've been a lot different. Probably more surreal.

the Derb:

Of course I know that most Somalis are not terrorists. Some Somalis are terrorists, though, and we have utterly no way of distinguishing them from the others. So let's play safe and keep 'em all out. Again, I don't see what's wrong with this. In fact, I think our public discourse has come to a sorry pass when I even have to say the things I just said.

he's OTM about the sad state of our discourse when people have to say the things he says.

24 [John J. Miller]
The show should start calling itself 16, so it can quit before the season goes sour, as it always seems to do. Things we've learned in the last few weeks: The real terrorists aren't foreign haters of America but U.S. defense contractors, stem cells offer the hope of miracle cures for biological-weapon attacks, and when Jack Bauer seeks deathbed counsel he calls a Muslim imam.

05/19 07:45 AM

Nothing sweeter than reading NRO be disappointed about 24's liberal bias.

Guns in Parks [David Freddoso]

This afternoon, the House is expected to pass the credit-card bill — much to the delight of the National Rifle Association.

Included in the bill's current version, which will go straight to the president after House passage, is the Coburn amendment, which allows the carrying of firearms in national parks to whatever extent is legal in the state where the park resides.The bill would also standardize the gun policy of the various federal agencies that manage federal lands. For example, the Parks Service forbids firearms on its lands, whereas the Bureau of Land Management permits them. Thirty-one states already allow the carrying of firearms in their state parks.

"We have been working on this measure for close to a decade," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. "We think it's a reasonable measure that helps law-abiding people"

Arulanandam cited National Parks Service statistics showing that visitors to national parks are victimized every year — murders, rapes, and robberies — and that the parks often conceal secret methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields. Given the relative scarcity of law enforcement within large parks, law-abiding visitors might find a firearm necessary in the event that someone tries to victimize them.

hey what's in that picnic basket...BLAM BLAM BLAM

that damn bear is not going to steal my picnic basket ever again.

Nord-Licker's been kicking ass lately.

Terror Recidivism [Mark Krikorian]

The Pentagon reports that one in seven freed Gitmo detainees "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity." Obviously a good reason to keep the facility open. But what are the terms for their release? Do we parole them? As I understand it, when you release POWs on parole, they promise not to take up arms again, and if they do, they can and should be executed. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but wouldn't it be reasonable to require such an agreement of any detainees we send back to their homes? Then, if we catch them up to their old tricks, there's less ambiguity about how to treat them.

"old tricks."

OH SHIIIIIIT

This should be good.

KJL just blew a fucking gasket.

scanners.gif + michaeljacksoneatingpopcorn.gif

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTg2MDJjNjQ5YTg1ZTM4YzE3OTBlYTFjM2E4ZDc3OGM=

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The fun begins. I remember Goldberg's stock complaint about such things is along the lines of 'they're not libertarians when they talk about this, they're libertines.' Pobrecito.

Very disappointing. Taylor and his post might as well be radioactive for all the Cornerites' willingness to touch it, and now they have the long weekend and a SCOTUS nom to help them pretend it never happened.

Or maybe they SB'ed him.

they can't even find enough disdain to hate Sotomayor yet except to say "empathy lol."

hahahaha, I emailed my last post above to Taylor and he responded pretty quickly. "I don't get the impression that this is a debate than anyone at the
Corner is interested in having. Think I'm wrong?"

Our man on the inside.

How do I shot flame-fanning?

"Hahahaha, I think that K-Lo would strongly consider revoking your posting privileges if you pressed the matter."

And then Mark Levin would say something charming about a gun.

What Would Obama Do? [Jonah Goldberg]

Lots of readers ask whether Obama would really retalliate with nukes if North Korea attack America or one its allies. Obviously, no one knows the answer and no one wants to find out for sure. But I do think it's a reasonable question. Would Obama nuke Pyongyang if the Norks nuked Seoul? I kind of doubt it. Would he nuke Iran if LA were in ruins at Iranian hands? More likely, but I'm not positive about that either. It'd be a good plot device for a political novel: a liberal, anti-nuke, president refuses to retaliate after a nuclear strike. Would the public demand his impeachment? Would the Congress declare war and force his hand? Questions best left for fiction and academic debate, I think.

Norks????

North Koreans. Norks. The wit.

What a dumbass.

Uh, under what law is refusing to launch nuclear weapons grounds for impeachment?

the law that says the only form of retaliation to a nuclear attack is another nuclear attack.

I think this would be the basis of a very terrible novel.

Questions best left for bloggers and terrible novelists, I think.

I mean, I wouldn't put it past the American public to cry out for impeachment over something that wasn't illegal, but STILL

if we did get hit with nukes, the American people would be crying out for aloe to soothe their burning skin, not crying out for impeachment

This is stupid for many reasons, but one of them is that you don't need to nuke people to beat the shit out of them.

other reasons: NK wouldn't gain anything by nuking Seoul, NK and/or Iran can't reach US territory with nukes

yeah i thought that was funny, too, why would iran bomb LA?????