Hilarious:

My fave (actual) Glenn Beck radio bit, ever: (Audio).

The NYT will close its doors in five years…

Young Sulzberger named NYT’s Kansas City correspondent

Arthur G. Sulzberger (left), son of the Times publisher, “may be hard pressed to find vegetarian food amid all the barbecue joints, but he’ll have no trouble finding stories,” says a Times memo.

“He has an eye for spotting unusual and compelling tales, and bringing them to life with deep reporting and lively writing.”

***
Not to mention cliched adjectives!

More on the ongoing corrosion of the social fabric, made possible by Marci McDonald’s “Protocols of the Elders of Kanada” and other “harmless” books, like The DaVinci Code.

Ezra Levant writes a must-read:

Pat Martin is the NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre. Last week he told reporters that members of the Catholic lay order, Opus Dei, “give me the creeps”.

I’m sure that’s true. Martin doesn’t like Christians in general, even when they’re doing social services in his own decrepit downtown, a downtown that has got more decrepit under his watch as MP.

Martin would rather have urban decay than development, if the developers are Christian. (…)

Look, we know that Martin and Duceppe don’t like Christians. No surprise there. But there is a new aggression to their comments. They don’t just disagree with Christians. They don’t just shun Christians themselves. They believe that Christians should be kept out of the public square altogether. That is, they are aggrieved that anyone would truck with them. And to effect a Christian-free government, these new McCarthyists of the left believe that Christians in public life have to be named, outed and denounced.

This isn’t a question about the government. It’s not an attempt to hold the government to account. It’s an attempt to embarrass and harass a couple of party volunteers. Two members of Opus Dei have been found in a party of 100,000 members and as many donors. Scandal!

Kenneth W. Mack, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School:

Title II was preceded by the sit-in movement of the early 1960s, which caused many Americans of egalitarian racial beliefs to sympathize with the point of view that got Rand Paul into so much trouble.  During the sit-ins, young people entered restaurants and other public accommodations, and refused to leave when they were denied service, causing the proprietors to invoke apparently race-neutral trespass laws (rather than segregation statutes) to eject them.  The sit-in protesters claimed that to refuse them service in an institution otherwise open to the public was a denial of their basic humanity as American citizens.  The proprietors took the position that Paul seemed to endorse, that their basic rights as property owners allowed them to refuse service to anyone they pleased.  Which side was correct?  Predictably, white racists sympathized with the proprietors, but others did as well.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy himself cautioned that an overbroad public accommodations bill would make “a private business” into “an instrument of the State.”

Stop me if this sounds familiar, Canadian free speechers:

By 1964, many supporters of Title II simply felt that it was the right thing to do, as did most Americans.  At that moment, to speculate about the constitutionality of the bill would simply bolster the cause of those who would employ any argument—good or bad—to block it.

Botox, perhaps? And is the phrase “straight face” homophobic?

Anyway, from, incredibly, the Wall Street Journal:

…can Farber argue with a straight face that an act of vandalism is a hate crime if it’s motivated by disapproval of non-Jews’ dating Jews but not if it’s motivated by disapproval of Jews’ dating non-Jews?

“The shikse incident” makes hate-crime laws look absurd either way.

Everyone in this neighborhood votes Liberal or NDP,  thinks Obama is the Messiah, recycles religiously, and believes they are enlightened and compassionate:

“The castle house” is quirky and charming and evocative of a bygone era, and Brown, an artist, loves the Beach in significant part because of its quirks and charm and remnants of the past. She has lived on Beech Ave. for 15 years — 10 at 205, five next door — and likes it the way it is.

She was alarmed, therefore, when she saw a May 7 Globe and Mail  article that described the Teehans’ plans [to make their home wheelchair accessible]. The article, prompted by Geoff Teehan’s blog, was accompanied by renderings of a blocky 2,250-square-foot contemporary home.

The article discussed Melissa Teehan’s condition [she is a quadroplegic]. Brown nonetheless contacted Councillor Sandra Bussin to register her disapproval.

“When you go up against something like that, it’s very awkward,” Brown says. “Of course it is. But I haven’t launched a campaign to fight this man and his wife. My heart goes out to them and their situation; I’m empathetic to the family. I just don’t think the two issues are the same issues. I’m not fighting to prevent her from something, even though they’ve been clear they’d like to build this house to help her with access because of her paralysis. I’m trying to preserve a home that adds character and beauty to my neighbourhood for future generations to enjoy. So: I don’t wish them any harm. I just want to protect that house.”  

(KEEP READING...)

Free audio HERE.

The latest example of religiously related media malpractice, starring their old pal, Copernicus.

sniffs one academic about Glenn Beck.

Who’s got time to be listening to the radio at that time?

Millions more people who’ve ever attended your lectures at that hour, for one thing. Asked if “there any middle ground in this country any more?” the professor replies:

Perhaps Obama is.

Mark Levin on latest Rand Paul things all normal people agree with “controversy.” Levin’s a real constitutional attorney, unlike the President.

Please tell me Glenn hasn’t started drinking again (and that we’re not gonna have to move from “teabagging” to “fisting” now.) (Pretty funny, though.)

PLUS: “Do you prefer golf or basketball when avoiding the hard work of being President?”

From IconicPhotos:

It was one of the photos Cartier-Bresson took during his first (and last) salaried job with the Parisian leftwing newspaper, Ce Soir in 1937.

The assignment was for a campaign to win more vacation time for workers, and his editors hated the self-indulgent poses (picnic baskets, wines and all that) and the final spread on the story didn’t use the photo.